Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21225; 9 Feb 91 5:18 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00442; 9 Feb 91 2:26 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18470; 9 Feb 91 1:15 CST Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 0:14:49 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #101 BCC: Message-ID: <9102090014.ab20731@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Feb 91 00:14:31 CST Volume 11 : Issue 101 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [Dave Levenson] Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [Malcolm Slaney] Caller*ID Availablity [Sean Williams] Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [Daniel A. Margolis] Re: Headset Installation Help Needed [Daniel A. Margolis] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Tad Cook] Re: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland [John Boteler] Re: CNA Numbers Needed For 202 and 301 [Randy Borow] Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Peter Thurston] Re: How Do I Tell When ... [Ole J. Jacobsen] Re: How Do I Tell When ... [Antonio Desimone] Re: India on Calling Card [Amit Bhargava] Re: Answering That Pay Phone [Roy M. Silvernail] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it Date: 7 Feb 91 12:38:18 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16723@accuvax.nwu.edu>, folta@tove.cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes: > In Maryland, you can now dial *67 before a call and the CID box shows > "Private #" on the display. As a (free) counter-feature, I would like > to be able to have the phone company block all *67'd and otherwise > private # calls from ringing my phone. If you want to call me (enter > my house as it were), I believe I have a right to know who you are > before granting you entrance. ... > [Moderator's Note: The way to refuse calls from blocked numbers is > pretty simple if you also have call screening. Please note that *67 ... Call screening (or Call*Block, as it's called in NJ) has another use, as well. You can add the last number that called you, and then have the system read that number back -- verbal Caller*ID on request, without having to subscribe to Caller*ID or buy a display device. Ideally, however, the telco should be required to provide a service where the calling party is advised that the call is being refused *because* the calling number is being blocked, and that the way to get through is to call again without invoking the anonymous-caller feature. On a related topic, why is Caller ID considered a privacy issue? Aren't people confusing privacy with anonymity? Are the states like Pennsylvania now asserting that their citizens have the right to anonymity when they disturb others by telephone? 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: Dave raises some interesting points in his final paragraph that are probably better suited for Telecom-Priv rather than here. If anyone wants to respond to him on the last paragraph please do it in the supplementary list. Regarding the 'instant Caller*ID' obtained by blocking the last number then having the directory of screened numbers read back to you, we don't get that here. If you opt to 'screen last call' by *60 #01# rather than by the specifici] number (because you don't know it) the system confirms that you have stored what it terms a 'private entry' which is the way the directory reads it back. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Malcolm Slaney Subject: Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it Date: 7 Feb 91 17:58:57 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA >[Moderator's Note: The way to refuse calls from blocked numbers is >pretty simple if you also have call screening. Please note that *67 >does not refuse to pass the caller's number to the CO ... but merely >instructs the CO not to give it to you. So what you do is, you have to >get called once by the blocked number. Answer it or not as you >please. When that call is off the line, then do *60 #01# or whatever >you do to 'add last caller whether or not you know the number' to your >list of calls to be screened. But Pat, that's not what he was asking for ... I too would very much like to be able to tell the CO that it shouldn't even bother ringing my phone if the caller says his number is private. If it was an emergency then they could arrange to call me back and send a real number. Which brings me to a more interesting point ... has anybody made a box that translates a CID phone number into an audio message? It doesn't seem very useful to me if I have to get up out of my easy chair and go to the little box to see what's on the display ... besides I suspect I'll have more phones in my house than CID displays. Maybe this won't be a problem in the future when every phone has a little display showing the CID. Malcolm [Moderator's Note: I know what he was asking for, but it does not seem likely in the near future (that CO will block incoming calls to you merely because the other end withholds ID). So the alternative I suggested is one work-around that is less than perfect. PAT] ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Thu Feb 7 15:31:58 EST 1991 Subject: Caller*ID Availablity Does anyone know if Caller*ID or similar services are only being offered by the Bell companies? I live in a United Telephone area, with the nearest Bell-served area being about fifteen miles away (in Harrisburg). If Caller*ID is ever deemed by the courts to be legal in Pennsylvania, what are my chances of it ever being made available to me, anyway? Sean E. Williams | attmail.com!seanwilliams 333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227 | seanwilliams@attmail.com Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA | voicemail: (717)/957-8139 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 17:37:37 EST From: Daniel A Margolis Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System >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). I noticed this article asking about small phone systems and another asking the new AT&T PARTNER phone system, so I got some information from John Bell, a friend of mine and one of the Systems Engineers who worked on it. He recommends it (surprise, surprise). There was an article in {Teleconnect} about PARTNER. They liked the product, but what they really liked is that the engineer's name is Bell. (He's not related to Alexander Graham Bell.) The following is public information, so no need for a disclaimer (and I've heard that disclaimers don't provide any legal protection anyway). As you read on remember that I am somewhat biased, being an AT&T employee. Here's what John told me: 1) PARTNER is inexpensive. (Yes, this is AT&T we're talking about.) 2) Each port can handle a proprietary phone, a regular tip-ring phone, or both, without any adapters (which are often expensive). 3) PARTNER goes up to 4 CO lines and 12 extensions, while PARTNER PLUS goes up to 8 lines and 24 extensions. If you want to see it for yourself, dial 1-800-247-7000 for the number of a nearby sales office, where they will have one set up that you can look over. They may also have reprints of some of the good press this product line has received. Be warned that they may try to sell you one. You can also see it in AT&T Phone Centers, but their setup may not be fully functional. Dan Margolis [Author's Note: I fully expect a response from John Higdon on this one. Please don't beat me up too badly. I know you're a Panasonic man.] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 17:56:02 EST From: Daniel A Margolis Subject: Re: Headset Installation Help Needed In article <16649@accuvax.nwu.edu> Heath Roberts I bought an telephone-type headset at a garage sale, and haven't been >able to get it to work. I suspect that I'm not connecting something >correctly. I have a Plantronics headset on which the battery cover is so well hidden that it's almost impossible to tell that batteries are required. Maybe your headset also has hidden batteries. Also, not all phones are compatable with all headsets. I've seen "headsets for standard phones," "headsets for electronic phones," and "headsets for multi-line phones." I don't know what the difference is. Why don't you try your headset on different types of phones. They usually are connected to the handset port. Dan Margolis ------------------------------ From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 8:40:54 PST In article <16506@accuvax.nwu.edu>, barefoot@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Heath Roberts) writes: > Cordless conversations are definitely legal to > receive (cellular too, but law enforcement can't use information from > cell telephones without a warrant). When did it become legal to monitor cellular phone calls? I know that cordless phones are legal, but I thought the Electronic Communications Privacy Act put this in the same class as wiretapping. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7ENT.#WWA.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, t ad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: John Boteler Subject: Re: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland Organization: Common Sense Computing, McLean, VA. Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 05:39:24 GMT From article <16673@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB): > With this year's 301/410 split coming in Maryland, I thought I'd > review two prefixes (both at military bases) which seem to have a wide > calling area. > 688 at Fort Meade -- This appears in Baltimore call guide as "Fort > Meade (Waterloo)", and in Washington-area call guides as "Fort Meade > (Berwyn)", The Greater Washington Area is especially interesting to phone phreaks because of the stunts C&P pulled to please Uncle Sam. The fact that Fort Meade and Fort Ritchie can be reached as local calls despite the fact that they lie a better distance away than VLD/VMB thinks they should is a simple matter of the rate mapping. There are lots of central office codes which are locally dialable around D.C., but which are FXed or remoted in from farther out COs. For instance, North Beach, which lies about 30 miles east/southeast of D.C. offers 855 as a Marlboro rate area (local to D.C.); 855 is listed as an FX to provide this local service. This will stay in 301 because of its calling area; it will not switch to 410 merely because it is served by a switch in 'Culvert' County. That would prove cumbersome and artificial for users. An interesting flip-flop on this is 831, providing Suburban Maryland service to Mount Airy, MD (an abbreviated Gaithersburg rate area). It is dialable only from Suburban Maryland west of and including Silver Spring. It basically gives Mt. Airy residents the ability to call into suburban MD when they would otherwise have a local cow pasture calling area. (Thanks to Judge Greene for this one.) Same difference with Fort Meade. I can receive calls from Fort Meade out of 677, but that exchange is a toll call for me. Meade's dilapidated office selects a tie line for either B-more or D.C. service depending on the destination of the call. 688 is FXed out of Laurel CG0 with a Berwyn rate area. It could just as easily be rated a toll-call by C&P if they wanted to; half the Greene-isms like Columbia and Mt. Airy could just as easily not be here. That's the difference between a technical consideration and a political one. Personally, I think Mr. Moore thinks too hard for his own sanity. It's much easier to try the Zen approach to telephony around D.C. ... you'll live longer! John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Thu Feb 7 14:34:09 CST 1991 Subject: Re: CNA Numbers Needed For 202 and 301 The CNA number for both areas is: 304-343-7016. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 91 12:32:27 GMT From: Peter Thurston Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack Radio Shack/Tandy ... Yes ... the only store where you can get free TTL with each blister pack you buy. Actually, of course, R.S. *REALLY* stands for Radio Spares. Peter Thurston ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 1991 8:13:53 PST From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Re: How Do I Tell When ... My favorite device for showing a line in use can be purchased from your local AT&T phone store. These little white boxes (powered by a 9V battery) are hideously expensive, something close to $20, but they do the job very well. According to the box the REN is "0.0A" (I'm not kidding!) 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 91 12:54:09 EST From: Antonio Desimone Subject: Re: How Do I Tell When ... > I'm trying to find a device that lights up when a phone extension is > picked up. That way I can know if a phone line with multiple > extensions is in use without picking up the phone itself ... > [Moderator's Note: We have discussed this many times in the Digest. > Would one of you readers with a schmatic send it along to Craig, with > a parts list, etc. Thanks. PAT] Could I also get the info/schema! Resisting the urge to post a "me-to" note, I looked in the archives on lcs.mit.edu for something on this topic and didn't find anything. Maybe this would be a good candidate for the archive? Or did I just miss it? [Moderator's Note: If someone sends along a copy of the reply to this I will post it in the archives. PAT] ------------------------------ From: amit bhargava Subject: Re: India on Calling Card Date: 8 Feb 91 13:58:43 GMT Organization: Codex Corp., Canton MA SABAHE@macalstr.edu (Arun Baheti) writes: >Does anyone have any information about when/if I will ever be able to >call India on one of my calling cards at any point in the near future? >The ban on calls (due to fraud a few years back) has been one for at >least a few years (five?) and I'm curious as to whether there is still >a need or have all the LD servers simply forgotten? There is >something inherrently wrong with carrying around over $3 in quarters. A related question... Why is India excluded from plans such as AT&Ts Reach Out World plan or the Sprint World Plan ? Is India likely to be added on in the near future ? amit ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Answering That Pay Phone From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Fri, 08 Feb 91 20:47:48 CST Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > Back when I was going to Berkeley someone accidentally gave out the # > of the payphone outside the door instead of their own. They got a lot > of calls, and some of the store's regulars would take to answering the > phone in "interesting" ways after "Pay Phone" and "Wrong Number" wore > off. Reminds me of when I was a kid, and the pizza joint had a pay phone for all incoming non-business calls. Customers answered when it rang, and I liked to answer with a business name ... any name at all, as long as it sounded authentic and wasn't located in Nome. "American Airlines, reservations ... may I help you?" was always a good one for stopping folks in their tracks. Roy M. Silvernail now available at: cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #101 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03883; 9 Feb 91 20:04 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08971; 9 Feb 91 18:39 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14213; 9 Feb 91 17:33 CST Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 17:02:07 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #102 BCC: Message-ID: <9102091702.ab31283@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Feb 91 17:01:45 CST Volume 11 : Issue 102 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Unbreakable Dialtones [Jim Rees] Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Jim Rees] Re: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty [Peter da Silva] Re: Why Does Device Cause Ringing to Stop? [Jon Sreekanth] Re: Caller*ID in Georgia / Atlanta [HAAS] Re: Why Does Device Cause Ringing to Stop? [John Higdon] Re: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland [Carl Wright] Re: Lafayette Radio [Ed Greenberg] 'Free' Check in the Mail (was: MCI Pays to Switch) [Phydeaux] 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy [David Gast] 800 Scrambled ANI [Mark Steiger] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtones Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 20:06:38 GMT In article <16717@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ap373@cleveland.freenet.edu (Pete J. Bowden) writes: > ... I called my house once when this intermittent condition was > occurring and the best way to explain it was that the person on my > phone sounded like Mickey mouse. I'm familiar with the Donald Duck effect, which is usually caused by a carrier system (ssb) demodulator being off-frequency. But what kind of fault could cause a Mickey Mouse effect? ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 20:24:28 GMT In article <16727@accuvax.nwu.edu>, hsilbiger@attmail.att.com (Herman R Silbiger) writes: > Lafayette was located on Lafayette Street in NYC, near Hudson and > Varick Streets. This area was known as Radio Row, and had many radio > and electronics parts and surplus strores. The area disappeared when > the World Trade Center was built. One store from that area still > exists uptown, Harvey Radio (now Harvey Electronics), and is an > upscale sound system dealer. This area seems to have moved over to Canal Street, which is also a great place to buy the latest toys from Taiwan and $25 Rolex watches. I mention it here because it's also a good place to shop for cheap surplus telecom gear. These areas also survive in various third-world cities, where time is still cheaper than parts. Manila has a big surplus telecom district, Bangkok has all kinds of electronics shops near Wat Phra Keo selling new, used and surplus equipment, and Mexico City used to have a huge electronics district (I haven't been there in years, though). Getting the stuff back into your home country may be a bit tricky. ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Fri, 8 Feb 1991 13:23:33 GMT I suspect other, similar, 900 services with the postcard-entry dodge have run in Texas. They shoulda picked another state, though: a lot of Texas politicos are a mite touchy about NASA. Holding a competition like this so close to Johnson Space Center was like waving a red flag in front of the bull. > [Moderator's Note: Not only is it void in NY, FL and RI, it may be > void everywhere by now if the latest news report is accurate. > Supposedly the guys running it have been found guilty. PAT] Guilty of "running an illegal lottery", according to the news reports yesterday. I don't think anyone showed they didn't have the goods to deliver. (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Re: Why Does Device Cause Ringing to Stop? Organization: The World Date: 8 Feb 91 09:10:07 In article <16771@accuvax.nwu.edu> atn@cory.berkeley.edu (Alan Nishioka) writes: > The problem enters when I add a 200ohm resistor and a 2n2222 > transistor across the line to implement the hold button. (Common > emitter, with a 47K base resistor to a CMOS latch output) I'm not familiar with Key Switch Units, but assuming yours just simply distributes the incoming telco line, the specs on the DC battery and AC ring voltage are 56.5 V DC, 40 to 150 V RMS at 15.3 to 68 Hz (so called FCC B ring). 2N2222 has a Vceo of 40V, so it's almost certainly breaking down, and shorting ring. In a similar application, in one of my designs, I've used an MPSU10, which is a 300V rated NPN transistor. It does not have too high an hfe, so to drive it from an HC, I use an MPSA42 (also 300V) in a Darlington arrangement, so MPSU10 is guaranteed to saturate. Also, it's probably safe to preface this with a bridge rectifier (I use 1N4004's). This way, it can hold the line offhook, even if polarity is reversed. I've found several homes with tip and ring wired with incorrect polarity. Don't know about KSU's. > When I wire the base of the transistor low (off), the problem goes > away. This puzzles me, but try the high voltage transistor, anyway. Regards, Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems Fax and PC products 346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752 508-562-0722 jon_sree@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: HAAS Subject: Re: Caller*ID in Georgia / Atlanta Date: 8 Feb 91 16:44:58 GMT Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute Bill just gave us a fine rundown on the CallerID situation, but there are two more facts I would like to know ... 1.) How much does it cost!?! 2.) Where can I buy CallerID devices? I'm especially interested in computer interface type devices. Thanks. Harry Haas GTRI/RIDL/EB | Georgia Tech Research Institute Research Engineer II | Georgia Institute of Technology 404-528-7679 | Atlanta Georgia, 30332 hh2@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 91 09:53 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Why Does Device Cause Ringing to Stop? Alan Nishioka writes: > I've been trying to build a box to make key phone's lights flash and > to implement a hold button. Not to throw cold water, but I can think of two reasons for not bothering with this project. The first is that whatever you come up with SHOULD be certified to comply with the various applicable parts of FCC rules, since it will have to connect with the network directly. The other is that genuine 1A2 KSUs can be obtained for next to nothing (or nothing at all if you happen to be in the right place at the right time) and even if you save money you will be wasting your time. > The problem enters when I add a 200ohm resistor and a 2n2222 > transistor across the line to implement the hold button. (Common > emitter, with a 47K base resistor to a CMOS latch output) The transistor is conducting momentarily in the presence of the high ringing voltage. It just takes one spike to stop the ringing and then you have a "trouble" condition. If you do have a 1AESS this would be expected. This particular switch will protect itself from bogus ringing loads by killing the ring current if it exceeds a certain value. A transistor breaking down and putting a 200 ohm load across the line would create such current. Pac*Bell is running slimy ads for it $ENTREX service which shows old phone systems being thrown into this big junk pile. Just find this pile and pull out a KSU :-) Seriously, "fat wire" keys systems are so out of favor now that you should be able to obtain a KSU for nothing. Unfortunately, I have given my last one away. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Fri, 8 Feb 1991 21:31:00 GMT In article 16712 Carl Moore is quoted as saying that his zip code will be splitting along the with area code split. This must be simple coincidence. The USPS doesn't care where phones are when they define zip codes. They define the zip codes as they find convenient. Many a marketing organization would love for the phone number and zip code numbers systems to be linked. Prodigy was in the market a couple years ago trying to get a mapping between zips and npa/nxxs. We had to tell them that what they wanted couldn't be done, at least not without having the telco's customer file. The teleco directory companies have started to catch on to this interest and you will start to see your zip code appear in the phone book. This gives them copyright on the zip combined with your phone number and prepares a valuable file for sale to marketing organizations. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 [Moderator's Note: You quote Carl Moore in an 'article 16712' as saying his zip code will also change. I went back through the articles here ('16712' means nothing on this end) and could not find any such claim by Mr. Moore. You might want to check your source and/or original message on this. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 09:51 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Lafayette Radio >[Moderator's Note: Ah yes, Lafayette! There was a nice Lafayette store >in Chicago on Wabash Avenue until about 1968 or so ... I bought a few >things from them, but mostly for my stereo: a pre-amp, cartridges, a >couple of speakers, a reverb unit, etc. PAT] Ah yes, Lafayette! I lived in Plainview, NY, one town over from Syosset, the home of Lafayette Radio Electronics, Inc. on Jericho Turnpike. This large warehouse building had a large store on the first floor, complete with separate car stereo room, home stereo room and ham/ cb room. It also had the mother-lode, the Lafayette Outlet Store or, as we called it, the junk-room. If you wanted something that wasn't on the floor or in stock in the small specialty rooms, you had to go through the catalog procedure. You filled out an order form and brought it to counter B, where it was checked, priced and placed in a pneumatic tube to be sent to "the back." Later, the number on your order was called on the PA, you went to the counter, picked up the paperwork for your order, went to the cashier, paid, and went to counter C where your order was delivered. Then, when you left, the guard punched a hole in your receipt. Sometimes amazing things were found in the package that came from "the back." Once an order for one CB ground plane antenna resulted in a case of six. Returning the extra five resulted in a gift certificate for $100 for the lucky recipient. Another time, an order for a bunch of small parts included, as a bonus, a Dremel Tool with accessories. Of course, lots of time, you got an "out of stock." We used to say that you could open up a Lafayette store with nothing but catalogs, order forms and an out-of-stock stamp. Lafayette declined in the seventies, and I believe it was gone by about 1980. Last year, I installed (for my father) a Lafayette HB-525-C CB Radio. It's 23 channels, but still worketh fine. [Moderator's Note: The same thing was true at Allied's store. You could sometimes wait thirty minutes for the stock room to deliver your purchase to the cashier. If you beefed to one of the supervisors, then they would call on the phone to someone in stock known as 're-check', and it was the job of 're-check' to find out where your order was in the stream. It got lost, you say? The supervisor would raise hell and fill out a priority ticket and send it up the air tube to the back. Now you might wait another five minutes but the order would show up -or - an 'out of stock' slip. If you went in that store the minute they opened the door on Sunday you could conceivably get out within thirty minutes *if* you knew exactly what you wanted and the order went up the pneumatic tube to stock (and credit approval) at the same time time. If you went in as much as an hour later the store was swarming with people; both credit approval and the stock room would be running 15-20 minutes in response time and you could expect to be in the store a couple hours provided your stuff was 'in stock'. But they had --everything-- under the sun in electronics/radio/stereo gear. If you couldn't get it there, then forget it! And God forbid the credit people send a note back through the tube saying 'send the customer to the office ...'; that meant another 10-20 minute delay while credit had you take a number and wait to be interviewed and/or fill out more paperwork for them. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 16:07:05 PST Subject: 'Free' Check in the Mail (was: MCI Pays to Switch) Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM!reb@uunet.uu.net Organization: From the grass eaters at the Bovine Munching Works From: Phydeaux In article <16678@accuvax.nwu.edu> GUYDOSRM@splava.cc.plattsburgh.edu (Ray Guydosh) writes: > I received a mail promotion for MCI Primetime accompanied by a gift -- > a Twenty Dollar check in my name. > From the promotional literature: "Don't forget to endorse your check > before depositing or cashing it. With your signature, you authorize > MCI to notify your local telephone company to switch your primary long > distance service to MCI PrimeTime (SM)." A few months ago the Republican party sent a similar thing out - only this time they would deduct a 'contribution' of $25 per month or so - the idea was that the first month was 'free' ... it's a slimy idea no matter what. reb *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:558 W.Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 17:32:32 -0800 From: David Gast Subject: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy If you call 1-800-544-7544, you can get complete information about the fund holdings in Fidelity Funds of anyone whose social security number you know. The WSJ points out that the Chairman of Fidelity has a publically available SSN (from the SEC) and that it begins with 029-24. Peter Lynch's SSN begins with 018-34 and his SSN is also part of the public record. The story did not mention the complete SSNs. Another 800 number allows one to get complete information on options and stocks held via Fidelity Brokerage. Now it seems to me that with the TELECOM Digest Moderator's expertise at gaining publically available information or the TELECOM Digest's readers amazing expertise at anything telephonic, we should be able get and publish that information immediately. I personally feel that this information should not be available in this manner, but perhaps the only way to get others to help safeguard my privacy is to show how easily their privacy can be invaded. In the case of Mr. Johnson it might be interesting to know how much he has invested at Fidelity and how much in other investments. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast [Moderator's Note: Even if someone sent me his SSN I would not publish it here. This forum is not intended as a place to discuss the personal financial data of individuals. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 20:19:39 CST From: Mark Steiger Subject: 800 Scramble ANI A friend of mine said that with a touch-tone phone and his "secret code" you could eliminate any records of you calling the 800 number. He said, you dial the number, wait a second, then dial this number. Your phone number won't show up on their bill (if they have that service). Is this true or is he feeding me a line? Thanks, [ 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #102 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05771; 9 Feb 91 22:12 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21273; 9 Feb 91 20:45 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09267; 9 Feb 91 19:40 CST Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 18:49:49 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #103 BCC: Message-ID: <9102091849.ab16786@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Feb 91 18:49:26 CST Volume 11 : Issue 103 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Mid Atlantic Telecom - How do I Reach Them? [Henry E. Schaffer] Aggregators, Heath, and Other Teletrivia [Daniel Wynalda] Wanted: US Map with LATA and NPA Boundaries [Han Q. Nguyen] 206 Gets Interchangable Office Codes [Tad Cook] Wanted: Ring Indicator (With Memory) [Roy Stehle] How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? [Tony L. Hansen] Maybe it Really is Time for Telecommunications Competition! [Dan Herrick] Telephone In Use Indicator [Charlie Lear] BITNET in Wroclaw, Poland? [Richard Budd] Re: 416 Area Code Split Announced [David Leibold] "Internal" Portable Phones [Tom Perrine] Sprint Makes Money [John Levine] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Henry E. Schaffer" Subject: Mid Atlantic Telecom - How do I Reach Them? Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 20:50:43 GMT The Subject says it all - the 800 number file in the archives says they control a prefix I'm interested in, but I don't know how to get in touch. Does anyone know? Henry Schaffer NC State Univ ------------------------------ Subject: Aggregators, Heath, and Other Teletrivia Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 14:49:46 EST From: Daniel Wynalda Zenith/Heath still disposes of returns/defective boards in a generous manner. I personally know one company that makes BIG $ buying rejected motherboards from Zenith in bulk - along with machines/parts etc. They then swap parts that are broken out of machines with other machines that have different problem parts. This results in a perfectly working, new machine, for almost no cost. To do this however, you must be willing to buy LOTS of their stuff, not just three partial PC's that don't work. Enough of that, what does it have to do with Telecom anyway? The company which I now work for recently went online with ATS (American Telecommunication Services). This company aggregates AT&T services and offers SUBSTANTIAL discounts for minimum fees. When changing over to ATS they pick our lines for 732 rather than 288 for AT&T. 732 is the AT&T software defined network that has been much discussed on this system. Apparently something went wrong yesterday when AT&T was "reconciling their database". At about 9:30am, I began getting intercepts that stated "You have reached a private network. You must be authorized by your long distance representative for use of this network. To dial long distance, please dial 10288 +1 + area code + phone number. There was no intercept number. Apparently we got wiped from the "authorized" database. Here's my question -- about a month ago, I could dial 10732 + 1 + area code + phone number from home and the call would go through via AT&T. I also notice that using 732 now, I can't get a response back from 700-555-4141. This is the number that reads back what long distance service you are currently subscribed to -- it just says "Can't be completed as dialed." The service, other than being wiped from the database yesterday, has been the same as I had using the 288 pick code. One thing I did notice: Using 288 I couldn't get ANI back from some of the numbers mentioned previously in this group -- I would call and either get prompted for my calling number or get a default number (like 616-555-1212). When using the 732 network, ANI works beautifully. I'll let you know what the aggregators explanation is for the service outage. I'd be interested in knowing if the change that AT&T was reconciling banned all of the "Non SDN users" from using the SDN. Where did the calls get billed when placed over 732 rather than 288 last month? I don't know that I got the bill but with the volume of calls here I wouldn't notice calls anyway. Daniel Wynalda | (616) 866-1561 X22 Ham:N8KUD Net:danielw@wyn386.mi.org Wynalda Litho Inc. | 8221 Graphic Industrial Pk. | Rockford, MI 49341 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 16:54:18 EST From: Han Q Nguyen Subject: Wanted: US Map with LATA and NPA Boundaries Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I'm looking for a Postscript rendition of each of the following: 1. A LATA map showing all the LATA boundaries within the continental United States. 2. An area code map showing all the NPA boundaries within the continental United States. The key is that the two maps should be drawn to the same scale, so that I can overlay one on top of the other. My eventual goal is to shade some of the LATAs and show how they geographically cover certain area codes. Please reply via e-mail to wjm@arch3.att.com. Many thanks. Bill Mullen ------------------------------ From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@cs.washington.edu Subject: 206 Gets Interchangable Office Codes Date: 8 Feb 91 00:01:04 GMT I received a notice from Bellcore today announcing that beginning 1/12/92, dialling 1+NPA for intra-NPA toll calls in area code 206 will become mandatory. This is good news, because I was afraid that when they got around to permitting NXX format for prefixes, that they might do away with 1+ for intra-NPA toll, making it difficult to tell when one is dialling a "local" toll call. The new dialing procedure will be enabled 10/6/91. A question I have is on the average, how long after the switch from NNX to NXX prefixes do they finally announce an NPA split? Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7ENT.#WWA.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Subject: Wanted: Ring Indicator (With Memory) Date: Sat, 09 Feb 91 17:32:48 From: stehle@erg.sri.com I am looking for an add-on accessory that would be placed on a two-wire telephone line (with a T connection) that would indicate that the ringing voltage has appeared on the line. Ideally, an LED would be set to a flashing mode in response to the ringing voltage. It would stay flashing until the handset was taken off hook; this operation would cause the LED to be extinguished and to cease flashing. Can you direct me to vendors of such equipment? Can you direct me to a schematic to build such a circuit? I am aware of the 20 Dec 90 _EDN_ Idea for Design. Do you have any comments on the suitability of this circuit? Can private telephone systems (e.g., NT SL-1) tolerate lower on-hook DC impedances than the Part 68 specification of 5 megohms? E-mail replies gladly accepted at "stehle@erg.sri.com". Thanks, Roy Stehle SRI International ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 22:24:50 EST From: Tony L Hansen Subject: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories A group I'm associated with is putting on a play and a phone will be used on the set. How would I hook up the phone so that I can cause it to ring on demand? Preferably, I'd like to have some sort of switch or push button which I can push and have the phone ring. (Please email the answers directly to me as this group expires too quickly on my machine and I don't always get a chance to read the group in time before things disappear.) Tony Hansen att!pegasus!hansen, attmail!tony hansen@pegasus.att.com tony@attmail.com [Moderator's Note: Unless you want to go to a lot of hassle re-wiring the phone itself, why not just get a small doorbell from a hardware store; a battery to drive it and a simple switch. Have it off-stage and activated at the proper time(s). The actors can pick up the phone on demand. The audience won't know the difference. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 91 12:24:00 EDT From: "CONTR HERRICK, DAN" Subject: Maybe it Really is Time for Telecommunications Competition! > [Moderator's Note: Jane Fraser, a regular correspondent to TELECOM > Digest from Ohio State has passed along this special report of a > symposium held last week. I thought you would enjoy reading it, > although it is too long for a regular issue of the Digest. PAT] Jane's 300 line report is informative and helpful. Reading it led me to an idea that should have come sooner! "Full competition in telecommunications" requires more than one Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) competing to provide me with dial tone. There are two very expensive items in the physical plant of a LEC, the switch or Central Office and all those copper wires going to everybody's phones. Every community of any size in the United States now has a second company with a switch for providing public phone service - the non-wireline cellular phone provider. His cellular system includes a network of cell transceivers connected together with copper wires and optic fibers and radio/microwave connections. (They even buy some of those connections from the wireline providers, I'm sure.) What prevents a non-wireline cellular provider from starting to offer POTS - Plain Old Telephone Service? There has to be one out there with capacity to spare owned by a curmudgeon spoiling for a good competitive fight. It is time we really tore down the telephone monopoly, not using the guns of a government regulator, but using the profit seeking ambitions of an alternative provider. Do you think local telephone service costs too much? Rent some capacity from the local cellular provider and take some business away from your monopoly LEC. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ------------------------------ Subject: Telephone In Use Indicator Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ Date: 8 Feb 91 23:26:48 NZD (Fri) From: clear@cavebbs.gen.nz Can the people who have this information at their fingertips please email me the schematics and parts for building a simple line-powered LED "in use" indicator? I know its a FAQ. Thats why I posted originally in sci.electronics, just to keep it out of here. All I got was a mailbox full of "me-too's". I've already promised to forward info to all the people who emailed 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 ------------------------------ Date: WED, 06 FEB 91 21.01.31 EDT From: Richard Budd Subject: BITNET in Wroclaw, Poland? A fourth year electrical engineering student at the Technical University of Wroclaw (we met in Czestochowa last September) sent me a letter just the other day. His school received through a donation IBM Personal Computers and associated software. He is looking for information about what equipment he or his school would need to connect their terminals to BITNET or any other international computer network. The TU at Wroclaw (pronounced VROA-swauv, not ro-CLAW) has a mainframe computer, also an IBM though he didn't say what Series it was. He's in his second year of learning English and it takes a little effort to understand what he's trying to say. Feel free to post responses to either my IBM or Marist accounts. BTW, more and more children are learning English in Eastern Europe. Five years ago, classes in English were scarce, primarily because the Communist governments discouraged it in the schools in favor of Russian. The former East Germany came up with the least offensive (to the Soviets that is) solution. Students are required to choose between Russian and English. Virtually all the kids opt for English! Richard Budd | E-Mail: IBMers rcbudd@rhqvm19.ibm VM Systems Programmer All Others klub@maristb.bitnet IBM - Sterling Forest, NY Phone: (914) 578-3746 IBM and Marist College don't ask me for my opinions. They just let me play with their computers. ------------------------------ From: djcl@contact.uucp (woody) Subject: Re: 416 Area Code Split Announced Reply-To: djcl@contact.UUCP (woody) Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 02:40:36 GMT >[Moderator's Note: Is this the first time an area code in Canada has >been split? It is pretty routine here in the States now, but I cannot >recall such an instance in Canada before. PAT] This would seem to be the first split in Canada to my knowledge, at least of the initial area code plan. However, I did recall sight of an area code map that claimed to have area code 613 cover all of Northern Ontario as well, or it could have been that Northern Ontario was not set up with 705 or 807 at the time. Bell Canada seems to be somewhat tight-lipped about what the new area code is going to be (ie. the one to be formed outside Toronto). However, unless Bellcore has announced that the July, 1995 deadline for starting up the interchangeable area codes is moved up, it would appear that 210 is a good candidate. 905 was just freed up, if the recent post about the final cutoff of 905 area code is any indication, though there might be good reason to assign this at the very last, and to a less populous or politcially significant part of North America than the Toronto area. 706 is too close to the neighbouring NPA 705 to the north. Other N10-type codes from 610-910 are possible, though there might still be some TWX activity to get rid of. Other Canadian area codes to watch for split/NXX prefix activity are 604 British Columbia and especially 403 (Alberta plus Yukon and NWT). 514 Montreal and 613 Ottawa/east Ontario seem to have plenty of room yet for expansion. ------------------------------ From: tots!tots.Logicon.COM!tep@ucsd.edu Subject: "Internal" Portable Phones Date: 8 Feb 91 17:45:17 GMT Reply-To: Tom Perrine Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California Greetings Telecom Wizards! I'm looking for a piece of equipment which probably doesn't exist, provides a service probably better provided by something else, which a senior manager wants to buy :-) We have a dozen or so technical people around the company who spend most of their time out of their official offices, working around our office complexes (computer system managers, in-house telephone people, facilities manager, etc). They would like to receive their phone calls (and make calls) wherever they are. We are looking for something between a "home" wireless telephone and a cell-phone, with voice capability (not just a pager). Someone recalls recently seeing an ad for "factory floor" wireless phones, but can't remember the magazine or issue! We would like this to tie into our PBX, so that when you dial the person's extension, you get their protable phone. (I'm not enjoying this any more than you are, believe me!) Our office "campus" covers an area about 1/2 mile square. Any recommendations? Tom Perrine (tep) Internet: tep@tots.Logicon.COM Logicon UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep Tactical and Training Systems Division San Diego CA "Harried: with preschoolers" GENIE: T.PERRINE +1 619 455 1330 ------------------------------ Subject: Sprint Makes Money Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 02:03:25 EST From: "John R. Levine" An article on the business wire today reports that 4th quarter 1990 revenues for US Sprint were $1.33 billion, compared to $1.28 in the 3Q90. For the full year, revenues were $5.06 billion compared to $4.32 billion in 1989, a dollar increase of 17% and a 23% increase in minutes used. Net profit for 4Q90 was $51 million, for 3Q90 was $54 million. For the year 1990, profit was $220 million before a non-recurring charge of $72 million, compared to $220 million in 1989. They attribute the drop in profits to increased advertising, sales, and marketing. Sprint is a subsidiary of US Telecom, but they break out Sprint's numbers in their report. By revenues, Sprint is about twice as big as US Telecom's local telco business and is now somewhat more than half of their total business. While this isn't exactly printing money, considering that a few years ago Sprint was losing money so fast that there was serious talk of shutting them down, they've come a long way. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl [Moderator's Note: Yes, they certainly have come a long way since their beginning as the: outhern

acific ailroad nternal etwork elecommunications department at the railroad. When they got the idea back in the middle 1970's to sell the excess capacity on their new network I wonder if they had any idea how it would grow ... PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #103 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06683; 9 Feb 91 23:17 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32041; 9 Feb 91 21:51 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21273; 9 Feb 91 20:46 CST Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 20:21:14 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #104 BCC: Message-ID: <9102092021.ab10856@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Feb 91 20:20:58 CST Volume 11 : Issue 104 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson List of BBSes/Conferences With Telecom Topics [David Leibold] Schematic For "BUSY" Phone Extension Indicator [Steven Shimatzki] Access Charges [Bryan Richardson] Calling Instructions For Area 817 [Carl Moore] SWB-Dallas Caller ID Update [Eric Dittman] Caller-ID Technical Question [Alan Larson] Caller*ID in Pennsylvania [Craig R. Watkins] Answer Supervision From Loop Start Circuits [John Boteler] How do I Connect With Other Telecom Mailing Lists? [Marc Smith] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: woody Subject: List of BBSes/Conferences With Telecom Topics Date: Fri, 8 Feb 91 22:33:58 EST (This has been quite a while in getting into the mail, but here goes...) This is a list of a few BBSes and BBS conferences available on telecom topics. Please note that many of the BBSes listed here only deal telecom subjects as part of a more wide-ranging BBS setup. Remember that information is always subject to change. The information is definitely incomplete and other conferences or BBSes may carry telecom message areas or files. Conferences: TELECOM Digest - you're reading it! MDF Conference - based on the Fidonet, MDF (for Main Distribution Frame) contains various telecom announcements and discussions. Some messages appear from Calgary AB Fidonet nodes 1:134/2.0 and 1:134/14, although there would be postings from other places as well. Contact your friendly neighbourhood Fido BBS... IMEX TELECOM echo - a small telecom conference, based in Toronto on the Fido-like IMEX network but dealing with various telecom topics. Available at The Super Continental (see BBS list below). Punternet Telephone discussion conference - Punternet is not too widely available and not extremely populous, but nodes exist in various parts of Canada and the U.S. Try KEB IV BBS (see BBSes below) or check around for a BBS using the PCPN software. TCONSULT, TELEPRO - Telecom Consultants and Telephone Professionals echo mail area. At last report, it was available from a BBS run by Jim Deputy. Check a Fido-net node list if you are familiar with the Fido setup... BBSes: Ed Hopper's BBS - Pearland (Houston), Texas - 713 997.7575 (Node #1) Ed Hopper's BBS - "" "" "" - 713 997.7576 (Node #2) - carries TELECOM Digest, Computer Underground Digest message areas KEB IV BBS - (416) 266.4444 - has a telephone message area (conference #130). Not a telecom- oriented BBS in general, though... Pro-Graphics BBS - 908/469-0049 - Usenet newsfeeds (includes comp.dcom.*, alt.cosuard), free public access The Super Continental - Toronto, ON Canada - 416 223.7156 (likely to be in area code 407 in April) - carries a telecom files section, files include archives of some TELECOM Digest issues (no direct live feed though), a few Computer Underground Digests, other telecom files - home base of the TELECOM conference on the IMEX network (see above) TAP BBS - (502) 499-8933. Face to Face - (713) 242-6853. - these BBSes lean more towards the computer underground interests and cyberpunk topics - "Also note that Face to Face is a higher media profile, in that such names as Cliff Stoll (Author of _The_Cuckoo's_Egg_) and many journalists frequent Face to Face." - bt455s01 Other: CCITT board - this was discussed some time ago in the Digest; unfortunately, the number and info on this escapes me at present, other than that the number is in Europe. thanx: ehopper@ehpcb.WLK.COM (Ed Hopper), bt455s01@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Manwai Yip), bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (Bob), ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) David Leibold until March 91: Usenet: djcl@contact.uucp after March 91: (watch this space...) ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Saturday, 9 Feb 1991 13:36:13 EST From: SJS132@psuvm.psu.edu Subject: Schematic For "BUSY" Phone Extension Indicator Well, I saw that a few people wanted to BUY a indicator for their extentions to show when it was busy ... BUT ... for those that would rather build one, and save the dough, then here are the plans. *Note* : I'm not responsible if you hook it up wrong ... I did it, and it works fine. Also, I origanally go it out of a magazine, which I have long lost ... but it was published. I don't have an address to write to, to ask for permission to post it here. If you don't like it, buy the magazine. I at least did have the name of the author, and do give him full credit. Anything I left out??? Oh yeah, there is one place that almost looks like two lines shoud be connected ... DONT. It is actually overlapping (ie, a jumper) and could cause problems. That's why, if two lines are connected, I use 'o' indicate a connection. Well, thats it ... enjoy, and watch out when stripping those phone wires ... you can get a nasty jolt if you do it with your TEETH! (like me!) Phone Line "Busy" indicator Taken out of Modern Electronics November. 1988 Written by: Robert M. Harkey (I only wrote it up, and condensed it.) This little circuit is VERY nice to have, especially if you use a MODEM on a multi-Extention line. It is small enough to be built on a small circuit board, and then added to the phones on the extension (PUT IT INSIDE THEM! Its neater and better for the reliability of the circuit. Compared to if you had the wires hanging out where they can be ripped out of the phone by a cat or small child.) Here's the Circuit: Note: o is for where a connection |-----------+ has been made... R4 /c |R5 _____/\/\/\___|b <-Q2 /\/\/\ | \e | R1 /b | --- o-----/\/\/\/\----o-----|c <-Q1 | Led1 | \e | | to R3 | |----------------|-----------o phone /\/\/\/\ | | | | | R2 | | | o----/\/\/\/\-----o------------------------o----|:|:|--+ B1 What does all that mean? Well, here is a list of parts... R1,R2 : 2.2M ohm Resistors R3 : 330K Resistor R4 : 33K Resistor R5 : 220 ohm Resistor Q1 : NPN Transitor#> 2N3906 Q2 : NPN Transitor#> 2N3904 B1 : 3V external battery supply (2x AA batteries) Led1 : General purpose Light emitting diode All can be found at Radio Shack... For Beginners: One particular thing to note: On Q1 and Q2, When I drew them above, it was hard. So I labeled each with their corresponding E - C - B... What is ECB?? It stands For Emitter, Collector, Base. I hope I did them right, Its been a while, and I wasn't sure, but basically, if you get the right transistor number you don't have to worry, just put it in the circuit with the E being the little ARROW coming off of the picture on the back of the Transistor pack. Good Luck... Steven Shimatzki RD#1 Box 20-A Dunbar, Pa 15431 InterNet: SJS132@PSUVM.PSU.EDU BBS: (412) 277-0548 Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with the people I know, nor do I know the people I am with. I just like the money they pay me. ------------------------------ From: Bryan Richardson Subject: Access Charges Date: 7 Feb 91 18:49:12 GMT Reply-To: Bryan Richardson Organization: Purdue University Having just recently moved to Indiana from Illinois, I received my first GTE bill today and found some puzzling line items, including: Interstate Access Charge to Mar 07-91 3.50 Intrastate Access Charge to Mar 07-91 2.88 While not the definitive expert on the subject, I thought that AT&T, as my default long distance carrier, paid the access charges to GTE. I did not think that the customer was charged an access charge as well. A phone call to the GTE billing office got me nowhere: "This is because of equal access -- you pay this to get access to the long distance carrier of your choice." A phone call to the AT&T billing office left the representative and his manager as confused as I was. My question is this: Is there a case where the residential customer must also pay access charges? I never saw this charge on my Illinois Bell bill. Is this just a case of poor labeling on the bill by GTE? Bryan Richardson richarbm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University Disclaimer: Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 91 17:51:31 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Calling Instructions For Area 817 When 214 area (now splitting to form 903) in Texas got the N0X/N1X prefixes, toll calls within 214 had to be changed from 1+7D to 1+214+7D. Was a similar change made to 817 at the time? This would be for area-wide uniformity in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. I did some re-formatting of my "history" file, which notes that 201/609 and 919/704 have the same calling instructions for the sake of uniformity (although only one area code in each pair needed N0X/N1X prefixes). ------------------------------ From: Eric Dittman Subject: SWB-Dallas Caller ID Update Date: 8 Feb 91 16:14:26 CST Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility I just called Southwestern Bell to get an update on their Caller ID plans. The last time I called they said they were waiting on the results of some legal challenges; today they gave me an estimate of "sometime in 1993". I asked why 1993 and the response was, "we have a lot of old equipment that needs to be updated first. Maybe work will be completed sooner, but '93 is the current estimate" (not an exact quote). I guess Caller ID for the home will be a long time in coming to Dallas. Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility dittman@skitzo.csc.ti.com dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com Disclaimer: I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test Facility. I don't even speak for myself. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Feb 91 15:49:17 PST From: Alan Larson Subject: Caller-ID Technical Question As I understand it, Caller-ID works by sending the information out after the first or second ring. Why doesn't it send it out before the first ring, so the phone could know if it was to ring at all. That would leave a great market for pre-programmed boxes to modify the ring signal to indicate when selected numbers were calling, to selectively ignore numbers, or to automatically route the calls to fax or modem equipment. It seems kind of obvious, why wouldn't it be done that way? Alan [Moderator's Note: I do not think the intent of Caller*ID is to tell folks what calls NOT to accept (Call Screening is intended for that). I think its purpose is merely to *identify* the origin of the call in the event you wish to know that information. In other words, do not choose to answer or not based on what the Caller*ID box displays -- remember the many examples of someone you want to talk to calling from a different phone than usual -- but instead, answer the phone as you normally would and use the identification provided for recourse to the caller if desired. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 1991 11:26 EST From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Caller*ID in Pennsylvania Dave Levenson writes: >On a related topic, why is Caller ID considered a privacy issue? >Aren't people confusing privacy with anonymity? Are the states like >Pennsylvania now asserting that their citizens have the right to >anonymity when they disturb others by telephone? I rather believe that what we have here in Pennsylvania is an interpretation by the courts of laws that were written without Caller*ID being considered. I don't think that it was taken into account when the wiretap laws were written that consumers may be able to purchase their own "trap and trace" devices for their own lines. You may, however, be right when it comes to the interpretation of the state constitution. Here's the current situation in Pennsylvania: In November of 1989, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission gave approval to Bell of PA to offer Caller*ID. In May of 1990, the courts declared Caller*ID service a violation of the state wiretap act and constitutional privacy rights. Currently pending (as far as I know) is an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, filed by the PUC and Bell of PA. The flavor of Caller*ID that the PUC originally approved included provisions for certain groups (eg domestic violence intervention shelters, their employees, law enforcement, etc) to obtain blocking for free. The residential cost was to be $6.50/month. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ Subject: Answer Supervision From Loop Start Circuits Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 12:06:20 EST From: John Boteler Tom Lowe describes a costly and painful procedure for extracting answer supervision from NJ Bell. Although my suggestion may not meet his exact requirements, it does work flawlessly for my voice response systems. Solution: order CENTREX. That's it! No special tariffs, no unnecessary pain (other than the usual CENTREX programming screw-ups), and you get features as part of the deal. The answer supervision is provided as an OSI (Open Switch Interval) at least on 3*Way calls, and possibly on single outbound calls when served by a #1ESS. #5s and their ilk are another question. This comes in handy for several applications I have running right now; after finding damn few PBX manufacturers which sell PBX providing loop interrupt to the stations, I like CENTREX better every day. [Author's Note: Would ground start circuits provide the signalling desired? Since they are engineered circuits, it would seem that such signalling could be provided without a lot of pain. I don't see DOD trunks as being special: many PBXs are configured this way.] John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Feb 91 13:56:48 EST From: Marc Subject: How Do I Connect With Other Telecom Mailing Lists? In a recent issue of Telecom the Moderator mentioned Telecom-Priv which I assume is a related discussion list. I would be greatful for information concerning this list (subscription information in particular). Thanks for a great list! Marc A. Smith UCLA [Moderator's Note: TELECOM Digest has two supplementary mailing lists which were started as a direct result of message threads here which were becoming too long and unweildy for continued use here. They are: Computer Underground Digest: address: tk0jut1@niu.bitnet This publication deals with the social and legal issues involved with computer 'hacking' and related topics. It is moderated, and submissions are considered for publication. It is also distributed as a newsgroup within the alt distribution scheme. Telecom Privacy: Submission address: telecom-priv@pica.army.mil Moderator: telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil This publication deals with the stated topic, and was primarily started as a place for extended discussion -- pro and con -- on Caller-ID. It also deals with many telecommunications privacy and/or perceived invasion of privacy matters. Many time, threads on Caller-ID begin in the Digest and are moved to this list. This list is also available in an alt newsgroup. TELECOM Digest / comp.dcom.telecom readers are NOT automatically enrolled on these two lists. You must write the Moderator in each instance and ask to be added. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #104 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11349; 10 Feb 91 3:23 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14128; 10 Feb 91 1:58 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23804; 10 Feb 91 0:53 CST Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 23:57:22 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #105 BCC: Message-ID: <9102092357.ab12927@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Feb 91 23:57:13 CST Volume 11 : Issue 105 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland [Carl Moore] Re: Tandy/Heathkit [Gordonm Letwin] Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Jamie Hanrahan] Re: Headset Installation Help Needed [John Higdon] Re: Headset Installation Help Needed [Julian Macassey] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Michael J. Kobb] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Jim Redelfs] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 23:06:18 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland Responding to Carl Wright: No, the ideas I see regarding the Baltimore-DC area aren't all that hard. I just got through checking out some zipcodes and phone prefixes near the future 301/410 border (I'll be looking for some phone numbers around a portion of the Carroll-Frederick county line), and I already figured out North Beach, Maryland 20714, which I would list as 410 in the zip-area directory when it picks up the 301/410 split. The prefixes serving the North Beach area are currently in area 301, and are: 257 -- apparently the "default" and apparently what is found on pay phones; goes into 410. 855 -- although it was/is North Beach on a phone bill, it is a DC-metro exchange and stays in 301. Similar prefixes exist around Chicago (right?) and Los Angeles. In the Los Angeles area, there are prefixes which show up on a phone bill as Los Angeles (different procedure from what I just cited for North Beach), but which serve areas beyond Los Angeles (such as Burbank and Pasadena, even though the other prefixes serving Burbank and Pasadena went into area 818. Back in Maryland: In Laurel, the "Waterloo-service" prefixes go into 410 because they are local to Baltimore, and the other Laurel prefixes (which are local to Washington) stay in 301. >...Carl Moore is quoted as saying that his zip code will >be splitting along the with area code split. The only remark by me about a split zip code might be: > As far as I know (not having been to Fort Meade), > the other phones on that post are in the Odenton exchange, which is > going into 410 (causing a problem as to how to list the area code for > zip code 20755?). I was writing about 301-688 prefix, which is to stay in 301. 20755, which is between Baltimore and Washington, is not "my" zip code, as I live in Delaware, and (w/r to Washington) have an office about 30 miles beyond Baltimore. When I write about zipcodes and phone prefixes, I might be writing about areas I don't call, write or visit! I am quite well aware that phone prefixes and zip codes do not necessarily match, and a concern I sent to the publisher of the zip-area directory is that if a zipcode falls along an area code border, I end up having to list it based on where a "majority" of that zipcode falls. I am hesitant about pointing out specific split zipcodes, because there are probably a slew of such splits which I have no way of knowing. [Moderator's Note: We've got cases here where 'Post Office Chicago', i.e. 606-anything extends into a few suburbs which are now 708. The rule you can generally follow here is that 606xx = 312 and 600xx, 601xx, 602xx, 604xx = 708 or 815; however 815 takes in several more one mprovement

