Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14540; 23 Feb 91 0:04 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24229; 22 Feb 91 22:21 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24716; 22 Feb 91 21:16 CST Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 20:34:12 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #151 BCC: Message-ID: <9102222034.ab17805@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 22 Feb 91 20:34:05 CST Volume 11 : Issue 151 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T, MCI, US.Sprint Rate Comparison [Phydeaux] Interstate, Interlata Local Calling [John R. Levine] Looking For an Answering Machine With Certain Features [David W. James] Yagi-Uda Antenna Design Information Needed [Tracy Weber] Re: Question About MCI Personal 800 Number PINS [Bill Huttig] Re: No Internet/Easylink Gateway Yet [Paul Wilczynski] Re: NXX Count (1-15-91) [Bob Goudreau] Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? [Jamie Hanrahan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 03:43:27 From: Phydeaux Subject: AT&T, MCI, US.Sprint Rate Comparison Howdy! I've got AT&T on my two home phone lines. I'm about to get a cell phone, and I want 800 service so some friends will not have to call me collect. Seeing the message about Reach Out America on my AT&T portion of my monthly bill prompted me to call them and ask about it. I then called MCI and U.S.Sprint. I figured the info I gathered would be useful to other telecom people. Here it is... ---------------- AT&T - Suggested I choose ROA, which comes in three flavors. First hr Other hrs. %discount for non-plan hours. $8.70 $6.60 25% $7.80 $6.60 15% $7.15 $6.60 0% Plan hours are 10 PM to 8 AM, M-F. All day Saturday until 5 PM Sunday. Then 11 PM Sunday until Monday at 8 AM. They said they had no real personal 800 service, but connected me to a department which was a commercial 800 department. These people offer what they called a "true" 800 number for $20/month plus usage. 5% discount for over $50 in calls, %10 for over $350, and another break at $1300. Their 800 number could not be combined with any ROA or other discounts than this. They also suggested the MCI 800 service was, "Just a calling card." ------------------ MCI - Suggested I use their hourly plan which is called Primetime. This service comes in two flavors, but they didn't seem too keen on selling the second one (the one without the discount plan). First hr Other hrs. %discount for non-plan hours. $7.50 $6.50 10% $6.50 $6.50 0% Plan hours are M-F 5 PM - 8 AM, but not Sunday Evening from 5 PM to 11 PM. Personal 800 service is $5 per month and $.25 per minute. If you choose one of their hourly plans, the charge is $2 per month and the same rate as the plan. Calls made outside the plan hours are billed at $.25 per minute. The above applies to out of state calls only, however. If you receive an in-state call they threaten to charge $.25 per minute unless you have one of their in-state calling packages. Callers dial an 800 number and then must enter a four digit "security code" (Which allows them to sell the same number many times.) Someone here mentioned getting multiple 800 numbers. I was told that you could have only one personal 800 number per Primetime package, so if I wanted two of them (one to each of my phone lines) I would have to purchase a package for each line (instead of combining them) and pay $2 per 800 number. There is no installation charge for the personal 800 service. ----------------- U.S.Sprint - Suggested that since my monthly LD bill is over $25 I should use Sprint +. Sprint + is a straightforward 10% discount on monthly usage over $25 on calls made from 5 PM to 8 AM seven days. There is an $8 minimum, so if you make *no* calls, you still pay $8. Their other plan, Sprint Select is set up as follows: First hr Other hrs. %discount for non-plan hours. $8.10 $6.50 10% $7.50 $6.50 0% Plan hours are 5 PM to 8 AM seven days. 800 service is $10/month with a $50 installation charge (waived for the moment). Rates are banded and billed in six second increments. The info I got from them is as follows: 0 to 4.99 hours Approx $.21 per minute 5 hours and up Approx $.19 per minute They didn't know any more than this and suggested I call their business office. ---------------------- WHAT I LEARNED: (Gee - I feel like I'm back in school) After going over portions of my bill, I discovered that I'd pay about the same with AT&T if I switched to their ROA plan. I might save a few pennies. MCI and Sprint had approximately the same rates, but MCI seemed slightly cheaper. It's really a bit difficult to compare since I just moved to IL from NJ and don't have any real useage patterns to look at yet. In general, it doesn't seem like you save too much with the plans. I have looked into this in the past and reached the same conclusion. Just because you are being told you are getting a different rate does not mean it's cheaper. It just means that it is calculated differently. In fact, since I made *NO* daytime long distance charges last month I would have paid *more* if I was on one of the plans in which you *pay* to get a daytime discount. None of the three carriers I spoke to would allow you to use any of their plans in conjunction with cellular service. Only Sprint suggested that they may offer this in the future. Sprint offers some kind of 'point' scheme which allows you to 'win' things. Didn't sound too exciting. Finally, Sprint and MCI offer frequent flyer miles on some airlines. I don't know if I'll switch. If I do it will be to get the personal 800 service. Then, everything else will follow. As things look now, MCI is the company which offers the best rate in 800 service. I don't care if friends have to dial four extra digits, I'm paying for the call -- and it's cheaper than accepting one collect call per month. I'd like to hear what other people have found out with regard to this. I hope this info has helped out a bit. reb *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com or reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:558 West Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365 w:reb ASK/Ingres 10255 West Higgins Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500 [Moderator's Note: I think we are seeing more and more convergence of rates by the big three carriers. Unless your long distance bill each month is substantial (and you have to judge that), there is very little incentive to pick and choose on the basis of 'savings' any longer. In general, AT&T is still a little bit more expensive than the other two. All three have bulk plans. The choice any more seems to come down to an applications thing: do you make a lot of daytime calls and need a discount then? Are there very many intra-lata calls on your bill? Do you use calling cards a lot or need an 800 number? etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Interstate, Interlata Local Calling Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 22 Feb 91 13:03:02 EST (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article is written: > I live very close to the New Hampshire - Vermont border, in New Hampshire. > The entire state of NH is one LATA, and the same goes for VT. However, my > local calling area is made up of two NH exchanges, and three VT exchanges. > How is it that I can call across a LATA boundary as a local call? Inter-LATA toll calling is reserved to long distance carriers. Other kinds of inter-LATA calls can be carried by the local telco. This includes local calls and calls for the telco's use. In the particular case of New Hampshire and Vermont, calls between adjacent towns across the river (the boundary is the west bank of the Connecticut River) are generally local and are dialed with seven digits, since neither 603 nor 802 is short of prefixes. One day while shopping in West Lebanon NH I needed to call Woodstock VT which I happened to know was a local call even though Woodstock isn't on the river. I discovered that either I could drop in a dime and dial the seven digits, or I could dial 1-802-seven digits at which point the dime came back if I had deposited one and the AT&T Lady said "ten, cents, please ..." I am intrigued that AT&T knew to rate that call specially rather than as a regular interstate inter-LATA toll call which, after all, it was. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl [MModerator's Note: We have instances of inter-lata, but local calling on the far south side of Chicago, where the Indiana/Illinois state line divides the metropolitan area. The Indiana communities of Whiting and Hammond can call a couple exchanges in Chicago and several south suburban communities. They are Indiana Bell, and of course we are Illinois Bell, but it is all considered local, untimed calling. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "D. W. James" Subject: Looking For Answering Machine With Certain Features Date: 22 Feb 91 21:48:53 GMT Organization: Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey Greetings! I work in a customer support center here at Princeton, staffed during business hours, some evenings and some weekends. We have a rather complicated combination of factors that add up to a need for an answering machine with the following features: Outgoing message of variable length, set by us. We need to inform users calling after hours what to do in a large number of circumstances, so length should be fairly long. Definately greater than your usual 40 seconds. Also, since our schedule changes from time to time, we need something that is not too difficult to change the message on. No incoming message. This is just for announcements. Adjustable ringer pickup. We need to be able to set it long enough that customers trying to reach us during business hours can be answered even though it may take us more than 3 rings. At the same time, we don't want it so long that everyone gets tired of listening to the ringing and hang up before the message machine picks up. We guess that this means a number between seven and ten rings, but we will need to experiment to find out what the best number is. And, being a university means we would like to find it for as little as possible. I realize that there are cards for PC's that do most/all of this, but for other reasons (cost and security mostly) we would like to just get a separate unit. I'll summarize any mail sent, in the event that it is substantially different from what gets posted. I'll also post a follow-up article on what we decide. Thanks, one and all. David W. James Information Centers, CIT Information Systems, Princeton University vnend@princeton.edu, vnend@pucc.bitnet, or {backbone}!princeton!nudity!vnend ------------------------------ From: Tracy WEBER Subject: Yagi-Uda Antenna Design Information Needed Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 22:04:01 GMT My friend need info on how to design a Yagi-Uda antenna given the impedance, radiation pattern and other stuff like that. Anybody out there have a program (source or exec) or a book(s) that covers these topics? It's urgent, so if anyone has info please email to: tracy@bart.cs.mcgill.ca Thanks, Tracy Weber ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 12:12:20 EST From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Question About MCI Personal 800 Number PINS Reply-To: wah@zach.zach.fitt.edu ( Bill Huttig) Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article newsham@wiliki.eng. hawaii.edu (Timothy Newsham) writes: > My question: Does that mean that other people will have the same 800 > number as you, and the call will be routed to the correct person > depending on the four digit number they enter? I think that you are talking about the posting I made ... in one of my past postings I said that a MCI representative said there will be about 3000 PIN's per 800 number. [Pat wrote:] > more common 800 number, callers from rotary dial phones have no way to > insert the PIN. I don't know how they get through, or if they do. I If a PIN is not dialed in quickly enough a MCI/Telecom*USA operator will ask for the PIN (or if a incorrect one is dialed he/she will ask for the whole 800 number and PIN). Bill [Moderator's Note: I wonder if these numbers are virtually nobn-blockable or if there is some point at which if enough people (among the 3000 possible per number) are calling the number it will return a busy signal, leaving your caller to ask later 'why was your line busy?' (when in fact you had not been talking.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 00:30 GMT From: Krislyn Companies <0002293637@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: No Internet/Easylink Gateway Yet Nigel Allen writes ... > I asked AT&T Mail's help desk (atthelp2@attmail.com) how to reach > EasyLink mailboxes from the Internet. Try asking if Easylink is reachable via X.400 addressing. Since MCI Mail connects to both AT&T Mail and Easylink via X.400, I would assume they would connect to each other that way, too. Paul Wilczynski Krislyn Computer Services MCI Mail Agency ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 19:36:21 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: NXX Count (1-15 In article , contact!ndallen (Nigel Allen) writes: > > Also, what do you mean by "non-dialable locations in the NANP"? > NANP = North American Numbering Plan ... > Some remote locations in northern Ontario, northern Quebec and the > Northwest Territories have dial telephone service, but long-distance > calls to those points are (or were) handled by the operator. > They have telephone numbers in the usual format, though. Er yes, I know what the NANP is. What I was asking was, what do those numbers have to do with the 88X NPAs that Dave Esan mentioned in his postings? If the non-dialable locations already have "numbers in the usual format" (presumably, undialable numbers in real NPAs), then why move them to 88X? Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: Jamie Hanrahan Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? Date: 22 Feb 91 14:44:07 PST Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA In article , Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: > [you really need to be close to 20 or 30 Hz to do this right] How about: Connect an audio function generator to a line-level input on a reasonably-powered (say 30 W) audio amp. Connect speaker-level output of amp to the 8-ohm side of a 70-volt-to-8-ohm transformer, such as is used in PA systems. Connect 70-volt side of transformer to phone. Or, try any audio output transformer you happen to have lying around. You will have to experiment a bit with the gain on the amp to get the right voltage into the phone. (As always, start low and work up, not the other way around!) Using an audio amp and a function generator is an old laboratory trick for getting variable-frequency power, rather than just waveforms, at voltages and currents much higher than any function generator can provide. Typically it's used when you want something approximating an AC power supply (=> low source impedance) so a good transistor amp with high power and a very high speaker damping factor (50:1 is good) is used, with no output transformer. An old favorite (mostly because it seems to be indestructible) is the Crown DC-300A, so named because of its flat freq response at full- power from (near) DC to 300 KHz. If you don't have one of those, any brute-force amp with a hefty transformer and lots of output transistors should do. (Don't try this with Carver or other amps with trick power supplies) 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #151 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29761; 23 Feb 91 14:57 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10789; 23 Feb 91 13:32 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28434; 23 Feb 91 12:26 CST Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 11:47:56 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #152 BCC: Message-ID: <9102231147.ab21619@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 23 Feb 91 11:47:45 CST Volume 11 : Issue 152 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cordless Eavesdropping [Bob Yazi] Re: Cordless Eavesdropping [Matthew McGehrin] Re: Telephone Surcharges for Deaf, Poor Anger IBT Customers [John Higdon] Re: Telephone Surcharges for Deaf, Poor Anger IBT Customers [J. Sicherman] Re: Can I Connect With French Minitel via Internet? [Eric Tholome] Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy? [Julian Macassey] Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? [powers@ibm.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Yazi Subject: Re: Cordless Eavesdropping Date: 23 Feb 91 03:02:36 GMT [ A woman was overheard in a department store telling her son they wouldn't buy a cordless because the police could listen in. The poster (overhearer) expressed disapproval due to the word "police" rather than just "someone" and suggested that paranoia or her "kinds of phone calls" were the problem. ] Well, it's explicitly LEGAL for the police to listen in to your cordless calls. The Supreme Court has ruled on it. It remains to be ruled upon whether a person on a corded phone talking to someone else on a cordless has his conversation protected in any legal way. The IRS even announced that they were going to listen in on cordless calls. When the facts are vicious, I advocate the "spreading of vicious truths". If I were to wager on whether the woman was more "paranoid" (the poster's word) or the poster was more McCarthyistic (my word), I'm afraid I'd tend toward the latter. Bob Yazz -- yazz@lccsd.sd.locus.com ------------------------------ From: matthew@pro-nka.cts.com (Matthew McGehrin) Subject: Re: Cordless Eavesdropping Date: 23 Feb 91 13:56:04 GMT In-Reply-To: message from NETWRK@harvarda.harvard.edu Steve, If you want phone frequencies, here, have some: Cordless are from 46.610 to 46.970 Mobile Telephone: Airphones: 1 - 158.490 152.510 - JL | 454.675 - Calling 3 - 158.520 152.540 - YL | 454.700 - 6 5 - 158.550 152.570 - JP | 454.725 - 7 7 - 158.580 152.600 - YP | 454.759 - 5 9 - 158.610 152.630 - YJ | 454.775 - 8 11- 158.640 152.660 - YX | 454.800 - 4 13- 158.670 152.690 - JS | 454.825 - 9 152.720 - YS | 454.850 - 3 152.750 - YR | 454.875 - 10 152.810 - JR | 454.900 - 2 152.780 - JK | 454.925 - 11 454.950 - 1 454.975 - 12 That should get you started at least, and save you $15 dollars. matthew Inet: matthew@pro-nka.cts.com UUCP: crash!pro-nka!matthew ARPA: crash!pro-nka!matthew@nosc.mil GENIE: M.MCGEHRIN +201/944-3102 (PCP NJNEW/944-3102) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 21:28 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Telephone Surcharges for Deaf, Poor Anger IBT Customers Will Martin writes: > Can anyone explain why there is such a brouhaha, what with > class-action suits and vast publicity, over this lousy *15-cent* > surcharge, when the $3.50-a-line "FCC-mandated-access-charge", which > would better be termed a "Fancier-cars-and-better-country-club- > memberships-for-telco-executives-charge", gets imposed with > practically *no* public outcry? Well, how about the "higher rates for everyone that can't go anywhere else than the local phone company so that those big businesses who COULD bypass won't because the rates are kept low"? What, you say? In a recent bill insert Pac*Bell announced that rates for residence and small business would have to go up. (Actually, the "rate surcharge" will be diddled with.) Why? So that rates could be REDUCED for big customers. The reasoning is that big customers have the ability to go elsewhere for telephone service (known as "bypass"). So to keep that from happening, Pac*Bell will offer deals they cannot refuse. But to keep revenues flat, Pac*Bell will have to charge the rest of us more. Of course we cannot go elsewhere for OUR telephone service so we are just stuck. This is supposed to be a GOOD THING (tm) since "it keeps overall rates lower for everyone". You heard right. Only Pac*Bell could say with a straight face, "Your rates are going up so that your telephone costs can remain low." I know it gives me a warm feeling inside to know that I am helping to subsidize the telephone service of customers such as the City of San Francisco and Kaiser Permanente. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 00:45:10 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Telephone Surcharges for Deaf, Poor Anger IBT Customers Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article seals@uncecs.edu (Larry W. Seals) writes: > In this day and age, it seems like those things that used to be > privileges are now being considered as rights. In addition, those who > can afford the privileges are being asked to subsidize these "rights" > via hidden charges or "access fees". I pay higher insurance premiums > because of the uninsured motorists, even though (in NC) you aren't > supposed to be issued a license or plates without proof of insurance > (and while driving is a PRIVILEGE, some regard it as a God given > right). This thread has arisen before, in fact I even responded to the previous incarnation, but then political arguments are never settled. I'm not sure about you're terminology. I doubt that at phone service is being claimed to be a 'right'. All the discussion that I've heard is as to whther it's good public policy to deny people access to things that are an essential part of modern life. In the case of the handicapped, the issue is that the design of the equipment and/or the system is discriminatory. I also question your argument about 'hidden' fees. The utility subsidization fees that I've seen (in California) are all right there on the bill. > There seems to be that same mentality at work here. Just because the > telephone is ubiquitous does not mean that the service it renders has > become a right available to anyone for asking. Nobody gets it 'just for the asking', any more than you do. They get it because they request service and then must qualify for the subsidy based upon established need. > Given the number of goods and services I pay for on which there are > these hidden subsidies for those who want the privilege without the > cost, how far are we down the road to a socialist society without even > knowing it? Life is full of hidden subsidies. The number of things that I subsidize with *my* taxes that I don't necessarily approve of would fill the digest for a week. The number of ways the phone company subsidizes services that don't benefit me is also immense (see other digest sources). I think we know how far we are 'down the raod to socialism' we are. Just societies don't have to be pure based upon your economic philosphies. Perhaps you should read Les Miserables (again?). > Anyway, though it sounds cynical, there are phone booths and collect > calls and other methods of reaching out and touching someone without > reaching out and toucing my wallet. You're right, it sounds cynical, not to mention cruel. That is a much more expensive way of communicating than the small service charges that are paid and would exacerbate the poverty conditions, requiring higher public payments (but then, you disapprove of those too). Maybe the agencies that these people must communicate with should start accepting all those expensive collect calls, boosting their expenses. > Keep your flammage - you may need it to stay warm... Having a different opinion, even a different set of values is not flammage. [Moderator's Note: With these two messages we must close this thread which is becoming less telecom-related with each posting. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eric THOLOME Subject: Re: Can I Connect With French Minitel via Internet? Organization: Stanford University - AIR Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 01:48:32 GMT In article SABAHE@macalstr.edu (Arun Baheti) writes: > Is anyone aware of an Internet'able link to the Minitel system? I've > heard from a couple of friends in Europe that the system does connect > to a few European networks, but am not sure if these are myth or > reality. I think there are many ways to access the French MINITEL system, thanks to special phone numbers. Unfortunately, I don't know them, but I'm sure they are available on the ftp site PAT mentionned, or maybe in some other places. If you don't find them, ask in soc.culture.french, I know some have already been posted. I'm not sure it is possible to access French Minitel through Internet though. I'm not sure what the American MINITEL company offers, either. I've tried the other way, that is to find a way to access INTERNET, or BITNET, etc. with a Minitel from France. I unfortunately haven't heard of any gateway between the two networks. The only ideas people came up with were to subscribe to Compuserve for example, which would give me an E-mail address, and I would have to use a PC and a modem, but it's *really* expensive. I am still looking for a cheap way from France to reach USENET or INTERNET, ... and therefore have an E-mail (and maybe access to newsgroups, ...), using a Minitel if possible. The best I can think about is a Minitel service like 3614 EMAIL, which I could be connected to with a Minitel and would give me what I want. > [Moderator's Note: We have some information about Minitel in the > Telecom Archives (sub-directory: Minitel.info). The archives can be > accessed via ftp anonymous login at lcs.mit.edu. PAT] These infos seem to be more about the Minitel American company than the real French Minitel system. But I am not sure, since I couldn't really get those files since I ran out of disc space. Anyway, I got a checksum error :-( Talking about France, and being French, I might point out that the government run French telecom company has started a huge Email system available to anybody who has a phone number in France. It is called MINICOM and uses ... the Minitel of course! How does it work? Just dial 3612 on your phone, start your Minitel session, and you can send messages to anybody that has subscribed to it. Subscription is free, you only pay to send or read messages, about 20 cents a minute. The address is just the French phone number. But this is internal to France, and I haven't heard of any gateway to other networks. Let's dream a minute ... what if MINICOM and USENET were connected ? My personal email address in France would be "my_phone_number"@minicom.fr for example. Anybody would be able to have Email. Great... Still a little bit expensive, but great. By the way, let me tell you that, I far as I know, this system (minicom) is not very popular. It seems that "France Telecom" (our national ATT :-) is not making any effort to advertise it. People still find it's a big nuisance to have to connect to the server every day or so. :-( Anybody out there with any news about accessing EMAIL with a MINITEL in FRANCE ? Anybody with opinions, news, ... about MINICOM ? Anybody has been able to read my poor English ? :-) Eric THOLOME tholome@isl.stanford.edu Stanford University ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy? Date: 23 Feb 91 04:50:51 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 139, Message 9 of 12 > In article , rborow@bcm1a09.attmail. > com writes: >> in the phone itself or in the line. Apparently, according to the >> geniuses at IBT, all you need to do is pop open the NID box -- located >> on the back of your house about five feet off the ground -- with a >> screwdriver or something, pull out a wire, and insert your phone's >> modular plug. If you can make or receive a call through this point, >> then the problem lies with your nonworking phone. If you cannot make >> or receive a call, then the problem probably lies with Bell's network. >> My worry is simple: with these NID's located so conveniently for >> anyone to use, shouldn't I (or anyone else with these NID's) be >> concerned with the probability of fraud? > In Southern Bell land (our subdivision, anyway), these boxes have > latches on them on which you can place a padlock. The telephone > installer who came to our house strongly recommended making use of > this feature! We put on a combination padlock, like you'd use on a > gym locker, so that if we ever need service we can tell the repair > office the combination to the lock, which they record on the repair > order, and we don't need to be there to provide a key. Ok, just in case everyone who is worried about people with telephones in their back pockets sneaking up to their NID, lets put it in perspective. Where your NID is now, there has always been a "protector" or more recently in telco speak "demarc". They are all easy to access if they are attached to an outside wall. Yes, some demarcs are in basements. So if you knew about this and had a phone with a couple of alligator clips attached, you could make calls on someone else's line. This is even better at apartment houses, because you are less likely to be challenged and there are more lines to chose from. So apart from the fact that the NID accepts an RJ-11 plug, nothing is new, nothing has changed. You didn't think it was a problem then, why should it be a problem now? And yes, you can lock your side of the NID, but upon close inspection, you will notice that the NID can be opened by the Telco using a security TORX tool (available at car parts stores). The Telco can open both sides of the NID, theirs and yours, you can only open one side - unless you have the magic tool. So lighten up. If you are really paranoid, move the NID inside. Yes, my protectors are under the house with the Black Widow spiders. But the telco put them there decades ago - back when protectors were large porcelain things and wire was brown and covered with cotton. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@N6YN (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 23:08:54 PST From: POWERS@ibm.com Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? I can't believe no other reader has suggested this - if I missed it, please accept my apologies. Buy a surplus EE-8 field telephone, or the magneto from same, or similar magneto, from any of numerous surplus vendors (including Edmund Scientific, if I remember correctly). These puppies are still quite plentiful and sold under various names, and for various purposes, such as inducing worms to surface. Connect the output to the telephone to be rung. Turn crank, using ringing cadence desired. No mains power is required. Damage from shocks (very painful, but unlikely with the simplest precautions) is limited to the duration of circular cranking by a human being and a limited generating capacity. Anyone got a safer and/or simpler solution? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #152 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06619; 23 Feb 91 22:09 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14705; 23 Feb 91 20:38 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03772; 23 Feb 91 19:33 CST Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 19:27:36 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #153 BCC: Message-ID: <9102231927.ab28550@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 23 Feb 91 19:27:15 CST Volume 11 : Issue 153 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson BITNET/EARN Networking in Poland [Richard Budd] Caller*ID on a Chip! [Roger Clark Swann] Caller*ID Operation in Ottawa, Ontario [Fred Ennis] Caller*ID Meeting: What Questions Should I Raise? [Jeff Sicherman] USPS Fax Discontinued [Roger Clark Swann] Apple Data-PCS Petition for Rulemaking [Scott J. Loftesness] Help Needed With PC PLUS Screen Problem [Shawn E. Thompson] Comm-Port Monitoring / Debugging Utility Needed [Robert D. Thompson] Re: Western Union Revisited [John R. Levine] Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy? [Laird P. Broadfield] Re: Telecom Acronyms [Alan Millar] Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? [Macy Hallock] Re: How do You Hook up a Phone for a Play? [Steve Gaarder] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: SAT, 23 FEB 91 13.49.47 EDT From: Richard Budd Subject: BITNET/EARN Networking in Poland The Technical University of Wroclaw and other Polish universities are indeed connected into the BITNET (or EARN as is it called in Europe) and have been since November, 1990. However, Poland is still experiencing "growing pains" in joining the world of modern telecommunications. The node for the TU Wroclaw is an IBM 4341, one of the older models, using a VM operatng system and RSCS software linking with EARN on a 9600 BPS modem. The node is wired to the main listserv PLEARN at the University of Warsaw and onto the EARN network. The BITNET nodes are available from PLEARN or you can ask me forthe numbers and further details. One caveat, Wroclaw is not accessible from all gateways from other networks and is not directly connected to Internet. Even on BITNET, accessibility is spotty. I tried contacting Wroclaw five times over the past week; three times the mailer bounced me back. I believe the remaining two times the message got through though I have yet to receive a response from Wroclaw; though responses have come from other Polish sites who saw the article in TELECOM Digest. Thanks to Brian McMahon and Peter Weiss who sent me details about the Polish computer network. Brian also pointed out there may be restrictions for student access to EARN, though the networks, particularly P-LEARN are anxious to have more input from Polish university students. Some of the problem with accessibility to the network appears however to be coming from the poor state of the Polish telephone system, particularly with local switching and providing continual supervision. Polish CO's and wires are in dire need of renovation and, in many cases, modern equipment. If John Higdon spent a few weeks in Krakow, he would probably find himself yearning for his Pac*Bell crossbar network and Telco services. However, the Polish government does not have the funds to finance such a drastic upgrading of their telecommunications infrastructure. Many of the computers and much of the network equipment now has come through donations from IBM and European governments, particularly Scandinavia. The incredible thing is despite the state of the telephone system, slow second-hand computers, and a dearth of programmers and engineers with knowledge of 1990s telecommunications hardware and networking techniques Poland has a fairly reliable computer networking system, period. Their most important request is for knowledge and assistance from the Telecom community. Hopefully, forums such as TELECOM Digest will fulfill this demand. To answer another question, yes, there are Polish jokes in Poland. You need an understanding of what the Poles have gone through to understand them. Here's one I've heard a couple times: A Warsaw native met a friend he hadn't seen in a long time. He asked if his village is now in Poland or in Russia. The friend replied "it's in Poland now, thank God. I can't take anymore of those Russian winters!" Richard Budd | E-Mail: IBMers - rcbudd@rhqvm19.ibm VM Systems Programmer | All Others- klub@maristb.bitnet IBM - Sterling Forest, NY | Phone: (914) 578-3746 ------------------------------ From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: Caller*ID on a Chip! Date: 23 Feb 91 19:57:42 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics [ The following are some excepts from an article in the Feb. 18, 1991 issue of {Electronic Engineering Times}. ] Sierra samples chip for caller-ID services ... By Loring Wirbel Sierra Semiconductor Corp. is sampling an analog front-end chip for caller-ID services. The chip uses signals sent out by the phone company between rings and converts the signal to display the calling number before the user picks up the phone receiver. The SC11210/11211 caller-ID chip is small enough, with low power consumption ans surface mount packaging, to be designed into standard and cordless phones, as well as into the stand alone caller-ID boxes. Sierra will sell the chip for $2 each. [ Several paragraphs regarding the controversy over Caller*ID. No need to repeat that for all of us here. ] There will be two versions of the chip; A 14 pin device that supports power-down mode, energy detection, and call progress detection. An eight pin version that sacrifices features for reduced size. Both version store incoming FSK signals in the input duffer, then pass then through the bandpass filter, where the energy detect settings determine whether data is blocked or passed. Roger Swann | uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark @ | The Boeing Company | ------------------------------ Subject: Caller*ID Operation in Ottawa, Ontario From: Fred Ennis Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 22:41:28 EST Organization: AFI Communications - Ottawa, Canada We have Caller*ID operating here in Ottawa, ON and I can answer a couple of the questions that have been posted about the number passed to the subscriber when calls originate from PBX locations. It has been my experience that individual trunks are identified and occasionally these are "phantom" numbers that don't allow you to call back. On key systems, individual CO lines are identified. Cellular calls generate an UNKNOWN NUMBER. Most interestingly, telemarketing calls from Bell's OWN telemarketing centre also trigger an UNKNOWN NUMBER display! (sneaky, eh?) Someone was also asking earlier about the means of encoding the Caller*ID string. It's in ASCII and passed by a Bell 202 modem. Most of the computer modems around now are Bell 212 at 1200 baud, which doesn't help in decoding Caller*ID. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 00:56:18 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Caller*ID Meeting: What Questions Should I Raise? Organization: Cal State Long Beach As I mentioned in a prior message, the California PUC and Pac*bell is (finally) taking up the Caller*ID issues and one of the public- participation hearings is being held in my town. I have decided to attend and would appreciate any suggestions as to what questions and issues should be monitored or brought out if not dealt with by the other interested parties. I doubt PAT wants this thread in the Digest again, so please direct correspondence to me via email. I will summarize the meeting (April 1st) as best I can and report back to the Digest. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: USPS Fax Discontinued Date: 23 Feb 91 19:01:41 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics I was by my local US Post Office this past week and found a sign over the screen of the fax machine there reading: "This service has been discontinued." These are the desk sized fax machines operated by Hotel-FAX and MCI in cooperation with the US Postal Service. They are transmit only devices with a CRT screen, a voice hand set and a slot for your plastic money. I remember that it was about a year or so back that these machines were placed in most post offices around the country. I think the USPS got a cut of the action. I for one never saw these things being used. Anyone know the inside scoop? Roger Swann | uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark @ | The Boeing Company | [Moderator's Note: Funny you should mention it. I was at the 60690 post office just a few hours ago (Saturday afternoon) and saw the machine being used by someone for the first time since it has been there in several months. I've never seen it in use before; but I tend to go to the post office at odd hours late at night; Sundays, etc. I do remember reporting here in the Digest some time ago that this particular machine was wired to the phone line in a very flimsy way with the phone wire tacked along under the counter next to it and then across to a pay phone, where it disappeared in the wall right next to the payphone; apparently tying into an idle pair someplace. They had even mounted a new modular jack there that anyone could plug into with a phone. Maybe it is just your post office that is not going to have it any longer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 10:07:27 -0500 From: Scott J Loftesness Subject: Apple Data-PCS Petition for Rulemaking Patrick, I will be sending you a file with the complete text of Apple's recent petition for rulemaking to the FCC for a new Data-Personal Communications Service. It's about 60K in size so probably should end up in the Archives! Best, Scott [Moderator's Note: And that is where readers will find this latest addition to the Telecom Archives, filed as 'apple.data.pcs.petition'. My thanks for sending it along. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Shawn E Thompson Subject: Help Needed With PC PLUS Screen Problem Date: 23 Feb 91 22:19:42 GMT Reply-To: v087mxgb@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu Organization: University at Buffalo Hi, I have recently moved Procomm PLUS over to my new machine 286/EGA ... *all* PC PLUS screens shudder when changing screens (like the old "snow" problem CGA's had). I'm not having any other problems. Please suggest help. Thanks, Shawn ------------------------------ From: rdthomps@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Robert D. Thompson) Subject: Comm-Port Monitoring / Debugging Utility Needed Date: 23 Feb 91 21:07:00 GMT Reply-To: rdthomps@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Robert D. Thompson) Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI People, I am in desparate need of a debugging utility to monitor the COM1 and COM2 on my PC. I have heard of BREAKOUT-II, but I do not have the time or the money to get this. I would greatly appreciate help from anyone. Thanks ... Regards |(:> Robert rdthomps@vela.acs.oakland.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Western Union Revisited Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 22 Feb 91 20:06:30 EST (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article Pat writes: > They still have their money order and cash wire-transfer business as > well as the telex/twx part of the operation. Last July, at the same time that WUT Co sold Easylink to AT&T, they announced that they were also selling them their Telex service, though not the other enhanced services such as Mailgrams. Does anyone know whether the WUT domestic telex service has in fact passed to AT&T? I hope so, anything would be better than the cruddy service that Western Union has provided in recent years. When AT&T ran the TWX (now Telex II) network it worked well. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl [Moderator's Note: Oddly enough, it was a court decision many years ago which forced AT&T to sell the TWX business to Western Union. For many years, TWX was offered in direct competition to Telex. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy? Date: 22 Feb 91 02:35:13 GMT In hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > In article , rborow@bcm1a09.attmail. > com writes: >> My worry is simple: with these NID's located so conveniently for >> anyone to use, shouldn't I (or anyone else with these NID's) be >> concerned with the probability of fraud? > In Southern Bell land (our subdivision, anyway), these boxes have > latches on them on which you can place a padlock. The telephone ... > this feature! We put on a combination padlock, like you'd use on a > gym locker, so that if we ever need service we can tell the repair > office the combination to the lock, which they record on the repair > order, and we don't need to be there to provide a key. The snazzy ones Keptel (nee Armiger) sells have a place for the customer padlock, and a "tamperproof" screw holding shut the telco side of things. The cute bit is that the telco-door swings away, padlocked customer-door and all along with it. (Conceptually like a little door in the middle of a big door, although that's not how it actually works.) Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ From: AMillar@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Telecom Acronyms Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 15:20:22 PST I've been through the acronym files in the Archives, and they've been quite helpful. However, I'm not satisfied with "POTS". It doesn't really stand for "Plain Old Telephone Service", does it? That`s cute and all, but what does it really stand for? Alan Millar AMillar@cup.portal.com [Moderator's Note: That is *really* all it stands for! For the rest of you, if you don't have the glossary files and sometimes do not understand the terms used here, please get your copies from Telecom Archives. (ftp lcs.mit.edu, login anonymous, cd telecom-archives) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 18:26 EST From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 In article Jeff Sicherman writes: > 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 ? Sure! Somewhere in my basement I have a couple of KS-20721 Line Protection Devices. I can strap them up as STC's for you, too. Ohio Bell swore these were absolutely necessary to prevent the destruction of the network by non-Bell equipment ... seems like that was only a few years ago, as I recall. If these are not acceptable, I might be able to find some CDH or STP type units for you ... maybe we should hook them up in front of John Higdon's Panasonic PBX to keep it from degrading the network as we know it ... (Sorry for the sarcasm here, but it really wasn't that long ago that AT&T and the Bell Companies assured the FCC that couplers were absolutely mandatory to protect the network. And the Bells wonder why their "concerns" meet with so much skepticism these days!) Seriously, there used to be FCC approved units for this purpose around. I think they were used in answering machines extensively at one time. I recall seeing an ad for FCC registered line isolation modules for incorporation into equipment not too long ago. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@fmsystm.UUCP macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 13:41:13 EST From: Steve Gaarder Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone for a Play? The simplest thing, seems to me, would be to use a ring generator, since ringers are tuned to 20 HZ and don't work well at other frequencies. The easiest unit to use just might be one of those hand magnetos -- just what phones used to use. If you're at a school, there's a good chance the science dept has one or two for demos. Otherwise, try Edmund Scientific. Fair Radio Sales often has magneto phones, and they also have a 20HZ vibrator-type ring generator that works from 100 VDC input. Steve Gaarder gaarder@theory.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #153 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12204; 24 Feb 91 3:08 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05838; 24 Feb 91 1:47 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11591; 24 Feb 91 0:41 CST Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 0:11:56 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #154 BCC: Message-ID: <9102240011.ab20280@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Feb 91 00:11:32 CST Volume 11 : Issue 154 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The Intercept Operator [Andy Jacobson] Southwestern Bell "COCOT"! [Peter da Silva] New Area Code 908 (NJ): Reprogram Your PBXes [Nigel Allen] 911 Demonstration Program Wanted [Marty Brenneis] Re: Office Phone > Home Phone [Steve Gaarder] Re: Telephone Privatization/Deregulation in Canada [Richard O'Rourke] Re: USPS Fax Discontinued [Henry Mensch] Re: Caller*ID Operation in Ottawa, Ontario [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy? [Peter da Silva] Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Peter da Silva] Re: Your Evolving Phone Number [David E. A. Wilson] Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [Peter da Silva] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 16:32 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: The Intercept Operator In TELECOM Digest Volume 11 : Issue 138 > Moderator's Note: A 'special operator' (at least as the term is used > in Chicago) is an operator who takes intercept calls and handles them > manually as opposed to a fully automatic response. It sometimes > happens there is a temporary equipment failure and that the number you > are dialing (or calling from) does not get captured by the equipment. > It is very rare, but I will now and then dial a number and have an > operator come on the line to say " ... special operator. What number > are you calling from, please?" ("what number are you dialing?"). PAT Ah yes the old intercept operator, I remember her well ... I would have to say frequent not rare. I can remember getting them every once in a while in Chicago by dialing regular numbers not in service. It seems that you would get an intercept fairly often when dialing in the 99's. That is 312-NXX-99XX. In and among the test lines and telco offices, frames and test boards, you could usually find a number or two that were dead ends to an intercept. NXX-9909 and 9910 it seems were actually a good bet to get an intercept (alternately with a test port). I can also remember the intercept being used en mass with cutovers. For example when 312 (now 708)-491 got cut over to ESS from XB (this was well before Northwestern ate 491 for its PBX), I distinctly remember there were for a couple of days no "The number you have reached ..." recordings, just frantic intercept operators checking the database and telling you that it was not in service. I believe these operators were not specifically assigned, but were pressed into service from other pools, as a couple of times they would begin their general assistance or directory script, catch and correct themselves midsentence. I have never gotten one in any other area but Chicago. Andy Jacobson or [Moderator's Note: I remember well back in 1966 when the University of Illinois at Navy Pier moved en-masse to their new offices at what was then called 'Circle Campus'. The new location had a centrex (312-996) and the old location had a multi (nine or ten) position cord board. For about two months following the move, calls to the old switchboard number were answered by an IBT intercept operator "what extension were you calling at UI?" When you gave the extension number they said "thank you, the new number to dial is 996-xxxx" after checking a cross reference chart of old versus new extension numbers. Then one day they stopped doing that and calls to the old number got a recording saying the new number was the switcboard number at the new site. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Southwestern Bell "COCOT"! Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Sun, 24 Feb 1991 02:16:14 GMT Today I was in Fulshear, a little town to the west of Houston, Texas. I had stopped to get some really good Barbecue. My wife mentioned that a friend lived in Brookshire another little town a few miles away, so we decided I should call them and see if they'd like us to come over. The phone was a SWB phone, but I read the info card anyway, and sure enough there was a little line "Long distance service provided by ITI". What the hell, it's only a couple of miles. I dialed directory assistance %, got the number (it was barely audible) and then dialed Brookshire. "Please insert one dollar and tewnty five cents for the first minute". Blow that for a joke. I called on my Sprint card. We shall see what happens when the bill comes. Moral: just because the phone is a "Bell" phone doesn't mean it's not a no-armed bandit. % Directory assistance gave me an old number, so it took two calls to get to the other end. I guess ITI (whoever they are) doesn't get updates. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com [Moderator's Note: We covered this topic a few months ago here. John Higdon had maintained that the coin phone business was still in the hands of AT&T. I noted that in Chicago the 'genuine' IBT payphone cards all had a space to indicate which carrier handled the long distance traffic. The consensus was that AT&T handled the coin traffic by default, and the zero plus stuff went partly to AT&T and the rest to various carriers as per the notice on each phone. From what you are saying, it looks like Texas / SBT is doing the same thing. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 1991 15:17:00 -0500 From: Nigel Allen Subject: New Area Code 908 (NJ): Reprogram Your PBXes Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada New Jersey Bell ran an ad in {Telecommunications Magazine} reminding telecommunications managers that customer premises equipment should be reprogrammed to include the new 908 area code. "Remember," says the ad, "unless this new number is designated as an allowable area code, calls to 908 through your Customer Premise Equipment will not be completed." This sounds pretty basic, but I dare say there are still some PBXes out there that block calls to 908. Use of the new 908 code becomes mandatory on June 8, 1991, I gather; until then, you can apparently get away with using 201. The ad lists a contact number for New Jersey Bell (which is fairly cute when you look at it carefully): 1-800-242-Y908. [Moderator's Note: How much would you like to wager that on June 8, 9 and 10 there will be hundreds of calls each day to telcos, equipment maintainence firms and local telecom managers complaining that 'the phones are not working right'. And when told what the 'problem' is will complain that they had not known of it before. Despite intensive promotion of 708, Illinois Bell was literally swamped with calls for three days after the split became mandatory here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Marty Brenneis Subject: 911 Demonstration Program Wanted Date: 24 Feb 91 03:25:27 GMT Here is a free idea to any company out there to make this thing. EMS week is comming soon to a shopping mall or school near you. For our local EMS week display we'd like to have a place where people can pick up a real phone and dial 911 and talk to a real 911 dispatcher. The folks could watch the dispatcher answer the call and interview the caller to send the proper help. (EMS is Emergency Medical Services system) For obvious reasons we don't want to use a PSTN line for this trick. Here is my idea for a product for this trick. A card to fit into a PC clone that will supply battery and supervisory tones to a normal phone, and a second jack for the heaset phone for the dispatcher. With this would be a piece of software to simulate a PSAP screen for the dispatcher. If one could make this card for a reasonable price ($100 - 150) they could be marketed to the 911 agencies across the country as a teaching aid for the public. At present I suppose I could borrow a small PBX (SX50) and program it to have a port with the extension 911. Thanks, Marty Brenneis American Red Cross Marin County Chapter uunet!droid@kerner 415-389-1113 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 13:36:14 EST From: Steve Gaarder Subject: Re: Office Phone > Home Phone No problem using one of these as single line - just hook the line up to the blue/white pair (the first pair of pins on the connector), press the first line button, and go. The hold stuff won't work, however. Steve Gaarder gaarder@theory.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: Richard O'Rourke Subject: Re: Telephone Privatization/Deregulation in Canada Date: 23 Feb 91 08:18:16 GMT Organization: Grass Root Systems There are some companies with good intentions in the Canadian LD market. There are some that are ... not so desireable. I know, I have seen the worst. The changes pending in Canada are very different than what happened years ago in the US. On the one hand, the CRTC thinks they are avoiding many nasties, having learned from the experience of Mr. G. On the other hand, Canada is not, never has, and never will be America (no offense meant). I hope that the CRTC does the Right Thing, and is Very Careful about how they dole out the tickets to sell bandwidth. There is a potential for Canada to be (or remain, check out our cable TV network!) a country with a very impressive telecommunications system. Conversely, there is a likelyhood that we will just follow a well beaten path (again, no offense intended). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 23:16:44 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: Re: USPS Fax Discontinued Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu I've never seen one of these at a post office ... are you *sure* this was a nationwide project? # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / # via X.400: S=mensch; OU=informatik; P=tu-muenchen; A=dbp; C=de [Moderator's Note: When this topic first came up here several months ago two or three writers commented on the machines from various parts of the country. Still, maybe it was not in *every* post office. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: Caller*ID Operation in Ottawa, Ontario Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 02:40:02 GMT In article fred@aficom.ocunix.on.ca (Fred Ennis) writes: > Someone was also asking earlier about the means of encoding the > Caller*ID string. It's in ASCII and passed by a Bell 202 modem. Most > of the computer modems around now are Bell 212 at 1200 baud, which > doesn't help in decoding Caller*ID. That's OK. The standard modem for amateur packet radio is a Bell 202 (or equivalent). Packet TNCs (Terminal Node Controllers) could probably be converted quite easily for Caller*ID use. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy? Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Sun, 24 Feb 1991 02:37:14 GMT In article , FLINTON@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Fred E.J. Linton) writes: > outside the demarc; and the linesman who came to undo the squirrels' > handiwork opined that he wouldn't mind at all if such a quick way to > disconnect premises wiring were to be made mandatory. Many apartments in Houston have a network interface that consists of a wire coming out of the wall in a closet somewhere with an RJ11 plug on the end, going into an RJ11 socket. Just unplug the plug from the socket and you're isolated. Plug a phone in and you can test the phone company. And because it's inside there's no security problem. My current apartment doesn't have one. Pity. Why bother with a knife switch? peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) [Moderator's Note: Well Peter, it really comes down to the style and age of your existing demark. In a very old building, you may not have one at all, or it may have been installed before any of us were born. Did you ever see any demarks in old buildings where the cable came in from the street and was tied down on a (let's say) 500 pair IT (or Inside Terminal)? The pairs leaving from there into the building will have little paper tags tied with strings on the old brown cloth twisted pairs with cryptic notations. In a building where I used to live there had been (long before my time) a big switchboard and the demark was right behind it, still in service although the switchboard was long gone. From a phone man long since gone on to his Reward: 'fifty pairs from Rogers cable 96 multipled to *new* building across the alley. Ed Smith, May 5, 1931'. And in the same box a tag saying 'pairs 109-114 in use by WUTCO. Do not take them. 9/1946'. Sheesh! Sometimes you are better off to isolate yours to avoid confusion later on or false complaints of problems you caused in the box for others served from the same place. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Sun, 24 Feb 1991 02:50:46 GMT > [Moderator's Note: But the fact that you cannot access AT&T via 10288 > is not AT&T's fault. Who cares whose fault it is? It's AT&T that's losing revenues because of it, and AT&T's customers who are suffering or switching. > It is a greedy private operator who is denying access illegally. What, you mean it's illegal for my place of employment to block 10288 on their PBX? Back when I was doing feild service, was it our customer's responsibility to provide 10xxx at their place of business? I think not. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com [Moderator's Note: This is like Deja Vu day at the Digest! :) This is another topic we covered (how long ago now?) ... and I think everyone agreed with you that whoever owns the phone(s) can do as they please. But in this instance we are talking about *public pay phones* or phones in hotel rooms or otherwise used by the public. Phones for use by the public should be in compliance, which means having the ability to use 10xxx codes for the carrier of choice. PAT] ------------------------------ From: david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) Subject: Re: Your Evolving Phone Number Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 03:39:07 GMT ct@dde.dk (Claus Tondering) writes: > American companies, please listen to this piece of advice from a European: > If you want business from overseas, do not include letters in your phone > numbers. We can't use them over here. A bigger problem is the growing use of 800 numbers (without listing the POTS number). Overseas subscribers cannot call regular 800 numbers. We can call special six digit international 800 numbers. Is it just coincidence that most countries auto-reverse charge numbers start with either 800/008 or is there an international standard? David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au [Moderator's Note: Well so far as I know, the Americans were using this technique first, of auto-reverse charging through the use of 800. I think as other PTT's picked up on the idea they just went along with the number (800) we were already using. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Sun, 24 Feb 1991 02:42:49 GMT The phone company doesn't need to sell a service that would block telemarketing calls (ie, blocked call blocking) ... Caller*ID and call-block provide all you need. Just build a box that eats the first ring and dumps the call if the caller-ID says "refused". How cheaply could this be made? (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) [Moderator's Note: Wouldn't you need such a box right at the demark ahead of any phones on your premises? Otherwise what would prevent an exension from ringing? Also, would this box need to output ringing current to ring the phones if the call met your conditions, or would the box itself have some sort of warbler in it? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #154 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23385; 24 Feb 91 13:21 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18981; 24 Feb 91 11:56 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04285; 24 Feb 91 10:50 CST Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 10:47:59 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #155 BCC: Message-ID: <9102241047.ab18017@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Feb 91 10:47:51 CST Volume 11 : Issue 155 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson MCI Announces New Plan: MCI Preferred [Marl Bryant via Nigel Allen] Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? [John Higdon] Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Peter da Silva] Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [Peter da Silva] Carrier Choices for Leased Line to Africa? [Randy Bush] Re: Can I Connect With French Minitel via Internet? [Mark Steiger] You Can't Predict Them All [Jeff Sicherman] The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [TELECOM Moderator] Re: 911 Demonstration Program Wanted [Brian Crawford] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 00:00:11 From: Nigel Allen Subject: MCI Announces New Plan: MCI Preferred * forwarded by Nigel Allen (ndallen@contact.uucp) The following press release from MCI was posted in FidoNet's MDF echo by Mark Bryant (1:382/54.1). Internet users can address Mark as: mark.bryant@p1.f54.n382.z1.fidonet.org CORPORATE NEWS BUREAU IMMEDIATE 1-800-289-0073 (202) 887-3000 MCI PREFERRED GIVES SMALL BUSINESSES WIDE ARRAY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 19, 1991 -- The nation's small businesses, including professional offices and regional or home-based enterprises, now have a solution from MCI Communications Corporation for controlling costs in today's recessionary climate. For the first time, businesses spending as little as $50 a month on long distance can combine all of their long distance requirements -- outbound calling, 800 service, calling card and even service in their home -- on one bill for one combined discount. The new product, called MCI Preferred, features the same low per-minute rates regardless of distance called and offers discounts designed specifically for the small business -- including an automatic ten percent discount on calls placed to the customer's most frequently called area code in a given month. MCI Preferred is designed for the estimated five million small businesses spending $6 billion annually on long distance services. "Now, more than ever, small business owners need the efficiencies and cost controls that are built into MCI Preferred," said William G. McGowan, MCI's chairman and chief executive officer. "This is the first comprehensive telecommunications package tailored to fit their needs, combining a wide array of services and features that allow them to manage time and costs more efficiently," McGowan said. "We expect that businesses spending between $50 and $1,500 monthly on long distance will find no other package so ideally suited to their needs." The package of services included in MCI Preferred are: business calling, both domestic and international; 800 services; fax usage reporting; residential calling (up to five homes); account codes; numerous management reports; and a feature-rich business/travel card. The MCI Preferred customer has a choice of two convenient 800 services, both of which can be used on the same phone lines as outgoing calls. Classic 800 is a basic inbound service while Private 800 is restricted to callers dialing a private access code. The business/travel card, called the MCI Business Card, gives small businesses easy access to such services as: conference calling, voice messaging, voice mail, a voice news/information network and speed dialing. The card can be used from any phone in the U.S. plus Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. MCI Preferred customers can also designate one of their phone numbers for fax usage. This option tells customers how much they spend on facsimile transmission by providing a detailed fax usage report. Interstate domestic business and 800 calls are priced at one simple flat rate per minute. Daytime calls cost 23.5 cents per minute, with a thirty percent discount on evening calls and a 45 percent discount on night/weekend calls. Calls are priced in six-second increments following an initial thirty second minimum. International calling prices vary depending on the country called and time of day. Each month, the small business customer will receive a single invoice for all the MCI Preferred options across all locations. In addition to receiving a ten percent "Optimizer" discount on all calls to the customer's most frequently called area code, the customer will receive a ten percent discount for combined usage over $200, excluding enhanced card services. "MCI Preferred is key to MCI's goal of equipping small businesses with the benefits of today's telecommunications technology," said McGowan. "The small business market is an important one that will receive increasing attention from MCI." # # # Via D'Bridge 1:259/99 02/21 21:11 Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:163/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!250!438!Nigel.Allen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 21:49 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? Macy Hallock writes: > Sure! Somewhere in my basement I have a couple of KS-20721 Line > Protection Devices. I can strap them up as STC's for you, too. > [...] > If these are not acceptable, I might be able to find some CDH or STP > type units for you Ah, those were the days. Back in the early days of "interconnect", those three letter combinations were on the tip of every vendor's tongue. The STC was a particularly vile, $70 to install, $5/month to "rent" device. If you wanted to install so much as a single line phone (the usual demand was for an answering machine) one of these had to go in. It had a DC power supply, derived from a transformer cube and provided for complete electrical isolation between the network and the customer jack (which was a DB25!). Its flaws were numerous. Transmission loss through the unit was more than one decibel. While that does not sound like much, in marginal situations it sometimes made the difference between usable and unacceptable. The unit had no provision for bridged ringing on the customer side. Ring up was provided on a third lead against one side of the voice pair. Ring voltage was provided from a high voltage DC supply that was reversed approximately at a 20 Hz rate by a relay that chattered noisily in the unit. As you might imagine, the waveform produced by that Rube Goldberg arrangement was dirty as hell. When you combined that with the unbalance created by the "third wire" ring up, you would hear a loud buzz injected into other lines traveling through the cable. This was particularly objectionable when these things were used for key systems. A final annoyance was that the "ring detector" in the STC took a full second to sense ringing voltage from the CO. Partial first rings were generally ignored (as was "courtesy" ring on forwarding). This "feature" was designed in and could not be changed. The STP was an improvement over the STC in that it provided bridged ringing on the customer side. It still had the other flaws, however. The CDH was designed for PBX trunks. It took the ground start pair from the CO and turned it into five pairs for the customer. One pair had dry two way audio. Another provided closure indicating CO battery present. Still another indicated ring voltage. A closure in the other direction commanded line seizure. I forget what the fifth pair was for. The early crossbar PBXs anticipated these things and connected directly. But when the newer electronic matrix PBXs appeared, they were only able to deal with CO ground start pairs directly. Since that was a no-no, something called an "anti-interface" was used. This converted the five pairs from the CDH and produced a simulated CO ground start trunk. What you had then was TWO interfaces back to back with the attendant transmission losses and operation sloppiness. All of this was necessary to provide "safe and reliable" telephone service, according to the "telephone company". I had two clients in the same building. When the rulings permitted the elimination of interfaces, I called Pacific Telephone and ordered them removed for both clients. The man who came out (an old-timer if there ever was one) was chuckling that these were the first units that he had been called upon to remove. He quipped that little did I know that the customer's equipment would not work without them. The first units to go were on a Stromberg E120. As he removed each CDH card and punched the pair on to the 66 block, I connected jumpers to the PBX. When we were finished, the trunks came up on the switch perfectly. The phone man was a little surprised, but admitted that he had not anticipated an electronic system. The proof of his predictions (of non-working trunks after interface removal) would be with the other installation. That other installation was an OKI AC120 crossbar PBX. While it is true that such a system MUST be connected to a CDH, Mr. Phoneman was unaware of my secret weapon: a CDH interface made by Comdev previously installed by me and waiting for action. Again, we moved the pairs one at a time, and voila!--all the trunks continued to work on the old OKI system. Incidently, the Comdev was a MUCH better device than the WE CDH was and even the customer noticed the improvement. A final note: to its credit, the CPUC eventually ordered Pac*Bell to refund ALL money EVER paid by customers for "network protection" devices. This included installation and montly charges plus interest. I personally received more than a thousand dollars back and my clients each were refunded thousands of dollars each. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Sun, 24 Feb 1991 14:32:28 GMT The Moderator Noted: > ... and I think everyone > agreed with you that whoever owns the phone(s) can do as they please. You still missed my point, which is that there is a legitimate reason for AT&T customers to want AT&T to provide 1-800 access, and that no amount of legislation aimed at public phones will change that. I use a public phone about once a month. I use the phones at work every day. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Sun, 24 Feb 1991 14:36:54 GMT In article , peter@taronga.hackercorp. com (Peter da Silva) writes: > Just build a box that eats the first > ring and dumps the call if the caller-ID says "refused". > [Moderator's Note: Wouldn't you need such a box right at the demark > ahead of any phones on your premises? Yeh, or buy a couple of the boxes, or turn off the ringers on your other phones. Most people don't *have* that many phones. > Also, would this box need to output ringing > current to ring the phones if the call met your conditions, or would > the box itself have some sort of warbler in it? It could just pass the second and subsequent ring through. Remember, it doesn't pick up the line ... it just trips a relay if the Caller-ID info is anything but "blocked" or "protected" or whatever it is they send when they block calls. A modem chip, an 8051 or equivalent cheap-as-**** microcontroller, maybe a couple of buttons for programming, and a relay. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com ------------------------------ From: news@m2xenix.psg.com (Randy Bush) Subject: Carrier Choices for Leased Line to Africa? Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US Date: Sun, 24 Feb 1991 07:05:10 GMT I wish to arrange a leased line between Portland, Oregon US and Rhodes University in Grahamstown South Africa. It will be used for V.32 and V.32bis modems. Which carriers should I check out? AT&T quoted over $8k/mo, for the US end, and the SAPT quoted about $2k/mo for the other end. What other international carriers should I be calling for quotes, and any clues as to the kinds of questions I should be asking, other than how much? Note that line delay is of concern, as the distance is sufficient to limit, for example, uucp-g to 450cps effective. We will be using SLIP, and are not sure we can force a window width sufficient to overcome, for example, two satellite hops. I will summarize email replies to the list, if they're significant. Thanks. Randy Bush / news@psg.com / ..!uunet!m2xenix!news ------------------------------ From: penguin@pro-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) Subject: Re: Can I Connect With French Minitel via Internet? Date: 24 Feb 91 05:36:25 GMT In-Reply-To: message from SABAHE@macalstr.edu I have Minitel and they have their own access numbers scattered across the US. They have software for the MAC, IBM, and Apple. you MUST use their software. Nice graphics. Kinda like Prodigy. [ 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 00:38:12 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: You Can't Predict Them All Organization: Cal State Long Beach The local PBS station (KCET) just ran 2001 and there's a scene in the beginning where the actor makes a picturephone call to his young daughter in a Bell (tm) booth, complete with the Bell symbol. I assume that AT&T, MCI, or Sprint could be covering the interplanetary traffic (*real* long distance) but does anyone know which of the Operating companies was given the outer space LATA franchise by the MFJ ? Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 10:26:33 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire number, i.e. (311) 555-2368? The correct way to write the number is with dashes and no parenthesis -- or dots if you prefer -- in this format: 311-555-2368, or 311.555.2368. I think the use of parenthesis around the area code must date back to a time when calls outside of one's own community were a lot less common and it was only as an afterthought that one included the area code, 'just in case' the caller was from another city. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Brian Crawford Subject: Re: 911 Demonstration Program Wanted Date: 24 Feb 91 16:25:28 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ In article , decwrl!fernwood!well.sf.ca.us! droid (Marty Brenneis) writes: > Here is my idea for a product for this trick. A card to fit into a PC > clone that will supply battery and supervisory tones to a normal > phone, and a second jack for the heaset phone for the dispatcher. With > this would be a piece of software to simulate a PSAP screen for the > dispatcher. And, it's Dialogic to the rescue. [Moderator's Note: Could you be a little more specific please? Do you have the name / part number for the card? Price? Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #155 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01839; 24 Feb 91 21:30 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20391; 24 Feb 91 20:04 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10402; 24 Feb 91 18:58 CST Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 18:13:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #156 BCC: Message-ID: <9102241813.ab21883@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Feb 91 18:13:04 CST Volume 11 : Issue 156 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Early Color Television [Bill Vermillion] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Derek Andrew] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 Re: Subject: The Year Was 1960 Continuing a thread that began in Digest V11, issue 123, Richard Budd commented on color TV in issue 128, > It's been available since the early 1930's, although before World War > II it was strictly experimental. Credits for the first color televison date to a Scot, Charles Baird, in 1927 experiments to produce color images by mechanical scanning methods. Baird was expanding on 1880's work that began with Senlecq's lab work on the photoelectric properties of selenium and Nipkow's development of image scanning with a perforated rotating disk. (In fact, there is some history showing facsimile by purely electric means dates to about 1847.) The problem of Baird's day was providing a transmission channel. Bell Laboratories was of course interested, and duplicated Baird's work, which in recent times has given rise to misleading AT&T television commercials that imply Bell developed color TV. In 1934, Philo Farnsworth (independently) and Vladmir Zworykin (at RCA) developed electronic image scanners. These resulted, combined with achieving sufficient radio bandwidth, in pioneering television broadcasts by the British Broadcasting Corporation commencing November 2, 1936, almost three years before American TV began at the 1939 New York World's Fair. Broadcast color television was stalled for a number of years while the Columbia Broadcasting System continued development of mechanical methods of separating primary colors based on Baird's work, in competition with RCA's work on extending Zworykin's electronic method. In their first iterations, both required broadcast channels far wider than the monochrome transmissions already on the air. The Federal Communications Commission of the US was unwilling to authorize use of so much radio spectrum for color television, and ultimately got the National Television Standards Committee to moderate a system for broadcast use. The RCA electronic method won out when it proved most compatible with existing monochrome methods. While both CBS and RCA method experimental transmissions had been aired, the final NTSC agreement was issued in 1953, permitting regular color transmissions to spread across the US after that time. Budd closed by saying that: > FM has also been around since the 1930's. Our Moderator, always the (rightfully) proud Chicagoan, replied: > The first FM radio station in the US was here in Chicago, started in > 1941 by the Zenith Radio Corporation. I have to take some issue there, Patrick. Just like transmitting pictures, FM has a physics lab history dating to 1862 work of Hermann von Helmholtz, amplified by Lord Rayleigh in England (a name famous to every radio engineer) in 1883. In 1925, John Carson at Bell Labs published on the value of using FM to reduce noise in communications links. It was (retired) Major E. H. Armstrong (to whom we owe credit for the superheterodyne receiver that made broadcast radio really a practical medium for the general public) who in 1935 aired the first broadcast FM transmissions in 1935, from a transmitter atop the Empire State Building to receivers in New Jersey. (Sorry, Chicago.) Both CBS at New York and Zenith at Chicago were early promoters of FM broadcasting. Coincidentally, Major Armstrong put a subcarrier on his 1935 transmitter, demonstrating multiplex transmission of audio programs with facsimile newspapers. He obtained a patent for FM that resulted in a bitter battle with AT&T about patent rights; one in which the classic "phone company stonewalling" often mentioned in the Digest may have resulted in Major Armstrong's suicidal hurling himself out of a New York office window. In a very complex argument involving the means of generating frequency-modulated versus phase-modulated signals, the Bell interests maintained their microwave transmitters did not violate Armstrong's patent, denying him of course millions of dollars in patent rights. Armstrong's method of generating FM required quite complex frequency multiplication, then downconversion, then remultiplication to achieve an output signal in the region below 50 megaHertz, which was in that era, the only one in which high-powered transmitting amplifers could be built. (FM radio before WW II was in the region 42-50 mHz.) Leave out the downconverter, and the result wound up at 600 megaHertz or more, a useless part of the radio spectrum in the mid-1930's. Bell Labs did this, and proceeded to develop means to focus super high frequency radio waves with reflector antennas that could work with only a fraction of a Watt of transmitter power, multiplexing at first 120, then 240 telephone voice channels on a single radio channel. Later improvements after WW II extended this to 600, then 1800 voice channels on a single microwave radio. In more recent developments, Bell Labs did pioneering work in polarizing antennas so microwave channels could be placed half as far apart in the radio spectrum, and most recently, modified the system to single sideband FM, obtaining a further doubling of the number of microwave radios that can be run along a given route. All this history became very personal when I first worked in radio stations that had on the transmitter plant wall, not only an FCC license to transmit, but also had a patent license issued by Armstrong's widow. Later, at AT&T, I questioned photos of TD-2 microwave equipment bays with covers enclosing them. An AT&T manager I worked with told me how he had seen them used only at New York, in early days when Major Armstrong would come to inspect with his lawyers. The AT&T employees were under instruction to keep the doors closed and not speak to Major Armstrong when he came to inspect the installation. I hope this rambling from the mists of telecom history is of interest and value to readers here. We owe far more to heroes who labored with balky, complex apparatus than modern histories ever seem to credit. [Moderator's Note: Thanks for another excellent article, which all of us have come to expect from your terminal. But I must question the FM thing a little. I listened to WEFM for *many* years, and they frequently discussed this. Of course it was over a dozen years ago the station changed format and I quit listening. My memory may be a little hazy. Was the station in New York on the air continuously on a regular schedule in the 1935 => 1941 period? Zenith's claim was they were the first on the air with regularly scheduled, commercial programming on the FM band. Of course, Zenith itself was the one and only sponsor for the lifetime of the station (as a classical station) for 36 years. The day the format changed in 1977 was a sad one. Everyone knew it was coming as Zenith had been trying to sell the station for quite some time. Metromedia finally agreed to buy the station but without the classical music format. Through a quirk, the FCC approved the sale, but did not approve the change in format for another year, so Metromedia, whose stations are easy listening and top forty rock found itself stuck with running a classical station for awhile. But when the change in format was approved, they wasted no time in the conversion. The FCC required them to give a week's notice to the listeners. A disclaimer was played hourly for a week advising that the FCC had given permission to change the format, and " ... for continued listening to classical music, we suggest you tune to WNIB or WFMT ..." On the final night, the last selection was Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, followed by their usual five minutes of news at 11:55 PM. At midnight they gave their usual sign-off announcement followed by the Naitonal Anthem, as was their custom. After about fifteen seconds of dead air, a nasal, obnoxious sounding voice told us we were listening to the home of top forty rock in Chicago. Their first selection was "Rock Around the Clock". The FCC made them keep playing the disclaimer once an hour for another week, then several times daily for a month. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Vermillion Subject: Re: Early Color Television Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 19:23:43 GMT In article sjr@mcimail.com writes: >H> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) >B> Richard Budd (18 Feb 91 20:15 CDT) >H> No color television? Speak for yourself, Pat. [...] >H> I distinctly remember watching (of all things) the Perry Como show on >H> NBC on Saturday nights because it was very much in color on the >H> neighbor's RCA color TV. (The first color TV I ever saw was in 1956.) >B> Actually, color television has been around longer than either Pat or >B> John (if I deduce correctly from their high school graduation dates >B> that they were born in the early 1940's). It's been available since >B> the early 1930's, though before World War II it was strictly >B> experimental. > Hmmm ... that's very interesting. It seems like if color television > was around _that_ early, that it must be of the mechanical, spinning > disk variety. Having said that, how long has the NTSC-compatible > color TV system been around? The NTSC compatible finally came out after the end of the Korean war. There was a government restriction on any new TV stations during that time. The war hiatus gave RCA time enough to perfect their system. The CBS "color wheel" (field sequential color) was approved before the war, but was not widespread because of the government mandate. >B> Color television wasn't rare, but color television programming >B> certainly was before 1965. I remember a special presentation put on for the University of Idaho, Washington State College (now Washing State University (?) Pullman) and EWCE (Cheney) for all those in broadcast. This was fall of 1956. The site was chosen because it was convenient for most involved an it was closer to Spokane than either Moscow or Pullman. This was during the first year of color in that area. We had technical discussion on the medium, and one interesting project at that time was the "Chromatron" tube being developed by Dr. Lawrence at CBS. Trying to find a way to get rid of the mask and the dot-triad, this tube used striped phosphors, horizontally. Never made it. A set, RCA, with 15" round tube, had been thoroughly adjusted before the meeting. The tech proceed to show how things are adjusted and mis-adjusted the reds. Then he used the dot generator to re-adjust and then left. An hour later when the broadcast in color of "The Desert Song" came on, it was readily apparent that the tech had moved the red controls one dot to the left. All the reds on the picture were misplaced by one inch. I still remember the Oldsmobile commercial of several new Olds side by side running over desert sand dunes. Shortly after this NBC had a guaranteed one hour of color programming per day, with an early dramtic series. It appeared at noon West Coast time. Then each Sunday there was at least one program in color. > What I find amazing was that there was technology to _record_ color TV > through videotape in the early 50's. I believe that was done with the > late Mary Martin's "Peter Pan" TV special in 1954, and that has got to > be the earliest videotape on record. There were NO commercial video tape machines available before about 1961. I remember when I was working at KXLY radio in Spokane that our TV station got their first B&W VCR. It was about $80,000 in 1961 dollars (That should easily be about $300,000 in todays dollars), had three six-foot tall racks of tube electronics and 1 rack for the transport. Model was RCA VR-1. (Video Recorder One). From what I remember of it's quality it wasn't much better than any $500 VHS unit today, if that. Color VCR's were still a couple of years away. Prior to that era the only ways to save things were on film. Typical was via kinescope, which was a motion picture camera that photographed a tv-set. The best way and much more expensensive was to use and EBR (electron beam recorder). This exposed the film directly by using the beam to write on the film elmusion as the film passed through a vacuum chamber. This method was also used to distributed video taped commercials via film, as that technology was much cheaper for mass distribution. Things have certainly changed over the years! Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 15:15:52 -0600 From: Derek Andrew Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator): > I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis > around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire > number, i.e. (311) 555-2368? The correct way to write the number is > with dashes and no parenthesis -- or dots if you prefer -- in this > format: 311-555-2368, or 311.555.2368. I have extracted a portion of an article form an old TELECOM Digest. My preference for my phone number is +1 306 966 4808, but maybe I am just a little weird. Date: Thu, 30 Aug 1990 01:13:43 MST From: Subject: E Series Recommendations Excerpts - for Edification and Emusement Here are Interesting Facts and Figures entered from the CCITT Recommendations of 1988. There are errata for these Recommendations, but I have not applied them to these! Also, my typing skills are not perfect. Note: these are all excerpts, and quotes. I have left out substantial text, and am including only some of the more interesting tidbits. If you are really interested, make sure you get the entire text! Things in [] are my comments. ------------------------ Recommendation E.123 Notation for National and International Telephone Numbers 1.1 The international number should be printed below the national number, with corresponding digits lined up one under the other to facilitate understanding of the composition of the international number as showd in the examples in 1.3 and 1.4 below. 1.2 The words "National" and "International" in the appropriate langauge should be placed to the left of the national and international numbers, and these should be separated by a horizontal line. 1.3 Either the symbol for the telephone given in Rec. E.121 or the word "Telephone" in the appropriate langauge should be placed to the left of (or above) the national and international numbers (to avoid confusion with other letterhead numbers.) The + (plus) signifies the international prefix. Example: National (0607) 123 4567 Telephone -------------------------------------- International +22 607 123 4567 1.4 Because the countries of World Numbering >one 1 (North America) have the country code 1, the same number as is used for the trunk prefix, and because dialing between these countries is the same as long-distance dialing within them, subscriber difficulties are avoided by using an alternative notation that has been found superior for use within those countries and equally good for subscribers in other countries dialing to Zone 1. Example: Within N. Amer. zone (302) 123 4567 Telephone -------------------------------------- International +1 302 123 4567 1.5 If it is desirable to write only the international number, it should be written in the form: Telephone International +22 607 123 4567 1.6 [abbreviated: Extensions use the word "ext.", like this:] National (0607) 123 4567 Telephone -------------------------------------- ext. 876 International +22 607 123 4567 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #156 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07315; 25 Feb 91 3:00 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21670; 25 Feb 91 1:12 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11060; 25 Feb 91 0:07 CST Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 0:00:25 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #157 BCC: Message-ID: <9102250000.ab05424@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 25 Feb 91 00:00:02 CST Volume 11 : Issue 157 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson In a Corner of our Bedroom [John Richard Bruni] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [John C. Fowler] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Barry Margolin] Re: Caller*ID Operation in Ottawa, Ontario [Doug Faunt] Re: Payment Processing [Roy Smith] Re: You Can't Predict Them All [Peter da Silva] Re: Office Phone > Home Phone [Fred Ennis] Re: Can Email be Sent to Troops? [Rich Szabo] Re: Caller*ID [Carl Wright] From the Archives: The Day the Bell System Died [Lauren Weinstein] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John_Richard_Bruni@cup.portal.com Subject: In a Corner of our Bedroom Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 15:25:03 PST Pat and all, The title of this thread reminds me of something funny (as in 'odd'). I called Pac Bell recently to have the line installed which I am using at this very moment to communicate with Internet. They had trouble finding the demarc. The gal who came to hook it up asked if she could book the next day to do the job since time was running short. She was real nice so what the heck I said OK. The next morning she located the demarc in the crawl space access port located in my bedroom closet. I`m in a townhouse and there are five more units attached to my place. Amazingly enough, *ALL* the demarcs for the building are in MY bedroom. There is a 25 pair cable built out in the crawlspace ... actually it`s just a cable with 25 pairs. Each one has a `peanut' attached to it which the Pac Bell gal tells me is a terminator. If I were my neighbors I`d be real glad it`s me who owns this unit. I am strongly opposed to wiretaps of any kind so they`re safe with me. But what a mickey-mouse installation! I really want it out of here. Rocky (The Flying Squirrel) ROCKY@CUP.PORTAL.COM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 15:56:41 PST From: "John C. Fowler" Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Organization: University of California, San Diego In issue 155, Pat writes: > I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis > around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire > number, i.e. (311) 555-2368? I believe the (NPA) NXX-XXXX format came about by an old standard which stated that digits not always dialed should be placed within parentheses. If you think about it, this makes sense. Being in area code 619, I can call anyone else in area code 619 without actually dialing "619," so the number really is parenthetical to me. Writing 619-555-2368 implies that 619 should be dialed all the time. Some area codes won't even allow this, much less require it. John C. Fowler, jfowler@ucsd.edu ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 00:24:47 GMT In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis > around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire > number, i.e. (311) 555-2368? The correct way to write the number is > with dashes and no parenthesis -- or dots if you prefer -- in this > format: 311-555-2368, or 311.555.2368. I think the use of parenthesis > around the area code must date back to a time when calls outside of > one's own community were a lot less common and it was only as an > afterthought that one included the area code, 'just in case' the > caller was from another city. Maybe I'm unusual, but most of my phone conversations are with people in the same area code. Unless you live/work in a high-density area such as New York City, area codes still cover a pretty large area. I don't think of the area code as even being part of the person's phone number; it identifies the area (or special function, such as toll-free- ness) in general. When I call my mother, I say to myself, "I'm calling Long Island, so I first dial 516, then I dial my mother's number." There's also a common notation for another optional part of the phone number, the country code. It is normally written with a preceded by "+", e.g. +1 (311) 555-2368. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 17:08:28 -0800 From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: Caller*ID Operation in Ottawa, Ontario The newest AMRAD newsletter had a homebrew Caller*ID demonstration circuit. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 22:07:31 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Payment Processing Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City > If you couldn't prove the batch in about ten minutes, you would hold the > batch in the computer, and pass it to Sara. Sara had the eyes of an > eagle or a hawk and could find anything. I remember taking a tour of a local NJBell plant in the early 70's. I remember watching them keypunch the incoming bill payments. I don't remember the whole deal, but I do remember a machine which looked basically like a 029 keypunch (was it a 129?) but instead of punching, it just did comparisons. You put into the feed hopper a deck of cards already punched by somebody else. You then proceeded to repunch the same data. If any keystroke you made didn't match what was already on the card, a light lit up (or something like that). I also remember the gazillion-channel paper billing tapes generated by the switches. But, the neatest thing I remember was the automatic envelope stuffing machines. After they were stuffed, they were sealed and run through a postage meter (with some sort of gate to throw out the overweight ones to get extra postage). My devious twelve year old mind had visions at the time of pushing all the levers on the postage meter to nine and putting $99.99 of postage on each envelope (I confess, I confess!). > PS: Trivia: Who remembers Unicard? What banks pushed it? What did it > grow into? What was the logo? How about the jingle? Isn't Unicard what became Mastercharge? I remember when it came out in, oh, must have been around 1968 or so. Don't remember any details. 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: You Can't Predict Them All Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Mon, 25 Feb 1991 00:45:46 GMT In article , sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > (*real* long distance) but does anyone know which of the Operating > companies was given the outer space LATA franchise by the MFJ ? L-5 Bell. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com [Moderator's Note: Hmmm ... is this the amateur comedian's Digest or what? Hey Peter! Did you see the first message in this issue of the Digest where the guy took your organization line and changed it into the subject of his message? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Fred Ennis Subject: Re: Office Phone > Home Phone Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 22:55:40 EST Organization: AFI Communications - Nepean, Ontario, Canada rbanks@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Richard E. Banks) writes: > I recently received a few phones that came from the office. The > phones have ten or eleven lines. The cable is standard 24 gauge modular > wire; 50 leads with connecter. > I want to adapt the phones so I can use them in my RJ11 jacks at > home using one line. Is there any easy way to do this? You probably have phones from a 1A2 key system, and yes you can use them as single line phones. The simplest way is for you to ignore the amphenol connector and hook up a normal RJ11 Cable to the network inside the phones. Just connect the tip and ring to L1 and L2 on the network and your phone should work. If it doesn't, then get back to me with the model number of the phones. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 16:49:59 -0500 From: Rich Szabo Subject: Re: Can Email be Sent to Troops? Reply-To: ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu T720019@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu (Volkhart Baumgaertner) writes: > 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. There is a free e-mail service, "Letters from Home", which GEnie is providing. You must dial into their network. You do NOT need to be a Genie subscriber to use this service. GE transmits the letters to Saudi Arabia and prints them there for physical distribution. Before sending a Letter from Home you must know the following information about the intended recipient: - Name & Rank - Social Security Number - Unit or Ship Name - APO or FPO Number Call the GEnie Client Services at 1-800-638-9636 to get your local access number. I found that you must turn on "Local Echo" in your PC software or on your terminal. I am in no way affiliated with Genie or General Electric. Rich Szabo Cleveland, Ohio USA internet:ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: Caller*ID Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Mon, 25 Feb 1991 05:08:20 GMT Regarding Caller*ID numbers from PBXs and companies in general, I remember an article in {Business Communications Review} saying that ANI (Automatic Number Identification) consists of CNI (Calling Number Identification) or BNI (Billing Number Identification). Caller-ID is normally going to give BNI permitting you to block all numbers from a company location. I don't know what it will do with a Centrex service where I'd like to know the CNI so I can get back directly to a caller. Since ANI was setup for telco billling purposes, I wonder if they use both BNI and CNI or just one of them for their own billing. Does anyone know? 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: TELECOM Moderator Subject: From the Archives: The Day the Bell System Died Date: 24 Feb 1991 (Sunday) 23:30 CST It has been awhile since we ran this, thus many of the new readers would not have seen it; and with the recent spate of messages about 'how things used to be' I thought this was worth reprinting. The message which follows first appeared in TELECOM Digest July 12, 1983. It is as good and pertinent now as it was almost eight years ago when we first ran it here. It remains today one of the most frequently pulled files in the Archives. Read it and you'll know why. PAT ------------- Date: Tuesday, 12-Jul-83 01:18:19-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: "The Day Bell System Died" Greetings. With the massive changes now taking place in the telecommunications industry, we're all being inundated with seemingly endless news items and points of information regarding the various effects now beginning to take place. However, one important element has been missing: a song! Since the great Tom Lehrer has retired from the composing world, I will now attempt to fill this void with my own light-hearted, non-serious look at a possible future of telecommunications. This work is entirely satirical, and none of its lyrics are meant to be interpreted in a non-satirical manner. The song should be sung to the tune of Don Mclean's classic "American Pie". I call my version "The Day Bell System Died"... --Lauren-- ************************************************************************** *==================================* * Notice: This is a satirical work * *==================================* "The Day Bell System Died" Lyrics Copyright (C) 1983 by Lauren Weinstein (To the tune of "American Pie") (With apologies to Don McLean) ARPA: vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4, harpo, ucbvax!lbl-csam, randvax}!vortex!lauren ************************************************************************** Long, long, time ago, I can still remember, When the local calls were "free". And I knew if I paid my bill, And never wished them any ill, That the phone company would let me be... But Uncle Sam said he knew better, Split 'em up, for all and ever! We'll foster competition: It's good capital-ism! I can't remember if I cried, When my phone bill first tripled in size. But something touched me deep inside, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Is your office Step by Step, Or have you gotten some Crossbar yet? Everybody used to ask... Oh, is TSPS coming soon? IDDD will be a boon! And, I hope to get a Touch-Tone phone, real soon... The color phones are really neat, And direct dialing can't be beat! My area code is "low": The prestige way to go! Oh, they just raised phone booths to a dime! Well, I suppose it's about time. I remember how the payphones chimed, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Back then we were all at one rate, Phone installs didn't cause debate, About who'd put which wire where... Installers came right out to you, No "phone stores" with their ballyhoo, And 411 was free, seemed very fair! But FCC wanted it seems, To let others skim long-distance creams, No matter 'bout the locals, They're mostly all just yokels! And so one day it came to pass, That the great Bell System did collapse, In rubble now, we all do mass, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? I drove on out to Murray Hill, To see Bell Labs, some time to kill, But the sign there said the Labs were gone. I went back to my old CO, Where I'd had my phone lines, years ago, But it was empty, dark, and ever so forlorn... No relays pulsed, No data crooned, No MF tones did play their tunes, There wasn't a word spoken, All carrier paths were broken... And so that's how it all occurred, Microwave horns just nests for birds, Everything became so absurd, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? We were singing: Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? [Moderator's Note: I thought you'd all like that! And my sincere thanks to Lauren for having sent it to us several years ago. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #157 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04420; 26 Feb 91 2:13 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14382; 26 Feb 91 0:32 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14257; 25 Feb 91 23:24 CST Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 23:21:13 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #158 BCC: Message-ID: <9102252321.ab32437@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 25 Feb 91 23:21:06 CST Volume 11 : Issue 158 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Toby Nixon] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Brian Gordon] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Chris Petrilli] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Roy Smith] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [David E. A. Wilson] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Wally Kramer] Re: Airphones and Receiving Calls [Alain Fontaine] Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number (in Australia) [Brendan Jones] Re: AT&T, MCI, US.Sprint Rate Comparison [Bob Yazz] Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments? [Scott Hinckley] Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments? [Dan Herrick] Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom [John W. Temples] Quotable Quotes (was Western Union Revisited) [Dell H. Ellison] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Date: 25 Feb 91 00:46:46 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis > around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire > number, i.e. (311) 555-2368? The correct way to write the number is > with dashes and no parenthesis -- or dots if you prefer -- in this > format: 311-555-2368, or 311.555.2368. Actually, Pat, you should look at CCITT Recommendation E.123, which specifically addresses the issue of how telephone numbers should appear in printed material. The recommended format has SPACES between parts of the number (country code, city/area code, exchange, station), with a "+" preceeding the country code. The use of parenthesis surrounding the city/area code is specifically permitted when it is desirable to indicate that portion of the phone number that is optional when dialing from within the local area. Use of dashes or periods is optional, as well, and specifically stated as being to accomodate national conventions (i.e., Ma Bell always used dashes, and who is the CCITT to say they can't?) One notes, for example, that CCITT Recommendation T.30 specifies that the only characters valid for inclusion in a facsimile phone number field (TSI/CSI/CID frame) are the digits zero through nine, space, and plus. Many fax machines do indeed support the entire ASCII/IA5/T.50 character set, but only those twelve characters are mandatory. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 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, 25 Feb 91 11:19:43 PST From: Brian Gordon Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. In article TELECOM Moderator wrote about the ways people write their phone number, and the area code being in parenthesis as though it were incidental. Perhaps it is more than that. If I dial the ten-digit number of my second home phone from my first, I get "can not be completed as dialed" -- the area-code is actually hostile. In that sense, the (xxx) reminds callers that it is mandatory in some situations, optional in others, and hostile in others. In other words, "remember to treat these three digits in a special way." Brian G. Gordon briang@Sun.COM (if you trust exotic mailers) ...!sun!briangordon (if you route it yourself) ------------------------------ From: Chris Petrilli Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Date: 26 Feb 91 02:04:57 GMT Organization: Free Software Foundation Our esteemed Moderator writes: > number, i.e. (311) 555-2368? The correct way to write the number is > with dashes and no parenthesis -- or dots if you prefer -- in this > format: 311-555-2368, or 311.555.2368. I think the use of parenthesis I believe that the ISO says that the following format is the "correct" one: +1 311 555 2368 the format is: + for the US it would be: +1 I believe that the standard says that no hyphes nor periods should be used as they sometimes have other purposes. The coincidense of the US version being +1 is just that ... the US country code is 1, so.. Chris Petrilli Internet: petrilli@fsf.ai.mit.edu Insert silly disclaimer drivel here. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 21:35:48 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City > I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis > around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire number, > i.e. (311) 555-2368? Odd you should mention that. I recently was expecting somebody on an Air France flight and called their (AF's) office to see when the flight would be in. A recording of an obviously French voice gave me another number to call. What's odd (at least to my American ears) was that the voice gave the new number as something like "area code 212, telephone number xxx-xxxx", as if the area code was not to be considered part of the phone number, but something extra, or as PAT puts it, incidental. I wonder, was it just a oddity of the person who made the recording, an artifact of a person speaking English as a non-native language and struggling with an idiom, or is it just common usage in France to pronounce phone numbers that way? 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: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 22:57:56 GMT think!barmar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Barry Margolin) writes: > There's also a common notation for another optional part of the phone > number, the country code. It is normally written with a preceded by > "+", e.g. +1 (311) 555-2368. Except that then the NPA is mandatory and so not in (). I still see organizations incorrectly listing their international numbers in advertising etc - a motel in Canberra is listed as follows: Phone (06) 2ab cdef [I can't remember the exact #] International 616 2ab cdef I wonder if some poor soul in the USA gets calls for this motel? What other STD/ISD dialing methods are in use in the world? In Australia all STD area codes begin with a zero when dialed nationally and this zero is omitted when dialing from overseas. In the USA your area codes don't have a prefix (unless you count the 1). - David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 17:26:44 PST From: Wally Kramer Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR I recall seeing a TELECOM Digest article mentioning ISO standards about eight or nine months ago which recommended how to write a phone number. As I recall, it explicitly said to not use any punctuation except space and a leading + (to indicate the digits required for international access). So fictitious North American number (311) 555-2368 in Bell (tm) parlance would be written +1 311 555 2368. Wally Kramer contracted from Step Technology, Portland, Oregon 503 244 1239 wallyk@orca.WV.TEK.COM +1 503 685 2658 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 15:32:20 +0100 From: "Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)" Subject: Re: Airphones and Receiving Calls On 21 Feb 91 19:43:05 GMT Jeff Carroll said: > Moral of the story: Protect yourself from exposure to dangerous > electromagnetic radiation and self-jamming aircraft. Fly only on > American-made planes :^) Alternate moral: don't risk your life on planes equipped with avionics unable to stand some interference. Use European-made planes only 8-) AF ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number (in Australia) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 16:53:00 +1000 From: brendan@otc.otca.oz.au In Australia, finding out your own phone number is very easy (in areas with digital exchanges). Just dial 19123 and a clear digitised voice recites your phone number twice, including area code. However, it doesn't work for public phone boxes (*all* of which have silent numbers in Australia), or through most PABXs. It was very handy to know this when my brother moved to a new house recently. The phone number he was given was in fact incorrect. By dialling 19123, the real phone number was revealed - and it was nothing like what he was told!! Brendan Jones ACSnet: brendan@otc.otca.oz.au R&D Contractor UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan Services R&D Phone: (02)2873128 Fax: (02)2873299 |||| OTC || Snail: GPO Box 7000, Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA ------------------------------ From: Bob Yazz Subject: Re: AT&T, MCI, US.Sprint Rate Comparison Date: 25 Feb 91 08:45:46 GMT Organization: > [Moderator's Note: I think we are seeing more and more convergence of > rates by the big three carriers. Unless your long distance bill each > month is substantial (and you have to judge that), there is very > little incentive to pick and choose on the basis of 'savings' any > longer. I dumped Sprint in favor of AT&T after verifying that Sprint had programmed their computer to reveal my billing info to anybody who called them knowing my phone number. I hope this convergence of rates will encourage more people to dump Sprint for the privacy reason. After hanging up on some dolt of a Sprint Rep who wouldn't get me a supervisor, I got a really nice one (via a nice rep) who listened to my explanation of why I was dropping them. I was assured that my reasons would be passed along. I also signed up for a 10223 account with Cable & Wireless, suppliers of my spiffily spelled programmable 800 number. Bob Yazz -- yazz@lccsd.sd.locus.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Feb 1991 15:02:42 -0600 From: scott@huntsai.boeing.com Subject: Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments? djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: > In article SKASS@drew.bitnet writes: >> It may give you a pain to put the contents into the envelope in a >> particular way, but it aids the Telco's automation. > Speaking as a consumer (rather than a telco employee, which I also > am), why should I *give* a frog about aiding the Telco's automation? Well, assuming that the Telco's charges to you are relative to their costs (probably a big assumption), if they can lower costs through automation, then they are also lowering your bill. If you go along with their automation efforts you help lower your bill. Scott Hinckley Internet:scott@huntsai.boeing.com |UUCP:.!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!huntsai!scot DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 91 14:33:00 EDT From: "CONTR HERRICK, DAN" Subject: Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments In TELECOM Digest #136, Ron Heiby writes: >> The thing about my IL Bell bill-paying envelopes, and many others, >> that I continue to find a mystery is, "Why the heck do they need that >> window on the envelope?" As far as I can tell, it's just to give me a >> pain by forcing me to a specific orientation of contents insertion. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> The envelope already has the city/state/zip+4. In fact, the zip+4 is >> BAR CODED on the envelope! [...] > It may give you a pain to put the contents into the envelope in a > particular way, but it aids the Telco's automation. If the check is > always behind the bill and the bill is right side up, a machine can Ohio Bell annoys me with an envelope that is outsize and won't fit into a shirt pocket or the rubber banded bundle of mail to be posted at various future dates. So I wad it up to fit. Many of my creditors who provide envelopes have the extra flaps that they want me to tear off and use to buy something else. I carefully put my check in the envelope, fold the flap in on top of it and then put their coupon in so it shows through the window the way they specify. My perversity considers the effort a wasy compared with tearing off and discarding the coupon. I want to take away any productivity benefit they get until they stop using those dumb flaps. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ------------------------------ From: John Temples Subject: Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 02:33:28 GMT In article John_Richard_Bruni@ cup.portal.com writes: > But what a mickey-mouse installation! I really want it out of here. What if one of the neighbors wanted to add another line? Would it have to be done at YOUR convenience since the telco would need access to your bedroom? What if you were out of town for a couple of weeks -- or for the winter? John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john) [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, they (telco) could demand a key from the landlord and enter the premises to work. Telco always has what is known as 'easement rights' where their wires are placed. We had a story in the Digest more than a year ago about a situation almost like this one: A man who was visually hanicapped had run an answering service from his home for many years. He apparently had about a hundred subscriber lines terminating on a switchboard in a room in his house. The service closed down, he moved and sold the house. The woman who bought it did not realize that in the room which would become her bedroom there was a *large* terminal box in the closet. Since it was an older urban neighborhood in a suburb here, as to be expected the hundred or so pairs terminating in that terminal box were multipled all over over the neighborhood. She had phone pairs for everyone in a two or three block area in the box in her bedroom. Telco said they would move the box elsewhere if she paid them a couple thousand dollars to do so; she demanded rent from telco and they told her to jump in the lake. The last I heard, she was suing the guy who sold her the house, to get him to pay the telco for the move, and telco was pressuring her to provide them with a key to get into the area as required. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Dell H. Ellison" Subject: Quotable Quotes (was Re: Western Union Revisited) Date: 25 Feb 91 14:02:20 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article , gabe@sirius.ctr.columbia. edu (Gabe Wiener) writes: > Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings > gabe@ctr.columbia.edu to be seriously considered as a means of > gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu communication. The device is inherently of > 72355.1226@compuserve.com no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877 Here's another quote that I like: "Well-informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires. Even if it were, it would be of no practical value." - Boston Post 1865 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #158 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07229; 26 Feb 91 4:10 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10359; 26 Feb 91 2:38 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ag02888; 26 Feb 91 1:33 CST Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 1:06:20 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #159 BCC: Message-ID: <9102260106.ab27489@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 Feb 91 01:06:08 CST Volume 11 : Issue 159 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Steven S. Brack] Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Ken Abrams] Re: NXX Count (1-15-91) [Scott Hinckley] Re: NXX Count (1-15-91) [Steve Watt] Re: USPS Fax Discontinued [Mark Steiger] Re: CIDCO Caller ID Unit and Area Code Question [Steven A. Minneman] Re: MCI Personal 800 Numbers [Edwin D. Windes] Re: Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History [Donald E. Kimberlin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Steven S. Brack" Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access Reply-To: Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu Organization: The Ohio State University Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 04:02:01 GMT What is the legality of a property rentor blocking access of 10xxx numbers from its renters' phones? I rent housing from a large university, with its own PBX (actually a slightly scaled-down telco switch serving about 30,000 phones). Every dormitory room has its own phone. UNITS, the university telco, runs its own LD operation, which involves giving each subscriber an access code, which is intercepted by the university switch, which then completes the call through a regular LD carrier. I have an ATT calling card that offers a fair discount, and I would like to use it to place LD calls from my phone. All combinations of 10288, including using outside line designators, fail. When I dial an Ohio Bell operator (9-0) (9-0-0 doesn't work at all, I am informed that LD is not allowed from my phone, and I'm not connected to AT&T. My question: Can they do this? If so, what is the legal justification? Steve Brack Telecommunications Engineering The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210-1211 sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu sbrack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu (Avoid sending here, if possible) [Moderator's Note: I don't think there is any legal justification when the telco or (in your case pseudo-telco) has a captive customer base by not allowing installation of phones from off campus, etc. I think it passes legal muster when a private organization restricts employee phones like that. It is legal since I guess employees have no automatic right to make personal calls on company phones. It is a pity how some of these universities want to play telephone company and yet conveniently ignore the rules other telcos manage to follow. Some one or more people ought to start slapping them silly with lawsuits left and right until they wise up. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access Date: 25 Feb 91 22:01:13 GMT Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article arnold@audiofax.com writes: > In article The Moderator Notes: >> [Moderator's Note: I don't see why AT&T has to get an 800 number. The >> rules established for this plainly call for equal access via 10xxx, >> and thus far, AT&T has been insisting everyone follow the rules. I've >> heard all the arguments about fraud and difficulty in billing 10xxx >> calls, but that is the COCOT owner's problem ... not AT&T's. PAT] > [Moderator's Note: But the fact that you cannot access AT&T via 10288 > is not AT&T's fault. It is a greedy private operator who is denying > access illegally. What is to prevent the same greedy operator from > blocking access to 950 numbers if desired, or assessing some In both your responses there is one very large, important point that you failed to take into consideration. Judge Green's order and all the associated technical changes that it provoked is binding only upon the companies that were a part of the old "Bell System". None of the other operating companies are legally obligated to have anything to do with "equal access" or 10XXX or 950. It seems that the other major players have elected to go along for reasons of their own but they are not REQUIRED to conform. Entire independent telcos are seemingly able to contract with whomever they please to carry their subscriber's toll traffic and are probably under no legal obligation to provide access from it's lines to other carriers. Assuming that I am not way off base, the only solution would appear to be 800 access to AT&T in these situations. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 [Moderator's Note: What is to prevent the same greedy operator who forbids 10xxx service from denying access to AT&T's 800 number? What is to prevent him from doing something like adding a surcharge on calls to 800 numbers like many COCOTs are doing? In other words, if the telco, or COCOT or whatever won't observe common courtesy by allowing 10xxx connections, why do you feel they will observe common courtesy by handling 800 calls in the heretofore traditional way of passing the calls without additional charge? The real complaint some of those guys have is they do not want you to reach AT&T. They do not want you to have any choice of carriers. After all, what sort of fool would use *their* service if there was any choice in the matter? If AT&T did install an 800 number I can guarentee you the same people who now block 10xxx would figure out a way to block 800-ATT-#### or else tack a tidy surcharge on for themselves. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Feb 1991 15:01:47 -0600 From: scott@huntsai.boeing.com Subject: Re: NXX Count (1-15-91) arnold%audiofax.com@mathcs.emory.edu (Arnold Robbins) writes: > Georgia is currently only two area codes altogether. Probably Atlanta > will keep 404 and the rest of North Georgia would get the new area > code. The Atlanta LATA is apparently the largest free calling area in > the world, from what an adjunct professor who works for Southern Bell > once told me. This is true. To give an example, when I lived in Atlanta I was able to make local calls to places that were a good hour's drive away. The local calling area spans several counties. Here in Huntsville the longest local call would take about twenty minutes to drive to, and many places that are within a fifteen minute's drive are long distance. Scott Hinckley Internet:scott@huntsai.boeing.com UUCP: .!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!huntsai!scot DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management. [Moderator's Note: Do you think driving in city traffic has anything to do with it? Here in Chicago I can't go five miles in fifteen minutes during the rush hour. PAT] ------------------------------ From: steve@wattres.uucp (Steve Watt) Subject: Re: NXX Count (1-15-91) Organization: Steven Watt, Consultant, San Jose, CA, USA Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 08:24:21 GMT In article cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: [ slurp! ] > You have some cases where you say "ten digit dialing"; this should be > eleven digits (1 + area code + number), as there are some places where > ten digit dialing (leading 1 NOT required) is in effect for local > calls crossing an area code border. [ more deleted ] On a somewhat related note, I'm curious ... how many area codes are there out there (like PacBell territory in 408) that don't require a 1+ for *any* call, local, long-distance, or otherwise? I once heard a rumor that 408 was the last area code in the NANP that allowed 10 digit (real 10 digit, not 1+ten.) dialing ... is PacBell that slow? Is it PacBell that's slow? Steve Watt ...!claris!wattres!steve wattres!steve@claris.com also works ------------------------------ From: penguin@pro-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) Subject: Re: USPS Fax Discontinued Date: 26 Feb 91 01:16:08 GMT In-Reply-To: message from !clark@ssc-vax.uucp USPS Fax??? We never got that up here in the tundra. Sounds neat, though. :) [ 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 10:59:36-1795 From: "Steven A. Minneman" Subject: Re: CIDCO Caller ID Unit and Area Code Question Reply-To: stevem@fai.fai.com (Steven A. Minneman ) Organization: Fujitsu Network Switching of America, Inc. In article gtnetdc@richsun6. gatech.edu.UUCP (David Carter) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 135, Message 3 of 9 > So my question is: how long before we begin having area codes in North > America with other than 0 or 1 for the second digit? July, 1995 -- however, they are now trying to move the date to either July, 1994 or July, 1993 if all the operating companies will be ready. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 10:48:36 EST From: Edwin D Windes Subject: Re: MCI Personal 800 Numbers Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL > [Moderator's Note: I wonder if these numbers are virtually > non-blockable or if there is some point at which if enough people > (among the 3000 possible per number) are calling the number it will > return a busy signal, leaving your caller to ask later 'why was your > line busy?' (when in fact you had not been talking.) Sharing the same 800 number doesn't necessarily imply the bottleneck that you might envision. Routing to the carrier's operator system should be based on the 800-NXX, and wouldn't be much different than other 800 numbers. Once at that switch, the PIN would be collected, and the translation to the real number would be done. After this point, it wouldn't matter how the call was dialed. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 03:02 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History In commenting on my original post (Digest v11, iss156), our Moderator wrote: > [Moderator's Note: Thanks for another excellent article, which all of > us have come to expect from your terminal. Golly, thanks, Patrick. You should have seen the rosy blush my little T-1000 laptop emanated when it displayed that line. But please don't do that too much. It got so coy the rest of the day that I spent too much time coaxing it back out so I could tickle its keys some more! More along the thread, our Moderator continued (about Chicago's WEFM having been the *first* FM broadcast station): > ...Was the station in New York on the air continuously on a regular > schedule in the 1935 => 1941 period? Zenith's claim was they were the > first on the air with regularly scheduled, commercial programming on > the FM band. Armstrong's 'station" was purely an experimental one, and Zenith's claim that WEFM was the first regular station was certainly correct. My original remark was taking issue with a broad claim phrased in a way implying that Zenith was the first ever, thus perhaps creating the impression that Zenith was the developer of FM. In radio engineering education, the frist reference is always to Armstrong's 1935 experiments and his landmark paper read to the Institute of Radio Engineers in 1936. In New York, CBS also jumped on the FM bandwagon, but I do not have a date to compare to Zenith's Chicago operation. I do have in my own history book collection a 1942 engineering text that describes FM broadcast trnsmitters made by Armstrong, GE, RCA and Western Electric, all of which operated in the 42-50 mHz range, the original "FM band." On a different vein, our Moderator mentions how the FCC involved itself in the sale of WEFM concerning programming, saying: > ... the FCC approved the sale, but did not approve the change in > format for another year. The FCC required them to give a week's > notice to the listeners. A disclaimer was played hourly for a week > advising that the FCC had given permission to change the format, > and " ... for continued listening to classical music, we suggest you > tune to WNIB or WFMT ..." Ah, yes, the good old, bad old days of close regulation. The WEFM sale must have been the last of the era in which the FCC concerned itself with what kind of programs the public had access to in each market. In that time, each broadcaster had to propose to the FCC how much of each type of programming ... news, sports, education, music (by type), religion, and such it would air, brokne down into commercial and non-commercial amounts. Then, at triennial license renewal time, do an analysis from sample program log dates set by the FCC, showing how well the proposal was complied with, explaining any significant deviation. The "deregulation" of broadcasting preceded that of telecom by quite a few years. Many believe it led to the destruction of radio as an important information medium in America. One last note about the balky apparatus of early FM: My radio "Alma Mater: had one of the Western Electric 10 kilowatt FM trans- mitters, that had as a "feature" a motor-driven automatic frequency control circuit. It worked rather well, except that if there was a sustained low-frequency note, the darned thing would decide one of the large sidebands was the carrier frequency, and crank itself over there. When the note stopped, it lost track of where it should be, and the motor would just run off to one end of its track. The old WECo transmitter's power amplifiers were so broadly tuned, it would wander a full two megaHertz up the band, and park on top of one of the other stations in town, still putting out its full 10 kilowatts. At the same time, our fine Hewlett-Packard frequency monitor had circuitry such that it indicated zero deviation from assigned frequency every 3500 Hertz up the band, so its needle would settle with the appearance that we were just in fine shape. Our "alarm" would be some combination of the studio calling to say we "went off the air," and relaying calls from listeners who said they heard us on top of the other station! That other station had a GE transmitter using different circuitry with its own annoying version of the same habit, but a tendency to go clear off into Lord-knew-where in the radio spectrum. They had a subcarrier with the local Muzak on it, so their "alarm" would be the guy from Muzak calling up to say his customers lost their music. Somehow, life was a lot more adventuresome in those days.... [Moderator's Note: But I don't recall WJJD (1160 AM here) or WLS (890 AM) going through such efforts to change their format. WJJD went from a classical format to Country and Western overnight with no notice at all. And WLS: what a switch that was! It was 1959 or 1960. After years of ownership by Sears, Roebuck (the orld's argest tore, after all!) WLS had become just what their nickname implied: The Prairie Farmer Station. From early in the morning with a farm show and someone discussing the condition of the crops to late at night with the Old Barn Dance program from Nashville, TN, they spent the day with soap operas from the Mutual Network and Country/Western music. The exception was Sunday: From 6 AM until midnight, it was one preacher after another; thirty or sixty minute slots brokered to every crackpot with a post office box in Pasadena, CA. When WLS decided to go with rock music, they brought in several good DJ's, and switched the format at 6 AM one morning while everyone was still asleep. They bought off all the Sunday preachers who still had time left on their contracts and dumped them all the same week ... all but one ... a local guy here in Chicago named Preston Bradley, whose church services had been on WLS for umpteen years. They couldn't buy him off, and he still had two years to go ... so for two years following the change in format from Prairie Farmer / soap opera / peculiar religious stuff to a hard rock format, every Sunday they stopped the music at 10:58 AM and the DJ would say "It's time for Doctor Bradley ... I'm going out for breakfast ... we'll be back at noon." And at exactly noon they would cut him off the air, as often as not in mid-sentence and start the rock music again. I'm sure it pained them no end to have to suspend for an hour. The only time I heard any complaints from the FCC about them was when a DJ (remember, this was early sixties) said a naughty word on the radio one night. The FCC made them go off the air a few minutes later; they got (I think) a three day suspension of their license. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #159 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08767; 26 Feb 91 5:23 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12550; 26 Feb 91 3:43 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10359; 26 Feb 91 2:39 CST Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 1:59:06 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #160 BCC: Message-ID: <9102260159.ab05628@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 Feb 91 01:58:54 CST Volume 11 : Issue 160 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Eireann Call Charges [Colum Mylod] More 900 Addresses [Douglas Scott Reuben] The Great US Telephone Conspiracy [John Higdon] Phone Dinging Around 2 AM [Barry Margolin] Data Format of and Decoding of Caller*ID [Wayne Wolf] PacTel Long Range Cordless [Matt Simpson] Wanted: Economical, Reliable Rack-Mount 2400 bps MNP5 [Steve Pershing] IXC Service at Pay Telephones [Scott Hunter] ANI and Ringback in the Inland Empire [Javier Henderson] Data Access Arrangement (was Should Projects ...) [Jon Sreekanth] Where do You Live? In a Cave? [Randy Borow] What Does MCI/Sprint Personal 800 Offer Over AT&T Call*Me Card? [T. Hansen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Colum Mylod Subject: Telecom Eireann Call Charges Date: 25 Feb 91 13:28:16 GMT Organization: Oracle Europe As the original article mentioning changes in Telecom Eireann charges has expired here, this is not the customary followup. That article did say that local calls were going from untimed to three minutes. Well, another source confirms the change but not the details. From the e-mailed news letter "The Irish Emigrant" dated 25 Feb. 1991 comes this: On Friday [ 22 Feb. ] Telecom [Eireann] confirmed that it was going to end the practice of charging a flat rate for local calls, irrespective of duration. Between the hours of 8:00 and 18:00 each five minutes will cost one charge unit. For the remainder of the day a charge unit will buy a fifteen minute call. On the plus side the charge unit will come down from 11.17p to 10p. I am not sure when this will come into effect and I believe it needs Government approval. The "I" is the editor, one Liam Ferrie and this worthwhile news service is available by requesting same to irish-net-request@cs. cornell.edu (end of plug). Source is "Irish Times" and RTE teletext. So now the story is local calls timed to *five* minutes. Colum Mylod cmylod@oracle.nl The Netherlands Above is IMHO ------------------------------ Date: 25-FEB-1991 01:00:23.27 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: More 900 Addreses I just got a call today from 900-741-8200, for some vacation deal. The Archives' list 900-741 as a Telesphere 900 number, so after about thirty minutes of trying to get the right department, I found out where to get a 900 provider's address from Telesphere: Call (708) 954-7700, and ask for the "Database". That should connect you right away with the people who handle this sort of information. In case you've received calls from this 900 outfit and want to stop, you can write to them at: Junction Financial Corp. 1055 N.W. 3rd. Street Hallandale, FL. 33009 How many of these frims *are* there anyhow? It's getting monotonous sending letters to them all! :) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 22:44 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy Recently, I was talking to a former notorious "telephone manipulator" who offered one hypothesis explaining why we do not have telephone "debit cards" for use in public phones. The following is a summary of his thoughts mingled with some of my own. Public telephones are just that: public. And anonymous. When someone walks up to a coin phone, deposits money, and makes a call, he leaves no tracks. Even if a record is kept of the local call, there is ambiguity concerning the identity of one party to the conversation. But traditionally in this country our long distance is another story. Phone records have always been available via subpoena for law enforcement agencies to further an investigation. Except for collect calls, which are becoming increasingly rare, all long distance calls are ticketed to an account that can be used to identify a caller -- even if that caller uses a coin phone. And it makes no difference whether it is a COCOT or a utility phone. Your calling card points to you, as does any call billed to a third number. The theory is that the gummit (all flavors) does not want to give up this data collection. If you stop to think about it, why have there been no attempts to establish a stored value card system for public telephones? They are found in a number of other countries, including Japan. Most Americans that I talked to there liked the system and used it. (The others were unaware of it.) I do not believe that it would be rejected by the American public. The whole debacle of COCOTs was another banana peel in the road for such a system. For the plan to work, there would have to be one card that would work in any card phone nationwide. With the zillion COCOT owners, not to mention many different local utility coin phones, the prospects for a universal system are slim. Perhaps the government enthusiasm for COCOTs is seated in, among other things, the desire for this roadblock to stored value cards. If you could buy a phone card from a vending machine and then use any card phone you liked to make international calls, the potential for law enforcement tracking of such calls would be significantly reduced. Granted, this all sounds bizzare and paranoid, but I have to admit that I gave it a few moments of thought. I realized that my entire telephone usage habits could be tracked with the greatest of ease. I consider this information to be far more sensitive than anything involved with Caller*ID, and yet we all just put up with it since it has always been that way. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Phone Dinging Around 2 AM Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 07:22:57 GMT On most nights, somewhere between 2 and 3 AM, my phone will spontaneously emit two tiny rings (it has a real bell, not a tone generator, and goes ding -- ding). I used to have a problem of crosstalk between the two lines in my apartment (one for voice, the other for modem), and I would get a ding or two one the phone when I hung up the modem line (I would also get garbage on my terminal when the using the phone). I attributed the late-night dinging to this cross-talk, but it didn't go away when I solved that problem. Does anyone have an idea what's causing this? Does NEw England Tel send out some kind of test pulse that my phone (an AT&T Trimline 230) is oversensitive to? Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar ------------------------------ From: ingr!b17b!ww@beach.cis.ufl.edu Subject: Data Format of and Decoding of Caller*ID Date: 25 Feb 91 14:20:57 GMT Reply-To: ingr!b17b!ww@beach.cis.ufl.edu Organization: Intergraph Corporation I apologize if this is a FAQ. I'm interested in any information relating to decoding the caller*id data format. Say I would like to build my own phone to handle displaying the caller*ID. Does anyone have any pointers as to where to find information regarding the data format of the signal, hardware that may exist to decode this signal, and generally how Caller*ID operates? Any pointers are appreciated. Thanx in advance. Wayne Wolf Internet: ww@beach.cis.ufl.edu Usenet : ...!ingr!wyle!shaman!wolf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 11:13:06 EST From: Matt Simpson Subject: PacTel Long Range Cordless Some time last year, I posted an item here seeking additional info on a brief item I had seen in a magazine about a new cordless phone. The article said it would have a range of 4 miles, or up to 8 miles with degraded quality. It also said "Pac Tel/Great Technologies. Model SST. $149. Available 1991". That's all she wrote. I got no response from the Digest readership about the phone or Pac Tel, so I recently managed to find a number for Pacific Telesis. Since it's now 1991, I called and said I wanted one. The woman who answered the phone condescendingly suggested that I look in the Yellow Pages. I told her we didn't have Yellow Pages in Kentucky, and begged to speak to a marketing type. She finally relented and gave me another number (408) 957-6300. This number reached a more pleasant woman who answered the phone "Pac Tel Products". She confirmed that they were developing a long range cordless Model SST, but said that the prototype was still being worked on, and no further information was available. She did take my name, number, and address, and promised to send information when it was available. She could not even say when additional info might be available. I didn't bother trying to ask any technical questions, because I didn't think I'd get any answers, even if I knew what questions to ask, which I really didn't. ------------------------------ Subject: Wanted: Economical, Reliable Rack-Mount 2400 bps MNP5 From: system administrator Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 08:47:41 PST Organization: Questor*Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC => +1 604 681.0670 I am looking for a source of reliable, economical rack-mount 2400 bps MNP5 modems. If anyone has had experience with such and can offer recommendations, it would be much appreciated. Please e-mail directly, thanks. Steve Pershing, System Administrator 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: rshunter@attmail.com Date: Mon Feb 25 13:13:09 EST 1991 Subject: IXC Service at Pay Telephones InterLATA coin service doesn't default to AT&T in any special way on Bell-owned (i.e., regular) pay phones; it's just that nearly everyplace, only AT&T is interested in that business and/or is equipped to handle it (with the special coin-related TSPS buttons, etc). A LEC payphone can involve at least three different carrier options -- xxBell for the local calls, yyy for calling card / third party bill interlata calls, zzz for sent-paid coin interLATA. Depending on the capabilities of the interLATA carrier, collect call handling may also be lumped over to AT&T, giving it the very worst (most costly to handle) piece of the pie. The thing to really watch for is that when you use a Bell pay phone, that your IXC calls end up being handled by the carrier you expected; at least in my part of the world (New Jersey), a consistent 20% of the phones route calls to an IXC or AOS differing from the placarded one, and 99% of the time, it's when the placard says "AT&T" but you really end up with Someone Else. Consumers ought to be vigilant in listening to what happens after the *BONG* tone. Scott Hunter Learning Dynamics, Piscataway, NJ (908) 985-4966 AT&T EasyLink: !rshunter INTERNET: rshunter@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: Javier Henderson - TMS Group Subject: ANI and Ringback in the Inland Empire Date: 25 Feb 91 00:06:10 PST Organization: Avnet Computer - CTC Group; Culver City, CA In the 714 area code (at least the portion of it that's served by GTE) you can dial 114 and a computerized voice will tell you the phone number that you're calling from. As for ringback, you need only dial the phone number (which can be obtained as described above if you don't know it). The ringback information is printed in the phone book (they suggest using different extensions in your house as intercoms). The ANI info was posted on a local BBS some time ago. Javier Henderson Engineering Services Avnet Computer Los Angeles, CA henderson@hamavnet.com {simpact,asylum,elroy,dhw68k}!hamavnet!henderson ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Data Access Arrangement (was Should Projects ...) Organization: The World Date: 25 Feb 91 11:02:57 In article fmsys!macy@ usenet.ins.cwru.edu (Macy Hallock) writes: > Seriously, there used to be FCC approved units for this purpose > around. I think they were used in answering machines extensively at > one time. I recall seeing an ad for FCC registered line isolation > modules for incorporation into equipment not too long ago. I assume you're talking about Data Access Arrangements (DAA's) ? I know of only two manufacturers, Cermetek and Dallas Semi. Dallas had a SIMM module that was supposed to go with their modem, so other modem manufacturers might make some similar DAA. Cermetek has a whole line of DAA's, with DIP-like packages. Why are these DAA's so expensive ? For one of the FCC/CSA listed units from Cermetek, I was quoted in the $50 range. One can buy a whole PC 2400 baud modem card for about that much, and that modem card has the circuitry this DAA has (ring detect, isolation, 2-4 hybrid) and much more. One can buy a phone for $15. Is it just a small niche market, and Cermetek is the only one interested in being in it, and hence they can charge any price they want ? Or am I missing something ? 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: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Mon Feb 25 11:10:27 CST 1991 Subject: Where Do You Live? In a Cave? In TELECOM V11 #154, Nigel Allen had commented on the 201/908 NJ split. Our Moderator had remarked about Illinois Bell being swamped with complaints, etc. Just an amusing afterthought to that statement: IBT implemented the switch in November of 1989. Ayear and a half earlier, they began to -- as Pat put it -- intensely promote it. From buses to trains to airports to flyers to radio and TV ads -- you name it, they advertised it. Fairly well, I might ad. There were even countless newspaper articles and TV news stories about it. Well, when the permissive dialing was stopped on Feb. 9th last year and the 708/312 codes became mandatory, IBT had to open several operator services centers which were normally closed at the time just to handle the flood of calls. Even we here at AT&T, when we handled billing inquiries at that time, received a bunch of quries. The most common? According to IBT and other telecom. folks to whom I talked, the most frequent complaint about the area code split was: "Well, nobody ever told ME about it!" To which we all wanted so badly to respond: "Where the HELL have you been -- in a cave or something ...?!?" The stupidity of our fellow homo sapiens never ceases to amaze me. Oh well, that's what makes life so interesting I guess. Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. [Moderator's Note: I think other telcos due for area code splits would do well to learn from IBT's example and assume the worst. They should plan to have their offices well staffed for at least two days following the change to mandatory dialing. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 14:43:33 EST From: Tony L Hansen Subject: What Does MCI/Sprint Personal 800 Offer Over AT&T Call*Me Card? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories What does an MCI/Sprint personal 800 number offer over the AT&T Call*Me Card? The two services sure seem similar to me. Both seem to require an extra four digits to validate the caller. Both offer discounts. (AT&T does so separately through the Reach Out plans). Advantages of Call*Me Card o It doesn't require having to learn a completely new phone number. o There's no charge for the Call*Me card. o ??? Advantages of personal 800 number o It has the nebulous "prestige" of having an 800 number. o ??? Tony Hansen att!pegasus!hansen, attmail!tony hansen@pegasus.att.com tony@attmail.com [Moderator's Note: Another advantage to an 800 number might be to cure the problem mentioned in the last issue of the Digest: some telcos and/or institutions do not allow 102xx access in any form. So if you cannot get AT&T, you can't very well use the card. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #160 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09555; 27 Feb 91 3:38 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31176; 27 Feb 91 1:58 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32126; 27 Feb 91 0:52 CST Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 23:55:47 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #161 BCC: Message-ID: <9102262355.ab19343@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 Feb 91 23:56:22 CST Volume 11 : Issue 161 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Information Wanted on X.400 [Lang Zerner] Information Wanted on Combination DID/DOD Trunk [Al Cohan] Information Wanted on X.25 [Bernie Roehl] Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart [Scott Hinckley] Information Wanted on Line Noise Filter [Ken Jongsma] Safety in Numbers [Rick Farris] Pentara or Herald Parts Wanted [Clive Carmock] Re: Early Color Television [Tom Streeter] Re: Early Color Television [Maurice R. Baker] Armstrong and Ma Bell [John Winslade] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lang@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com Subject: Information Wanted on X.400 (was: No Internet/Easylink Gateway) Reply-To: lang@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com (Lang Zerner) Organization: IBM AWD Palo Alto Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 21:42:34 GMT In article 0002293637@mcimail.com (Krislyn Companies) writes: > Nigel Allen writes ... >> I asked AT&T Mail's help desk (atthelp2@attmail.com) how to reach >> EasyLink mailboxes from the Internet. > Try asking if Easylink is reachable via X.400 addressing. Speaking of X.400 addressing, can anyone provide a pointer to an informed description of X.400? I've heard a lot about it, mostly in the form of brief verbal summaries by people who use networks supporting it, but really don't know any of the details. Even a physical postal address for ordering hardcopy information would be useful, though e-mail or anonymous FTP access would be mightily preferable. Be seeing you... ++Lang ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 23:43 GMT From: The Network Group <0004526627@mcimail.com> Subject: Information Wanted on Combination DID/DOD Trunk Many years ago, I had a practice from the old Pacific Telephone or A.T.&T that explained the circuit design of a combined DID/DOD trunk. I am now attempting to get a combination inbound DID trunk with outbound dialling. I don't really care about passing the PBX extension number to the C.O. for billing purposes, just to make it a two-way trunk. Has anyone been successful if getting this type of trunk? On a related note, I am also trying to get E & M Type I terminations for Centrex off of a 1A ESS machine. The folks at Pac Bell recited Hymn # 12: "Well, we don't provide that because we haven't done that before"! I've heard this type of explanation many *many* times over the last 25 or so years and it is still not acceptable. If anyone can help with either of these two problems, or would care to share experiences with obtaining these types of circuits, I'd surely appreciate it. Al Cohan The Network Group P.O. Box 5069 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 +1 619 934 6529 MCI MAIL: The Network Group / 452-6627 Disclaimer: If The Network Group ever paid me, only then would they be entitled to my opinion. ------------------------------ From: Bernie Roehl Subject: Information Wanted on X.25 Organization: University of Waterloo Date: Mon, 25 Feb 1991 14:22:22 GMT I'm considering setting up a multi-line BBS that's accessible over Datapac (Canada's X.25 service, analagous to Tymenet or Telenet). I'm considering several options: 1. Buy a self-contained PAD with a number of serial lines, and hooking this up to a multi-port serial interface on the PC end. Advantage: works off-the-shelf, no additional software to write (I'd be using a Fossil driver and an existing BBS). Disadvantage: hardware cost and being limited by hardware to a small maximum number of sessions. 2. Buying an X.25 board and writing software to provide an int 14h type interface (do the board come with that kind of software?). Advantage: again, relatively simple to implement, and eliminiates running a bunch of serial cables. Disadvantage: cost. 3. Buying a synchronous serial card for the PC, and implementing X.25 in software. Advantage: lowest cost. Disadvantage: lots of work. Do X.25 libraries exist for the PC? Any advice would be appreciated. (I know, I know ... why X.25? Because it's there. I don't like the protocol particularly, but it is in widespread use). Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept Mail: broehl@sunee.waterloo.edu OR broehl@sunee.UWaterloo.ca BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!sunee!broehl Voice: (519) 885-1211 x 2607 [work] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Feb 1991 15:00:36 -0600 From: scott@huntsai.boeing.com Subject: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart Where would I look for a current chart/table/etc of EM spectrum allocations? Thank you, Scott Hinckley Internet:scott@huntsai.boeing.com UUCP:.!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!huntsai!scot DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management. ------------------------------ Subject: Information Wanted on Line Noise Filter Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 8:59:35 EST From: Ken Jongsma Several BBS's and now the latest Hello Direct catalog, sell something to eliminate "hissing, scratching and humming" from your telephone line. My question is: What is this device and what exactly does it do? The Hello Direct catalog claims it removes up 30db of EMI. It costs $10 and looks like a very small modular extention cord. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ From: Rick Farris Subject: Safety in Numbers Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 04:41:15 GMT As I rushed to meet a client today, I ran over to the AT&T 730 that I've programmed to call the number which activates call forwarding of my main number to my cellular phone. Things worked as usual, I watched as the phone dialed 72#259-6793. All of a sudden, it occurred to me that I wasn't dialing from the line which has call-forwarding installed. (I had swapped phones around a couple of months ago.) Out of curiosity, I called 259-6793 to see if it was forwarding correctly. It was. Here's what I think is happening: I have six lines, all billed to the main 259-6793 number. Clearly, when I call long-distance from any of the six lines, the billing office is getting ANI (BNI?) from the 259-6793 line. Near as I can tell, the call-forwarding computer (subroutine) is also receiving the 259-6793 ID, no matter which line I call from. Therefore, I can activate call-forwarding on 259-6793 by calling from any of my six numbers. Pretty cool, huh? On the other hand, suppose I wanted to be able to forward one of my other numbers, independently? I called the business office and they didn't have the slightest clue about how call-forwarding worked, and transferred me to repair who was similarly clue-less. Oh well. The good news is that when CLI starts up later this year, I don't have to worry about accidently compromising one of my "private" numbers -- I had already started training myself to always dial out from "public" numbers. Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757 ------------------------------ From: Clive Carmock Subject: Pentara or Herald Parts Wanted Date: 26 Feb 91 19:33:19 GMT Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK Does anyone have any parts from a Herald or Pentara PABX system for sale, such as spare extension cards, Tone Dialler cards, Exchange line cards, TX style terminals or complete systems for sale? Thanks, Clive Carmock (cca@cs.exeter.ac.uk or cca@expya.UUCP) ------------------------------ From: Tom Streeter Subject: Re: Early Color Television Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 00:36:31 GMT In article bilver!bill@uunet.uu.net (Bill Vermillion) writes: > The NTSC compatible finally came out after the end of the Korean war. > There was a government restriction on any new TV stations during that > time. > The war hiatus gave RCA time enough to perfect their system. The CBS > "color wheel" (field sequential color) was approved before the war, > but was not widespread because of the government mandate. > There were NO commercial video tape machines available before about > 1961. I remember when I was working at KXLY radio in Spokane that our > TV station got their first B&W VCR. It was about $80,000 in 1961 > dollars (That should easily be about $300,000 in todays dollars), had > three six-foot tall racks of tube electronics and 1 rack for the > transport. Model was RCA VR-1. (Video Recorder One). From what I > remember of it's quality it wasn't much better than any $500 VHS unit > today, if that. Color VCR's were still a couple of years away. Two corrections: The FCC actually approved the CBS system prior to the Korean War, but the rest of the industry (under the banner of the Radio Manufacturers Association) made the decision not to produce the sets. This left CBS in a defacto monopoly situation it was not in a position to exploit. Wheras NBC and DuMont had manufacturing arms to back them up, CBS did not have the means to roll out its TVs. As Barnouw writes the history, the FCC reversed its decision and blamed it on the war later. The adoption of a color standard was only one part of the television freeze; it was primarily imposed to work out channel allotments (though color became one of the biggest delays to lifting it. There were six issues on the table, and it was decided that all six had to be resolved before the freeze could be lifted.) As for VTRs, Ampex rolled out its first machine at the NAB convention in 1953. CBS bought the first for something in the neighborhood of $100,000. Bing Crosby was a major force behind the invention because he hated doing his show live on the West Coast and having it sent on kine to the East. I was recently digging through old copies of "Broadcasting" and came across an article describing how the first machines would work. At the time this article was written, Ampex had not yet been chosen as the manufacturer. Tom Streeter streeter@athena.cs.uga.