lan codes as well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) Subject: Re: Tandy/Heathkit Date: 9 Feb 91 21:19:01 GMT Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA In article <16709@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com writes: > Many people recently got a Heathkit catalog. > It was pitiful. About 30% of the stuff in the catalog was buildable. > The rest was sold assembled-only ... their concept > of building a computer is to plug the boards in. Heath made plenty of mistakes, for sure, but they're not totally responsible for their downfall. Have you looked inside a state of the art computer today? I just examined the motherboard of a Compaq 386/20e with an eye towards diagnosing/repairing it. It seemed that half of the chips were ASIC, they were nearly all .05" lead spaced surface mount, with many many high pin-count (or is it leg-count?) chips. I've had years of experience hacking electronics, but I couldn't remove and replace even one of those high count SM chips without special tools and a lot of practice. Can you imagine regular folks building a board with hundreds of them on it? And then testing -- kit folks have to be able to test and diagnose what they build. You need something like signature analysis to test a board like this ... you can't do it with a voltmeter or even a scope. So Heath is pretty much forced into offering you preassembled and pretested boards, unless you want a computer made from socketed MSI which would be the size of your desk and cost much more than a prebuilt one. gordon letwin (I worked for Heath fifteen years ago, but that doesn't matter...) ------------------------------ From: Jamie Hanrahan Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack Date: 9 Feb 91 15:16:07 PST Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA Yet another nit or three, and more nostalgia: The Moderator writes... > [Moderator's Note: You are wrong on the 'Allied was mail order only' > statement. See the message before this. They did have a mail order > division but their big warehouse store on the west side of Chicago was > a beehive of activity for hams, CB'ers, and lots of other early radio > freaks for thirty years or more, circa 1930 through the mid-60's. They were also a nationwide electronics distributor, with warehouse facilities in several major cities. Still are, actually. The Chicago store, though, may have been the only non-mail-order way for retail customers to reach them. > When they annouced that Tandy had bought them out [...] > Then came the Allied Radio Shacks, the final closure of the > west side warehouse store in Chicago, and the birth of the dozens > of much smaller (Tandy merchandise only!) Radio Shack stores across > Anerica. Actually there were Radio Shlock (RS merchandise only) stores across America well before both RS's acquisition by Tandy and before Tandy's acquisition of Allied. I don't remember which of those acquisitions came first (but I think it was in the aforementioned order). All of this discussion brings back fond memories of a purely local (San Diego) chain, Telrad Electronics. Now, doesn't that just sound like a name out of the fifties? Like something from a Carl and Jerry story, or from a Rick Brant book? Anyway, I think their "bread and butter" was the tv/radio repair parts business, but they also sold parts (and not just radio and tv stuff) to hobbyists, and they did repair work, AND they had both ham radio and hi-fi departments (this was in the golden age of Marantz, Fisher, et al). And, yes, the counter clerks knew enough to answer questions like what style of capacitor to use for a bypass cap, or do you think I really need to shield this tube... Most of the new parts for my early electronics projects came from Telrad. I remember buying my very first microphone there (a one-inch or so dia. ceramic -- brand named "Calrad" (no connection) -- in a clip-on lapel style, $1.99). It was a point of pride among all experimenters that Radio Schlock was NOT patronized except in dire emergency. A toggle switch from Telrad looked and felt just like one from a piece of army surplus electronics gear (only newer), while RS's seemed to be (and were) Japanese imitations. And who wanted to use Radio Schlock solder on a project, when Telrad would sell you genuine Kester??? At Telrad there was an ambiance of "real electronics is done here!" that was, and still is, completely missing from the glitzy Radio Shlock stores. RS's acquisition of Allied Radio sent a horrible shock through the ranks of experimenters everywhere. We expected the worst, and got worse than that. The 6x9xthick catalog with everybody's brand names in it (alongside, to be sure, Allied's house brands for tubes, hi-fi, and the like) became an 8-1/2x11x-very- thin thing. There was a lot of merchandise other than RS's, but listed without brand names!!! Allied's good (sometimes excellent) hi-fi, ham, and test equipment kits (Knight-Kits) were phased out in favor of RS's "Realistic", "Micronta", and similar phony-named lines. Truly the end of an era. Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA Internet: jeh@dcs.simpact.com, or if that fails, jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!jeh ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 10:43 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Headset Installation Help Needed Daniel A. Margolis writes: > Also, not all phones are compatable with all headsets. I've seen "headsets > for standard phones," "headsets for electronic phones," and "headsets for > multi-line phones." I don't know what the difference is. One of the major differences concerns how the transmitter (mouthpiece) is handled. In an ordinary telephone with a carbon transmitter, a small amount of the loop voltage is used to "polarize" the microphone button. A carbon unit is simply a voice activated variable resistor that modulates a current flow at an audio rate. The result is fed down the phone line as a representation of your speech. Some newer (electronic) phones do not use a carbon mic but employ a "dynamic" microphone (similar in construction to the earpiece) that does not require a polarizing voltage. Instead the signal is amplified using a line-powered amp in the instrument and that signal represents your speech. Obviously, the two types of transmitters are incompatible. Plantronics solves the problem by providing a special interface for use with "dynamic mic"-type phones. A cube transformer plugs into the wall and provides the polarizing voltage (which is missing in the electronic phone) for the headset. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Headset Installation Help Needed Date: 10 Feb 91 00:33:06 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <16719@accuvax.nwu.edu>, optilink!elliott@uunet.uu.net (Paul Elliott) writes: > [A personal note: I regularly annoy my wife and kids by excitedly > pointing it out when I see one of "my" headsets on T.V. (Miami Vice > liked them a lot). Also got to see one in use in orbit on the Space > Shuttle; NASA was trying out a few different types of communications > headsets. Ah, but you haven't suffered the embarassment of having your friends call to let you know that the phone you designed is being used as a dildo in the centerfold of Hustler magazine. I suppose I deserved it, novelty phones may end up being used in novel ways. 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 [Moderator's Note: I've seen reference a couple times to telephones as phallic symbols, but have yet to see an illustrated example of same. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael J Kobb Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Date: 9 Feb 91 20:59:46 GMT Reply-To: Michael J Kobb Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge MA In article <16490@accuvax.nwu.edu> nolan@helios.unl.edu writes: >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. >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. This is interesting, since it's 180 degrees away from my experience. I recently purchased a Sony SPP-120 cordless. Actually, I bought three cordless phones: the Sony, a Panasonic KX-T4000 (the one reminiscent of a StarTrek communicator), and a Panasonic KX-T3620. I bought these phones from a place with a thirty-day trial period, so I could pick the one I wanted to keep. All these phones have flexible antennas and ten channels. I recently moved into an apartment building, and the apartment was big enough to justify the cordless. The KX-T4000 was a catastrophe. Seven or eight times out of ten, I couldn't even get a dial tone. The phone would just beep at me in it's "I can't connect to the base unit" mode. This happened even with the phone directly next to the base. The KX-T3620 was more successful. It always linked up with the base, but I experienced pretty bad static problems with it (some of which I associate with the dinky antenna). Otherwise, I really like the phone (my standard phone is a Panasonic, and I've always liked it, too). The Sony was the clear winner. I get zero static most of the time, and its reception is good enough that I can walk down the exterior hall towards the elevator and still carry on a conversation (although there's a bit of static then). It works fine on my balcony. I attibute this success to the unit's nine-inch helical antenna, and the base unit's two foot antenna. A also like the Sony's battery systems. First, the handset has a one week standby / twelve hour talk endurance. Second, there's a second battery which is maintained charged in the base, so that the phone never need be without battery power to recharge. The base battery also acts as backup power for the base unit, in the event of an AC power failure. My only complaint is the sound quality. It has something of a "walkie-talkie" feel, like the microphone is too sensitive. Here's the question: I kept the Sony, and am quite happy with it. I do have one question, though: the display at the store claimed that it had 1,000,000 security codes, but there are no DIP switches (contrary what a previous poster claimed to have found on his SPP-120) or any mention in the manual of how to set them. Does the code come from the factory, unique to each phone? Or, does the phone pick a new one every time you hang up? (The latter seems unlikely, since the handset doesn't have a cradle, so I don't know how the phone could possibly recover if the code were somehow scrambled). Thanks, Mike ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Feb 91 09:16:11 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Reply-To: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu On 30-JAN-91, Robert Savery wrote: > All the security code does is keep nefarious types from using another > handset to outdial on your line. It in no way stops someone from > listening in on your conversations. > An AT&T phone is no "safer" than one of the el-cheepos. True ... but at least you'll SOUND better to the listeners! :) JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) [Moderator's Note: Maybe or maybe not. There was a sort of 'Pepsi challenge'-like contest a few years ago where people recieved calls placed from various models of cordless phones including AT&T. All were placed under the same conditions; same distance from base, etc. They were to identify one model of cordless phone from another. Most of the people could not identify the specific phone being used and about half the people could perceive no difference in quality. Radios are radios are radios. There are too many variables involved to firmly place the blame or good points with any one model. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #105 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13001; 10 Feb 91 4:31 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20595; 10 Feb 91 3:04 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad14128; 10 Feb 91 1:59 CST Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 1:21:55 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #106 BCC: Message-ID: <9102100121.ab02626@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Feb 91 01:21:25 CST Volume 11 : Issue 106 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Looking for Info: AT&T Merlin 410 [Fred True] "Independent" Coin Phones [Jim Redelfs] C&P Area/Prefix Help Line Experiences [Carl Moore] Two Questions From a Novice [Christopher Wolf] Re: 800 Scrambled ANI [David Lemson] Re: 800 Scrambled ANI [John Higdon] Re: MCI Personal 800 Service [Frank J. Wancho] Re: Will Digital Make Analog Cellular Phones Obsolete? [Dave Levenson] Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [John Higdon] Re: Change in Dialing Procedures to Mexico Effective Today [Carl Wright] Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Cliff Stoll] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 91 21:01:05 -0500 From: true@euler.rutgers.edu (Fred True) Subject: Looking for Info: AT&T Merlin 410 I am looking for any documentation on the setup, configuration, or operation of an AT&T Merlin system Model 410 (yeah, the old one). I have just purchased one used, with absolutely no docs and no experience with it whatsoever. Alas, it was very cheap! Any information from people who have used, installed, or maintained such a system; or pointers to documentation sources would be absolutely wonderful. At the very least, I am interested in the hookup procedures and dialing commands. Please e-mail any information. Thanks in advance! Fred True Rutgers College of Engineering true@euler.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Feb 91 08:51:50 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: "Independent" Coin Phones Reply-To: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu On 30-JAN-1991, the Moderator wrote: > Here in the Chicago area we are seeing a shift away from those > obnoxious devices also, but not as quickly as other places. The 7-11 > stores here have the discretion to use the phone service of their > choice, but the two 7-11's I frequent both use genuine IBT phones > with LD defaulted to AT&T. > The 7-11 owner turned him down saying he had to use phones 'the > public would be happy with'. Many merchants are beginning to > discover the extra commission they receive isn't worth the hostility > they get from the public. PAT] I learned, the HARD way, that even calling LOCALLY, one must use caution "experimenting" with "Acme" Pay Phones, Inc. devices! As a TelCo employee, I receive a concession on all its services, including intra-lata toll AND local calls billed to my calling card. I didn't have my coins with me the other day and, needing to place a call home, I simply walked up to the coin phone and dialed 0+7d and entered my calling card number. My next bill made it obvious to me that my employee concession applies ONLY to such calls made from TELCO coins - NOT independent stations! Such a local, calling card-billed call, made from a U S WEST Communications set normally costs 37 cents. The call I made from the "Acme" station came to around $1.50!! Live and learn! JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) [Moderator's Note: It is interesting, isn't it, how the whole alternative telephone industry got started -- the non-telco, non-AT&T networks and instruments -- on the theory that AT&T / Ma Bell were such 'ripoffs' that had to be put in their place. And now the more you shop around; the more you use the competition, the better telco and 'genuine Bell' service looks. Some of us were saying 'I told you so' several years ago. I'm beginning to feel vindicated. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 22:50:48 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: C&P Area/Prefix Help Line Experiences I have been using the C&P help line regarding prefixes near what will become the 301/410 boundary. The number, for those of you who don't know it, is 800-477-4704, and if you need to enter a prefix or get some other specific information, you will need touch-tone capability. If I just want to look up a specific prefix (such as 775 Union Bridge, which is going into 410), I hit 1 to cut the introductory message short, but then the system does not work unless I wait for end of message saying "To find what area code..." or words similar, and then I have to enter the prefix SLOWLY. Everything east of the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay will go into 410. To the west of those, here is the split by county, with the possible exception of "noise" along some county lines: Going into 410: Harford, Baltimore, Carroll, Howard, Anne Arundel, Calvert counties, and Baltimore city. Staying in 301: Saint Marys, Charles, Prince Georges, Montgomery, Frederick, Washington, Allegany, Garrett counties. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Feb 91 12:24:01 EST From: CMWOLF@mtus5.cts.mtu.edu Subject: Two Questions From a Novice Pardon a simple question from a college student ... What are the specified voltages that occur on the phone lines during its normal operating phases? Also, how can so many people's conversations be transmitted over so few wires, such as in the city, where there are only so many wires on the poles? Christopher Wolf, Electrical Engineer MWOLF@MTUS5 Michigan Tech University ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Re: 800 Scrambled ANI Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Sun, 10 Feb 1991 02:36:27 GMT penguin@pro-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) writes: > A friend of mine said that with a touch-tone phone and his "secret > code" you could eliminate any records of you calling the 800 number. > He said, you dial the number, wait a second, then dial this number. > Your phone number won't show up on their bill (if they have that > service). This sounds like an "extender" in phreaker-ese. In order to mask your phone number, you dial into a "special" dial-in line of a PBX system, dial a special code (sometimes), and then get a dial tone. Now, you're on an outgoing line from the PBX as though you were physically located on the premises of the PBX. Sometimes, you can make LD calls this way and have it billed to the company owning the PBX, sometimes (often, nowadays) LD calls are blocked and the only use for this is masking your own number to SS7. The ANI at the 800 center will show a number allocated to the company's PBX instead of your own. Obviously, illegal and immoral. (Unless you happen to have the permission of the company owning the PBX, or its your own :-) I read somewhere (probably TELECOM Digest) about a 900 service where you dial the 900 then get a dial tone, dial another number, and get connected to whomever you want. The final party does not get your phone number through ANI, and the intermediate company gets some money charged to you as the 900 call. Another way to do this, without the phreaking element. David Lemson U of Illinois Computing Services Student Consultant Internet : lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana [Moderator's Note: Does anyone remember those two 900 numbers? I went to look for the little plastic card I recieved and I can't find it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 20:10 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: 800 Scrambled ANI Mark Steiger writes: > He said, you dial the number, wait a second, then dial this number. > Your phone number won't show up on their bill (if they have that > service). You are being put on, big time. When you dial any number, the switch you are dialing into is programed to "pre-translate" or expect a certain number of digits based on the first digits you dial. If you dial "1-800" the switch will expect seven more digits and then becomes deaf to any more. There are no secret back doors here. This reminds me of when I was a kid and had other kids in school claim to have "secret numbers" that would do strange and wonderful things. Now, as then, what you describe is a fantasy. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Do you think he might have been referring to one of those schemes where you call an 800 number; give the switch some 2600 tone -- ergo it more or less forgets about you; then you are left out there free to call where you want? I am being purposefully vague, but you know the idea. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 1991 07:35 MST From: "Frank J. Wancho" Subject: Re: MCI Personal 800 Service When the announcement of the MCI Personal 800 service appeared on this forum in the beginning of December, I immediately called MCI to confirm several items and then ordered the service based on that confirmation. What I confirmed was that as an MCI customer, the monthly fee was $2, and that the rate of $6.50 per hour was in one minute increments, no minimum, and applied to in-state as well as interstate calls. It was the in-state feature that I asked to be double-checked and reconfirmed. Earlier this week I finally received the brochure and confirmation sheet, listing my assigned 800 number and PIN. I called again to confirm that the rates applied to in-state calls. I was told that I was to receive yet another brochure explaining a change in policy made on 1 Feb after the first brochure was already in the mail. The change in policy is significant: the rate to be applied to the incoming Personal 800 calls is tied to the PrimeTime service you already have. I have only PrimeTime Texas, which is $11.25 for the first hour and $10.50 for subsequent hours. Incoming Personal 800 calls originating within Texas will be billed at the PrimeTime Texas rate, not the $6.50 per hour rate. If the incoming calls originate elsewhere, they will be charged at the $15 per hour rate, not the $6.50 per hour rate, because I don't have regular PrimeTime service. Note also that the service is now called PrimeTime plus Personal 800. The rates cited above apply only during the plan hours: 5pm to 8am Monday through Thurday, 5pm Friday to 5pm Sunday, and 11pm Sunday to 8am Monday. Personal 800 calls outside those hours are billed at $13.50 per hour for regular PrimeTime users. I don't know the off-hour rates for PrimeTime Texas. Frank ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Will Digital Make Analog Cellular Phones Obsolete? Date: 9 Feb 91 14:26:36 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <16768@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tg@chmsr.gatech.edu (T. Govindaraj) writes: > I have been thinking about getting a cellular telephone and am > wondering if current cellular phones will become obsolete and unusable > when cellular goes digital. When are we expected to go digital? What ... The next generation cellular telephones will be digital, but the service providers don't plan to pull the plug on the five million existing analog subscribers! The next generation of cell site equipment will allow digital and analog channels to co-exist, so that digital may be deployed slowly. New mobile and portable telephones will support both standards, allowing their users to roam freely between areas equipped with new and old cell site equipment. Neither the subscribers nor the service providers can be expected to swap their equipment overnight. For today, there is no digital service offered, and there are no digital mobile sets offered. An analog unit purchased now should remain useable throughout its expected product lifetime. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 10:32 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System Daniel A Margolis writes: > [Author's Note: I fully expect a response from John Higdon on this one. > Please don't beat me up too badly. I know you're a Panasonic man.] I have not yet had the privelege of laying hands on a PARTNER, so I'll take your comments at face value for now. However, for you as an AT&T employee and others who may have short memories I have a reminder. Not long ago AT&T instigated a government action directed at Japanese manufacturers who made similar systems. AT&T claimed that it was impossible to produce these systems for sale at the prices charged and therefore insisted that dumping was taking place. (Never mind that Matsushita did not even sell an equivalent system in Japan.) The watchword was litigation rather than innovation. Apparently, AT&T has decided that it is indeed possible to produce a full featured system at reasonable prices. Of course, the Panasonic has had the ability to support anything from an ordinary single line phone to a full featured electronic display phone on the same port with no modifications for years. Perhaps AT&T was trying to buy time with its legal manuverings. Introduction of the PARTNER does create an interesting Catch-22 situation. Either the system has deficiencies that would remove it from serious consideration, or if it is as advertised, AT&T was blowing smoke with its trade litigation and claims of preditory pricing. So which is it? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: Change in Dialing Procedures to Mexico Effective Today Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Sat, 9 Feb 1991 02:51:21 GMT In article 16697 S. Srinivasan writes in response to the news that the two area codes in Mexico disappeared: > On a related note, why didn't Mexico choose to go with the "Gringo > Peeg" Bell System, and opted instead for the European one? With the > onset of free-trade (hopefully), this might be a severe detraction. I > suspect a call to Mexico would be routed to one of the International > Switching Centers (AT&T-speak) - and where's the closest one to San > Diego - Atlanta?!!! If I understand him correctly, I think he has misunderstood several things: 1) Call routing and especially costing has not changed with the elimination of the area codes and the need to use the 52 country code. The 52 country code has worked for longer than I know and was necessary with the area codes in place to reach lesser known Mexican call destinations. 2) The issue of free-trade is especially interesting since Southwestern Bell, France Telecom, and a Mexican group have purchased TelMex for several billion dollars. The phone number issue doesn't relate at all to the present trade policies of Mexico. They are already showing a significant amount of openess to their northern neighbor. 3) Is the country code numbering plan what you mean by the European system? If it is then, you probably didn't realize that "1" is the country code for the U.S. and Canada. The USSR is the only other single digit (7) country code and that may change with the continuing political changes. I'm biased. I've been helping setup cellular billing operations in Mexico City this year and I'm impressed by the people and the task they have before them. They have all kinds of things that a gringo would think are screwy, but they are working to fix the bad ones and keep the good ones. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ From: Cliff Stoll Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack Reply-To: Cliff Stoll Organization: Center for Astrophysics Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 06:37:54 GMT Oh! Lafayette, Allied, and Olson's! Sweet memories of pawing through inch thick catalogs of capacitors, diodes, and switches. The Sears & Roebuck catalog for technofolks. Now -- check out the Chicago surplus outfit ... uh, what's its name ... the one with the wonderful ad copy and cheap paper... Cliff Stoll [Moderator's Note: How odd ... I don't know which company you mean. Answers, anyone? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #106 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23467; 10 Feb 91 15:37 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30189; 10 Feb 91 14:12 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21440; 10 Feb 91 13:08 CST Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 12:29:22 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #107 BCC: Message-ID: <9102101229.ab04398@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Feb 91 12:29:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 107 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Delivery Problems With Usenet [TELECOM Moderator] Another 'Busy Line Indicator' Schematic [moocow!uucp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu] How Will Digital Cellular Increase Capacity? [Tom Lowe] SONET Protocol Information Needed [Gary Schaps] Re: Answer Supervision Trunks [telpc!tel@cdsdb1.att.com] Re: Network Interfaces: What's the Difference? [Jim Redelfs] Re: Access Charges [John Higdon] Re: SWB-Dallas Caller ID Update [John Higdon] Re: Caller-ID Technical Question [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Caller-ID Technical Question [John McHarry] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 11:17:32 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Delivery Problems With Usenet I'm still getting daily reports from people who say the Digest is not getting gatewayed to them in comp.dcom.telecom. Individual messages and sometimes entire issues are missing at their site. I've been replacing missing issues manually by sending them as mail to readers who let me know. I've received a couple letters asking if the Digest 'is still being published on a regular basis ... ' uh, yes it is ... and readers of comp.dcom.telecom *should be* getting twenty to thirty or more messages daily as a minimum. There should never be more than a day between batches, and in most cases just a matter of hours. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: moocow!uucp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Subject: Another 'Busy Line Indicator' Schematic Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 09:08:14 EST This off-hook indicator is LINE POWERED. I've made one of these and it works; I recommend socketing the transistors (augat pins are perfect) as I've had awful luck frying them with the soldering iron (even though it's temperature controlled @ 700F). No warranties express or implied, build at your own risk, etc. +---------------+------------+----------+----|<------o POS side of phone line | | | | | | V | D1 | \ - LED | | / R3 | | C1 .01uF 200V | \ | | D1 1N4003 or greater | / / c | LED an LED \ | |/ | Q1,Q2 PN2222A * / R1 +-----+---------| b Q3 === C1 Q3 2N5551 \ Q1 | | Q2 |\ | R1 470K / / c c \ \ e | R2 20K | |/ \| | | R3 47K - 100K +------| b b |--------+ | R4 100 ohms | |\ /| | | \ \ e e / | | * 2N3904 or 2N4124 / R2 | | \ | also suitable \ | | / R4 | / | | \ | | | | / | | | | | | +---------+-----+-----------+-----------+------------o NEG side of phone line Interesting "polite" phone modification: to line ------------------------------------------ to phone TIP relay * | <-+ | - | - - - +-CCCCCC-+ | | | | RING to line -----o o-------+---|<---+-------------- to phone | | | D1 | +v v+ | | ---- +---|(---+ 'on' button + C1 D1 is a 6.8v Zener diode. C1 is an optional 680uF or greater electrolytic capacitor used to prevent call waiting from dropping the connection. The relay should be in the neighborhood of 2.2K ohms with a 6V coil; the contacts should hold to around three volts. On button is a standard NO pushbutton. When this device is wired in-line with a phone, depressing the "on" button will cause the phone to go off-hook, where it will remain until the switchhook button is pressed. It is most effective in a trimline-type phone, especially the one in the bedroom; since the phone no longer needs to be placed into its cradle, it can just be tossed up onto the headboard (or wherever). Very convenient if you're horizontal. I haven't actually made one (lost the relay somewhere), but I've seen one in action. ------------------------------ From: telpc!tel@cdsdb1.att.com Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 09:36 EST Subject: How Will Digital Cellular Increase Capacity? Could someone please post something describing how digital cellular will increase capacity? My supervisor and others in my group were trying to figure it out. Thanks! Tom Lowe ------------------------------ From: Gary Schaps Subject: SONET Protocol Information Needed Date: 10 Feb 91 15:12:38 GMT Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL I am preparing to do a descriptive/programming project on SONET for a graduate course in network modeling and analysis. Would anyone like to help me locate the protocol (standard) and any other literature which might prove useful? Thank you. Gary L. Schaps gls@novavax.nova.edu ------------------------------ From: telpc!tel@cdsdb1.att.com Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 09:31 EST Subject: Re: Answer Supervision Trunks John Boteler writes: > Tom Lowe [that's me] describes a costly and painful procedure for > extracting answer supervision from NJ Bell. > Solution: order CENTREX. The answer supervision is provided > as an OSI (Open Switch Interval) at least on 3*Way calls, and > possibly on single outbound calls when served by a #1ESS. #5s and > their ilk are another question. Centrex on a 5E does not provide this OSI, unforunately. Not on three-way or single outbound. > [Author's Note: Would ground start circuits provide the signalling > desired? Since they are engineered circuits, it would seem that such > signalling could be provided without a lot of pain. I don't see DOD > trunks as being special: many PBXs are configured this way.] I was told by NJBell that the only way to get Answer Supervision was via wink start trunks. I think Delay Dial trunks can also provide Answer Supervision. That's not to say it isn't possible, though. The beauty of the wink start trunks is that they can be used with a standard telephone and with our AT&T Voice Power boards, which can detect the current reversal. Someone had written to me asking me what Voice Power Boards are. They are speech response boards, much like Dialogic, and others, that can digitize and playback speech, detect and play DTMF, watch for current reversal and current detection, etc. It's used for interactive speech response applications. Finally, thanks to those who replied to my question regarding the box that NJ Bell installs on all "Data Lines" I order. It turns out the NJ Bell Tech gave me a call a couple of days ago to ask me if I knew anything about the box. He has been trying to convince his people that the box isn't needed unless we ask for it. I told him everything you all told me and he was quite impressed. I found out NJ Bell charges thirty dollars for the box. I have taken mine out, by the way. Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ tel@hound.ATT.COM 908-949-0428 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 00:03:09 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: Network Interfaces: What's the Difference? Reply-To: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu On 29-JAN-91, Seth Cohn wrote: > I recently had a second phone installed for a BBS system. The operator gave > me a choice of: > 1) a testable network interface > 2) a NONtestable network interface > What's the difference? (Besides about $5 :) ) In my area (U S WEST Communications - NE), we don't offer such a choice. The SNIs (Standard Network Interface) that I install have several accomodations for adding electronic devices - presumably including remote-testing equipment. The most added stuff *I'VE* seen (beyond the protector) is a half-ringer resistor across the RJ11C inside. Without any added stuff in OUR SNIs, our remote testing works just fine. If the $5 is a ONE-time charge, I'd probably go for it, otherwise, if you have trouble INSIDE, just go outside and see if there is dialtone on the jack. Hint: A short on the loop will cause our WE 2BESS to take the line OOS and, frequently, clearing the short will NOT restore the DT for several minutes - sometimes not until an incoming call is received. Go next door and call home! JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 22:01 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Access Charges Bryan Richardson writes: > While not the definitive expert on the subject, I thought that AT&T, > as my default long distance carrier, paid the access charges to GTE. > I did not think that the customer was charged an access charge as > well. These "access" charges have as much to do with long distance access as David Letterman has to do with trade policy. These charges were allowed in the MFJ as a means to continue (what was perceived as necessary) the subsidy of local service by long distance charges. In truth, these surcharges have nothing to do with long distance since there is no way on God's green earth that you can avoid paying them. We have had dozens of articles in this forum from people who supposed that the surcharges could be removed if no long distance calls were made or received, but such is not the case. It is free money to the telco; it is not included when rates are evaluated and in fact does not show up as part of the basic service charges. Whatever charges AT&T pays to the telco is an entirely separate matter and is included in the IEC's rates. > A phone call to the GTE billing office got me nowhere: "This is > because of equal access -- you pay this to get access to the long > distance carrier of your choice." This is totally bogus. It has nothing to do with equal access, long distance, your choice of carrier, or the phase of the moon. It is just money the telco is allowed to rip off from you. Not many reps would put it just that way, however. > My question is this: Is there a case where the residential customer > must also pay access charges? I never saw this charge on my Illinois > Bell bill. Is this just a case of poor labeling on the bill by GTE? You betcha you pay on your residential bill. You pay on your business bill. You pay on any bill that is served by the switched network. IBT is obviously more skilled at hiding it from you. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows From: John Higdon Date: Sat, 9 Feb 1991 21:46:04 PST Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: SWB-Dallas Caller ID Update Eric Dittman writes: > "sometime in 1993". I asked why 1993 and the response was, "we have a > lot of old equipment that needs to be updated first. Maybe work will > be completed sooner, but '93 is the current estimate" (not an exact > quote). I guess Caller ID for the home will be a long time in coming > to Dallas. At least you got an estimate and a "we're working on it". When I inquire of Pac*Bell, no one knows anything or even if there are any plans. And that from inside sources! I have been led to believe that my home CO will be crossbar for the forseeable future and beyond. Pac*Bell's excuse is that the PUC (which it controls) won't let it upgrade CO equipment. What a scam. By the way, inside sources in Pac*Bell admit that the generous removal of charges for touch tone and the "widening" of the local calling area resulted in a net revenue INCREASE for the company. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 00:02:05 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Caller-ID Technical Question Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article <74363@bu.edu.bu.edu> larson@snmp.sri.com (Alan Larson) writes: > As I understand it, Caller-ID works by sending the information out >after the first or second ring. Why doesn't it send it out before the >first ring, so the phone could know if it was to ring at all. Maybe so the phone knows a call is coming in and not just noise ?? > That would leave a great market for pre-programmed boxes to modify >the ring signal to indicate when selected numbers were calling, to >selectively ignore numbers, or to automatically route the calls to fax >or modem equipment. Why not just disable the phone's ringing and have the box do the same functions you specify but generate its own ring when appropriate ? >[Moderator's Note: I do not think the intent of Caller*ID is to tell >folks what calls NOT to accept (Call Screening is intended for that). >I think its purpose is merely to *identify* the origin of the call in >the event you wish to know that information. In other words, do not >choose to answer or not based on what the Caller*ID box displays -- >remember the many examples of someone you want to talk to calling from >a different phone than usual -- but instead, answer the phone as you >normally would and use the identification provided for recourse to the >caller if desired. PAT] PAT, are you serious about this. Surely they *must* have envisioned such an application, after all they offer it, or is it offered in this way to encourage the unimaginative to rent such services from the telco instead of buying the equipment ? Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: See my reply following the next message. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: Caller-ID Technical Question Organization: The MITRE Corporation Date: 10 Feb 91 16:43:27 GMT larson@snmp.sri.com (Alan Larson) writes: >after the first or second ring. Why doesn't it send it out before the >first ring, so the phone could know if it was to ring at all. >[Moderator's Note: I do not think the intent of Caller*ID is to tell >folks what calls NOT to accept (Call Screening is intended for that). Indeed! You don't expect Ma to leave any money on the table do you? I think, however, that we shall soon see caller ID boxes that swallow the first ring burst until they have the number to decide how to treat the call. I, for one, would like to send some numbers to my answering machine, but not others. My mother does NOT want to leave a message, so I could set her number to ring and never trip the machine. (BTW, if she wanted to leave a message, she could use her other phone: this stuff runs in families!) [Moderator's Note: Precisely my point! I cannot imagine telco encouraging people to NOT answer their phone. If the calling party does not connect then there is no profit for telco. Call Screening is an exception, but please note it is one of the higher priced features available now ... so telco makes money, answer or no answer, because the called party is paying telco to *not* put the call through. Then too, there are the numerous examples of 'what do you do if someone you *do* want to speak with is calling from a different phone number?'. A policy of 'do not pass ringing from a number that is not recognized' is not a good one because there will always be parties you want to hear from calling from an unrecognized number (payphone, new phone line just installed, etc). By sending a 'courtesy ring' first, you have the option of examining your readout and deciding what to do next. The problem of a box which will 'absorb the first ring and act on the data received' is how do you prevent other extensions on the same line from giving a first ring also? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #107 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01083; 10 Feb 91 22:51 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11243; 10 Feb 91 21:19 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11320; 10 Feb 91 20:13 CST Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 19:20:55 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #108 BCC: Message-ID: <9102101920.ab25531@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Feb 91 19:20:13 CST Volume 11 : Issue 108 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: "Independent" Coin Phones [John Higdon] Re: Maybe it Really is Time for Telecommunications Competition [D Levenson] Re: "Internal" Portable Phones [Hector Salgado-Galicia] Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [Dave Levenson] Re: 800 Scrambled ANI [Steve Forrette] Re: MCI Personal 800 Service [Bill Huttig] Auto-Blocking Collect Calls (was New Phone Scam) [Ken Weaverling] Automatic Ring Timeout [Jerry Leichter] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 10:53 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: "Independent" Coin Phones On Feb 10 at 1:21, TELECOM Moderator writes: > And now the more you > shop around; the more you use the competition, the better telco and > 'genuine Bell' service looks. Some of us were saying 'I told you so' > several years ago. I'm beginning to feel vindicated. PAT] Yes, indeed, the more you shop around ... but is it not nice to be able to shop around? Do you honestly believe that 'genuine Bell' would be at the level it is today if it had no competition nipping at its heels? Do you think, for instance, that AT&T would even today be providing digital connections nationwide if it were not for Sprint and others? It is important also to remember that COCOTs are an aberation. They are a cancer on the body telecom. To say that the MFJ is solely responsible for COCOTs is akin to saying that modern medicine produced AIDS. COCOTs were created and continue to exist courtesy of the malignant neglect of our regulatory bodies various. COCOTs could be cleaned up overnight if the same enforcement enthusiasm was employed as is to ordinary street vendors. And it would happen for sure if the public would get off its complacent butt and demand through its legislature, regulatory agencies, and last but not least, its pocketbook the cleansing of this scourge. Please do not blame the marketplace and competition for something that exists with the cooperation of its victims. Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the reason that 'Bell' phones are making a return is that market forces are coming to bear? If COCOTs become unprofitable because an informed public stops using them, or insists that all calls be carried by a legitimate IEC, owner-operators will ultimately migrate to some other business. The void created will be filled with utility phones. I still believe the benefits of the MFJ far outweigh the liabilities. Whenever you substitute 'marketplace' for 'monopoly' there will be glitches and inequities in the short term. Just look at the Soviet Union and its stuggle with 'capitalism' for now. But give the marketplace forces a chance to kick in before issuing blanket condemnations for a system. An "I told you so" at this point is premature. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Maybe it Really is Time for Telecommunications Competition Date: 10 Feb 91 21:40:32 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <74348@bu.edu.bu.edu>, abvax!iccgcc.DNET!herrickd@ uunet.uu.net (Dan Herrick) writes: > Every community of any size in the United States now has a second > company with a switch for providing public phone service - the > non-wireline cellular phone provider. His cellular system includes a > network of cell transceivers connected together with copper wires and > optic fibers and radio/microwave connections. (They even buy some of > those connections from the wireline providers, I'm sure.) > What prevents a non-wireline cellular provider from starting to offer > POTS - Plain Old Telephone Service? There has to be one out there > with capacity to spare owned by a curmudgeon spoiling for a good > competitive fight. The wiring to the cell sites is a drop in the bucket compared to the wiring to every wired telephone in the community. For the cellular provider to wire the whole city would require a staggering investment. Most local telcos probably couldn't afford to do that if their existing cable plant were wiped out tomorrow and they had to rewire from scratch at today's prices. We can, of course, already use the local non-wireline cellular provider's switch for local calls today. Just replace your wired telephone set with a fixed-location cellular set. But the usage rate is generally not competitive with existing local telco rates. Also, the local cellular provider buys 'dial tone' in bulk from the local telco, so there is little real alternative in this approach. 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: Sun, 10 Feb 91 13:54:57 -0500 (EST) From: Hector Salgado-Galicia Subject: Re: "Internal" Portable Phones >We are looking for something between a "home" wireless telephone and a >cell-phone, with voice capability (not just a pager). Someone recalls >recently seeing an ad for "factory floor" wireless phones, but can't >remember the magazine or issue! We would like this to tie into our >PBX, so that when you dial the person's extension, you get their >portable phone. A wireless PBX can be the solution to your problem. Actually you would not have to buy a whole new PBX, but expand instead your actual facilities installing radio ports. Several systems based on TDMA or Spread Spectrum technologies are appearing in the market this year. For additional information, you can look at: D. Postlethwaite, "Airwaves, architecture and tomorrow's PABX", Communications International, May 1990, p. 60. C. Buckingham, "A business cordless PABX telephone system on 800 MHz based on the DECT technology", IEEE Communications Magazine, Jan. 1991, p. 105. ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System Date: 10 Feb 91 20:59:47 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <74318@bu.edu.bu.edu>, dam@mtqua.att.com (Daniel A Margolis) writes: > I noticed this article asking about small phone systems and another > asking the new AT&T PARTNER phone system, so I got some information > from John Bell, a friend of mine and one of the Systems Engineers who > worked on it. He recommends it (surprise, surprise). There was an > article in {Teleconnect} about PARTNER. They liked the product, but > what they really liked is that the engineer's name is Bell. (He's not > related to Alexander Graham Bell.) [Dan then provides a brief description of the Partner feature set.] I had a long chat with AT&T's local GBS sales office about Partner and Partner-Plus. I wanted to replace a small business phone system. The present system is an ITT 701 with three trunks and eight stations, used only for voice. There is also a Mitel SX-5 PBX with two trunks and six stations, used only for data. (The PBX stations are one 2500 set, and five modems.) An additional trunk is connected directly to a FAX machine, bypassing the 701 and the SX-5. I would like to combine the systems, and pool all of the trunks for outgoing calls, and still direct inbound traffic to the modem pool, the fax machine, and the nine voice stations. Additionally, I'd like to replace four of the eight electronic key sets with 2500 sets. > 1) PARTNER is inexpensive. (Yes, this is AT&T we're talking about.) They quoted approximately $2,200 for six trunks, and four electronic key sets. The single-line sets and installation are extra. If the installation is not performed by AT&T, they void the warranty. They would not quote a price for installation, but told me that it was charged for by the hour. They also advised that they could not re-use the existing three-pair modular wiring that supports the ITT 701, even though they also told me that Partner key sets only require two pair, and that their single-line sets require only one. They had not inspected the existing wire when they made this determination. > 2) Each port can handle a proprietary phone, a regular tip-ring phone, > or both, without any adapters (which are often expensive). The feature set for the single-line phone is surprisingly weak. There is no way to choose which trunk the set uses when it originates a call; it is permanently associated with a specific trunk. Inbound calls on that trunk cause the station to ring. Inbound calls on other trunks may not be answered on that set, but may be transferred there after they have been answered on a key set. Intercom calls dialed to a single-line set are indistinguishable from inbound trunk calls. A call which has been placed from or answered at a single-line set may be held, but may not be transferred to another single-line or key set. If the trunk associated with a single-line set is in use, the set is unable to place any inside or ourside calls, but may bridge on to the existing trunk call if the privacy feature is administered OFF. I was also told that the display-equipped version of the key set would display calling numbers if the trunks are equipped with Caller*ID service. The other GBS rep told me that this is not true! I don't know how accurate this feature description really is. It is based upon conversations with two different GBS sales reps. When they sent me information, it contained only glossy photos of smiling people talking on telephones, but no detail on what features are available. When I asked for more detail, I was sent another copy of the same smiling faces. A third request resulted in the story that there exists no feature-description or any other information on the system. If anybody can augment, refute, or clarify any of the above, I would appreciate it! > 3) PARTNER goes up to 4 CO lines and 12 extensions, while PARTNER PLUS > goes up to 8 lines and 24 extensions. > If you want to see it for yourself, dial 1-800-247-7000 for the number > of a nearby sales office... > ... You can also see it in AT&T Phone Centers, but their setup may > not be fully functional. It is also on display at the local Sears store, but it is not powered up, and the Sears sales people can't answer any questions about functionality. They, too, however, have a full package of glossy brochures of smiling faces! > [Author's Note: I fully expect a response from John Higdon on this one. > Please don't beat me up too badly. I know you're a Panasonic man.] Could someone provide a comparative feature list for the Panasonic system? I still want to upgrade the network here at Westmark, but I don't think the Partner is the 'right choice'. 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: Sun, 10 Feb 91 01:00:04 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: 800 Scrambled ANI I believe one of the numbers was 1-900-STOPPER. [Moderator's Note: I found the little card they sent me. The above is correct. For international calls the number is 1-900 RUN WELL. The fee is $2 per minute on domestic and $5 per minute on international calls. Dial the above numbers; when you hear new dial tone dial the number you are trying to reach. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: MCI Personal 800 Service Date: 10 Feb 91 18:55:58 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, CS Dept., Melbourne, FL In article <74382@bu.edu.bu.edu> WANCHO@wsmr-simtel20.army.mil (Frank J. Wancho) writes: >What I confirmed was that as an MCI customer, the monthly fee was $2, >and that the rate of $6.50 per hour was in one minute increments, no >minimum, and applied to in-state as well as interstate calls. It was >the in-state feature that I asked to be double-checked and reconfirmed. The rep gave you wrong info. >The change in policy is significant: the rate to be applied to the >incoming Personal 800 calls is tied to the PrimeTime service you >already have. I have only PrimeTime Texas, which is $11.25 for the >first hour and $10.50 for subsequent hours. Incoming Personal 800 >calls originating within Texas will be billed at the PrimeTime Texas >rate, not the $6.50 per hour rate. If the incoming calls originate >elsewhere, they will be charged at the $15 per hour rate, not the >$6.50 per hour rate, because I don't have regular PrimeTime service. I was under the impression there were the following packages: 1) Primetime with personal 800 - cost 6.50 1st hr, $1.00 daytime discount $2.00 for the 800 number. daytime calls discount 10% plan hours .1083/min 2) same as above with a state option around $2.00 includes intrastate calls 3) stand alone 800 - only 800 number $5/mo and .25/min 4) stand alone 800 for MCI customers - only 800 number $/2 mo primtime hours .1083/min interState and .225/min all other times and intrastate There are about ten states where number two is not available ... Texas is one of them. I guess you expect most of your calls from within Texas? You could set up another account with them as option four (saying you had the regular primetime with MCI's other division). You cant have both primtime Texas and Primtime Plus? ... Guess I am lucky to live in Florida.. Bill ------------------------------ From: Ken Weaverling Subject: Auto-Blocking Collect Calls (was New Phone Scam) Date: 10 Feb 91 16:20:30 GMT Organization: University of Delaware The Moderator writes: >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. This doesn't always work. My place of work put this block on their lines a few months ago. I screamed murder about it cause when I am on vacation, I call collect daily to check on status of our systems. I was told to use my personal calling card and to submit an expense form. My reply was that I would use every access code in the book until I found some sleazy AOS that would let the call go through. Well, as expected, AT&T, MCI, and Sprint told me no go. But I did encounter a COCOT outside of "The Steak Out" in Sonoita, Arizona that let it go through. No indication of LD company, 10xxx calls blocked, even 00 blocked. 0+ seemed to generate an automatted message from within the phone itself with options for collect, etc. I spoke my name into the phone and I then heard it pulse dial the phone number! When the other party answered, it replayed my name back and told them to press 1 to accept, or hang up to reject. It went through despite the collect blocking. >>>---> Ken Weaverling >>>----> weave@brahms.udel.edu [Moderator's Note: Any COCOT which places the call direct rather than through an operator can cause the problem you describe. But the person answering the phone can still say NO ... and refuse payment of any bill that should arrive afterward. All the auto-blocking of collect and third number billing does is catch most of the charge attempts. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 12:40:44 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: Automatic Ring Timeout A friend of mine has a phone number in 914 738 (Pelham, NY). This exchange (or at least his phone!) has a property I've never run into before: If you dial it and no one answers, after about 10 rings you get a "beep", and then the line goes silent. No, he does not have an answering machine, or any other device that would attempt to answer the phone. Has anyone ever run into this kind of thing elsewhere? Jerry [Cute answering machine message of the day: "Hi. This is the microwave oven. The answering machine is on strike. Leave a message, and I'll do the best I can."] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #108 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02802; 11 Feb 91 0:50 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22605; 10 Feb 91 23:27 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28443; 10 Feb 91 22:20 CST Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 21:16:49 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #109 BCC: Message-ID: <9102102116.ab07679@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Feb 91 21:16:35 CST Volume 11 : Issue 109 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Marisat Phones Smuggled into Kuwait? [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: List of BBSes/Conferences on Telecom Topics [Donald E. Kimberlin] Anyone Want an Old Dial Intercom? [Steve Gaarder] Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Steve Gaarder] Re: Audio Caller*ID [Dave Levenson] Re: Caller-ID Technical Question [John McHarry] Re: 'Free' Check in the Mail (was: MCI Pays to Switch) [Paul Gauthier] Re: 'Free' Check in the Mail [Henry Mensch] Re: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy [Barton F. Bruce] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 91 01:33 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Marisat Phones Smuggled into Kuwait? The sheer volume of almost real-time front-line video from war in the Persian Gulf region has demonstrated to all how telecommunica- tions technology has become so lightweight and portable it can reach from any point on the globe to any other. The beginnings of electronic journalism in WW II took herculean effort by comparison. Now, there seems to be evidence that even telephone plant need no longer be heavy, cumbersome, complex and expensive, either. An AP news report datelined, Taif, Saudi Arabia appeared in Sunday papers, indicating the Kuwaitis have probably smuggled Marisat portable satel- lite telephones into Iraqi-occupied Kuwait. In a story that begins, "Iraqi troops occupying Kuwait have stepped up executions and break into house to demand food, but Kuwaitis have enough to eat and are cheered by Allied bombing, exiled officials say," a series of statements about current conditions inside occupied Kuwait follow. But the fifth paragraph says, "The government's network of satellite telephones, most smuggled in after the August 2 (Iraqi) in- vasion, is the only means of information...." ...How surreal has war become now that an occupied nation under naval attack and bombardment can simply dial a phone call out, even after the public telephone exchange has been shut down or destroyed? Most likely these are Marisat phones, and if the Kuwaitis have some, there's little doubt that Saddam Hussein has some, too. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 23:22 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: List of BBSes/Conferences With Telcom Topics In Digest V11, Iss104, David Liebold lists several sources of conferences and materials on topics of telecom. Here are a few more: Conferences: Similar to Fidonet's "MDF Conference," many other relayed hobbyist networks have similar conferences. These do, however, often have only conference numbers on their networks and are often renumbered and renamed by local sysops, so some hunting around may be needed: The RIME network (formerly called RElayNet) has one called COSUARD that is a relay of a portion of Fido's FightBell," a conference raised to bring to light the actions of Telcos around the nation abritrarily adopting business rate charging to BBses, and similar matters. The InterLink network has one called "Telecommunications," which its moderator tries to keep closely to matters of PC communications, but other topics keep cropping up in it. Both RIME and Interlink have other conferences with various titles relating to "engineering" that deal with technical matters of tele- comm on that plane. At the moment, a move is afoot to get a "telecom" conference underway on RIME. BBSes: 1.) The Well, San Francisco (415) 331-6106. Reported in recent trade press to be "open to the public," but found on dialing to be a sub- scription board with a $25 sign-up fee and monthly usage billing. The press further indicated The Well was reachable with "any combina- tion of computer, modem and communications software," but on dialing, I found it requires 7-E-1 on line, as opposed to the 8-N-1 most BBSes use. The Well is reported to have been rated "Best On-line Publica- ton" by the Computer Press Association (whoever _they_ are), but one has to pay to find out if it's that good. Press reports The Well "carries a telecommunications conference on a wide range of topics ... carries related topics on telecommunications legal issues, computer networking, infomration services and computing in general." A voice phone line is reported to be (415) 332-4335. 2.) Private Line, Austin, TX (512) 452-7399. A privte bbs operated by telecommunications consultant William Degnan. Carries a large library of telecom-related files. Also a Fidonet node, for those who can use that route. 3.) MCIOne, Washington, DC (number unlisted). A closed bbs operated by MCI Telecommunications for telecom consultants and other parties qualified by MCI as of interest to its users and MCI. Only persons first qualified by MCI staff are given the number to dial, and callers are then validated by the MCIOne sysop before being given access. Has general conferences, and libraries of MCI pricing information and gen- eral telecom-related files and programs contributed by its participants. 4.) St. Petersburg Program Exchange, St. Petersburg, FL (813) 527-5666 (9600-1200) and (813) 525-2336 (2400-1200). A rather busy general-pur- pose BBS, with a sysop interested and participative in telecomm discus- sions. Carries some 200 confereences on RIME, Interlink and MediaNet, with all the telecom-related conferences of each carried. A good place to get listings of the various relayed net conferences indicated above. I hope this list is helpful, and that others may have more to add to it. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 20:40:37 EST From: Steve Gaarder Subject: Anyone Want an Old Dial Intercom? I have an authentic piece of 1A2 key equipment - an 8-station dial intercom unit, equipped for rotary or touch-tone. I believe it was the first such unit to use tones. It's taking up space here - pay shipping and it's yours. Steve Gaarder gaarder@theory.tn.cornell.edu ...!batcomputer!gaarder ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 18:33:07 EST From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <74386@bu.edu.bu.edu>, stoll@ux5.lbl.gov (Cliff Stoll) writes: > Oh! Lafayette, Allied, and Olson's! > Sweet memories of pawing through inch thick catalogs of capacitors, > diodes, and switches. The Sears & Roebuck catalog for technofolks. > Now -- check out the Chicago surplus outfit ... uh, what's its name > ... the one with the wonderful ad copy and cheap paper... > [Moderator's Note: How odd ... I don't know which company you mean. > Answers, anyone? PAT] How about Olson Radio? They always seemed a lot less professional than either Allied or Lafayette. They weren't from Chicago, but some other Midwest city. Herman Silbiger [Moderator's Note: There was an Olson Radio in addition to Olson Electronics? Separate companies? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 20:45:09 EST From: Steve Gaarder Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack In article <74386@bu.edu.bu.edu> Cliff Stoll writes: >Now -- check out the Chicago surplus outfit ... uh, what's its name > ... the one with the wonderful ad copy and cheap paper... The outfit in question can only be Jerryco, 601 Linden Place, Evanston. They have stores in Chicago and Milwaukee. Not a lot of electronics in their catalog, but it's worth getting just to read the whacko copy. Steve Gaarder gaarder@theory.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Audio Caller*ID Date: 10 Feb 91 20:32:51 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <74316@bu.edu.bu.edu>, malcolm@apple.com (Malcolm Slaney) writes: > Which brings me to a more interesting point ... has anybody made a box > that translates a CID phone number into an audio message? It doesn't > seem very useful to me if I have to get up out of my easy chair and go > to the little box to see what's on the display ... besides I suspect > I'll have more phones in my house than CID displays. Maybe this won't > be a problem in the future when every phone has a little display > showing the CID. I have recently connected a ClassMate (Caller*ID 'modem' discussed here recently) to a Votrax Type-N-Talk speeck synthesys device. The Type-N-Talk, for those not familiar with it, is a box that translates a stream of ASCII characters into synthetic speech. It attempts to pronounce strings of alpha characters, using 'American English' and it pronounces strings of digits as literal strings of digits. While my phone is ringing, several strategically-placed loudspeakers read out the date, time, and calling number. Unfortunately, the record layout is such that the caller's number is the last field pronounced, after the date and time (which, since it is in real time, is generally already known!). As I write this article, a call arrives. The speakers chat away, while the telephone sets ring, sort of: RING RING zero two one zero one four five seven RING RING nine zero eight six four seven three eight three nine. What it means is that we got a call today (02/10) at 2:57pm (14:57) from (908) 647 3839. The 'special characters' :, /, (, ), and - which appear in the ClassMate output are spoken as 500 msec or so of silence. Note that four rings went by while this announcement played. One more and the answering machine will answer the call! 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: John McHarry Subject: Re: Caller-ID Technical Question Organization: The MITRE Corporation Date: 11 Feb 91 00:42:40 GMT >[Moderator's Note: Precisely my point! I cannot imagine telco >encouraging people to NOT answer their phone. If the calling party >does not connect then there is no profit for telco. Call Screening is >an exception, but please note it is one of the higher priced features I did not advocate not answering calls from unknown numbers. I agree that that would not be too bright. On the other hand, I do see usefulness in treating certain known numbers differently from general callers. As is, my mother calls, lets the phone ring about three times, and then calls back immediately. I think the phone company would get a better connect rate if she could let it ring, safe from my answering machine. I could also then set the machine to pick up on the first ring, improving the connect rate for all the other calls. As I mentioned in a previous submission, I could even have a machine pick up on those I don't like and play them a message at their expense, but not take a message. Known fax callers could be routed to the fax machine. Calls from my work number could go straight to telemetry on the state of the heating system, etc., etc. ------------------------------ From: Paul Gauthier Subject: Re: 'Free' Check in the Mail (was: MCI Pays to Switch) Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Date: Sun, 10 Feb 1991 12:08:28 -0400 In article <16678@accuvax.nwu.edu> GUYDOSRM@splava.cc.plattsburgh.edu (Ray Guydosh) writes: >> I received a mail promotion for MCI Primetime accompanied by a gift -- >> a Twenty Dollar check in my name. >> From the promotional literature: "Don't forget to endorse your check >> before depositing or cashing it. With your signature, you authorize >> MCI to notify your local telephone company to switch your primary long >> distance service to MCI PrimeTime (SM)." Wouldn't this kind of thing fall under the law regarding unsolicited gifts? If a company puts a toaster on my doorstep and then asks for some compensation, I'm allowed to keep the toaster as a gift unless I in some way solicited it. Is there a parallel here? Paul Gauthier | gauthier@ug.cs.dal.ca President, Cerebral Computer Technologies | tyrant@dalac.bitnet Phone: (902)462-8217 Fax: (send email first) | tyrant@ac.dal.ca [Moderator's Note: No, it would not be an unsolicited gift because it has no value until after you sign the contract which accompanies it. If the check had no conditions attached to its encashment and was offered to you specifically as a gift from MCI in exchange for your consideration of their offer then it would be an 'unsolicited gift'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 17:49:43 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: 'Free' Check in the Mail Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu Fortunately, many (most) banks will accept checks for deposit *without* endorsement ... # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / # via X.400: S=mensch; OU=informatik; P=tu-muenchen; A=dbp; C=de [Moderator's Note: This is true, however the bank in that case acts as your agent; assumes to act in your best interest and endorses the check for you with one of their own. You must have seen something similar to this on the back of a check: "Pay to the order of the within named payee. Absence of endorsement guarenteed by XYZ Bank." Some smart-alecks might suggest at this point MCI has the right to convert the bank's phones to MCI one-plus. Of course what it really means is in the event the payor refuses to pay based on the lack of a 'qualified and complete endorsement' the bank will accept the check back and in turn charge it back to your account. Most parts of a check can be omitted without too much hassle. I've received checks the issuer 'forgot' to sign. Where the signature would go (but is missing) I rubber-stamp a message: "Signature guarenteed by Patrick Townson". I've never had a check marked that way be returned unpaid. If I did, then I'd be no worse off than before I put it in. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy Date: 10 Feb 91 21:21:10 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article <74338@bu.edu.bu.edu>, gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > If you call 1-800-544-7544, you can get complete information about the > fund holdings in Fidelity Funds of anyone whose social security number > you know. Another silly case of someone's stupidity in implementing something that gives telephone based applications a black eye. Here in Boston, the now in trouble Bank of New England has a horribly stupid scheme. Your checking and savings account funds can be remotely transfered back and forth, and the current balances read by almost anyone. 99%+ of Mass drivers have their SSN as their drivers license #, and virtually every merchant accepting a check over the counter writes your drivers license on the back. The last four digits of your SSN are your PIN, and so a typical merchant can easily dial that bank's computer, enter your account number and PIN (both on your check at this point), and, noting that you are a tad short on checking account funds, simply move some from your savings to your checking. The bank has NO way to let you specify an alternate PIN. All accounts get phone access by default. The only suggestion they had when I pointed out the stupidity of this was to suggest that they could disable the service for customers so requesting! [Moderator's Note: First National Bank of Chicao has such a 'bank by phone' system here, but you pick your own PIN and are encouraged to change it frequently. FNB / Chicago may be going down the tubes soon along with Continental Bank (for the second time!) but at least they are security concious. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #109 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06660; 11 Feb 91 5:04 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03088; 11 Feb 91 3:37 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04920; 11 Feb 91 2:30 CST Date: Mon, 11 Feb 91 1:38:10 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #110 BCC: Message-ID: <9102110138.ab16412@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Feb 91 01:37:55 CST Volume 11 : Issue 110 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson USI Nationwide Communications [TELECOM Moderator] AT&T Answers My Complaint [Douglas Scott Reuben] An Odd Thing Happened When I Placed a Call [technews@iitmax.iit.edu] Ohio Bell and Caller ID [David R. Zinkin] Bellcore V&H Tape Needed [Steve Forrette] Information Needed About New Switches [Barton F. Bruce] Rent A 900 Number [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Caller*ID Technical Question [Dave Levenson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 91 0:46:45 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: USI Nationwide Communications A new aggregator (at least I've not heard of them before) is a company called USI Communications of Orlando, FL. They offer AT&T one-plus service at pretty inexpensive rates according to the literature sent to me by their representative. They bill in six-second increments, and have a $12 per month fee for their service. You get billed direct by AT&T. In addition to direct dialing, this company also offers a 'Convenience Card' with nationwide 800 access. Calls billed on the card are at a flat rate of twenty cents per minute (actually .1930 plus .0068 tax, total .1998). There is no surcharge for calls billed to the card. They do however require that you pre-pay for blocks of time in $50 increments. In other words, you pay them $50 or more, then use the money on calls. When your reserve gets low, you send more money. They also offer Voice Mail, which they call their Voice Communication System. It can be used in connection with the 800 access number for your convenience card at the same twenty cents per minute rate. This appears to be a Storre and Forward service as well. 900 service is also available from USI, via AT&T's Multiquest program. They charge $750 installation and $100 per month thereafter. They can either route you to a voice mailbox or a live telephone. If to voicemail, they charge 45 cents for the first minute and 40 cents for each additional minute. Rates to a live phone are 50 cents for the first minute and 45 cents for each additional minute. They also collect 30 percent of the amount charged to each caller. Billing and collection is done by AT&T, and AT&T must also approve the programming content on 900 numbers. USI can provide 800 numbers to you. They charge $100 installation and $25 per month per 800 number. They can route it to voice mail at 20 cents per minute or to a live telephone at 30 cents per minute. Voicemail for either 900 or 800 number terminations ranges in cost from $12 to $40 per month depending on what features are desired such as message capacity, length of outgoing message, etc. This organization is also looking for independent distributors to resell their products and services. Here, things start looking a little like a multi-level-marketing type approach: You pay $50 per year as a distributor fee, then you get 5% commission on the billings of subscribers you signed up, etc. These commissions go on forever, I guess, as long as your yearly distributor fee is paid and your customer remains on line also. USI Nationwide Communications: 201 South Orange Avenue, Suite 800 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: 407-423-7592 But I do not think they will deal direct with you. They will tell you to go through one of the distributors, in which case I guess you could contact the fellow who sent me the literature: Roy P. Nelson Parks Marketing, Ltd. 33 Royal Street North Quincy, MA 02170 617-471-8850 You do not have to be a distributor (i.e. $50 annual fee with residuals from customers you sign up) to merely be a customer. You can sign up for any of their services as is ... but a person wanting to get into a new line of business might want to look at the distributorship deal also. I would like to add that Sprint now also offers an MLM type deal where you get 5% commissions on customers you sign up ... but I don't have the specifics on their plan yet. PAT ------------------------------ Date: 11-FEB-1991 00:40:25.37 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: AT&T Answers My Complaint Hello all, In case you may not recall, a few weeks ago a friend of mine was trying to call Israel on her (and later, my) Calling Card, and was unable to because calls were blocked. I wrote one of my usual "letters to telephone companies" to AT&T to let them know my feeling about this, which was kindly reprinted here. (The letter was to Robert Allen at AT&T, with the standard "This is what happened, this is what I am upset about, I am a long-time and/or faithful customer, I don't like being treated this way, I demand you correct this, Thank you for your time and attention in thision in this matter. ", etc. letter, which I generally send out to some telco/cell-co or other on a mnthly basis..:( ) I received the following FAX in response, as per my request. It was dated Feb 10th, 1991, although I received it on Feb. 6th. Odd... ------------- Mr. Reuben, I have been asked to respond to your questions regarding the blocking of calling card calls to Israel. Let me start by apologizing for the inconvenience you have experienced. We value you as a customer, and we strive for excellence in serving you. The handling of your call was not in accordance with our standard operator procedures in these circumstances, and I have asked that all of our operators receive a refresher on handling calling card calls which have been blocked for fraud reasons. If you have the name of the operator to whom you spoke, I will personally follow up with their supervisor, to ensure that corrective action is taken. As you know, the call you attempted to Israel was temporarily blocked due to calling card fraud. This system of blocking certain phones at certain times is for the protection of the card holder. Occasionally, someone will obtain a lost or stolen calling card, and will sell calls to overseas countries using the card number for billing. Every compromised calling card number began as the card number of a good customer. The actual process of blocking certain countries is based on a computer system that screens high levels of fraud. This system is set up to shut down all calls to a particular area from the phone or phones experiencing this fraud until the data can be analized by our Corporate Security Office. Limiting fraudulent use of cards allows us to pass on the savings to our customers in lower overall long distance prices. Because of the inconvenience that this block causes our good customers, it is only used where and when card calling has become extremely unprofitable. I cannot comment on the methods of other long distance carriers, other than to state that my knowledge of their similar fraud control procedures most likely comes from the same forums through which you orignally became acquainted with this practice. I am sorry that due to the proprietary nature of our fraud controls that I am not at liberty to reveal the methods, times, or places where it may be enforced. For the present, where blocking is encountered, the alternative billing methods of charging to a third number, and collect calling are available. In conclusion, let me assure you that a more effective, less disruptive method of fraud control is under development, along with a new, more secure card product which will soon be entering the marketplace. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience that you may have been caused. If you have any other questions, or if I can be of other assistance, please call me collect on (201) 644-1951. Peter Coulter Manager - AT&T International ----------- A few thoughts: 1. Interesting and thorough letter (addressed all my points). What one would expect from AT&T. 2. What is this new "Calling Card product"? A Pac*Bell like calling card which does NOT have your name and only shows you PIN? (But has a magstripe on the back ...) (Pac*Bell used to have these ... I dunno if they changed or not. NYTel also had these holographic cards, with only your PIN. I orderd LOTS of these because my friends like the holograph!) 3. If they base "blocking" on the degree of fraud from said phone (or group of phones), how come some Pac*Bell payphones in Truckee, CA (right off of I-80, near the west-most Tahoe exit, for CA-89) block these calls? I use these phones a lot (they are at a Safeway - probably the only Safeway there, just a few hundred feet north of I-80, near the BoA), and on July 4th, I tried calling Egypt, and guess what? Calls were blocked. I got on my Cell phone, pulled in the Reno, NV system (Cell One), and dialed through there. I was reimbursed for the call, so not too important, but I can't figure how much fraud they get in Truckee! I mean, how many people stop off at Safeway's to call Egypt? The same thing happened a week later just south of Stockton, at a BP station on I-5. A lot of fraud in Stockton? A lot of *anything* in Stockton?? :) ) 4. I'm glad to see that at least they agree with me that the operators should not give pathetic answers like "NJ and the country you are calling do not have a billing agreement" ... Please ... sounds like Metro Mobile as to why my phone doesn't work in XXX city. I rarely listen to anything Metro says anymore, and I'm glad to see that AT&T takes this a bit more seriously, and does not just give out any info to appease their cusotmers. Next time, I'll try calling the International Center and ask to be put through via them. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Thanks for passing this along to the Digest. In fairness to AT&T I will add they do now have a tariff in place which allows selective blocking of credit card calls when fraud has become a problem. See Tariff # 1 Section 2.9.5, as per a footnote in the International Calling Guide. PAT] ------------------------------ From: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Tech News Account) Subject: An Odd Thing Happened When I Placed a Call Reply-To: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Tech News Account) Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology Date: Mon, 11 Feb 91 03:40:07 GMT I was calling a local BBS, and got several rings, then a click and I heard, slightly muted but sometimes understandable, several different conversations -- all at the same time! I tried speaking, but I nor they heard my own voice. While listening, I heard someone answer a phone, and say Foobar Clinic (I forgot the actual name) may I help you? I then looked up Foobar in the phone book, called on the other line, and heard BOTH sides of the (short) conversation with the receptionist on the first line. I looked up the BBS`s prefix and that of the clinic -- both are in the same switching center. Anybody have any idea what this was? How to get it more reliably? (It has happened about once every month or so, always on the old line (with call waiting)) and the voices are NOT encrypted in any way. Any ideas what is going on? Technology News- IIT`s weekly student newspaper. Subscriptions available. kadokev@iitvax.bitnet technews@iitmax.edu My employer disagrees. [Monderator's Note: Sounds to me like you have some good old crosstalk out there at 31st and Armour Avenue. Are you sure you want it 'more reliably' or LESS of it? Any technical advice from anyone? PAT] ------------------------------ From: "David R. Zinkin" Subject: Ohio Bell and Caller ID Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 91 06:26:32 GMT I just called Ohio Bell and asked when we in the Cleveland, Ohio area would be offered Caller-ID service. The service representative told me that first, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio has to approve it, but as soon as they do, we would get it. I was also told that the approval process would be faster if more people call in to say they want the service. For now, though, does anyone know if Ohio Bell is actually offering Caller-ID in any of its service areas on an experimental basis? When I asked the service rep, I was told that such information was "privileged". So -- as always -- I'll use this forum to find out. (Hopefully, anyway.) Thanks, David Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu) -- Rochester General Hospital Radiology (Consultant) and Case Western Reserve Univ. (Psychology/Chemistry) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Feb 91 18:06:19 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Bellcore V&H Tape Needed Is there an FTPable copy of the Bellcore V&H tape laying around somewhere? I know it's a lot of information, but maybe somebody has more disc space than they need (yea, right!). If not, would someone be willing to "loan" me their copy? I assume that it comes on 1600 bpi 9-track, which I can deal with. I'd be willing to pay freight, etc. Thanks in advance, Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Information Needed About New Switches Date: 10 Feb 91 22:52:05 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. Does anyone know about a new AT&T switch called the Merlin Legend? 80 tks, 224 sta, 108 simultaneous conversations. Targets replacing the 25, and the Merlin II, and uses some Merlin II cards. Price? Features? Does anyone know about Generic 1004 for Mitel SD-200Ds? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 91 0:56:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Rent A 900 Number An easy and financially painless way to test your 900 marketing skills is available now from a fellow here in the Chicago area who rents ready to use 900 numbers. His deal is you sign a one page contract identifying the nature of the line. Your contract is month-to-month, thirty days termination notice required. First month's rent is $300; subsequent months are $200 each. All his lines are passive, or one-way outbound announcements only. All are fed from his voicemail system. Each number can handle up to 1000 calls at a time. The rates are set at $2 per minute for a maximum call of five minutes. You get $1.25, the service bureau gets 75 cents, which they split with Sprint, the supplier of the numbers. You see the man one day, sign the contract and pay the rent. The line is turned on within a few minutes. A separate number is used to call into the machine to record your message, count your calls, etc. As I said, it is not really a bad deal for someone who has considered starting a 900 number for whatever reason but is afraid of losing their shirt financially in the process of getting started. Most 900 suppliers want a grand or more up front and a commitment. This guy says as long as you want to rent his for $200 per month you can. $2 per minute means 100 call minutes per month to pay him off ... if your outbound message is five minutes long that is 20 calls per month to break even ... if you can't do that much in a month you have no business talking about a 900 number. Contact Wayne Barnett, 708-953-6299 for more specifics or to rent your own 900 number for a month or two and see if you can do something with it. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Caller-ID Technical Question Date: 11 Feb 91 03:22:00 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <74363@bu.edu.bu.edu>, larson@snmp.sri.com (Alan Larson) writes: > As I understand it, Caller-ID works by sending the information out > after the first or second ring. Why doesn't it send it out before the > first ring, so the phone could know if it was to ring at all. The Caller*ID display devices I have seen use the first ring to turn on the detector, and then sense the data carrier. Data preceding the first ring would not be noticed by these devices. One could certainly build a device that intercepts the first ring, and doesn't pass it through to the telephone instrument until it has received and processed the Caller*ID transmission. I have not seen such a device on the market yet, however. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #110 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13905; 12 Feb 91 6:46 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09541; 12 Feb 91 4:58 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12941; 12 Feb 91 3:48 CST Date: Tue, 12 Feb 91 3:09:11 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #111 BCC: Message-ID: <9102120309.ab06734@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Feb 91 03:08:55 CST Volume 11 : Issue 111 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson I Got Swamped Today! Please Help!!! [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Answer Supervision From Loop Start Circuits [Dave Levenson] Re: Wanted: Ring Indicator (With Memory) [Julian Macassey] Re: 800 Scrambled ANI [Dave Levenson] Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [David Lemson] What is CNA and What Does it do? [David R. Zinkin] Re: AT&T Answers My Complaint [Ravinder Bhumbla] Re: How Will Digital Cellular Increase Capacity? [Dave Levenson] Re: How Will Digital Cellular Increase Capacity? [John T. Ellis] Re: How Will Digital Cellular Increase Capacity? [David Svoboda] Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! [Brandon S. Allbery] Telecom SIG on Compuserve Now Open (GO TELECOM) [Bob Izenberg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 91 2:17:57 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: I Got Swamped Today! Please Help!!! I don't know if it is my good looks and charm, my wit, your prolific nature or what .... telecom got hit today with over 200 new messages! Even after extensive screening and elimination of duplicates I've got enough here to publish Digests for the rest of this week without running out ... Can we please at this time close the existing threads on Radio Shack, Allied, and a few others that have been open a couple weeks. Also may I respectfully request ** no more messages ** except news and urgent items at least until about Wednesday night? Naturally I will push news and dated stuff of importance to the head of the queue, so send it in ... but if someone else is Re'ing on a topic, hold yours unless it *really* says something new and different. Thanks, and happy reading! PAT ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Answer Supervision From Loop Start Circuits Date: 11 Feb 91 03:29:16 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <74365@bu.edu.bu.edu>, csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) writes: > Tom Lowe describes a costly and painful procedure for extracting > answer supervision from NJ Bell. ... > Solution: order CENTREX. That's it! No special tariffs, no unnecessary > pain (other than the usual CENTREX programming screw-ups), and you get > features as part of the deal. The answer supervision is provided as an > OSI (Open Switch Interval) at least on 3*Way calls, and possibly on > single outbound calls when served by a #1ESS. #5s and their ilk are > another question. I would like to know what sort of central office John is talking about. Here in NJ, I have seen Centrex provided by 5 crossbar, 1ESS, 1AESS, and 5ESS. None of those switches routinely provide answer supervision to centrex subscriber lines. What all of these switches do provide is an open circuit interval (500 msec for ESS, ~100 msec for 5 crossbar) when the far end party disconnects. This is not supervision. This indicates an abandoned call, and is provided to the remaining party after the other party has disconnected, on both originating and terminating calls. Answer supervision, which indicates when the called party has answered, is provided under tarriff, and usually consists of a battery reversal toward the calling party when the called party answers. 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: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Wanted: Ring Indicator (With Memory) Date: 11 Feb 91 04:30:32 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <74346@bu.edu.bu.edu> stehle@erg.sri.com writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 103, Message 5 of 12 >I am looking for an add-on accessory that would be placed on a >two-wire telephone line (with a T connection) that would indicate that >the ringing voltage has appeared on the line. Ok, this is simple. You need a gong ringer and a dime. Wire up the gong ringer, but the gong must be open and accessable. Place a dime on the gong. If you find the dime on the floor, the phone has rung. This system was used in Copenhagen Denmark where the phones on Semi Automatic COs had a gong ringer top. Subscribers would place a 5 Oere (Ears) coin on the gong before going out. This was a poor substitute for a Phone Answering machine. But hey, it was cheap if you kept using the same coin. 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 ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: 800 Scrambled ANI Date: 11 Feb 91 03:43:32 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <74381@bu.edu.bu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: In reply to what > Mark Steiger writes: > You are being put on, big time. When you dial any number, the switch > you are dialing into is programed to "pre-translate" or expect a > certain number of digits based on the first digits you dial. If you > dial "1-800" the switch will expect seven more digits and then becomes > deaf to any more. There are no secret back doors here. Some of MCS's 800 service subscribers receive ANI from MCI in the form of a string of DTMF immediately after they answer, and before the voice channel is cut through. If the called party's CPE is stupid enough, it may be possible to send _it_ some extra DTMF digits after the voice channel is cust through, and fool it. At best, however, this would only work with those MCI customers who use brain-damaged ANI receiving systems. 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: David Lemson Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Mon, 11 Feb 1991 04:29:26 GMT Jim.Redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu (Jim Redelfs) writes: >On 30-JAN-91, Robert Savery wrote: >> An AT&T phone is no "safer" than one of the el-cheepos. >True ... but at least you'll SOUND better to the listeners! :) >[Moderator's Note: Maybe or maybe not. There was a sort of >'Pepsi challenge'-like contest a few years ago where people recieved >calls placed from various models of cordless phones including AT&T. >All were placed under the same conditions; same distance from base, >etc. They were to identify one model of cordless phone from another. >Most of the people could not identify the specific phone being used >and about half the people could perceive no difference in quality. >Radios are radios are radios. There are too many variables involved to >firmly place the blame or good points with any one model. PAT] Another problem with a challenge like this is that it tests the transmission from the handset to the base only. If I'm not mistaken (and I'm sure people will be quite rapid to tell me if I'm not), the base unit does a much better job receiving the handset than vice versa due to its much better antenna. Also, I believe that some models (or was this just the earlier ones?) use the ground wire of the AC as an antenna to pick up the handheld unit. Whether or not this is technically true, I know from personal experience with about five different types of cordless phones that there is always much less static on the way from handset to base than base to handset. This once allowed me to receive a call next door, pick it up, hear nothing by static on my end, and tell the caller to hold on while I crossed over to my own house. He reported no static the whole time. David Lemson U of Illinois Computing Services Student Consultant Internet : lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana ------------------------------ From: "David R. Zinkin" Subject: What is CNA and What Does it do? Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 91 06:28:26 GMT I frequently see requests in the TELECOM Digest for "CNA" numbers for specific areas. What does "CNA" mean, and what are these numbers for? For that matter, if they serve a useful purpose, does anyone know the CNA numbers for Rochester, NY (area code 716 -- my home) and Cleveland, OH (area code 216 -- my school)? Thanks (again!), David Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu) -- Rochester General Hospital Radiology (Consultant) and Case Western Reserve Univ. (Psychology/Chemistry) [Moderator's Note: CNA = 'Customer Name and Address' Bureau. It is the departmetn or division within each telco which keeps track of what name and address go with what phone number. It should not be confused with the 'Non-Pub' bureau, which may or may not be part of the CNA but is in charge of keeping non-published numbers under lock and key and available on a 'need to know' basis to authorized telco employees. CNA is not usually a publicly available service. It is usually intended only for use internally by telco employees, but there are exceptions such as Chicago (Bell of Illinois and Centel) where 312-796-9600 is a public facility with a 50 cent (I think) charge for the use of the cross-reference directory. Some other telcos offer this as well. Our correspondent Randy Borow from here in the Chicago area has passed along a couple of CNA phone numbers for public use -- maybe he can provide the ones for your area also -- provided they are intended for the public! No confidential internal numbers please. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ravinder Bhumbla Subject: Re: AT&T Answers My Complaint Date: 11 Feb 91 08:20:32 GMT Reply-To: Ravinder Bhumbla Organization: University of California, San Diego In article <74445@bu.edu.bu.edu> DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: [about the letter from Mr. Peter Coulter, Manager - AT&T International about international call blocking from payphones] I went through the letter twice and (correct me if I'm wrong), all he is saying is that if you want to make international calls from a payphone, they have to be: (a) collect calls, or (b) third-party billed calls, or, of course (something he didn't mention) (c) coin calls. When I had written a similar letter to Mr. Robert Allen last year, the local AT&T representative who had called in response had suggested another option: (d) mention her name and ask the operator (or the supervisor on duty) to lift the blocking for that particular call. As I had mentioned in an earlier message, that did work for me when I encountered call blocking on a *residential* phone. So, that might be another thing to try if you need to make an international call from a pay phone. Ravinder Bhumbla rbhumbla@ucsd.edu U. of California, San Diego ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: How Will Digital Cellular Increase Capacity? Date: 12 Feb 91 00:58:33 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <74390@bu.edu.bu.edu>, telpc!tel@cdsdb1.att.com writes: > Could someone please post something describing how digital cellular will > increase capacity? My supervisor and others in my group were trying to > figure it out. The proposed digital standards would multiplex three voice channels on each radio channel, thus trippling the traffic capacity of each existing cell site with no increase in spectrum space. 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: John T Ellis Subject: Re: How Will Digital Cellular Increase Capacity? Date: 11 Feb 91 14:37:15 GMT Reply-To: John T Ellis Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hghs, IL Digital cellular will increase capacity in the following manner. The first method under development (and actually being tested) is TDM - Time Division Multiplexing. The capacity increase on paper is 3:1 (3 times more than current analog). The other method being looked at is CDM - Code Division Multiplexing. On paper it is said to provide an increase of 20:1. The biggest problem with these new technologies is the size of the phone needed to implement them. Currently the phone designs call for some huge ie. garbage can, phone with an unbelievable power source. So ... digital cellular is a ways off. Motorola is currently working on a new technology called NAMPS - Narrow band Advanced Mobile Phone Service. This is an analog technology that will increase capacity of current analog systems 3:1. Hope this helps. John T. Ellis 708-632-7857 Motorola Cellular motcid!ellis@chg.mcd.mot.com ------------------------------ From: David Svoboda Subject: Re: How Will Digital Cellular Increase Capacity? Date: 11 Feb 91 16:37:31 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL One capacity limitation of current cellular is available bandwidth. By lowering the bandwidth required by each speech channel, the total capacity may be increased while maintaining the current total bandwidth allotment of cellular. Assuming that a digital transmission of raw PCM data would require roughly the same bandwidth as the corresponding analog signal, the PCM speech data can be compressed by DSP techniques to require less bandwidth. In fact, as the US standard now stands, a souped-up LPC technique is used to achieve a robust three to one capacity increase per RF channel over analog. Dave Svoboda, Motorola CID, RTSG, Arlington Heights, IL uucp => {uunet|mcdchg|att}!motcid!svoboda internet => svoboda@void.rtsg.mot.com ------------------------------ From: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR" Subject: Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR" Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 1991 17:57:03 GMT As quoted from <16667@accuvax.nwu.edu> by prg@mgweed.uucp (Gunsul): | (CB) with no hassle. For that matter, I think the FCC has banned the | use of linear amps in ten meters also; they're not fooled! About 25 It's illegal to *sell* ten meter linear amplifiers commercially, but legal for hams to alter linear amps for ten meters for their own use. You can also sell them non-commercially (e.g. at hamfest flea markets or the local swap-and-shop net). Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY ------------------------------ From: Bob Izenberg Subject: Telecom SIG on CompuServe Now Open (GO TELECOM) Date: 11 Feb 91 08:53:19 GMT I just chanced across the Telecommunications Issues SIG on CompuServe. They were in the process of reorganizing it even while I was reading, as topics came and went in the menus while I was hopping between subject areas. The first message that I saw was one by Our Moderator, naturally. ;-) It's no TELECOM Digest (not yet, anyway) but it's there. Bob [Moderator's Note: Well hey! They offered to throw my flag when I come to visit that group provided I post a few biased and bigoted messages each time I call on them ... something to stir up the hate and discontent and keep the meter running on others :) Such a deal! How could I refuse their generosity, especially since I am charged with the solemn duty of providing fuel for the flames in comp.org.eff.talk from time to time. Yes, the Compuserve SIG is now open for business. You can reach it by GO TELECOM from any CIS prompt. On my first couple visits there I was impressed by the work the sysops have done to get it set up. If you have a CIS account at least give it a look. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #111 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14935; 12 Feb 91 7:49 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11028; 12 Feb 91 6:14 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09541; 12 Feb 91 5:00 CST Date: Tue, 12 Feb 91 3:58:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #112 BCC: Message-ID: <9102120358.ab17508@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Feb 91 03:58:20 CST Volume 11 : Issue 112 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Maybe it Really is Time for Telecommunications Competition [P da Silva] Re: Maybe it Really is Time for Telecommunications Competition [D. Herrick] Re: Maybe it Really is Time for Telecommunications Competition [A. Walker] Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Dale Neiburg, NPR via John R. Covert] Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [John Luce] Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil] Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Owen M. Hartnett] A Nostalgic Look at Olson [Macy Hallock] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Maybe it Really is Time for Telecommunications Competition Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Tue, 12 Feb 1991 01:31:17 GMT In article <74411@bu.edu.bu.edu>, dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > In article <74348@bu.edu.bu.edu>, abvax!iccgcc.DNET!herrickd@ > uunet.uu.net (Dan Herrick) writes: > > Every community of any size in the United States now has a second > > company with a switch for providing public phone service - the > > non-wireline cellular phone provider.... > The wiring to the cell sites is a drop in the bucket compared to the > wiring to every wired telephone in the community. But the local cable company has wires going into a large proportion of the homes. Why not run broadband to the local cable box and then have something like the "transceiver" box I suggested for rural areas carrying dial-tone from there to the house? What's the capacity of broadband over coax for that sort of distance? There's no reason to wire pairs from every house to the CO... (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 91 21:43:00 EDT From: Dan Herrick Subject: Re: Maybe it Really is Time for Telecommunications Competition In article <74411@bu.edu.bu.edu>, dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > In article <74348@bu.edu.bu.edu>, abvax!iccgcc.DNET!herrickd@ > uunet.uu.net (Dan Herrick) writes: >> Every community of any size in the United States now has a second >> company with a switch for providing public phone service - the >> non-wireline cellular phone provider. His cellular system includes a >> network of cell transceivers connected together with copper wires and >> optic fibers and radio/microwave connections. (They even buy some of >> those connections from the wireline providers, I'm sure.) >> What prevents a non-wireline cellular provider from starting to offer >> POTS - Plain Old Telephone Service? There has to be one out there >> with capacity to spare owned by a curmudgeon spoiling for a good >> competitive fight. > The wiring to the cell sites is a drop in the bucket compared to the > wiring to every wired telephone in the community. For the cellular > provider to wire the whole city would require a staggering investment. A new provider does not need wiring to every wired telephone in the community. He needs wiring from his existing network to the phones of anyone who is willing to pay his hookup fee and continuing charges. Start the way MCI did: Choose one place where there are enough phones to justify the cost of the physical plant and sell the connection. The PBX in this building has between 500 and 1000 phones on it. It would be a good candidate if it were within a mile of a node on the cellular provider's network. The phone customer in the building might like redundancy enough to move half his phone service to an alternate carrier. Such a contract would justify free installation of a couple miles of optical fiber and related electronics. > Most local telcos probably couldn't afford to do that if their > existing cable plant were wiped out tomorrow and they had to rewire > from scratch at today's prices. They wouldn't do it with copper pairs, as they did the first time. They would use some combination of optical fiber and the same coax the tv cable companies use. The tv cable companies found the wherewithall to wire from scratch quite recently. > We can, of course, already use the local non-wireline cellular > provider's switch for local calls today. Just replace your wired > telephone set with a fixed-location cellular set. What I was suggesting is that the service provider would find it profitable to make people want to do something equivalent to this. > But the usage rate is generally not competitive with existing > local telco rates. That's because there is enough value added and novelty in cellular (mobile) technology that hundreds of thousands of people gladly pay through the nose to use it. The proposal is to offer another service using the same physical plant and less value added for less money. > Also, the local cellular provider buys 'dial tone' in bulk from the > local telco, Is this always true? I believe there are other ways to get dial tone. In fact, doesn't he get dial tone from his own switch and route the call a) Directly to another cellular phone on his system b) Over a T1 to the LEC if it is a local call c) Over a T1 to some LD supplier if it is not local (or he can get the local connection more cheaply by connecting to the telco network on the other side of some imaginary line > so there is little real alternative in this approach. Fallacies in this assertion: 1) The cellular provider is much more important to the LEC than I am and can command more attention from their technical people. 2) The cellular provider buys enough dial tone that it is realistic for him to explore other suppliers than the LEC. 3) This "little real alternative" argument applies in exactly the same way to the A and B cellular channels - however some prefer to buy from the wireline carrier and some prefer to buy from the lottery winner, and postings here display fierce loyalties in both directions. The customers seem to perceive a very real alternative. The original telephone wiring started in disconnected islands that slowly grew and interconnected. The electric power utility started in areas where there were lots of potential customers and grew from there. The existing cellular phone system started where the population is most congested and spread from there. Do you remember when UPS had a small but growing list of cities they served? Competitive phone service will begin where there are lots of potential customers and the LEC is abusing his monopoly status. John Higdon has been scathing in his descriptions of the service provided by Pac*Bell (why does he put the * in there?). If their service is only half as bad as he says it is, they are creating a business opportunity for someone else to come in and provide good service for a reasonable price. And current technology removes any credibility that the "natural monopoly" arguments ever had. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ------------------------------ From: Amanda Walker Subject: Re: Maybe it Really is Time for Telecommunications Competition! Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA Date: Mon, 11 Feb 91 17:50:47 GMT Dan Herrick writes: > Do you think local telephone service costs too much? Rent some capacity > from the local cellular provider and take some business away from your > monopoly LEC. Actually, I have been debating doing just that. If you factor in value-added services, Cell One is almost cheaper than C&P, even with airtime charges. Since there's a cell site a block away from my apartment, it's even practical for non-mobile use, and I get: - free voice mail - a local calling area that includes all of the DC and Baltimore metropolitan areas (this can be *very* handy) - prompt, helpful customer service - often, faster call completion - fewer service interruptions And, best of all, my cellular phone number wasn't previously owned by a tortilla manufacturer :). The next time C&P screws up, I'll probably try it, at least for a while... Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 91 08:21:58 PST From: John R. Covert Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack From: Dale Neiburg Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack Organization: National Public Radio Date: 11 Feb 91 10:03 EST In TELECOM Digest, vol. 11, issue 106, the following exchange occurs between Cliff Stoll and the Moderator: >Now -- check out the Chicago surplus outfit ... uh, what's its name > ... the one with the wonderful ad copy and cheap paper... >[Moderator's Note: How odd ... I don't know which company you mean. >Answers, anyone? PAT] I think Cliff is probably talking about the Jerryco catlogue. It's full of all sorts of *STRANGE* stuff, electronic, optical, arts & crafts, unclassifiable -- you name it. The copy is often delightful: one example that comes to mind is, "The purchasing department thought this was a teriffic idea. The editorial department doesn't." Unfortunately, I don't have their address and only remember that they're located in Evanston: I'll try to find it. ------------------------------ From: "J. Luce" Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack Date: 9 Feb 91 18:30:47 GMT Reply-To: "J. Luce" Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC TELECOM Moderator Noted: >[Moderator's Note: Those 'trips back in time' are fun, and really I >think they are essential to a complete understanding of modern day >technology and telephony. There are a lot of politics and history >involved in why things are as they are today. Things don't just >happen. We cannot dwell in the past but we must learn from it. PAT] To stay off course for one more message ... this brings up a pet 'concern' of mine. We used to hack at all these electronic things. We then probably (I know I did) hacked at our VERY OWN CP/M computers (of course meaning figuring out ports, barnacling semi-misdesigned S-100 boards, and rewriting BIOSs every time we added a device like a parallel port) and we took that with us and aided our way into this brave new world of technology. The kids today just don't have the same environment to hack in. I think we are leaving a LOT of creativity in the lurch due to this. The 'finished product' approach of all we buy now may come back and nip us in our rears later on after us old hackers retire. I know as a S/W Engineer, my intro to electronics made my life as a device driver person a help and helped h/w people in making life easier for s/w people. ::sigh:: off soapbox. John Luce Alcatel Network Systems Raleigh, NC Standard Disclaimer Applies 919-850-6787 Mail? Here? Try aurs01!aurw46!luce@mcnc.org or ...!mcnc!aurgate!luce or John.Luce@f130.n151.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 91 13:24:04 est From: jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack? I knew sooner or later I'd have to respond to all the Allied and Radio Shack stuff being posted ... it brings back a lot of memories here too. I had the pleasure of working several years for a R/S franchise store (not "dealer" nor "company" store). Talk about A Dream come true! I still miss it. Anyway, I haven't heard mention of the Adult Toy Mail order company that still makes us all wish we had more mad money stashed, Edmund Scientific! On a more down to earth subject, Can anyone suggest a cheap easy method of buffing out old phone housings? [Moderator's Note: Now don't get me started on Edmund Scientific! Gosh, all those old companies with their wonderful catalogs and great 'rainy Saturday afternoon' projects for kids and grown-ups alike! Years ago I supervised a Saturday afternoon 'science workshop' for little kids sponsored by the Chicago Public Library for one winter. Edmund gave us a couple thousand dollars in freebies for the kids, and I had fun too! Do I wish it was 1960 again, or what? :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Owen M. Hartnett" Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack Date: 12 Feb 91 02:32:36 GMT Reply-To: "Owen M. Hartnett" Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science Looking for more modern day electronic catalog stimulation? Here's a couple I've run into: (all the catalogs are free, most have 800 numbers, just call and ask for a catalog) Digi-Key - heavy metal, caps, resistors, diodes, transistors 701 Brooks Avenue South P O Box 677 Thief River Falls, MN 56701-0677 (800) 344-4539 MCM Electronics - flybacks, tools, test equipment 650 East Congress Park Drive Centerville, OH 45459-4072 (800) 543-4330 JDR Microdevices - misc test equipment & parts 2233 Branham Lane San Jose, CA 95124 (408) 559-1200 I've ordered from Digi-key and MCM, very professional, good for the hard to find parts that the local electronic hardware shop hasn't got. Owen Hartnett omh@cs.brown.edu.CSNET Brown University Computer Science omh@cs.brown.edu uunet!brunix!omh ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 91 03:48 EST From: Macy Hallock Subject: A Nostalgic Look at Olson Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA In article <16708@accuvax.nwu.edu> our esteemed Moderator writes: [Discussion about the older type of electronics and surplus stores, a fast vanishing breed....] >Olson was the same way. How they made a profit I'll never know. I >guess in fact they did not make a profit since they, like Allied, are >out of business. Yes, Olson Electronics was one of the best distributors of surplus parts for quite a while. They were based in Akron, Ohio and had several stores in the Northern Ohio area. Lots of surplus stuff, some in boxes and barrels, some packed in plastic bags. They also carried some new stuff, some with their own name, some with brand names, all at discounted prices. As a teenager, I would get a ride into Akron with my parents when they went to the O'neils department store one block away from one of the larger stores. My father, an engineer himself, would always be amused by my purchases of equipment to experiment with. I blew a lot of my spare cash at Olson's as a teenager. The equipment I bought there led to my continuing fascination with electronics, communications equipment in particular. I probably have a few parts from Olson's still floating around in my workshop, 20+ years later. I also bought quite a few broken/damaged electronic items from Olson's. Learning to fix and modify them, often without schematics, was great for learning troubleshooting. My stereo system was a sight to behold ... it looked something like a laboratory from a bad science fiction movie. Another story about Olson's comes to mind ... In 1971 I left the phone company and went to work for Electronic Engineering Co. of Ohio. I was their first telephone employee in their entry in to interconnect telephone systems. EECo had been primarily an installer of sound and intercom systems up to then. The orginal founder of EECo, Sol Leibowitz, then a bit on in years and semi-retired while his son ran EECo, had been a partner with Sid Olson when he founded Olson Electronics. Sol had some interesting stories about the old days of surplus electronics at Olson's. Seems as though much of the surplus stuff they sold was obtained just by hauling it away from manufacturers and warehouses. Some of the stories he told of finding this stuff and striking deals to get it were fascinating. Seems as though the cost of goods had a lot to do with the profitability and expansion of Olson up to the end of the sixties. The business changed in the early seventies, and that was the beginning of the end for Olson's. The last of the Olson stores were low end audio/CB vendors and were finally sold to NWS for use as retail liquidation outlets around 1985. All are closed now. About the closest thing left to this older type of surplus store are the electronics surplus liquidators like Medelson's of Dayton Ohio and A.R.E. of Findlay. I know there are several such stores in the high tech areas of the country (Weird Stuff Warehouse in Silicon Valley comes to mind), but its not quite the same. My kids will not have as much of a chance to tinker with the equipment as I did. Pity. Like the ham's say: we are all becoming appliance operators thanks to the consumer electronics industry of today... I very much enjoy these occasional forays into the history and heritage of the electronics and communications industries that appear in Telecom Digest from time to time. I've learned a lot from them. One more reason why I read the Digest before I read my newspaper... Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@fmsystm.UUCP macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy [Moderator's Note: I am humbled, and thank you ... but enuff already! Starting tomorrow, let's talk telecom again. The message backlog right now is verocious, so the Allied/Tandy/Olson thread MUST close! And please, do hold off on REplies to other threads at least for a few days until the queue thins out a little. Thanks! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #112 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27248; 13 Feb 91 10:54 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17810; 13 Feb 91 9:16 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24269; 13 Feb 91 8:09 CST Date: Wed, 13 Feb 91 7:49:36 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: Use of T3 for Packed Switched Networks on the Increase BCC: Message-ID: <9102130749.ab15464@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> [Moderator's Note: The attached was sent along by Jody Kravitz and is being sent out as a special mailing because of its size. Regarding the flow of stuff into telecom, readers should be advised I still have over 100 messages backlogged in the queue of things to print. Most of it will get out in the next two or three days .... all will be redated as needed to keep it from expiring in comp.dcom.telecom. Again please: DO NOT send further messages to the group until toward the weekend. Thanks. PAT From: foxtail!kravitz@ucsd.edu Subject: Use of T3 for Packet Switched Networks on the Increase Date: 13 Feb 91 7:18:12 GMT Organization: The Foxtail Group, San Diego, CA This month's California Education and Research Federation Network (CERFnet) newsletter talks about the installation of T3 circuits in NSFNET. NSFNET and CERFnet are part of the packet-switched "Internet". The growth in use of T3, which operates at 45Mbps, may be of interest to some of the readers of the TELECOM Digest. I've excerpted the relevant articles from the newsletter and included them below: CERFnet News February 1991 Volume 3, Number 1 INSIDE THIS ISSUE: * The new faster NSFNET reaches CERFnet SDSC installs new 45 Mbps connection to the NSFNET. This is part of the NSFNET migration to 45 Mbps. This article also discusses the benefits to CERFnet users. .... articles deleted .... * Initial T3 deployment in place on NSFNET This article discusses NSFNET's new 45 Mbps (T3) backbone and future improvements of the T3 architecture. .... articles deleted .... Staff for this issue of CERFnet News includes: Editor Advisors Karen McKelvey Susan Estrada Robert Morgan Writers Contributors ESnet staff Mike Beach Ken Horning Rachel Chrisman Paul Love Carlos Robles Cathy Wittbrodt CERFnet News is published monthly by the California Education and Research Federation Network (CERFnet). CERFnet is a mid-level network linking academic, government, and industrial research facilities throughout California. CERFnet receives partial funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), operating under grant number NCR8819851. Any opinions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF, other funders, General Atomics, SDSC, or CERFnet. If you would like to receive CERFnet News or would like further information about CERFnet, please send your request to help@cerf.net, or telephone 800-876-CERF, or contact the CERFnet office at the following address: CERFnet c/o San Diego Supercomputer Center P. O. Box 85608 San Diego, CA 92186-9784 A NEW FASTER NSFNET REACHES CERFNET SDSC installs new 45 Mbps connection to the NSFNET. by Paul Love During the year-end holidays, the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC) installed its new 45 Mbps (T3) connection to NSFNET. This was accomplished during a visit to SDSC by Hans-Werner Braun, then the Merit Principle Investigator on the NSFNET project. (Braun has since become one of SDSC's networking specialists.) CERFnet users can now enjoy faster service and gain access to even greater computational capabilities. The NSFNET T3 circuit at SDSC uses a fiber that was recently installed from UC San Diego and SDSC to the local MCI office. This fiber connection bypasses the local telephone office which reduces rates for connections to MCI. The fiber installation was possible because most of it runs through land owned by UC San Diego, Chevron, and General Atomics, who cooperated in its installation. The fiber also means new technologies can be added quickly. For example, the CASA testbed network (see article in CERFnet News, Aug-Sept 1990) of the National Research and Education Network (NREN) will use connections running at 1 Gigabit. This is only available over fiber. SDSC is a node on the CASA network. As of January 25, traffic on the T3 from SDSC was limited to Merit (in Ann Arbor, MI) and the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (in Urbana-Champaign, IL). Today, connections include Stanford University (Palo Alto, CA) and the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center. Initially, six of the thirteen NSFNET sites were scheduled to receive T3 service in addition to their T1 service. Also, two new sites (Cambridge, MA and Argonne, IL) were scheduled to receive only T3 service. At the FARNET meeting in January, Steve Wolff of NSF reported that the agreement with Merit/MCI/IBM has been modified. All sixteen sites on the NSFNET backbone will receive T3 service. These installations are expected to be completed by the end of the year. The T1 network will be dismantled when all of the sites are operating T3 service. Benefits for CERFnet users The T3 midgration means that CERFnet users will not experience any degradation of service during 1991. It was projected that some of the links on the T1 network would become congested this year if additional bandwidth was not provided. Also the new T3 network will make new services available. Remotely mounted file systems will seem much more like those mounted just across your local Ethernet. Distributed computing across the country will now be practical. The new network will make document and data retrieval a faster, simpler, and common operation -- a necessary service for users as more full -- text libraries and databases become available via the Internet. Effect on mid-level/local networks The growth of most mid-level and local networks is another important facet of the NSFNET migration to T3. Most mid-level networks have a high percentage of T1 links. The new T3 connections will keep a mid-level's connection to the NSFNET backbone from becoming a bottleneck. Also, the T3 connections will provide better service to local network resources, especially where the supporting LANs use FDDI. Summary Merit has been tracking the growth in network usage for the last several years and offers these eye-opening statistics. In November 1988, the network carried less than 400 million packets. In November 1989, the rate was 2.1 billion. And, by November 1990, the rate was over 3.8 billion. While the percentage increase is falling, the absolute number of packets carried has grown each year by the same amount: 1.7 billion. If this growth continues, we can expect NSFNET to carry over 6.5 billion packets by November 1991. The NSFNET migration to T3 will keep the backbone ahead of network usage patterns. It will allow users to use new network-intensive services as they become available resulting in a positive impact on scientific inquiry and industrial R&D. * INITIAL T3 DEPLOYMENT IN PLACE ON THE NSFNET by Ken Horning [Editor's Note: This article is reprinted from LINK LETTER, V3 N 5, December 1990. Ken Horning works for Merit/NSFNET.] Operational deployment of NSFNET's new T3 backbone was started in the final months of 1990. T3 installations are now complete and ready for operational traffic at the backbone end nodes in Ann Arbor, MI, Urbana-Champaign, IL, San Diego, CA, and Palo Alto, CA. "This upgrade again respects the National Science Foundation's (NSF) commitment to keep NSFNET the world's leading computer network for the support of research and education," said Dr. Stephen S. Wolff, Division Director, Division of Networking and Communications Research and Infrastructure, at the NSF. "New applications that were not feasible on slower networks will be possible with the availability of T3 bandwidth." Production ready Prior to their installation, the T3 connections at the four installed nodes were thoroughly tested. Testing procedures included continued verification of hardware, software, and circuits to evaluate reliability. A suite of testing tools and procedures has also been created which will facilitate the installation of the T3 connections at the remaining nodes. The model developed for high-speed backbone transmission involves a new generation of Nodal Switching Subsystem technology developed by IBM. Advanced circuit technology for the T3 upgrade is being provided by MCI. Future improvements The architecture for the T3 network is utilizing a collection of IBM Core Nodal Switching Subsystems (C-NSS) within the MCI infrastructure, forming a cloud of co-located packet switching capability. Exterior Nodal Switching Subsystems (E-NSS) are located at client sites and connect into the C-NSS cloud. With the deployment of the new T3 architecture, the node packet switching performance will improve significantly. The initial T3 deployment employs an Ethernet interface to the local area network, providing material performance improvement compared to T1 NSS performance. As the NSFNET partnership completes the FDDI interoperability testing and deploys FDDI with the new technology, even more signi^cant performance improvement will be realized. Additional new technology due in '91 Later in 1991, the partnership plans to deploy new technology which will use intelligent subsystems for the extended interfaces. These subsystems or powerful RISC-based adapters utilize bus master and slave capabilities on high bandwidth implementations of the microchannel to achieve very high-speed card-to-card forwarding with no system intervention. Coupled with optimized distributed protocol code, these systems can achieve very high throughput rates. IBM's RISC on RISC architecture utilizes RS/6000 RISC chipsets for the control processor and a 25 MHz superscalar, RISC embedded controller with on-chip cache and data RAM for the adapter engines. The new technology with on card packet forwarding will dramatically improve the performance on the T3 network. * CERFNET NEWS AVAILABLE VIA ANONYMOUS FTP Issues are available via anonymous ftp to NIC.CERF.NET in the subdirectory cerfnet/cerfnet_news. *   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18321; 14 Feb 91 5:17 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08408; 14 Feb 91 3:38 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14753; 14 Feb 91 2:34 CST Date: Thu, 14 Feb 91 1:57:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #113 BCC: Message-ID: <9102140157.ab30542@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Feb 91 08:00:20 CST Volume 11 : Issue 113 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: USI Nationwide Communications [Bill Huttig] Re: Automatic Ring Timeout [Bill Huttig] Re: AT&T Toolchest Number Wanted [Bob Falcon] Re: 800 Numbers, Voicemail, and Privacy [Robert Virzi] 900 Numbers and a Question [Brian S. Oplinger] Best Cordless Phone Buy: AT&T 5000 Series [Randy Borow] Re: 800 Numbers, Voicemail, and Privacy [John Higdon] Re: Wanted: Recommendations for Small Key-System [John Higdon] Virtual Private Network [Arnold Scheuing] "Wrong Numnber" Book: Is it Accurate? [Thomas Farmer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wah@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) Subject: Re: USI Nationwide Communications Date: 13 Feb 91 12:13:17 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article <74444@bu.edu.bu.edu> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 110, Message 1 of 8 >A new aggregator (at least I've not heard of them before) is a >company called USI Communications of Orlando, FL. They offer AT&T They are not new I had their info a long time ago.. The rates are not very cheap ... SouthTel bills in six second increments and is cheaper. As far as the other services goes it seems that other companies are cheaper. >I would like to add that Sprint now also offers an MLM type deal where >you get 5% commissions on customers you sign up ... but I don't have >the specifics on their plan yet. If you are refering to the info in the last issue of TELECONNECT, I called Amy Stublefield and she said that the article was in error and that Sprint did not have the 'sales agent program'. They do have several large marketing companies selling Sprint. If there is another Spint MLM deal I would be suprised. [Moderator's Note: I was referencing the item in *Teleconnect*. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wah@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) Subject: Re: Automatic Ring Timeout Date: 13 Feb 91 12:17:20 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article <74417@bu.edu.bu.edu> leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: >Has anyone ever run into this kind of thing elsewhere? Yes, It happens after about 20 rings to 919 595 Walkertown NC. The local Phone company there is Centel. What is the local company where your call gets timed out? ------------------------------ From: bfalcon@rescon.uucp (Bob Falcon) Subject: Re: AT&T Toolchest Number Wanted Date: 13 Feb 91 09:01:48 GMT In article <16567@accuvax.nwu.edu>, motcid!benyukhi@uunet.uu.net (Ed Benyukhis) writes: > Does anyone know the AT&T Toolchest modem line number? Please post or > e-mail. Hi Edward, I haven't called it in a while ... but I have the number here, so here goes: 201.522.6900 201-522-6900 whichever way you write phone #'s :-) BTW anyone notice the frequency of magazines {elec/comp} Ads using the FIRST form [ABOVE] of printing phone #'s? This has been catching my eye more and more often. Is this some new 'standard' in the making for phone #'s ? I was just getting used to the 'original' form :-) Anyhoo, I just had to ask , as this is the Telecom group ! Have a good one. Catchya later, Bob Falcon [ Co-Sysop : Turbo 386 Remote Access ] [ 1:273/906 @Fidonet ][ (215) 745-9774 HST/DS ] internet: bfalcon@rescon.uucp uucp: { cdin-1 || dsinc.dsi.com }!alba2l!rescon!bfalcon ------------------------------ From: rv01%harvey@gte.com (Robert Virzi) Subject: Re: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy Date: 13 Feb 91 14:51:21 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham David Gast writes: > If you call 1-800-544-7544, you can get complete information about the > fund holdings in Fidelity Funds of anyone whose social security number > you know. The WSJ points out that the Chairman of Fidelity has a > publically available SSN (from the SEC) and that it begins with > 029-24. Peter Lynch's SSN begins with 018-34 and his SSN is also part > of the public record. The story did not mention the complete SSNs. I tried this and it is not exactly true. In addition to someone's social security number, you also need to know their account number. I don't know how Fidelity assigns account numbers, but I would imagine that this scheme offers significantly more protection than the four-digit PINs used by banks. Is this a change in the security of the system, or just poor reporting on the part of the WSJ? Bob Virzi rv01@gte.com ...!harvard!bunny!rv01 ------------------------------ From: oplinger@thor.crd.ge.com (B. S. Oplinger) Subject: 900 Numbers and a Question Date: 13 Feb 91 05:56:07 GMT Organization: General Electric Corporate R&D Center A previous posting says (in reference to the lottery/giveaway but the specific case doesn't matter): > It's void in NY,FL, & RI Also, how to enter for free (OK -- 29 > cents!) (address follows) ... Or call 1-900-258-2647 for $2.99 When I saw the void in NY and the 900 number it raised a question for me? Now, I live here in NY, state that is. What would happen if I called the 900 number, assuming that I only had been told about the contest and was given the 900 number (in other words I did not know it was void in NY)? Would they not charge me? Is is possible for a 900 company to tell whatever company is providing the 900 service to not bill a particular company? Since it's void in NY, a call would not result in me receiving anything of value so under what grounds could they collect? brian oplinger@crd.ge.com <#include standard.disclaimer> ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Subject: Best Cordless Phone Buy: AT&T 5000 Series Date: 13 Feb 91 15:58:06 GMT Pat, That Pepsi-like contest regarding cordless phones (AT&T, et. al.) didn't -- from what I've been told -- have some of AT&T's better models participating. While it's true there are many similarities among cordless phones, some too small to matter anyway, I spent months literally shopping around for a cordless phone that had decent features, but most importantly, superb reception. My first purchase in the mid-80's was an AT&T 4410. What a piece of junk, as were (are???) all the AT&T 4000 series phones. Needless to say, I had to shop around as mentioned above. I tried them all: Panasonic, Sony, Uniden, Cobra, GE, etc. I finally settled on the AT&T 5300 (now replaced by an even better model). The reception is terrific: I can even get into my car, in a closed garage a few hundred feet (at least) away from the house, and hear absolutely no static or interference! Now, the 5000 series have an updated feature called Clarity Plus, and from the reaction of many of my friends (for whom I purchased many such phones), I'd say it's a hit. Obviously, this is only my personal opinion. However, I highly doubt a better cordless phone than an AT&T 5000 series can be found. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. ------------------------------ From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy Date: 13 Feb 91 08:09:00 GMT Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows "Barton F. Bruce" writes: > The bank has NO way to let you specify an alternate PIN. All accounts > get phone access by default. The only suggestion they had when I > pointed out the stupidity of this was to suggest that they could > disable the service for customers so requesting! Bank of America has a wonderful system that is similar but more blatant. When you call the machine to deal with your account you are asked to give "the last four digits of your Social Security Number". If you happen to be a business, the last four digits of your "SSN" (your Federal employer number) appears on all of your employees' check stubs and W2 forms. Your account number appears at the bottom of the check. How many people do you suppose check out of idle curiosity, if nothing else, the balance in their employer's account? Oh, yes, this is how it is set up; there is no special arrangement for business. It works like a charm. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System Date: 14 Feb 91 07:57:00 GMT Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Dave Levenson writes: > I had a long chat with AT&T's local GBS sales office about Partner and > Partner-Plus. I wanted to replace a small business phone system. The > present system is an ITT 701 with three trunks and eight stations, > used only for voice. There is also a Mitel SX-5 PBX with two trunks > and six stations, used only for data. (The PBX stations are one 2500 > set, and five modems.) An additional trunk is connected directly to a > FAX machine, bypassing the 701 and the SX-5. I am currently using a KX-T123210 for voice lines and data lines. There are ten trunks on the system: five for voice and data and five dedicated to incoming data. Four modems each answer a particular line each and there is a FAX machine. If a particular modem has not reset and does not answer, there is a delayed ringing sequence programed into the switch to try another after one ring and so on down the line. This is set up in a circular arrangement, which the Panasonic is easily capable of doing. This arrangement also allows a modem to use other lines, such as WATS, for outgoing calls by simply putting a different trunk group access code in the dial script. > I would like to combine the systems, and pool all of the trunks for > outgoing calls, and still direct inbound traffic to the modem pool, > the fax machine, and the nine voice stations. Additionally, I'd > like to replace four of the eight electronic key sets with 2500 sets. Absolutely no problem with the Panasonic. The KX-T1232 comes equipped to handle 8 trunks and 16 stations (electronic or single line). Stations are added in groups of eight and trunks are added in groups of four (or I should say the last four are added at one time). The single line phone has 99% of the flexibility of the electronic phone, which is extremely powerful. The SLP can call out on any line or group, can answer any line or group, can transfer, can conference, can split a conference, has call waiting, can have data line security, and has different ring cadences for different incoming call and call return sources. An associate has even worked out a way to provide CPC to stations! > They quoted approximately $2,200 for six trunks, and four electronic > key sets. That buys you the 8X16 Panasonic KSU and about four electronic (display) phones. > The single-line sets and installation are extra. If the > installation is not performed by AT&T, they void the warranty. You can get anyone you like to put the Panasonic in with full warranty. > The feature set for the single-line phone is surprisingly weak. As mentioned above, Panasonic support for the SLP is PBX-like. It is also highly configurable in system programming. As mentioned, ALL traffic (computers, voice, FAX) is handled by my Panasonic in my home. > There is no way to choose which trunk the set uses when it originates a > call; it is permanently associated with a specific trunk. Panasonic: dial '9' for auto trunk selection; dial '8X' for a specific group. > calls on that trunk cause the station to ring. Inbound calls on other > trunks may not be answered on that set, but may be transferred there > after they have been answered on a key set. Fully programmable on the Panasonic. You can have a specific trunk ring a SLP, any of a number of trunks ring it, any of a number of trunks on a progammable delayed basis ring it, or you can have no trunks ring it but enable answering via pick up (by groups if desired) code. > Intercom calls dialed to > a single-line set are indistinguishable from inbound trunk calls. Panasonic: double ring for internal, single ring for outside calls. Transfered call changes from double to single ring if the transfering party hangs up (blind transfer). > call which has been placed from or answered at a single-line set may > be held, but may not be transferred to another single-line or key set. Panasonic: you may transfer it freely within the system or trunk to trunk to an outside number. Call forwarding on extensions can be to other extensions or to numbers outside of the system. > If the trunk associated with a single-line set is in use, the set is > unable to place any inside or ourside calls, but may bridge on to the > existing trunk call if the privacy feature is administered OFF. Panasonic: Not applicable. A single line set can do what it likes. A SLP can be programmed to select a particular outgoing trunk group if nothing is dialed within a programmable amount of time if desired. I have a security system dialer that can't deal with anything but a preprogrammed number. No problem. It comes off hook and one second later is presented with outside dial tone (of my choosing). > I was also told that the display-equipped version of the key set would > display calling numbers if the trunks are equipped with Caller*ID > service. The other GBS rep told me that this is not true! Panasonic doesn't do this yet. Not a problem in California. > > 3) PARTNER goes up to 4 CO lines and 12 extensions, while PARTNER PLUS > > goes up to 8 lines and 24 extensions. KX-T1232: 12 lines and 32 extensions. > Could someone provide a comparative feature list for the Panasonic > system? I still want to upgrade the network here at Westmark, but I > don't think the Partner is the 'right choice'. It doesn't sound as though the two systems are even in the same class. I don't have the time to type in the entire feature list of the Panasonic. Its feature offerings are robust, to say the least. Great care has been given to the handling of single line phones, and it is this capability that has made the system so useful my application. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: scheuing@iam.unibe.ch (Arnold Scheuing) Subject: Virtual Private Network Date: 13 Feb 91 11:00:00 GMT We are working on a project in virtual private networks. We plan to write an expert system-based tool to support the decisionmaking in VPN. We are interested in having contacts with other groups working in the same area. Arnold Scheuing = Institut fuer Informatik = IAM = University Bern = CH e-mail (Internet): scheuing@iam.unibe.ch Tel. 031/658 669 ------------------------------ From: sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) Subject: "Wrong Number" Book: Is it Accurate? Date: 13 Feb 91 12:10:03 GMT Organization: Orb Systems Unlimited, NZ I'm thinking about doing a project about New Zealand Telecom deregulation for my post-graduate degree. To help me make up my mind about whether to do it or not, I'm reading a book called "Wrong Number : The Breakup of AT&T" by Alan Stone. He obviously thinks that the breakup was a bad thing, but I'm starting to wonder about the level of bias - it appears extreme! Does anyone know anything about this book? Even if biased, is it reasonably accurate? Thanks for any advice/help. Official Signature for Sleeping Beagle (aka Thomas Farmer)! sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz Thomas.Farmer@bbs.actrix.gen.nz [Moderator's Note: 'Bias' is a funny thing. If you believe something to be the truth, then it is not bias. If your leaning is in another direction, then a strongly worded statement opposing your point of view becomes bias. I've thought the book was reasonably accurate, although perhaps a bit more strongly worded than necessary. I would recommend it to the group however for a good study on what has gone wrong since divestiture. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #113 ******************************  ISSUES 114 AND 115 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 115 IS NEXT AND THEN 114 FOLLOWS.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20017; 14 Feb 91 6:48 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12501; 14 Feb 91 4:47 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac08408; 14 Feb 91 3:41 CST Date: Thu, 14 Feb 91 3:19:07 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #115 BCC: Message-ID: <9102140319.ab27008@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Feb 91 03:18:46 CST Volume 11 : Issue 115 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Usenet, Gateway Changes and Backlog Here [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Calling Instructions For Area 817 [Gordon Burditt] Re: Caller-ID Technical Question [Gordon Burditt] Re: Caller-ID Technical Question [Michael Dorl] Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [Carl M. Kadie] Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Jeff Jonas] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 91 2:48:17 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Usenet, Gateway Changes and Backlog Here On Wednesday evening a message went out to Usenet saying that the gateway between TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telcom was being closed due to various problems with the administration of same. Immediatly thereafter I began getting deluged messages asking to add people to the mailing list who had been reading via comp.dcom.telecom. FOR THE TIME BEING, THE GATEWAY AND COMP.DCOM.TELECOM WILL REMAIN OPERATIONAL, STATUS QUO AS IT HAS BEEN. If you have been reading the Digest via comp.dcom.telecom you may continue to do so ... requests for additions to the mailing list received on Wednesday night/Thursday morning are being ignored. Although the problems which made me believe that the gateway should be closed are still unresolved, the huge number of people asking to join the mailing list as a result made me change my mind. We'll see how events progress over the next week or two and adequate notice will be given if the gateway is to cease operation or if comp.dcom.telecom is to be split away with a moderator from Usenet appointed to maintain it. In any event, TELECOM Digest is not affected in any way. To repeat: THE DIGEST WILL CONTINUE TO BE RECEIVED ON USENET IN COMP.DCOM.TELECOM. Next topic: There were numerous problems on Wednesday, including a change in the gateway location from here. Instead of going through accuvax.nwu.edu, (which was out of order for a few days anyway, forcing rerouting through bu.edu, we are now using casbah.acns.nwu.edu. Hopefully the change will be apparent with a better connected machine and faster delivery of the Digest. However -- two recent issues of the Digest, #113 and #114 were somehow lost in transit in the process and did not get mailed from here until early Thursday morning. You should have also received a special report on the Internet, meaning three mailings since Tuesday night. The backlog here is even worse as a result, with about 110 messages waiting in the queue. Estimated time to publication: four days from when I receive your mail. Please do NOT send any further mail here until next week. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: Calling Instructions For Area 817 Date: 12 Feb 91 00:15:22 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt >When 214 area (now splitting to form 903) in Texas got the N0X/N1X >prefixes, toll calls within 214 had to be changed from 1+7D to >1+214+7D. Was a similar change made to 817 at the time? This would >be for area-wide uniformity in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. 817 "local" calls 7D 817 toll calls 1+817+7D 817->214 "local"* calls 10D (1+10D does NOT work) 817->214 toll calls 1+10D (10D does NOT work) "local" == free call; there are no "message units". * An 817->214 call may be "local" if either origin or destination phone has "Metro" service, or the origin is close to the 817/214 boundary and the destination is within its local calling zone. As far as I know, if an 817->214 call is "local", the same call in the reverse direction is also "local". Note that whether you dial "1" or not when dialing 817->214 depends on both the origin and destination lines, not the location of those lines within their area code, and 2 residences, one in 817 and one in 214, each with a Metro and a non-Metro line can generate 4 combinations, one of which requires the "1" and is not toll-free. I usually end up trying any 214 number without "1" first, and if it doesn't work, either give up or try it with "1", depending on how important the call was and who owns the line I'm dialing from. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: Caller-ID Technical Question Date: 12 Feb 91 00:43:58 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt >I think its purpose is merely to *identify* the origin of the call in >the event you wish to know that information. In other words, do not >choose to answer or not based on what the Caller*ID box displays -- >remember the many examples of someone you want to talk to calling from >a different phone than usual -- but instead, answer the phone as you >normally would and use the identification provided for recourse to the >caller if desired. PAT] Regardless of the intent, people are allowed to use it that way. I suspect a number of people would like to use it to route calls: known fax machines get the fax machine, known computers get the computer, known teenagers get the phone in the teenager's room, known adults get the parent's phone, known nuisances that won't fit into Call Screening get a recorded insult, and unknown callers get the answering machine (which someone might pick up). Granted, there are some ambiguities possible (the guy with the computer might want to make a voice call to the operator of the machine). The people who invented RingMaster (distinctive ringing based on CALLED number: user gets two or three numbers) probably intended it to identify a class of callers, not route calls, but based on the ring-identifying switch boxes available, a lot of people want to use it that way. It only gives a 3-way choice, though. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ From: "Michael (NMI" Subject: Re: Caller-ID Technical Question Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center Date: 12 FEB 91 20:28:47 If you'll tolerate another addition to this thread... In article <74397@bu.edu.bu.edu>, m21198@mwunix.mitre.org (John McHarry) writes... >larson@snmp.sri.com (Alan Larson) writes: >>after the first or second ring. Why doesn't it send it out before the >>first ring, so the phone could know if it was to ring at all. >>[Moderator's Note: I do not think the intent of Caller*ID is to tell >>folks what calls NOT to accept (Call Screening is intended for that). >Indeed! You don't expect Ma to leave any money on the table do you? >I think, however, that we shall soon see caller ID boxes that swallow >the first ring burst until they have the number to decide how to treat >the call. I, for one, would like to send some numbers to my answering >machine, but not others. >[Moderator's Note: Precisely my point! I cannot imagine telco >encouraging people to NOT answer their phone. If the calling party >does not connect then there is no profit for telco. Call Screening is >an exception, but please note it is one of the higher priced features >available now ... so telco makes money, answer or no answer, because >the called party is paying telco to *not* put the call through. Then >too, there are the numerous examples of 'what do you do if someone you >*do* want to speak with is calling from a different phone number?'. >A policy of 'do not pass ringing from a number that is not recognized' >is not a good one because there will always be parties you want to >hear from calling from an unrecognized number (payphone, new phone >line just installed, etc). By sending a 'courtesy ring' first, you >have the option of examining your readout and deciding what to do >next. The problem of a box which will 'absorb the first ring and act >on the data received' is how do you prevent other extensions on the >same line from giving a first ring also? PAT] My first reaction to Caller ID was to oppose its deployment without blocking. Articles in this forum have shown me that caller id may benefit me in avoiding unwanted calls. I disagree with our moderator's comments above. I think there's no right or wrong here and I really care little what the phone company wants; if the caller id information is available, I'll use for whatever purpose I want. The consumer electronics industry is going to make products that folks want and I for one want products that will shield me from unwanted calls. It's going to be cheaper for me to buy a box to do call screening than to rent that same service from the phone company. In my opinion, the one thing the industry could do to make Caller ID appealing to the general public would be to provide even more information. For example if the Caller ID information included a call type (direct marketing, residential, commercial, etc.) the market would provide products to screen out calls I don't want. The direct phone marketing business is driving public opinion on this topic. Surveys I've seen show the majority of folks are against Caller IDd because they are afraid of the resulting follow on marketing. I've taken to asking all direct market calls to please wait and then abandoning the phone until they hang up. Michael Dorl (608) 262-0466 fax (608) 262-4679 dorl@vms.macc.wisc.edu MACC / University of Wisconsin - Madison dorl@wiscmacc.bitnet 1210 W. Dayton St. / Madison, WI 53706 ------------------------------ From: "Carl M. Kadie" Subject: Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Tue, 12 Feb 91 07:29:34 GMT dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: >Ideally, however, the telco should be required to provide a service >where the calling party is advised that the call is being refused >*because* the calling number is being blocked, and that the way to get >through is to call again without invoking the anonymous-caller >feature. The {Chicago Tribune} had a article about this about a month ago. They called the feature "block-blocking". They said it had the support of almost everyone involved in the issue. As you point out, it allows you to screen calls. A phone system with Caller-ID and block-blocking will be just as effective in eliminating unwanted calls as one with caller-id and no blocking. At the same time, you will be able to block your number when you call a business, and so you will be able to avoid being automatically placed on their mailing list. [Except Radio Shack, which will probably not accept blocked calls :-)] It seems like a perfect solution; it provides people with the most service; and yet, the phone companies are against it. Why? >On a related topic, why is Caller ID considered a privacy issue? >Aren't people confusing privacy with anonymity? Privacy and anonymity are intertwined: [From the ACLU handbook "Your Right To Privacy", Evan Hendricks, et al, 1990] 'Privacy' can be many things to many people. Some associate the term with right to abortion. Others think of the right to choose a sexual preference. Many simply consider it 'the right to be left alone' in any number of contexts. This book does not cover those notions of privacy. Instead, it focuses on information privacy, which involves the legal rights of individuals in relation to information about them that is circulating throughout society. [...] Many of the data[base] networks are seen as a benign response to societal demands for faster service and greater efficiency -- at least in terms of the way in which they've been operated to present. Nevertheless, information is power. The advent of the computer age -- control of personal data by large institutions and the leverage this provides over individuals -- clashes with the American tradition of privacy and often with desirable limits on institutional intrusion into private lives." >Are the states like >Pennsylvania now asserting that their citizens have the right to >anonymity when they disturb others by telephone? The principle in states like Pennsylvania is that phone calls cannot be recorded and phone numbers cannot released without the consent of both parties. Block-blocking provides a mechanism for providing this consent. Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From: Jeff Jonas Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack Date: 12 Feb 91 12:10:09 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Jonas Organization: Jeff's House of Electronic Parts In article <74329@bu.edu.bu.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: >> Lafayette was located on Lafayette Street in NYC, near Hudson and >> Varick Streets. This area was known as Radio Row, and had many radio >> and electronics parts and surplus strores. The area disappeared when >This area seems to have moved over to Canal Street, which is also a >great place to buy the latest toys from Taiwan and $25 Rolex watches. >I mention it here because it's also a good place to shop for cheap >surplus telecom gear. I've been a long time surplus electronics buyer (mostly switches, LED/neon displays, indicators, and digital electronics parts, even a few Z80, 68000 computer systems). Since I'm moving soon, I will have to thin out my inventory. If you need an unusual part (like an indicator bulb), please check with me. I recently lost a basement full of old equipment due to a misunderstanding, but I still have a tremendous inventory. Back to the topic at hand ... Have you been to Canal street recently? I was an EE student at The Cooper Union from 1978-82, so I spent a lot of time on Canal Street. The electronics surplus area was on Canal Street between Broadway and West Broadway. [Go too far West and you'll find the Hudson River. Go East of Broadway and you're in Chinatown] Until recently there were a few good stores, but I can recall only one remaining. Ramco is still there with the mess of parts all over the back. They organized the wire spool so they could help you with that, but their bread and butter nowadays is PCs. They always had walls of speakers and speaker parts. I mostly loved their selection of illuminated switches. Trans Am electronics on Canal St and West Broadway (formerly Omnibus) seems to have changed ownership. They have virtually NO surplus stuff anymore and sell mostly chips and stuff that I can buy much cheaper by mail order. All my classmates went there since it was still better than Radio-Sh***. "American Excess" was a fun place, but the owner moved to Florida. I think the real name for the place was "American Relay". They had a catalogue of really expensive servo motors. I recall buying many "bargains" there such as army surplus switches, many new surplus switches and rechargeable batteries. The fellow changed stores every few years, so but some stuff never really moved. There was a wall full of obsolete overpriced oscilloscopes and test equipment that never sold. The store was usually clean, bright and full of useful parts. I miss that store most of all. Traveling further downtown was Courtlandt Electronics on West Broadway. I think it's now a repair shop only (no more surplus). I went there once for a friend to get wire wrap IC sockets and I was overcharged .30, so that prompted me to buy a $30 credit card sized calculator so I could check all further purchases. (I usually used the calculator in restaurants to figure tips). I'm disappointed at the collapse of the surplus market. I used to get many surplus electronics catalogues, and now there are too few. I typed in my list of catalogues a few years ago, but the list is out of date before I can ever post it. Marlin P Jones (Florida) seems to still exist, and I've gotten useful items from them. I found that John Meshna (Mass) has been extremely unsatisfactory due to low quality merchandise and inconderate customer relations. I have experiences problems with all my recent orders with them, so I no longer deal with them. Please E-MAIL any replies of your experiences. Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@synsys.uucp synsys!jeffj@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #115 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10688; 14 Feb 91 21:07 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08408; 14 Feb 91 3:41 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14753; 14 Feb 91 2:34 CST Date: Thu, 14 Feb 91 2:32:47 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #114 BCC: Message-ID: <9102140232.ab27180@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Feb 91 09:45:20 CST Volume 11 : Issue 114 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Nynex Gateway Bites the Dust [Adam M. Gaffin] Texas Official Offers to Help Long-Distance Callers [Bill Berbenich] Slammed by AT&T [Dave Johnston] Should Projects Be Connected to the Phone Line? [Alan Nishioka] ANSI X3.64 Document Needed [John Cristy] Re: How Do You Hook up a Phone for a Play? [Gabe Wiener] Re: Marisat Phones Smuggled Into Kuwait [David Newman] Re: Apple Wants Radio Waves For Data Transmission [Ken Thompson] Re: 800 Numbers, Voicemail, and Privacy [Ed Greenburg] ANI Demo Resurfaces [Andy Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) Subject: Nynex Gateway Bites the Dust Date: 13 Feb 91 03:25:50 GMT Organization: The World {Middlesex News}, Framingham, Mass., 2/12/91 By Adam Gaffin NEWS STAFF WRITER Nynex Corp. said yesterday (Monday) it will pull the plug on a computer information service that has lost several million dollars. The company says judicial restrictions on its ability to provide information, coupled with the Northeast's declining economy, made it impossible for its Info-Look gateway service to succeed. It will seek regulatory approval to end the service by May 10, spokeswoman Janine Mudge said yesterday. Ratepayers will ultimately pay for the losses, but Nynex spokeswoman Janine Mudge said the impact on Massachusetts residents will be relatively small, because Info-Look was launched here only last year, a year after it began in New York, and two years after its debut in Vermont. Karen Nelson, who follows the online industry for Link Resources Inc. in New York, estimated total losses of $5 million to $10 million. Info-Look offered computer users access to dozens of information and entertainment services, everything from airline reservations to an electronic version of {USA Today}. Mudge said that although more than 12,000 people called into Info-Look, only 3,000 used it on a regular basis. She said the system was extremely confusing for users, because each information provider had its own set of keyboard commands. She blamed this on on a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Harold Green that bars regional phone companies from directly providing online information to consumers - even something as simple as this. Greene is currently re-evaluating his ban. Richard Koch, who had to fold his own Citinet online service last summer because of losses incurred through the Nynex gateway, said he agreed the constraints imposed by the court made success difficult, but added it was interesting that Nynex decided to cancel the service at this point. Mudge, however, said the issue was finances, not Greene. At least two other regional phone companies have abandoned similar services after heavy losses over the past 18 months. Nelson said Greene's original intent was to keep phone companies from establishing information monopolies while letting them establish information ``gateways.'' He based his model on the French Minitel system, in which the government phone company provides access to hundreds of information and entertainment services. But the French phone system was able to impose standards on providers so that users could navigate the service easily, she said. It also gave away or sold at low cost millions of simple terminals. Nelson said she felt Nynex could have done more to convince information providers to agree on a common interface and promote the service. Koch said the online industry is still far from a viable mass medium. ``It's easier to look in a newspaper right now for information,'' he said. ``It's much easier right now to just watch CNN.'' He said providers are still simply throwing services at users, rather than trying to figure out what they really want. Similar phone audiotex systems have fared much better, in part because they are far easier to use, Nelson said, adding that while virtually every home has a telephone, only about one in four have a computer. ------------------------------ From: bill%gauss@gatech.edu (bill) Subject: Texas Official Offers Help to Long-Distance Callers Date: 13 Feb 91 05:21:58 GMT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu The following article appeared on the United Press International wire. UPf 02/08 1814 State official offers help to long-distance callers... State official offers help to long-distance callers to Persian Gulf. AUSTIN, Texas (UPI) -- Concerned that Saudi Arabia is apparently making a profit on long-distance calls from the Persian Gulf war zone, a state official Friday unveiled a plan to lower costs and help families who have run up large telephone bills. "We're at war, and no entity in this country or in Saudi Arabia should be making a profit off our troops calling home," said Marta Greytok, a member of the Texas Public Utility Commission. American families calling front-line soldiers in Saudi Arabia are being billed $1.46 per minute, with 73 cents going to U.S. telephone and communications companies and 73 cents to the Saudi postal and telephone system. Greytok said while the amount collected by American companies barely covers costs, the Saudi government apparently is making a profit on its share. "It appears that the Saudi's portion goes not only to help defray telephone service but also to subsidize the cost of postal service in Saudi Arabia," she said. Greytok said she had heard "horror stories" of U.S. families running up telephone bills of $800 for calls to loved ones in the gulf region. "We do not need our courageous military men and women in the Persian Gulf, or their families, to be burdened with what appears to be above-cost charges for telephone calls, she said. Greytok said she discussed the problem with officials at AT&T, which has established a temporary toll-free number to help families who are having trouble paying their long-distance charges. AT&T has furnished one thousand telephone lines for use in the Persian Gulf. Individuals also can call the number -- 1-800-323-HELP -- to contribute money to help pay existing telephone bills. A permanent line will be in place soon. In addition, Chairman Andrew Barrett and Commissioner Al Sikes of the Federal Communications Commission said they were willing to consider a tariff filing from AT&T that would lower rates for Persian Gulf calls to a level that would only recover actual costs, Greytok said. Rates charged for international telephone traffic are negotiated between the telephone systems in each country, and Greytok said rate negotiations between American companies and Saudi Arabia have been undertaken. "But they need to be accelerated with an eye toward providing our troops the ability to call home at rates no higher than the actual cost of providing the service," she said. "We owe it to our troops." Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Dave_JOHNSTON%01%SRJC@odie.santarosa.edu Subject: Slammed by AT&T Date: 13 Feb 91 05:31:00 GMT I hate to bring up slamming again. I think Pat squelched the topic some time ago after it started getting crazy, but I have a story that some of you might be interested in. I came to this job almost a year ago and found our telecom in great need of help. We were using MCI and Pac Bell/ATT WATS and not very efficiently either. A Utility Rate Consortium of which we are a member reached an agreement with Metromedia/ITT for 8.75 cents per minute anywhere within the US. While we don't have huge amounts of LD, it did save us several hundred dollars a month. So we signed up and Pac Bell switched our service in August. We had some initial problems with their billing because they claimed their software couldn't handle our special rate. The Metromedia/ITT employee who made the deal lost their job, BTW. They finally determined they could apply manual credits to resolve their software deficiencies. Well, all went well until January 20th or so when I received a marketing call from AT&T. The salesperson told me we had over $600 on our last AT&T bill and weren't on any of the calling plans. I questioned her about the numbers in question, thinking it was one of our off-site locations who aren't on the Metromedia/ITT contract. However, she informed me that the number in question was our MAIN outgoing group. I called Pac Bell and spoke with our rep. She told me that for some reason AT&T had requested our PIC be changed on 12/31/90. She also told me the record showed the request came from CESAR (the automated system used by LD companies to place LEC orders) but that it didn't show a AT&T contact person's name. I called the rep at AT&T back, explaining the situation. She researched it further. I went through two more people at AT&T and one more at Pac Bell and they all agreed that they couldn't imagine how this could have happened. Their only thoughts were that is must have come from an outside marketing organization. I called AT&T again and very slowly and carefully explained to the original AT&T rep that I expected full credit for the difference between their MTS rate and my normal 8.75 cent rate. She said that they couldn't do it. I pushed to speak with a supervisor and reached an agreement with her that AT&T will credit us the difference from the date of change until the date Pac Bell changed us back, plus pay the $5 per line for both changes. I have yet to actually see the credit, but apparently AT&T is sensitive to slamming, particularly after their legal hassles with MCI. I hope this gives others the courage to stand up for your rights and make LD companies who slam pay for it. Dave Johnston Santa Rosa Junior College johnston@odie.SantaRosa.edu Santa Rosa, CA. Supervisor, Campus Data/Telecom +1 707 527 4853 ------------------------------ From: atn@cory.berkeley.edu (Alan Nishioka) Subject: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? Date: 13 Feb 91 05:33:15 GMT Thank you to all who answered my previous message about my project causing the phone to stop ringing. I responded via EMAIL. However, in response to my article, John Higdon brought up a problem that had been bothering me. He said that my project SHOULD comply with the various parts of the FCC rules since it needed to connect directly to the phone network. Now, many books and magazines regularly publish projects that connect to the phone line. Even the usually respectable TELECOM Digest recently published several such projects. I don't think any of them have been certified anything by anyone. I see two issues involved: One of safety (to craftspersons, etc. ) and the other of just following the rules. I can see if I were going to sell these devices that I would be interested in both, but as a hobbyist I am mostly interested in the first. I understand there are network interface devices that one can buy and thus have any device automatically safe and certified to connect to a line, but these are out of my budget. I also don't see how they make that much of a difference. I plan to power my project using a 12VDC transformer unit since the lights take more current than the line can provide. I have a 1MEG/5MEG voltage divider across the line to read voltages and plan to drop a 255ohm resistor across the line with a transistor for a hold function. All of this is prefaced by a bridge rectifier. Is this safe? Are there other concerns here that I am missing? Should *anyone* build *anything* that connects to the phone line? Can it be reasonably priced? Does the phone company really care? Should I do it anyway and just kinda feel guilty? :-) Alan Nishioka KC6KHV atn@cory.berkeley.edu ...!ucbvax!cory!atn 974 Tulare Avenue, Albany CA 94707-2540 37'52N/122'15W +1 415 526 1818 ------------------------------ From: eplrx7!cristy@uunet.uu.net (John Cristy) Subject: ANSI X3.64 Document Needed Date: 13 Feb 91 00:25:15 GMT Reply-To: eplrx7!dupont.com!cristy@uunet.uu.net Organization: DuPont Engineering Physics Lab I need a copy of the ANSI X3.64 document. Apparently that is the specification for ANSI terminal emulation. Please Email your answer. And thanks in advance. cristy@dupont.com ------------------------------ From: gabe@sirius.ctr.columbia.edu (Gabe Wiener) Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? Date: 13 Feb 91 03:42:29 GMT Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research In article <74347@bu.edu.bu.edu> hansen@pegasus.att.com (Tony L Hansen) writes: >A group I'm associated with is putting on a play and a phone will be >used on the set. How would I hook up the phone so that I can cause it >to ring on demand? Preferably, I'd like to have some sort of switch or >push button which I can push and have the phone ring. (Please email >[Moderator's Note: Unless you want to go to a lot of hassle re-wiring >the phone itself, why not just get a small doorbell from a hardware >store; a battery to drive it and a simple switch. Have it off-stage Maybe he doesn't do that because a doorbell sounds NOTHING LIKE A PHONE. There are little boxes you can get from those telecom catalogs that put out ringing current. I see 'em all the time in phone stores when they just HAVE to show off how the duck phone really quacks when it rings. It should be a simple matter to find a dealer who uses one of these gadgets and ask him where he got it. Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. gabe@ctr.columbia.edu gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu 72355.1226@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: dnewman@mcc.com (David Newman) Subject: Re: Marisat Phones Smuggled into Kuwait? Date: 13 Feb 91 06:14:50 GMT Reply-To: PUT YOUR NAME HERE Organization: MCC Austin, Texas Today's paper reported that CNN's phone in Baghdad (Marisat, I think) was being used by the Iraqi government to approve journalist visas. Apparently the Iraqi government asked to use the phone for other putposes as well, but CNN said no. (That was somewhere in today's {Austin American Statesman}; I imagine they got the news from UPI or AP, or perhaps from watching CNN.) Dave ------------------------------ From: kthompso@entec.wichita.ncr.com (Ken Thompson) Subject: Re: Apple Wants Radio Waves For Data Transmission Date: 13 Feb 91 06:01:24 GMT Reply-To: Ken Thompson Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS You are late to the party, Apple. NCR has had its WaveLan out since last year. It operates spread spectrum in the 908-928 MHz band at a 2M data rate with DES encoding for security. Rf power is two watts and with small gain antenna distances of five miles between nodes is easily attained. I think it lists for $1390 a node, installs in any IBM compatable, and is Netware compatable. Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita,Ks. 67226 (316)636-8783 Ken.Thompson@wichita.ncr.com ------------------------------ From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy Date: 13 Feb 91 08:55:00 GMT A similar story ... if you know the checking account number and last four digits of the social security number, you can access checking account balances for any personal Bank of America account. One calls the local number for customers service. I checked with the bank, and they have no method for substituting a random or chosen pin for the SS#, nor for blocking the use of the service. ------------------------------ From: IZZYAS1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Andy Jacobson) Subject: ANI Demo Resurfaces Date: 12 Feb 91 05:01:00 GMT Access Logic Technology's (?) ANI demonstration (via MCI) is once again available from an 800 number. It is 800-933-3258. Hitting the # sign will cut to the chase. I, of course, have no affiliation with this company. Andy Jacobson or ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #114 ******************************  ISSUES 114 AND 115 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 115 APPEARED BEFORE 114. ISSUE 116 COMES NEXT IN THIS ARCHIVE.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20227; 15 Feb 91 5:39 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00887; 15 Feb 91 4:03 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19331; 15 Feb 91 2:57 CST Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 2:12:10 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #116 BCC: Message-ID: <9102150212.ab07996@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Feb 91 02:11:47 CST Volume 11 : Issue 116 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Caller*ID [Peter da Silva] Re: GTE Changes and Cost of Local Service [Robert Jacobson] Re: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland [Carl Wright] Unwanted Three-Way Calling Symptom [Steve Kass] Telecom Legal Questions [Steve Forrette] Re: How Will Digital Cellular Increase Capacity? [Alain Fontaine] Prodigy: What Does Sears Do? What About IBM? [David Michels] Telephone Pioneers Clean Up [Michael Graff] Home Phone Recommendations [Mike Riddle] Re: How Will Digital Cellular Increase Capacity [Hector Salgado-Galicia] Re: Mid Atlantic Telecom - How do I Reach Them? [Michael Dorrian] Re: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy [Carol Springs] Telephone Company Remittance Envelopes [Nigel Allen] 1A2 Intercom [jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil] Re: Bell of PA Calling Card Calls [Robert E. Zabloudil] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Caller*ID Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Fri, 15 Feb 1991 00:44:49 GMT For true answering machine freaks... Caller-ID hooked to something like Watson! A call from your boss: "Hi there, I'm not feeling too well, but if you leave a message I'll get back to you when I wake up." A call from your relatives: "Hi there, I'm at xxx-xxxx." A call from your buddy down the street: "Hi, if you're still on for cards I'll be ready around noon..." A call from your clients: "Frobozz consulting. If you know the extension please dial it now, or leave a message at the sound of the tone..." A call from any telemarketer number you've managed to snag: "I'm sorry, we don't accept unsolicited advertising at this line." The possibilities are endless... peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: GTE Changes and Cost of Local Service Date: 15 Feb 91 02:51:36 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle No legislators put pressure on the PUC to approve GTE's rate increases. If anything, the Legislature collectively tried to modify the PUC's regulatory intentions, but was rebuffed by Governor Deukmejian who vetoed one bill after another in order to give the PUC smooth sailing. The PUC acted on its own, with the Governor's blessing, and what you see is what you get. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 0:26:41 EST This is in reference to the article from which I incorrectly quoted. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Please accept my sincere apology. I also learned that article numbers are local and arbitrary and no guide to anyone except me. I stand by my comments about zip-to-area code mappings, but I was all wrong to say that Carl Moore said it. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 [Moderator's Note: That's okay. You are of course correct that zip codes have no connection with telephone area codes. One new thing you will see in the Digest (comp.dcom.telecom version) as of today is a new set of reference numbers. We are now generating our own reference numbers for each message rather than leaving it up to the gateway machine (which had been accuvax and is now casbah.acns.nwu.edu). The message reference numbers you see from now on will include the volume, issue and Digest message number with the word 'telecom' in front. By including this reference number in REplies (as most of you do anyway) it will tell people which issue to look in for the original. The old system of saying 'in 123456@accuvax' was not very descriptive. The new system should make it much easier to cross reference old items. And to repeat, in case you missed it yesterday: TELECOM Digest will be continued in comp.dcom.telecom as before. No changes being made. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 00:56 EDT From: SKASS@drew.bitnet Subject: Unwanted Three-Way Calling Symptom Until recently, I have been able to disconnect a call I initiate by tapping the switchhook briefly, since I don't subscribe to three-way calling. But for the last few days, the quick tap may produce a boop-boop-booooooooooooooo leading to a new dial tone. A second tap returns me to the call in progress. If I try to dial out through the new dial tone, I get a reorder, so despite appearances, I don't have three-way calling. I can still return to the original call by tapping the switchhook while listening to the reorder. I seem to have "Call Hold." This strangeness only happens about 50% of the time. Half the time the first tap simply fails to disconnect, even if it is about a second long. Any ideas what's going on? The phone in question is 201-514-XXXX. Steve Kass/Math & CS/Drew U/Madison NJ 07940/2014083614/skass@drew.edu [Moderator's Note: Some people have said here in the past that the dial tone is being provided so you can do *70 (cancel call waiting) if you have that service. That may be the reason you are now getting the flash dial tone. Try *70 and see if it immediatly cuts back to the call in progress while busying out your line if you have call waiting service. It may be the reason you only get it 'fifty percent of the time' is because your flash is not quite long enough. Maybe you are now supposed to get it one hundred percent of the time. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 91 00:10:36 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Telecom Legal Questions I've got a couple of questions that some of you may know the answer to: 1. If one resells tariffed services purchased from an LEC or IXC, is oneself subject to filing tariffs themselves or otherwise under regulation? For example, if one were to offer a discount "calling card" service by purchasing long distance service in bulk, and having callers dial in and enter an id code and phone number, could they do this freely and in any manner they liked? 2. Are private voice mail companies protected against the content of messages left on their systems in the same way a common carrier would be? If a drug dealer were to use a voicemail system, is the operator of the system an accomplice? Thanks, Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 00:00:45 +0100 From: "Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)" Subject: Re: How Will Digital Cellular Increase Capacity? On 11 Feb 91 14:37:15 GMT John T. Ellis said: >The biggest problem with these new technologies is the size of the >phone needed to implement them. Currently the phone designs call for >some huge ie. garbage can, phone with an unbelievable power source. >So ... digital cellular is a ways off. Really? Did you see the size of a CD player two years before they were on sale? I mean, not only the player on top of the big table, but also the stuff hidden under the table... AF ------------------------------ From: michels@tramp.colorado.edu (MICHELS DAVID) Subject: Prodigy: What Does Sears Do? What About IBM? Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Date: Fri, 15 Feb 1991 00:09:09 GMT Can anyone tell me the story of Prodigy? I know it is an IBM/Sears joint project. What I would like to know is what was contributed by who. I would imagine, IBM provided the computers, the know how, the telecom infrastructure, and all other technical aspects, is this true? What did Sears provide, just cash? Someone told me all the telecom goes thru Tymenet, is this true? I would have expected IBM to piggy back prodigy data on its National Physical Network (NPN). Why would they treat Prodigy so independently? I would appreciate any insights, Dave ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 00:00:00 PST From: Michael Graff Subject: Telephone Pioneers Clean Up Reply-To: graff@mlpvm2.iinus1.ibm.com A new sign appeared a few days ago on Highway 101 southbound in San Jose, CA at the Bernal exit: Litter Removal Next 2 Miles Almaden Council of the Telephone Pioneers Adopt a Highway Michael [Moderator's Note: The various chapters of Telephone Pioneers have always been excellent role models and citizens in their communities. This is just another example of same. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 00:00:00 PDT From: Mike Riddle Subject: Home Phone Recommendations I've been looking for something resembling a key system for home use. "The successful candidate will" support two lines and up to six phones, contain a dial-intercom, support speaker-phone paging or operation, and ideally not require me to pull new cable. This means it should work on three pair (six wires) or less. DAK had a closeout on GTE "Wolfpack", but if it's closing out, and I could just see Higdon commenting about GTE.... AT&T (another Higdon favorite) has something called System 2000. The sets are called 2052 and 2022. They require 110VAC, and from what I can tell need only the two pair for the trunks. This means that they must do some fancy phantom circuits or multiplexing, right? The cost per unit seems high (219 - master, 179-slaves), but then again, it's not 2000 for a key system. Except: there must be small key systems out there, and if the price is right I'll break down and pull wire. Does anyone have specific recommendations? Email is fine: mike.riddle%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu, riddle@hoss.unl.edu, or sysop @ 1:285/27@fidonet. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: telpc!tel@cdsdb1.att.com Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 00:00 EST Subject: Re: How Will Digital Cellular Increase Capacity >Could someone please post something describing how digital cellular will >increase capacity? My supervisor and others in my group were trying to >figure it out. Digital signals have a greater tolerance to interference than their analog counterpart. So, the required carrier to interference ratio (C/I) can be lower than the 18 dB required for analog cellular. This allows closer spacing between co-channel cell sites, and then increased user density and frequency reuse. More details are given in: W. C. Lee, "Why Digital Cellular?", Communications, March, 1988, p. 51. H. Salgado-Galicia@andrew.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 02:46 GMT From: Michael Dorrian <0003493915@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Mid Atlantic Telecom - How do I Reach Them? Business office # is 202-659-2530 Michael Dorrian The RTP Group - Mid Atlantic 703-243-6000 MCI Mail: 349-3915 ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: Re: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 00:38:21 EDT In Volume 11, Issue 102, David Gast writes: >If you call 1-800-544-7544, you can get complete information about the >fund holdings in Fidelity Funds of anyone whose social security number >you know. As of February 5, this was not true. According to newspaper reports, people who called the number on that date got a human person who asked for their Fidelity account number in addition to their SSN. What's going on? Well, in response to reports such as the one in the {Wall Street Journal} (and subsequent irate calls from customers), Fidelity is in the process of changing its system. First it blocked access to Fidelity executives' accounts. Soon after, it disabled the touchtone system and put a human in the loop, as described above. Tracey Gordon at Fidelity says that a new automated system is being implemented wherein both Fidelity account number and SSN have to be entered. And within a few weeks, a PIN access system is supposed to be in place. Before the initial reports appeared, Fidelity was claiming that the SSN system was introduced because its market research showed that customers overwhelmingly preferred this method to entering their Fidelity account numbers. Complete account info blocking was available to individual customers, but was not the default. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 00:16 EST From: Nigel Allen Subject: Telephone Company Remittance Envelopes Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Reply-To: ndallen@contact.uucp In article <1991Feb8.084148.1957@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> farkas@ eecg.toronto.edu (Keith I. Farkas) writes: >Finally, another example of waste: how many of us use the envelope provided >by VISA, MASTERCARD, or BELL when paying our bills? -- most people I know pay >their bills through a banking machine. The telephone company in Nova Scotia, Maritime Tel & Tel, stops enclosing remittance envelopes with your bill if you haven't used them for the past six months. (That is, its systems can distinguish between a payment received by mail and one made by other means, and if all your payments have been through a bank or over the counter, the company stops sending you remittance envelopes.) Bell Canada used to have people in its Phonecentres and Teleboutiques who would accept your phone bill payment and give you a receipt, but those people are gone now, replaced by payment drop boxes. Nigel Allen ndallen@contact.uucp 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3 voice (416) 535-8916 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 00:21:28 est From: jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil Subject: 1A2 Intercom Steve Gaarder recently offered an old 1A2 dial intercom to anyone who would pay the shipping. I too had one of those monsters up until two weeks ago. I couldn't bring myself to let the whole thing be thrown away, so I stripped it (I hate throwing away good junk). Anyway, I have a couple of interrupters and several boards free to anyone who can use them and is willing to pay the shipping. Who knows ... maybe 1A2 dial intercoms will make a comeback! Ford Mustangs Did! ------------------------------ From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" Subject: Re: Bell of PA Calling Card Calls Date: 15 Feb 91 00:52:58 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus In article <16677@accuvax.nwu.edu> DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 92, Message 6 of 12 > -A 1 minute call (11:30PM) from Reading, PA (215-373-9??? -payphone) > to New Castle, DE (302-740-7626), with my calling card, was $1.18, via > "Bell Atlantic" (or really Bell Of PA). This was the "default" which > the payphone used, naturally. > -The same call the next day, from the same payphone, to the same DE > number, at 12AM, was only $.12 cents on my Reach Out America Plan. If > I did not have the plan, it would have been $.92. (Note that this is > between two states, 1so ROA's Calling Card discount is applicable.) > Why would Bell of PA charge MORE for a call than AT&T, in between TWO > states? (and not IN-State). Was this call by chance totally within your BoPA LATA? They can cross state lines occasionally (NW Bell has one in four states). I can make a one-minute call from Columbus to Johnstown, OH, as a 1+ call for 19 cents, evening rate; the same call costs 14 cents if I dial it 10288-1+. Not exactly analagous, to be sure. Bob Zabloudil rzabloudil@dsac.dla.mil std.disclaimer disclaimed [Moderator's Note: Where I've seen some bizarre ways of dialing is by using Telecom*USA's 'local calling via 700' option. That carrier allows purely local, intra-lata calls by using 1-700-desired number in place of your local area code. In other words, as a Telecom*USA customer I can dial locally 368-8000 or I can route through Telecom dialing 10835-1-700-368-8000, where 700 is presumed to mean 'the area code you are calling from now'. How they get away with it I don't know; but they have offered it for several years. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #116 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21662; 15 Feb 91 6:50 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09025; 15 Feb 91 5:09 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00887; 15 Feb 91 4:03 CST Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 3:30:06 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #117 BCC: Message-ID: <9102150330.ac26782@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Feb 91 03:30:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 117 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Are You Behind on Your Sprint Bill? [David Ptasnik] Top 20 Payphone Operators [Martin B. Weiss] "Most Accurate Clock" [Steve Shankman] Caller ID Investigation in Oregon [Ken Jongsma] Useful Offer From AT&T (`Free' LD Gift Certificates) [R.Bhumbla] Panasonic Cordless Evaluation [Ben Singer] CNA List to be Prepared for Digest [Randy Borow] Important Correction -- Re: List of BBSes/Conferences [Alex D. Griffiths] Re: Answer Supervision From Loop Start Circuits [John Higdon] Good News Tonight: Allied Lives! [William Bulley] Accessing NUAs in the United States From Germany [Sebastian Winckler] Re: "Independent" Coin Phones [Kevin P. Kleinfelter] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Ptasnik Subject: Are You Behind on Your Sprint Bill? Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 00:59:03 PDT It would appear that anyone who knows your telephone number can get information about your Sprint account. Just call 1-800-877-4646, pick menu choices 1, 1, put in an area code and phone number, and up pops current account info. Despite Sprint's ability to integrate ANI from their 800 numbers with their customer data base, they have apparently chosen not to do so. I was able to access my current home balance from my work phone number. They do not have the number that I used associated with my account. Just for fun, I started dialing in the numbers of people I knew did NOT have Sprint accounts. To my surprise, they appear to only be looking at your seven digit number, perhaps using the area code to differentiate between different local numbers. When I put in one friend's number, the automated system asked if my Zip Code was nnnnn, giving an out of state Zip Code. On would think that they would at least have checked Zip Code vs. Area Code before giving me some stranger's account balance. I quickly called to complain. The service rep was very friendly, and was not happy that the service worked as I described. She promised a response in writing. I will keep you informed. What a tool for AT&T long distance sales reps. To find heavy Sprint users with current bills, just dial in the lead phone number, and check it out. Really saves time on the customer qualification process. :) davep@u.washington.edu [Moderator's Note: It appears there have already been some changes made. Choice '1' is no longer available from within the top level choice '1'. You press '1' to get automated information, but when you do the menu therein now starts with choice '2'. Apparently they are not giving account balances (was choice '1') automatically any longer. I tried 800-877-4646 both from a line which does not default to Sprint and from one that does. It worked the same way both times. No more choice '1' as an option. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Martin B Weiss Subject: Top 20 Payphone Operators Date: 15 Feb 91 00:23:30 GMT Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Computing & Information Services {Public Communications Magazine} lists the top twenty pay phone operators, ranked by the number of phones they report owning, managing, or operating. Each of these companies must operate at least 1300 phones to qualify for the list. The top twenty are (it makes me feel a little like David Letterman): 1. Navy Resale and Support Office (Staten Island, NY) 2. People's Telephone Co. (Miami FL) 3. Tele-America Communications Corp. (Atlanta GA) 4. TNC (McLean VA) 5. Cal Tel Inc. (Beverly Hills CA) 6. Telaleasing Enterprises (Tampa FL) 7. US Tele-Comm Inc. (Great Neck NY) 8. Atlantic Telco (Beltsville MD) 9. Viking Manufacturing Co. (Alsip IL) 10. Pay-Tel Phone Systems (San Leandro CA) 11. FaxMail by Hotelcopy (Miami FL) 12. Telco Service America (Elk Grove Village IL) 13. Intellicall Inc. (Carrolton TX) 14. Eastern Pay Phones (Richmond VA) 15. Teleprofits of Texas (Houston TX) 16. Payphone Service Co. Inc. (Ft. Lauderdale FL) 17. Phone Tel Technologies, Inc. (Cleveland OH) 18. Multiplex Services Inc. (Woodside NY) 19. Pacific Pay Telephones (Van Nuys CA) 20. PayCom Systems Corp. (Cedar Rapids IA) Note the conspicuous absence of AT&T, the RBOCs, and independent telcos! Martin Weiss Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh Internet: mbw@lis.pitt.edu OR mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: mbw@pittvms ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 1991 16:22:13 MST From: Steve Shankman Subject: "Most Accurate Clock" A while ago I was at the planetarium at our university, and I saw an interesting clock made by Heathkit. The clock was called "Most Accurate Clock" and had a shortwave receiver built in which monitored 5, 10, and 15 MHz (WWV?). The unit was smaller than a normal clock-radio, and a bit bigger than those small "red-led-beeping-alarm" alarm clocks. It had a led display with tenths of a second, and little leds that indicated which frequency it was monitoring, and a fourth led to show when it was actually getting a signal. Does anyone know where I could get a clock like this, or better yet the kit? I have seen lots of messages here about Heathkit, but I don't know how to reach them for a catalog. Thanks, Steve Shankman sshankman@mis.arizona.edu shankmas@arizvm1.ccit.arizona.edu [Moderator's Note: Recent messages say that Heath is alive, if not necessarily very well and still in their corporate headquarters in Benton Harbor, MI. I guess you could get a number for them from directory assistance at 616-555-1212. They probably have an 800 number also. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Caller ID Investigation in OR Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 00:15:32 EST From: Ken Jongsma According to {Communications Week}, the Oregon PUC is looking for people and companies to assist with a Caller ID investigation. Apparently, the PUC discovered that US West has been offering Caller ID to certain business customers on an individual case basis. CW reports the the PUC has asked that US West stipulate that customers use Caller ID for internal calls only, until the investigation is complete. (Stipulate? C'mon now. What is US West going to do? Tell companies to close their eyes for external calls?) Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ From: Ravinder Bhumbla Subject: Useful Offer From AT&T (`Free' LD Gift Certificates) Date: 15 Feb 91 06:36:02 GMT Reply-To: Ravinder Bhumbla Organization: University of California, San Diego Here is a useful offer from AT&T. I saw it in the March, 1990 issue of {Graduating Engineer}. It seems to be directed towards graduating college students, but the ad does not put any restriction on who can benefit. It is useful if you like AT&T and intend to have it as your long-distance carrier in the foreseeable future. They have a program called `Moving Ahead'. They send you an AT&T long distance gift certificate for $5 when you enroll in the program. After that, every time you move in the next two years and retain AT&T as your primary long-distance carrier, they give you a $10 gift certificate. There is no commitment required for registering. Call 1-800-662-2610 (Extension 108) for information. Ravinder Bhumbla rbhumbla@ucsd.edu U. of California, San Diego ------------------------------ From: Ben Singer Subject: Panasonic Cordless Evaluation Date: 15 Feb 91 00:40:48 EST Thus far, after about a month of use, the Panasonic 3910R has done very well. The reception is the clearest of any cordless phone I have used. There is little noise when tilting the phone (antenna) and everything else works as it should. I have tried the old Bell phones (not the 5500) and the sound quality of the 3910R is much better. Note the 'R' stands for "Sound Charger" which I take to be the equivalent of "Clarity Plus" and "Crystal Clear". Ben Singer Department of Sociology University of Western Ontario Singer@uwo.ca London, Ontario N6A 5C2 Singer@uwovax.bitnet (519) 660-0671 (home) (519) 679-2111 Ext 5137 ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Fri Feb 15 00:08:30 CST 1991 Subject: CNA List Being Prepared For Digest David Zinkin had inquired about CNA numbers, including the ones for 216 and 716 area codes. Our Moderator correctly explained just what a CNA Bureau is and basically how it works. I will reiterate what Pat said, however, regarding some of the numbers being confidential. Almost all the CNA Bureaus' phone numbers are, in fact, restricted, including the ones for 716 and 216. These numbers require the use of an authorization code -- codes which have increasingly been changed more frequently due to fraud. I regret, therefore, that I cannot furnish such information. Replying to me directly will not help, either. What I will do, though, if Pat likes the idea, is publish a list in a few days of the area codes which have such publicly accessible CNA numbers, obtainable by asking directory assistance. That is about as much as I am allowed to do. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. [Moderator's Note: Yes please. Why don't you prepare something listing ALL area codes (so there is no question it was overlooked) and list what numbers you can for each. List both the Bells and the Independents when possible in each area. (Where Bell does not handle CNA for them.) Show 'not available' where appropriate. I'll put it in a file in the archives and run it as a special reference article here. I know this will be a bit of a project for you, so thanks in advance from all of us! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 00:02:59 PST From: Alex Darren Griffiths Subject: Important Correction -- Re: List of BBSes/Conferences In article <74420@bu.edu.bu.edu> (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: >1.) The Well, San Francisco (415) 331-6106. Reported in recent trade I'm sure that the very nice, but not easily amused, gentleman at the above number would appreciate the world knowing that the number for the well is (415) 332-6106. Please be careful entering phone numbers folks, I noticed the number was wrong and took it upon myself to call the bad number to see if it was in use. The fella that answered has had about thirty calls in the past day, wh{en he normally gets one or two. He's said he unplugged his answering machine and I got the feeling that what few good thoughts he used to have about computers have long since evaporated. Cheers, darren alex griffiths dag%speedo%pge@uunet.uu.net Pacific Gas & Electric (415) 972-7106 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 00:00 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Answer Supervision From Loop Start Circuits Dave Levenson writes: > What all of these switches do provide is an open circuit interval (500 > msec for ESS, ~100 msec for 5 crossbar) when the far end party > disconnects. This is not supervision. While very much a hack, it works like this: On a 1(A)ESS, if a line is furnished from a Centrex port, the three-way has a peculiar property. With the first call in progress, the Centrex party flashes the hook for a second dial tone. The call progresses and when it supervises there is an open loop signal AT THE MOMENT OF SUPERVISION. Actually, I find this most annoying. I add the second call to the connection and when it comes off hook, about 500 milliseconds later there is a big KA-PLUNK (the "supervision indication"). The problem with this hack is that you need a first call up before the trick works. In scummy Pac*Bell Land, that call must be supervised (or incoming) before you can even get three-way dial tone. So somebody somewhere has to be paying for that other call. It's a neat hack and it really does provide reliable supervision indication, but it is also a bit cumbersome. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: web@applga.aa.cad.slb.com (William Bulley) Subject: Good News Tonight: Allied Lives! Organization: Schlumberger CAD/CAM ; Ann Arbor, MI Date: Tue, 12 Feb 91 19:41:34 GMT I, too, could no longer resist the Allied/Heathkit/Radio Shack thread, even though Pat has asked for an _end_ to this nonsense, but please bear with me: Allied Lives! Tandy has sold Allied to Hall-Mark (a large OEM electronics parts distributor). Allied has a catalog (!) of about 800 pages and even a phone number: (800) 433-5700 People who remember the "old" days (in Chicago) still work there! If you want to relive the "old" feelings, call and ask for their catalog. I have absolutely no connection with any of these companies (other than as a new/old customer!). William Bulley DOMAIN: web@aa.cad.slb.com Schlumberger CAD/CAM UUCP: {sharkey,hela,lokkur}!applga!web 4251 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 MaBell: (313) 995-6211 [Moderator's Note: That is Good News! Let's all get our new catalogs, folks! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sebastian Winckler Subject: Accessing NUA's in United States From Germany Date: Mon, 11 Feb 91 20:03:37 PST Hi, Some time ago there had been discussed the way to access Tymnet via our German "Datex-P". In the following articles there was mentioned a service called PC-Pursuit. I am very interested in this service since as far as I understood someone can access dialout-modems in USA via NUA`s from Germany. Could anybody send me a brief description how to use this service and perhaps some NUA`s (Network User Adress) that enables me to try things out. Sebastian Winckler sibi@haggis.stgt.sub.org Jaegerstr.29 7014 Kornwestheim (FRG) [Moderator's Note: PC Pursuit is a *domestic* service in the USA offered by Sprint / Telenet. It costs $30 per month. You can get information on it from their corporate sales office: 1-703-689-6000. You would need to get from FRG to USA by whatever carrier you normally use for data; then from the Telenet gateway *once you get a PCP account* you would connect with the outdials all over the USA. Hello Reston! Dave Purkes, are you reading this? PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Kevin P. Kleinfelter" Subject: Re: "Independent" Coin Phones Date: 15 Feb 91 02:04:12 GMT Organization: Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >On Feb 10 at 1:21, TELECOM Moderator writes: >> And now the more you >> shop around; the more you use the competition, the better telco and >> 'genuine Bell' service looks. Some of us were saying 'I told you so' >> several years ago. I'm beginning to feel vindicated. PAT] >Yes, indeed, the more you shop around ... but is it not nice to be >able to shop around? Do you honestly believe that 'genuine Bell' would >be at the level it is today if it had no competition nipping at its >heels? Do you think, for instance, that AT&T would even today be >providing digital connections nationwide if it were not for Sprint and >others? Indeed it IS important to be able to shop around. I find it fascinating that people will argue in favor of a return to a single, monolithic phone industry, yet noone seems to want to return to a single U.S. automobile manufacturer. Why is it that people want AT&T to be the only game in town for telecom, but no one wants Ford to be the only game in town for transportation? In the early days of the auto, you could buy a cheap car, with few features, and a choice of colors, as long as your color was black. If you didn't like it, you had to have a car custom-built. In the early days of telecom, you could get any service you wanted, as long as you wanted a service provided by Ma Bell. If you didn't like it, you could do without. Kevin Kleinfelter @ Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc (404) 239-2347 {emory,gatech}!nanovx!msa3b!kevin Look closely at the return address. It is nanovx and NOT nanovAx. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #117 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17373; 16 Feb 91 3:22 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16657; 16 Feb 91 1:30 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01546; 16 Feb 91 0:25 CST Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 23:42:56 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #118 BCC: Message-ID: <9102152342.ab25968@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Feb 91 23:42:51 CST Volume 11 : Issue 118 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Residential 800 Service From Pac Bell [Ken Jongsma] Personal 1-800 and AT&T's "CALL ME" Card: What Difference? [Glenn Leavell] MCI "Personal 800" Service [Jack Powers] Re: 800 Scrambled ANI [Jeff Jonas] Re: Telecom SIG on CompuServe Now Open (GO TELECOM) [Bruce Klopfenstein] Re: Why Does Device Cause Ringing to Stop? [Jeff Jonas] Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? [Jon Sreekanth] Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [Steve Pozgaj] Re: Answer Supervision From Loop Start Circuits [John Higdon] Re: Network Interfaces: What's the Difference? [Laird P. Broadfield] First to Acknowledge the 1+? [Carl Moore] Re: "Most Accurate Clock" [Paul H. Flaherty] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Residential 800 Service From Pac Bell Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 00:17:45 EST From: Ken Jongsma According to {Communications Week}, Pac Bell has introduced a residential 800 service plan. Why they call it a residential plan is unclear, because Pac Bell is saying that rates will vary depending on whether the line is being used for business purposes. The business rates are $50 for install, $15 a month, plus $6-$11 hour of use. Presumably this is for in-state calls, though I'm not sure any of the LECs block instate calls on their residential 800 numbers. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ From: "Glenn F. Leavell" Subject: Personal 1-800 and AT&T's "CALL ME" Card: What Difference? Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 17:22:10 GMT An acquaintance of mine gave me an AT&T "CALL ME" Card. The card seems to be a standard calling card with the exception that it can only be used to call one particular number. The calling card number consists of the number to be called plus four extra digits. To call my acquaintance, all I have to do is dial (after connecting to AT&T): 0-222-333-4444 and then xxxx after the tone [bong]. My question: Is there any effective difference between this and personal 1-800 service? If I have the 800 service, I can tell someone my 800 number, and if I have a "CALL ME" card, I can just give them the four digit code. I suppose the billing is different for each service. Glenn F. Leavell Systems Administrator glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu 404-542-3488 University of Georgia Economics Department 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602 [Moderator's Note: They are a lot the same. With an 800 number you can get more wrong numbers than with a Call Me card since it is harder to add the additional four digits on the end, get the whole thing right and still wind up getting the wrong number. If you have Reach Out America then there is a 'calling card option' which lets you associate your calling card (or Call Me card) with your Reach Out account for the purpose of getting calls via the card during plan hours at plan rates. An 800 number is more 'professional-looking' for some people. With a Call Me card although it is restricted by AT&T / local Bell telco to where it can call, sleaze AOS and COCOTs have been known to accept it for billing *anywhere*. Really it is an applications problem. Think over your usage and the pros and cons of going each way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jack Powers Subject: Re: MCI "Personal 800" Service Date: 15 Feb 91 07:31:19 GMT Well, after ordering it twice, I finally got my MCI Personal 800 number. With this service you call the regular 800 number (in my case, 800/484-xxxx) and wait for two short tones... then enter four more digits. Needless to say, if you are at a rotary dial phone, you may be out of luck, but I didn't wait on the line to see if an operator responded in the absence of tones. I DID use it to call myself from my second line, and it worked faster than I expected ... about as fast as any MCI call. The rate is $0.25/minute, which is $15/hour ... not bad (plus $5/month), It may be higher than regular DDD rates ... so calling back might be a good idea if the conversation might get long and it happens at night or on a weekend. MCI could probably change your four-digit "private security code" quickly, but it's probably smart to be careful to whom you give the numbers. Jack Powers jackp@well.sf.ca.us ------------------------------ From: Jeff Jonas Subject: Re: 800 Scrambled ANI Date: 15 Feb 91 07:31:15 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Jonas Organization: Jeff's House of Electronic Parts >I read somewhere (probably TELECOM Digest) about a 900 service where >you dial the 900 then get a dial tone, dial another number, and get >connected to whomever you want. The final party does not get your >phone number through ANI, and the intermediate company gets some money >charged to you as the 900 call. My phone list shows +1 900 STOPPER as the number. I do not recall the fees, but it was charged per minute as well as an initial charge. Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@synsys.uucp synsys!jeffj@uunet.uu.net [Moderator's Note: $2 per minute on domestic calls; $5 per minute on international calls. Of course the catch they are not telling you is that there is no such thing as caller ID on international calls *yet* nor across LATAs, etc. They'd like you to think their service is really valuable, when in fact for the indefinite future there is very little to be blocked. Try them in a couple years when it will be worth perhaps a little more. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bruce Klopfenstein Subject: Re: Telecom SIG on CompuServe Now Open (GO TELECOM) Date: 15 Feb 91 13:01:50 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. From article <16807@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by dogface!bei@cs.utexas.edu (Bob Izenberg): > I just chanced across the Telecommunications Issues SIG on CompuServe. I have two requests: 1) Can someone please use this SIG to slam CompuServe for not providing local access numbers in high modem college towns like Bowling Green, Ohio (over 17,000 students). The last I checked it was up to ME to get BG folks to literally sign a petition. 2) If it's legal to swipe interesting postings from CompuServe Telecom SIG and redistribute to those of us who are not Compu$erve fans, please do so. (And you thought only Prodigy had its detractors.) Bruce C. Klopfenstein | klopfens@barney.bgsu.edu Radio-TV-Film Department | klopfenstein@bgsuopie.bitnet 318 West Hall | klopfens@bgsuvax.UUCP Bowling Green State University | (419) 372-2138; 372-8690 Bowling Green, OH 43403 | fax (419) 372-2300 [Moderator's Note: Compuserve claims a copyright on everything originating on their system, meaning the use of articles here from over there is very 'iffy' at best. It is that same copyright problem, along with the fees charged on Compuserve which prohibit the use of TELECOM Digest in a public display there, although the Digest is sent via email to the mailboxes of some people at CIS. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeff Jonas Subject: Re: Why Does Device Cause Ringing to Stop? Date: 15 Feb 91 07:10:42 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Jonas Organization: Jeff's House of Electronic Parts From TELECOM Digest: Volume 11, Issue 100, Message 6 of 8 >I've been trying to build a box to make key phone's lights flash and >to implement a hold button. The July, 1990 edition of {Modern Electronics} magazine features the schematic of a microprocessor based "phone mate" that provides hold, recall, timer and catched digits as they're dialed. The schematics should be helpful if you don't build the entire thing. Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@synsys.uucp synsys!jeffj@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? Organization: The World Date: 15 Feb 91 11:37:55 In article <74667@bu.edu.bu.edu> atn@cory.berkeley.edu (Alan Nishioka) writes: > Is this safe? Are there other concerns here that I am missing? The thrust of FCC 68 is that you don't damage or overload the telephone network. Hence the load limitations : maximum of 1.6K AC to ring current, max of 5 Meg DC on-hook. Another concern is signal power injected back to tip and ring. If your device does not intend to send back audio signals, then there are (generous) limits on out of band signal power, such as leakage from high frequency clocks in your digital section. The isolation requirements call for up to 1500V of insulation between tip/ring and any user accessible, outside parts of your box. FCC 68 also specifies that after a simulated lightning strike, 800V spike, 10uS rise, 560uS fall, 25 amp max surge, your equipment should still meet the impedance and signal power limitations. If you use an MOV on tip and ring, that should cover it. A relatively new requirement, UL 1459, is required from July, 1991 onwards (for phones, I'm told). The big deal about this test is your circuit must not burst into flames upon application of 600V RMS across tip and ring for 30 minutes or more. (The test is sneaky: if you use a series fuse, they're allowed to current limit just below the fuse limit, and see if the rest of your circuit burns) All this sounds a little overwhelming, I know, but the reason it's so fresh in my memory is because we're going through the process ourselves. I covered the main points above, but there might be some more that I missed. > Should *anyone* build *anything* that connects to the phone line? Can > it be reasonably priced? Does the phone company really care? Should > I do it anyway and just kinda feel guilty? :-) From personal experience, if an experimental circuit is briefly connected across a line, the telephone company does not notice it. But I'd not leave such a circuit connected while I'm not around to observe it. My judgement is : the few dollars saved by leaving a hacked up circuit connected to the line are not worth the potential risk of the insurance company refusing to pay for a fire or personal injury that the device caused (to take an extreme example). Regards, Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems Fax and PC products 346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752 508-562-0722 jon_sree@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: Steve Pozgaj Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System Reply-To: Steve Pozgaj Organization: Digital Media Networks, Toronto, Canada Date: Fri, 15 Feb 1991 10:20:14 -0500 In article <74318@bu.edu.bu.edu> dam@mtqua.att.com (Daniel A Margolis) writes: >>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). I did an extensive search of these myself three years ago, and after having evaluated 15 candidates, ended up selecting the CTG 1648/3264. It is, in a word, FANTASTIC! It does exactly what we need for our business. (We're a small 30-person office with lots of incoming lines (13) and simple paging, intercom, and other "normal" features.) I would recommend it VERY HIGHLY. Cost for us three years ago was CDN$15,000 for the whole works, with battery backed up operation, all handsets, and system console (i.e. receptionist's set). Check it out. Steve Pozgaj @ Digital Media. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 11:09 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Answer Supervision From Loop Start Circuits John Boteler writes: > [Author's Note: Would ground start circuits provide the signalling > desired? Since they are engineered circuits, it would seem that such > signalling could be provided without a lot of pain. I don't see DOD > trunks as being special: many PBXs are configured this way.] This prompts a question: Do other telcos (than Pac*Bell) always consider ground start lines to be design circuits? A number of posts over the years have seemed to carry that assumption. As far as Pac*Bell is concerned, ground start or loop start are simply alternative ways of supplying dial tone. They do not define PBX trunks, business service, or line conditioning. Any line of any COS can be either ground start or loop start, including residence. There is no extra charge for loop start, either for installation or monthly. However, converting a line from one to the other carries a charge roughly equivalent to the installation fee. Does "ground start" imply certain classes of service in other parts of the country? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Re: Network Interfaces: What's the Difference? Date: 15 Feb 91 21:00:05 GMT >On 29-JAN-91, Seth Cohn wrote: >> I recently had a second phone installed for a BBS system. The operator gave >> me a choice of: >> 1) a testable network interface >> 2) a NONtestable network interface >> What's the difference? (Besides about $5 :) ) This is probably an SNI with a built in MTU. (Do you feel informed now?) SNI: Standard Network Intervace (residential semi-equivalent of a 'demarc') MTU: Maintenance Test Unit The MTU is a gadget that has several capabilities depending on what model is installed. The minimum (that I've seen) is that when presented with a specific tone from the CO side, it will disconnect the premises side, allowing the guy on the test desk to quickly determine if the problem is in your equip. or theirs. Many also will send back a test tone, or a series of test tones and quiet time, allowing the test-dude to measure line quality, etc. Some also include the ability to disconnect your equipment automatically in the event of a short on your side (these can be set for "latching" or "non-latching", meaning does the telco have to visit in order to reset it (and charge you $$)). No idea why they would offer you an option; the devices certainly should be cost-effective for them to install everywhere, especially since they could just have charged you for it and not offered the option. Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 17:49:06 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: First to Acknowledge the 1+? I read in the Phoenix, Arizona call guide of Feb. 1990 that the 1+602+7D for toll calls within Arizona was to go into effect July 1, 1990. It goes on to say "It will also allow customers to continue to know on which calls a charge applies." (To summarize, for those areas needing N0X/N1X prefixes: Toll calls within area must be 7D or 1+NPA+7D; can no longer use 1+7D. Toll calls to other areas must be 1+NPA+7D; can no longer use NPA+7D.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 10:27:41 -0800 From: "Paul A. Flaherty" Subject: Re: "Most Accurate Clock" The GC-1000 appears in the most recent Griefkit catalog. It's basically a WWV(H) receiver, slaving a crystal oscillator to that signal. An EIA-232 output is optional, and allows you to set machine clocks. Claimed accuracy is about +-1.0ms; they tend to drift in a sawtooth pattern. We use one at Stanford to provide backup NTP service (our primary source is a more stable reference we receive via BARRNET). -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX -> paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #118 ******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03330; 16 Feb 91 15:10 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09382; 16 Feb 91 13:39 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27121; 16 Feb 91 12:33 CST Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 11:39:01 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #119 BCC: Message-ID: <9102161139.ab23146@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Feb 91 11:38:45 CST Volume 11 : Issue 119 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Nynex Gateway Bites the Dust [John R. Levine] Re: Nynex Gateway Bites the Dust [Andy Behrens] Re: Nynex Gateway Bites the Dust [John Higdon] Re: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy [Jeff Carroll] Re: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy [David Gast] Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [Carl Wright] Re: Maybe it Really is Time for Telecommunications Competition [C. Wright] Re: Apple Wants Radio Waves For Data Transmission [Alan Ruffer] Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [Daniel M. Rosenberg] Re: ANSI X3.64 Document Needed [Toby Nixon] Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line [Mike Berger] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Nynex Gateway Bites the Dust Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 16 Feb 91 00:24:12 EST (Sat) From: "John R. Levine" Although NYNEX would no doubt like us all to believe that their Infolook gateway failed because of excess regulation, the fact that in most cases it was more expensive than calling the providers directly had a lot to do with it. Citinet, for example, was a free BBS available for the price of the call. Delphi/BOSTON, which provided many of the other services, has a flat rate of $10/month. Infolook's lowest price, for the initial directory, was $3/hr and the rates went up from there with typical rates being 25 cents/min, or $15/hr. Would you pay those rates? I certainly didn't. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Andy Behrens Subject: Re: Nynex Gateway Bites the Dust Reply-To: Andy Behrens Organization: Burlington Coat Factory Date: Sat, 16 Feb 1991 03:47:35 GMT > Nynex Corp. said yesterday (Monday) it will pull the plug on a computer > information service [Info-Look] that has lost several million dollars. I doubt it'll be missed. Here's one of the services offered, as described in a flyer that Nynex sent me last year: --------------------------------------------------------------- G O T A R O T Type GO TAROT to see your future with Sphinx Tarot Card Reader on the NYNEX INFO-LOOK Gateway! * General Tarot gives an overview of the next 8 weeks of your life (6 themes). * Astrological Tarot describes the next 12 weeks of your life in detail (12 themes). * Focused Tarot offers insight to a specific current issue of your choosing (6 themes). Our unconscious is a natural psychic, somehow capable of choosing a card which addresses our questions, even if the "card" is electronic, so to speak. The TAROT cards in this service match those used by professional psychics! [You will need Minitel emulation software to access this service] --------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe they should have done a reading to find out if the stars and planets were favorably aligned for starting up a bulletin-board system. Andy ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 00:31 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Nynex Gateway Bites the Dust adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) writes: > Greene is currently re-evaluating his ban. > [...] > At least two other regional phone companies have abandoned > similar services after heavy losses over the past 18 months. I hope Judge Greene thinks long and hard about lifting his proscription on information providing. Why did these regionals have heavy losses when offering information services? I suspect it is because they used the time-honored monopoly tradition of doing THEIR way with no regard to that nasty gremlin -- competition. It does not take a crystal ball to predict what would happen if telcos were allowed to freely participate in on-line information providing. The first order of business would be to get rid of all those interlopers who have the gall to provide FREE on-line services: the BBS operators. We have already seen some of the tactics such as regrading service to "business" on the one hand to trumping up charges and having operators arrested Craig Neidorf-style on the other. Then to kill off the succesful commercial services, such as Compuserve, the various PUCs would be pressured into allowing surcharges and other bogosity to price them out of the market place. Hell, a telco could get the PUC to authorize escalating local charges for all subscribers, but make calls to the telco info line "free" using a special prefix. What I am trying to say here is that telcos should never, but NEVER, be allowed to compete in an industry that depends on telephone service. To do so would put all of the competing players on the endangered species list. I am rooting for the Judge to hold his original ground on this one. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy Date: 16 Feb 91 09:10:19 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Co. In article <74661@bu.edu.bu.edu> rv01%harvey@gte.com (Robert Virzi) writes: >David Gast writes: >> If you call 1-800-544-7544, you can get complete information about the >> fund holdings in Fidelity Funds of anyone whose social security number ... > I tried this and it is not exactly true. In addition to someone's > social security number, you also need to know their account number. I > don't know how Fidelity assigns account numbers, but I would imagine > that this scheme offers significantly more protection than the > four-digit PINs used by banks. I doubt it. In order to get a person's four digit PIN, one must do one of three things: a) crack the bank's computer, b) steal the person's bank card, read the strip, and crack whatever (if any) encryption is used, or c) steal the piece of mail which notifies the subscriber of his PIN, which is only possible in systems which preassign PINs. Otherwise the cracker is facing the expectation of making 5000 inquiries to the bank with the wrong PIN (assuming an unenlightened search strategy). There are many more possible ways to get the whole nine-digit SSN of any person one is likely to be interested in; though in principle the SSN is supposed to be confidential, most people succumb at one time or another to pressure to disclose it, to their employers (who can be pretty free with tossing it around, within their rights) if to no one else. > Is this a change in the security of the system, or just poor reporting > on the part of the WSJ? Might just be an operator who only knows how to search the database by the account number key. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 00:00:00 From: David Gast Subject: Re: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy > A similar story ... if you know the checking account number and last > four digits of the social security number, you can access checking > account balances for any personal Bank of America account. One calls > the local number for customers service. I checked with the bank, and > they have no method for substituting a random or chosen pin for the > SS#, nor for blocking the use of the service. Actually, you do not need the SSN. All you need is the account number. With only the account number, it will not tell you the balance, but it will tell you if a there is at least $N in the account (that is, will this check bounce?). A simple application of binary search will yield the account balance although you might stop after being within plus or minus some epsilon. I presume that you don't really care if the person has $503.12 or $508.31. Further, the telephone number is the main customer service number and the VM prompts lead to the correct choices. If you are in a branch, you can pick up the phone and go from there. I think the first VM choice is #2. David ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Sat, 16 Feb 1991 02:31:25 GMT I urge you to consider buying used switch gear. The MTBF on telecom equipment is so long that after the first user tires of it or grows out of it, there is plenty of time for a new user to get tired out it. Either use a local teleconnect company to find a switch or call 1-800-322-5156 to get a free subscription to {Telecom Gear} to find equipment or a used equipment supplier. There is also an annual article in {Teleconnect} that covers used equipment and their suppliers. We bought a Mitel Super10 years ago from a local teleconnect company and couldn't be happier. It is an 8 by 16 PBX. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: Maybe it Really is Time for Telecommunications Competition Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Sat, 16 Feb 1991 03:42:17 GMT Re: alternatives to the local telco for dial tone, the cable TV companies are an alternative technically. The technical problems have been solved by First Pacific Networks, Sunnyvale, CA which sells equipment to run LANs, voice, and video all over normal cable TV style coax. You plug your phone, your TV, and your PC into the same box which plugs into the coax. I think I read where they are considering it for telephone services in Singapore where the regulatory problems are different than here in the U.S. I meet some of the their developers once when they were trying to decide if they needed real-time telco call service selection. I pointed out that for business users the tariffs are slanted so that you consolidate your use with one service to maximize your discounts and you don't switch services or carriers on a call-by-call basis. You lessen your overall discount switching on a call-by-call basis. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ From: Alan Ruffer Subject: Re: Apple Wants Radio Waves For Data Transmission Date: 16 Feb 91 01:50:32 GMT Reply-To: Alan Ruffer Organization: Perfect Partners Inc., Sulphur, LA In article <74672@bu.edu.bu.edu> Ken Thompson writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 114, Message 8 of 10 > You are late to the party, Apple. > NCR has had > its WaveLan out since last year. It operates spread spectrum in the > 908-928 MHz band at a 2M data rate with DES encoding for security. > RF power is two watts and with small gain antenna distances of five > miles between nodes is easily attained. I think it lists for $1390 a > node, installs in any IBM compatable, and is Netware compatable. The REALLY sad part about all this is that 902.0 - 928.0 Mhz is the amateur radio 33 centimeter band. Devices that operate in this band are NOT guaranteed freedom from interference! There are other wireless gadgets that operate in this frequency range too. Buyers of these devices should be aware of this. While it is illegal for an amateur to intentionally interfere, these devices are subject to unintentional interference, and amateurs may ALSO be subject to interference from these transmiters. This is a bad situation that will get much worse before it gets better. Alan R. Ruffer UUCP: {csccat,chinacat!holston}!adept!alan Route 1, Box 1745 Amateur Radio Station WB5FKH Sulphur, LA 70663 BBS: (318) 527-6667, 19200(PEP)/9600(V.32)/2400/1200 ------------------------------ From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System Date: 16 Feb 91 00:07:47 GMT Organization: World Otherness Ministries In <74655@bu.edu.bu.edu> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Four modems each answer a particular line > each and there is a FAX machine. If a particular modem has not reset > and does not answer, there is a delayed ringing sequence programed > into the switch to try another after one ring and so on down the line. > This is set up in a circular arrangement, which the Panasonic is > easily capable of doing. This arrangement also allows a modem to use > other lines, such as WATS, for outgoing calls by simply putting a > different trunk group access code in the dial script. We have a 1232 as well, but I don't see how it's physically possible for you to call-forward-no answer CO calls. Perhaps your modems get called from the DISA card? But I thought the call-forward-no answer/busy works only on extension-to-extension calls. If that's not true, I'd be psyched to figure out what you did to make yours work otherwise. We're paying a $40/month premium to the University phone department for the privilidge of CO-hunting. # Daniel M. Rosenberg Stanford Univ CSLI Opinions here are my own # dmr@csli.stanford.edu {apple,ucbvax}!labrea!csli!dmr BIT:dmr%csli@stanford ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: ANSI X3.64 Document Needed Date: 16 Feb 91 01:20:33 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article <74668@bu.edu.bu.edu>, eplrx7!cristy@uunet.uu.net (John Cristy) writes: > I need a copy of the ANSI X3.64 document. Apparently that is the > specification for ANSI terminal emulation. Please Email your answer. > And thanks in advance. ANSI standards can be ordered from: Sales Department American National Standards Institute 1430 Broadway New York NY 10018 Voice: 212-642-4900 Fax: 212-302-1286 According to the most recent catalog I have, X3.64 costs $19. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Mike Berger Subject: Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Sat, 16 Feb 1991 03:19:10 GMT atn@cory.berkeley.edu (Alan Nishioka) writes: > Now, many books and magazines regularly publish projects that connect > to the phone line. Even the usually respectable TELECOM Digest > recently published several such projects. I don't think any of them > have been certified anything by anyone. The books that I've seen generally include a caveat that the projects don't necessarily meet legal interface or registration requirements. > I see two issues involved: One of safety (to craftspersons, etc. ) and > the other of just following the rules. I can see if I were going to > sell these devices that I would be interested in both, but as a > hobbyist I am mostly interested in the first. > Is this safe? Are there other concerns here that I am missing? > Should *anyone* build *anything* that connects to the phone line? Can > it be reasonably priced? Does the phone company really care? Should > I do it anyway and just kinda feel guilty? :-) The phone company is interested in protecting their employees and equipment. Unregistered devices can potentially disrupt somebody elses' service or put dangerous voltages on the phone line. If you DO coincidentally cause problems, it's a good bet that the phone company will disconnect your service without notification and you may have a very hard time getting it restored. I suspect that the authors of the articles you mentioned would point out that you could connect the devices to your OWN local telephone switch without worrying about tariffs or registration. Mike Berger Department of Statistics, University of Illinois AT&TNET: 217-244-6067 Internet: berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #119 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09776; 16 Feb 91 21:20 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00991; 16 Feb 91 19:49 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20915; 16 Feb 91 18:41 CST Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 18:29:38 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #120 BCC: Message-ID: <9102161829.ab10716@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Feb 91 18:29:20 CST Volume 11 : Issue 120 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson US West Fined - Specifics? [Jamie Saker] US West Pays $10 Million Fine [Eduardo Krell] US West Fined for MFJ Violations [Peter Marshall] Pacific Telesis PR Video Sought [Bruce Klopfenstein] PacBell Personal 800 vs LD Carriers [Brian Gordon] US Sprint Signs Deal With Democratic National Committee [Kevin Collins] Requesting Advice on Cross-Country Digital Links [John L. Shelton] Airphones and Receiving Calls [John Harrison] Ordering Real Cheap Private Lines [Eric Weaver] AT&T SelectSaver Plan [Allyn Lai] Cheap Cellulars - Where's the Rub? [Steve Pershing] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jamie Saker Subject: US West Fined - Specifics? Date: 16 Feb 91 16:56:34 CST Yesterday afternoon's {Omaha World Herald} (the only daily paper in the Omaha, Nebraska area) had a very short, cryptic and poorly written article on U S West being fined some $10 million or so for violating some of the rules set down after the break-up of AT&T. Although there were hints that they were fined for conducting business outside the areas permitted, no specifics were mentioned. I'm curious if anyone has information about what specific charges were involved and what enterprises US West engaged in that got them into hot water. Could it have been their CommunityLink project, perhaps, that got them into trouble? Jamie Saker jsaker@zeus.unomaha.edu C&DC Consultant jsaker@orion.unomaha.edu JSAKER@UNOMA1 (bitnet) [Moderator's Note: I received two good summaries of the situation in the mail yesterday and have included them in this issue. See the messages which follow. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ekrell@ulysses.att.com Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 20:34:15 EST Subject: US West Pays $10 Million Fine The U.S. Justice Department's anti-trust division collected its largest ever fine from a single defendant when US West agreed to pay a $10 million civil fine for violating the 1982 consent decree that broke up AT&T. US West admitted it violated the decree by offering a reverse directory service and by providing computer hardware, personnel and other support to run a debit card system for Atlantic Richfield Co. through its Applied Communications Inc. subsidiary. It also admitted to price discrimination by offering the GSA a lower price on local exchange access if it purchased switching equipment from US West instead of AT&T and it admitted to violating the MFJ's ban on manufacturing telecomm equipment by designing and selling operator workstations for DA and call assistance operators through another subsidiary, Knowledge Engineering Inc. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Subject: US West Fined for MFJ Violations Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 14:18:35 PST Organization: The 23:00 News An AP story, "US West to Pay $10 Million Fine," was buried in the Business Section of today's {Seattle Times}. According to AP, "US West Inc. agreed yesterday to pay a $10 million civil fine for violating the 1982 consent decree that broke up AT&T, the Justice Department said. US West admitted to four violations of the consent decree that restricts the types of businesses and services the spun-off companies may provide. The fine is the largest ever collected from a single defendant by the Justice Department's antitrust division, the department said. It was also was the largest fine for an antitrust contempt case. US West admitted that it violated the consent decree by offering a reverse directory service. The company also admitted its Applied Communications Inc. subsidiary violated the consent decree by providing support to run a debit card system for Atlantic Richfield Co. It also admitted to price discrimination by offering the General Services Administration a lower price on local exchange access if it purchased switching equipment from US West, the Justice Department said. US West also admitted to violating the ban on manufacturing telecommunications equipment by designing and selling operator workstations through its Knowledge Engineering Inc. subsidiary...." ------------------------------ From: Bruce Klopfenstein Subject: Pacific Telesis PR Video Sought Date: 16 Feb 91 22:28:04 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. At a recent conference sponsored by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, a videotape provided by Pacific Telesis was shown. It was a very slick presentation of life in about ten years if the telcos are allowed to play in the information delivery arenas of the future. It featured the day-in-the-life of an Hispanic family in which a distant daughter is about to give birth to her premature baby. The father and mother talk to her via videophone, give voice commands to their terminal to make airline reservations and order a gift, etc. A worried doctor contacts a specialist and transmits sonograms (sp?) and other medical data for help in diagnosis. No matter the politics of the situation, it's a very realistic portrayal of future services that we are all now reading about. As such, I'd like to get a copy for educational purposes. Can anyone help me reach the right people at Pacific Telesis (or vice versa)? This is not an endorsement of telco entry into information delivery nor an acceptance of the portrayal of future services. Just recognition of a very slick video presentation. Thanks. Bruce C. Klopfenstein | klopfens@barney.bgsu.edu Radio-TV-Film Department | klopfenstein@bgsuopie.bitnet 318 West Hall | klopfens@bgsuvax.UUCP Bowling Green State University | (419) 372-2138; 372-8690 Bowling Green, OH 43403 | fax (419) 372-2300 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 06:49:32 PST From: Brian Gordon Subject: PacBell Personal 800 vs LD Carriers An interesting revelation today. I looked into a PacBell personal 800 number, since my wife and I do quite a bit of calling-card calling home from around the region. The base cost is $5/mo (no set-up fee for orders during the first few months). For the local service area, you are billed at rates like $0.183 per minute day, $0.125 evening, $0.10 night and weekends. If you call enough, the rates go down. So far, so good. You must also select a long distance carrier. My first choice was AT&T, hoping that these calls would combine with other lines for the Reach Out America discounts. First bad news -- no -- that bill is completely separate and they claim it can't be combined with anything else. The disaster, though, is that they want $15 a month for the service, used or not!! For the calls that go through them, it is $0.22 per minute, in one minute increments, around the clock. Sufficient useage lowers the rate. No setup fee. In contrast, US Sprint also has no setup fee, but has no monthly charge, and charges $0.2006 (day), $0.1873 (evening) and $0.1443 (night and weekend) per minute with a six second increment. That is, their highest rate is lower than AT&T's lowest (OK, constant) rate. Again, over four hours in a month lowers the rate. It does seem that AT&T doesn't want the business ... ------------------------------ From: Kevin Collins Subject: US Sprint Signs Deal With Democratic National Committee Date: 16 Feb 91 00:56:48 GMT Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca The following is quoted from an article in {Communications Week}, February 4, 1991: "Under an agreement announced last week, US Sprint Communications Co. will give the Democratic National Committee five percent of the rate charged for every call that is made by a customer who has switched to US Sprint at the prompting of the committee. And the same amount will be donated from calls made by current US Sprint customers who have - at the behest of the Democrats - signed up for a special US Sprint calling card." The article goes on to say that a spokesman for US Sprint viewed the arrangement as a "paid commission for bringing us new customers". When a DNC spokesman was asked if such a program would promote favoritism of US Sprint by the Demos, he replied "I don't think it will be that lucrative to affect us." Can we take this to mean that something a little more lucrative *would* affect them :-)? But seriously, why is the DNC in this agreement if not to make money? How ethical is it for a long distance carrier - a member of a *regulated* industry - to be paying a national political party to influence potential customers? Furthermore, US Sprint reportedly plans to offer a similar deal to the Republican National Committee. So, now we may have both major parties in this country holding a vested interest in a company (US Sprint) whose chief competitor (AT&T) Congress regulates - sounds interesting, no? Kevin Collins | Aspect Telecommunications USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc | San Jose, CA Voice: +1 408 441 2489 | My opinions are mine alone. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 00:55:58 From: "John L. Shelton" Subject: Requesting Advice on Cross-Country Digital Links I am interested in operating a 56kbit link between California and Virginia locations. I want no restriction on the traffic, want to operate multiple protocols, and would rather not have many people snooping on this link. Other than directly renting from AT&T, USSprint, MCI, etc, what options do I have? (In a recent request, only two of the big three even took time to respond, and AT&T said they couldn't provide hardware, only the data circuits. Interesting ...) =John L. Shelton= Advanced Decision Systems Mountain View, California ------------------------------ From: John Harrison Subject: Airphones and Receiving Calls Date: 16 Feb 91 18:11:16 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA I know this was probably discussed when Die Hard 2 first came out, but I missed that. So the question I have is: Why can't you really receive calls on a GTE Airphone? Is this something that GTE has chose not to implement or are there other technical reasons. Note: The reference to Die Hard 2 is that Bruce Willis calls his wife after being paged from an Airphone. ------------------------------ From: Eric Weaver Subject: Ordering Real Cheap Private Lines Organization: Sony Advanced Video Technology Center Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 11:30:19 GMT I wish to set up a line from a radio studio to a cable TV head end building. I want to order the cheapest simplest pair-of-wires imaginable. Could anybody inform me of the precise name of such a service, and maybe even the order code for it? I've heard that I want to ask for a "telegraph circuit." The Pac Bell reps in that department act more like city clerks than sales folk; very uncooperative. Alternately, does anybody know about doing upstream links on cable? Thanks, Eric Weaver Perpetrator Peninsula Radio Foundation Eric Weaver Sony Advanced Video Technology Center 677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 32 ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!Allyn@uunet.uu.net Subject: AT&T SelectSaver Plan Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 12:23:48 PST I just got a letter from AT&T about their SelectSaver Plan. Basically the letter states that according to their records we have been making enough calls to area code 305 that it may be worthwhile to sign up for SelectSaver. I've got a sister in Seattle (area code 206) and a sister in Ft. Lauderdale (area code 305). It's kind of odd that they mentioned 305 and not 206 since I think we make more calls to Seattle ... maybe the "data" they have is bogus. I'm wondering if it's worth signing up for. It says that it's a $1.90 per month and they'll even waive the sign up fee (which is funny because I didn't there was one in the first place!) of $5.00 if I sign up before April 1. Here are the specifics, if I sign up I get to call area code 305 at the following rates: 12 cents/minute M-F 5pm - 8am All Sat & Sun. 20 cents/minute M-F 8am - 5pm You also get a 5% discount on all other out-of-state, direct-dialed AT&T long distance calls made to other area codes. Frankly, I'm inclined not to sign up. Our family rarely makes long distance calls so I don't think this plan would really payoff. What do other people think? Allyn Lai allyn@cup.portal.com [Moderator's Note: You would do just as well signing up for the Reach Out America 24 hour plan. This gives fairly generous discounts during off hours, a five percent discount on daytime calls, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Cheap Cellulars - Where's the Rub? From: system administrator Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 12:21:54 PST Organization: Questor*Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC => +1 604 681.0670 I remember reading some time ago that cellular telephones were sold as low as $100 in Michigan. I recently received a mail-order catalog from Minnesota offering two "transportable" cellular phones, one at $88 (+$20 s&h) and the other at $199 (+$25 s&h). Both phone ads have the following disclaimer: "These transportable celluar phones require a one year service and new activation commitment. Your phone will come pre-programmed with a local cellular number. Phones are not available in North Carolina, California and Hawaii Please have your Social Security number and driver's license number ready when you call to order. This phone comes fully activated and preprogrammed with your local cellular number." (I presume that the sellers make their money from the one year service agreement, which may cost $40/mo or more.) If any cellular gurus can offer any advice as to which might be the "better" unit, in terms of technical advantages, battery life, serviceability, etc, I would appreciate advice, and might be moved to purchase one. The cheapest unit is touted to have a "suggested retail" price of $599, has no model number, and is described as follows: CM Telecom Transportable Cellular Phone (no model nbr quoted, just a photo of a cellular handset coming out of a leather "shaving-kit" type bag with an antenna on it. Handset has the words "freecomm" on it, standard 12-button tt pad, + 6 buttons in two rows below it. - ESN callup; three call timers - 99 full alphanumeric memory locations - silent incoming call alert - battery overdrain protection - four level lock with 911 override - one-touch auto-send dialling - auto-retry; scrolling - ten-digit lcd display - last number redial, silent scratchpad - fully modular removable handset - programmable lock mode - cigarette lighter adapter - leather case with antenna (has a zipper (down the middle, antenna on the side.) They ask $58. for an optional rechargeable battery pack and $38 for the hands free speakerphone accessory. The other unit: Nokia-Mobira Transportable Cellular, model LX-11 - thirty number memory with thirty-two digit capacity - speed dialling, last nbr redial - three watt power output They ask $99 for an "optional" nicad battery with charger, plus $19. for an "optional" handsfree speakerphone. Sorry for my ignorance, but I still have an old Motorola TLD1200 IMTS unit in my storage locker which I used happily for many years. (Maybe I should get the parts I need (cable assembly to control head and battery, and the locking base plate for the trunk transceiver unit) and use it instead? Steve Pershing, System Administrator The QUESTOR PROJECT - Free Usenet News/Internet Mail; Sci, Med, AIDS, more Usenet: sp@questor.wimsey.bc.ca POST: 1027 Davie Street, Box 486 Phones: Voice/FAX: +1 604 682-6659 Vancouver, British Columbia Data/BBS: +1 604 681-0670 Canada V6E 4L2 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #120 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10835; 16 Feb 91 22:30 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14120; 16 Feb 91 20:58 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00991; 16 Feb 91 19:49 CST Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 19:28:34 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #121 BCC: Message-ID: <9102161928.ab23010@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Feb 91 19:28:20 CST Volume 11 : Issue 121 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson NXX Count (1-15-91) [Dave Esan] Digital Cellular Correction and Apology [John T. Ellis] Party Line Ringer [Mike DeMetz] Your Evolving Phone Number [Richard Brodsky via Asif Taiyabi] UK Operator/Special Services Codes [Andrew Yeomans] Can Email be Sent to Troops? [Volkhart Baumgaertner] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Esan Subject: NXX Count (1-15-91) Date: 16 Feb 91 16:09:00 GMT Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY Once a quarter I receive the BellCore V&H tape. Using this information I can total the number of exchanges in each area code. The twenty most populous area codes are listed below. After the written text of this article I have included the count for each of the area codes. I have not included the 52? series of area codes that are in use for Mexico, since they are not yet dialable from the US. (Note: Don't ask me when they will be dialable, I don't know although I will guess sometime after 1995.) I have not included the 82? series of area codes which include many more Mexico exchanges, as well as the non-diable locations in the NANP. 213: 729 212: 663 919: 620 714: 573 214: 718 415: 642 205: 615 206: 570 201: 694 512: 634 215: 597 501: 564 301: 690 416: 628 403: 591 604: 553 404: 667 313: 626 602: 589 703: 546 Of the top 20 NPA's we can note: (I have no details on calling patterns in those NPA's not noted, and have no information of impending splits in those NPA's). #1 213 - due to split to 310 beginning February 1, 1992. #2 214 - has split to 903. Permissive dialling will end 11/91, and number will be reduced. #3 201 - has split to 908. Permissive dialling will end this year, and number will be reduced. #4 301 - due to split to 410 beginning November, 1991. #5 404 - no plans to split at this point. I have no data on ten digit dialling for non-local calls. #6 212 - due to split to 917 sometime in 1992. #7 415 - due to split to 510 beginning October 7, 1991. #8 512 - no plans to split at this point. I have no data on ten digit dialling for non-local calls. #9 416 - no plans to split at this point. Ten digit dialling in affect for non-local calls. #10 313 - no plans to split at this point. Ten digit dialling in affect for non-local calls. #16 714 - will split to 909 beginning November 1992. Has anyone in Atlanta heard about an impending split? I thought Atlanta was a major growth area, and as #5 on the NPA chart (and rising rapidly as 201 and 214 get reduced with the end of permissive dialling) some thought must have been given. The other area codes are given below. 201: 694 304: 323 406: 338 508: 366 612: 513 714: 573 816: 444 202: 251 305: 456 407: 379 509: 234 613: 280 715: 309 817: 477 203: 477 306: 444 408: 295 512: 634 614: 398 716: 371 818: 353 204: 344 307: 149 409: 281 513: 446 615: 524 717: 466 819: 306 205: 615 308: 192 412: 414 514: 476 616: 369 718: 396 901: 219 206: 570 309: 257 413: 130 515: 403 617: 369 719: 155 902: 261 207: 332 312: 415 414: 458 516: 361 618: 324 801: 322 903: 263 208: 276 313: 626 415: 642 517: 312 619: 487 802: 175 904: 487 209: 330 314: 520 416: 628 518: 249 701: 350 803: 496 905: 306 212: 663 315: 254 417: 195 519: 342 702: 288 804: 459 906: 109 213: 729 316: 353 418: 358 601: 390 703: 546 805: 274 907: 405 214: 718 317: 413 419: 329 602: 589 704: 332 806: 255 908: 307 215: 597 318: 329 501: 564 603: 229 705: 265 807: 105 912: 318 216: 540 319: 323 502: 335 604: 553 706: 176 808: 250 913: 433 217: 354 401: 131 503: 518 605: 341 707: 176 809: 490 914: 328 218: 285 402: 403 504: 322 606: 263 708: 518 812: 273 915: 293 219: 343 403: 591 505: 307 607: 163 709: 256 813: 484 916: 405 301: 690 404: 667 506: 174 608: 242 712: 270 814: 256 918: 305 302: 108 405: 536 507: 258 609: 263 713: 536 815: 287 919: 620 303: 505 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- David Esan de@moscom.com ------------------------------ From: John T Ellis Subject: Digital Cellular Correction and Apology Date: 16 Feb 91 16:42:56 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Grp., Arlington Hgts, IL A few days ago, I posted the following article to this list: > Digital cellular will increase capacity in the following manner. The > first method under development (and actually being tested) is TDM - > Time Division Multiplexing. The capacity increase on paper is 3:1 (3 > times more than current analog). The other method being looked at is > CDM - Code Division Multiplexing. On paper it is said to provide an > increase of 20:1. > The biggest problem with these new technologies is the size of the > phone needed to implement them. Currently the phone designs call for > some huge ie. garbage can, phone with an unbelievable power source. > So ... digital cellular is a ways off. [text deleted] In my haste to appear knowledgable and make a contribution to this list, I gave you information that was not based on research. Rather, it was based on rumors and distorted facts. I would like to apologize to the list for my unprofessionalism. I am not in any way affiliated with Motorola's work on digitial cellular since I am an analog switch engineer. However, I wanted to share with you what little I knew and in my haste, failed to verify my information. Again, I would like to apologize and assure you that it will not happen again. Following is information I obtained from an engineer who, for a period of time, worked on the Motorola USDC project. 1. I can assure you that the digital mobile is NOT the size of a garbage can. In fact, the full-function mobile is enclosed in a Motorola FM Transciever case, about two feet by one foot by four inches. And that is only the first cut at it. I guarantee they will get smaller. The aim is a digital luggable or largish handheld. 2. TDMA = Time Division Multiple Access CDMA = Code Division Multiple Access (not multiplexing as I originally wrote) 3. The capacity increase of 3:1 is not on paper; we have shown the TDMA capability to Pactel with a working demo system. The 20:1 increase that is proposed for CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access, a form of spread sprectrum transmission) is only on paper; nobody has built a working example. 4. The biggest problems with TDMA technology is the degradation of speech quality with channel errors, and the fact that a POCKET-SIZED digital mobile is several years away. Also the great difficulty in expanding the speech compression to the final 6:1; that is the theoretical limit for this application. It was brought to my attention that my original posting gave some bad impressions of Motorola's committment to digital cellular. I would like to iterate that Motorola DOES officially support US Digitial Cellular. Finally, the information and views expressed above, in my original posting and in all future postings are my own and are not necessarily those of Motorola's. Thanks. John T. Ellis 708-632-7857 Motorola Cellular motcid!ellis@chg.mcd.mot.com ------------------------------ From: Mike DeMetz Subject: Party Line Ringer Organization: Syscon International Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 00:43:12 GMT My sister's house is on a party line system that uses some kind of frequency selector to select which house is rung on the main phone. When she tried to put in an answering machine it answered for everyone on her line. In the letter the phone company sent her telling her to disconnect they said she could by extra frequency selectors for $50. Is there any other sources for these? Can one be built easily? Is there an ID on hers that tells what frequency it is? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 1991 13:51 EST From: Asif Taiyabi Subject: Your Evolving Phone Number Organization: Management Systems Laboratory The following article appeared in the American Heritage of Invention and Technology. ************** Your Evolving Phone Number BY RICHARD BRODSKY More and more commercial phone numbers are being advertised with a name or word as part of the number. We are urged to dial 335-DIET or 970-LOAN. This is a small historical regression, requiring the use of letters that the phone company made obsolete decades ago. Where did the old alphanumeric dial plate come from? Most of the world never used letters. And where did it go? The story begins in the telephone's infancy. At first, central-office operators sat at switchboards, completing connections in response to spoken requests like "Ring Dr. Smith, please." There were few enough phone lines so the operator simply knew where to plug in for the call. That began to change during an outbreak of the measles in Lowell, Massachusetts, in 1879. The town doctor, Moses Parker, feared that if all four Lowell operators fell ill, their substitutes would have trouble connecting people unless every line got a number. The idea caught on. In the 1880s telephone service quadrupled in the nation's settled areas. Cities soon had not only a central office and phone numbers but exchanges in other parts of town, so callers now asked for Main or Central plus the subscriber's several-digit number. Branch exchanges usually took their names from their relative geography. St. Louis had Main and Central; Baltimore, Eastern; and San Francisco, West. As new exchanges proliferated, they usually took their names from streets or neighborhoods: thus Brooklyn's Bensonhurst, Los Angeles's Hollywood, and Boston's Commonwealth. Bell devised phonetic tests to help make sure only easily understood names were chosen. By the time dialed calling was introduced in the Bell System, in 1921, the exchange names were so ingrained that Bell Telephone kept them on. William G. Blauvelt of AT&T had divided the alphabet into groups of three letters for each of the dial's openings in 1917. He omitted Q because of its infrequency, and the rarely used Z was relegated to the zero (operator) slot and eventually dropped as well. Because c single phone-number pulse could be transmitted when the receiver lifted or the finger wheel was jarred, no calls would be initiated until a pulse signal of at least 2 was received. Thus the number 1 got no letters attached to it. Dialing swept the nation, but only large cities used exchange name dialing; in small towns one still had only to dial a three- or four-digit number. For instance, in Walnut Creek, California, if your number was 1407, locally you dialed 1407. From out of town you asked for Walnut Creek 1407. Across the bay in San Francisco, if you wanted Sutter 1407, you would dial SU-1407; from afar you'd dial 211 for the longlines operator and say, "I'd like San Francisco, please: Sutter 1407." When neighborhood and street names started to run out, the Bell System recommended new names. Bell of Pennsylvania looked to trees, so Pittsburgh and Philadelphia wound up in the 1930s with shared names like Locust, Poplar, and Walnut. Seven-digit numbers became standard only after World War II. New York City had pioneered them in the early 1930s when it began inserting an "exchange-designation number" after the two- letter exchange prefix. Thus were born numbers like CAnal 6-5108. By the mid-1950s all other major cities were converted to this system, retiring such diverse combinations as Chicago's three letters and four digits, Cleveland's two letters and four digits, and Dallas's one letter and four digits. In 1961, Bell Telephone announced that it would phase out exchange name dialing city by city. Pittsburgh and Cincinnati began conversion in, 1962; Philadelphia and Seattle were the last to change, in 1978. The now classic combination of two letters and five numbers had been a fully national standard for less than a decade. All-number calling was introduced for several reasons. Mainly, there weren't enough workable letter combinations. Exchanges like 571 had stayed unavailable because letters like JKL (5) and PRS(7) wouldn't combine. All-number calling also eliminated confusingly spelled exchanges like New York's RHinelander, prevented mix ups between similar letters and numbers like O and 0, and made possible direct dialing from Europe and other parts of the world. Most countries had never had letters on their dials. The old central-office names are gone from the phone book, but they resonate in memory. They seem to stand for an era - the era of Glenn Miller's "Pennsylvania 6-5000," of John O'Hara's Butterfield 8, and of Barbara Stanwyck's closely clutched list of phone numbers in the chilling 1948 film Sorry, Wrong Number. 335-DIET just isn't the same. ******************* Richard Brodsky is a medical librarian and collector of telephone memorabilia in Pittsburgh. ******************* Asif Taiyabi Management Systems Lab. (703) 231-3501 1900 Kraft Drive aat@vtmsl.bitnet Blacksburg, VA 24060 aat%vtmsl@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu [Moderator's Note: Thanks for sending this along. The oldest exchange in Chicago (312-236) comes from 1879 when there was but one exchange and it was known as the 'central'. When a second office opened, it was across the downtown area on Franklin Street (312-372), so it became known as Franklin and the original retained the name Central. These evolved into FRAnklin and CENtral when manual service was phased out and dialing started (1939). When 3-L / 5-D changed to 2-L / 6-D these became CEntral-6 and FRanklin-2, then a quarter century ago the final (or most recent) change took place. The opening of the phone office at Wabash Avenue and Congress Parkway downtown about 1890 brought us WABash which is now 312-922. Many people *were* conrfused by the names; they often dialed HP for Hyde Park instead of HY, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: andrew yeomans Subject: UK Operator/Special Services Codes Date: 14 Feb 91 16:13:46 GMT Reply-To: andrew yeomans Organization: Crosfield Ltd., Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom Does anyone have a list of the operator services, special access codes, etc for the UK? I've listed the ones I know about below: 100 Operator services 131 Mercury access (+ 10-digit PIN + number) 142 London area directory enquiries (from London area only) 144 Chargecard (+ 8-digit PIN + number) 150 Customer service 151 Fault repair service 153 International + fax directory enquiries 155 International operator 158 International conference calls 16 Cricketline / Discline 174 Ringback number 175 Subscribers Automatic Line Test (SALT) (+ number + 1305) 190 TeleMessage (London, Birmingham, Glasgow) 191 General call enquiries (eg tones + announcements) 192 Directory enquiries 999 Emergency Andrew Yeomans | UUCP: ajy@cel.uucp or ..!{ukc,mcsun,uunet}!cel!ajy Crosfield Electronics Ltd | PSTN: +44 442 230000 X 3371 Fax: +44 442 232301 Three Cherry Trees Lane | These opinions are MINE, all MINE! Hemel Hempstead | Ps 66: "Thou broughtest us into the net; Herts, HP2 7RH, England | thou laidst affliction upon our loins." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 21:24:32 EST From: Volkhart Baumgaertner Subject: Can Email be Sent to Troops? I'm sorry if I am asking something that may have been answered in the Digest before, but I was abroad for a while and unable to read it. I have heard that there is an Internet or Bitnet address that allows one to send e-mail to soldiers in Saudi-Arabia. Friends of mine would like to send mail to their relatives in units down there. So if anybody has information on the address and procedure I'd be most grateful if he'd share it with me. Volkhart Baumgaertner Internet:T720019@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu Bitnet :T720019@univscvm ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #121 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13006; 17 Feb 91 0:48 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05123; 16 Feb 91 23:07 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27835; 16 Feb 91 22:00 CST Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 21:14:40 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #122 BCC: Message-ID: <9102162114.ab29146@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Feb 91 21:14:25 CST Volume 11 : Issue 122 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Bill Bernbenich; Tom Coradeschi] Cordless Phones: Are Any 'Secure' From Handset to Base? [Callaghan] ISDN Frame Relay Tariff [Johnny Zweig] Cellular Phone Problems [Kerry Neef] One-Number Card Warning [Steve Forrette] A Good Source for Low Cost 48V Power Supplies [Kendall Miller] Salute to a Very Helpful Service Rep [Bob Hofkin] Is 1 + 703 Gone After This Year? [Bob Hofkin] Data Call / Fax Call Test in Canada [Rick Mills] Request for Modem Software [David Moscovitz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bill Subject: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 14:01:38 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: Bill Berbenich sent this from the AP wire; Tom Coradeschi sent the same story from the {Star Ledger} on Thursday. My thanks to both of you. PAT] WASHINGTON (AP) -- Travelers fed up with high long-distance phone charges at airports, hotels and other public places would get a break under new rules proposed by the Federal Communications Commission. The prospective rules, unveiled at a commission meeting Wednesday, would guarantee travelers easier access to the long-distance company they use at home. That means anyone making "dial 0" calls could avoid using so-called operator services companies that have rates that may be two or three times what major long-distance carriers such as American Telephone & Telegraph Co., MCI and US Sprint charge. The agency also invited public comment on a plan to compensate owners of pay phones from which some long-distance calls are made. The commission also: -- Proposed either changing or eliminating rules that prohibit companies offering cellular telephone service from also selling equipment. The companies could not require customers to purchase equipment to receive service. -- Decided to consider whether it will preempt some local statutes that outlaw mobile scanners. Some cities and states forbid mobile scanners because they can pick up police, fire and ambulance channels. But some FCC-licensed ham radio operators have been fined and their equipment confiscated for violations. Congress, in last year's Telephone Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act, required the FCC to design a plan to ensure that people using hotel and public telephones have access to the long-distance carriers they choose. In many cases, coin and hotel phones owners, called aggregators, route all calls to a single operator services company, which has a contract with long-distance carriers that actually carry the calls. The phone owners usually receive a commission, which can be as high as twenty percent, from the operator company for each call made. But customers have complained about the high cost of some of the calls and about not being able to use their presubscribed long distance companies. "Even as we speak, there are people in the Atlanta airport beating on the walls and banging on telephones trying to figure out how to get access to their long-distance companies," Commissioner Ervin Duggin said. The commission could force all long distance carriers to set up either 800- or 950-prefix telephone numbers for a customer to use in gaining access to their systems. Or it could require that public phones allow a customer to dial the "10XXX" access code assigned to his company. US Sprint's access code, for instance, is 10333. The proposed rules would give aggregators a year to unblock access to 10XXX numbers at pay phones. Hotel and other internal phone systems would be given three years to allow access to 10XXX numbers. If they replaced their equipment before then, they would have to make the change at that time. MCI and US Sprint customers already can use either 800 or 950 numbers or dial a 10XXX access code. But AT&T depends solely on the access code. That company has lobbied the FCC to require 10XXX access, saying it would cost as much as $50 million to develop and $250 million a year to operate an 800 access number. "It would be costly for us to set up an 800 network," AT&T spokesman Jim McGann said. Aggregators have worried that unblocking access to 10XXX numbers could lead to fraud. Some local phone systems can't distinguish between charge or collect calls and direct-dialed calls. The owner of the phone could be stuck with the charges from a direct-dialed call. The FCC also must decide whether pay phone owners should be compensated for the access calls. Currently, anyone using an access number pays only the long-distance company. The North American Telecommunications Association has asked that the owners be allowed to charge 25 cents for each call. Bill Berbenich bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Georgia Tech, School of Electrical Engineering -- and -- Tom Coradeschi ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 07:50:27 PST From: callaghan@bss.enet.dec.com Subject: Cordless Phones: Are any 'Secure' From Handset to Base Question: Are there any 'secure' cordless phones?? After reading the recent comparisons/comments/conversations around cordless phones I've not seen much on any models (nor have I found any* vendors) who offer some sort of secure link between handset and base (I.E. scramble, digitized, etc..) Since cordless phones are SO open, and you can bet that someone may be listening, I would consider this a BIG plus that could help a vendor succeed over competitors in the marketspace. Last summer's court case ( {Wall Street Journal} Aug ??) where an individual (while eavesdropping via scanner on a cordless) gained enough info to help get his neighbor arrested/tried for conspiracy (of all things) is definitely enough for me to want to search out at least a cheap sideband addon, or go back to the 500 foot extension cord. Any product suggestions, comments, insights are eagerly requested. [Moderator's Note: Back in my CB radio days many years ago, I used to frustrate the neighbors by talking on sideband rather than AM. They could still hear sounds coming from their television on channel 2 (and indeed, they would say 'it must be Pat on the radio again', but at least they couldn't understand what I was talking about! :) All they got were 'Donald Duck sounds', as any of you radio guys will attest who've heard a sideband transmission while tuned to AM. Too bad the cordless phone manufacturers can't scramble their signal or at least use lower / upper sideband, etc ... that would fix the majority of the snoops, although a dedicated person would tune up the ham rig and listen anyway. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Johnny Zweig Subject: ISDN Frame Relay Tariff Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: U of Ill., Dept. of Computer Science, Systems Research Group Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 01:50:02 GMT I heard awhile back (and posted a question or two) about ISDN Frame Relay service in which I treat my local central office as a packet-switch and dump HDLC frames (recall they have eught-bit addresses in them) onto the B-channel of my ISDN BRI and let the switch figure out how to get them where they need to go. I assume there must be some kind of virtual-circuit negotiation on the D-channel to set up the mapping from 8-bit HDCL frame identifiers to ISDN phone numbers (according to Hardwick's book there are both an 8-bit Terminal Endpoint Identifier (address) and an eight-bit Service Access Point Identifier (kind of like a port/protocol-ID) in each HDLC frame). Anyway, rumor has it (actually it was Van Jacobson who said it so it is something more than a mere rumor) that the tariff for this service in the Bay Area will be a flat monthly rate. I would imagine this is more that they haven't actually passed tariffs for it yet than that they think this is a sensible way to bill for a service likely to get used for things like NFS which would send loads-o-frames. Anyway, I could imagine a charge-structure based on a monthly rate, a per-connection charge, a call-duration charge, a per-frame charge, a per-kilobyte charge, or any combination thereof. I don't know how long HDLC frames can be in any actual systems (there is usually a limit, but Hardwick implies it caries from system to system), but I would assume that there is a big difference in per-packet vs. per-kilobyte charging. I am still a little hazy on which kind of stuff (HDLC frames, circuit switched data, etc.) is travelling on which channels at which times (I imagine that 64-kbps circuit switched vs. frame relay is a call setup option...) but if anyone knows of any proposed or actual schemes for charging ISDN users -- especially for frame-relay, since I imagine that will be a big thing for those of us who envision using ISDN to run workstations at home over -- I would love to hear about them. Johnny ISDN ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 07:40:31 EST From: Kerry Neef Subject: Cellular Phone Problems Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories This is an appeal to the collective net wisdom to see if anyone can shed some light on what is causing my wife's car phone to break up. Very frequently, when I talk to her on the phone, the call is very garbled. She has been told by a number of people that she consistently has the worst connection they have heard. The phone is an Audiovox. Fairly expensive - $800 to $900 approximately two and a half years ago. She has had it in three times and the service people say they can't find anything wrong with it. I don't know whether they are giving her the run around, is there something I need to make them check or does this phone or model have some inherent problem. I would appreciate any help. Kerry J. Neef neef@iwtdv.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 00:46:18 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: One-Number Card Warning As our Moderator indicated in a previous message, there is a big danger in giving out your AT&T and/or BOC "one number" calling card number - some carriers will allow it to be used to complete a call to *any* destination. The charges will appear on your local phone bill. And if you have an unrestricted calling card on the same account, it will be difficult for you to dispute the calls. One carrier that is notorious for this is ComSystems. I have been quite involved in trying to get them to enforce the "one number" card restrictions, but haven't gotten anywhere. What makes it worse is that they have a 10XXX access code, so someone can use a one number card to call to anywhere from *any* phone they might be using. Note that it isn't that they just aren't verifying the PIN, as a PIN that's neither the normal nor the "one number" one will be denied. As a side note, the first test call I made to confirm the above was to an out-of-service number. Despite the lack of supervision, the call was billed for three minutes, at a rate of $3.50 or so. What a bargain! I stumbled upon a packet that ComSystems had sent my living group regarding our payphone - they wanted us to switch it to their service. The packet is two years old now, but probably not much has changed. Our comission for the first three months was a full 50% of all 0+ calls, and 20% thereafter. They sure must be marking up the cost of the calls in order to provide such a handsome commission! Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: I of course would not tolerate that sort of thing on my bill for a minute. *Any* 'part three' on my IBT billing which comes from some AOS *always* gets denied immediatly with a warning not to pull that stunt again on me if they know what is good for them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kendall miller Subject: A Good Source For Low Cost 48V Power Supplies Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 07:30:18 MST Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ If you are looking for a low cost 48V power supply for telecom work, MCM Electronics has some on sale. Here are the specs: Output voltage: 48 Volts DC Output current: 3 Amps Input voltage: 120 Volts AC Input current: 3 Amps (needs external fuse for protection) Manufacturer: Power-One Model: CP585 Type: Linear - Open frame Size (approximate): 9" x 5" x 3.5" Weight: 7 lbs. 13 ozs. MCM part no: 58-135 Price: $12.75 I purchased two of the units. Both appeared to be unused and in their original boxes. Oct 22 1987 is stamped on the inside of the units. I tested both of them and they seemed to work fine. MCM has a minimum order of $25.00 for credit cards and $20.00 for checks in advance or COD orders. My order for two came out to a total of $35.00 with shipping charges. MCM Electronics 800-543-4330 513-434-0031 Disclaimer: I have no connection with MCM Electronics except as a recent customer. Kendall Miller kendall@datalog.com 602-797-8660 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 11:02 EST From: Bob Hofkin Subject: Saluting a Very Helpful Service Rep Two years ago, C&P set up an "extended calling plan" that charges message units rather than tolls for some nearby calls. Shortly thereafter, I noticed that many of my calls were being rated in the wrong zone (in fact some of the charges were inpossible -- there were no exchanges that I could call in that zone). When I complained, a very nice lady at the business office added my bill to a list she checks and corrects by hand every month. She is STILL doing this! Bob Hofkin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 11:02 EST From: Bob Hofkin Subject: Is 1 + 703 Gone After This Year? According to the new (January 1991) Northern Virginia white pages, the 1 + 703 dialing for calls outside of the metro area will go away on March 1, 1991. I thought this wasn't supposed to happen until 1992. Haven't had time to check it out yet. Bob Hofkin ------------------------------ From: rick mills Subject: DataCall / FaxCall Test in Canada Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 15:36:29 GMT Up here in Canada, Bell Cellular is testing a new system called FaxCall and DataCall. It allows you to receive/send data from your Portable PC or facsimile machine for much less that a normal voice call. Right now however, they are testing it until April 15th and up until then you can use the service free of charge, no sign-up fee, etc. The only thing is I don't know how I can hook up my portable to my Motorola car-phone! Is there some special device I must use, as I would be interested in trying this out. rmills@contact.uucp ------------------------------ From: Dave Moskovitz Subject: Request for TTY Modem Software Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 09:29 I recently purchased a TTY modem (45.5 / 50 baud) for use with TDDs (Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf). The software that came with it (PC-TDDA) is written by Phone-TTY, Inc. of Hackensack NJ, written in BASIC, and rather light on function. They don't distribute source code. It is not Hayes-compatible. Does anyone out there have any software to drive one of these goodies? Ultimately, I'd like to be in a position to set up a BBS for use by TDDs. Can anyone help? Dave Moskovitz Victoria University of Wellington mosko@matai.vuw.ac.nz ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #122 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15723; 17 Feb 91 2:43 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06756; 17 Feb 91 1:13 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22255; 17 Feb 91 0:07 CST Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 23:49:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #123 BCC: Message-ID: <9102162349.ab27466@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Feb 91 23:49:08 CST Volume 11 : Issue 123 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Are You Behind on Your Sprint Bill? [TELECOM Moderator, many others] Why I Chose Sprint for my 800 Carrier [Nicholas J. Simicich] Sprint Compensation Ruling is Overturned [News-Sentinal via R. Shuford] Re: "Wrong Number" Book: Is it Accurate? [David Michels] Re: Mid Atlantic Telecom - How do I Reach Them? [Mark Oberg] Re: "Most Accurate Clock" [Brian Crawford] Re: SONET Protocol Information Needed [Vance Shipley] Re: Two Questions From a Novice [Jim Redelf] Re: How Will Digital Cellular Increase Capacity? [Rolf Meier] The Year Was 1960 (was Allied / Radio Shack) [cowan%snark@uunet.uu.net] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: Are You Behind on Your Sprint Bill? Date: Sat, 16 Feb 1991 04:47:39 GMT David Ptasnik writes: > It would appear that anyone who knows your telephone number can get > information about your Sprint account. Just call 1-800-877-4646, pick > menu choices 1, 1, put in an area code and phone number, and up pops > current account info. And I Noted: > [Moderator's Note: It appears there have already been some changes > made. Choice '1' is no longer available from within the top level > choice '1'. You press '1' to get automated information, but when you > do the menu therein now starts with choice '2'. Several of you replied, including Syd Weinstein ; David Ptasnik ; Nicholas J. Simicich ; and David E. Sheafer . The response below from Syd Weinstein was typical: > Must have been a glitch, Pat, It works as David said from here, I > just tried it and called up several people's accounts. I tried it today and also got the (now infamous) 'choice one'. I assume what may happen is if the billing computer is down for updates, etc, then choice one is temporarily not offered. Thanks to all who pointed this out and confirmed Sprint is still giving everyone's account information to anyone who calls, whether they are entitled to the information or not. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 14:36:47 EST From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" Subject: Why I Chose Sprint for my 800 Carrier There was recently a set of articles on personal 800 service, comparing Cable and Wireless's 800 service with MCI. I called C&W, and then decided to shop around. Sprint's 800 service also had the installation fee waived, had just about the same per minute rates as C&W (funny how that works) but didn't allow you to get 800 calls from Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. Sprint did, however, allow you to get 800 calls from Canada (an option that you select) and also included a listing in 800 Directory assistance for the base fee of ten dollars. Thus, I decided that for my purposes, Sprint was a better deal, as I could get a listing for my base ten dollars per month, whereas with C&W, a number and a listing would have cost me twenty dollars per month. And since Sprint will reprogram your 800 number to a different line without fee if your phone number changes or because you want to add an additional line for the 800 number to ring on, it wasn't worth it to me to have reprogram on demand. I guess it depends on what is more important to you? If being able to remotely reprogram your 800 number target is more important than being able to get calls from Canada, C&W might be better. If having an inexpensive listing is more important, go with Sprint. Compared to my past experiences in dealing with Sprint, I found that this was right pleasant. All except for the people who were going to tell me my 800 number after it was turned up. They left me a number to call, so I called it. It was evening, and I got a recording telling me the correct hours, and asking me to leave a message. I called again the next day, during the indicated hours, and got a "all available customer service representatives are busy, please hold" and then music on hold. Then, after holding for a couple of minutes, the m-o-h changed to a ring, and it picked up, and lo! it was the same answering machine that I had gotten the previous night, letting me know that their hours were (while I was calling). I tried this a couple of times and finally got a person. I suspect that the answering machine was just getting one of their trunks. I never got calls back from the two or three messages I left. Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, njs@ibm.com) -- SSI AOWI #3958, HSA #318 ------------------------------ From: Richard Shuford Subject: Sprint Compensation Ruling is Overturned Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville -- Dept. of Computer Science Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 17:04:32 GMT [From _The_Knoxville_News-Sentinel_, Thursday, 14 February A.D. 1991, p. A3.] [reproduced under copyright doctrine of "fair use"] Sprint Compensation Ruling Is Overturned by Skip Lackey The [Tennessee] Court of Appeals has overturned an Anderson County Chancery Court ruling that would have let U.S. Sprint Communications install a fiber-optic network on private property without compensating landowners. John B. Rayson, attorney for U.S. Sprint in Knoxville, said Wednesday he will likely appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court. Donald K. Vowell, Knoxville attorney for the plaintiffs, said a statewide class- action lawsuit could give thousands of Tennessee landowners millions of dollars in damages. Court documents state that in 1988 U.S. Sprint constructed an under- ground fiber-optic cable network across the Southeast, burying it about 42 inches underground within a railway company's right of way. Court documents state that, in Tennessee, the network runs along 230 miles of railway easements from Crossville to the eastern border of Tennessee. Documents also state that U.S. Sprint agreed to pay Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Southern Railway Company for use of the easements at a cost of $1200 per mile per year for 25 years. The agreement left some Anderson County landowners without compensation. They filed a class-action lawsuit against U.S. Sprint. Appeals Judges William H. Inman, Clifford E. Sanders, and Don T. McMurray agreed that the railway companies had the right to grant U.S. Sprint a license to use the easements that run along private property. The judges said that the railway companies own the easements, but they do not own the underlying property, the documents state. Therefore, the railway companies did not have the right to grant the use of the underlying property that belongs to the landowners, the judges said. Furthermore, the installation of an underground telecommunications network was an additional burden on the plaintiffs' property to the detriment of the landowners, court documents state. The Appeals Court ruling sends the lawsuit back to Anderson County where a chancellor must determine if the matter can be certified as a class-action lawsuit. The chancellor must also decide damages. [Although its county seat is Clinton, Anderson County's best known municipality is Oak Ridge.] Richard S. Shuford shuford@cs.utk.edu BIX: richard ------------------------------ From: michels@tramp.Colorado.EDU (MICHELS DAVID) Subject: Re: "Wrong Number" Book: Is it Accurate? Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Date: Sat, 16 Feb 1991 07:09:43 GMT The best book I have read on the subject is: "The Deal of the Century" by Steven Coll. I think Coll did a great job of presenting the story without a bias. The book was very interesting/entertaining to read. Also, "Telecommunications in Turmoil" by Gerald Faulhaber is pretty good at presenting the facts of the break-up. It is not as complete as Deal, but gets thru the whole thing much quicker and presents good arguments for both sides on all of the major issues. Dave ------------------------------ From: Mark Oberg Subject: Re: Mid Atlantic Telecom - How do I Reach Them? Date: 16 Feb 91 04:33:37 GMT Organization: Eric's PC Beltsville, MD In article <74342@bu.edu.bu.edu> "Henry E. Schaffer" writes: > The Subject says it all - the 800 number file in the archives says > they control a prefix I'm interested in, but I don't know how to get > in touch. Does anyone know? Mid Atlantic Telecom is located in the Washington DC area. I don't have the phone number handy but can look it up if you'll call me at my office [301-381-8588]. BTW, I'm not sure that Mid-Atlantic covers the Carolinas; they are a regional carrier. Pat and Telecom readers: I'd be interested in hearing any tales of other regional carriers or "carrier's carriers" you've run across. I was very surprised to find a lot of activity in that end of the business. Mark Oberg - Voice: NATel, Inc. (301)381-8588 UUCP: uunet!grout!mark Fidonet: 1:109/506 & 1:261/1067 BBS: No Place Like Home - (301) 596-6450 & (301) 730-9072 ------------------------------ From: Brian Crawford Subject: Re: "Most Accurate Clock" Date: 16 Feb 91 17:25:21 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ In article , paulf@shasta.stanford.edu (Paul A. Flaherty) writes: > We use one at Stanford to provide backup NTP service (our primary > source is a more stable reference we receive via BARRNET). I would be interested to know more about this BARRNET service. Could you offer details? Why it's more accurate than the clock? Brian Crawford INTERNET (current): crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu PO Box 804 (permanent): crawford@stjhmc.fidonet.org Tempe, Arizona 85280 FidoNet: 1:114/15.12 USA Amateur: KL7JDQ ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: SONET Protocol Information Needed Organization: SwitchView Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 01:28:30 GMT In article <74391@bu.edu.bu.edu> uflorida!novavax!gls@gatech.edu (Gary Schaps) writes: > I am preparing to do a descriptive/programming project on SONET for a > graduate course in network modeling and analysis. Would anyone like to > help me locate the protocol (standard) and any other literature which > might prove useful? Thank you. For a very descriptive article on SONET and the new S/DMS Central Office equipment (Northern Telecom's SONET DMS) get a copy of the last (i believe) edition of {Telesis}. {Telesis} is a publication by BNR (Bell Northern Research) available to people working in telecom free of charge! I have a subscription at work so if you need help finding it mail me there. Vance Shipley SwitchView vances@ltg.on.ca.UUCP !uunet!watmath!xenitec!ltg!vances ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 03:27:52 PDT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: Two Questions From a Novice Reply-To: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu Christopher Wolf wrote: > What are the specified voltages that occur on the phone lines during > its normal operating phases? Speaking only of POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) - my only area of "expertise", normal dialtone current varies between 48-52 VDC. Ringing current is around 100 VAC. > Also, how can so many people's conversations be transmitted over so > few wires, such as in the city, where there are only so many wires on > the poles? Cable, my friend ... cable. I suspect that the "wires" you see are either electrical (not telephone) or telephone cables. Most MAJOR cities have the bulk of their LARGE cables buried or in conduit underground. 900-pair cables (900 individual "lines") are common in my area (Omaha), but the lesser, "distribution" cables, usually 100-pairs or less, are commonly found hanging between rows of houses or along alleys. Multiplexing, or carrying multiple conversations on a single pair, is an aging, but widely used, technology - especially between Central Office switches. Telephone voice frequencys are very narrow (low fidelity) and, therefore, several can be allocated to the various frequencies available on a single, copper pair. As existing, copper-pair cable facilities reach their capacity, the solution is to either place more cable, or install "Pair Gain" systems. One used in my specific service area is called SLC96 (Slick-96) where, through the use of special equipment on BOTH ends of the cable, 96 "pairs" are achieved on the end by using FOUR, physical pairs of wire. Optical fiber cable is fast replacing large, copper-wire cable. This is a whole different ballgame -- transmitting thousands of conversations, digitally, on a beam of light! JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ From: Rolf Meier Subject: Re: How Will Digital Cellular Increase Capacity? Date: 16 Feb 91 14:18:55 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article <16804@accuvax.nwu.edu> John T Ellis writes: > Digital cellular will increase capacity in the following manner. The > first method under development (and actually being tested) is TDM - > Time Division Multiplexing. The capacity increase on paper is 3:1 (3 > times more than current analog). The other method being looked at is > CDM - Code Division Multiplexing. On paper it is said to provide an > increase of 20:1. Neither of these methods increases the capacity of digital modulation compared to analog modulation. The REAL reason for capacity increase for digital modulation is that low bit-rate encoding (8 kb) has been proposed for digital cellular. In addition, digital modulation allows for better-defined cell boundaries, due to the increased "capture" quality of digital modulation. All the CDM proposals employ low-bit rate encoding. This confuses the issue when trying to compare it to other methods of modulation which may use 32 kb encoding. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ From: cowan%snark@uunet.uu.net Subject: The Year Was 1960 (was Allied Radio / Radio Shack) Date: 16 Feb 91 20:25:30 GMT In <16813@accuvax.nwu.edu> Our Esteemed Moderator writes: > I had fun too! Do I wish it was 1960 again, or what? :) PAT] What, 1960? No cellular phones? No cordless phones? No VCRs? No PCs? No ATMs? Arrgh. :-) [Moderator's Note: Not only no PC's, but relatively few computers. No handheld calculators. No international direct dialed calls. We were just starting to have direct dialed domestic long distance calls. Lots and lots of communities in the USA still had manual telephone systems. (The last COs in Chicago to go dial were cut in 1951.) No modems, no color television. Very few answering machines. No digital clocks, but lots of Western Union clocks in every office, school and other public building. I graduated from high school in 1960. My final year in high school and for awhile afterward I worked for the University of Chicago ion the old phone room, operating the telex machine and the switchboard, which was a 19-position ringdown style cord board. All that summer I worked the overnight shift by myself. Typewriters were mechanical and operated by the force of your fingers on the keys. Chicago was a very lovely city, as was New York when I flew there for shows and shopping a couple times each year. Yes, I'd go back to 1960 anytime, provided I could take my 1990's knowledge with me! :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #123 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17736; 17 Feb 91 3:51 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31094; 17 Feb 91 2:19 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06756; 17 Feb 91 1:13 CST Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 0:35:38 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #124 BCC: Message-ID: <9102170035.ab25916@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 Feb 91 00:35:24 CST Volume 11 : Issue 124 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? [Jeff Carroll] Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? [Julian Macassey] Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? [Jeff Sicherman] Re: "Independent" Coin Phones [Jeff Sicherman] Re: "Independent" Coin Phones [John Higdon] Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? [Mark Brader] Re: Unwanted Three-Way Calling Symptom [Steve Kass] Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? Date: 17 Feb 91 00:43:18 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article <74667@bu.edu.bu.edu> atn@cory.berkeley.edu (Alan Nishioka) writes: > However, in response to my article, John Higdon brought up a problem > that had been bothering me. He said that my project SHOULD comply > with the various parts of the FCC rules since it needed to connect > directly to the phone network. He's right, legally speaking. The FCC is pretty specific about what you can connect to the PSTN, for a good reason - because in our deregulated telecom environment, they're the only ones who can be. > Now, many books and magazines regularly publish projects that connect > to the phone line. Even the usually respectable TELECOM Digest > recently published several such projects. I don't think any of them > have been certified anything by anyone. Most if not all of them are illegal. The more savvy publishers and kit-sellers (e.g., Radio Shack) will *tell* you not to connect these things to the PSTN - that they are just fine to connect to your in-house intercom, but shouldn't be connected to your phone wires. > I see two issues involved: One of safety (to craftspersons, etc. ) and > the other of just following the rules. I can see if I were going to > sell these devices that I would be interested in both, but as a > hobbyist I am mostly interested in the first. There's a third issue - protecting the integrity of the network. As a telephone subscriber, you consume an amount of network resources. In order to keep the cost of billing within the troposphere, telco doesn't go to the trouble of measuring many of the resources you use such as seconds of dial tone, number of unsuccessful calls, local office battery power consumed, etc. This does not mean that you are granted a license to use these resources wantonly, carelessly, or in such a way as to impair the quality of service delivered to other subscribers, or to make it unreasonably costly for telco to provide you service. In a circuit-switched network, it is pretty hard for one subscriber to impair another's service, unless it's by calling that subscriber repeatedly and continuously. (Assuming that everyone has private lines.) In other kinds of network, it's a lot easier; witness what broadcast storms or sendmail worms can do to a LAN or an Internet. In Europe (particularly in the Netherlands), the PTT has serious problems with pirate broadcasters setting up shop on the cable TV network. Now, I'm not trying to tell you that you can't attach your well-designed, well-built project to the PSTN; I'm just trying to explain to you why telco is justified in cutting you off or seeking legal remedies when your non-certified device causes chaos in the central office. > I understand there are network interface devices that one can buy and > thus have any device automatically safe and certified to connect to a > line, but these are out of my budget. I also don't see how they make > that much of a difference. They make a difference because they (at least to the engineers at the FCC) prevent you from degrading the network. Note to flamers: I'm not suggesting that telco has the Public Interest primarily or even significantly at heart. Nor am I suggesting that Judge Greene knows anything about technology. Nor am I suggesting that just because the FCC says something makes it so. I'm just pointing out that system engineering is what it is, and in order for a system to work, one needs to respect the designers' intentions. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? Date: 16 Feb 91 15:43:33 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article <74667@bu.edu.bu.edu> atn@cory.berkeley.edu (Alan Nishioka) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 114, Message 4 of 10 > However, in response to my article, John Higdon brought up a problem > that had been bothering me. He said that my project SHOULD comply > with the various parts of the FCC rules since it needed to connect > directly to the phone network. Stuff deleted > I see two issues involved: One of safety (to craftspersons, etc. ) and > the other of just following the rules. I can see if I were going to > sell these devices that I would be interested in both, but as a > hobbyist I am mostly interested in the first. This comes up every now and again. Yes, if you interpret the rules as a paper pusher, you can't attach anything to the line that isn't certified as meeting FCC Part 68. But then how would you design and test a device in order to take a "production model" of it to take to an FCC lab for testing? This is obviously silly and not the intent of the regs. So yes, although it is by the book illegal, you can make one of devices for your own use. The telephone police are unlikely to call. If you want to make it availble to the public as a product, get it FCC certified or the telephone police will pay a visit. Of course if a device violates some of the FCC rules, it may not work very well. The rules are there partly as a quality check. But you don't have to be worried about stuff like REN measuremnt if you have nothing attached when the phone is on hook etc. Now the "damage to the network" myth. If you attach anything strange to your phone line, the only part of the network liable to be put out of commission is your phone line. If you short the line you will busy it out. If you open the line, it will look like there is no phone attached. It is much, much more dangerous to mess with mains electricity, yet people do that all the time. Yes, if you really mess with electricity, the whole street can go dark. Yes, you can build your own electrical devices and connect them. Funny world isn't it? Please tinker with your phones and equipment. It is the best way to learn. It is hard to kill yourself playing with phones. It is hard to cause fires playing with phones. I wish I could say the same about mains electricity. 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: Sat, 16 Feb 91 14:15:10 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? Organization: Cal State Long Beach This may be a dumb question but ... Is there any device that one could insert in place of or on the customer side of the Network Interface that would serve the functions for protecting the phone company equipment and employees from any real or imagined damage from faulty project design or construction ? Would such device prevent the CO from detecting the attached equip- ment and would it meet the FCC regulatory requirements ? Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 00:00:00 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: "Independent" Coin Phones Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article msa3b!kevin@gatech.edu (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) writes: >john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >> On Feb 10 at 1:21, TELECOM Moderator writes: >>> And now the more you shop around; the more you use the >>> competition, the better telco and 'genuine Bell' service looks. >>> Some of us were saying 'I told you so' several years ago. I'm >>> beginning to feel vindicated. PAT] >> Yes, indeed, the more you shop around ... but is >> it not nice to be able to shop around? Do you honestly believe >> that 'genuine Bell' would be at the level it is today if it had no >> competition nipping at its heels? Do you think, for instance, that >> AT&T would even today be providing digital connections nationwide if >> it were not for Sprint and >>others? > [automobile analogy deleted] > In the early days of telecom, you could get any service you wanted, as > long as you wanted a service provided by Ma Bell. If you didn't like > it, you could do without. I have been reading the stream of complaints for quite a while. Personally, my or my clients' phone needs are not sophisticated enough to have encountered most of the difficulties or problems. (Shockingly, I have also never been slammed - did you guys get on a secret 'slam me' list ?) However, to be fair and consistent, if you are going to curse de'judge and bitch about the MFJ shouldn't you also enumerate everything that was wrong or defficient about the phone network *before* the world changed ? As far as I can see, the main 'cost' has been aggressive and sometimes borderline marketing tactics. Well, sorry, but that seems to be a side effect of competition in an open market. There are good guys and bad guys and you have to learn to tell the difference. Perhaps we should have a single breakfast cereal manufacturer and another FCC (Federal Cereal Commission), if you want to regulate and restrict every industry with questionable marketing approaches. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 00:00 GMT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: "Independent" Coin Phones "Kevin P. Kleinfelter" writes: > In the early days of telecom, you could get any service you wanted, as > long as you wanted a service provided by Ma Bell. If you didn't like > it, you could do without. The moment you introduce choices and competition, actually creating a marketplace, there is necessity for all (especially customers) to become informed and active in the commerce. While it is regrettable that the Aunt Millies of the world are forced to participate in a game not of their choosing, restricting the rest of us to Hobsen's choices is hardly fair either. Before divestiture, the regulators (the gummit) took care of us. There was no problem selecting carriers, services, or equipment. If we did not like what was offered, if it cost too much, or the service was not what was expected, it was very simple: we did without. Now we can select anything we want from whatever is available, from excellent to very poor. Granted, what we used to have was frequently better than the worst of what is available today, but today's best is better than ever. But we are, as a result, all thrust into the game of choices. We cannot just sit back and let "the telephone company" do it to us any longer. As Mr. Kleinfelter points out, no one seems to advocate the abolition of a free marketplace because he made a mistake purchasing a car or TV set. But listen to the cries of doom when a COCOT rips off someone for a few extra bucks on a long distance call. "It is all Judge Greene's fault." Baloney! If the public does not like COCOTs, it will not use them and they will go away. If the public is too stupid to know the difference, then it gets what it deserves. I refuse the have Big Brother take care of me because there are some among us who are too lazy to take care of themselves. I am a fan of divestiture. My only complaint is that the Judge stopped short of the ideal: competition in the LEC marketplace. Believe me, if such a thing existed now, my home phone would not be served by a 1948 crossbar switch. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 1991 16:23:00 From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada >> A group I'm associated with is putting on a play and a phone will be >> used on the set. How would I hook up the phone so that I can cause >> it to ring on demand? ... >> [Moderator's Note: ... why not just get a small doorbell from a hardware >> store; a battery to drive it and a simple switch. Have it off-stage...] > Maybe he doesn't do that because a doorbell sounds NOTHING LIKE A PHONE. This is not necessarily an obstacle. Seems to me that most PHONES I encounter today, other than the 2500 set I have at home, sound "NOTHING LIKE A PHONE"! Seriously, though, if it's okay for the sound not to come from the phone itself, the easiest thing would probably be a tape recording of a phone. But I suspect that this is NOT okay, unless the phone is at one side of the set. People in the front rows can tell if the sound is coming from the wrong place. Hmm. You could always put an actual, connected phone onstage. To keep wrong numbers from ringing it at the wrong time, unplug the extension cord at the other end except at the critical moment. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 91 18:01 EDT From: SKASS@drew.bitnet Subject: Re: Unwanted Three-Way Calling Symptom In Volume 11, issue 116, I wrote: > Subject: Unwanted Three-Way Calling Symptom [Description of strange phone behavior.] The Moderator added: > [Moderator's Note: Some people have said here in the past that the > dial tone is being provided so you can do *70 (cancel call waiting) if > you have that service. That may be the reason you are now getting the > flash dial tone. Try *70 and see if it immediatly cuts back to the > call in progress while busying out your line if you have call waiting > service. ... ] Well, this seems to be it. *70 is the only thing I can seem to dial through the new dial tone that doesn't reorder. Funny thing is, though, that I don't have call waiting (I tested it), and, according to a friend at Bellcore, cancel call waiting is not available in my area. Strange. I'll see what NJ Bell has to say about my symptoms. Steve Kass/Math & CS/Drew U/Madison NJ 07940/2014083614/skass@drew.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 21:23 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System "Daniel M. Rosenberg" writes: > We have a 1232 as well, but I don't see how it's physically possible > for you to call-forward-no answer CO calls. I don't. The phone company provides the BY forwarding. But rather than have each modem a slave to a particular line, it is capable of answering another modem's line if that the second unit is not ready. For instance, call comes in on line one. Modem one answers. Call comes in on line two (courtesy Pac*Bell's busy forwarding). Modem two answers. Meanwhile line one has hung up, but the modem is not ready for another call. But a call comes in on line one again. After a delay, the Panasonic routes the call to modem three and the call is answered. No, I'm not doing any magic at the CO level, but the Panasonic prevents lines going unanswered because particular modems are not ready by sending the call to an available modem. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #124 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19178; 17 Feb 91 4:51 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01290; 17 Feb 91 3:26 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31094; 17 Feb 91 2:20 CST Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 1:30:45 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #125 BCC: Message-ID: <9102170130.ab08114@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 Feb 91 01:30:29 CST Volume 11 : Issue 125 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [Davidson Corry] Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [Technews] Re: CallerID Investigation in Oregon [Peter Marshall] Re: Caller*ID [B. J. Herbison] Why 900-STOPPER [Jerry Leichter] They Want Caller-ID in UNIX [Daniel Jacobson] "Internal" Portable Phones [Steve Pershing] Re: Airphones and Receiving Calls [David Lemson] Re: Slammed by AT&T [Jim Redelfs] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Davidson Corry Subject: Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it Date: 17 Feb 91 01:42:36 GMT Organization: InterConnections, Bellevue, WA >dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: >> Ideally, however, the telco should be required to provide a service >> where the calling party is advised that the call is being refused >> *because* the calling number is being blocked, and that the way to get >> through is to call again without invoking the anonymous-caller >> feature. In article kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > It seems like a perfect solution; it provides people with the most > service; and yet, the phone companies are against it. Why? You answer your own question: > Privacy and anonymity are intertwined: > The principle in states like Pennsylvania is that phone calls cannot > be recorded and phone numbers cannot released without the consent of > both parties. Block-blocking provides a mechanism for providing this > consent. The phone companies make a profit by providing a service. Caller ID is a service which provides the datum "This is X calling" -- in a convenient, machine-readable form requiring no explicit action taken by the caller. The value of this service to the phone companies' subscribers, and thus the potential for profit, is clearly enhanced by increasing the size of this data pool, and threatened by anything which diminishes it. Thus it's in their interest to make ID-blocking as inconvenient as possible; likewise, block-blocking has a "chilling" effect on telephone (and Caller-ID) usage. The implication is that the telco "owns" -- has the right to control -- the datum "This is X calling". This requires no breach of ethics or intellectual dishonesty: the people at TPC may sincerely believe it. I simply disagree: I believe that the datum belongs TO THE CALLER, for whatever reason appeals to him: a desire for privacy, a desire to stay out of some telemarketer's database, or just plain cussedness ... and the fact that some heavy-breather might block ID for reprehensible intent does NOT justify denying ME that right to privacy and anonymity. Clearly the ACLU, the Pennsylvania courts and others agree. The necessary concomitant of ID-blocking is that the callee has a right to decline to accept communications with someone who declines to identify himself: block-blocking. Without convenient ID-blocking AND block-blocking, Caller ID is NOT a service, as far as I'm concerned, it's an invasion. Davidson Corry (dai@icxn.com) ------------------------------ From: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Tech News Account) Subject: Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it Reply-To: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Tech News Account) Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 01:52:47 GMT I still like my (and several other people`s) old idea: There are MANY services which are only available to BUSINESS customers ... why not make CALLER*ID available only to RESIDENTIAL customers? That would eliminate the direct marketing and call back fears, and still leave it avail. for personal use... so what if it doesn`t help the pizza parlors cull fake orders. kadokev@iitvax.bitnet technews@iitmax.edu My employer disagrees. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: CallerID Investigation in Oregon From: Peter Marshall Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 00:05:50 GMT Organization: The 23:00 News There may be two somewhat distinct items here: a beginning PUC investigation into CallerID, etc., and the staff's discovery that US Bancorp, a US West ISDN special contract customer, would have the capacity to i.d. off-net numbers via this contract. Re: the latter, the OPUC indicates staff has asked for an amendment to this special contract by March. The incident is also reminiscent of an earlier one in Washington State, where PUC staff had learned their numbers were being ID'd when they called ISDN-capable US West offices. US West responded to effect -- so sorry, software glitch; won't happen anymore, [Moderator's Note: I'd not be surprised to find out that Illinois Bell was already providing Caller-ID to preferred customers on the sly. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 00:55:14 GMT From: "B.J. 15-Feb-1991 1359" Subject: Re: Caller*ID In Telecom Volume 11 : Issue 116, Peter da Silva writes: > For true answering machine freaks... Caller-ID hooked to something like > Watson! > A call from your clients: "Frobozz consulting. If you know the extension > please dial it now, or leave a message at the sound of the tone..." > A call from any telemarketer number you've managed to snag: "I'm > sorry, we don't accept unsolicited advertising at this line." My first thought was large numbers of people exchanging lists of telemarketer numbers. My second thought was the problems caused when a telemarketer changes numbers and someone else gets the number -- someone who is a friend or a potential client. Or what if a residential number gets placed on the list as a joke or out of malice. The chance of a problem is slight, unless large numbers of people start exchanging telemarketer numbers. `Telemarketer' is a dirty word, be careful when you use it. B. J. [not a telemarketer] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 17:06:05 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: Why 900-STOPPER In a recent TELECOM Digest the Moderator noted that the providers of this service (which allows you to make un-Caller-Id'able calls) fail to point out that Caller-ID isn't available on international calls, and isn't likely to be anytime soon. The implication is that the service is in some way fradulent. In fact, the service was NOT introduced, at least for the most part, as a response to Caller-ID. A newspaper article describing it was published in TELECOM Digest a while back - in fact, I think I may have been the one who typed it in. The purpose of the STOPPER service is to provide truely untraceable calls. It was started by a lawyer, who cited a number of circumstances in which you might want to ensure that the numbers you dial cannot be found, EVEN BY SOMEONE WHO CAN SUBPEANA YOUR PHONE RECORDS. Mainly, these have to do with things like lawyers who must keep their clients secret, or companies that wish to make sure that who they are talking to remains secret even if someone who is suing them goes after their phone records. Yes, it sounds funny, but there are a variety of legitimate uses for this kind of service - the founder got the idea after he ran into one. Yes, there is also room for a lot of abuse. Considering what they charge, this is hardly a consumer service - or even something a large company would want to use for anything but "special" calls. Jerry [Moderator's Note: The thing is, anyone who could subpoena your records looking for certain connections would surely see the calls to the 900 service, then supoena those records as well. All it would seem to do (in the case of a professional investigator) is add an extra step in the process. For the average John Doe whose only immediate way of call tracing is via Caller*ID then the 900 service is virtually useless at this time. Or is the 900 guy saying he would not respond to a subpoena either? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 00:39:30 CST From: Daniel Jacobson Subject: They Want Caller-ID in UNIX [from newsgroups: comp.unix.questions] Geez. Caller ID wanted/found in UNIX (well, somewhat): > On 15 Feb 91 17:30:17 GMT, kadst6@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kim A Dellera) said: Kim> My goal is to be able to tell which users are accessing a Kim> particular file. Seems like it should be straightforward enough, Kim> but I can't put my finger > On 16 Feb 91 05:15 GMT, minzhi@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Min-Zhi Shao) said: Min-Zhi> When I fingered our system administrator, I got the Min-Zhi> following result: Min-Zhi> Office: 154 Moore Building Min-Zhi> I have been fingered 3 times today Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM Naperville IL USA +1 708-979-6364 [Moderator's Note: This is all very interesting, but I've fallen into one of my bad habits again: putting lots of Caller*ID messages in the main Digest ... so may I ask that further followup on the Caller*ID messages posted in this issue be made through Telecom Privacy, a supplementary list designated for this purpose. You can reach that list at telecom-priv@pica.army.mil. Thanks! PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: "Internal" Portable Phones From: system administrator Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 03:01:36 PST Organization: Questor*Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC => +1 604 681.0670 tots!tots.Logicon.COM!tep@ucsd.edu writes: > We have a dozen or so technical people around the company who spend > most of their time out of their official offices, working around our > office complexes (computer system managers, in-house telephone people, > facilities manager, etc). > They would like to receive their phone calls (and make calls) wherever > they are. > We are looking for something between a "home" wireless telephone and a > cell-phone, with voice capability (not just a pager)... > Our office "campus" covers an area about 1/2 mile square. At the recent Pacific Rim Computer and Communication show held here in Vancouver, BC, the local GTE-owned telco (BCTel) had what you might be looking for, althought the range appears to fall a bit short. It is advertised as the "Digital Cordless Telephone System", and is described in a spec sheet, part of which is quoted below. As far as I know, the system comes from England. The flyer shows a flip-open hand-held unit (similar to Motorola's small cellular, but with no visible antenna). It has on its face fifteen buttons, twelve for the TT pad, and three for various functions, including a bunch of "secondary" feature commands assigned to the TT pad. "For business; At home; In Public Locations. Public/Private networks". HOW DOES IT WORK? Digital cordless technology has been designed to accomodate pedestrian mobility. This means that as you walk around throughout your day, the digital cordless phone is a perfect solution. Digital cordless service will operate use a network of private and public "base stations" -- and your own digital cordless phone handset -- to link you to the entire traditional "wired" telephone network. PRIVATE NETWORK Digital cordless phones and base stations will be purchased by companies and by individuals creating the private cordless network. In businesses and in homes, your phone will work off a compact central base station which has a range of about 100 metres. A number of digital cordless phones can be registered to a single base station... PUBLIC NETWORK The public network will take up where the private network leaves off -- to create a complete communications system for people on the go. With the public network, you will use your own digital cordless phone handset within 100 metres of public base stations supplied by a public cordless network provider. These base stations will be available in a wide variety of public locations so you can make a call from wherever you are. -------------------- They give a contact telephone number of 604-293-6810 (This is for a BCTel subsidiary operation called "BC Mobile". Call them collect! Steve Pershing, System Administrator The QUESTOR PROJECT - Free Usenet News/Internet Mail; Sci, Med, AIDS, more | Usenet: sp@questor.wimsey.bc.ca POST: 1027 Davie Street, Box 486 Phones: Voice/FAX: +1 604 682-6659 Vancouver, British Columbia Data/BBS: +1 604 681-0670 Canada V6E 4L2 ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Re: Airphones and Receiving Calls Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Sun, 17 Feb 1991 05:06:44 GMT harrison@apple.com (John Harrison) writes: >Why can't you really receive calls on a GTE Airphone? Is this >something that GTE has chose not to implement or are there other >technical reasons. Because there might be 10-50 airphone handsets on a plane, and many of these are mobile, how would you know which handset a certain person might be near? And, would *you* answer one, knowing that you might be paying exorbitant AirFone airtime prices for a possible wrong number? It's simply much easier to have only dial-out. If you need the opposite direction, that's why they make SkyPager: an alphanumeric pager that works all over the country, including in planes. David Lemson U of Illinois Computing Services Student Consultant Internet : lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 00:51:32 GMT From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: Slammed by AT&T Reply-To: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu Dave_johnston%01%srjc@od wrote: > I hate to bring up slamming again. I think Pat squelched the topic > some time ago after it started getting crazy... I don't remember that, sooooooooo... (is that a good enough excuse for another such story?) I am the "friendly, neighborhood phoneman" in Elkhorn, NE - an Omaha CDO. In my immediate area is a service station the does all the service on my company van, as well as sell me the bulk of the gas it uses. Although we've "gone cellular", the performace of my particular setup is such that I occasionally use their drive-up coin station. This particular phone is like a breath of fresh air: It is U S WEST Communications owned (and locally served) and has AT&T for its PIC. Some months ago, I used the station to place a toll call and was "thanked" for using "Acme Long Distance A-Go-Go" (or something)! The information plate on the set still indicated "AT&T" and, knowing that the station owner's wife WORKED FOR AT&T, I was very concerned - as was Howard, the owner! I made a BUNCH of calls (all in the name of good P.R., right?) and the bottom line was that "someone" had placed the order, but that it would be cancelled. The rep at "Acme" couldn't tell me WHO placed the order, nor could U S WEST Communications (my employer). I believe that long distance useage is the most costly consumer service (right up there with credit cards, etc) that can be manipulated with a mere telephone call - frequently (apparently) by most ANYONE! Can you imagine CitiBank slamming VISA accounts from other banks? Although I rarely am in favor of additional, PUC-induced requirements on the industry, I think it is about time the local companies be required voice-verify all PIC changes before implementing them. The cost of this requirement could be recoverd by appropriately raising the Service Order Charge - which is frequently "covered" by the enticing toll company. Failing this, I think the net cost increase would be very minimal, once the slamming stops. Billing Error repairs probably cost the system as much (or more) than half the physical plant repairs that *I* make. Jim Redelfs Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #125 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12364; 18 Feb 91 0:21 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18524; 17 Feb 91 22:37 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11920; 17 Feb 91 21:31 CST Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 21:25:48 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #126 BCC: Message-ID: <9102172125.ab21996@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 Feb 91 21:25:16 CST Volume 11 : Issue 126 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson A History of the USA to Cuba Phone Links [Donald E. Kimberlin] A Couple Strange Questions [Kim Fosbe] Market Place Product [Leroy Donnelly] MCI and March 18 [Mark Steiger] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 17:40 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: A History of the USA to Cuba Phone Links Several postings in the Digest of recent times relate to making telephone calls to Cuba from the US. A number speculated on the age of U.S. connections to Cuba. From anecdotal history, here are some of the details I learned while working for AT&T Long Lines in Florida: 1.) Dating back into the 1940's, a period when AT&T and ITT jointly owned (50% each) the Cuban-American Telephone & Telegraph Company of the Batista era, AT&T first provided telephone calls to Cuba via High Frequency (shortwave) radio from its Fort Lauderdale/ Ojus (FL) HF plant. To the public, this was, "Moment, please, I will connect you to the Miami Overseas Operator." The channels provided by shortwave fixed plant over such a short distance north-south path are so simple that most people would never hear a sign of fading or any static crashes ... and think they were talking on a land line. 2.) The first submarine cable to Havana from Key West was in operation in 1950, providing 12 telephone channels. Its nomenclature was the "type SA Submarine Carrier System," for those who may have noted that the first transatlantic telephone cable was the Type SB System, and been curious about where the SA ever went. I worked on occasion in the Key West Long Lines testroom (located on the second floor of the Southern Bell building in Key West for those who have seen Key West and wondered where there was space for anything on that tiny island). Its final amplifier stage was an Eimac 300 or 400 TL- type high-frequency triode replete with dic-type neutralizing capaci- tors that no "telephone man" ever wanted to mess with. One might won- der at such technology in a telephone cable carrier sysems, but first one must realize it was first-generation custom-made coaxial cable, and it was (as I recall) 78 miles long, having a rather high capaci- tance and no submerged repeaters. Thus, a fair amount of power was needed to push even 48 Khz of bandwidth that far. Having no repeaters of course also eliminated any need to send power down the cable; thus the terminal was rather simple in comparison to what was needed for the SB system that went across the Atlantic. After Castro took over, there were no direct relations for maintenance or operations between the US and Cuba, so if it worked, it worked. If it died, months could transpire until it got put back into service, particularly if whatever the failure was occurred in the Havana terminal (we presumed they had no spare parts). More common were failures that lasted a year or more if the cable itself was physically damaged, which happend several times when ships dropped anchor on the cable in Havana harbor. The system would just sit there inoperative until Castro got a cableship (usually British) to come to Havana and patch it ... then the Key West terminal would suddenly show it was receiving pilot tones again, and the twelve circuits would again be put to traffic with a shrug of the Plant Department shoulders, no info available about wheo, when, how or why about the fix. This cable, by virtue of being the _only_ one, has to be the topic of recent stories about "replacing the cable." (There were also telegraph cables laid by Western Union that were beyond AT&T's purview, of course. One that terminated in the WUTCo office in Key West operated with a mechanical TDM (just like the book stories one reads about Time Division Multiplexing) until well into the 1960's. When its TDM finally died one day in the late 1960's, one of the telephone channels from Havana suddenly appeared with FDM carrier telegraph tones on it in the ear of Miami telephone operators. In a day fraught with non-communicative confusion at the Miami Long Lines office, we found the Cubans had stuck an obsolete WECo Type 40 carrier telegraph on it, and expected AT&T to interconnect that over to the Miami "telegraph office." They of course had no idea that AT&T and Western Union (by now WUI for overseas telegraphy in the US) hd, at best an arms-length relation and AT&T provided _no_ signal processing of any form for anybody else ... only transmission channels. In an amazing feat of AT&T monopoly-era cooperation, we found one old man who recalled we had one old 40C Carrier Telegraph terminal back in the dusty equipment bays where the original 1930's AT&T "toll test- board" had been. It had been "retired in place," never serviced for a decade or more, but still had power on it, and its ancient tubes still all worked. Harry got it going, and we connected DC telegraph loops over to WUI. Geting Southern Bell to cooperate and connect loops across town was a commentary on the monopoly-era wieght that AT&T could throw around, much unlike today. WUI later replaced that lash-up with an FDM of their own, and later, I was told, actually got a few FDM telegraph channels working with the Cubans over their old telegraph cable, by getting Coherent Communications up on Long Island to make a custom-built audio-frequency FDM terminal that needed 100 Watt amplifiers to push the tones 75 miles or so. WUI, unlike AT&T, could ship the terminal for Havana around through England to get it delivered to the Cubans.) 3.) Just prior to Castro taking over, AT&T and Cuban-American had set up a tropospheric scatter radio system between Florida City (just south of Miami) and Guanabo (just outside Havana), one of the two (to my knowlege) only troposcatter sysems AT&T ever used. (The other also terminated at Florida City and ran to Nassau in the Bahama Islands.) THe Havana troposcatter was actually pure Federal Radio tropo just like the military used all over the world, having WECo carrier telephone equipment on it, of course. However, it operated the same way as the Key West cable ... after Castro took over, no coordination, no news, no nothing. It had frequency and space diver- sity, so the Cubans might turn a receiver or transmitter off at any time, and they did. Thus, AT&T at Florida City had to keep both receivers and transmitters functional at all times, for they never knew when the Cubans might turn either transmitter off, or have either receiver inoperative. The bandwidth of the tropo gear, of course, was wide enough to transmit video, which was intended at the building of the system. This could be done by either temporarily operating one diversity link for video and the other for telephony, or by shutting down telephone operations during video transmission (an operating mode I observed once in Kenya when they needed their earth station to get a World Championship boxing match off Intelsat ... apparently a `common-enough happening that the Nairobi papers carried a news article announcing that international telephone service would be limited while the match was being broadcast!) But, there being no official relations between the U.S. and Cuba, I do not know that any video was ever carried. Rather, the voice channels from Havana were all connected to the 4A toll switching machine at Miami, and Havana operators were able to happily dial whereever they wanted, and anyone in the world who dialed the appropriate digits went right through and rang the Havana operator who completed the connection manually. Politics or not, AT&T was not about to be the source of a Castro tirade against the American Imperialists, so AT&T just let the traffic flow, for several years, until Castro's unpaid, unsetteld bills reached untold millions. Cuba had enjoyed chatting with the world via the U.S. for almost a decade without paying for it. ( I can hear it now: "Just dial me in Havana, Comrade. The stupid capitalists are paying for it.") When AT&T and the State Department finally waltzed around it enough, there was agreement to cut the circuits off one day. Cutting off another nation is _serious_ business inside AT&T; in fact, it had never really been done by that time. Remember that AT&T had to always tell the Feds that the President and State Department can ring up any Ambassador or dictator any time they want. In any event, it was only hours before the Cubans communicated with AT&T and agreed to AT&T's terms that all future calls sould be paid for on the U.S. end, at least until the Cubans' share offset the unpaid balance. Thus began an era of "collect only" on outbound calls from Cuba and "no collect" on inbound calls to Cuba. 4.) Meantime, the Cubans had some few other links via HF radio to places like Spain and Mexico, limited in quantity, and from my own observations of their endless days of test transmissions on HF, not very successful. So long as the Yanquis were providing the tropo, who cared much? Did the CIA listen in to Castro? Probably, but not in any way that was visible to me. This whole operation is the "93 circuits" referred to in recent press, and it likely is still the only present link to the U.S. 5.) The satellite era offered change for all this, of course, and the Russians provided Cuba with capability to operate to the Molnya system of satellites, so there likely was ease on Castro's chats with the Chairman in Moscow. But, the AT&T link remained, and remains what AT&T's myopic view publishes as the only link Cuba has to the outside world. It's certainly likely the AT&T link is of secondary importance to Cuba by now. With the flying of Mexico's Morelos satellite, it's most likely the Cubans have plenty of capacity via Mexico and likely other Latin nations to the outside world. Forget notions of Fidel with microphone and earphones talking to Noreiga or the Sandanistas. Finally, this leads to recent news about AT&T prosecuting some people in Florida who were offering telephone service to Cuba by un- known means. The following bit from "AT&T Newsbriefs" tells a bit about it: AT&T NEWS BRIEFS Thursday, February 14, 1991 CUBAN CONNECTION -- The FCC has opened an investigation into a new [Fla.] business that has made calling Cuba less time-consuming - but more expensive. The owners of Tele Caribe ... won't divulge the secret of connecting calls to Cuba within minutes rather than the hours it usually takes through AT&T operators. Telecommun- ications experts speculate the company could be re-routing calls through another country that has direct-dial access to Cuba. Another possibility is transmitting calls through a satellite signal. ... Miami Herald, 2B, 2/13. Also El Neuvo Herald, [Florida], 1B, 2/13. # # # Now that you know the whole story, you can see how easily they could now be selling calls via Mexico or another Latin nation, and cheating AT&T out of business ... a matter deeply frowned upon by both AT&T, its friends in the government, and its step brothers of the telephone cloth! (Readers on here who have access to the current CCITT Plan Documents for the Caribbean can certainly tell us all the places Cuba now has circuits to.) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 03:27:24 PDT From: Kim Fosbe Subject: A Couple Strange Questions Reply-To: kim.fosbe%drbbs@iugate.unomaha.edu Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha Ok, maybe you guys can answer me a couple of questions that I've wondered about for a couple years. First there was this time a couple years ago when I was out of work and all depressed and I was just lying around the apartment this one afternoon killing time and just kind of lying on the bed playing with the phone buttons. I know this is stupid but I was kind of pushing buttons seeing what would happen. I made sure not to push the "1" or "0" first so not to call long distance. Ok, so I call this one number and there were all kinds of clicks and stuff and when I hung up I couldn't get dial tone back until I held it down 30 sec. or so. So here's what's wierd. About that time my roommate comes in and the phone rings. She gets it and some guy asked "did you just call a 294 number?" so she yells in and asks me if I did and I said "no" not even thinking. Then I realized that I didn't know what the hell I was calling and I very well could have called a 294 number or any other number. Ok, I asked around and found that 294 is the prefix for a local Air-Force base. That really freaked me out, cause from that time I wonder if I accidentally called some high-security number that they were able to trace and they were checking me out or something. Now this next one was not really freaky but I wonder about it. When I took a trip to New York City a few years ago, one of my girlfriends was meeting me at the airport but my flight was delayed in Chicago and I had to call her, but I didn't have enough change so I called collect from the pay phone at O'Hare. Now I've called collect from pay phones and maybe the operator stays on for a second or two just to ask if they will take the charge. But this time the operator dialed the number I was calling PLUS some other numbers. I heard the beeps as she dialed them, and this recording then played back the number I was calling to and the word "solid", and then the call went through. I know she was testing to see if the number was ok to charge to but I never had this happen again. Maybe is there a telecom wonder-wizard out there who knows what was happening. It's not really that important but I wondered about this stuff ever since they happened. Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 [200:5010/666@metronet] (200:5010/666.0) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 03:26:59 PDT From: Leroy Donnelly Subject: Market Place Product Reply-To: leroy.donnelly%drbbs@iugate.unomaha.edu Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha You remember Lotus Market place product. 120 Million U.S. consumers on CD-ROM disk. Well it's not over with. Even though Lotus has agreed to drop the use of the disks, there is still a beta copy that will not be returned. In a article dated January 28th 1991 (Computer Reseller News) I quote. "It's very unfortunate," said Carlton Collins, president of Collins & Collins CPAs, an Atlanta accounting firm that beta tested both products. "We were using Marketplace extensively and developed applications for some of our clients as well." Collins said he hoped Marketplace would reappear in some other format, adding he will keep his copy rather than return it for a refund. Is there anyone in Atlanta that could post the address to Collins & Collins CPAs. Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 [200:5010/666@metronet] (200:5010/666.0) ------------------------------ From: penguin@pro-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) Subject: MCI and March 18 Date: 17 Feb 91 05:36:05 GMT I've seen acouple of ads for a new service being offered on March 18. They have people making lists of friends and family members. Is this their big launch date for personal 800 numbers? Any ideas or comments?? [ 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #126 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13395; 18 Feb 91 1:24 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13506; 17 Feb 91 23:43 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18524; 17 Feb 91 22:38 CST Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 22:15:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #127 BCC: Message-ID: <9102172215.ab14567@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 Feb 91 22:15:13 CST Volume 11 : Issue 127 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Satellite Porn Draws Criminal Prosecution, Fine [Donald E. Kimberlin] AT&T's (appropriate) New Market [John Higdon] Environmentally Responsible Telco [Donald E. Kimberlin] Alternate Cellular System [Jeff Sicherman] Telephone Privatization/Deregulation in Canada [Robert Jacobson] Call Forwarding Question [Elise Mahaffey] Is There a History of Direct Distance Dialing? [Gabe Wiener] Help Needed With AES/EBU Formatting [Scott Clancy] Caller*ID in Atlanta ... at Last? [Bill Berbenich] How Times Change [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Satellite Porn Draws Criminal Prosecution, Fine Date: Sun 17 Feb 1991 The following AP story appeared in Saturday morning papers around the country: SATELLITE TRANSMISSION OF PORN BRINGS FINE By Peg McEntee, Associated Press SALT LAKE CITY - A Federal jusge on Friday fined a New York City satellite company $150,000 for broadcasting pornographic movies by satellite to some 30,000 subscribers throughout the continental United States. U.S. District Judge accepted a plea-bargain agreement between Home Dish Only Satellite Networks Inc. and prosecutors in which the firm pleaded guilty to a single count of broadcasting an obscene film via satellite. HDO is the first and so far only company prosecuted under a 1988 federal law prohibiting satellite a cable broadcasting if mater- ial deemed pornographic. Part of a proposed consent decree calls for HDO to erase its taped movies. And the principals of the now-defunct company, Paul L. Klein and Jeffrey Younger, also agreed not to promote or distribute sexually explicit films. In exchange, Federal attorneys agreed not to prosecute Klein and Younger personally, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Lambert. HDO also has pleaded guilty to a Federal charge filed in Buffalo. Sentencing for that charge is scheduled March 18. The consent decree would be essentially the same for the Utah and New York cases, attorneys said. HDO began operating the American Exxxtasy Channel in 1986. It shipped movies to U.S. Satellite, Inc. at Murray, Utah, which beamed them to a GTE Spacenet Corp. satellite for relay to subscribers. Defense attorney Rodney Snow said HDO abandoned the channel after the indictment was filed a year ago rather than endure a lengthy court fight. The company's films and short movies were scrambled so they could be received only by subscribers who paid $260 a year for the Exxxtasy channel. But the company advertised each night in unscrambled commercials. * * * * * * (Hmmmm ... seems I recall it was GTE Spacenet who cut off Exxxtasy the day they heard a Federal indictment connected them with the case; not that Exxxtasy voluntarily shut down. Also, I never noted that GTE proudly announced or published to the public or its shareholders about having such a client!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 13:36 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: AT&T's (appropriate) New Market AT&T NEWS BRIEFS SOVIET SPIRIT -- AT&T said it signed its first telephone-equipment distribution contract for the Soviet Union ... AT&T said it agreed to allow the Moscow Local Telephone Network, a government agency known as MGTS, to sell AT&T's Spirit Communications System product to business customers and AT&T-approved equipment dealers - likely other Soviet government organizations. Well, isn't that special? At last AT&T has found a promising market for its virtually featureless small telephone systems. What better place to sell them than somewhere that the competition is either non-existent or dreadful? Someday AT&T may wake up and come to the party, but for now its equipment offerings leave a lot to be desired. Even the mighty Systems 25, 75, and 85 have major inflexibilities that render them useless for many potential applications. (No station CPC, inflexible station numbering, inflexible hardware configurations, to name a few.) The highly touted 5000 series cordless phones have those damned little short DTMF bursts that make voice mail retrival next to impossible. The Spirit is too weenie to even use in my residence, while the Merlin is way too expensive (and still does not have some of the capabilities that I require). The PARTNER is unknown, but given the information posted so far and AT&T's past performance in this arena, initial indications are that it is similarly lacking in features that people really need and use. Someone suggested to me recently that AT&T would do well to BUY a Panasonic KX-T123212, set it up, see how it works, and then correct its deficiencies and enhance its features. What a killer system that would be! But as it is, I get e-mail from AT&T employees singing the praises of the company's brain-dead offerings from a position of obviously never even seeing the competitions' wares. I have said this before and will say it again, when AT&T finally gets its head out of the sand in the equipment market, it wiil become a force to be reckoned with. The competition had better watch out; someday it may happen. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Environmentally Responsible Telco Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 While there are frequent matters Telcos take criticism for in this and other forums, there is at least one bright spot. It concerns a recent post in the Digest about wasted billing return mail envelopes. The Concord Telephone Company of North Carolina, one of the few remaining truly independent companies (owned now by the third generation of the family since inception in 1897), mails its bills in a reusable envelope; one in which a gummed flap for resealing the same envelope is provided. The product Concord uses seems to be no secret. It bears the trademark of Tension Envelope Company, an old name in the envelope business, with Tension's patent number. Thus, the system should be available to any telco that would see the light to copy what Concord has been doing for some time now. The envelope is marked with the recyclable paper mark, thus it seems Concord even recovers the returned envelopes for further use. As to the enclosures, Concord's bill is a series of sheets, like most Telco bills ... and for a new client of any size, it's quite likely Tension Envelope would design the window layout to suit any Telco. Now, the challenge is open to America's 1,400 or so other Telcos to see which, if any, would adopt such a sensible (and obviously economical) method. It might even show they can be as sensibly innovative as the history they once had in business sysems invention, instead of focusing on technological hype. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 01:56:18 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Alternate Cellular System Organization: Cal State Long Beach I was waiting for someone else to report this, so I didn't submit it when I saw it, but nobody has and now I don't have the details in front of me but ... There was an article in the paper here (LA) the other day that said there was a petition (due?) before the FCC to allocate a portion of the spectrum currently used for commercial mobile phone systems (taxi, delivery dispatching) to be divided up for an alternate cellular-type phone usage. Sorry, I don't remember any of the technical details but maybe someone else can follow-up. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Telephone Privatization/Deregulation in Canada. Date: 18 Feb 91 03:23:18 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Unitel, a firm composed of companies led by Canadian cable-TV mogul Ted Rogers and Canadian Pacific Corporation, is making a bid to provide alternative long-distance telephone service in Canada. The issue is highly controversial; this bid is only the last of several that have been turned aside by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) at the behest of populist political movements in Canada. In the wake of the economic disaster precipitated by the Free Trade Act (many Canadian firms busted and tens of thousands of jobs lost), this move, sanctioned by the extremely unpopular federal government, is seen as yet another test of Canadian collectivity. Unlike the U.S., where telephone companies and regulators conspired to hide the costs of deregulation - particularly higher local telephone costs - in devices like access charges, in Canada the proponents of deregulation and privatization have been very forward in predicting a "rebalancing" of rates that will favor long-distance and especially international - hence border-crossing - phone calls over local calls. Rebalancing, in many Canadians' eyes, is the imposition of a rate structure that further enhances cross-border integration of the Canadian economy with that of the U.S., to the detriment of the local economy. The Telecommunications Workers Union in British Columbia has put together a well-done packet of materials on this topic. The TWU opposes Unitel's petition. For more information from the TWU, contact: Mr. Sid Shniad Staff Economist, Telecommunications Workers Union 5261 Lane Street, Burnaby, B.C. V5H 4A6 CANADA (604) 437-4822 I believe that Sid can also be reached at Sid_Shniad@cs.sfu.ca Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ From: elise mahaffey Subject: Call Forwarding Question Organization: NIA - Network Information Access Magazine Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 18:43:47 GMT If you were to have a phone set up with call forwarding to forward to another area code (LD somewhere) and you dialed with a phone to the one set up to forward, on which phone line would it get billed? [Moderator's Note: Each phone gets billed for its part of the link. The phone placing the call pays for a call to the phone where forwarding takes place and that phone in turn pays for a call to the end destination. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gabe Wiener Subject: Is There a History of Direct Distance Dialing? Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 20:35:23 GMT Recently, the Digest carried a wonderfully informative article on the history of the two-letter exchange names. Has anything of that sort ever appeared regarding the history of DDD? If not, could someone in the know post a brief synopsis of its history? Thanks, Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. gabe@ctr.columbia.edu gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu 72355.1226@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: P7NQYF9Z@umiami.ir.miami.edu Subject: Help Needed With AES/EBU Formatting Date: 17 Feb 91 21:30:10 EST Organization: Univ of Miami IR I would like to know if there is anyone who can help me out. I'm doing my electrical engineering senior project and I need a bit of information. I am building a device where I have 16-bit digital audio words outputted serially from a Motorola Sigma-Delta A/D chip and I want to format it into AES/EBU format. Some of the people I've spoken with say it would be best to accomplish this thru firmware, and other say it might be accomplished thru a special purpose chip. In all cases, nobody I've spoken with knows any specific chip info, i.e. Manufacturers, chip numbers, etc. If anyone can send more specific info on available chips or any related info on how to accomplish the formating I will be most eternally greatful and you'll have the knowledge that you assisted in the continuing education of a green engineer. 8-) *** PLEASE send any mail directly to me. Scott Clancy U of Miami p7nqyf9z ------------------------------ From: bill Subject: Caller ID in Atlanta ... at Last? Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 20:52:37 EST Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu As the self-appointed chronicler of the implementation of Caller*ID in the metropolitan Atlanta area, I have the following information to pass along. :-) Many of you may recall that according to my previous postings here Caller*ID was set to come on-line in the Atlanta area on February 14. This date has come to pass and rest assured I had my order in promptly to Southern Bell. I had "pre-ordered" the service a few weeks ago, but felt that I should call on the 14th just to sure. Well, as it turns out, the service will not be active on my line until Tuesday, February 19. That is the earliest date at which anyone will have it, supposedly. Call me a sucker for many things telephonic, but I was even willing to pay the $12 order fee just to get the service at its first chance. Southern Bell will be waiving the $12 fee beginning on March 6 (for about a month). Outlying areas will also have the order fee waived for about a month after they are cut in according to the Southern Bell Direct Marketing folks at 404-493-5555. I was able to find very little mention of the impending Caller*ID cut-in from any of the Atlanta news media. As a matter of course, the Atlanta Journal/Constitution made briefest mention of the service in their Feb. 14 Business pages. Macy's, however, had a half-page ad on page A2 touting the CIDCO Slimlite 64 and Slimline 10 boxes at a "special" price of $99.99 and $59.99, respectively. More info as I become aware of it. Naturally, I'll keep the list informed of my findings as I play with my new toy from cellular, PBX, calling card, etc. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 13:48 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: How Times Change AT&T NEWS BRIEFS GULF BILLS -- Texas families who have amassed large phone bills talking to troops in Saudi Arabia got help Wednesday from the state Public Utility Commission, which gave emergency approval for aid. [Texas PUC commissioner Marta Greytok] has asked the federal government to decrease rates for troops in Saudi Arabia. Dallas Morning News, 19A. Also AP, Los Angeles Times, A9. Also WINS/AM, New York, 2/12, CNN Headline News, 2/13. ------------- Isn't that amazing? There were stories in the {San Jose Mercury} about families being faced with $1500 phone bills resulting from a son or daughter or loved one in Saudi Arabia making daily calls home. It shows what a telephonic society we have become. Can you imagine this in previous wars, even the Vietnam war? Few in those days would have even considered making one single phone call from overseas. Now, it is somehow expected that the means should be made available for FREQUENT calls from those overseas. Families that I knew during the Vietnam era considered themselves fortunate to receive an infrequent letter from a relative stationed in the war zone. Times certainly have changed. On a related note, now that the cost of sending a transcontinental FAX is less than postage, do you suppose we may see a drop in USPS mail volume anytime soon? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #127 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15829; 18 Feb 91 3:18 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21484; 18 Feb 91 1:49 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07081; 18 Feb 91 0:43 CST Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 0:02:23 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #128 BCC: Message-ID: <9102180002.ab16908@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 18 Feb 91 00:02:05 CST Volume 11 : Issue 128 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Prodigy: What Does Sears Do? What About IBM? [Toby Nixon] Re: "Independent" Coin Phones [Andy Jacobson] Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [John McHarry] Re: Caller*ID [Peter da Silva] Re: Nynex Gateway Bites the Dust [Michael P. Deignan] Re: One-Number Card Warning [John Higdon] Re: Why 900-STOPPER [Robert Jacobson] Re: The Year Was 1960 (was Allied Radio / Radio Shack) [John Higdon] Re: Environmentally Responsible Telco [Daniel Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Prodigy: What Does Sears Do? What About IBM? Date: 17 Feb 91 11:06:52 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , michels@tramp.colorado. edu (MICHELS DAVID) writes: > Can anyone tell me the story of Prodigy? I don't know everything, but I do know a bit more than you it seems, so I'll try to answer your questions. > I know it is an IBM/Sears joint project. It initially included CBS as well. CBS later wanted out and their share was bought out by IBM and Sears. > What I would like to know is what was contributed by who. > I would imagine, IBM provided the computers, the know how, the telecom > infrastructure, and all other technical aspects, is this true? > What did Sears provide, just cash? Sears provided their vast mass-marketing expertise. Prodigy is almost totally advertiser-funded; you see a little ad displayed on the bottom of every screen, unless the full screen you're looking at happens to have been provided by an advertiser! Sears did the basic market research, focus groups, etc., that resulted in the design of the service, recruited many of the advertisers, etc. -- i.e., handled the commercial, as opposed to technical, aspects of the service. Sears was also the first commercial outlet for the Prodigy Startup Kits (which included a Hayes Personal Modem 1200, later 2400, by the way); you can now get them just about anywhere, of course. IBM, of course, saw Prodigy as a great way to get more PCs into more homes. > Someone told me all the telecom goes thru Tymenet, is this true? I > would have expected IBM to piggy back prodigy data on its National > Physical Network (NPN). Why would they treat Prodigy so independently? Prodigy over Tymnet is a very recent innovation. Prodigy started out with just a couple of cities, and has been spreading slowly as they installed their own nodes. Traffic was indeed carried on IBM's network. But the hardware on which Prodigy runs is much different from a typical packet network, where the network is just a pipeline and all of the data is in the hosts. Prodigy network nodes are very intelligent (IBM Series/1 computers) that have very large databases of screen images. The software you run on your PC does the same thing! Whenever you take an action that would cause a different screen to be displayed, it first looks at your local disk (screen cache), and gets the image from there if possible. If it's not there, it checks the disk at the node. If it's not there, only then does it go all the way across the network to fetch the image from the host computers in White Plains. This staging of images improves the performance considerably, especially on images that don't change very often (menus, etc.) and that are used by others as well. By the way, I might comment on why it is that Prodigy was so concerned about high levels of email traffic. Email on Prodigy CANNOT be staged on the nodes -- it HAS to go all the way to White Plains for every screen. Heavy email traffic saturates the network, which can bring it to its knees very quickly. Email was intended to be an occassional convenience feature, not a primary use of the service. I don't know how Tymnet fits into this. Certainly Tymnet's node processors don't have the ability to cache screens, but maybe still rather than going all the way to White Plains there are distributed caches around the country. I just don't know. But Tymnet access was added by Prodigy in order to expand the user base (probably at the demand of advertisers) much faster than could have been done by the gradual installation of more S/1 Prodigy computers in new cities. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 08:40 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: "Independent" Coin Phones John Higdon writes: > But listen to the cries of doom when a COCOT rips off > someone for a few extra bucks on a long distance call. "It is all > Judge Greene's fault." Baloney! If the public does not like COCOTs, it > will not use them and they will go away. If the public is too stupid > to know the difference, then it gets what it deserves. Agreed, but John, we often aren't given much of a choice. For example when I needed to call someone from a shopping center in Vista, and found the whole place wired with Ultra-Rip-Off (TM) phones, that wanted $1.75 for a call. I had to go miles, like three, to find a real Pac*Bell phone that would charge me only $0.40 for the same call (I was going away from where I was calling). I bet that if you had a COCOT and an LEC pay phone right next to each other, 99% of passers by would choose the LEC phone. Most people have the savvy to avoid COCOTS if given a choice. The point is that we are rarely presented with that choice. The same applies to 10XXX blocking. AOS only exist because we can't (or are deceived into believing we can't) reach our prefered carrier. Andy Jacobson or ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it Organization: The MITRE Corporation Date: 17 Feb 91 19:15:44 GMT technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Tech News Account) writes: > ... why not make CALLER*ID available only to RESIDENTIAL customers? > still leave it avail. for personal use... so what if it doesn`t help > the pizza parlors cull fake orders. O heaven forfend! The pizza parlor's putting my standard order in a data base and getting it right (and to the right address) for a change is one of the best uses I can see for the thing. ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Caller*ID Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Mon, 18 Feb 1991 00:13:09 GMT In article , herbison@ultra.enet.dec.com (B.J. 15-Feb-1991 1359) writes: > My first thought was large numbers of people exchanging lists of > telemarketer numbers. My second thought was the problems caused > when a telemarketer changes numbers and someone else gets the number > -- someone who is a friend or a potential client. That's the user's problem. The simplest solution would be to expire numbers after a time period. That way you may eventually get called by that telemarketer again, but then you add it to the list and you're safe from bothersome calls for another six months. (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) ------------------------------ From: mpd@anomaly.SBS.COM (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: Nynex Gateway Bites the Dust Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI 02917 Date: Sun, 17 Feb 1991 22:42:15 GMT adamg@world.std.com (Adam M. Gaffin) writes: > Nynex Corp. said yesterday (Monday) it will pull the plug on a > computer information service that has lost several million dollars. [much more deleted...] Perhaps now the Baby Bells will start to get the idea that running a BBS generally isn't a business, it is usually a hobby ... Michael P. Deignan Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 03:47 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: One-Number Card Warning Steve Forrette writes: > What makes it worse is that they have a > 10XXX access code, so someone can use a one number card to call to > anywhere from *any* phone they might be using. Note that it isn't > that they just aren't verifying the PIN, as a PIN that's neither the > normal nor the "one number" one will be denied. Not that I would advocate anything improper, but (in the style of Jack Lord's Hawaii Five-O character) suppose, just suppose... You happened to dial a call to a supervising busy test or the Bell Canada newsline and used as a calling card the phone number of the corporate headquarters of ComSystems followed by XXXX (your choice). Do you suppose that the company might be encouraged to close that hole if enough people caused bogus charges to appear the firm's own phone bill? Just wondering. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER Date: 18 Feb 91 03:11:37 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle In his note to Jerry Leichter's posting on 900-STOPPER, the Moderator makes the comment, "For the average John Doe whose only immediate way of call tracing is via Caller*ID then the 900 service is virtually useless at this time." I thought that Call Trace was the service that would permit a customer to have a call traced, by the telephone company or law enforcement, if a call was made inappropriately. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this confusion of services is not helping the overall discussion. Bob Jacobson [Moderator's Note: Let me try to explain again. What are the two reasons one would place a call through STOPPER? (1) To prevent one's own telephone billing records from showing a call to the end destination in the event the billing records were examined, for example by law enforcement people. So instead of seeing a call to the place where they know good and well you called, they see instead a call to STOPPER at that time. Don't you suppose they will then subpoena the STOPPER records to demonstrate what happened next? I doubt the proprietors of STOPPER will/would fight any subpoena of their records. After all, your $2 phone call is hardly worth it. So in this instance (1), all you do is add an extra step in the tracing process; you do not make anything 'untraceable'. In another application for the service (2), it is not the government trying to demonstrate that a call was made, but the recipient of the call who wants to find out who you are / where you are calling from. There are two ways to go about it: (a) a manual trace initiated by telco people on the receiving end of the call, or (b) an automatic trace using Caller*ID or *57. In the case of (a), the trace would lead back to the outdials at STOPPER; again I ask if you think the proprietor there is going to cover for the perpetrator of the call at the risk of going to jail himself ... I doubt it. So with (a), the caller would be putting an extra step in the tracing process, nothing more or less. The call would not be 'untraceable'. Many's the time calls have been traced halfway around the world in a few minutes when the need was there. I'm reminded of the mentally ill person in Chicago who used to frequently call Buckingham Palace to threaten the Queen. After everyone got tired of the joke and decided to do something about it, British Telecom was waiting for the chap and signalled their colleagues at AT&T on this side to pick up the pair he was on. AT&T traced him back to the switcher on Canal Street in Chicago; they got the call from IBT's Chicago-Superior office; and the Chicago-Superior CO got it from ... hmmmm ... WHitehall 4-6211, the Lawson YMCA. A quick call to the security office at Lawson sent someone up to the phone room on the fifth floor where a look at the old cord board showed the trunk in particular up to the guy's room phone. Total time from start to finish, about ten minutes. Admittedly there was some advance coordination. So a call via STOPPER would do what? Add another link to be checked? And in the case of (b), for the time being forget it unless the call is intra-lata. A call that cannot be identified with Caller*ID can't be handled via *57 or *60 either. So if Caller*ID, *57 and *60 are largely ineffectual on an inter-lata basis anyway, and the proprietor of the STOPPER service is unlikely to cover for you in the event of a manual trace and/or audit of billing records, then what remains to make STOPPER such a valuable service? Is there something else it can do to hide a phone call that isn't already happening by virtue of the way the phone network operates in most places at the present time? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 00:52 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: The Year Was 1960 (was Allied Radio / Radio Shack) On Feb 16 at 23:49, TELECOM Moderator writes: > (The last COs in Chicago to go dial were cut in 1951.) No modems, no > color television. No color television? Speak for yourself, Pat. I was a high school sophomore and augmented my income by baby sitting for neighbors. I distinctly remember watching (of all things) the Perry Como show on NBC on Saturday nights because it was very much in color on the neighbor's RCA color TV. (The first color TV I ever saw was in 1956.) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Maybe there was color television by then; I forget. I am sure it was not all that common in households until the early sixties sometime. Obviously there was no cable television, and FM radio was in its infancy, virtually dwarfed by AM stations, which were still doing the 'radio version' of the old shows (comedy, variety, etc) which had begun migrating to television several years before. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 22:57:16 CST From: Daniel Jacobson Subject: Re: Environmentally Responsible Telco Reply-To: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA Donald E. Kimberlin writes about exciting new developments on the reusable telephone company billing envelopes front. Here in Illinois Bell territory I can charge it with my major credit card. On my monthly call I pester my Ill Bell representative about somehow making this automatic. However, I have it rigged up with Northern Ilinois Gas to "front" them $40 each month out of my bank account -- definitely the least maintenance style of billing I've come across ... they even pay 5% interest on the surplus $$. Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM Naperville IL USA +1 708-979-6364 [Moderator's Note: You should familiarize yourself with 'BILL'. This is an automatic pay-by-phone service all the utilities in northern Illinois use as well as many merchants and credit card services. You can pay many of your bills by phone each month with a single phone call to 'BILL' as I do. They are in Arlington Heights, IL, and tied in with all the banks to do automatic debits, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #128 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13012; 19 Feb 91 2:34 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28579; 19 Feb 91 1:01 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05751; 18 Feb 91 23:55 CST Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 23:43:38 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #129 BCC: Message-ID: <9102182343.ab28339@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 18 Feb 91 23:43:26 CST Volume 11 : Issue 129 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: A History of the USA to Cuba Phone Links [David Lesher] Re: A History of the USA to Cuba Phone Links [Roy Smith] Re: "Independent" Coin Phones [Peter da Silva] Re: "Independent" Coin Phones [John Higdon] Re: Answer Supervision From Loop Start Circuits [Ken Abrams] Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? [John Richard Bruni] Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Two Questions From a Novice [Juliet Sutherland] Re: How Times Change [Peter da Silva] Re: Market Place Product [Toby Nixon] Re: Cordless Phones: Are any 'Secure' From Handset to Base [Ed Greenberg] Re: Cordless Phones: Are any 'Secure' From Handset to Base [Dell Ellison] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lesher Subject: Re: A History of the USA to Cuba Phone Links Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 11:15:29 EST Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers Donald Kimberlin posted a great tome about USA -- Cuba telco connection history. I can add a few things. 1) There IS something called "Western Union Havana" that runs circuits to Key West, I believe. I'm aware of one four-wire 75 baud [WOW ;-] teletype link, and several Telex machines. 2) The voice quality of the existing system is likely to be the worst you have ever experienced. The crosstalk is equal to your desired source -- on a good day. 3) The Soviot Chancery has several four-metre {+/-3db ;-} dishes that I assume talk to one of their birds. 4) According to newspaper accounts, there is now fiber-optic cable in place with boocoo capacity. {Who installed it?} The hangup in using it involves transferring money to Cuba to maintain their end of the link. Treasury does not want to break the boycott to that extent. But, Bell South was rumored to be putting the screws on to get it running. Why? Apparently, the existing link [I assume this refers to the Florida City tropo setup] uses spectrum space Bell South wants for cellular service in an area they see as a real gold mine - the Keys. Confusing that is the fact I think I just saw a recent Bell South ad for new Keys cellular service. Have they gone ahead without the needed spectrum space? 5) Once you get to Havana, you still need working local plant to reach your destination. Let me put this in c.d.t. terms: John Higdon, I've got just the place for all that Pac*Bell stuff -- it would be several orders of magnitude better. Ironically, however, the three "international" hotels in town all have new Mitel systems, an off shoot of all the business the Canadians do with Cuba. Just don't count on anything happening when you dial "9." Maybe when everyone is done fixing up the GDR's system, they should stop by Cuba. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 11:39:47 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: A History of the USA to Cuba Phone Links Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Donald E. Kimberlin writes (in a very interesting essay): > More common were failures that lasted a year or more if the cable itself > was physically damaged, which happend several times when ships dropped > anchor on the cable in Havana harbor. Telecom readers might be interested to know that the US Coast Pilot (sort of the offical government AAA guide for mariners) has a note in it for New York Harbor that underwater cables abound, and that AT&T will gladly compensate the owner of any ship who's captain cuts away his anchor rather than trying to pull it up if he suspects he has snagged a cable. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: "Independent" Coin Phones Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Tue, 19 Feb 1991 03:37:32 GMT In article , IZZYAS1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Andy Jacobson) writes: > found the whole place wired with Ultra-Rip-Off (TM) phones, that > wanted $1.75 for a call. I had to go miles, like three, to find a real > Pac*Bell phone that would charge me only $0.40 for the same call And how much did that three mile drive cost you, in time and inconvenience? Sometimes I feel like John Higdon, amazed at the trouble people will put them to to save a nickle or make a point. But then I dutifully clip coupons and comparison shop and go out of my way to find a free automatic teller. I'll make a special trip at lunch to get diskettes for $7.00 instead of $10.00 a box. Anyway (dragging my train of thought bodily back on the tracks and, to mix a metaphor, pinning it to the mat) just how much is that honest Bell coin phone worth to you? peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 01:31 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: "Independent" Coin Phones Andy Jacobson writes: > Agreed, but John, we often aren't given much of a choice. For example > when I needed to call someone from a shopping center in Vista, and > found the whole place wired with Ultra-Rip-Off (TM) phones, that > wanted $1.75 for a call. I had to go miles, like three, to find a real > Pac*Bell phone that would charge me only $0.40 for the same call (I > was going away from where I was calling). And so, you confirm my statements about the marketplace. The fact is, you went three miles out of your way to avoid dropping any money into a device that you deemed unworthy of your business. Granted, in the short term, many will be inconvenienced, overcharged, and otherwise put upon. We Americans are always looking for the instant, quick fix. If we can keep our shirt on long enough and let the marketplace do its inevitable work, COCOTs will go away by themselves without gummit meddling or interference. And the force that causes their demise will be the most powerful in the world: economics. This is far superior to piling on layers of unenforcable regulations or some sort of "quick fix" legislation. When people go miles out of their way to find utility phones, buy and use cellular phones, or just avoid using the phones altogether, COCOTs will eventually experience the death they so well deserve. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Answer Supervision From Loop Start Circuits Date: 17 Feb 91 18:41:54 GMT Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article <74365@bu.edu.bu.edu> csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) writes: >Although my suggestion may not meet his exact requirements, it does >work flawlessly for my voice response systems. >Solution: order CENTREX. That's it! No special tariffs, no unnecessary >pain (other than the usual CENTREX programming screw-ups), and you get >features as part of the deal. The answer supervision is provided as an >OSI (Open Switch Interval) at least on 3*Way calls, and possibly on >single outbound calls when served by a #1ESS. #5s and their ilk are >another question. I hope John doesn't build his business around this "hidden feature" that he thinks he has found because sometime in the near future it is likely to disappear. None of the modern digital switches produce an open-interval at the point that he is looking for it (can be arranged for open circuit at disconnect only). When John's LEC cuts him over to a digital switch, he will probably complain long and loud because some of his equipment doesn't work anymore. If you really need answer supervision, it is available with ground-start PBX lines in the form of a line reversal. There may be other solutions too but trying to interpret an open switching interval as answer supervision is a big mistake (IMHO); it will likely bite you in the backside later. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: John_Richard_Bruni@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 21:28:16 PST Pat, This may be hazardous to one`s health, but I have on several occassions seen phones hooked up to AC to ring the bell for plays ... you get a momentary-on switch and someone in the stage crew pushes the button to simulate the ring. One stage manager told me the extra voltage and frequency was handy because the phone rang *MUCH* louder than normal, which was ideal for theater use. I am sure that the phones in question were 1970`s vintage or earlier. This is all I know about the subject. I`ll leave the technical discussion of the pros and cons to those more in the know. Regards, Rocky [Moderator's Note: What you are suggesting is a *highly dangerous* practice which could -- would !!! -- damage the phone beyond future use to say nothing of hurting the hapless person who picked it up at the wrong time. Don't do it! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access Date: 18 Feb 91 10:15:30 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article the AP Wire Service writes: > MCI and US Sprint customers already can use either 800 or 950 >numbers or dial a 10XXX access code. > But AT&T depends solely on the access code. That company has >lobbied the FCC to require 10XXX access, saying it would cost as much >as $50 million to develop and $250 million a year to operate an 800 >access number. I can partially understand AT&T's reluctance to set up an 800 number, given the marketing costs involved and the fact that 10XXX exists. But I think they should bite the bullet. 10XXX will never provide the access that an 800 number does. The problem is that 10XXX+0+ must, by necessity, be blocked quite often. Go into most large comapnies and ask to use the phone. You will usually be offered a telephone that is restricted to local calls and 800 numbers. The business can not allow any type of 0+ calling because they can not risk that you may dial 0+ and make the call person-to-person or do some other billing that will come back to them. Hotels usually have toll terminal trunks to get around this problem, but ordinary businesses do not have such lines, and must therefore block 0+. AT&T must get a nationwide 950 or 800 number if it wishes that its customers be able to use AT&T long distance from any telephone. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan E-Mail: or Fax: +81 3 3237 5867 Voice Mail: +81 3 3222 8429 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 15:49:08 EST From: Juliet Sutherland Subject: Re: Two Questions From a Novice Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , Jim.Redelfs@iugate. unomaha.edu (Jim Redelfs) writes: > As existing, copper-pair cable facilities reach their capacity, the > solution is to either place more cable, or install "Pair Gain" > systems. One used in my specific service area is called SLC96 > (Slick-96) where, through the use of special equipment on BOTH ends of > the cable, 96 "pairs" are achieved on the end by using FOUR, physical > pairs of wire. One minor quibble with the above. The SLC(R)-96 and SLC Series 5 carrier systems actually use 10 physical pairs. Each 96 line system uses four primary T1 lines and one protection T1 line (assuming it is supported by copper feeder rather than a co-located fiber mux). Each T1 line uses two pairs (one each for transmit and receive) for a total of 10 physical pairs. There may also be additional pairs associated with multiple systems for such things as test access, order wire, etc. The pair gain is still substantial, however. SLC is a registered trademark of AT&T Network Systems. Juliet Sutherland Digital Loop Carrier Systems AT&T Bell Laboratories juliet@mhuxo.att.com ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: How Times Change Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Mon, 18 Feb 1991 14:01:32 GMT In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > On a related note, now that the cost of sending a transcontinental FAX > is less than postage, do you suppose we may see a drop in USPS mail > volume anytime soon? I doubt it. The up-front capital costs of a FAX machine, plus a second line at the recipient end, don't help the economics much. Remember, not that many people have these new toys, and the majority of the USPS mail volume already gets a more favorable rate. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Market Place Product Date: 18 Feb 91 10:05:23 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , Leroy.Donnelly@iugate. unomaha.edu (Leroy Donnelly) writes: > Is there anyone in Atlanta that could post the address to Collins & > Collins CPAs. Neither the Atlanta White Pages nor Yellow Pages list a "Collins & Collins" CPA firm. The only likely alternative is "Collins, John P CPA" at 2625 Cumberland Pkwy NW, Atlanta; 404-433-1711. There is no listing in either place for a CPA named "Carlton Collins", who was quoted in the article, although there is one "Collins, Carlton" in the residential White Pages who lives in a neighborhood likely to be populated by CPAs and such. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 09:12 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Cordless Phones: Are Any 'Secure' From Handset to Base? Patrick, Is it really necessary to insinuate that ham radio operators are actively involved in snooping on their neighbors? Ham radio operators have the whole world with which to communicate. There are lots more interesting things to do then listen to the drivel that most people put over their phone lines. Besides, portable phones don't operate in the ham band. Sorry to get testy, but it's a common and distasteful response. Whenever anything improper takes place that is related to the "wireless" somebody always brings up radio amateurs. Yet these detractors pay no attention to the experimentation and public service that takes place on our bands. I know you know better, Pat. edg [Moderator's Note: I think what I said -- at least what I meant -- was that someone other than a relatively experienced radio operator (i.e. a ham) would be unlikely to understand the concept of sideband transmissions and in any event would find them difficult to tune in clearly. I did not mean hams would be *likely* to do so. Sorry for the confusion. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Dell H. Ellison" Subject: Re: Cordless Phones: Are any 'Secure' From Handset to Base Date: 18 Feb 91 21:26:20 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article , callaghan@bss.enet.dec.com writes: > Question: Are there any 'secure' cordless phones?? I thought that there were several cordless phones out there that automatically changed the frequency every fraction of a second so as to keep the conversation somewhat secure. [Moderator's Note: These are available. I don't know about 'several' different models however. I think their cost would be / is prohibitive from a consumer's point of view. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #129 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16046; 19 Feb 91 4:42 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17553; 19 Feb 91 3:08 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad14582; 19 Feb 91 2:02 CST Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 1:14:03 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #130 BCC: Message-ID: <9102190114.ab12897@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 19 Feb 91 01:13:29 CST Volume 11 : Issue 130 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Why 900-STOPPER [Robert Trebor Woodhead] Re: Why 900-STOPPER [John G Dobnick] Re: Why 900-STOPPER [Ralph W. Hyre] Re: Why 900-STOPPER [Laird P. Broadfield] Re: Why 900-STOPPER [Lang Zerner] Re: Why 900-STOPPER [Colin Plumb] God Save the Poor Hapless Queen [Randy Borow and TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Trebor Woodhead Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER Date: 18 Feb 91 07:11:29 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: >The purpose of the STOPPER service is to provide truely untraceable >calls. >[Moderator's Note: ...Or is the 900 guy saying he would not respond to >a subpoena either? PAT] PAT, If I were running 1-900-STOPPER, I would simply not make any record of the outgoing calls placed by my users. Since the cost of the service is a flat rate per minute, there is no need for me to know what number a user calls, and, given the nature of the service, every reason why I should guarantee to my users that this information is not recorded. If this was the case, then the only way to determine the number a user called would be to 1) get his phone records to determine when he called the 900 number, and 2) get the records of the 900 service from the phone company [since the STOPPER owner would demand that he NOT get itemized bills with ANI, or would destroy that information upon receipt.] To make it tougher, the owner of the STOPPER service could buy long distance service from a different source for each of his outgoing lines, and assign each call to an outgoing line at random. Now the nosy parker trying to get the information is going to have to go after 30 or 40 different long distance providers to get the information. An additional security feature would be for the STOPPER number to allow a caller to "hang around" (at the normal charge) before and after his real call, thus reducing the association (timewise) between the calls on his bills and the call on the STOPPER company's bills. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp [Moderator's Note: If you want the protection of common carrier status -- that is, that you are not responsible for the contents of the traffic you carry, etc, then you *will* keep adequate records of your traffic for the period of time required by your regulating agency. If you do not wish that protection, then don't bother keeping records. I hope that everyone who traces a call back to your outdials then proceeds to sue you, accusing *you* of making the calls, letting you figure out what to do next. If you are not a common carrier then you are are an end user, and every telco has this common provision in their tariffs: the user/subscriber is responsible for the use of his instruments. Are you *sure* you don't want to be a common carrier? A lot of BBS operators who have gotten stung in the past sure wish they had had that protection for their email! Did you ever wonder why if you get harassed by someone on the phone you can't just go sue Sprint for putting the call through? Same difference. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 18:21:04 -0600 From: John G Dobnick Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER Our Moderator says there are two reasons for using STOPPER: (1) To prevent one's own telephone billing records from showing a call to the end destination... (2) ... [stymie] the recipient of the call who wants to find out who you are / where you are calling from. He then states that agencies searching phone records (presumably by subpoena) who encounter a STOPPER service need merely subpoena the STOPPER's phone records, thus allowing Call*Matching [_not_ a trademark, as far as I know] to proceed. He also states that manual trace procedures will render STOPPER ineffective. At the risk of displaying my immense ignorance of things telephonic, which is considerable, I don't see how this follows at all. As I recall the original description of STOPPER, it was a "call forwarding" operation that accepted incoming calls and allowed the caller to then dial out on one of STOPPER's lines. Now, this setup seems to me to involve customer premises equipment that is _not_ under the control of, or directly accessible by, any phone company, or any other agency. It was also my impression that this service, assuming it is popular, will have some volume. I thus fail to see how one can disambiguate without reasonable doubt the multiple incoming and outgoing calls of the STOPPER service. (It seems that for trial purposes "reasonable doubt" would itself be a case "stopper".) Another aspect of STOPPER, as I recall it being presented, is that the company keeps NO records of connections! If there are no records, there is nothing to subpoena, is there? Or is there some (perhaps obscure) regulation that says a company is *required* to keep phone logs? Our Moderator then says: > [a manual] trace would lead back to the outdials at STOPPER; ... [this > is merely] putting an extra step in the tracing process, nothing > more or less. The call would not be 'untraceable'. But, if this is _private_ CPE installed in a _private_ location, how _can_ it be traced through? If I "lash up" my own x-bar to cross-connect my own phone lines, are you telling me the phone company can trace through this? How? This sure sounds like a Trace*Stopper [another non-trademark] to me. > [...] and the proprietor of the STOPPER service is unlikely to > cover for you in the event of a manual trace and/or audit of billing > records, then what remains to make STOPPER such a valuable service? _Whose_ audit records? STOPPER isn't keeping any, so what have they to "cover for"? > Is there something else it can do to hide a phone call that isn't > already happening by virtue of the way the phone network operates > in most places at the present time? I think our Moderator may have answered his own question here. He is apparently assuming that STOPPER is "part of the network", and under the "watchful care" (or "prying access") of the Phone Companies. My understanding of the service is that it is instead a (to use a computer term) "user exit" from the network, in much the same manner a PBX is -- not under control of, or accessible to, the phone companies. Thus, it seems to me that STOPPER does provide a useful "untraceability" service, _as advertised_. If it doesn't, what is the obvious aspect of this that I am overlooking? [Sorry about the Cute*Names -- I've been reading this digest too long. :-)] John G Dobnick (JGD2) Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu ATTnet: (414) 229-5727 UUCP: uunet!uwm!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!jgd [Moderator's Note: Please see my response in the first message of this issue. Either the equipment is part of the 'network' or it is not. If it is part of the network then network record keeping procedures and common carrier status will be present. If it is not part of the network then it belongs to a private user who, under the tariffs of the telco serving him is responsible for the use of his 'instruments'. Which way does he want to have it? It can't be both ways! Would he prefer to keep records and produce them on subpoena or is it his preference to get sued by call recipients from time to time? PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Ralph W. Hyre" Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER Date: 19 Feb 91 00:35:10 GMT Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article cyberoid@milton.u. washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 128, Message 7 of 9 >... [call tracing through STOPPER.]. Don't you suppose they will then >subpoena the STOPPER records to demonstrate what happened next? This implies that records are kept linking the incoming subscriber with the outgoing call. If I were providing the 900-STOPPER service, I would be aware of this and only record the time and length of the call for billing purposes. Presumably the protection of not having the number itemized on your bill would be worth the inconvenience of not being able to challenge the call. I could also set up a call-back mechanism to dial out both numbers (caller and victim.. er, callee) and connect the calls, making it somewhat harder to trace (assuming I had several users 'on-line' at a time). As a responsible provider, I could also shut-off access to certain outgoing numbers that complained (via call-screening or other feedback) about abusive calls. I would also tend cooperate with law enforcment if they offer evidence that a crime is being committed using my facilities. Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: rhyre@attmail.com UUCP: attmail!cinpmx!rhyre Snail Mail: 45150-0085 [ZIP code] or: att!cinoss1!rhyre Phone: +1 513 629 7288 ------------------------------ From: "Laird P. Broadfield" Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER Date: 19 Feb 91 03:01:14 GMT In cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: [some stuff, after which the Moderator said:] >[Moderator's Note: Let me try to explain again. What are the two >reasons one would place a call through STOPPER? (1) To prevent one's >own telephone billing records from showing a call to the end >destination in the event the billing records were examined, for >example by law enforcement people. So instead of seeing a call to the >place where they know good and well you called, they see instead a >call to STOPPER at that time. Don't you suppose they will then >subpoena the STOPPER records to demonstrate what happened next? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't the STOPPER link be sufficient pseudo-confusion to make it impossible to *prove* (rules of evidence) that J. PSTNUser made that particular call? "Well, gee, sure you can have my records. You'll note that 57 incoming calls occured during that minute, to these 57 destination numbers. How else may I help you?" I think we all realize that the Dr. Johnny's Phone Cops "have the technology" (to mangle two shows together) but I would think the service is targeted at people interested in what can be proven, not what can be stated. Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com [Moderator's Note: Again we are dealing with record keeping and the lack or sufficiency thereof. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER From: lang@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com Reply-To: lang@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com (Lang Zerner) Organization: IBM AWD Palo Alto Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 19:58:06 GMT In article leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: >The purpose of the STOPPER service is to provide truely untraceable >calls. It was started by a lawyer, who cited a number of circumstances >in which you might want to ensure that the numbers you dial cannot be >found, EVEN BY SOMEONE WHO CAN SUBPEANA YOUR PHONE RECORDS. ... Yes, >it sounds funny, but there are a variety of legitimate uses for this >kind of service - the founder got the idea after he ran into one. >[Moderator's Note: The thing is, anyone who could subpoena your >records looking for certain connections would surely see the calls to >the 900 service, then supoena those records as well. ...] It seems to me it wouldn't be all that easy to subpoena the records of the STOPPER service. I'm sure it could be done, but is it that striaghtforward to issue a subpoena against the records of a business that was not complicit in an abuse of its services? Why would that be any more straightforward than issuing a subpeona against the records of any other entity whose phone number appears on the defendants calling record (legally, I mean; I can see the intuitively obvious differences, but they don't help in court)? Be seeing you... Lang Zerner [Moderator's Note: The complicity of the business in the abuse of its services could be easily demonstrated by its lack of record keeping to control such situations if in fact it did not keep records, as has been suggested by some here. And if records *were* kept but a subpoena failed to issue after application for same then the next step would be a backdoor approach of filing suit against the proprietor, accusing him of having no records to produce by reason of having committed the abuse himself. To demonstrate otherwise, he would then produce the records in his own defense if he could not be induced to produce them otherwise. In other words, name your customer or I sue you making the claim you yourself caused the mischief. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ccplumb@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER Organization: University of Waterloo Date: Tue, 19 Feb 1991 03:57:18 GMT TELECOM Moderator Noted: > [Moderator's Note: The thing is, anyone who could subpoena your > records looking for certain connections would surely see the calls to > the 900 service, then supoena those records as well. All it would seem > to do (in the case of a professional investigator) is add an extra > step in the process. For the average John Doe whose only immediate way > of call tracing is via Caller*ID then the 900 service is virtually > useless at this time. Or is the 900 guy saying he would not respond to > a subpoena either? PAT] No, I suspect the security is provided by the 900 guy not keeping records. He has an incoming bank, and an outgoing bank, and the House Committee on Un-American Activities (for example) can find out that at 5:32, the following twenty people called in and the following twenty numbers were called out to. Allowing some variation in dialing time makes it noisier, although I think the disconnect time (likely synchronised quite exactly) would provide enough information to follow the link. The idea is to add another link in the chain and make it harder to trace. The idea has been used by phreaks for years. It's also not foolproof. But some variants are moderately secure: I once got a call from an old acquaintance in the U.S. via Australia. Why Australia? Well, it was somewhat exotic, but more importantly all the techs were alseep at the time, making a speedy trace less likely. Colin [Moderator's Note: As you point out, not all of the twenty calls terminated at the same time; nor were all successfully connected. But all that has to happen with this chap is for a few truly obnoxious and/or threatening calls to go to, for example, President Bush ... or lots of fraud credit card orders placed where the ANI supplied on the merchant's 800 order line traces back to his service. The feds will come down on him hard and he will produce records if he has them, and sweat a lot if he can't ... or maybe even if he can! :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Mon Feb 18 14:17:54 CST 1991 Subject: God Save the Poor Hapless Queen Pat, In TELECOM V11, #128, you gave us the account of the YMCA resident pestering the Queen. For us not versed in the technical aspects of telecommunications jargon, exactly how could such a call be traced -- especially taking into account that there are numerous calls going into England, out of Chicago, etc. For us layman out here, is it possible to explain this? (I can grasp intra-lata or even inter-lata tracing, but international?) Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. [Moderator's Note: This is a little oversimplified, but tracing a call involves only following the wires from one end to the other. Obviously an intra-CO trace is the easiest, but a trace between offices merely involves someone at one office calling his colleague at the other office and telling him which interoffice trunk the incoming call to his CO is arriving on. Then the distant CO picks it up and keeps following the wire. The Queen's telephone has a pair of wires coming to it from a BT central office. In that CO they see the connection is to an overseas circuit identified by a number. A call to AT&T in White Plains, NY will get someone there to find that overseas circuit and see that it is linked elsewhere. Yes, telcos cooperate with each other on traces when required, when the call being audited or traced goes from one telco to another enroute to its final destination. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #130 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07525; 19 Feb 91 20:05 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25452; 19 Feb 91 18:25 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15994; 19 Feb 91 17:19 CST Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 16:37:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #131 BCC: Message-ID: <9102191637.ab12484@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 19 Feb 91 16:36:46 CST Volume 11 : Issue 131 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Saudi-Connection: Email to the Troops [Glenn F. Leavell & Tom Coradeschi] A History of DDD [Donald E. Kimberlin] {Journal-Constitution} Editorial on Prodigy [Peter Marshall] Re: Prodigy: What Does Sears Do? What About IBM? [Robert Trebor Woodhead] PRESTEL/Videotex Protocol Inquiry [Ed Krol] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Glenn F. Leavell" Subject: Saudi-Connection: Email to the Troops Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 17:24:41 GMT [Moderator's Note: In article T720019@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu, (Volkhart Baumgaertner) asks if there is a way to send email to the troops in Saudi Arabia. Two responses came in at almost the same time, both referencing an article which appeared in another forum. In addition to the response from Glenn Leavell, I got a reply from Tom Coradeschi . Both fellows got