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 09:47:34 EST From: Maurice R Baker Subject: Re: Early Color Television Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , bilver!bill@uunet.uu.net (Bill Vermillion) writes: > This was during the first year of color in that area. We had > technical discussion on the medium, and one interesting project at > that time was the "Chromatron" tube being developed by Dr. Lawrence at > CBS. Trying to find a way to get rid of the mask and the dot-triad, > this tube used striped phosphors, horizontally. Never made it. An early, somewhat distant relation of the Sony Trinitron. > There were NO commercial video tape machines available before about > 1961. I remember when I was working at KXLY radio in Spokane that our > TV station got their first B&W VCR. It was about $80,000 in 1961 > dollars (That should easily be about $300,000 in todays dollars), had > three six-foot tall racks of tube electronics and 1 rack for the > transport. Model was RCA VR-1. (Video Recorder One). From what I Ahem ... it was TR-1 (for Television Recorder). I used to work for a TV station which owned one; it was long since retired by the time I started there, but still an impressive sight [what was left of it ... some of its innards had been cannabalized for repair parts used in other pieces of equipment]. RCA liked to name its television equipment "T_" followed by some sort of a number. To wit: television 2" quad VTRs were TR-1, TR-2, TR-22, TR-70, TR-600 (there were also variations on the theme -- TR-70B vs TR-70C -- latter having digital servos, etc.). Film/slide projectors were TP-16 (for 16 mm. movies) and TP-66 (for slides) into a film chain. Television transmitters were TT-something, television video-cart machines (now there's a Rube Goldberg invention if there ever was one, and sounded like it when running, too) were TCR-100s, and television frame synchronizers (only made one to my knowledge) were TFS-121s. Curiously, television cameras were not TC-xxxx but TK-44, TK-45, TK-76, etc. TK-4x series was color TV studio cameras ... TK-47 being the last version made. Believe that they still use 'em on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. TK-76 was a very popular (and rugged ... built like a tank) portable ENG camera. Not to forget the infamous TK-27 film chain camera ... if you watched any movies on TV during the mid-late 60s or early-mid 70s, it's a good bet that they were seen via a TK-27. It used four tubes: three for Red, Green, and Blue and a fourth for luminance ... not to mention an involved scheme which controlled sensitivity by varying target voltage, making it a real bear to set up and align. The TK-28 was an improvement ... only three vidicons, and a fast acting neutral density filter wheel to effectively control sensitivity. By then, electronics technology had really come a long way in a fairly short time. In the early to mid 80's you could see RCA Broadcast going downhill, and they finally left the business shortly before RCA was acquired by GE. One can marvel at some of the real engineering accomplishments which could only happen in such a unique environment, and shudder at the way the MBAs are effectively ensuring that it'll never happen again. M. Baker ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 91 21:30:00 CDT From: JOHN WINSLADE Subject: Armstrong and Ma Bell In a recent message, "DONALD E. KIMBERLIN" writes: > Our Moderator, always the (rightfully) proud Chicagoan, replied: >> The first FM radio station in the US was here in Chicago, started >> in 1941 by the Zenith Radio Corporation. > I have to take some issue there, Patrick... > It was (retired) Major E. H. Armstrong (to whom we owe credit for > the superheterodyne receiver that made broadcast radio really a > practical medium for the general public) who in 1935 aired the > first broadcast FM transmissions in 1935, from a transmitter > atop the Empire State Building to receivers in New Jersey. Oh wow! I am trying desparately to retrieve data from memory cells that have not been accessed, let alone refreshed, for many years, but I can attest to hearing of (I am not *THAT* old ;-) E.H. Armstrong's experimental FM station of the 1930's. If I remember correctly, this was not a commercial 88-108mHz band transmitter, but one that ran in the frequency range of CB - 10m ham, if I remember correctly. The significance of Armstrong's transmitter (if the data coming down the rusty data paths are correct) was that it was the first practical ELECTRONIC frequency-modulation system, and thus could take advantage of the static-free high-fidelity medium that FM provides. Previous FM schemes used mechanical Rube-Goldberg contraptions, such as the 'Wobbulator' (no, I am not making that one up, it was used in some comm gear up through the early '50s) which was essentially a small foil-coned speaker with an accompanying stationary coil. Audio signals to the wobbulator varied the inductance of the coil, thus giving a means to frequency-modulate an oscillator. If I remember correctly, Armstrong's FM system used predistortion and phase shifting which is similar to some of today's methods. > He obtained a patent for FM that resulted in a bitter battle with > AT&T about patent rights; one in which the classic "phone company > stonewalling" often mentioned in the Digest may have resulted in > Major Armstrong's suicidal hurling himself out of a New York office > window. I remember the Feud with Ma Bell, but not the suicide. Is this a documented fact ?? ( Contrary to lesser-known urban legend, E.H. Armstrong was NOT the inventor of the hand-operated adding machine. ;-) Good Day! JSW [Moderator's Note: As a matter fact, I believe the hand-cranked adding machine was invented by William Burroughs. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #161 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10908; 27 Feb 91 4:39 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10269; 27 Feb 91 3:04 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac31176; 27 Feb 91 1:59 CST Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 1:21:00 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #162 BCC: Message-ID: <9102270121.ab17283@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Feb 91 01:20:57 CST Volume 11 : Issue 162 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 1+206 Dialling Coming to Washington [Tad Cook] NID "Security" is Fiction [Dan Herrick] MCI Friends and Family Offer [Ralph W. Hyre] CDMA Cellular (was Re: Digital Cellular Correction) [Klein Gilhousen] Caller ID Status Report [Donald E. Kimberlin] Broadcasting The War with High Tech Telecommunications [Donald Kimberlin] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Dell H. Ellison] MCI ... March 18 and More [Steve Shimatzki] Call Waiting and Prodigy [Brinton Cooper] CBS Uses Inmarisat for Gulf War Coverage [Steve L. Rhoades] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: 1+206 Dialling Coming to Washington Date: 27 Feb 91 03:48:32 GMT In article , davidb@pacer.uucp (David Barts) writes: > Several months ago (or was it that long) there was a discussion in > this Digest about NPA 206 (western Washington state) running out of > NXX exchange codes, and the fact that we will soon be seeing N0X/N1X > exchange codes. I got the notice from Bellcore a couple of weeks ago. I called the contact at US West listed on the notice, and tried to get him to speculate when 206 (Western Washington) will be divided into two NPAs. He thinks that it will be a done deal by mid-1995. My personal guess is that they will make King and Snohomish counties 206, and the rest of Western Washington something else, or they will draw an east-west line somewhere between Seattle and Tacoma, and divide it there. 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 ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 91 10:15:00 GMT From: "CONTR HERRICK, DAN" Subject: NID "Security" is Fiction In article , hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > this feature! We put on a combination padlock, like you'd use on a > gym locker, so that if we ever need service we can tell the repair > office the combination to the lock, which they record on the repair > order, and we don't need to be there to provide a key. Your door only opens half of the NID. The Phone company has another door that opens the whole NID. They don't need to open your lock to get access to the inside of the NID. They use the torx screw with a pin in the middle to open the whole box. Jensen tools will sell one of those "security" drivers to anyone with the appropriate amount of money (information from an earlier thread here in the Digest). So the lock only protects you from the casual and the ignorant. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ------------------------------ From: "Ralph W. Hyre" Subject: MCI Friends and Family Offer Date: 27 Feb 91 02:05:04 GMT Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati My guess is that the 'friends and family' offer is a calling plan for a certain set of numbers that you and your callees use. (Is this a form of virtual private network?) It will be interesting to see how they implement and administer it. 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: Klein Gilhousen Subject: CDMA Cellular (was Re: Digital Cellular Correction) Organization: Qualcomm Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 02:55:54 GMT In article , motcid!ellis@uunet.uu.net (John T Ellis) writes: > 2. TDMA = Time Division Multiple Access > CDMA = Code Division Multiple Access > 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. The QUALCOMM, Inc. CDMA digital cellular system was demonstrated to the industry in November, 1989. This demonstration consisted of TWO cell-sites and a mobile unit all running CDMA. The system demonstrated all important features of the proposed CDMA system, including the "Soft Handoff" in which a call is processed simultaneously by two cells when the mobile moving from one cell to the other. In Feb, 1990, the demo system was taken to Manhattan to demonstrate operation in the high multipath and clutter environment of the mid-town skyscrapers. The system performed exactly as predicted (very, very well.) The referenced TDMA demo system did not (I believe) include a handoff capability, was a single cell-site and single mobile. This summer, we will be fielding our validation system here in San Diego. This will consist of several cell-sites and about 70 mobile terminals. The mobiles will be form, fit and functional prototypes of CDMA car phones. This system will prove the capacity improvement claims. I personally feel that the 20:1 claim we have made is quite conservative. We have had a hard enough time getting people to believe the 20:1 without sounding like we are completely crazy. As we have continued to improve our design, we have just held constant with the same claim, putting the increase in our hip pocket. CDMA addresses the issues of channel quality head-on by providing several additional forms of diversity. The result is a channel remarkably free of outages due to multipath, fading, interference, blockage, etc. There is no such "theoretical limit" on vocoder compression. The lower would be determined by the information transmission rate which is quite slow. The problem is to reduce the transmission rate without causing an unacceptably low quality. Both the TDMA and the CDMA approach use vocoders compressing to about 8000 bits per second. Testing has produced "Mean Opinion Scores" of about 3.9 on a scale of 5 where a wired phone is about a 4.5. Not too bad, but not quite as good as a wired phone. Improved vocoder algorithms should result in somewhat lower bit rates at this quality level. Interestingly, Motorola, along with AT&T, Nynex, Ameritech, Pactel, Nokia and Clarion have all committed to support the CDMA development. Of course, many of them also continue to keep the their TDMA developments alive until the marketplace resolves which system will win out. Klein Gilhousen, WT6G Qualcomm, Inc. Amazing NON-Disclaimer: In this case, I _DO_ speak for my company. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 03:03 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Caller ID Status Report The January 1 issue of {TE&M Magazine} carried a colorful map of the US, showing the year-end status of Caller ID state by state. Here's a text rundown of that status: APPROVED WITHOUT CALL BLOCKING APPROVED WITH BLOCKING New Jersey Maine Virginia Maryland West Virginia District of Columbia Tennessee South Carolina Kentucky DECLARED ILLEGAL Nevada Pennsylvania STATES WITH FILED TARIFF, BUT NO REGULATORY DECISION AS YET Vermont Ohio Indiana Illinois North Carolina Georgia Alabama Florida California STATES WITH NO REGULATORY ACTION AS YET New Hampshire Massachusets Rhode Island Connecticut New York Delaware Michigan Wisconsin Mississippi Louisiana Texas Oklahome Arkansas Kansas Missouri Nebraska Iowa Minnesota South Dakota North Dakota Arizona New Mexico Utah Colorado Idaho Wyoming Montana Oregon Washington There's obviously been much movement since this list was first generated. US West had, for example, conducted some technical trials in North Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa and Idaho. And, it's certain there have been others. But, nationwide deployment still seems far from on a rapid track, and wide divergence in the details of operation and information content seem to be likely state by state. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 03:05 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Broadcasting The War with High Tech Telecommunications The recent weekend revealed that broadcasters have begun to use really high-tech telecomm tools. In general, broadcasters have been the solid clients of the government PTT of each nation they travel to, renting quarter- and half-hour periods of CCITT-standard "porgam channels" for audio and video transmission. After the bombing of the Iraqui PTT in Baghdad, broadcasters were limited for a couple of weeks to telephone line transmission from the capital of Iraq. It seemed to me that ABC led the lot, and was first to get a transportable earth station with three meter uplink dish into Baghdad and resume direct video to the outside world. However, beginning Sunday, February 24, ABC has had daily 15-minute periods at 6 AM (Eastern) time from Forrest Sawyer standing in front of his three meter uplink right out on the Saudi/Kuwaiti border desert. Following the Sawyer segment, Peter Jennings would get a similar update with video from Baghdad. This evening, CBS Radio had a reporter with the front-line troops reaching the U.S by *direct dial* from an (obviously) INMARSAT portable satellite telephone. The CBS radio commentators could not contain their wonderment about having a reporter dial them from a phone-less, power-less desert lcoation. I forecast we'll be observing broadcasters offering a great deal more of this direct reportage, it becoming a commonplace in a very short time. Too bad, but most of it will probably be actualities from wars and riots around the world. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 00:25:32 GMT From: "Dell H. Ellison" Subject: How Do I Reach the BILL Company You mentioned a company called "BILL" in an earlier article. I couldn't find them in the phone book. Do you have their address and phone number? Thanks, Dell Ellison [Moderator's Note: BILL is in Arlington Heights, IL. I do not have thier phone number in front of me. If you are in the Chicago area, using a Chicago area bank, BILL is a good electronic bill paying service which works with any bank in the area. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wed, 27 Feb 1991 02:45:15 GMT From: Wish-Bringer (Steve Shimatzki) Subject: MCI ... March 18 and More Here's a few for ya: #1 Has anyone seen the new ad for MCI, saying something about just wait till March 18 ... Anyone got the inside scoop? I hate waiting! #2 Would it be possible to use Call Forwarding, to call long distance, and not pay for it? Heres the Scenario: I call a friend who is right between me and an area that is LD for me. His number then forwards to another number, but into the LD area. Do I get the local call, or billed for the LD number that it was forwarded to? What if I did this with a few people, and forwared a forwareded call? If it is possible, is there any disadvantages to it? (ie, poor quality call; Limited use; lots of people involved?) Steve [Moderator's Note: Addressing #2, each phone line only is billed for what it dials. Therefore you would pay for a call to your friend in the intermediate area, and he would pay for a call to the next area. If it so happens you both wind up paying for only a local call as a result, so be it. Where the reality enters is that very rarely can you string together a series of local calls and wind up paying less than for a single long distance call. The exception might be if all the intermediate points had untimed 'free' local service. But a call in the middle of the night from one side of the country to another is somewhere around 12 cents a minute on Reach Out ... how many local connections linked together with chain-forwarding would it require to cover the same distance, and how many local calls in the path would cost five or ten cents each? And who would pay the intermediate people for their services as telephone operators? Using various configurations of call-forwarding is not an effecient way to avoid long distance charges in most instances. In a limited number of fairly local or short-haul toll calls, *maybe* -- until you wear out the patience of the people in the middle with your penny-wise but pound- foolish experiments. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Brinton Cooper Subject: Call Waiting and Prodigy Date: 26 Feb 91 04:10:06 GMT Organization: Ballistic Research Laboratory My niece has a PS-1 which runs and connects her to Prodigy (I think). Anyhow, they have call waiting at their house; as you know, this feature of the phone often disconnects dial-up modems. In fact, with their C-64 and TRS-80 machines, they experienced this when calling BBS lines. However, she tells me that when she's connected to Prodigy, the call waiting seems not to work. If someone calls during a Prodigy session, the caller gets a busy signal. Does someone have an explanation? I prefer e-mail. This is a very active group and one that I don't normally read. Thanks, folks. Brint Brinton Cooper BRL - Where "Research" is our Middle Name. [Moderator's Note: Might it be that the dial-up number for Prodigy being used somehow does not supervise on connection of a call? If supervision is not present, the originating switch may think it is still trying to set up the call. When you first go off hook and dial a number, call-waiting is de-activated since an incoming call at that moment would cause disruption in the dialing process. Otherwise, how about doing two things: (1) give us the in-dial number used for closer examination, and (2) ask your niece to try again and make sure this is really the case. Better still, *you* try calling her when she is known to be online with Prodigy and see if you can knock her down. I suspect she got this report from someone who tried dialing her just as she was dialing into Prodigy. They got a busy signal at that instant (naturally); reported it to her and she misunderstood the exact time at which they called and thought it had to do with Prodigy rather than her status at the moment. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Steve L. Rhoades" Subject: CBS Uses Inmarisat for Gulf War Coverage Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 04:14:46 GMT The following article is from {BROADCASTING Magazine}, Feb 25, 1991 p.10: If a ground war begins in the Middle East, TV network use of telephones may go a long way toward determining who provides the most compelling coverage. The key could be a 65-pound portable satellite phone and new wideband audio service to be provided by Inmarisat and IDB. CBS, for example, has ordered eight units for deployment in Baghdad or the Saudi front, this one offering 56-kilobit (up from 3.5) transmission to New York- enough for wide-band audio or video stills. Any of the eight CBS units "could become the backbone of coverage" in a volatile war zone, said Frank Governale, director of bureau operations. ----End quoted article---- Internet: slr@caltech.edu | Voice-mail: (818) 794-6004 UUCP: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!tybalt!slr | USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca. 91023 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #162 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12227; 27 Feb 91 5:50 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14353; 27 Feb 91 4:10 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac10269; 27 Feb 91 3:04 CST Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 2:45:20 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #163 BCC: Message-ID: <9102270245.ab11558@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Feb 91 02:45:13 CST Volume 11 : Issue 163 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Eric THOLOME] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Jim Breen] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Bob Goudreau] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Jim Rees] Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Brian Crawford] Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Kath Mullholand] Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom [Christopher Lott] Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom [Ken Dykes] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric THOLOME Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Organization: Stanford University - AIR Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 20:57:00 GMT In article roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > [...] A recording of an obviously French voice > gave me another number to call. What's odd (at least to my American > ears) was that the voice gave the new number as something like "area > code 212, telephone number xxx-xxxx", as if the area code was not to > be considered part of the phone number, but something extra, or as PAT > puts it, incidental. > I wonder, was it just a oddity of the person who made the > recording, an artifact of a person speaking English as a non-native > language and struggling with an idiom, or is it just common usage in > France to pronounce phone numbers that way? I don't have a precise answer to that question, but I might have some hints explaning why this occured. Until five years ago, France was devided in about 100 areas. Each had an area code, and everything was working similarly to the US system: the phone numbers where supposed to be written this way (xx) xx xx xx (though the area code was often dropped by non professionals). To phone in the same area, you had to dial only the last six digits. To phone in another area, you had to dial 16, get a tone, and then dial the full phone number. About five years ago, the system was changed, and the notion of area disappeared. Everybody got an eight digit phone number xx xx xx xx, which was, of course, obtained by adding the area code to the old phone number. This is why some people still talk about their phone number the way they used to do it before, that is by mentionning the area code, and then the phone number. To be precise, I should also tell you that it is actually not as simple as I put it: before, some areas like Paris had seven digit phone numbers. Therefore, they decided to add a 4 in front of it to get the new eight digit phone number. The problem was that this was leading to phone numbers starting with 46 for example, which is the area code near Royan (Town on the Atlantic Ocean coast). Therefore, they had to keep a system of areas. France is now devided in two areas: Paris and elsewhere. To phone inside an area, just use the eight digit phone number. To phone from Paris to outside, use 16 xx xx xx xx. To phone from outside to Paris, use 16 1 xx xx xx xx. People in Paris should print their phone number this way: (1) xx xx xx xx. I believe the use of the (1) is not symmetric in order to be able to make the difference when a call is coming from another country. Eric THOLOME tholome@isl.stanford.edu Stanford University ------------------------------ From: Jim Breen Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Date: Tue, 26 Feb 1991 22:18:58 GMT [My word, hasn't Patrick stirred up a storm on this one. All praise to the many who weighed in with the quotations from the CCITT E series. When subscriber trunk dialling was introduced here many years ago, the PMG (Telecom Australia's predecessor) ran a large publicity campaign encouraging people to use the (aaa) xxx yyyy format when printing their numbers. They have not pushed the two line national/international format to the same extent.] In article , david@wyvern.cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) writes: > I still see organizations incorrectly listing their international > numbers in advertising etc -- a motel in Canberra is listed as follows: > Phone (06) 2ab cdef [I can't remember the exact #] > International 616 2ab cdef > I wonder if some poor soul in the USA gets calls for this motel? Worse than that, David. CSIRO ran some job advertisements in the international press last year (New Scientist, etc.) quoting their (Sydney) numbers as (612) xxx yyyy, instead of +61 2 xxx yyyy. I guess a lot of people in the (US? Canada?) 61x area codes are getting used to receiving calls intended for Australia. > What other STD/ISD dialing methods are in use in the world? In > Australia all STD area codes begin with a zero when dialed nationally > and this zero is omitted when dialing from overseas. In the USA your > area codes don't have a prefix (unless you count the 1). - From my experience most countries EXCEPT the country code '1' brigade (US/Canada/Mexico/etc) use a leading zero, which is omitted when dialling from foreign parts. I am always amused by the postings from North American readers suggesting that their (minority) approach be made the world standard. Jim Breen AARNet:jwb@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au Department of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University. PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 (fax) +61 3 573 2745 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 18:12:45 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number In article , david@wyvern.cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) writes: > What other STD/ISD dialing methods are in use in the world? In > Australia all STD area codes begin with a zero when dialed nationally > and this zero is omitted when dialing from overseas. In the USA your > area codes don't have a prefix (unless you count the 1). - Perhaps a better way to think about area codes is to mentally leave off the national access prefix. I.e., it's much simpler to say "the area code for Canberra is 2" than to say "the area code for Canberra is 02 in Australia and 2 outside of it. The zero becomes the "interarea access prefix", in the same way that international calls require an international access prefix. After all, we don't say "the country code for Australia from Germany is 0061"; the "00" is just the (German) international access prefix. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.ifs.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 16:36:04 GMT In article , telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis > around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire > number, i.e. (311) 555-2368? I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with no country code, as though it were incidental to the entire number, i.e. 311-555-2368? The correct way to write the number is with the country code in this format: +1 311 555 2368. Seriously though, a glance through the local phone book shows that even TPC is confused on this matter. In the first dozen pages of the Ann Arbor book we see the following numbers. Formatting is faithfully reproduced. 0 9-1-1 1 800 44ARSON 1-800-572-1308 1 517 546-2440 1 226-6400 Secret Service -- note that 10-digit is now mandatory in 313, so this number would seem to be wrong (or maybe just secret) 1-221-3131 (313) 962-4000 By the way, there are still Enterprise numbers in the book! On page 128 of the "business white pages" we have: UTA French Airlines Chicago Il An Arb Tele Only No Charge Dial Operator And Ask For ------ Enterprise-8844 Glad to see this venerable old institution still survives. ------------------------------ From: Brian Crawford Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access Date: 26 Feb 91 18:49:19 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ In article , sbrack@hpuxa.ircc. ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > I rent housing from a large university, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You have no rights! :) 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 1991 11:38:39 EST From: KATH MULLHOLAND Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access > [Moderator's Note: But the fact that you cannot access AT&T via 10288 > is not AT&T's fault. It is a greedy private operator who is denying > access illegally. What is to prevent the same greedy operator from Not necessarily ... in the case of the AT&T system 85, it *is* AT&T's fault that you cannot access 10288. The System 85 does not allow access to any 10xxx number. We depend on 95-xxxx numbers (which we route over FX lines to an equal access office, by the way) to get our users to MCI or Sprint. If we want to switch to another carrier for our 0+, we would be forced to block calls to AT&T, even though we do not want to. The University of New Hampshire is not offered any commission for our inter-Lata 0+ traffic by AT&T. We would, and probably will, take up Sprint's offer for commissions, but our users may resent not being able to use AT&T. We don't see an option. For now,this is just a nuisance. If the FCC chooses to rule that Universities are aggregators, we are in for major problems unless AT&T breaks down and offers 950 or 800 acccess. Question: Why does AT&T want to block themselves out of this business? Is it not as lucrative for them as for their competitors? Another Question: Does anyone have an opinion on how likely the FCC is to regard Universities as aggregators? Our opinion is that we are not because the new law defines aggregators as those providing service to "transient" customers. Our feeling is that University students, being resident enough to register to vote, are not transient. What do the rest of you think? Kath Mullholand UNH, Durham NH. [Moderator's Note: But registering to vote is a more solemn obligation, and not to be taken lightly. Voting is considered important enough that the law is interpreted as liberally as possible in order to avoid the slightest hint of discrimination. The idea is to make it as easy as possible to vote. Choosing a president is somewhat more important that choosing a long distance carrier, or so the thinking goes. I don't think AT&T is deliberatly locking themselves out of the 800/950 business because it is not lucrative for them. I think they are doing it to force the issue on 10xxx; their thinking being that if 10xxx access becomes an absolute, bar-none requirement on all switches, they will recapture a lot of revenue denied to them now anyway, thus making the whole long distance calling industry a lot LESS lucrative to the marginal operators out there now. And I sort of agree. Let's all play by the rules the 'others' tried so hard to install -- equal access and all -- and see who wins and who loses. I think you already know the answer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 12:07:15 -0500 From: Christopher Lott Subject: Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom Organization: The University of Maryland Dept of Computer Science In article you write: >hundred or so pairs terminating in that terminal box were multiplied >all over over the neighborhood. ^^^^^^^^^ Pardon my stupidity, Pat, but would you please explain what this means? I can't find much mention of lines being multiplied in the glossary. Thanks, Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 cml@cs.umd.edu /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg 301.405.2721 [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly a case of the PD's crept in there. Printer's Deviltries, (or PD's for short -- another name for typographical errors) creep in when you print a large quantity of stuff every day. The correct word was 'multipled' -- not 'multiplied'. A telephone cable contains a large number of pairs of wires. At each place along the way where a phone is (might be) installed, some of the individual pairs are 'opened', or made available for connections. For maximum flexibility, each pair in the cable might be opened a dozen times along the cable run. Naturally, only one subscriber will use the pair at any given time. When we say a pair is 'multipled', we mean it is availale for being picked up (or used, or connected to a phone) at several places between the central office and the other end of the cable a few miles away. Picture a switchboard with a dozen trunk lines to the central office and maybe a hundred extensions. The extensions share the trunk lines, being swapped on and off the line as required. The same thin happens with cables. A pair terminates at my house and the same pair terminates at your house a block away. I move out and no longer need the pair, but you install a second line and need another pair. In other words, the pairs within the cable go parallel to several locations at once. When the phone installer climbs the pole at your house to bring you a second line, he is supposed to then go down the street to where I used to live, climb the pole and *disonnect* (or open up) the same pair at that end, preventing someone down the street from getting on your line. They sometimes forget to do that. Once in an apartment I had, there was a modular phone jack. I had only one line, but there were two pairs in the modular jack. I was curious, and went on the other pair: Viola! dial tone ... I dialed the ring back code to see what would happen, and let it ring. Presently it was answered by a lady. When I questioned where she was at, it turned out she was across the alley and a few houses down. A phone man had not done his job correctly. A long example, but that is what we mean by 'mulitples on the cable': The opening up, or ability to connect to the same wires at many locations, depending on who got them first and who needs themm when the subscriber on them quits the service. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 22:32:18 EST From: Ken Dykes Subject: Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom Organization: Thinkage Ltd. In article John_Richard_Bruni@cup.portal.com writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 157, Message 1 of 10 > the demarc in the crawl space access port located in my bedroom > closet. I`m in a townhouse and there are five more units attached to my > place. Amazingly enough, *ALL* the demarcs for the building are in MY > bedroom. There is a 25 pair cable built out in the crawlspace ... In my highrise apartment bldg (and I suspect this could be common wiring practice for highrise buildings) I live in unit #1004. Behind one of the RJ-14 plates on a common supporting wall is a 25-pair cable drop. Bascially all the "-04" units can tap each other. And it would be true for any vertical-row of units. Simply dropping cables down walls like that I suspect is the, er, "efficient" way of doing the job... Then of course out on the lawn beside my building is the Bell green-box (about four or five feet wide, three or so feet tall, ten or so inches thick, on a cement pad) with the millions of connections for the three highrises , one lowrise, and one strip-mall (with bank :-) in the immediate vicinity. The padlock on it is a joke. Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1] watmath!kgdykes [Moderator's Note: This is another example of how a cable run with many pairs is multipled. There is some absolute number of pairs available from the phone exchange to the apartment complex. The cable terminates in the outside box mentioned, and from there the wires can be swapped back and forth. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #163 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08911; 28 Feb 91 1:27 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14962; 27 Feb 91 23:30 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28891; 27 Feb 91 22:25 CST Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 21:45:53 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #164 BCC: Message-ID: <9102272145.ab09258@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Feb 91 21:45:38 CST Volume 11 : Issue 164 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Correction: Genie 800 Number For Troops [TELECOM Moderator] When Area Code Splits Become Final [Steve Kass] Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count) [Yoram Eisenstadter] International 800 Numbers? (was Re: Evolving Phone Number) [Hans Mulder] Another Report on Telecom*USA Service [Mark Steiger] Equal Access / 800 NXX Assignments [Jack Dominey] GTE and Pac Tel Cellular in Los Angeles [Javier Henderson] Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [Robert Swenson] Cellular Carriers and Prefixes [Ole J. Jacobsen] Waco (Texas) Calling Instructions [Carl G. Moore Jr.] Re: 911 Demonstration Program Wanted [Tad Cook] Re: How to Hook up a Phone For a Play [Ken Abrams] Caller*ID - How Much? [Joubert Berger] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 20:52:59 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Correction: Genie 800 Number For Troops The other day we ran several messages in the Digest discussing methods of sending email to the troops in Saudi Arabia. The message pertaining to the free service offered by Genie had an error: The toll free number to send a message via Genie is 800-638-8712. Sorry. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 10:06 EDT From: SKASS@drew.bitnet Subject: When Area Code Splits Become Final There have been several discussions of the complaints that are received when area code splits become mandatory. How hard would it be for the following to be announced, say, when I dial 1-221-xxxx instead of 1-908-221-xxxx? "As of June 8, 1991, it will be necessary to include the area code 908 to place a call to the number you have dialled. You can already use the new area code, and will avoid this message by doing so. Your call will now be connected." I have a vague memory of something like this happening during the 212/718 split. Steve Kass/ Dept. of Math & CS/ Drew U/ Madison NJ 07940 (201)-408-3614 or 201.408.3614 or 201-408-3614/ skass@drew.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 13:03:04 EST From: Yoram Eisenstadter Subject: Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count) Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science In article scott@huntsai.boeing.com writes: > arnold%audiofax.com@mathcs.emory.edu (Arnold Robbins) writes: >> The Atlanta LATA is apparently the largest free calling area in >> the world... > This is true. To give an example, when I lived in Atlanta I was able > to make local calls to places that were a good hour's drive away. The > local calling area spans several counties. Similarly, New York City's local calling area spans five counties (each borough of NYC is a separate county), and one would have to drive for an hour (on highways, in optimal traffic) to get from where I live in eastern Queens to the southern parts of Staten Island. The NYC local calling area also spans two area codes (212 and 718), and will soon span three area codes (a separate one, 917, for pagers, cell phones, data lines, etc. is coming in 1992). NYC wasn't always a single local calling area; I remember several years ago there were parts of Queens that were local to Manhattan (25 cents from a payphone) and some that were not (40 cents from a payphone). I think that the PUC mandated uniform local calling rates throughout NYC when the 212/718 split occured. Note that geographically, NYC is only a small part of the LATA that also encompasses Nassau and Suffolk counties (area code 516), Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties (914), and the part of Connecticut (203) that is served by NY Telephone. Y ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 19:50:30 +0100 From: Hans Mulder Subject: International 800 Numbers? (was Re: Evolving Phone Number) In article david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) writes: > We can call special six digit international 800 numbers. Are you sure international 800 numbers exist today? If so, why do televised ads aiming at an international audience contain those screens full of national 800 numbers, when a single international 800 number would do the job? (I was about to say ``Look at any of those Euro-XXX channels'', but I guess David can't receive those in Australia.) It was my impresssion that the idea of international 800 number had occurred to the PTTs only recently and that it was still years away. > Is it just coincidence that most countries auto-reverse charge numbers start > with either 800/008 or is there an international standard? For what it's worth, auto-reverse charge numbers in the Netherlands start with 06-0 or 06-4. Have a nice day, Hans Mulder hansm@cs.kun.nl [Moderator's Note: Some 800 numbers are international, but relatively few in comparison to the total. The European versions of 'USA Direct' operating in this country (allowing residents of other countries visiting here to 'call home' and speak with an operator in their home country in their native language, just like USA Direct in reverse) all have 800 numbers assigned to them. And, there are a few others. PAT] ------------------------------ From: penguin@pro-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) Subject: Another Report on Telecom*USA Service Date: 26 Feb 91 06:36:02 GMT It's been awhile since I saw any mention of Telecom*USA sooo.... I just started their calling card service. I got it and it has features like conference calling, speed dialing, message storage and forwarding, and even 800 number voice mail boxes. The other day, their speed dialing programs weren't running properly. I called, and the operator said their technicians were working on it. She said she'd call me back when it was fixed. Yea sure I thought. About one hour later, I recieved a call from Telecom*USA. It was even the operator I was talking to earlier. One other nice thing, happened when I called a number that wasn't in service. An operator came on the line (A real live one, a rarity on ATT) and said it was out of service. She then got the new number for me from Directory Assistance, and dialed it for me. That's service! Mark (I have no affiliation with Telecom*USA. Just a satisfied customer) [ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo BBS 218-262-3142 300-19.2K Baud (HST/Dual)] Internet: Penguin@pro-igloo.cts.com MCI Mail: MSteiger UUCP: ...crash!pro-igloo!penguin ATT Mail: MSteiger ProLine: Penguin@pro-igloo America Online: Goalie5 TELEX: 51623155 MSTEIGER [Moderator's Note: Yes, it is good service. Combine that with the other options available on the Telecom*USA card such as the Voice News Network, store and forward, and 800 voicemail, and you have a very good deal. I've never yet encountered a rude operator at Telecom*USA. I hope the MCI merger does not mess things up too much. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Tue Feb 26 14:32:39 EST 1991 Subject: Equal Access / 800 NXX Assignments In issue #159 our Moderator made a small slip: >> If AT&T did install an 800 number I can guarentee you the same people who >> now block 10xxx would figure out a way to block 800-ATT-#### or else >> tack a tidy surcharge on for themselves. PAT] For reasons best known to Bellcore, I suppose, the 288 NXX for 800 service was assigned to MCI! Presumably the same reasoning assigned 624 to AT&T. I have to wonder, though, how MCI got custody of 333, 444, 666, 777, 888, and 999. Anyone have the inside story on how these numbers are doled out? And on a related topic, what's the current status of efforts to make 800 numbers 'portable' from one interexchange carrier to another? Jack Dominey AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA voice: 404-496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey [Moderator's Note: AT&T had 800-624 a long time before MCI got 800-288. Bellcore hands out *what is left* of the unused 800 prefixes. Remember, AT&T had that service for many years before MCI came on the scene, and as a result, a very large (lion's share, really) arbitrary selection of codes assigned by themselves. Following the breakup, AT&T kept the ones they had and took more as well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Javier Henderson - TMS Group Subject: GTE and Pac Tel Cellular in Los Angeles Date: 26 Feb 91 13:03:31 PST Organization: Avnet Computer - CTC Group; Culver City, CA Here's an interesting bit of trivia for Pac Tel users in Los Angeles. I have Pac Tel for my cellular carrier, and GTE (in the 714 area code) at home. Since my cellular number is in the 213 area code, when my wife calls me, we have to pay toll charges (plus airtime of course). I called Pac Tel yesterday to find out if I changed my cellular number to the 714 area code, would there be any toll charges. The service representative said that only Pacific Bell customers get toll free service to Pac Tel Cellular customers, but that they do reimburse GTE customers for calls placed from their homes to their cellular phones, as a courtesy. In fact, she even guessed the reason for my asking and suggested the above instead of changing the number, which has a $15.00 fee. To get the refund (which is done via a credit to my cellular service account) I just have to mail them a copy of the phone bill to a special address, with the calls that I claim credit for highlighted (and the rest crossed out, she said, if I don't want anyone to see who I call and when). She also said that GTE would eliminate tolls to cellular phones within the year (she didn't say whether that would apply for both Pac Tel and LA Cellular customers). Is this a common practice across the nation? And for that matter, is this known to anyone else at all? Javier Henderson Engineering Services Avnet Computer Los Angeles, CA henderson@hamavnet.com {simpact,asylum,elroy,dhw68k}!hamavnet!henderson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 1991 13:30:19 PST From: Robert_Swenson.OSBU_North@xerox.com Subject: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing > I once heard a rumor that 408 was the last area code in the NANP > that allowed ten digit (real ten digit, not 1 + ten) dialing. This is sometimes confusing. I work in AC 408 where the 1 before the AC is NOT PERMITTED (this is in Santa Clara county), and I live in 415 (in Alameda county), where it IS required. Sometimes it takes a few tries before I realize I am using the wrong dialing pattern for where I am. Bob Swenson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 16:39:10 PST From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Cellular Carriers and Prefixes Folks, For the second time in not too long I have had to call *611 and tell the cellular carrier to update their switch. We just added DID trunks to our business with prefix 917 and not surprisingly I was unable to call this the first day from my cellular phone. The service reps told me that they do get updates (generics?) from time to time, but added: "we rely on our customers to inform us about changes too. Isn't that just lovely! For fun, I checked the other carrier and just as I expected, they were also unable to place calls to that prefix. I left it to a friend who uses that carrier to call *611 and get things fixed over on the other side. By the way, the new switch, a System 25, which was an "upgrade" from a Merlin II has many, many problems. Suggesting that this is a natural migration in the AT&T family of products is an outright lie. The two systems share few features, and behave differently in most respects. Migration is a real nightmare! 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 Direct:(415) 917-2215 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 21:31:07 -0500 From: Carl G Moore Jr <00860@brahms.udel.edu> Subject: Waco (Texas) Calling Instructions Reply-to: Carl Moore I got to a library to get the Waco calling instructions on microfiche. I looked up Waco because it is in 817 and beyond the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Voila, the July 1990-91 call guide has, for intra-lata calling, 0 or 1 followed by area code IF REQUIRED. Plus, I am seeing 1+7D for some toll-free service numbers. 214 area already had N0X/N1X by then, because the call guide announced the coming of area code 903 in November 1990. ------------------------------ From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: 911 Demonstration Program Wanted Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 19:41:43 PST Proctor & Associates makes a special version of the 49200 Telephone Demonstrator that simulates 9-1-1 trunks. Two of the lines are originating telephones, in two different simulated C.O.s, and the other two lines are incoming 9-1-1 trunks tied to the simulated C.O.s. The two POTS lines can call each other, or dial 9-1-1. The calls ring into the 9-1-1 jacks, and can be answered with plain old telephones, or a 9-1-1 console. Going off hook on an idle 9-1-1 trunk produces a 120 BT, just like a real 9-1-1 trunk. This is just like the 49200 Telephone Demonstrator, which simulates four telephone lines, but it has special software for simulating two B911 trunks. It does not forward any ANI, but it can be used with a special version of the Proctor Call Logger to simulate ANI. They are at: Proctor & Associates 15050 NE 36th St. Redmond, WA 98052 206-881-7000 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: Re: How to Hook up a Phone For a Play Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 15:30:39 CST From: Ken Abrams In article floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: > In reference to using 117 VAC 60 Hz to ring a phone: > One more time: 100 VAC 20 Hz is JUST as dangerous, if not more so, > that 117 VAC 60 Hz. Using house current to ring the phone is no more, > and no less, dangerous, than ANY other reasonable way you can make the > ringer work. The REAL issue is not the voltage applied but the ability of the source to provide current limiting. 10,000 volts at .00000001 ma is not dangerous (static electricity). 100V, 20HZ and 117V, 60 HZ are both deadly if they are not current limited. The wall socket that provides the 117V certainly is NOT current limited (to any practical degree) without a device in series to accomplish that. A suitable current limiting device would make 117V, 60 HZ suitable for use to ring the phone with little danger. The 88-100V, 20 HZ normally used to ring a phone on the network is current limited at the source AND by virtue of the loop resistance between the CO and the phone (typically 200 to 500 ohms or greater). Standard telco ring voltage will give you a nasty surprise but is not (usually) dangerous because it IS current limited. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: Joubert Berger Subject: Caller*ID - How Much? Date: 25 Feb 91 15:33:15 GMT Organization: Advance Financial Corporation / Teldate Computer Industries, Inc. I was woundering how much Caller*ID would cost? Joubert Berger joubert@afc-tci.uucp Teldata Computer Industries, Inc. {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!afc-tci!joubert Atlanta, Georgia (404) 256-2166 |{emory,gatech}!holos0!afc-tci!joubert [Moderator's Note: $6.50 per month seems typical. Of course you have to buy your own decoder box as a one-time purchase. The prices seem to range from $60 - 100 for those, depending on features and quality. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #164 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10038; 28 Feb 91 2:27 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03535; 28 Feb 91 0:35 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14962; 27 Feb 91 23:30 CST Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 22:36:39 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #165 BCC: Message-ID: <9102272236.ab11618@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Feb 91 22:36:37 CST Volume 11 : Issue 165 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson What Does A Comm Center Need? [Bruce Carlson, sci.military via B. Vaughan] AT&T vs. The World (aka John Higdon) [David Ptasnik] Giving Through Calling [AT&T News Briefs via John Higdon] Automatic DA Call Completion [Telephone Engineer & Manager via Ron Hood] Slamming Prevention at SNET [SNET News via Douglas Scott Reuben] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 03:56:51 PST From: "Bob Vaughan techie@btr.com" Subject: What Does A Comm Center Need? I think this may be of interest to Telecom readers. This is part of a thread which appeared in the sci.military newsgroup and was written by the people named in each part. References are given to Message-ID numbers if you wish to locate and review the entire thread. The item by Bruce Carlson is to be especially noted. Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: What does a Comm center need? Date: 27 Feb 91 02:22:25 GMT References: <1991Feb18.054110.11303@cbnews.att.com>, <1991Feb22.232157.4167@cbnews.att.com>, <1991Feb26.012058.5985@cbnews.att.com> >From: carlson@gateway (Bruce Carlson) In article <1991Feb26.012058.5985@cbnews.att.com> bcstec!shuksan! major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) writes: >> From: efrethei@afit.af.mil (News System Account) >> MEDELMA@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU (Michael Edelman) writes: >> >This brings up the question of what is needed for a command and control >> >center. > The 'normal' brigade CP consists of about 4 M577 command tracks. > one each for intelligence, operations, fire support and engineer. > Each track carries a 'field desk' full of all the necessary SOPs, > and forms - radio instructions etc - all kinds of radios and spares, > antennas up the ying-yang - canvas, light sets, coffe pots, heaters, > cable, wire, and a generator to power it all. Inside this "Main CP" > also sit the Air Force ALO (Air Liaison Officer) talking to the fighter > pilots and/or forward air controller, the supporting combat aviation > company's liaison (called a 'battle captain') and numerous lieutenants > from subordinate/attached units acting as LNOs (liaison officers) > anxiously awaiting to courier orders/instructions to their own units. > mike schmitt One other item the Brigade CP has is several touch-tone telephones, which gives them direct dial access throughout the division area and may give them connectivity to Corps or higher. The telephones are connected to automatic switchboards that are primitive by AT&T standards, but still work very well. The boards can have up to 90 lines (although at Brigade I think they only use a 30 or 60 line configuration). Local numbers are three digits and "long-distance" to division or to other brigades is 9xx-xxx. Division Signal publishes phonebooks and it is fairly easy to locate and call anyone else in the Division. The telephone traffic trunk lines are multiplexed with other circuits and tranmitted through a grid of interconnected multichannel VHF radio systems. All VHF circuits are bulk-encrypted and classified traffic can be discussed over the telephone. Brigades also usually have a facsimile system, which is used to send intelligence summaries, diagrams, or anything else you might think of. Each brigade also has a comm center that provide over-the-counter service for transmission by facsimile or radio-teletype and for delivery by courier. Infantry battalion CPs are supposed to have a line into the brigade automatic switchboard, but very few units run the line unless they know they are going to stay in place for a while. Battalions use single-channel VHF FM radios with encryption devices for most of their commo to Brigade and to their companies. Battalions may run wire to the companies in the defense, but in the offense it is usually too time consuming. The fire support officer at battalion is an artillery officer assigned to a unit in DIVARTY and tasked as direct support to a specific battalion. He talks up to DIVARTY and down to his FIST team chiefs that are with each company in the battalion. The FSO uses a different set of radio nets than the infantry/armor staff in the CP. Bruce Carlson carlson@gateway.mitre.org ----------- Bob Vaughan - techie@well.sf.ca.us {apple,pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!techie 1-415-856-8025 - techie@btr.com {fernwood,decwrl,mips,sgi}!btr!techie ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: AT&T vs. The World (aka John Higdon) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 9:07:53 PDT While I have occasionally disagreed with John over a variety of issues, I find myself largely in agreement with his criticisms of AT&T Phone Systems. At this time I am a Telecommunications Analyst for the University of Washington. This is MY PERSONAL OPINION, not the University's. UW has over 300 Merlin systems installed behind Centrex from a US West 5ESS Central Office. I am one of several people who analyze the needs of different departments, order Merlin equipment, order installation, program the equipment, and train the users. I have worked extensively with the Merlin 3070 FM 3, FM 4, and FM 5, as well as the Merlin II FM 1, FM 2, and Rel 3. Before I came to the University, I was an outside sales rep for a non-utility phone system vendor. I have sold Iwatsu Omega IV and ZTD, Trillium Talk-To and Panther, various TIE systems, Panasonic VA's and KXT's, and Tadiran PBX's. With that said, I must admit that I am not fond of the Merlin systems. The University receives outstanding support from AT&T. The Merlin gets quite large for a Key System. My gripe is with the features. It is a rather old fashioned and kludgy system. It does not have Call Forward Don't Answer or Call Forward Busy for stations. This means that it does not work well with Voice Mail or a centralized message center. This includes the most recent Merlin II Release 3 software. The Iwatsu systems I was selling five years ago had these basic features. When you use the Merlin Remote Call Pickup feature, the dial pad goes dead. If you have just picked up a call that requires additional dialing, you must transfer the call to another phone first. There is a feature called Call Coverage that allows one phone to answer for another on a delayed ring basis, while this sounds like Call Forward Don't Answer, its not. Once again, the dial pad goes dead as soon as you get the call. Further, one station is only allowed to cover six others. An attendant responsible for covering seven phones is in trouble. Only the most recent software allowed paging to every phone on the system. Previous versions allowed a maximum of 15 phones to be paged simultaneously. Even the most current version will not allow you to exclude a few telephones, you are limited to fifteen phones or ALL the phones. There is lots more, but you get the point. When I was selling the Iwatsu Omegas I was always pleased with the additional things I could make it do. With the Merlin, I keep running into walls. AT&T offers many things, technological sophistication on Key Systems is not among the offerings. In most ways, I think UW chose the most appropriate system for the needs of our users. Migration from 1A2 to electronic key was very easy for most users, with system's like the Iwatsu, it's sophistication make it TOO different from what our staff was used to. For technical reasons, we had to get Key System's, not PBX's, and we needed BIG key systems. When I bought a phone system for our house, I bought a Panasonic KX-T 616. I just LOVE it. Now how can I talk the Mrs. into letting me upgrade to the new Panasonic digital DBS, hmmmmmmm.... davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 12:12 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Giving through Calling AT&T NEWS BRIEFS [All items are today's date unless otherwise noted] Wednesday, February 27, 1991 "MCI is offering to contribute a portion of its customers' bills to four conservation groups in an attempt to attract more residential long-distance customers. At the customer's option, MCI will contribute five percent of customer's monthly bills to Ducks Unlimited, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation or Nature Conservancy. ... {St. Louis Post Dispatch}, 10B." --------------------- This is not a first. Last year, a reseller of Sprint sent out a major mailing claiming that a portion of the proceeds would go to conservation groups. This is an interesting ploy and one our various local, state, and Federal governments use to excess. While using taxation to effect social change is old hat, linking unrelated private transactions is relatively new. I say "unrelated" because no stretch of the imagination can connect telephone usage with conservation. My own preferance would be to get my telephone service five percent cheaper and then donate directly to causes of my choosing. I am not convinced that the services provided by long distance companies are equivalent to the point that a gimmick as described above should be a deciding factor. If only MCI would concentrate on its primary product... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 14:12:40 MST From: Ron Hood Subject: Automatic DA Call Completion I just finished reading what I though was a fairly interesting article titled "Call Completion: An Easy Sell for Cellular" in the February 15, 1991 edition of {Telephone Engineer & Manager}. Here's a quick summary: Automated Directory Assistance Call Completion (ADACC) is a new service that could potentially be offered by telephone companies whereby a caller to Directory Assistance could have their call placed automatically by the DA operator. This differs from today's environment, where the number is read back to the DA caller (or sent via a voice announcement) who must then dial the number to place the call. There would most likely be a fee associated with the automatic call completion. The article didn't state what equipment would be used to offer the service, but given that the article was written by a Computer Consoles Inc. employee I would suspect that it is based on their hardware and software. The service would be available to all subscribers, however, it is envisioned that it would be of particular interest to cellular users for the following reasons: 1) Most cellular users don't carry phone books with them and are therefor frequent users of DA, 2) It is often inconvenient for a cellular user to write down a number, and 3) Dialing a phone in a moving vehicle can be difficult. The article claimed that seven to ten percent of DA callers are likely to accept ADACC offers, and that the acceptance rate among cellular users could be up to ten times higher than the average. Unfortunately, there are several obstacles to providing ADACC, particularly to cellular users. These include: 1) The system must compare the calling number and the called number looked up up by DA to determine of they are both in the same LATA. If the numbers are in different LATAs then ADACC cannot be offered as this would be considered an interexchange service under terms of the Modified Final Judgement (MFJ). This means that you could not use ADACC to call a number in a different LATA. 2) In order to support billing for ADACC the system must receive Automatic Number Identification (ANI), and apparently many cellular systems do not provide this. The Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO) often looks like a large PBX to the network, and instead of providing the number of the calling cellular phone, provides the the access line designation for the particular trunk being used. Since this is not associated with the specific caller it is useless for billing purposes. 3) Calls that would have been considered "local" had they been placed directly by the cellular caller through the cellular network may result in toll charges if placed by ADACC. This is apparently due to the different manner in which the calls would be set up. 4) Cellular roamers are even more likely to call DA, and would also present additional billing difficulties. As a possible solution to the billing problems it was proposed that the cellular provider could bundle DA and ADACC calls into a single price, regardless of whether ADACC was actually used. The article concludes by saying that ADACC is a winner for everyone involved. The cellular subscribers get a convenient new service, the cellular operator gets additional air time from its subscribers, and the operator service provider gets some additional revenues. Although it went unstated, I would expect that Computer Consoles Inc. would also get to sell some more computers and software. As a disclaimer I should point out that the article was written by a company hoping to sell its equipment to other telephone companies, and that because of this it does not necessarily represent the opinions or intentions of an operating telephone company, an operator services provider, a cellular operator, or a cellular user. Ronald C. Hood U S WEST Advanced Technologies hood@uswest.com Englewood, Colorado {boulder,sunpeaks,amdahl}!uswat!hood ------------------------------ Date: 27-FEB-1991 16:48:19.83 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Slamming Prevention at SNET Just got my bill today from SNET. Some rather interesting stuff in the Newsbriefs ("SNET News") insert: Slamming: "A word to the wise...don't get SLAMMED, watch your phone bill." In carrying out the fight for their share of customers, sales people for some inter-state carriers may switch you from your long distance carrier without your approval. Here's how it can work. A salesperson calls and asks if you'd like to save money on your long distance bill and if you'd switch away from your present carrier. Unless you are absolutely clear in your responses -- for example -- "I'm pleased with my present carrier and I do not want you to initiate any changes,", the salesperson may notify SNET, indicating that you have approved a switch. If that happens, you've just been SLAMMED and SNET switches you away from your carrier of choice. In that process, SNET puts a one-time charge on your bill under "Other Charges and Credits" to cover the cost of making that change. SNET urges you to be as explicit as possible if you get one of these calls and to carefully watch your monthly bill. Notify us immediately if you believe that you've been SLAMMED. (There've been instances of SLAMMING without a sales call.) We'll remove the charge and return you to your former carrier. And, if you wish, we'll put a "freeze" on your line so only YOU can tell us to switch carriers for you. -------------------- Also stuff about blocking of 900 numbers, and how "adult" messages must be scrambled (hmmm???), use pre-payment by credit card, or have some sort of access code, or else they are in violation of FCC rules. (Never heard of this before ... something new?) Finally, a small piece about "collect" calls to help out troops in the Gulf, and how these are usually scams and how to get them taken off your bill. Seems like SNET is actually trying to keep up with new developements in the Telecommunications industry ... a few years ago you could ask them about Equal Access and they would have NO idea what you were talking about! I asked that a freeze be put on my lines, in two different towns in CT, and it was no problem for them. The whole call to the service center took less than two minutes, and the sales rep. was polite and knew exactly what I was requesting. Very efficient... Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #165 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11266; 28 Feb 91 3:18 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13630; 28 Feb 91 1:41 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03535; 28 Feb 91 0:35 CST Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 23:41:10 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #166 BCC: Message-ID: <9102272341.ab06606@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Feb 91 23:41:05 CST Volume 11 : Issue 166 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [David E. A. Wilson] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Rob Schultz] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Gordon Burditt] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Kath Mullholand] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Steven S. Brack] An Unusual Way to Write Your Phone Number [scott@blueeyes.kines.uiuc.edu] Re: Call Waiting and Prodigy [Ed Greenberg] Re: Call Waiting and Prodigy [Toby Nixon] Re: 1+206 Dialing Coming to Washington [Carl Moore] Re: Armstrong and Ma Bell [haynes@cats.ucsc.edu] Re: NXX Count (1-15-91) [John Higdon] Re: Caller ID Status Report [Robert Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 01:03:05 GMT goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: > Perhaps a better way to think about area codes is to mentally leave > off the national access prefix. I.e., it's much simpler to say "the > area code for Canberra is 2" than to say "the area code for Canberra Sydney Sydney > is 02 in Australia and 2 outside of it. The zero becomes the > "interarea access prefix", in the same way that international calls > require an international access prefix. I agree -- but this is not the way the system is described to the general public. The Telecom Australia PSTN (and ISDN) Numbering Plan divides telephone numbers into the following parts: Trunk Prefix Code | National Destination Code | Local Code 0 | 1 to 3 digits | up to 7 digits STD Area Code | | National Significant Number National Number Nowhere in common usage is the Trunk Prefix Code considered to be a separate entity. All telephone directories, advertising etc refer to the STD area code (which includes the 0). For example, the overseas calling page of my telephone directory states: Calling Australia from overseas: When direct dialling Australia from overseas, call a. Appropriate International Access Code b. The Australian Country Code; 61 c. The Area Code without the first zero d. The Telephone number David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ From: Rob Schultz Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Date: 27 Feb 91 14:49:02 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In jwb@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen) writes: > Worse than that, David. CSIRO ran some job advertisements in the > international press last year (New Scientist, etc.) quoting their > (Sydney) numbers as (612) xxx yyyy, instead of +61 2 xxx yyyy. I guess > a lot of people in the (US? Canada?) 61x area codes are getting used > to receiving calls intended for Australia. The 612 area code covers central Minnesota, including Minneapolis. That area happens to have a fair amount of large business, and therefore a fairly sizable population. My guess (and everyone here will correct me if I'm wrong :-) is that there is a better than 50% chance that the number given in these adverts is in use somewhere in Minnesota. Given the assumption that relatively few people are truly informed about international calling, I would say the odds are pretty good that someone in that area did receive quite a few calls. "Hello" "Hi, Is this Sydney Australia?" "No, this is Podunk Minnesota." "Really? But the number I have is . . ." "Well, sorry about that, I am in Minnesota" "You must be mistaken, I dialed Australia" "Well, you know I have always wanted to visit there, perhaps you can convince the phone company to move me . . ." Well, the scenario *could* be different . . . Rob Schultz +1 708 632 2267 Motorola General Systems Sector schultz@motcid.rtsg.mot.com 1501 West Shure Drive Rm 3118 ...!uunet!motcid!schultz Arlington Heights, IL 60004 All appropriate disclaimers apply. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 01:44 CST From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Organization: Gordon Burditt > I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis > around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire > number, i.e. (311) 555-2368? Because dialing the area code is often prohibited or optional? > with dashes and no parenthesis -- or dots if you prefer -- in this > format: 311-555-2368, or 311.555.2368. What authority establishes that as the correct way (especially with periods -- I haven't seen that in use at all)? Southwestern Bell phone books would write it as 1 + 311 + 555-2368 . The international version is +1 311 555 2368 . A quick glance at newspaper ads reveals that the convention is that even when area codes 800 and 214 both appear in the same ad, 800 is surrounded by dashes and 214 is surrounded by parenthesis. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 1991 13:22:24 EST From: KATH MULLHOLAND Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number In entry 11.158.1, it's suggested that we look at: > Actually, Pat, you should look at CCITT Recommendation E.123, which > specifically addresses the issue of how telephone numbers should > appear in printed material. What is CCITT? Kath Mullholand UNH Durham, NH. ------------------------------ From: "Steven S. Brack" Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Organization: The Ohio State University Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 23:11:55 GMT In article rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: => UTA French Airlines Chicago Il => An Arb Tele Only No Charge => Dial Operator And Ask For ------ Enterprise-8844 => => Glad to see this venerable old institution still survives. I thought I knew most of the terms associated with telephony, but I have never heard of "Enterprise-NNNN." What is it? Steven S. Brack sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu sbrack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu (Avoid sending here, if possible) [Moderator's Note: "Enterprise", aka "Zenith" was the predecessor to 800 service. Prior to being able to automatically dial a reverse charge (collect) call to persons automatically willing to recieve same, it was necessary to use the operator for this function. Unlike a regular collect call where the operator had to verbally obtain permission from the called party to charge the call to their line, the use of "Enterprise - xxxx" (in some places it was "Zenith - xxxx") was a code number telling the operator the charges were automatically accepted. A business (there were no personal users of Enterprise service) would obtain an Enterprise number from the national database of same, which as I recall was/is kept by the Rate and Route Bureau in Morris, IL (itself a function of AT&T). Maybe Bellcore keeps these records now, I don't know. The specifications of exactly which calls would be accepted were printed in telephone directories with the listing of the business and associated Enterprise number. The example given here was 'from the Ann Arbor Exchange'. To call an Enterprise number, you would dial your Long Distance Operator and ask for the number. The most common and frequently called Enterprise numbers were noted by the operators in a flip chart reference list at their disposal. Less common Enterprise numbers were available to the operator by calling Rate and Route and asking for the translation. The translation was merely the regular number for the business, however by virtue of you asking for the Enterprise number, the operator would put the call through and automatically bill it as a collect call to the called party. With the advent of 800 service -- when? circa 1965? -- (and it likewise can be restricted by locality or geographic region as to who can and cannot call) Enterprise numbers became obsolete. I do not think they are even available any longer, and are probably grandfathered to existing customers who wish to keep them for whatever reason, never to get them again if they ever give them up. I think the Bell companies called it "Enterprise" and GTE and many independent telcos preferred "Zenith". But the database was the same. PAT] ------------------------------ From: scott Subject: An Unusual Way to Write Your Phone Number Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Wed, 27 Feb 1991 16:03:14 GMT The recent discussion of how to write your phone number brings to mind something I've been meaning to ask for a while now. Several years ago, I read a message on a BBS from a person who wrote his phone number as some incredibly long string of digits (i.e. much MUCH longer than the normal ten digit telephone number). Although I didn't actually test it out at the time, he claimed that by dialing this incredibly long string of digits you would, in fact, reach his phone. He found it amusing to give this long version out to people who asked him for his phone number. The cobwebs of time (or perhaps those of my mind ;-) have obscured the details of the algorithm used and how/why it worked. Can anyone provide some additional details on how to accomplish this? Much obliged. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 09:40 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Call Waiting and Prodigy If I had reliable info that this was happening, I'd check to see exactly what Prodigy was dialing. Perhaps the Prodigious folks programmed their black-box software to dial *70 before the number, just in case? edg ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Call Waiting and Prodigy Date: 27 Feb 91 17:38:54 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , abc@adm.brl.mil (Brinton Cooper) writes: > My niece has a PS-1 which runs and connects her to Prodigy (I think). > Anyhow, they have call waiting at their house; as you know, this > feature of the phone often disconnects dial-up modems. In fact, with > their C-64 and TRS-80 machines, they experienced this when calling > BBS lines. > However, she tells me that when she's connected to Prodigy, the call > waiting seems not to work. If someone calls during a Prodigy session, > the caller gets a busy signal. > Does someone have an explanation? I believe the Prodigy Startup software asks you whether or not you have Call Waiting. If you do, it automatically prepends "*70," to the phone number when it dials, to disable call waiting. Have them add "*70," to the beginning of phone numbers they use to call BBSes, and they shouldn't get interrupted by Call Waiting any more. There IS another explanation, by the way. The Hayes Personal Modem 2400 that is sold with the Prodigy Startup Kit has a special "Call Waiting" feature. Not only is the modem tolerant of the call waiting interruption, but it also has the ability to inform the software with a special message that a call is coming in. The software can then put a message up on the screen for the user which could say something like "You have another call coming in. Do you want to log off Prodigy and take the call now, or ignore it?" However, even though this feature was added at Prodigy's request (that modem was built by Hayes to Prodigy's detailed specifications), I don't believe the feature has ever actually been supported in Prodigy's software. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 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: Wed, 27 Feb 91 10:42:31 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 1+206 Dialing Coming to Washington 206 is running out of NNX, not NXX. If it were running out of NXX, you would be looking at a split now, not the implementation of N0X/N1X. (Sorry I didn't spot this until I saw Tad Cook's response.) ------------------------------ From: 99700000 Subject: Re: Armstrong and Ma Bell Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 08:44:58 PST Bits and pieces - maybe somebody will come through with the authoritative story. I remember the suicide, but thought the patent suit was with RCA, not AT&T. I remember reading that the courts awarded his estate a million bucks from RCA when the case was finally settled. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 20:35 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: NXX Count (1-15-91) steve@wattres.uucp (Steve Watt) writes: > On a somewhat related note, I'm curious ... how many area codes are > there out there (like PacBell territory in 408) that don't require a > 1+ for *any* call, local, long-distance, or otherwise? Only part of the 408 area code (San Jose metro area) does not require a '1' for long distance. Within the last few years, '1' has been made permissive; that is you may dial it if you like and you will not mess up your call. The area south of the Santa Cruz mountains starting with Los Gatos on Hwy 17 and Morgan Hill on Hwy 101 MUST use a '1' for long distance. Also, the entire Monterey LATA (which is 408) must use the '1'. > I once heard a rumor that 408 was the last area code in the NANP > that allowed 10 digit (real 10 digit, not 1+ten.) dialing ... is > PacBell that slow? Is it PacBell that's slow? As much as it pains me to say it, the reason that a '1' has never been required is because this area was one of the early DDD-capable locations. In the original manifestations of DDD, a '1' was not specified. The switch (usually a #5 crossbar in that day) would recognize the second digit being a '1' or '0' and process the call accordingly. This was easy for a common control switch. When the Bell System wished to expand DDD into older offices and to the independents who had SXS equipment, some method had to be employed to "tell" the switch up front that this was to be a long distance call. In those offices when you dialed the '1', you were simply connected to a toll office or another CO which could accept the ten digit number. In most of the sixties there were many areas that required the '1' while others (mainly metro areas) did not. As "informal prefixes" became necessary, the '1' was introduced to those areas that had heretofore not required it. Back to 408. The office that serves my home (#5 crossbar) has had the "pure" form of DDD since 1956. In that time, there has not been sufficient consumption of prefixes to require the '1'. About four years ago, when the CONTAC adjunct was installed, the '1' became permissive -- but not required. As I was growing up, long distance never required a '1' except in the neighboring independently served communities. (Los Gatos -- Western California Telephone Company -- required a '112'.) When I move back to North Carolina for a brief time I found that the '1' requirement was ubiquitous. As the prefixes in 408 run out, the San Jose area will join everyone else in the dialing of '1' before each long distance call. 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: Caller ID Status Report Date: 27 Feb 91 23:01:52 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle The chart that was cited neglected California, one-seventh of the national telecommunications market. In California, blocking of Caller ID is mandated by law, whenever the trials actually begin. Bob Jacobson [Moderator's Note: Thanks for pointing this out. I wonder if the lack of California details in the chart was an oversight by the original author or somehow a typo error by the person sending it here? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #166 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12407; 28 Feb 91 4:25 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30381; 28 Feb 91 2:46 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad13630; 28 Feb 91 1:41 CST Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 1:10:33 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #167 BCC: Message-ID: <9102280110.ab11457@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Feb 91 01:10:23 CST Volume 11 : Issue 167 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Phone Dinging Around 2 AM [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Phone Dinging Around 2 AM [Ken Abrams] Re: AT&T, MCI, US.Sprint Rate Comparison [John Higdon] Re: Telephone Surcharges for Deaf, Poor Anger IBT Customers [Tad Cook] Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart [Guy Hillyer] Re: Information Wanted on X.25 [Toby Nixon] Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? [Joe Talbot] Re: MCI ... March 18 and More [Steven S. Brack] Re: Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History [Glen Herrmannsfeldt] Call*Block and Changing Subscribers [Steve Forrette] Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: Phone Dinging Around 2 AM Date: 27 Feb 91 01:58:11 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , think!barmar@bloom-beacon. mit.edu (Barry Margolin) writes: > On most nights, somewhere between 2 and 3 AM, my phone will > spontaneously emit two tiny rings (it has a real bell, not a tone > generator, and goes ding -- ding). I get it also in Arlington MA. Not long enough to latch the 1A2's line card for its six or so second normal memory of having seen ringing, but enough to ding the bells. FWIW, my line cards are so HI-Z the test board gets confused thinking there is an open line. They simply can't 'see' the cards. I had simply assumed adding a normal phone to the line would stop whatever automatic line testing is happening from ringing my bells because its load would shunt whatever is goosing my KTUs. Your having it happen now makes me wonder if my assumption is wrong. The traditional ringer IS sensitive to the polarity of pulses! Aside from adjusting the bias spring, the 'proper' cure for BELL-TAP (tinkeling as a rotary extension or other party dials or even just goes on/off hook) is to have the phone's two wires connected properly to TIP and RING. Early TT phones really cared, because the TT pad wouldn't work if wired backwards. Now all TT phones have the polarity-guard (diode bridge) built in so they are clutz proof. You might just try reversing the two line wires. There may be a bias spring that can be hooked to a stiffer notch that will help. ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Phone Dinging Around 2 AM Date: 27 Feb 91 19:43:24 GMT Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois In article think!barmar@bloom-beacon. mit.edu (Barry Margolin) writes: > On most nights, somewhere between 2 and 3 AM, my phone will > spontaneously emit two tiny rings (it has a real bell, not a tone > generator, and goes ding -- ding). > Does anyone have an idea what's causing this? Does NEw England Tel > send out some kind of test pulse that my phone (an AT&T Trimline 230) > is oversensitive to? Yes, in all probability, that is exactly what is happening. The test is called ALIT (Automatic Line Insulation Test). It makes two passes at the line. A slight adjustment on the bias spring in your phone ringer would probably eliminate the problem. If the problem is more exotic, the test can be programmed to skip individual lines. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 00:38 GMT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: AT&T, MCI, US Sprint Rate Comparison Bob Yazz writes: > I dumped Sprint in favor of AT&T after verifying that Sprint had > programmed their computer to reveal my billing info to anybody who > called them knowing my phone number. I almost dumped Sprint today after receiving an envelope marked "personal and confidential", which is code for "this is a dunning notice from a Colection Agency". It seems that Sprint's collection department was getting nervous about the bogus charges that appeared on my bill last week. (I had been billed for $125 worth of calls to Edgecliff, TX, from a number I have not had in years.) The amount named in the "Intent to Disconnect" letter was that very sum. After waiting the requisite cooling-off period on hold, I spoke to someone who claimed that my account was current. I demanded to know why I was being dunned for the bogus charges, so soon after I had received the bill at that. No explanation. My business nose tells me that Sprint must not have a surplus of cash if they are resorting to such nonsense to handle collectibles. I pay my bills right regularly and one of my major buttons is when companies feel the need to send one of those "threatening" notices. Especially when it is incorrect and the sender cannot even explain why it was sent. I told the person on the other end of the phone that the next time someone at Sprint feels it necessary to send me an "Intent to Disconnect", just cross out "Intent" and change it to "Order" and pass it along to the service department. I have dropped credit cards for such practices; I can certainly drop a crummy OCC. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Telephone Surcharges for Deaf, Poor Anger IBT Customers From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Date: 27 Feb 91 17:11:05 GMT In article , seals@uncecs.edu (Larry W. Seals) writes: (Stuff deleted) > There seems to be that same mentality at work here. Just because the > telephone is ubiquitous does not mean that the service it renders has > become a right available to anyone for asking. > Given the number of goods and services I pay for on which there are > these hidden subsidies for those who want the privilege without the > cost, how far are we down the road to a socialist society without even > knowing it? Larry seems to forget the concept of "universal service." That is why all kinds of cross-subsidies were set up in telephone service. The idea being that the telephone network is only really useful when the majority of the population is connected. "Hidden subsidies for those who want privilege without the cost" ?? Why should communications only be for those who can afford ISDN, Caller ID and modems? What's the matter with my poorer neighbors getting access to 9-1-1 ?? 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 [Moderator's Note: It is intereesting that you phrased your final paragraph in the way you did. On a call-in talk show today, the host was discussing this issue with a man who was calling in on his cellular handheld phone while riding in the back seat of a taxicab yet. The host posed a similar question: should communications be only for those of you who ride home to the suburbs in a cab every night talking on a cellular phone? Why can't poor people have a phone when they need to call the police or the doctor? And the caller's response, which has to be an all-time classic, taking nerve if I do say so myself: "Well, they probably could afford a basic single line phone if they would quit buying so many Illinois State Lottery tickets every month!" Jeesh! Not only does he not want to assist in paying for their 'basic phone'; he wants to steal their dreams also! :) The host's response: "You know something mister? You've got a mean, very stingy disposition. I'd hate to have to ask you for anything." PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 10:57:46 EST From: Guy Hillyer Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart scott@huntsai.boeing.com writes: > Where would I look for a current chart/table/etc of EM spectrum > allocations? I happened to see this in the Edmund Scientific catalogue just yesterday: ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM CHART Developed by Westinghouse and San Francisco's Exploratorium, chart is a series of circular bands moving outward from center which describe the electromagnetic waves. Range 10**10 cm to sub atomic 10**-14 cm in wavelength scale. Frequency scales, general and specific names, radio and microwave usage, black body curves, emission spectra and atmospheric absorption bands. 24" x 33", prined on poster stock in full color. $10.95, catalogue number K36,861. This is a two-year-old catalogue, but I'll bet they still have it. I've seen this poster and it's a beauty. Edmund Scientific Co. 101 E Gloucester Pike Barrington NJ 08007-1380 +1 609 547 8880 Guy Hillyer guy@odi.com ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Information Wanted on X.25 Date: 27 Feb 91 17:25:03 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , broehl@watserv1.waterloo. edu (Bernie Roehl) writes: > I'm considering setting up a multi-line BBS that's accessible over > Datapac (Canada's X.25 service, analagous to Tymenet or Telenet). I'm > considering several options: > 1. Buy a self-contained PAD with a number of serial lines, and hooking this > 2. Buying an X.25 board and writing software to provide an int 14h type > 3. Buying a synchronous serial card for the PC, and implementing X.25 in > software. Advantage: lowest cost. Disadvantage: lots of work. There's a fourth option you may not be aware of: a modem with X.25 built in. The Hayes Ultra 96, for example, provides V.22bis or V.32 X.32 (dial-up X.25) with a four-channel X.3/X.28/X.29 PAD built in. It connects via your normal async port -- one port. The data to/from the four channels is multiplexed onto the single async port via a very simple protocol we call "AutoStream" (which I had a part in designing). We've implemented an AutoStream multisession interface in Smartcom III's SCOPE scripting language -- it's really that simple to do multisession communications with AutoStream. Ultra 96 is fully certified for use on Datapac. You have to have a synchronous modem to do X.25 anyway, and for a little more than the "average" cost of a V.32 modem you can have one with X.25 built in. I think this would be the best combination of low cost and low effort, compared to the other options you've listed. I don't know if four channels is enough for you. You should consider that if you try to do MORE than that, then the throughput on a 9600bps modem might become unacceptably slow for the remote users. You could use additional modems (on standard comm ports) to provide an additional four channels each as your use expanded. If you want higher throughput, about your only choice is a digital circuit at 56kbps or 64kbps, but then you're talking about a major expense. If you'd like more information on Hayes modems with X.32/X.25 built in, and AutoStream, just let me know. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 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: Joe Talbot Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? Date: 27 Feb 91 19:07:12 GMT Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca Use a REAL ring generator and an unmodified REAL phone. An outfit called Minnesota Telephone installers is selling a small ring generator that (I beleive) is the one used on the old shoebox four line key systems. It's a very small black cube with a short AC cord on it and two screws that have about 100 volts at 30 hertz (unplug before connecting). It will ring an unmodified phone of about any vintage (your play may be set in the thirties as my high school play was, so I used a 300 desk set. The 300 wasn't made until the fourties but nobody could tell, I didn't think a trimline was appropriate). Just run a cable to the phone's location (1 pair bridged ringing!). Connect the phone at the one end. At the other end, connect one wire from the pair to a screw on the generator, connect the other to a push button and the other side of the button to the other screw on the generator. Push the button to ring the phone (wow). Minnesota Telephone installers: (612) 894-1904 You want a WE 118A ring generator advertised for $30 in Telephone International. (Try bargaining; they can't be selling that many. Mention what it is for. Many of these secondary vendors are very helpful and flexible. I have never done business with these people, however.) joe@mojave ------------------------------ From: "Steven S. Brack" Subject: Re: MCI ... March 18 and More Organization: The Ohio State University Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 18:17:26 GMT In article SJS132@psuvm.psu.edu (Steve Shimatzki) writes: > Would it be possible to use Call Forwarding, to call long distance, and > not pay for it? Heres the Scenario: I call a friend who is right > between me and an area that is LD for me. His number then forwards > to another number, but into the LD area. Do I get the local call, or > billed for the LD number that it was forwarded to? What if I did > this with a few people, and forwared a forwareded call? If it is > possible, is there any disadvantages to it? (ie, poor quality call; > Limited use; lots of people involved?) My uncle recently moved from GTE territory to Ohio Bell territory. This had the unfortunate side-effect of making the calls he gets from GTE territory toll calls (1+7D). So, what he did was have a second line installed to my house, which he uses only as a forwarding line to his other number. As it works out, he ends up saving money (very little) and his clients can call him without any extra phone charge. Needless to say, this situation is only cost effective to to the current turf war between Ohio Bell and GTE in northwest Ohio. There are literally areas in Toledo where toll calls are required for distances as short as 3/4 mile. Incidently, until Judge Green's decision, my house did not have any sort of demark, just the house wires nutted together with Bell's wires. Steven S. Brack sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu sbrack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu (Avoid sending here, if possible) [Moderator's Note: You mention your uncle is saving a little money each month from this arrangement. Have the savings yet been sufficient to amoritze, or pay for the initial installation cost of the line being permanently forwarded and for the monthly charge for the phone sitting there doing nothing but forwarding calls? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Glen Herrmannsfeldt Subject: Re: Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: 27 Feb 91 19:51:34 GMT There is a small confusion here related to the term FM. THere is FM, frequency modulation, which can be used at any frequency. There is the FM band, from 88 to 108 MHz, which is what almost everyone calls FM. The modulation method came before the band. Someone did each first. Sorry if this is obvious, but the distinction was not obvious in the previous note. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 00:16:33 GMT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Call*Block and Changing Subscribers Someone mentioned the potential problem of people with numbers Call*Blocked missing important calls from people who are assigned a number that once belonged to someone else who needed to be blocked. A suggestion was made that numbers on the block list expire after a certain time. Since the telco obviously knows when a number changes subscribers, why not clear numbers from everyone's block list as they are disconnected? Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 10:49:14 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? On two pay phones in Newark, Delaware, I have discovered that the default long-distance carrier is listed as RCI Corp., 180 So. Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14646, telephone 800-836-8080. The zipcode turns out to be the same as Rochester Telephone Corp. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #167 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14649; 1 Mar 91 6:01 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13278; 1 Mar 91 4:09 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13543; 1 Mar 91 2:55 CST Date: Fri, 1 Mar 91 2:21:23 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #168 BCC: Message-ID: <9103010221.ab16488@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 1 Mar 91 02:21:12 CST Volume 11 : Issue 168 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [Brent Chapman] Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [Robert Swenson] Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [Seth I. Robson] Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [John Higdon] Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [Linc Madison] Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? [Jerry K. Wagner] Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? [Curtis E. Reid] Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? [Jeff Wasilko] Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? [Sean Williams] Re: Large Local Calling Areas [Scott Hinckley] Re: Large Local Calling Areas [Robert M. Hamer] Re: Large Local Calling Areas [John R. Levine] Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy? [Fred Linton] And You Thought COCOTS Were a Problem [Jeff Sicherman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brent Chapman Subject: Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing Date: 28 Feb 91 22:30:56 GMT Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation; San Jose, CA In Robert_Swenson.OSBU_North@xerox.com writes: >> I once heard a rumor that 408 was the last area code in the NANP >> that allowed ten digit (real ten digit, not 1 + ten) dialing. > This is sometimes confusing. I work in AC 408 where the 1 before the > AC is NOT PERMITTED (this is in Santa Clara county), and I live in 415 > (in Alameda county), where it IS required. Sometimes it takes a few > tries before I realize I am using the wrong dialing pattern for where > I am. Are you sure this isn't just the funky Xerox phone service? I used to work at PARC; I know just how funky it can get ... I live and work in the 408 area code, and have "normal" lines both at work (where I run the phone system; an AT&T Merlin II that I inheirited with the job, if anybody cares) and at home; I habitually dial "1 415 xxx yyyy" for 415 numbers from both locations, and never have a problem. I just tested dialing without the "1" from work, and sure enough it works, but (at least here, in the 408-943 exchange) it works just fine _with_ the leading 1 as well. Brent Chapman Ascent Logic Corporation Computer Operations Manager 180 Rose Orchard Way, Suite 200 chapman@alc.com San Jose, CA 95134 Phone: 408/943-0630 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 1991 15:17:17 PST From: Robert_Swenson.OSBU_North@xerox.com Subject: Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing From John Higdon (john@zygot.ati) who wrote: >> Robert_Swenson.OSBU_North@xerox.com writes: > This is sometimes confusing. I work in AC 408 where the 1 before the > AC is NOT PERMITTED (this is in Santa Clara county), It was my understanding that '1' was made permissive a few years ago. Are you sure it is your telephone exchange that does not permit using a '1' and not your in house system? If so, I would be very interested to know what prefix does not allow the '1'. I just tried and my in house system still will not permit +1 (415) xxx xxxx. As your note asks, I do not know what Pac Bell will do directly. My work phone is (408) 737 xxxx Bob Swenson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Mar 91 00:46:19 From: "Seth I. Robson" Subject: Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing I live in Santa Cruz, which is a part of the 408 area code. When I dial numbers in the greater Bay Area (415), I am required to dial a 1+ first. Even if I want to make a zone 3 call within my own area code (say, to Sunnyvale or San Jose), I am still required to dial a 1+ before the rest of the number. I don't know whether I am the norm or the exception in the 408 AC. Seth I. Robson; srobson@ucscb.ucsc.edu (the ascii assassin) University o'California, Santa Cruz. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 00:14 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing Robert_Swenson.OSBU_North@xerox.com writes: > This is sometimes confusing. I work in AC 408 where the 1 before the > AC is NOT PERMITTED (this is in Santa Clara county), It was my understanding that '1' was made permissive a few years ago. Are you sure it is your telephone exchange that does not permit using a '1' and not your in house system? If so, I would be very interested to know what prefix does not allow the '1'. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: As noted in another message in this issue, his home phone is 408-737. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 03:35:38 PST From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing I lived in San Jose from 1985 - 1987, and use of 1+ was permissive at that time. Indeed, I'm quite skeptical of the articles that have appeared recently mentioning that until recently the use of 1+ was prohibited. It may have been prohibited for calls within 408, but the discussion about San Jose being the last area in the country to allow not using 1+ has centered on dialing other area codes. Also, I saw just one too many of the ads with the AT&T clown sweeping up to the charming background voices singing, "Dial One, Plus the Area Code (if different from your own), then the Number!" to believe that 1+NPA+Number was prohibited anywhere, at least in the last fifteen or twenty years, for calls to other area codes. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu P.S. Just my $0.000002 worth on "correct way to write phone numbers": I prefer (NPA) NXX-XXXX because it allows easier visual "chunking" for memory purposes. It is also the way that the vast majority of all phone numbers I have ever seen printed have been formatted; using periods between the numbers is almost unheard-of in the U.S. ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 16:31:19 GMT In article steve@wattres.uucp (Steve Watt) writes: > On a somewhat related note, I'm curious ... how many area codes are > there out there (like PacBell territory in 408) that don't require a > 1+ for *any* call, local, long-distance, or otherwise? That's only in the Santa Clara valley. 408 area code in Santa Cruz, which is ALSO PacBell, requires the 1+ No, I don't know why. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 08:55:33 -0500 Reply-To: jkw@kodak.com From: "Jerry K. Wagner Internet: jkw@kodak.com" Subject: Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? In TELECOM Digest V11 #167: >From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) > On two pay phones in Newark, Delaware, I have discovered that the > default long-distance carrier is listed as RCI Corp., 180 So. Clinton > Ave., Rochester, NY 14646, telephone 800-836-8080. The zipcode turns > out to be the same as Rochester Telephone Corp. In the Rochester Telephone White Pages, 1991, in the long distance carrier information section, RCI is listed as: RochesterTel RCI Long Distance complete with the Rochester Telephone logo. I believe RCI is a subsidiary, but I could be mistaken about the specific legal connection between the two. Jerry K. Wagner jkw@kodak.com 716 722 9532 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 09:27 EST From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? >From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) > On two pay phones in Newark, Delaware, I have discovered that the > default long-distance carrier is listed as RCI Corp., 180 So. Clinton > Ave., Rochester, NY 14646, telephone 800-836-8080. The zipcode turns > out to be the same as Rochester Telephone Corp. RCI Corp. is a subsidiary of Rochester Tel. As many of you know from reading Telecom Digests, Rochester Tel has been diversifying itself by buying a lot of small telephone companies throughout the nation, operating a long distance carrier, and a cellular phone company. Rochester Tel is the largest independent telephone company and its financial situation is very good in comparsion with other telephone companies. They recently filed a tariff with New York Public Services Commission to offer Caller-ID services to begin on April. I have yet to hear wether the PSC approved it or not. Curtis E. Reid CER2520@RITVAX.Bitnet (Bitnet) CER2520@RITVAX.isc.rit.edu (Internet) ------------------------------ From: Jeff Wasilko Date: Thu, 28 Feb 1991 17:37:28 EST Subject: Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? In Digest V11 #167, Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) asked about Rochester Tel and RCI. Yes, indeed, one of Rochester Tel's divisions is RCI Long Distance. I use RCI on occasion when I need to segregate LD calls for business (their code is 10211). Their rates are a bit lower than AT&T. For example, a one minute call to 619-673 (RANCHOBNRD CA) on AT&T was .24, and a five minute call on RCI was 1.18 (.236 per minute). Sound quality is excellent, and calls seem to complete quickly. I'm assuming that RCI leases capacity from other carriers for their network. For those who don't know, Rochester Tel now owns 250ish small telephone companies around the country. Jeff ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Thu Feb 28 17:19:38 EST 1991 Subject: RCI Long Distance Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes... | On two pay phones in Newark, Delaware, I have discovered that the | default long-distance carrier is listed as RCI Corp. [Rochester | Telephone Corp.] Rochester Telephone does have a long-distance branch. The access code is 10211. This does not work from my home phone; I believe the company isA~ regional. I have never seen the access code listed in a Bell of Pennsylvania or United Telephone book. I found out about RCI a few weeks ago when I was in Rochester visiting the Rochester Institute of Technology (on my quest for higher education after high school.) By the way, has anyone ever attended this school? I had a good impression of it during the tour / interview. Sean E. Williams | attmail.com!seanwilliams 333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227 | seanwilliams@attmail.com Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA | voicemail: +1 717 957 8139 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 09:17:20 cst From: Scott Hinckley Subject: Re: Large Local Calling Areas scott@huntsai.boeing.com (Scott Hinckley) writes: > This is true. To give an example, when I lived in Atlanta I was able > to make local calls to places that were a good hour's drive away. The > local calling area spans several counties. > Here in Huntsville the longest local call would take about twenty > minutes to drive to, and many places that are within a fifteen > minute's drive are long distance. > [Moderator's Note: Do you think driving in city traffic has anything > to do with it? Here in Chicago I can't go five miles in fifteen > minutes during the rush hour. PAT] Ok, let me try this in miles (as best as I can remember, I usually think of distance in terms of time :-) I could make a call from North of Roswell Georgia to some 20 miles south of Atlanta locally. I believe that is >= 50 miles. It seems like you could call 20-25+ miles in any direction from downtown Atlanta. Here in Huntsville it is about 22 miles (not straight line, but driven line. It would be more like fifteen straight) from the south end of Huntsville out to the edge of the Madison County local area. Now, from the downtown there is nothing like a 'calling radius' the local area goes some three miles in one direction, eight miles in another, and fifteen in another. Scott Hinckley Internet:scott@huntsai.boeing.com UUCP:.!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!huntsai!scott (205) 461-2073 DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 14:16 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: Re: Large Local Calling Area Arnold Robbins writes: > code. The Atlanta LATA is apparently the largest free calling area in > the world, from what an adjunct professor who works for Southern Bell > once told me. I heard somewhere that the "Big Island" in Hawaii might also be a candidate for largest free calling area, as in Hawaii, each island is a LATA. Anyone know for sure? ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Large Local Calling Areas Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 28 Feb 91 22:00:34 EST (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" In article is written: >> The Atlanta LATA is apparently the largest free calling area in >> the world... > Similarly, New York City's local calling area spans five counties > (each borough of NYC is a separate county), ... I suspect that NYC has the largest number of phones that are a local call. There may be larger cities, but not larger cities with such a density of telephones. The only other place in the U.S. with so many phones is Los Angeles, but it has rather small local calling areas. I have heard that the geographically largest local calling area is the big island of Hawaii. Hawaiian Tel has an extremely simple rate structure: calls on the same island are free, calls to any other island are expensive (all the same rate, no matter which pair of islands), calls to the mainland are very expensive. Someone who cares could try comparing areas. A quick look in the almanac suggests that the big island is in the vicinity of 5,000 sq. mi. If water counts, I note that the entire US Virgin Islands are a single local calling area, even though a boat from St. Croix to St. Thomas takes most of the day, and the flying boat about half an hour. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: 28-FEB-1991 21:49:28.05 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy? In article , peter@taronga.hackercorp. com (Peter da Silva) asks: > ... RJ11 plug ... RJ11 socket ... Why bother with a knife switch? Easy -- I had the socket and a knife switch, and _didn't_ have an RJ11 plug (leastwise not one I could fit on the ancient 8 gauge solid copper wires :-) ). And I can use alligator clips or test prods on the knife switch contacts for that rare time I want to use a VOM on the line -- I don't have any test prods fine enough to slither into the contact slots on an RJ11 plug. Or, as the Moderator noted, "it really comes down to ... style". Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06457 E-mail: or Tel.: +1 203 776 2210 (home) or +1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 18:17:40 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: And You Thought COCOTs Were a Problem Organization: Cal State Long Beach From L.M. BOYD's column, February 28 (sort of a strange facts column): "History records that some of the world's first telephone booths were mistaken for elevators. Others for restrooms." [Moderator's Note: They are still used as public bathrooms here in Chicago, and places to leave public messages of the 'to whom it may concern' variety regarding places and people to call. :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #168 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14917; 1 Mar 91 6:13 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13278; 1 Mar 91 4:15 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13543; 1 Mar 91 2:55 CST Date: Fri, 1 Mar 91 2:46:01 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #169 BCC: Message-ID: <9103010246.ab10419@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 1 Mar 91 02:45:43 CST Volume 11 : Issue 169 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Persian Gulf Telecom [Floyd Davidson] COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges [Robert L. Oliver] Re: Early Color Television [Bill Vermillion] FM Radio in the 1930's [Richard Budd] Re: How to Hook up a Phone For a Play [Floyd Davidson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Persian Gulf Telecom Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Thu, 28 Feb 1991 12:15:36 GMT Sometime back there was a discussion of satellite communications in Saudi Arabia relating to the free fax transmissions to the troops. I promised the Moderator that when the time was right I would post more information about communications satellite use in the Gulf War. It appears to be all but over, so the time is right. Within hours of the decision to send troops to the Persian Gulf there were plans made for temporary and mobile satellite communications centers. Within days the first of several transportable earth stations owned and operated by Alascom, Inc. was on its way, complete with a crew, to the Gulf. The crew for the first unit was actually headed up by the VP for operations. The first unit was leased by AT&T, and was the system that provided facilities for the AT&T fax transmissions. Later units were, as I understand it, leased directly to the US government. AT&T manages the network, and Alascom manages the deployment and operation of stations. Two other companies each supplied two earth stations. MCI was one, and I do not know the name of the other. My understanding is that there are a total of eleven, the rest all coming from Alascom. Alascom is also manning all the the stations, though the other two companies also have technicians at their stations. There may be other companies, stations or networks also operating, but I have not heard anything to indicate so. The transportable earth stations are basically two types, both have a van for electronics, but different antennas are used. Some units have a trailer mounted five meter dish that is folded for transport. This particular unit can be moved rather easily, with a typical deployment time of less than one hour. It is equipped with its own generator for AC power. I am not familiar with the transport used for the other type, the setup time, or the power equipment. I understand the other type all have seven meter dishes. A relatively good indication of how the systems look and the service provided is in the current issue of {Newsweek Magazine}. The picture of military personnel lined up for moral calls shows one of the units. The electronics van is located to the left of the dish, and is mostly obscured in the picture. Inside the tent there are probably about 40 phones that tie directly to the US network. From what I've heard the picture shows a normal situation (a *very* long line). At least one station is used purely for military communications. That particular one is filled with crypto gear, etc. Others have as many as 500 trunks using IAC (Integrated Access Communications) compressed packet (5:1) T carrier equipment from AT&T. (Normal configuration, pre-Persian Gulf war, was either 24 or 48 channels of SCPC analog carrier.) The stations are located strategically in Saudi Arabia. One of the tech's was telling us weeks ago that he could see Iraqi installations from his location. As far as I know only one station was that close. Tomorrow they may all be in Kuwait. A few interesting things have happened during the operation of these stations. One bit of strange behavior took our technicians by surprise: sun outages in Alaska are a twice annual occurrence for several days in a row at about mid-day. Sun outages for Saudi Arabia were calculated and started shortly after the first stations were in place. But no one expected the outages to also happen just after midnight, exactly twelve hours later too! Here in Alaska we only worry about the sun pointing at the dish, in Saudi Arabia it can hit the antenna on the bird. One anomaly that I can't explain was a technician who called the Fairbanks testboard several times, over a week's time, asking us to patch him to various places, all back into Saudia Arabia. After this happened a few times, I asked him why he was doing it. The answer: he got better connections calling through Fairbanks than any other way. I have no explanation for why. (Maybe he was getting too much sun...) We also did have at least one soldier who had trouble dialing his parents home phone. This young man is from Alaska, and as a matter of fact he grew up literally next door to ME. When he heard there were a bunch of Alaskans in his compound, he and some friends went to visit, and of course the supervisor handed them a phone and said "Call home." The rest of them did with no problem, but the Alaskan soldier couldn't get his call to go through. He was dialing it in exactly the same way the others were, but that didn't work for an Alaska number. The supervisor told him to just think of it as a phone on a street corner in Anchorage (in effect it was) and dial accordingly. He did, and then it worked. (That is how it was described to me, by the supervisor. He didn't say why it didn't work, but I assume our PBX trunks in Anchorage don't like area code 907). It may also interest people to know that the first unit shipped is commonly called "The Batmobile" and has seen previous duty during the hurricane in Puerto Rico, during the invasion of Panama, and on an island near Bligh Reef during the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska. I think they repainted it (camouflage?), but normally it looks like a TV news van with company slogans all over it. The other units are on permanent lease to the military in Alaska, and hence are of course painted white (camouflage!). Floyd L. Davidson | floyd@ims.alaska.edu | Alascom, Inc. pays me Salcha, AK 99714 | Univ. of Alaska | but not for opinions. ------------------------------ From: "Robert L. Oliver" Subject: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges Organization: Rabbit Software Corp. Date: 28 Feb 91 16:57:07 GMT Here in Bell of PA land, something VERY bad has started happening. I'm trying to find out if this happens elsewhere, and more details on the tariffs which apparently allow it to happen: Using a COCOT (the only thing available at the time) in Phila. I placed calls to a phone in Phila. These calls were LOCAL calls. Would have cost a quarter if I had the change and only stayed on a minute. However, I used my Bell of PA/AT&T Calling Card number associated with my home phone number. Later, in my home phone bill, I found a page from some "carrier" which has the standard disclaimer that "This portion of your bill is provided as a service to Integretel, Inc. Toll charges are computed based on the rate schedule of Integretel, Inc." As would be expected, these rates were approximately 500% of the Bell rates. Instead of roughly .45, I was charged $2.95. When speaking with Bell, Integretel was consistantly referred to as a "carrier" meaning a long distance carrier. When I protested that my calls were WITHIN Phila., I was informed that any calling card calls were classified as "long distance." So, while COCOTS are required to tell you who the long distance calls are handled by, I wasn't aware that a local credit card call was considered long distance. Furthermore, I don't know how I'd have avoided the rip-off long distance company. Could I have used 10ATT to force AT&T long distance service on my Intra-LATA call? How could I have forced Bell of PA to handle the call? Would 10BPA have worked? There *IS* such a 10xxx code; it's normally only used to force BPA on Phila./Southern Jersey calls in the specially tarriffed corridor. Is this a common problem, or unique to PA? How do we get it changed? I *WAS* going to write to the PA PUC, but was told by Bell that the PUC doesn't have jurisdiction on long distance calls (again, even though this was really intra-LATA), and that I'd have to write to the FCC. Bleh. Robert Oliver Rabbit Software Corp. 215 993-1152 7 Great Valley Parkway East robert@hutch.Rabbit.COM Malvern, PA 19355 ...!uunet!cbmvax!hutch!robert ------------------------------ From: Bill Vermillion Subject: Re: Early Color Television Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 18:50:18 GMT In article streeter@athena.cs.uga.edu (Tom Streeter) writes: > In article bilver!bill@uunet.uu.net > (Bill Vermillion) writes: >> There were NO commercial video tape machines available before about >> 1961. > Two corrections: > As for VTRs, Ampex rolled out its first machine at the NAB convention > in 1953. CBS bought the first for something in the neighborhood of > $100,000. They may have shown that early, but none were availaale until about 1960 on a commerical basis. > Bing Crosby was a major force behind the invention because > he hated doing his show live on the West Coast and having it sent on > kine to the East. I was recently digging through old copies of > "Broadcasting" and came across an article describing how the first > machines would work. At the time this article was written, Ampex had > not yet been chosen as the manufacturer. Right man, Crosby, but the wrong machine. Crosby was instrumental in the development of the first AUDIO tape recorder. He would broadcast a RADIO program for the east coast, and then re-do it live for the west coast three hours later. The 16" transcription format was not up to his standards. He funded a lot of research into that market. Memory is just a bit hazy here, but I seem to remember the company was called "Crosby Associates". There was an old Russian Inventor/Researcher named Alexander M. Poiniatoff (sp?) who was working on the same thing. He founded a company that used the initials of his name A.M.P and added EX for "Execellance" and called the company AMPEX. I believe Crosby merged with them. In those days the disk recorder manufacturers were also moving into audio tape machines. I have seen reel to reel machines from Presto and RCA. Scully came along much later. I don't have to dig through old magazines for that stuff. As a kid I was fascinated by audio, having first heard my voice recorded on an home disk recorder with paper based acetate discs in the mid-40s. I watched the equipment development and wanted a recorder of my own more than anything. I almost built a disk recorder using the GI home mechanism and the schmatics in (what WAS it called) Radio-Television Electronics (?)? First tape recorder I got to use was an old Brush Sound-Mirror about 1950-51 in school. Bought a wire rerorder with hard saved money in 1953. Ampex's first commercially successful machine was the 200, and it was almost the size of their first 2" vcr. HUGE floor mounted console. Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: WED, 27 FEB 91 23.41.47 EDT From: Richard Budd Subject: FM Radio in the 1930's and More... Organization: Marist College & IBM Donald E. Kimberlin <0004133373@mcimail.com>writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #156: > It was (retired) Major E. H. Armstrong (to whom > we owe credit for the superheterodyne receiver that made broadcast > radio really a practical medium for the general public) who in 1935 > aired the first broadcast FM transmissions in 1935, from a transmitter > atop the Empire State Building to receivers in New Jersey. (Sorry, > Chicago.) Both CBS at New York and Zenith at Chicago were early > promoters of FM broadcasting. And the Moderator asked: > Was the station in New York on the air continuously on a regular > schedule in the 1935 => 1941 period? Zenith's claim was they were the > first on the air with regularly scheduled, commercial programming on > the FM band. I now have the 1943 book on the development of radio and television in front of me and it confirms that WEFM in Chicago in the autumn of 1941 was the first FM station with regularly scheduled programming. By January, 1942, there were twenty-nine in the United States. Donald Kimberlin's article just about covers everything about the early days of FM Radio. A couple of side-notes. Major Armstrong's demonstra- tion of FM Radio took place from the Empire State Building in December, 1933. However, RCA decided to pursue their research in television and they dropped their support of Armstrong's project. The impetus for FM Radio came five years later when Armstrong developed an experimental FM transmitter not far from Boston, Massachusetts for the Yankee Radio Network. It permitted FM programming from Boston to be relayed tothe 22 stations and affiliates of Yankee throughout the Northeast. That development produced a demand for FM radio sets and encouraged Zenith to launch their FM station in Chicago. Paging through the book, I discovered something that IMHO the news services might have missed during General Electric's takeover of RCA in 1988. GE actually created RCA in 1919 when the federal government urged GE to purchase the American branch of Marconi for national security reasons. In 1927 however, the FCC ordered GE to divest itself of RCA or else face an antitrust suit from the Justice Department. I believe the courts never ruled on the antitrust implications of RCA being part of GE, since such a ruling would have prohibited GE from making any offer for RCA in 1988! BTW GE's role in RCA was acknowledged by NBC in their station ID ID chimes (for General Electric Company). Richard Budd | E-Mail: IBMers - rcbudd@rhqvm19.ibm VM Systems Programmer | All Others- klub@maristb.bitnet IBM - Sterling Forest, NY | Phone: (914) 578-3746 ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: How to Hook up a Phone For a Play Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Date: Thu, 28 Feb 1991 07:28:40 GMT In article kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: > The REAL issue is not the voltage applied but the ability of the > source to provide current limiting. 10,000 volts at .00000001 ma is > not dangerous (static electricity). 100V, 20HZ and 117V, 60 HZ are > both deadly if they are not current limited. The wall socket that > provides the 117V certainly is NOT current limited (to any practical > degree) without a device in series to accomplish that. A suitable > current limiting device would make 117V, 60 HZ suitable for use to > ring the phone with little danger. To a degree, the last sentence is correct. It is no more dangerous than 20Hz ringing current. But... > The 88-100V, 20 HZ normally used > to ring a phone on the network is current limited at the source AND by > virtue of the loop resistance between the CO and the phone (typically > 200 to 500 ohms or greater). Standard telco ring voltage will give > you a nasty surprise but is not (usually) dangerous because it IS > current limited. Don't believe it. The current required to ding the ringer is enough to kill you dead. Both from electrocution and by triggering a heart attack. The current limiting is protection against damage to the physical plant. A direct short will not burn up the wires. In the first article I posted on this subject I suggested current limiting using a common 120vac lamp, and in email to the person who requested information to begin with I provided exact details down to the math to calculate maximum current for a given size of lamp. And enough detail and emphasis to convince anyone that it is NOT optional. The one real safety feature of a normal 20Hz ring supply is that it is interupted, which lets you loose if you get across it on your phone line. However, there were several suggestions to use a subcylce ring generator, which are not necessarily interupted. Likewise most of the 20Hz ring current which I am exposed to on private line circuits is NOT interupted. Floyd L. Davidson | floyd@ims.alaska.edu | Alascom, Inc. pays me Salcha, AK 99714 | Univ. of Alaska | but not for opinions. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #169 ******************************  DUE TO TRANSMISSION ERROR, THE NEXT SEVERAL ISSUES ARE FILED OUT OF ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 169,174,175,176,170,171,172,173,177,178,181,182,179,180,183,184 THEN, A SPECIAL MAILING FOLLOWS 184.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01342; 3 Mar 91 16:47 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac23587; 3 Mar 91 8:07 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad25765; 3 Mar 91 7:00 CST Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 6:17:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #174 BCC: Message-ID: <9103030617.ab09890@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Mar 91 06:16:37 CST Volume 11 : Issue 174 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges [John Higdon] Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart [Rolf Meier] Re: Early Color Television [Scott Dorsey] Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [Steve Pershing] Re: And You Thought COCOTs Were a Problem [Bob Yazz] Re: 1+206 Dialling Coming to Washington [Jeff Carroll] Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart [Paul Elliott] Re: Automatic DA Call Completion [John Nagle] Updates to the 800,900 and 10xxx Lists [Bill Huttig] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:53 GMT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges "Robert L. Oliver" writes: > As would be expected, these rates were approximately 500% of the Bell > rates. Instead of roughly .45, I was charged $2.95. I have heard reports of this sort of thing from all over the country, and have personally experienced it on a call from San Francisco to San Jose (intraLATA--normally $0.65 on Pac*Bell calling card). After getting a bill for nearly $4.00, I, too, complained bitterly to no avail. The only advice I can offer is: AVOID COCOTs. Consider the presence of a COCOT to be the absence of a phone. If you are reading this, the following conditions are probably true: 1. You know the difference between a COCOT and a utility phone; 2. You can afford alternative means, such as a handheld cellular phone; 3. You are literate enough to write to your state's PUC equivalent and the FCC; and 4. You are smart enough to remember where utility phones are when you really need them. I am pleased to report that utility phones are making a comeback in California, in both public and semi-public settings. At a 7-Eleven not far from my home, the two COCOTs were recently replaced by Pac*Bell phones. This is a trend that has emerged hopefully because COCOTs have been unprofitable. I am looking at COCOTs now to simply be a temporary shortage of real pay telephones. Except for calls that I know will be absolutely free, I NEVER use them. > Could I have used 10ATT to force AT&T long distance service on my > Intra-LATA call? How could I have forced Bell of PA to handle the > call? In PA, I don't know. In CA, there is no way. > There *IS* such a 10xxx code; it's normally only used to force BPA on > Phila./Southern Jersey calls in the specially tarriffed corridor. I have yet to see 10XXX work on ANY COCOT ANYWHERE. I would travel within a 100 mile radius to see and try one. To my knowledge, they do not exist -- at least in California. > Is this a common problem, or unique to PA? How do we get it changed? It is a common problem. It will be changed when COCOTs disappear, or start using coin-COS lines. > I *WAS* going to write to the PA PUC, but was told by Bell that the > PUC doesn't have jurisdiction on long distance calls (again, even > though this was really intra-LATA), and that I'd have to write to the > FCC. Bleh. All the AOS has to do is claim that they ship the call out of state and back in and it becomes the FCC's problem. You should write the FCC, if for no other reason than to complain that its regulations are not worth the paperbacks they are printed in. There are two points to remember about your specific problem. The first is that COCOTs exist at all because of the MFJ and Federal mandates (some states have successfully outlawed them). The second is that Federal regulations prohibit the overcharging that you experienced. Good luck. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Rolf Meier Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart Date: 3 Mar 91 01:14:02 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article scott@huntsai.boeing.com writes: > Where would I look for a current chart/table/etc of EM spectrum > allocations? For the Canadian allocations, call 613-990-4842 and ask for "Radio Spectrum Allocations in Canada". This is a multi-colour 2'x3' chart covering 3 kHz to 300 GHz. The catalog number from the Ministry of Supply and Services is Co22-33/1989. Also known as ISBN 0-662-56923-7. Hopefully, someone can give the source of the U.S. allocations. There will be a lot of common allocation, though. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ From: Scott Dorsey Subject: Re: Early Color Television Reply-To: Scott Dorsey Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1991 00:44:31 GMT In article bilver!bill@uunet.uu.net (Bill Vermillion) writes: >>> There were NO commercial video tape machines available before about >>> 1961. >> Two corrections: >> As for VTRs, Ampex rolled out its first machine at the NAB convention >> in 1953. CBS bought the first for something in the neighborhood of >> $100,000. > They may have shown that early, but none were availaale until about > 1960 on a commerical basis. This was the early Quad format VTR. It was B&W only, and used 2" instrumentation tape. For more details on Ampex's development of the format, take a look at the article on the history of magnetic recording in {Broadcast Engineering} magazine (sometime late in '89). While Ampex did make a Quad machine in '53, and while it was very popular among the networks for cross-country time delay, it was extremely expensive. The heads had to be replaced on a regular basis and it ate up 2" instrumentation tape at an amazing rate. If the tape jammed (as it did quite frequently), a vapor cloud of oxide would quickly appear around the head drum as the tape coating disintegrated. Because of the price, it didn't appear in local stations that quickly. The quality wasn't all that much better than the kinescopes that it replaced, though it didn't require several hours of processing. While Ernie Kovacs showed that the tape could be edited, it was very difficult to do, required frequent resplices, and made the format almost impossible to use for program production. Basically, there were two types of programs. Some were done live, and others were produced on film for later broadcast through flying spot scanners. (Anybody else ever used a Rank Telecine out there?) The programs produced on film didn't move over to video production until the late sixties when good electronic editing became available (if there can be such a thing). The programs done live for cross-country broadcast began using tape for delay in the later time zones as soon as it became available. Very few programs are done live anymore. This is more a change due to creative evolution than technical developments. Slickness is very much valued in modern production. Actually, producing programs on film and then scanning them for broadcast stayed on for a long time, because of the difficulty of editing, and the fact that the film resolution was (and still is) much better than videotape. 16mm Kodachrome has 12,500 lines of resolution (equivalent to a TV image with 25,000 scanlines). A lot of programs are still created on film, though they are distributed on tape or over network feed. >> Bing Crosby was a major force behind the invention because >> he hated doing his show live on the West Coast and having it sent on >> kine to the East. I was recently digging through old copies of >> "Broadcasting" and came across an article describing how the first >> machines would work. At the time this article was written, Ampex had >> not yet been chosen as the manufacturer. > Right man, Crosby, but the wrong machine. > Crosby was instrumental in the development of the first AUDIO tape > recorder. > In those days the disk recorder manufacturers were also moving into > audio tape machines. I have seen reel to reel machines from Presto > and RCA. Scully came along much later. The Ampex 200 recorder became available in 1949. A lot of folks bought them. Basically, once the idea of AC bias became known, it became easy for anyone to build a pretty good recorder. The Ampex 300 was introduced a year or two later; I still use an Ampex 350 (the "portable" version of the 300) for recording. The 300 really became popular; there wasn't a radio station in the country that didn't buy one, and many of them are still using them. Scully, RCA, Presto (ugh), etc. came out with their own machines, usually licensing the Ampex and Rangertone patents. They were all great improvements over the awful transcription discs. > First tape recorder I got to use was an old Brush Sound-Mirror about > 1950-51 in school. Bought a wire rerorder with hard saved money in > 1953. I have great pity upon you. Did you ever get it to keep a constant speed? scott ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it From: system administrator Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 02:18:43 GMT Organization: Questor::Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC::+1 604 681.0670 gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > The arguments they make on TV about how CID will protect your privacy > is just propaganda, designed by their marketing staffs to affect the > biggest emotional appeal. Do you really think they would sell service > that will allow you block telemarketing calls? Those people are some > of their best customers. They may well be "some of their best customers", but the "little people" make up the bulk of the system, don't they? If each of us were to write to the appropriate regulators (public service commission or equivalent), then our voices might just be heard. 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: Bob Yazz Subject: Re: And You Thought COCOTs Were a Problem Date: 3 Mar 91 02:42:32 GMT sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > From L.M. BOYD's column, February 28 (sort of a strange facts column): > "History records that some of the world's first telephone booths > were mistaken for elevators. Others for restrooms." > [Moderator's Note: They are still used as public bathrooms here in > Chicago :) PAT] If I might joke about junkies for a moment, I'll point out that they're still used by some as elevators too. Bob Yazz -- yazz@lccsd.sd.locus.com [Moderator's Note: And, as New York Telephone indignantly pointed out a couple years ago, they are *NOT* to be used as Confessionals. This was right after the scandalous 'True Confessions' 900 line first started operating, and the proprietor of same ran an advertisement of a man kneeling in a phone booth, hands folded, looking up at the phone in a meditative state. Anyway, would *you* want to kneel in front of a filthy toilet? :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: 1+206 Dialling Coming to Washington Date: 3 Mar 91 00:17:53 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook writes: > My personal guess is that they will make King and Snohomish counties > 206, and the rest of Western Washington something else, or they will > draw an east-west line somewhere between Seattle and Tacoma, and > divide it there. If they make King and Snohomish 206 and the rest something else, an interesting situation would ensue - namely, there would be two geographical pieces of something-else, and in order to get from one to the other, you would have to drive thru 206 (or take a ferry across the Sound). Remember, King and Snohomish both run east to the current 206/509 boundary (does anyone know for sure whether the two coincide - for example, aren't all the ski resorts at Snoqualmie summit - including the ones in King County - in 509?). The east-west line would IMHO not be the best choice. No matter where you draw the line between Seattle and Tacoma, most future growth would be taking place north of the line. I can think of two other possibilities - one would be to draw a line around Seattle, Tacoma, and possibly Olympia (with the line running down the middle of Lake Washington - leave Mercer Island in with Seattle). This would isolate the bulk of the existing subscriber base from the suburbs, which is where most future growth will occur (like it or not). The other would be to enlarge 509 (how much of its capacity is being used?) Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Paul Elliott x225 Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart Date: 3 Mar 91 03:47:03 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article , guy@odi.com (Guy Hillyer) writes: > scott@huntsai.boeing.com writes: > > Where would I look for a current chart/table/etc of EM spectrum > > allocations? Here's another one: "USA Frequency Allocations 10kHz to 4GHz" This is a nice multi-color chart, about 15" x 37" from Motorola It shows the allocations for these catagories: Part 15 Standard Frequencies Distress, Calling, Search & Rescue Amateur Radio Broadcasting Fixed and Mobile Services Military Aeronautical Communication and Navigation Maritime Communication and Navigation Scientific & Space Best yet, they have an (800) number on the chart! Call Motorola Semiconductor at 1-800-521-6274. If you sound like you might someday buy some components, they might send you one (I'm not sure though, I got mine at a trade show). *Don't* tell Motorola I sent you! Paul M. Elliott Optilink Corporation (707) 795-9444 {uunet, pyramid, pixar, tekbspa}!optilink!elliott ------------------------------ From: John Nagle Subject: Re: Automatic DA Call Completion Date: 3 Mar 91 00:12:33 GMT hood@rustler.uswest.com (Ron Hood) writes: > Automated Directory Assistance Call Completion (ADACC) is a new > service that could potentially be offered by telephone companies > whereby a caller to Directory Assistance could have their call placed > automatically by the DA operator. This differs from today's > environment, where the number is read back to the DA caller (or sent > via a voice announcement) who must then dial the number to place the > call. There would most likely be a fee associated with the automatic > call completion. The fee discussed here in Pac Bell territory is $0.35, plus the regular directory assistance charge, plus tolls in some circumstances. I've previously suggested in TELECOM Digest that phones be built which have a voice recognition capability good enough to decode the automated DA announcements. Recognition of clear, separated numeric digits against a quiet background is well within the capabilities of existing low-end voice recognition systems. I'd been thinking in terms of desk phones with menu-based dialing, but the mobile application makes more sense commercially. And if you have to redial, the local hardware approach eliminates the need for a second call to directory assistance. Some equipment manufacturer should pick up on this. John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:25:51 GMT From: Bill Huttig Subject: Updates to the 800,900 and 10xxx Lists You may send updates to the list to me wah@zach.fit.edu. [Moderator's Note: Bill has already sent one update to the Archives. The 10xxx file in the archives now has two versions; the original and the updated one so you can compare the two and make changes in your records as needed. I will also point out that Carl Moore has forwarded an updated copy of 'areacode.guide' and 'areacode.script' to the archives, as has Mr. Dupuy who wrote one of the original scripts for us. You might want to visit the Archives soon and review all of these updated versions of files which have been there awhile. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #174 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01502; 3 Mar 91 16:59 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07363; 3 Mar 91 9:13 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ai23587; 3 Mar 91 8:08 CST Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 7:39:07 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #175 BCC: Message-ID: <9103030739.ab19935@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Mar 91 07:39:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 175 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson CarterFone Inventer Dies; Age 67 [TELECOM Moderator] Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business [Stephen Bulick] Who's Living in a Cave? [George L. Sicherman] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Mark Steiger] Can 50 Conductor Phone Cable be Used For LAN? [Jeff Sicherman] Calling an Out-of-Area 800 Number [David E. Wallace] Re: Equal Access / 800 NXX Assignments [Bill Cerny] Re: International 800 Numbers? [David Leibold] Re: International 800 Numbers? [Robert Michael Gutierrez] Re: Making a Telephone Ring for a Play [Sean Williams] An Old Instrument Develops Bell-Tap [Tom Perrine] LD Dialing Without the "1" (was Re: NXX Count ...) [Wally Kramer] Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy [Clive Feather] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 7:26:34 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: CarterFone Inventer Dies; Age 67 Thomas F. Carter, the enterpreneur who won a major landmark lawsuit against AT&T is dead at age 67. Mr. Carter died February 23 of lung cancer at Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, TX. TELECOM Digest readers will no doubt recall that Tom Carter patented the CarterFone in 1959, and as 'they' say, the rest is history. The Carterfone was a device which connected telephones with two-way radio systems. Although greatly improved upon over the past thirty years, the Carterfone is still in use by many people. Soon after his invention, AT&T threatened to discontinue service to customers who used CarterFone, prompting Mr. Carter to sue Ma Bell. It took several years to resolve, but in 1968 a federal judge ruled in his favor, and the next year, MCI became the first private company to hook its long-distance network into local phone service. In fact, as just another Chicago-area bit of trivia, MCI's first links were between Chicago and St. Louis. MCI finally was able to get IBT and SWBT to agree to the connection after much negotiation. By about 1971, MCI had begun its first public offering, "Execunet". Once his lawsuit had been settled, Mr. Carter went on to found the North American Telecommunications Association in Washington, DC. He also served as president of NATA. He is survived by his wife, Helen; two daughters and four grandchildren. Services were held in Mabank this past week. NATA is considering a memorial service in the future to honor Thomas Carter. Another era passes .... PAT ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:13:49 GMT From: Stephen Bulick Subject: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business I read in the Business Section of the {New York Times} for 3/1/91 that the FCC is allowing cable television companies to test what seems to be a microcellular telephone system as a prelude for entry into the local exchange carrier business. As soon as I saw the headline ("Cable TV in Phone Challenge -- F.C.C. Allows Test Of Local Networks In a Number of Cities") I wondered whether this meant that telcos would now be able to argue more effectively for an entry into the cable TV business. In fact, the article mentions this possibility without drawing any conclusions. This seems like an issue for discussion in this forum. I'd like to start the thread and see what discussion ensues -- there are a lot of thoughtful, well-informed posters in this forum. I can't wait to hear what Donald E. Kimberlin has to say about this, for example. I always read his stuff with great interest. Steve Bulick U S WEST Advanced Technologies bulick@uswest.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:20:23 GMT From: George L Sicherman Subject: Who's Living in a Cave? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In , Randy Borow writes: > From buses to trains to airports to flyers to radio and TV ads -- > you name it, they advertised it. Fairly well, I might ad [sic]. ... > ... The most frequent complaint about the area code split was: "Well, > nobody ever told ME about it!" > To which we all wanted so badly to respond: "Where the HELL have you > been -- in a cave or something ...?!?" ... Such arrogance reminds me of the vogon's response on the subject of demolishing Earth: "There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now." (Doug Adams, _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_) The authorities tend to assume that whenever and however they talk, people will listen. But to us who ignore TV, radio, newspaper and magazine ads, and billboards because practically everything they say is useless or deceiving, it's the others who are living in a cave -- the cave of the mass media, sometimes called the "Cave of the Winds." We're out here in the real world, enjoying the company and the scenery. The Moderator's advice to telephone companies is sound. Telling it to the public is _not_ the same as telling to people! For me, N.J. Bell's NOTICE insert in my phone bill worked fine. For others, the company had better be prepared to talk, voice to voice. G. L. Sichemman gls@odyssey.att.COM ------------------------------ From: penguin@pro-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Date: 3 Mar 91 02:36:15 GMT In-Reply-To: message from sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu Up here, I know of two or three companies that are too stubborn to get an 800 number and still have Zenith numbers. Every now and then I call them, and if I get a new operator, I have to explain to her what I want done. Training them in with the new and forgetting the old stuff. :) [ 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 02:04:54 GMT From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet Subject: Can 50 Conductor Phone Cable be Used For LAN? I would appreciate information on whether a 50-conductor phone cable, presently serving a 1A2 system, would be appropriate for shared use as the wiring of a LAN. Is one use likely to interfere with the other and under what conditions (ringing affect LAN, LAN affect voice or modem calls, etc.) and what could be done to eliminate or minimize these effects. Performance limits on the LAN with such wiring are also of interest. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Subject: Calling an Out-of-Area 800 Number Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 02:15:23 GMT From: "David E. Wallace" Is there any way to place a call to a limited-area 800 number from out of that area at my own expense? I have had two occasions when I needed to call such a number and was unable to do so. The operators I spoke to were not particularly helpful. On one occasion, I was able to call someone who lived in the area in question and have her make the call for me, but this is not a general solution. Does anyone have a better idea for future use? Dave W. (david_wallace@hpdtl.ctgsc.hp.com) [Moderator's Note: There is no legal (that is, per tariff authority) way to do it. The people with limited service 800 numbers quite frankly *do not want or appreciate* your call on their 800 line; that is why they have it specifically limited. What you are free to do is look up their regular number and call them on that instead. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: Re: Equal Access / 800 NXX Assignments Date: 3 Mar 91 00:41:39 GMT Moderator's Note: > Remember, AT&T had that service for many years before MCI came on the > scene, and as a result, a very large (lion's share, really) arbitrary > selection of codes assigned by themselves. Following the breakup, > AT&T kept the ones they had and took more as well. PAT] On January 1, 1984, AT&T was providing service on 182 800-NNX's. Bellcore, which took control of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP), attempted to "level the playing field" by placing 74 of AT&T's NNX's in moratorium. I learned this recently when a client requested a particular number and was told, "Yes, this is an AT&T prefix, but we can't give you a number with this prefix." When AT&T's non-frozen prefixes are filled, Bellcore will begin releasing frozen prefixes for assignment. I'd like to see a summary of new 800-NXX's in this Digest when Bellcore releases them. Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill ------------------------------ From: djcl@contact.uucp (woody) Subject: Re: International 800 Numbers? Reply-To: djcl@contact.UUCP (woody) Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada. Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:14:58 GMT "International" 800 numbers just seem to be domestic toll-free numbers that get call-forwarded to their international destination. Canada has agreements with some countries for such service. However, each country has its own toll-free system (North America 1-800, UK 0800, and the Netherlands with 06-0/4). Numbering plan setups require different numbers in different countries. There was a posting in TELECOM Digest not too many months ago about some noises that a CCITT study group was making so as to provide a toll free country code so that a consistent dialing number may be had through the overseas dialing system. One flaw was that the proposed country code would be 800. While the idea of patterning the country code after the common 800 code (North America, UK), that in fact would be confusing for the existing domestic 800 services. Anyone with connections with the CCITT should push for a toll-free country code, but make it something other than 800 (like 991, which could see the 99X country codes used for special purposes; an international 900/976-style service, anyone? ;-)) djcl@contact.uucp ... in April, watch for postings from Florida ------------------------------ From: Robert Michael Gutierrez Subject: Re: International 800 Numbers? Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 03:55:30 GMT Reply-To: Robert Michael Gutierrez Organization: NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) writes: > Are you sure international 800 numbers exist today? If so, why do > televised ads aiming at an international audience contain those > screens full of national 800 numbers, when a single international 800 > number would do the job? True international 800 numbers don't exist, unfortunately. Wasn't CCITT working on a dialling plan to institute an international 800 system??? Consequently, here at NASA/NSI Network Ops, we have to have seven national 800 numbers (USA, France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland and the U.K.), with seven different numbers to deal with, depending on where on this planet you are. > For what it's worth, auto-reverse charge numbers in the Netherlands > start with 06-0 or 06-4. That's right. Our Netherlands number starts as 06-022-XXXX. Robert Gutierrez - NASA Science Internet Network Operations. Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Sun, Mar 3 00:34:40 GMT 1991 Subject: Re: Making a Telephone Ring for a Play We have been talking for weeks in the Digest now about how to make a telephone ring on cue for a play. Well, I was at school today and decided to do some research on the topic. I looked in the "Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature", Volume 49, 1989, and found the following reference: | "Making a Telephone Ring [theater special effect]" K. Ruling il | _Theatre_Crafts_ 23:92+ Ap'89 Which means that in _Theatre_Crafts_ magazine, April '89, on page 92, there is an article by K. Ruling. And it includes illustrations, too! My school library doesn't subscribe to _Theatre_Crafts_, so I couldn't look up the article. Sean E. Williams | attmail.com!seanwilliams 333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227 | seanwilliams@attmail.com Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA | voicemail: +1 717 957 8139 ------------------------------ From: Tom Perrine Subject: An Old Instrument Develops Bell-Tap Date: 3 Mar 91 00:45:16 GMT Reply-To: Tom Perrine Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California In article bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 167, Message 1 of 11 > The traditional ringer IS sensitive to the polarity of pulses! Aside > from adjusting the bias spring, the 'proper' cure for BELL-TAP > (tinkeling as a rotary extension or other party dials or even just > goes on/off hook) is to have the phone's two wires connected properly > to TIP and RING. > There may be a bias spring that can be hooked to a stiffer notch that > will help. I am asking this question because the original article meseems to be talking about TT phones and their ringers. My father-in-law has a real Bell rotary phone that was installed in 1960. It has, of course never been serviced. In the last ten years or so, it has developed what sounds like bell-tap; when you dial, the ringer makes one "ding" for every pulse in the number. When an extension was added (by TPC), we discovered that dialing the extension (a cordless, set to pulse-dial) also causes the original phone to "ding". Is this "bell-tap"? Is it a matter of reversing the polarity on the pair, or is it due to wear in the electro-mechanical ringer? After thirty years, I would assume that it could be a *little* out of adjustment :-). Inquiring minds want to know! Tom Perrine (tep) |Internet: tep@tots.Logicon.COM Logicon - T&TSD | UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep P.O. Box 85158 |GENIE: T.PERRINE San Diego CA 92138 |Voice: +1 619 455 1330 | FAX: +1 619 552 0729 ------------------------------ From: Wally Kramer Subject: LD Dialing Without the "1" (was Re: NXX Count ...) Date: 3 Mar 91 00:02:50 GMT Reply-To: Wally Kramer Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR steve@wattres.uucp (Steve Watt) writes: > On a somewhat related note, I'm curious ... how many area codes are > there out there (like PacBell territory in 408) that don't require a > 1+ for *any* call, local, long-distance, or otherwise? Northern New Jersey 201-XXX didn't when I was there in 1982. Particularly annoying as I was unfamiliar with the area and with little money, so I would have really liked having to dial a 1 to protect me from accidental spending. This is probably the intent -- after all, Bell 'owns' New Jersey. Wally Kramer contracted from Step Technology, Portland, Oregon 503 244 1239 wallyk@orca.WV.TEK.COM +1 503 685 2658 ------------------------------ From: Clive Feather Subject: Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 0:30:20 GMT In v11i160m3, John Higdon, talking about stored value cards, says: > For the plan to work, there would have to be one card > that would work in any card phone nationwide. With the zillion COCOT > owners, not to mention many different local utility coin phones, the > prospects for a universal system are slim. In the UK, we have two major telephone companies: BT (the former government telephone system) and Mercury. Both provide public payphones. Each produce a stored value card, and have phones that take them. Neither will accept the other's card. For information, the BT card holds 10p units, and whole units are always used at a time (they are literally burnt out of the card when used). The Mercury card deducts 1p at a time, with a minimum call cost of 5p. (I posted a list of BT charges a while ago; I don't have Mercury charges to hand). A Mercury phone will not accept 144 (the access number for BT credit card calls). Clive D.W. Feather | IXI Limited clive@x.co.uk | 62-74 Burleigh St. Phone: +44 223 462 131 | Cambridge CB1 1OJ (USA: 1 800 XDESK 57) | United Kingdom ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #175 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01710; 3 Mar 91 17:09 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25160; 3 Mar 91 10:19 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id al07363; 3 Mar 91 9:15 CST Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 9:05:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #176 BCC: Message-ID: <9103030905.ab28326@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Mar 91 09:05:18 CST Volume 11 : Issue 176 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell [TELECOM Moderator] Digital Phones for SLIP Circuits [Everett .F Batey] Re: InterLATA Call Forwarding [Steven S. Brac] Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? [Jim Gottlieb] Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Where Do You Live? In a Cave? [Andy Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 8:04:55 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell Illinois Bell will open its switching offices to non-Bell competitors in a move expected to enhance competition in the arena of local telephone service in Chicago and improve the reliability of telephone networks that specialize in high speed data transfers. The new policy, effective April 7 pending final approval by the Illinois Commerce Commission, will allow Teleport Communications and Metropolitan Fiber Systems to interconnect their systems with Illinois Bell. Teleport and Metropolitan Fiber are waiting now for approval, but other competitors may be on the way. The tariff filed by IBT this past week would allow rival companies to resell Illinois Bell services to customers. By allowing this, Teleport and Metropolitan Fiber will both be able to offer packages that would otherwise be uneconomical. For the time being, the competitors will limit their offerings to business services, particularly in the area of high speed data transfers. The agreement grew out of negotiations between IBT and Teleport, which had filed a suit with the Illinois Commerce Commission over IBT's earlier reluctance to allow interconnection. According to Scott Bonney, director of regulatory affairs at Teleport, " ... a lot of telephone companies say they favor increased local competition, but it is mostly just lip service. With Illinois Bell though, the situation is different. Illinois Bell has always been a very enlightened organization; we feel they will be fair in dealing with market rivals." James Smith, director of regulatory affairs for Illinois Bell confirmed that the company will install and maintain switching equipment in its offices that meets the specifications of its competitors, most notably Teleport and Metropolitan Fiber. He would not commit to a specific start-up date but said 'later this spring' a routine will be in place for handling interconnect requests. Bonney also said that interconnection will increase the already wide diversity of telecom services in northern Illinois. "In a big way, interconnection will improve survivability of the communications infrastructure for Chicago," he noted. What other communities and/or local telcos are entertaining the idea of competition in local exchange service? What others are actually implementing it at this time as is Illinois Bell? PAT ------------------------------ From: Everett F Batey Subject: Digital Phones for SLIP Circuits Date: 3 Mar 91 00:07:46 GMT Reply-To: Everett F Batey II Organization: NSWSES 4A05, Port Hueneme, CA 93043 - Opinions: Mine Alone Confronted with an urgent need to run SLIP between two Sun3s (OS 4.1 and 4.1.1) and some easy to comeby telephone assets AND NO money for modems, we are trying to pick the most trustworthy and easy to accomplish SLIP link. Sites are within three miles, wire, 1/2 mile crow flight. - We have Meridian phones for which we can get 9600 baud RS-232 interfaces. DOES ANYBODY know if with handshaking and async over digitized phone line, these data phone options WORK SUCCESSFULLY for this purpose? - We have access to a four wire metallic circuit, not conditioned. Is there an economical, recent or old, technology four wire modem YOU USE to support 9600 baud SLIP ? - We have some available Telebit modems, no two alike and NO T2500. I don't think any are the newer of V32/V42, which ever that is. The last neighbor we knew using these with a 200 mile dialup phone path spent lots of time restarting the circuit. Is there a good way to use these locally over an analog delivered voice grade phone line ? - How would YOU rate from YOUR PERSONAL experience these options, for cost effectiveness and ease ( idiot-proof-ness ) of installation ? - Remember in answering these questions, the right answer leads to the most efficient use of tax dollars. Thanks /Ev/ efb@suned1.nswses.Navy.MIL efb@gcpacix.uucp efb@gcpacix.cotdazr.org efb@nosc.mil WA6CRE Gold Coast Sun Users Vta-SB-SLO DECUS gnu Opinions, MINE, NOT Uncle Sam_s | b-news postmaster xntp dns WAFFLE ------------------------------ From: "Steven S. Brack" Subject: Re: InterLATA Call Forwarding Organization: The Ohio State University Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:40:31 GMT In article sbrack@hpuxa.ircc. ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: => In article SJS132@psuvm.psu.edu (Steve => Shimatzki) writes: =>> Would it be possible to use Call Forwarding, to call long distance, and =>> not pay for it? ... Describes method of hopping from one phone to another ... => [Moderator's Note: You mention your uncle is saving a little money => each month from this arrangement. Have the savings yet been sufficient => to amoritze, or pay for the initial installation cost of the line => being permanently forwarded and for the monthly charge for the phone => sitting there doing nothing but forwarding calls? PAT] To amplify: He saves very little money, before extra charges for the extra line and call forwarding. But, the way he sees it, it has paid fore itself by preventing lost business. People are very averse to paying even minor tolls, a fact which cost my uncle some business before he got the other line. So, if it weren't for his special situation, Call Forwarding would not make good economic sense. Steven S. Brack sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu sbrack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu (Avoid sending here, if possible) ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? Date: 3 Mar 91 11:11:56 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan John Higdon writes: > Macy Hallock writes: >> Somewhere in my basement I have a couple of KS-20721s > A final note: to its credit, the CPUC eventually ordered Pac*Bell to > refund ALL money EVER paid by customers for "network protection" > devices. This included installation and montly charges plus interest. The really neat part of this was that they still took orders for these devices (we always called them "couplers") after they announced that anyone could get this refund for the asking. Knowing this, I ordered a ton of RDMZR (KS-20721) and RDL (KS-19522) couplers. A few months later I called for my refund. And sure enough, a check arrived covering all costs plus 7% simple interest. And because, as John described, there was a lot of equipment in the field that required that the coupler be there, Pacific Telephone let you keep the device in place. My friends and I used the RDMZR for multi-line conferencing (we just tied the audio pairs together and used the control leads for various control functions). But I always liked the RDL. I have always liked to fiddle with phones and electronics, but I have also always been a bit lazy. Why design my own telephone interface circuit when the RDL will do it all for you. It signals you that the line is ringing, you tell it when to answer. It then allows outgoing audio. When you are done with your outgoing announcement, you short a pair of wires and the RDL automatically provides a beep tone, reverses the direction of audio, and throws a relay to stop your outgoing tape and start your incoming tape. Despite what John Higdon says about audio loss, I still say that the answering machines I built with RDLs sounded better than most commercial machines on the market today (and definitely better than voice mail [which I now use]). ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy Date: 3 Mar 91 11:40:08 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In article John Higdon writes: > If you stop to think about it, why have there > been no attempts to establish a stored value card system for public > telephones? They are found in a number of other countries, including > Japan. Most Americans that I talked to there liked the system and used > it. I do not believe that it would be rejected by the American public. I must admit that I find the public telephone debit cards to be convenient, and for tourists and other transients they are great. But I disagree that America should try to emulate them. First of all, I have problems with the whole idea of stored-value cards. The fraud potential is way too high when you leave the balance in the hands of the consumer. I even saw a TV program here in Japan about a year ago that showed exactly how to beat the system. Telephone cards have been extremely successful here, but I would say that other stored-value cards have not. There are now cards for several of the convenience stores (7-11, etc.), department stores, and even cards that work only in Coke machines. I don't think I have ever seen anyone using any of the other cards. Telephone cards worked because telephones only take one or two types of coins, no bills, one must continually dump coins in while one talks, and they don't make change. Having a telephone card prevents this hassle. Why would one want to have a 7-11 card? 7-11 stores take any coin, any bill, and they give change. And the whole idea of having to carry around a different card for each store or vending machines starts to undermine the idea of a universally accepted currency. I heard a while back of an effort to create a card that would be accepted by a variety of merchants. They talked of the problem of how to disperse the payments. I have not heard any mention of this plan since. In the U.S. we already have such a system. It's called the banking system. Even if we exclude cash and credit cards, one can pay with a check (bank draft) or one can pay with one's ATM card. Japan would do better to allow the use of ATM cards as has been done in the U.S. The system is in place and would work, but probably only after 24-hour ATM operation was established (ATMs in Japan close at 7 PM and only recently started operation on Sundays) because the system must always be on line. And of course, your bank account balance isn't stored on your ATM card. Which brings us back to the call for such a stored-value card system for use on U.S. phones. Just like the above, I would say that we already have a better system in place; credit cards and calling cards. Stored-value telephone cards are also popular because using one costs no more than using cash. I call on U.S. telephone and long distance companies to eliminate calling card and credit card surcharges. Almost everyone has a credit card or has (or can get) a calling card. I would never put cash in a phone again if there were no surcharge to use my calling card. There is no reason to start a whole new currency when we have a far superior system already in place. It just needs to be properly implemented. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan E-Mail: or Fax: +81 3 3237 5867 Voice Mail: +81 3 3222 8429 [Moderator's Note: It is a little-known fact that 60-75 years ago, there was an unusual way of handling pay phone calls: the merchant slug, which you purchased from the clerk in the store for use in the pay stations ONLY in that store. If a store was part of a chain, then the telephone slug would work in any of the payphones in any branch of the store, but never in the payphone of a competing store. The Walgreen's Drug Store chain started here in Chicago. In 1920, they had about a dozen outlets here, all of which had convenient payphones for public use. The telephones would not work on coins, and had to have slugs puchased from the Walgreen's cashiers. Local payphone calls were five cents each, which was the value of the individual slug; but you could buy a packet of ten slugs for 45 cents, and use them for any combination of local or long distance calls. Both Sears, Roebuck and Montgomery Ward, two large chains with their roots here also used the slug-style payphones, and their phones would not accept Walgreen slugs. Neither would Walgreens accept slugs from Sear, Wards or the Boston Store. Most merchants discounted the slugs, selling a packet for 45 cents. Some sold them for 44 cents, etc. The payoff to the telco (Chicago Telephone Company in those days, the predecessor of Illinois Bell, which came along in the middle twenties) came when the collector came to empty the coin boxes. He would empty the box and take all the slugs back to the cashier. The cashier paid four cents each for them, meaning a one cent profit or commission per payphone call, or nine-and-a-half / ten cents profit per ten calls, depending on if the merchant chose to sell several at a slight discount. The idea was if you needed to make a phone call and only had Walgreen slugs you had to go to Walgreen's to make the call, and while you were there you might as well do some shopping, etc. The same slugs kept circulating over and over, the customer buying them; using them and the telco selling them back to the cashier for re-use. They finally quit using slugs sometime around 1930. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 06:50 PST From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Re: Where Do You Live? In a Cave? The new GTE phone books just came out on the westside of L.A. This is that wonderful part of town that will be switched entirely to NPA 310 on November 2 of this year. The phone book will be current to March of next year. The entirety of what GTE says about the new area code is limited to a tiny note on the bottom right of the cover of the book, saying only "Introducing new area codes 310 and 510 -- see information pages", and one page, after the civic, first aid, and earthquake info at the very end of the information pages that preface the book. This page is separate from all other telco related stuff, and is so vague, it doesn't even mention when permissive dialing ends for this area. It appears to be a poor rip off of the page in the PacBell directories in this state, but with GTE's usual less information. The only other reference I could find is the 310 region on the countrywide LD map, but not on the state map, which says in bold letters "YOUR AREA CODE IS 213**", the asteriks refering to a tiny note at the bottom of the page about 310. Otherwise the phonebook says nothing, and has 213 this and that all over it. There is no mention of any changes in the material about calling zones and rates, even the list of all prefixes in the area code makes no mention of any changes. Randy Borow writes: > Well, when the permissive dialing was stopped on Feb. 9th last year > and the 708/312 codes became mandatory, IBT had to open several > operator services centers which were normally closed at the time just > to handle the flood of calls. So far there has been no publicity whatsoever. The only info available to the public was a newspaper article a while back. If their phone book is any indication of what they will do, GTE will be in big trouble. Period. Andy Jacobson or ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #176 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02980; 3 Mar 91 18:23 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07329; 3 Mar 91 3:41 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31078; 3 Mar 91 2:31 CST Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 2:00:30 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #170 BCC: Message-ID: <9103030200.ab13363@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Mar 91 02:00:27 CST Volume 11 : Issue 170 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson 800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card [Bill Huttig] Are Surcharges Legal on 800 Calls? [Pankaj Mayor] Data Switch Needed [Mark Steiger] Re: PacTel Long Range Cordless [Mark Steiger] MCI Preferred Customers [Bill Huttig] Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments [Leonard P. Levine] Are Cellular Phones Treated Differently Than Normal Phones? [Mark Poulson] California Tariff Question [Linc Madison] Re: In A Corner of Our Bedroom [ROCKY@cup.portal.com] Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom [John A. Weeks III] Re: Good News: Allied Lives [Thomas D. Graham] Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? [Robert Freimer] Airphones and TDD? [Curtis E. Reid] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:1:09:40GMT From: Bill Huttig Subject: 800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL What I understand about the various long distance companies would lead me to believe that 950/800 access is different from 10xxx. 950/800 calls require you to have an account with that long distance company and have one of their calling cards. 10xxx calls can be billed to the telephone you are calling from. Therefore most LD Companies need both 950/800 and 10xxx. In the case of AT&T it would be the same calling card since the BOC data base is shared with AT&T (When you ask for an AT&T card they ask the BOC for the number). I don't know why the other companies can't check their calling card data bases like AT&T checks their Universal Card database. When 10xxx started here you had to use the card from that company. They could say something like press 1 to use you Local Phone Company Calling Card press 2 to use your MCI Card or whatever. Now the problem with the Call Me card is that some LD companies other then AT&T do not check the type of card and will accept it for any call. The good thing about 800 personal service is that it is available from phones were there is blocking of 950 and 10xxx dialing. There is no need to have touch tone (If you don't have tone you would have to read you card number to the operator and people could overhear you). [Moderator's Note: Actually, with 10xxx service, neither 800 or 950 is required. After the 10xxx of choice is entered, you can then dial using 1+ or 0+. Everything 950/800 can do, 10xxx can do better. In addition, 10xxx allows billing to the phone being used, something you do not get with 950/800. The main reason these guys do not want to have 10xxx available is because (a) some people would actually use AT&T thus depriving the phone operator of a commission structure they like better than what AT&T will pay, and (b) they would have to program their switches to disallow 'sent-paid' calls over AT&T (if that was their choice) while still allowing 'sent-paid' on the carrier they did want to use. I'd say that's their problem. 10xxx is the method preferred by AT&T. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Are Surcharges Legal on 800 Calls? Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 02:53:25 GMT From: Pankaj Mayor I was placing a call from a pay phone the other day and noticed that it had no identifying phone number. It also charged $0.50 for 1-800 calls. So I called up the operator (I think from Payline communications) and complained to her. She told me that it was legal for privately owned pay phones to charge for 1-800 calls. Was she right? Pankaj [Moderator's Note: If such charges are legal, they should be billed to the recipient of the 800 call. That person has, after all, agreed to pay the charges associated with connecting the caller to him. I really do not think they are legal however, but I'm not sure. PAT] ------------------------------ From: penguin@pro-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) Subject: Data Switch Needed Date: 3 Mar 91 03:56:09 GMT Is there something that works like an auto fax switch for Data lines? And I don't want one that uses custom ringing. Not available up here. [ 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 ------------------------------ From: penguin@pro-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) Subject: Re: PacTel Long Range Cordless Date: 3 Mar 91 03:56:07 GMT In-Reply-To: message from SYSMATT@ukcc.uky.edu Talking about long range phones, a company in Canada was offering a phone with the range of 200 Kilometers. I saw that ad about a year ago. It said it hadn't been approved by the US FCC, so wasn't available. Was this the forerunner (or the reason of installation) of cellular in Canada? [ 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 ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: MCI Preferred Customers Date: 28 Feb 91 02:53:09 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I just got off the phone with a confused MCI rep. She said that there was/is an MCI product/promotion where certain customers get $3 checks and then they will get 10% off of calls to one certain number. The customers are chosen by the computer. Maybe this promo was a test for the March 18 product. Most of the MCI services reps are under the impression that the March 18th product is brand new. Maybe the person who thinks it is a VPN is correct. It would be nice. ------------------------------ From: Leonard P Levine Subject: Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments Date: 3 Mar 91 03:24:43 GMT Reply-To: levine@csd4.csd.uwm.edu Many of us do not know that the cost of mailing a nine-digit bar coded envelope that has the five virtical stripes is $0.27, not $0.29. The nine digit code decreases postal cost, the window save sorting and searching and you save $0.02. Maybe someone will post this someday where various people can see it. By the way, there is at least one program available (for the PC) that will permit the appropriate bar codes to be printed on an envelope by a laser printer as a part of the addressing mode. Program costs $50, savings $0.02; so you have to use it 2500 times to make it pay off. | Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu | | Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 | | University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 | | Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 | [Moderator's Note: The thing you overlooked was the *minimum pieces per mailing* requirement to get the 27 cent rate. You must mail (I think) 500 pieces or more at a time. The mail has to be taken already sorted by zip code to the post office. You cannot just drop it in a mailbox. I think the postage has to be affixed by meter rather than postage stamp. There are a lot of catches; essentially only very large mailers (this includes telco's outbound mail) are eligible to get the 27 cent rate or find it worth their time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark R Poulson Subject: Are Cellular Phones Treated Differently Than Normal Phones? Date: 3 Mar 91 01:31:05 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA The Caller*ID debates have seemed to spread to many newsgroups and I have come realize many of the issues people are worried about. Some seem to worry that calling from a phone that is not (or cannot be) blocked will give people their number. If you were using a cellular phone, would Caller*ID still provide your number? Are there any residence addresses associated with a cellular phone (i.e. the address of the owner or business, or can it be NONE)? I haven't seen much on cellular phones in this group so I hope this isn't a redundant question. Thanks! Mark @ ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!simnet [Moderator's Note: CNA in Chicago returns 'cellular phone, no other information available' in response to queries on cell numbers. They tend not to give any information that Caller*ID can use either. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 03:14:07 GMT From: Linc Madison Subject: California Tariff Question I just got my phone bill, and I'm rather upset about some of the charges, but, before I go fuming to Pac*Bell about it, I wanted to see if maybe they managed to sneak a new tariff by me without my noticing. Specifically, the charges relate to some calling card calls made in ZUM Zone 2 (Zone Usage Measurement; Zone 2 is 8-12 miles). After some mathematical dissection, I've figured out the charges as shown below: Item published tariff actual charge ==== ================ ============= Calling card surcharge $0.40 $0.60 First minute (daytime) 0.17 0.08 Additional minutes (day) 0.07 0.02 These calls were made from a Pac*Bell payphone within my LATA, specifically from San Francisco Central Zone to Berkeley. Gee -- some of the charges are only inflated 50%, while others get inflated a whole 250%. I wonder why they didn't just charge me $50 and claim they've been taken over by an AOS company.... If anyone has any info on any recent tariffs (say, last seven months or so) involving calling card surcharges or zone charges, please e-mail me. I placed these calls on my calling card because when I attempted to make them sent-paid, the computer quoted me an incorrect rate (75c for the first three minutes, when the tariffed rate is .25 + .08 + 2x.02 = .37, round down to .35). However, it isn't just a single glitch in the rate tables, because the calling card surcharge also appears in some calls from Santa Cruz to Oakland and Berkeley. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: ROCKY@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: In A Corner of Our Bedroom Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 01:06:23 GMT John Temples responded to a posting of mine that mentioned the fact that there is a demarc in my bedroom crawlspace with 25 lines, including the lines for the other units in my townhouse. He wondered what would happen if someone else wanted service on their line while I was out of town or otherwise unavailable to let Telco in to do the work. I wonder about it too. I sure didn`t know about this when I bought the place. Fortunately for me, no one seems to be adding to their phone lines around here as I have not been bothered (knock on wood :-) ) in the two years that I have lived here. ------------------------------ From: "John A. Weeks III" Subject: Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom Date: 3 Mar 91 03:57:33 GMT Reply-To: "John A. Weeks III" Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Eden Prairie, MN In John_Richard_Bruni@cup.portal.com writes: > Amazingly enough, *ALL* the demarcs for the building are in MY bedroom. Do you like making free long distance phone calls? Or how about making crank calls to 911? Being a total paranoid, I could never tolerate having my phone wires available to someone else. Do your neighbors know about this? John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john [Moderator's Note: You had better start tolerating having your phone wires available to everyone else ... if most people knew how phone pairs are multipled a bunch of places along the cable run, they would revolt. All you have in his case is *easier* access to the pairs in a relatively private setting. But believe me you, between you and the CO your pair shows up in a few basements along the way or on a few poles. In the building where I used to live, the big inside terminal block had oh, maybe three hundred pairs. The building used less than a hundred of them. The apartment building across the street also had a box where all of ours came up, etc. What happened was both apartment buildings used to have switchboard service for the tenants years before. Each switchboard had maybe a dozen trunks. When the owners of the building got tired of having to hire desk clerks to run the boards, they had the board pulled out. Telco had to somehow find pairs in the cable for each apartment (to have its own phone line). The results were sometimes pretty weird. My case was not unique. In all older urban areas with (older) high rise apartment buildings the buildings used to have cord/plug type switchboard service. Maybe five percent of the switchboards are still around; the rest are gone with the apartments wired straight through to the CO, multipled to beat the band up and down the street with every other apartment high-rise in parallel on the cable run. See my article in the Archives 'find.pair' for more details. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Thomas D. Graham" Subject: Re: Good News: Allied Lives Organization: Rockwell International Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 01:13:56 GMT Goodnews - Allied lives!!! Well, I'm not sure, have you done business with them yet??? I re-discovered them about two years ago. They have an impressive catalog and you call in orders regionally. That was my first obstacle, they had to assign an account rep to me; great for my $20 worth of business??? Then, they would tell me that an item was in stock, I'd order it, but wouldn't get it, they explained that they're local terminal was not always current with the Chicago warehouse. So, the item is back-ordered and when I get it they have charged again for shippping and minimum order charge, about $9 for a $2 item that they had left out of my original order. I now go to them as last choice. I've had nothing but good vibes with DigiKey. Your mileage may vary. ------------------------------ From: freimer@moot.cs.cornell.edu (Robert Freimer) Subject: Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? Date: 3 Mar 91 00:09:48 GMT Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept. Ithaca NY Yes, RCI is Rochester Telephone's long distance subsidiary. I have been using them for over a year, since they have much better intrastate rates for NY. They have an all digital network from Chicago to NYC and Boston. Rochester Telephone set itself up as a mini AT&T, but never had to divest. Besides long distance, they provide local service, and also sell equipment. Robert Freimer ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 91 09:33 EST From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: Airphones and TDD? A thought struck me as I was reading the thread on Airphones mentioned in several Digests ago. Someone mentioned that you can't use cellular phone or radio while airborne, right? What about use of other electronic equipment like a laptop, GameBoy (Yes, I do play it!), or a TDD? I will be flying transcontinental soon ... I am curious whether the TDD would work if I make a call from the Airphone? I don't know about the sound quality (static)? Before I do this, I need to know if any electronic equipment is prohibited on an airplane while airborne? Could someone tell me excatly what are the rules for operating such equipment on an airplane? Thanks!! Curtis E. Reid CER2520@RITVAX.Bitnet (Bitnet) CER2520@RITVAX.isc.rit.edu (Internet) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #170 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03029; 3 Mar 91 18:25 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01940; 3 Mar 91 4:46 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07329; 3 Mar 91 3:41 CST Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 3:14:55 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #171 BCC: Message-ID: <9103030314.ab23070@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Mar 91 03:14:43 CST Volume 11 : Issue 171 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Call-Forwarding Across the Nation [Scott Hinckley] AT&T Ready to Hook Up Again [Tom Coradeschi] Re: Armstrong and Ma Bell [Bert Cowlan] Re: "Most Accurate Clock" [Kerry G. Forschler] Getting Account/Billing Information by Phone [Rich Zellich] MCI Preferred 800 Details [Bill Huttig] Re: Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History [Alan Barclay] Microwave / Optical Links for Audio [Eric Weaver] Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? [Tad Cook] Re: GTE and Pac Tel Cellular in Los Angeles [Brent Chapman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 03:49:31 GMT From: Scott Hinckley Subject: Call-Forwarding Across the Nation >Would it be possible to use Call Forwarding, to call long distance, and >not pay for it? Heres the Scenario: I call a friend who is right >between me and an area that is LD for me. His number then forwards >to another number, but into the LD area. Do I get the local call, or >[Moderator's Note: Addressing #2, each phone line only is billed for >what it dials. Therefore you would pay for a call to your friend in ... >somewhere around 12 cents a minute on Reach Out ... how many local >connections linked together with chain-forwarding would it require to >cover the same distance, and how many local calls in the path would >cost five or ten cents each? And who would pay the intermediate This may be a completely mute pont anyway. At least in Atlanta (in 1988) you could not re-call-forward a call-forwarded call. The call-forwarded call to a call-forwarded number would result in a normal ring, rather than a re-forward. This may be to stop such plans. Scott Hinckley Internet:scott@huntsai.boeing.com|UUCP:.!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!huntsai!scott DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not|+1 205 461 2073 represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management| BTN:461-2073 [Moderator's Note: We used to have some prefixes like that here. A call forwarded to a number would ring on that number regardless of where the call-forwardee was forwarded to. But now the only time that happens is if there is a loop: A forwards to B and B forwards to A. The incoming call enters the loop at either end and stops after the first hop. Otherwise, chain forwarding works okay here, but the first time it hits a loop, or a number already in the chain, that is it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:44:00 GMT From: Tom Coradeschi Subject: AT&T Ready to Hook Up Again That was the headline above a short blurb in today's (28 Feb 91) Newark, NJ {Star-Ledger}. The story read: America Telephone & Telegraph will re-establish long-distance telephone service with Kuwait by the weekend, the company said yesterday. In cooperation with the Kuwait Ministry of Communications, AT&T will be setting up long-distance equipment for the first time since the Iraqi invasion in August. A spokesman for the communications giant said it was moving a portable satellite earth station and electronics equipment from Saudi Arabia to Kuwait City and expected it to be installed and operating by the weekend. The first long-distance service will be via 120 lines on telephones to be installed at a site designated by the Ministry of Communications, an AT&T spokesman said. The company and the Kuwait government also are discussing ways to restore ground communications within the war-ravaged country. As a side note, an article in yesterday's {Wall Street Journal} discusses the heated (frenzied!) bidding for contracts to rebuild the infrastructure within Kuwait. AT&T is certainly not the only firm looking for work there. tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil <+> tcora@dacth01.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:38:49 GMT From: cdp!pssc@labrea.stanford.edu (Bert Cowlan) Subject: Re: Armstrong and Ma Bell Organization: EcoNet It is with some trepidation that I seek to reply to an item about Major Edwin Howard Armstrong, the inventor of FM. The trepidation stems not only from dusty brain cells but from my lack of certain knowledge as to how to send a reply to a conference. My memory, like that of who posted the original, is not quite so dusty, though, that I do not clearly recall that Armstrong's suicide, which has been documented, was as the result of his battles with RCA and "General" Sarnoff and not - repeat not - with AT&T. My recollection also is that his transmitter tower was located in Alpine, New Jersey (although there may have been one either before or after at the Empire State Building). At least, it was there at the time that as a twelve or fourteen-year old (circa 1939, 1941) a ham friend and I roller-skated about eight miles north of the George Washington Bridge to visit it and to our delight and surprise were taken on a tour of the facility by Armstrong himself. Further, I remember that, when I ran WBAI-FM, New York in 1957-1960 and we went on the air with the country's first experimental stereo transmissions, our assigned call letters were W2XHR which, I was told at the time, were the call letters that had been used by Armstrong in Alpine. That stereo system was based on one he developed. Again, straining brain cells, I think that his experimental transmissions may have been in the "old" FM band that existed prior to the end of WWII, below 88-108MHz, usurped by TV. Documentation: There is a book, written some time in the late '50s, titled "Man of High Fidelity." When I get home tonight I will look up the publisher and date of publication and cheerfully share same with anyone who asks me. The author, whose name is still in my ancient Rolodex, Lawrence Lessing, since deceased, was at the time a Senior Editor of {Fortune Magazine} and he flat-out accused Sarnoff of contributing to - even causing - Armstrong's suicide. That he was never sued for libel speaks well for the quality of his research and scholarship. I remember, having met him during the WBAI period (then a commercial station), that he had expected some legal action to be directed against him and that {Fortune} (in which I think part of the book was published first) was prepared to back him to the hilt. ------------------------------ From: "Kerry G. Forschler" Subject: Re: "Most Accurate Clock" Date: 3 Mar 91 00:27:03 GMT Organization: The Boeing Co., BCA FSL, Seattle, WA In article , Robert.Savery@iugate. unomaha.edu (Robert Savery) writes: > In a recent message, Steve Shankman (sshankman@mis.arizona.edu) writes: > > 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?). {Popular Electronics} magazine, March 1991, page 73, gives a hands-on review of the Heathkit Most Accurate Clock. Here's what I gleaned from the article: o the author was impressed with it, o keeps time to within 10 ms or better of WWV, o has an RS-232C output which provides time and date data in ACSII format, o the RS-232C output is standard with the pre-assembled unit, but must be bought as a separate unit for the kit, o Heath/Zenith interfacing software is extra ($49.95), o requires from 4 to 30 minutes to calibrate itself the first time turned on, o has a built-in telescoping antenna, o has an option for an external antenna, o a highly-suitable tuned-dipole outdoor antenna can be bought for $99.95, o if signal strength is too weak to always receive WWV it uses its own internal crystal-controlled oscilliator to control time, o runs on a 12-volt battery or 117/220 VAC, o has a built-in speaker so you can listen to the audio portion of WWV, o the audio is controled by a volume control and can be turned off, o has options for 12/24 hour format, daylight savings time, etc, o the year is set by a DIP switch and must be changed each year. I hope this is helpful. Disclaimer: I have no connection with Heath Co. or {Popular Electronics} magazine. Kerry G. Forschler | Voice: 206-237-1274 (work) Boeing Commercial Airplanes | Voice: 206-235-1435 (home) P.O. Box 3707, M/S 96-02 | UUCP: ..!uunet!bcstec!tahoma!kgf2173 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 | Boeing net: kgf2173@tahoma ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 03:01:01 GMT From: Rich Zellich Subject: Getting Account/Billing Information by Phone Bob Yazz writes: > I dumped Sprint in favor of AT&T after verifying that Sprint had > programmed their computer to reveal my billing info to anybody who > called them knowing my phone number. Yesterday I received my Southwestern Bell Tel. bill here in the St. Louis, MO area. In the usual insert, they announce a new account- info-by-touch-tone-phone service. All I have to punch in is my account number, which is my ten-digit phone number PLUS a three-digit suffix. They do not, apparently, try to use ANI to match the calling number with the account number (as is only right, since you could be calling from a different phone, of course). I suppose if I were *really* paranoid, I could worry about someone demon-dialing my phone number and suffixes from 111-999 (or 000-999 to be thorough), but I'm not worried about it. It is interesting to note that sometime in the past, they thought to add a three-digit suffix to [one of] the phone number[s] to make the account number, instead of simply using the raw three-digit phone number. I wonder what other reasons there were besides the new one of enforcing account privacy for their info-by-phone service? Cheers, Rich [Moderator's Note: For many years there has been a three digit part to your phone number (where the bill was concerned) called the RAO, or Regional Accounting Office code. This dates back to pre-divestiture AT&T accounting practices. You might want to detirmine that everyone who uses the new service in your area does not have the same three digits as part of the input! It is quite likely they do, and that the three digit suffix is not a PIN, but rather an accounting code. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mab 91004:31:59GMT From: Bill Huttig Subject: MCI Preferred 800 Details Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Under $50/mo usage - $7.50 Private 800 (ie.. Personal 800 four digit pin's) - free Classic 800 - $10/mo Account Codes - free (Varified ones at addtional cost) 10% discount to most frequent called area code (The one with the higest call cost) 10% discount at $200 Can include home phones MCI Preferred Card with seven digit calling card number (I assume 800 access #.) Voice News Message Services Speed Dialing (The standard TELECOM*USA star card features) All calls billed in six second increments with a thirty second minimum. Day .235 Evening .16 (5-10PM) Night/Weekend .12 Info number +1 800 695 3300 Cust. Serv +1 800 727 5555 It seems that the billing and things will be handled by Telecom*USA. ------------------------------ From: Alan Barclay Subject: Re: Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History Organization: iT - The Information Technology Business Of The Post Office Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:16:12 GMT In article 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: > Credits for the first color televison date to a Scot, Charles >Baird, in 1927 experiments to produce color images by mechanical >scanning methods. Baird was expanding on 1880's work that began with >Senlecq's lab work on the photoelectric properties of selenium and >Nipkow's development of image scanning with a perforated rotating >disk. (In fact, there is some history showing facsimile by purely >electric means dates to about 1847.) It was actually John Logie Baird, the inventor of television, who also invented colour televison, and it was because he was working on the colour system at the time of the first experiments in broadcast TV that Baird's system was not adopted as the B/W broadcast system. ------------------------------ From: Eric Weaver Subject: Microwave / Optical Links for Audio Organization: Peninsula Radio Foundation Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:14:13 GMT I need to run a stereo audio signal from our studio to a cable company's head-end about two miles away. A four-wire non-directional phone line is $55/mo + 760 to set up, and will certainly require some serious EQ (loading coils are probably present). I'm wondering if there's a good way to get two 15KHz audio channels (or a single 53KHz one) over commercially available microwave or optical links. Can anyone suggest vendors and at least make a guess at prices? Thanks. Eric Weaver Sony Advanced Video Technology Center 677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35 Beautiful Industrial San Jose, CA 95134 (408) 944-4904 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Date: 3 Mar 91 00:34:34 GMT One important factor when comparing the danger of 20 Hz 100vac with 60 Hz 117vac: The ringing voltage from the phone company is going through a loop that is anywhere from a few hundred to a couple of thousand ohms. You don't have that with the power line. Also, the telco loop is set up to stop sending ringing current immediately when it detects some current draw. Hooking the power line to a wire pair to the phone on stage, you don't have that advantage. Play it safe and do what many film and TV production companies have done ... use a Proctor 46220 Ringdown circuit. With this product, you can even TALK to the actor on stage from an offstage phone, and feed him his lines! The 46220 is $179 from: Proctor & Assoc. 15050 NE 36th St. Redmond, WA 98052-5317 206-881-7000 internet: 3991080@mcimail.com 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 ------------------------------ From: Brent Chapman Subject: Re: GTE and Pac Tel Cellular in Los Angeles Date: 28 Feb 91 22:25:19 GMT Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation; San Jose, CA In henderson@esvax.hamavnet.com (Javier Henderson - TMS Group) writes: # I have Pac Tel for my cellular carrier, and GTE (in the 714 area code) # at home. Since my cellular number is in the 213 area code, when my # wife calls me, we have to pay toll charges (plus airtime of course). I # called Pac Tel yesterday to find out if I changed my cellular number # to the 714 area code, would there be any toll charges. # The service representative said that only Pacific Bell customers get # toll free service to Pac Tel Cellular customers, but that they do # reimburse GTE customers for calls placed from their homes to their # cellular phones, as a courtesy. In fact, she even guessed the reason # for my asking and suggested the above instead of changing the number, # which has a $15.00 fee. I have kind of the opposite situation here in the San Francisco Bay Area. I have Pac Bell at home, and GTE as my mobile carrier. GTE MobilNet makes a major selling point that calls _from_ GTE cellular numbers from anywhere in their Bay Area service area (which covers parts of at least four area codes (415, 408, 707, and 916) and an area roughly 150 by 50 miles on a side) are "local" calls. Further, they state that calls placed _from_ cellular phones to anywhere in their Bay Area service area are "local" calls, regardless of the home area code of the cellular phone and the area code of the number being dialed; there are probably some perverse cases where using a cellular phone to call somewhere else in the service area is cheaper than using normal PacBell service. Brent Chapman Ascent Logic Corporation Computer Operations Manager 180 Rose Orchard Way, Suite 200 chapman@alc.com San Jose, CA 95134 Phone: 408/943-0630 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #171 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03046; 3 Mar 91 18:25 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19940; 3 Mar 91 5:53 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aj01940; 3 Mar 91 4:47 CST Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 4:22:20 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #172 BCC: Message-ID: <9103030422.ab27338@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Mar 91 04:22:03 CST Volume 11 : Issue 172 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [Alan Millar] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Jim Breen] What Causes These Strange Calls? [moocow!drmath@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu] COCOT Tip [John Higdon] German Authorities Find Illegal Phone Networks [Doug Faunt] Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? [Michael Ho] Re: Information Wanted on X.25 [Lang Zerner] When to Use / Not Use '1' [Claus Tondering] Re: Large Local Calling Areas [Douglas Scott Reuben] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AMillar@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:42:08 GMT >> I once heard a rumor that 408 was the last area code in the NANP >> that allowed ten digit (real ten digit, not 1 + ten) dialing. > This is sometimes confusing. I work in AC 408 where the 1 before the > AC is NOT PERMITTED (this is in Santa Clara county), and I live in 415 > (in Alameda county), where it IS required. Sometimes it takes a few In most of the Santa Clara - San Jose area, the 1 prefix is not required, but it is allowed. I can call from home (North San Jose, 408-945 prefix) with or without the 1. Possibly your PBX at work is programmed to not allow the 1? I'm still used to dialing without the 1, and had an interesting run-in with a COCOT at the Black Angus in Sunnyvale. I picked up the handset and started dialing 800-XXX-X and as soon as it got the seventh digit it told me to insert 20 cents. I read the label, which said to dial 1 + 800 + xxx xxxx. I dialed the 1, and the phone took it. I know, what can you expect from a COCOT, and I should learn to dial 1 anyway, but you know how it goes... :-) Alan Millar AMillar@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: Jim Breen Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Date: Thu, 28 Feb 1991 21:58:10 GMT In article , tholome@elaine8.stanford. edu (Eric THOLOME) writes: > Until five years ago, France was ....... > To phone in the same area, you had to dial only the last six digits. To > phone in another area, you had to dial 16, get a tone, and then dial > the full phone number. ^^^^^^^^^^ Was this process of having to wait for a tone peculiar to France? I never encountered it anywhere else. In fact it caused me acute discomfort the first time I was in Paris (1982 je crois) and I tried to call Australia. I was ignorant of the fact that I was supposed to wait for another tone after dialling the international access code (019?). The first 20 or so times I dialled straight through and ended up with message in French telling me the number was not connected. On the 21st try I paused for some reason, and "Voila!" there was a click, whirrrrrr, and I had another dial tone. All was explained. I was furious that NOWHERE in the phone book was this mentioned. I later found out that the French took it for granted. Jim Breen AARNet:jwb@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au Department of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University. PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 (fax) +61 3 573 2745 ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Subject: What Causes These Strange Calls? Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:50:24 GMT Organization: Brown Cow Software (a licensed Waffle developer) Perhaps the Digest readers can shed some light on these strange phone calls: Phone rings. Answering machine picks up. "This is the Chicago long-distance operator with a voice telegram. To hear your voice telegram, press the number 5 on your phone. Yes, to receive your voice telegram, press the number 5 on your phone, now." At this point, the call terminates. It only happens on one of the two voice lines in my house, and calls to various operators in Chicago have thus far shed no light on the subject, i.e. they have no idea what I'm talking about. Am I being sleazed by some AOS? Will pressing the number 5 imply my consent to be charged for a voice telegram that may not be for me, or worse yet, just some piece of advertising? I'm _real_ curious. [Moderator's Note: I doubt there is any such thing as the 'Chicago long-distance operator' in telco parlance. There are various store and forward services, including AT&T's and the one operated by Telecom*USA which play legitimate pre-recorded messages to you, but they begin by saying what they are, then immediatly playing the pre-recorded text. They do not say 'press the number 5 on your phone', and they certainly do not say 'YES, to receive your voice telegram', etc. I've heard about these 'voice telegrams' from other sources and there is a good chance you will wind up with a charge on your bill for some worthless message, so caution is advised. Legitimate store and forward services give their name plainly and require nothing of you except in the event of 'personal delivery', in which case a Telecom*USA live operator comes on the line first to learn your identity. Has anyone taken the bait on this yet, and if so, can you advise the rest of us? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:10 GMT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: COCOT Tip Some time ago, I recounted the experience of trying to place a call to Pac*Bell from a COCOT. Pac*Bell's public numbers are of the 811-XXXX format and are free from Pac*Bell, GTE, and most independent telephones in California. I ended up talking to a "repair" person at the COCOT company who after browbeating by me placed the call. Today when picking up the mail, I discovered that Pac*Bell had neglected to send some things I had requested so I decided to call on the spot. The Meridian Ave. branch of the post office has two of the most vile COCOTs ever seen. They deny everything: cut off the pad on 800 numbers (so you cannot use Sprint), deny 950, deny 811-XXXX, and you cannot check your voice mail. There is no complaint number posted, but the card indicates that you can do all of the legally required things (you can't). Just for the helluvit, I pushed '0' for the Pac*Bell operator. This is usually a pointless exercise since the console indicates "COCOT" and there is nothing he/she can do for you. I said, "I would like to call 811-XXXX." She said, "Thank you", and the number immediately rang. How about that? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 01:39:29 GMT From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: German Authorities Find Illegal Phone Networks A note in the February 23 issue of {The Economist} reported the German postal ministry discovered 23 illegal, private telephone networks in eastern Germany, including one formerly controlled by the secret police, the Stasi. And yet, because of a shortage of telephone lines in the old east, and even though the government has a legal monopoly, it will allow the networks to go on operating for at least another year. ------------------------------ From: ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) Subject: Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? Organization: Daily Nebraskan, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:51:25 GMT In cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > On two pay phones in Newark, Delaware, I have discovered that the > default long-distance carrier is listed as RCI Corp., 180 So. Clinton > Ave., Rochester, NY 14646, telephone 800-836-8080. The zipcode turns > out to be the same as Rochester Telephone Corp. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when Judge Greene barred Baby Bells from ever providing long-distance service, he did *not* mention the independent local carriers. As a result, there's nothing to stop such a local carrier from operating a long-distance division. Here in Lincoln, Neb., our local carrier (Lincoln Telephone) operates Lincoln Telephone Long Distance and promotes it pretty heavily. Of course, Lincoln Telephone *was* one of the first local companies to be successfully sued for blocking a third-party carrier. I believe it was MCI and its "Execuline" or "Executone" -- heck, Execu-SOMETHING -- back in the early 1980s. (For what it's worth, Lincoln Telephone has informally dropped the "& Tele- graph" from its name in most correspondence, but its official name still includes it. We call LT&T, alternatively, "Let's Try and Talk" or "Lincoln Tinkertoy.") Michael Ho, University of Nebraska Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu Disclaimer: Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be applied to the Daily Nebraskan or any university department. ------------------------------ From: langz@asylum.sf.ca.us Subject: Re: Information Wanted on X.25 Reply-To: langz@asylum.sf.ca.us (Lang Zerner) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 03:49:08 GMT In article broehl@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Bernie Roehl) writes: > I'm considering setting up a multi-line BBS that's accessible over > Datapac (Canada's X.25 service, analagous to Tymenet or Telenet). Contact Galacticomm (+1 305 583-5990). Their flagship product is called the Major BBS. It is a self-contained, multi-tasking, multi-user BBS designed to run on a single CPU under MS-DOS. With a regular 386 machine, you can support up to 64 users. They also offer an X.25 option that will let you support up to 256 simultaneous connections on a standard MS-DOS machine with an X.25 card. I operate a small Major BBS-based system, and I'll be happy to answer any technical questions you'd like answered by someone who doesn't turn a profit when you buy. Be seeing you, Lang Zerner ------------------------------ From: Claus Tondering Subject: When to Use / Not Use the 1 Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:40:58 GMT Could somebody in the US please inform me about the rules for when you have to dial an initial 1 in front of American telephone numbers? I used to think that if you were dialing a local (seven-digit) number you shouldn't start with a 1, whereas if you were dialing an area code, an initial 1 was required. However, during a recent visit to Florida while dialing certain seven-digit numbers, I was informed by a talking machine that I should dial an initial 1. This prompts three questions: 1) Why do you need a 1 in front of certain 7-digit numbers, but not in front of others? 2) If the telephone system is smart enough to inform me that I need to dial an initial 1, why is it not smart enough to connect me even if I haven't dialed the 1? 3) Are the rules the same everywhere in the US? Claus Tondering Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark E-mail: ct@dde.dk [Moderator's Note: In summary, no, the rules are not the same everywhere in the USA. In almost every case you need a '1' before a ten-digit number. In the case of seven-digit numbers it varies according to the numbering scheme used by the local telco. The telcos usually begin using '1' in front of seven digits when their supply of prefixes without a one or a zero as the second digit begins to run short. A one or zero in the second digit of a three digit number here usually indicates an area code instead of a local exchange code. Using '1' first allows an extended set of exchange codes. There are other reasons as well. The reason they are 'smart enough' to catch the error but unwilling to correct it is because it is possible you actually knew what you were doing but misdialed, reaching a combination that normally requires '1' first. Rather than second-guessing what you might have meant, they toss it back to you to do over. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 3-MAR-1991 03:39:59 GMT From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count) Yoram Eisenstadter of the Columbia University Department of Computer Science wrote: > NYC wasn't always a single local calling area; I remember several > years ago there were parts of Queens that were local to Manhattan (25 > cents from a payphone) and some that were not (40 cents from a > payphone). I think that the PUC mandated uniform local calling rates > throughout NYC when the 212/718 split occured. I think this only goes for non-coin phones. There are still many payphones that demand 40 cents for calls within 718/212, depending on how far they are. Little Neck to certain areas of NYC (err..I mean Manhattan) are 40 cents, (and Little Neck is in Queens, NOT Nassau/516). Calls from most of Queens to Staten Island are 40 cents, although I can't say this is still true; it was two years ago. I think calls from southern Brooklyn to Riverdale (The Bronx) may also be 40 cents. I am sure about the Little Neck to Manhattan thing, though. In June, 1989 I had to make a call from Little Neck to 212-373, and to my surprise, the payphone asked for 40 cents. (They have a recording that says "40 cents please", rather than the NYTel local automatic operator coming on and saying "Please deposit 40 cents for the next 5 minutes."). This of course may have changed, but the uniform rates became effective in August, 1988 I believe, which was about four years after the split, but BEFORE I tried a lot of this out when I went down to NYC. Interestingly, some exchanges are the SAME in both area codes. I am not referring to "choke" prefixes for radio stations (955 for 212/718/516/and maybe 914), nor to special feature numbers (950, 976, 970, 540, 550). There is a "230" exchange, and you can use that from either the 718 or 212 area codes, and you get connected to the same number. I've seen this advertised on NYC busses for some sort of shelter (maybe for the homeless? I dunno ...). I think there may be other exchanges set up this way as well. I'm not sure about how this works in other area code split cases (LA, Chicago, etc.) where cities have been split up, so I'm not sure if this is unique to NYC or not. We manage to pick up WBBM-780 Chicago quite well in Connecticut in the evening, and I always hear them give some number which works BOTH in the 312 AND 708 area, so perhaps this is the same thing? (Pat?) In any event, even though the specific number (230-xxxx) may have INITIALLY been a 40 cent call before the split, they are all 25 cents now. Also, calls to 976 numbers, which are 27 (?) cents on a residence line, are only 25 cents from any NYC (or NY Metro LATA for that matter) payphone. > Note that geographically, NYC is only a small part of the LATA that > also encompasses Nassau and Suffolk counties (area code 516), > Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties (914), and the part of > Connecticut (203) that is served by NY Telephone. Which means that people in these areas of CT get FREE Directory Assistance in BOTH CT and NY! (from payphones). Compare this to the Providence/Sekonk,MA area, both served by NETel, but where you can't get DA for a place across the street unles you put in 60 cents. (It is free for Massachusetts residence phones, though...) Also, some people on or near the Queens/Nassau line get free (or untimed) service to a local Nassau communities, and to all of NYC! Neat place to set up a remote-call-forward site into/out of NYC. A friend of mine who goes to NYU but lives in Manhasset does this. According to him, it saves money, and he leaves his terminal on all day. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago the only exchanges in common are the choke (591), CNA (796), and Phone Programs (976) exchanges. You can dial seven digits on these from 312 or 708. What is offered otherwise is *remote call forwarding* for a tidy sum. You get your number in whichever area (312 or 708) you happen to be in. If you want the same number in the other area you can have it provided it is not already taken by someone else. The number is set up on the other side to simply terminate in the CO and remote-forward to your number on your side. You pay a monthly fee plus a fee for each call forwarded, of course. Some businesses like this because it is more convenient for their customers on the 'wrong side' of town :) to reach them with seven digits and no concern about which area code to dial, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #172 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03066; 3 Mar 91 18:26 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25765; 3 Mar 91 7:00 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ai19940; 3 Mar 91 5:55 CST Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 5:25:16 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #173 BCC: Message-ID: <9103030525.ab06589@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Mar 91 05:24:47 CST Volume 11 : Issue 173 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Large Local Calling Area (Horizontal and Vertical) [Mike Newton] Enterprise / Zenith (was: The Correct Way...) [Joel B. Levin] Re: Why 900-STOPPER [Macy Hallock] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Macy Hallock] Re: FM Radio in the 1930's and More... [Dion Messer] Sprint Responds to Privacy Complaint [David Ptasnik] Re: International 800 Numbers? (was Re: Evolving Phone Number) [P. Anvin] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Toby Nixon] Two Word Exchange Names [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 04:57:33 GMT From: Mike Newton Subject: Large Local Calling Area (Horizontal and Vertical) This seems to come up every few years... As of when I was last living there (1.5 years ago -- and Hawaiian Tel doesnt move too fast ..) all of the Big Island (4000+ sq. mi.) is one calling area. It also has one of the greatest vertical calls. The observatories on top (14 k feet) have Hilo prefixes (sea level and 15 miles away). Also, Hilo is the wettest US city (average of 160 in/yr rain in Hilo). Long distance was amusing. I could call Mass. (at night, possibly during the day too, but I've forgotten for sure) far cheaper than I could call Oahu (Honolulu). (With _Long_ Reach out America). But, all calls to the mainland did something like: me --> local-switch --> u-wave station --> u-wave xcvr (oahu) --> oahu CO --> '2 block long' cable to ATT --> [usually:] satallite xmtr --> satallite xcvr (near San Fran.) [the last few could be replaced with cable to mainland ... making cnversations _much_ easier due to the lack of delay]. It gave even newer meaning to the phrase `phase shift' ... We never did get our PEP telebit modems going above 600 cps ... mike (newton@gumby.cs.caltech.edu) Beach Bums Anonymous, Pasadena President ------------------------------ From: "Joel B. Levin" Subject: Enterprise / Zenith (was: The Correct Way...) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:25:23 GMT The Moderator Notes: > I think the Bell companies called it "Enterprise" and GTE and many > independent telcos preferred "Zenith". But the database was the same. I'd like to know what the difference between "Enterprise" and "Zenith" might have been, but this isn't it. I distinctly remember a number of "Zenith" entries in the little phone book in Logan, Utah (both in the "number, please" era and after the advent of dialling and DDD). And Mountain Bell, part of AT&T, was definitely the phone company. JBL nets: levin@bbn.com | BBN Communications or: ...!bbn!levin | M/S 20/7A POTS: +1 617 873 3463 | 150 Cambridge Park Drive FAX: +1 617 873 8202 | Cambridge, MA 02140 [Moderator's Note: There was no difference between them. All the operators from whatever telco -- Bell, GTE or independent -- called the same database (AT&T's Rate and Route Bureau) to get the translation number for any Enterprise/Zenith code not common enough to be in the operator's reference flip-chart at hand. When you ordered an Enterprise/Zenith number, the same thing happened then that happens now when you order an 800 number: Someone at the telco originating the order had to send word to Rate and Route (then) to update their records. When a new 800 prefix opens up the other telcos have to be told how to handle thee call and where to send it, etc. I think there were a few places that had an actual ENterprise exchange; to avoid confusion with it those telcos probably used Zenith instead. Maybe Mountain Bell fell in this category. I've never known what the rule was on the name used for the automatic reverse-charge service. Canada seemed to have lots of "Zenith" and little or no "Enterprise". A file in the Telecom Archives gives more detail on this obsolete service. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:18 GMT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 In article is written: > The Moderator claims that 1-900-STOPPER is worthless because any trace > need merely trace through their system; this adds one step, it doesn't > stop anyone. When I do not want the orginating number of a call recorded (or wish to make a call that will not contain any reference of the call on the calling number's bill) ... I use Litel's (a regional carrier) 950-XXXX access number. ANI is not passed on most Feature Group B trunks. Of course, the call will show on the credit card bill, and the originating point of presence will be idenitfied for billing purposes, but the number I called from will not show ... and there is really no way to scan all the possible carriers for a near random FG B call, I think. This is considerably safer than a 1+ or 0+ call because the telco never captures the digits once the 950-XXXX is dialed. Therefore, the telco cannot be the means of determination. I've also been known to use a PBX DISA local number for the same thing, with much the same effect ... although I suspect the FG B is more secure. Of course, no phone call is really secure ... random use of payphones is always the safest way to protect your security/anonminity. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@fmsystm.UUCP macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy [Moderator's Note: You make a good point. There are several ways of doing what STOPPER does for much less money, including using a pay phone. My eyebrows raised only once during your article, and that was you mention of using someone's DISA. I *assume* you are authorized to be on there; and if so, what kind of protection do you think it gives you? The owner of the phone will get back-audited, and if he keeps any sort of traffic records for the PBX the call will come back to the DISA and your password for the use of same, no? And even if he does not keep any traffic records, do you want your employer (whoever; you *said* you were authorized to be there, right?) to get the grief as a result of your call? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:52 GMT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 In article our Moderator Notes: > I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis > around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire > number, i.e. (311) 555-2368? Actually, Pat, this is the way I was taught to do it at The Phone Company back in 1967. The explaination given was: use parens to denote the area code was separate from the phone number, since it was only required for calling from outside the area code. I recall reading this in some type of official documentation, probably training material of some type. I asked why a 1 was not shown, and was told that some areas did not use 1 for toll access (e.g. NYC) ... only later did I find out about Stromberg Carlson "circle digit" and other oddball toll access code schemes used by the independant co's ... and then there was AE SATT. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@fmsystm.UUCP macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy ------------------------------ From: Dion Messer Subject: Re: FM Radio in the 1930's and More... Reply-To: Dion Messer Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1991 00:15:32 GMT On the subject of Major Armstrong, my favorite communications book has "A Historical Note" on Armstrong. The book is titled "Modern Digital and Analog Communication Systems", by B. P. Lathi. It does confirm that he committed suicide in 1954 by walking out a window on the 13th floor of a building. The pages to look at are 301 and 302, and the note is quite interesting. ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Sprint Responds to Privacy Complaint Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:01: GMT Some weeks ago I found the US Sprint 800 number that gives the balance of any Sprint customer's bill to any caller with an interest. I whined to Sprint that I thought this was insecure and a violation of my privacy. They sent the following reply: ********************************** Dear Mr. Ptasnik: I appreciate the time you took to express concerns about the access method we use in our automated response system. I have forwarded your complaint to our Corporate office for review and consideration. The information that can be accessed with the area code and phone number is balance and payment history. To add a FONCARD to an account, it is necessary to provide the account number. The convenience of accessing information with the telephone number is offered to customers only on non-service affecting transactions. Besides informational announcements, all other contacts are handled by customer service representatives. Screening techniques are in place to ensure that only account holders have access to the most sensitive information. I agree with you that the methods we use do not provide "absolute" security. Unfortunately, even the most elaborate security system can be penetrated given the right amount of determination and skill. Please be assured that most local telephone companies and other long distance carriers utilizing this technology are employing the same access method. We value you as a customer and appreciate your business. Your comments and concerns will be given serious consideration by our Corproate office. Again, I thank you for taking the time to provide us with your opinions. Sincerely, Kathleen Mc Mahon Customer Service Manager ******************************** Any typos in the above were my fault. While I appreciate the response to my complaints, I intend to pursue it further. I don't want "absolute" security, just some. I really doubt the idea of AT&T using so insecure a method. It is my general understanding that AT&T has a call back system, requiring you to be at a predetermined phone number, ready to enter a security code. I'm not sure if this is for long distance balances, or just equipment purchase balances to larger users, but it is more secure than Sprint. The suggestion that "screening techniques are in place to ensure that only account holders have access to the most sensitive information" implies that my account balance is not sensitive. It is to me. I'm going to write them again, and keep you all informed of the continuing saga. davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: Peter Anvin Subject: Re: International 800 Numbers? (was Re: Evolving Phone Number) Organization: Northwestern University Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1991 00:17:58 GMT In article our Moderator Notes: > [Moderator's Note: Some 800 numbers are international, but relatively > few in comparison to the total. The European versions of 'USA Direct' > operating in this country (allowing residents of other countries > visiting here to 'call home' and speak with an operator in their home > country in their native language, just like USA Direct in reverse) all > have 800 numbers assigned to them. And, there are a few others. PAT] Those 800 numbers aren't international at all! You cannot dial them outside the NANP. They are *national access numbers*, accessing an international gateway, but you can only dial them from one country/region. For example, in Sweden all such numbers have Swedish 020-XX XX XX numbers, even if they terminate in Sweden, Belgium or the USA. The question is, when can we dial: 011-800-45-XX XX XX from the USA, 009-800-45-XX XX XX from Sweden, 00-800-45-XX XX XX from the EEC, 010-800-45-XX XX XX from the UK, 990-800-45-XX XX XX from Finland, (hope I am correct about this one) all to reach the same number, terminating in Norway? That way one number, +800 45 XX XX XX would do for all countries. (I think Norway is 45, but I am taking it off the top of my head.) hpa = H. Peter Anvin (in case you wondered) * Heja Sverige! INTERNET: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN RBBSNET: 8:970/101.4 [Moderator's Note: Sorry I misunderstood the original question, I guess. If the above is how you are defining it, then no, there is no such thing as 'international 800'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Date: 3 Mar 91 02:42:21 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , K_MULLHOLAND@unhh.unh.edu (KATH MULLHOLAND) writes: > What is CCITT? CCITT is the abbreviation for Comite Consultatif International Telegraphique et Telephonique, or, in English, International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee. It is a part of the International Telecommunications Union, which is part of the United Nations. CCITT is based in Geneva, Switzerland. The members of the CCITT are the "Administrations" -- the Postal, Telegraph, and Telephone (PTT) systems in each country. In the USA, we don't have a nationalized system, so the US Department of State is the official US representative (and there are communities in the State Dept. to formulate US positions on CCITT issues; I serve on one of these committees). Also members of CCITT are "Recognized Private Operating Agencies" (RPOAs), such as AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc.; "Scientific and Industrial Organizations" (SIOs) such as modem manufacturers, telephone equipment manufacturers, fax machine manufacturers, etc.; and "Liaison Organizations", which are other parts of the UN and other international organizations such as ISO (International Standards Organization) which have an interest in the work of the CCITT. Only the Administrations and RPOAs have a VOTE on CCITT issues, but all four membership classes can participate in meetings and make contributions -- and pay dues (a modem manufacturer's dues run about $15,000). CCITT is organized as fifteen "Study Groups", each on a particular area of telecommunications: SG I Definition, operation, and quality of service aspects of telegraph, data transmission and telematic services (facsimile, Teletex, Videotex, etc.) SG II Operation of telephone network and ISDN SG III General tariff principles including accounting SG IV Transmission maintenance of international lines, circuits, and chains of circuits; maintenance of automatic and semi-automatic networks SG V Protection against dangers and disturbances of electromagnetic origin SG VI Outside plant SG VII Data communication networks SG VIII Terminal equipment for telematic services (facsimile, Teletex, videotex, etc.) SG IX Telegraph networks and terminal equipment SG X Languages and methods for telecommunications applications SG XI ISDN and telephone network switching and signalling SG XII Transmission performance of telephone networks and terminals SG XV Transmission systems SG XVII Data transmission over the telephone network SG XVIII Digital networks including ISDN CCITT is, therefore, the focus for agreements between countries on how international telephone, telegraph, and data networks are to be interconnected, how accounts are settled, how modems and facsimile work, and a lot of other subjects. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 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, 3 Mar 91 01:43:39 GMT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Two Word Exchange Names The Moderator writes about HYde Park (in Chicago?) and that some people dialed HP when they should have dialed HY. In the cases I know about where an exchange name was two words, the two letter prefix was taken from the beginning of the FIRST word. On the east coast, I have heard of MUrray Hill in New York City, MOunt Vernon in the nearby town in Westchester by that name, and CHestnut Hill in Philadelphia. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #173 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13069; 4 Mar 91 3:14 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04232; 4 Mar 91 1:29 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02987; 4 Mar 91 0:23 CST Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 0:01:50 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #177 BCC: Message-ID: <9103040001.ab29874@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Mar 91 00:01:31 CST Volume 11 : Issue 177 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell [Peter Marshall] Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell [John Higdon] Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business [Steve L. Rhoades] Re: MCI Preferred Customers [Brian Crawford] Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart [William Degnan] Re: Sprint Responds to Privacy Complaint [Peter Marshall] Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Everett F. Batey] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 02:33 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell In Digest v11, iss176, our Moderator opens with news from Chicago: > Illinois Bell will open its switching offices to non-Bell competitors > in a move expected to enhance competition in the arena of local > telephone service... > The new policy, effective April 7 pending final approval by the > Illinois Commerce Commission, will allow Teleport Communications and > Metropolitan Fiber Systems to interconnect their systems with Illinois > Bell. Teleport and Metropolitan Fiber are waiting now for approval, > but other competitors may be on the way. > What other communities and/or local telcos are entertaining the idea > of competition in local exchange service? What others are actually > implementing it at this time as is Illinois Bell? Actually, Pat, it's among the first visible cracks in a curtain the FCC has been pulling away at local Telcos as another facet of its drive to break the local Telco monopoly. It's part of Open Network Architecture (ONA) with an FCC requirement to provide Comparably Efficient Interconnection (CEI) to other providers in the local arena. Within the past week, New York Telephone announced it would provide similar opening of its premises. The "work" of forging this crack has been underway for quite a few years, and only now is it becoming visible. (I worked on a local fiber job in Los Angeles a year and a half ago that had entrances from others planned into the Los Angeles PacBell Building on its Grand Avenue cable vault side. Everybody close to the business knows (and knew) it was just a matter of time.) Another operative buzzword of these actions is "co-location," meaning the provision of a space inside the Telco building for the obviously needed terminal gear of the "Alternative Access Carriers," or AAC's as the Teleports and Metropolitan Fibers are coming to be called, at least from the interstate point of view. The actual means of doing this are Draconian at best. It seems to be evolving into a typical scene in which the "other parties" have to rent square feet of floor space, enclosed within a locked screen at the insistence of the local Telco to "protect" against accusation that the Telco's people ever meddled with the gear. Further, the Telco provides only AC power, not any of its already-present DC power, so the "other firms" have to duplicate a function, providing their own rectifiers and back- up power. Then, the "other parties" have to provide building heat laod information on their equipment in order to arrange a charge for the space, power consumption and cooling load. So, nobody is welcoming these interlopers into the Temple of the Telco. Fortunately, fiber technology is such that interconnection of DS-1's and DS-3's are what the Telco will accept, and the physical requirements can be met with today's technology. As to the Chicago scene, a local fiber carrier called Diginet is actually longer established and probably is in the fray as much or more than the others. Diginet actually operates all the way from Chicago to Milwaukee and has done so for a half decade already. So it's quiet in your town? That doesn't mean there's no activity. Just don't expect your Telco to announce it in your bill stuffer. They'd rather you didn't know about it. And while we have the topic of Alternative Access open, let's take note that MCI bought the transmission portion of Western Union a year or so back. That acquistion included miles and miles of Western Union conduits in the streets of more cities than any of us knew about. I knew of a list of 17 major cities where WUTCo had cables in the street for years. But I even heard of digging in the streets of Oklahoma City that exposed _wooden_ conduits marked "Western Union" just a year or so ago. At the moment, MCI is so beleagured it's doubtful they even know much about this asset, but you can expect them to either: a.) sell it in bits and pieces to the others, or b.) have a realization and announcement sometime in the future that MCI has a new business area open. It is, without doubt, an important announcement and one we will see much more of, grudgingly admitted to by the Telcos. Free market, here we come ... kicking, clawing and screaming the whole way! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell From: Peter Marshall Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 10:34:19 PST Organization: de mini Pat's 3/3 post poses an interesting question. In Washington, LEC competition is now potentially on the horizon, virtually for the first time. At the PUC here, this has become a question of "first impression" with registration applications and/or competitive classification petitions to the PUC by GCI Fibernet and Electric Lightwave. The former is controlled by TCI, and the latter is being represented at the PUC by an attorney for a state org. of large telecom users. In context, the City of Seattle is reviewing proposals, including one from ELI, for a partner to develop a fiber net, and the Port of Seattle is developing a teleport project. Interest seems high from the industry in the state, and there's also been some press attention so far. Peter Marshall halcyon!peterm@sumax.seattleu.edu The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 12:07 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell On Mar 3 at 9:05, TELECOM Moderator writes: > What other communities and/or local telcos are entertaining the idea > of competition in local exchange service? What others are actually > implementing it at this time as is Illinois Bell? I would swear that if a person walked the streets of San Francisco and happened to utter the words, "Local Competition", a trap door would open in the sidewalk and the individual would never be heard from again. Pac*Bell, for good reason, is probably more afraid of LEC competition than any other telco in the country. Even as we speak, there are hearings covering the topic of competition in intraLATA toll traffic. Pac*Bell is of course bad-mouthing this with the argument that this "exclusivity" is what keeps "your telephone costs down". The threat is that basic rates will have to rise substantially to compensate for the loss of toll revenue. But the handwriting is on the wall. It appears that Pac*Bell will get its way in at least one aspect: the accessing of the intraLATA carrier. There will be no pre-subscription as there is with interLATA traffic. Each call will have to be prefixed with a THREE digit code, otherwise the call will be carried by Pac*Bell. This is no problem for those with dialers and smart PBXes, but, as usual, the Aunt Minnies of the world will still be patronizing Mother. Once again, Illinois Bell demonstrates why it is an industry leader and Pac*Bell proves what it is. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 02:31 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business In article , Stephen Bulick posts: > I read in the Business Section of the {New York Times} for 3/1/91 that > the FCC is allowing cable television companies to test what seems to > be a microcellular telephone system as a prelude for entry into the > local exchange carrier business. ... I wondered whether this meant that > telcos would now be able to argue more effectively for an entry into > the cable TV business. > This seems like an issue for discussion in this forum. For my $0.02 worth, it's been a topic of discussion here for a while now. I expect the Baby Bells will howl, loud and long, but to little avail, blowing more of the $27 million they spend a year lobbying away in Washington. (Yes, it's been documented they spent $27 on their registered lobbyists in Washington.) The simple reason: Dating to the 1/1/84 execution of Ma Bell and before, it's been a stated policy of the FCC to break up the local telephone monopoly as well as the long distance one. Since then we've seen the FCC get deeper and deeper into regulatory business that once was the province of the state regulators, reducing the state roles as handmaidens of local Telcos more and more. Observers of the technology can now obviously see that the 1913 notion of a "natural monopoly" by reason of a huge capital need is no longer valid. Can anyone on here raise any other argument to maintain the "natural monopoly" other than the obsolete view of tons of copper plowed into the ground or radio too complex and unstable to deploy in the neighborhood? That's the gauntlet. Who can post a reason _why_ the Telcos should now be permitted to maintain a monopoly, in other than vague, undefined language? (Are we now supposed to be paying them for decades of loyal and constantly profitable business?) Make no mistake. I brook no favor for the cable TV people. We all know how they have proved themselves to be hacks of the business for decades. They've had the capability to step into competition with the Telco for years; now the Feds have handed them an opportunity on a silver platter. I rather expect the cable interests to look this gift horse all the way down to its gullet. Let's see if they can blow the opportunity in the process. ------------------------------ From: "Steve L. Rhoades" Subject: Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 22:33:42 GMT In article bulick@comanche.uswest.com (Stephen Bulick) writes: > I read in the Business Section of the {New York Times} for 3/1/91 that > the FCC is allowing cable television companies to test what seems to > be a microcellular telephone system as a prelude for entry into the > local exchange carrier business. [...] The system is called PCS - Personal Communications Service. In a nutshell, here's how it works: In a service area, there are several small "cells" located atop existing telephone poles. The cell communicates back to a MTSO (probably at the cable compnay's headend) and places the call over a POTS line. The communication from the cell back to the MTSO is done over unused bandwidth on the existing cable system. (Usually in the T-Channel range of between 2 Mhz and 50 Mhz and possibly above 500 Mhz). A few conpanies were given permission by the FCC to test the system. One of the companies is Continental Cablevision. Here in California, they'll be testing it on their Fresno system within two years. (Why does Fresno always get the new toys first ?) I just read an in-depth article about the system but, of course, I can't find it when I need it :-). Internet: slr@caltech.edu | Voice-mail: (818) 794-6004 UUCP: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!tybalt!slr | USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca. 91023 ------------------------------ From: Brian Crawford Subject: Re: MCI Preferred Customers Date: 3 Mar 91 15:01:18 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ In article , wah@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) writes: > Most of the MCI services reps are under the impression that the March > 18th product is brand new. What exactly is the "March 18" product? Sorry if this was mentioned in the original message in this thread, but don't remember seeing it. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 18:39:13 CDT From: William Degnan Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart U>scott@huntsai.boeing.com writes: > Where would I look for a current chart/table/etc of EM spectrum > allocations? {Communications Technology} ran a pretty one (30khz to 30 gigs) as a pull-out poster in the March 1991 issue. You may reach them at 303 355-2101 (voice) or 303 355-2144 (FAX). A footnote indicates that it was adapted for CATV from the NTIA/US Dept. of Commerce "US Frequency Allocations" chart. Which sounds like _another_ good lead. Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock. William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com -Independent Consultants | William.Degnan@telemail.com in Telecommunications | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sprint Responds to Privacy Complaint From: Peter Marshall Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 08:41:17 PST Organization: de minimus It's well that Mr. Ptasnik intends to pursue this matter further, and it's also reasonable to do so with Sprint, as he plans; and it will be interesting to see the results posted here. On the other hand, it's interesting that the choice so far is confined to communicating with Sprint. Might this reflect an assumption that this is the only appropriate way to pursue these questions? Are there others? To what extent does Mr. Ptasnik's approach here resemble that of those who earlier communicated with Lotus, etc. over Marketplace? Is there any similarity between the problems identified by Mr. Ptasnik here and those suggested by this same company's "900 Neighbors" service, for example? Peter Marshall halcyon!peterm@sumax.seattleu.edu The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA ------------------------------ From: Everett F Batey Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access Date: 3 Mar 91 14:57:40 GMT Reply-To: Everett F Batey Organization: NSWSES, Port Hueneme, CA In article kabra437 commented upon by Moderator: Who is thoughtful enough to write .. <> failed to consider ... Green's order ... binding only upon ... <> companies that were a part of the old "Bell System". None of the No bad feelings, bro, but I am compelled as one who once raised my right hand and promised to defend it ... Is/Was J. Green a strict constitutionalist ... any sort of constitutionalist ... and has he read US Constitution, re Equal Protection Amendment, and have you, Sir ? efb@suned1.nswses.Navy.MIL efb@gcpacix.uucp efb@gcpacix.cotdazr.org efb@nosc.mil WA6CRE Gold Coast Sun Users Vta-SB-SLO DECUS gnu Opinions, MINE, NOT Uncle Sam_s | b-news postmaster xntp dns WAFFLE [Moderator's Note: Good point, but I am not the person who made the comments attributed to me. Those were the original author's, so I shall leave it to him to respond direct to you if he wishes to do so. I can't say I entirely disagree with you. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #177 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14482; 4 Mar 91 4:15 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04162; 4 Mar 91 2:35 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04232; 4 Mar 91 1:30 CST Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 1:22:35 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #178 BCC: Message-ID: <9103040122.ab02632@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Mar 91 01:22:24 CST Volume 11 : Issue 178 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Nigel Allen] Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Brian Crawford] Re: Digital Phones for SLIP Circuits [Syd Weinstein] Re: Are Surcharges Legal on 800 Calls? [John Higdon] Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy [Magnus M. Halldorsson] Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments [John R. Levine] Re: "Most Accurate Clock" [Bob Izenberg] Re: When to Use / Not Use the 1 [Bob Goudreau] Re: Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count) [Yoram Eisenstadter] Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges [Michael Ho] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1991 19:23:00 -0500 From: Nigel Allen Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada In article roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > [...] A recording of an obviously French voice > gave me another number to call. What's odd (at least to my American > ears) was that the voice gave the new number as something like "area > code 212, telephone number xxx-xxxx", as if the area code was not to > be considered part of the phone number, but something extra, or as PAT > puts it, incidental. When a phone number has been changed to one in a new area code, I distinctly prefer an intercept announcement that precedes the area code with the words "area code" or "area". Otherwise, people will think that the initial three digits are a local prefix, and get confused by hearing seven more digits. Bell Canada intercept operators normally would pronounce a new number as "area 613 232-xxxx", but Bell Canada's automated intercept system just gives the number as 613 232-xxxx. Nigel Allen ndallen@contact.uucp ------------------------------ From: Brian Crawford Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number Date: 3 Mar 91 15:06:32 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ In article , jwb@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen) writes: > Was this process of having to wait for a tone peculiar to France? I remember having to do this a few years ago in Zimbabwe to get to an international trunk to dial the states. A prefix was dialed, and you had to wait for a second dial tone before dialing the country code+. It was in a small town, and if memory serves correct, this wasn't required in Harare, one of the largest cities. 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: Syd Weinstein Subject: Re: Digital Phones for SLIP Circuits Reply-To: syd@dsi.com Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1991 17:37:49 GMT elroy!suned1!efb@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Everett F Batey) writes: > Sites are within three miles, wire, 1/2 mile crow flight. > - We have access to a four wire metallic circuit, not conditioned. Is > there an economical, recent or old, technology four wire modem YOU USE > to support 9600 baud SLIP ? With that short a circuit, you can run LADD modems (Local Area Data Distributors) which are meant for four wire metalic circuts. Over three miles of wire you can easily do 19.2kb. Modems of this type are rather in-expensive. I ran two offices tied together by this method for several years and it worked just fine (Note, LADD modems come in both sync and async models.) Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 09:54 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Are Surcharges Legal on 800 Calls? On Mar 3 at 2:00, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: If such charges are legal, they should be billed to > the recipient of the 800 call. That person has, after all, agreed to > pay the charges associated with connecting the caller to him. I > really do not think they are legal however, but I'm not sure. PAT] They are legal in some states, including California. The only thing that keeps them from being universal, even when allowed, is that when a phone wants money for what everyone knows is a "free" call, COCOT PR sinks even lower. As far as billing the recipient is concerned, this is impossible. There are as many 800 number billing arrangements as there are hairs on your head. None of them have any provision for "charge backs" from COCOT operators. My 800 number bill says in essence, "X hours--Y dollars" and that is all. No detail of any kind; and certainly no provision for slimy COCOTs. Besides, when I signed up I only agreed to the market hourly rate -- not the possibility of "extra charges". John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: When someone calls you collect from a COCOT, the AOS handling the calls figures out some way to bill the recipient, don't they? They work through the local telco in many cases. So let them do the same thing with their bogus handling charges for 800 calls. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Magnus M Halldorsson Subject: Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy Date: 3 Mar 91 21:01:20 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. In article <397@icjapan.uucp> jimmy@icjapan.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) writes: > I must admit that I find the public telephone debit cards to be > convenient, and for tourists and other transients they are great. > But I disagree that America should try to emulate them. Well, I disagree with you. Your first sentence has already stated one important reason. > First of all, I have problems with the whole idea of stored-value > cards. The fraud potential is way too high when you leave the balance > in the hands of the consumer. A while ago, somebody overheard my wife giving her card number to an operator. Somebody and his friends went on a major phoning spree, including Moscow and Ivory Coast, rolling up a $6000 bill. I didn't have to pay a dime, but the fraud potential argument of phone debit cards somehow doesn't impress me. > Stored-value telephone cards are also popular because using one costs > no more than using cash. I call on U.S. telephone and long > distance companies to eliminate calling card and credit card > surcharges. Good. That's argument number two. Yes, if the long distance companies would eliminate the surcharges that wouldn't hold, but I don't see that on the horizon. Some more disadvantages of telephone credit cards: - You need to apply for it. Whereas you could buy debit cards in a store or an automat, you must wait for your snail mail. - You need to have a fixed residence with a phone. The times when you don't have a phone, are exactly the times when you really could use a phone card. - It's a credit card. It has all the disadvantages of "spend-first-pay-later" mentality; plus you must be in good credit standing. - It requires long keystrokes. Given Murphy's law, the phones you find always use the other long-distance carrier, and you must therefore type in between six and nine digits before entering the nine digit number, followed by the thirteen digit card number. Of course, we could agree on allowing the advantages of both. Magnus ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 3 Mar 91 22:22:27 EST (Sun) From: "John R. Levine" In article is written: > mailing a nine-digit bar coded envelope that has the five vertical > stripes is $0.27, not $0.29. > [Moderator's Note: The thing you overlooked was the *minimum pieces > per mailing* requirement to get the 27 cent rate. The 27 cent rate applies to single barcoded pieces -- it is specifically intended for customers mailing back bill payments and such. Mailings of 500 pieces suitably marked and bundled are cheaper, about 24 cents. The implementation of the 27 cent rate is "deferred," allegedly because of the need for public education, but also largely because there are no 27 cent stamps printed. It's not clear whether at this point a barcoded envelope on which you put 27 cents would be considered to have enough postage. On another topic of interest here in recent days I note in passing that as well as Enterprise and Zenith prefixes for the old auto-collect service, I've seen them called WX numbers in New Jersy and Pennsylvania. They're not totally obsolete, since you can target a much smaller area than you can with 800 numbers, though I suspect that at an extra dollar or so per call for the collect billing you'd be better off taking a few random 800 calls. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Bob Izenberg Subject: Re: "Most Accurate Clock" Date: 3 Mar 91 21:19:55 GMT bcstec!tahoma!kgf2173@uunet.uu.net (Kerry G. Forschler) writes: > {Popular Electronics} magazine, March 1991, page 73, gives a hands-on > review of the Heathkit Most Accurate Clock. Unix types might want to try out Bill Kennedy's code to use this "clock" to update a Unix system's clock, as posted recently to alt.sources. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 16:26:50 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: When to Use / Not Use the 1 > [Moderator's Note: In summary, no, the rules are not the same > everywhere in the USA. In almost every case you need a '1' before a > ten-digit number. In the case of seven-digit numbers it varies > according to the numbering scheme used by the local telco. The telcos > usually begin using '1' in front of seven digits when their supply of > prefixes without a one or a zero as the second digit begins to run > short. A one or zero in the second digit of a three digit number here > usually indicates an area code instead of a local exchange code. Using > '1' first allows an extended set of exchange codes. I'm confused by what the Moderator is saying here. When an area code runs out of NNX exchanges and starts introducing NXX exchanges, it seems that changing intra-area long distance dialing from 7D to 1+7D is exactly the *wrong* thing for the telco to do, because it introduces ambiguity. Timeouts would thus be needed to distinguish between, say, 1-312-4567 and 1-312-456-7890. Have any telcos actually pulled such a stunt? Why didn't they just go directly to 1+10D dialing, which has no such ambiguity? It would be a shame if some places were converting from 7D to 1+7D at the same time when many other places are "doing the right thing" and converting from 1+7D to 1+10D. In answer to our Danish friend, no, the rules are not *currently* uniform. But it appears that all non-conforming telcos will have to change by 1995 at the latest, when NXX area codes start appearing in the NANP. There will then be only two ways to direct-dial a number: NXX-XXXX, and 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX (*). Most of the NANP already seems to use these rules, but there are still a lot of exceptions. As far as intra-area toll calls go, there appears to be some variation allowed even under the new plan. Some telcos require NXX-XXXX, and some require 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX. Anyone out there know of any telcos that accept *both* forms? Which one is recommended by Bellcore (if it cares)? (*) There is currently at least one place (Dallas & Ft. Worth, Texas) where NXX-NXX-XXXX dialing is allowed for calls which cross an area code boundary but which are local; LD calls there use the usual 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX format. I don't know if this setup will be permanent, or if it will (or has) spread to many other areas. In such areas, of course, the telco must take care not to introduce any exchanges that use the same three digits as the adjacent-but-local area code. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA [Moderator's Note: We seem to be back to where we were a couple weeks ago on this: What you think about the '1' on the front depends on what your telco has pomoted with /without it over the years. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 20:17:34 EST From: Yoram Eisenstadter Subject: Re: Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count) Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science In article Doug Reuben wrote: (I had originally written): >> NYC wasn't always a single local calling area; I remember several >> years ago there were parts of Queens that were local to Manhattan (25 >> cents from a payphone) and some that were not (40 cents from a >> payphone). > There are still many payphones that demand 40 cents for calls > within 718/212, depending on how far they are. Little Neck to > certain areas of NYC (err..I mean Manhattan) are 40 cents, (and > Little Neck is in Queens, NOT Nassau/516). OK ... I'll check this out tomorrow and report back. > Also, some people on or near the Queens/Nassau line get free (or > untimed) service to a local Nassau communities, and to all of NYC! > Neat place to set up a remote-call-forward site into/out of NYC. A > friend of mine who goes to NYU but lives in Manhasset does this. > According to him, it saves money, and he leaves his terminal on all day. This feature, which was called "border credits" by NYTEL, is being (or has already been) phased out. As an alternative, NYTEL is pushing a new program called "Econopath", which is sort of like a local version of AT&T's "Reach Out America" -- you pay a monthly fee and then get reduced rates for a specified set of non-local rate zones that you call frequently. (This is, of course, a significantly worse deal...) Actually, my CO is an interesting example of border-line effects: it is a 1A-ESS that serves two prefixes in Queens (718/343, 718/347) and two in Nassau County (516/352, 516/354). Under the new rate structure, I can call a number that is served by my own CO and be charged for a toll call! Cheers, Y ------------------------------ From: ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) Subject: Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 21:42:05 GMT In reading John Higdon's post, it occurred to me that I've never seen a COCOT. Now, I never use pay phones -- or at least, very rarely -- so when I sauntered up to a pay phone at a local bar last night, I inspected it very carefully to see if it was, indeed, one of the vile things. Under long-distance information, it said something to the effect of "This telephone supplies long-distance service which is provided by LINCOLN TELEPHONE LONG DISTANCE, the absolute best long-distance service in the world, cost-effective, clear, heck, why aren't you using it at home???". There was a big -- and I mean big, like 2" x 4", sticker by the dial that said the phone supplied access to all carriers in compliance with all regulations. The upshot: an LT&T phone. No doubt. But I've still never seen a COCOT, and then came his post saying that some states have outlawed them. Is Nebraska one of them? I would tend to doubt it, since we're one of the most (if not *the* most) deregulated state for telephone services. Are Nebraskans just too nice to use the things? What should I be looking for? Do all COCOTs use AOSes, or do I have to be more picky than that? Is there some kind of "this is a COCOT, run for your life" message I should be looking for? Michael Ho, University of Nebraska Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu Disclaimer: Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be applied to any university agency. [Moderator's Note: Actually, the more clever COCOT operators use phones which very closely resemble the 'genuine Bell' style. They try to make it very hard *from the phone's appearance* that you are not using what you expected. Once they get your coin deposit in the phone, well then that is another matter. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #178 ******************************  DUE TO MIXED UP TRANSMISSION, SEVERAL ISSUES IN THIS AREA ARE FILED OUT OF ORDER, THUS: 169,174,175,176,170,171,172,173,177,178,181,182,179,180,183,184.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13708; 6 Mar 91 2:46 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00702; 6 Mar 91 0:58 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19766; 5 Mar 91 23:53 CST Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 23:22:35 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #181 BCC: Message-ID: <9103052322.ab25845@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Mar 91 23:22:04 CST Volume 11 : Issue 181 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card [Barton F. Bruce] Re: An Old Instrument Develops Bell-Tap [Barton F. Bruce] MTS, IMTS, Motorola TLD1100 [Steve Pershing] How do Businesses Get ANI? And a 911 (711) Story [David Gast] Re: Can 50 Conductor Phone Cable be Used For LAN? [Bill Woodcock] Cellular Telephones on a Bicycle [Richard Budd] Sprint Complaint Followup [John Higdon] Re: Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count) [Jerry B. Altzman] Re: Calling Lebanon: Why Not Direct? [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: 800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card Date: 4 Mar 91 01:24:16 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. 950 access is over the older feature group B trunks, and it is really silly to perpetuate what was ideally a temporary measure. It means PHYSICALLY different trunks and switching equipment. This is wasted dollars which translates to higher prices. The only valid reason 950 must exist is in the few places that don't yet have equal access. 10xxx access is over the same feature group D trunks that equal access uses and should be ALL that is needed. If the carriers would arrange for a suitable selection of screening codes to be universally available FREE, it would be simple and safe to allow 10xxx0+ type access, as you would KNOW that only "bill elsewhere" traffic would be accepted. You would order the screening service that fits your needs. Between the ones available for hotels and ski condos for weekend rent and assorted others, there is a good start. Perhaps a simple variant would be to ONLY screen if 10xxx is explicitly dialed (even if it selects the default carrier), and this would let a smart switch use the same trunks for all traffic. Any 10xxx0+ traffic would be safe. 0+ from restricted extensions would get 10xxx (of the default carrier) prefixed, and non restricted stations can get 0+ to bill the BTN. The big single group objecting to 10xxx universal access was the lodging industry that has a LOT of older equipment that would be expensive to convert to allow 10xxx codes. Their dumb-dumb mode hardware sees 10xxx as some sort of billable call, and 950 as a vanilla local like call. If one flavor of screening simply disallowed ANYTHING on 10xxx access except 10xxx0+ bill elsewhere traffic, a hotel could allow 10xxx traffic without further understanding it because any attempt to bill to them, even 10xxx1+ would be blocked. Normal 1+ could work optionally, and would be handled by existing call accounting hardware. I have been told that screening is 'honored' by the AT&T/MCI/SPRINT class carriers, but what of telesleeze type ones? ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: An Old Instrument Develops Bell-Tap Date: 4 Mar 91 02:09:35 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , tots!tots.Logicon.COM! tep@ucsd.edu (Tom Perrine) writes: > so, it has developed what sounds like bell-tap; when you dial, the > ringer makes one "ding" for every pulse in the number. When an > extension was added (by TPC), we discovered that dialing the extension > (a cordless, set to pulse-dial) also causes the original phone to > "ding". > Is this "bell-tap"? Yes. > Is it a matter of reversing the polarity on the pair, The biased ringers are most immune to tap when connected properly across the line. (Keeping it simple...) the green cord wire should go to the line wire that is + (on any el-cheapo vom) in relation to the other wire. > or is it due to wear in the electro-mechanical ringer? After > thirty years, I would assume that it could be a *little* out of > adjustment :-). Not much wear likely, but the little spring hooks in different notches. If set way up high, the bell may not ring if the loop is very long. If set too weak, the bell will tap especially on short loops (where there is plenty of power to ring with the spring set stiff). BTW, I assume that TT/DP extension has been tried in TT mode even if you don't pay for the service. ------------------------------ Subject: MTS, IMTS, Motorola TLD1100. From: system administrator Date: Tue, 05 Mar 91 15:08:27 PST Organization: Questor::Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC::+1 604 681.0670 I recently revived my interest in VHF mobile radiotelephone service in the USA and Canada. It all started when I called the local telco (GTE's BCTel), and asked about it. I was informed that it was still available, but the CRTTC (Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission) had granted them permission to discontinue the service (!). (It turns out they can only discontinue it if there is something else to replace it ... presumably "cellular".) One thing led to another, and another, until I had much of the information I was looking for. IMTS service is still very popular in the USA. It is almost non- existant in Canada, however, where most of the VHF mobile radio- telephone service supplied by the telcos is the manually-compatible MTS. There was one curious anomaly that popped up: It seems that Saskatchewan Government Telephones (SaskTel) now offers a province- wide Touch-Tone dial service (over the existing MTS channels), called "AutoPhone". This service offers: - Direct dial calling to and from your car - Last number redial - Call forward - On-hook dialling - Conventional user in most North American areas The coverage map shows a photo of what could be any standard cellular handset with keys and a digital display on the back, labelled "AutoPhone, ST4100". I wonder what these guys are up to? Is it a hybrid scheme integrating two non-compatible signalling systems on the MTS frequencies? Certainly appears to be. If anyone can enlighten me, I would appreciate it. On another, but somewhat related matter, I am still the proud owner of a now obsolete Motorola TLD1100 IMTS radiotelephone. When I got rid of my old car, I did not manage to remove the transmitter housing and the control/battery cable assembly. Can anyone tell me where I might be able to get these parts cheaply (read almost free)? Finally ... is anyone aware of a hand-held VHF IMTS portable (either full- or half-duplex)? There are lots of frequency-synthesized VHF hand-helds available which can be programmed to work with the telco VHF radiotelephone service in a manual, dial-out only mode. Are there any that can receive and send either MTS or IMTS signalling? 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 23:29:18 -0800 From: David Gast Subject: How do Businesses Get ANI? And a 911 (711) Story > [Moderator's Note: They [AMEX] get inter-LATA ANI for the same reason I get > it: They have an 800 number. When you are paying for the calls you get > told who you are paying for. If you accept a collect call, the > operator will tell you what number is calling also, if you ask. PAT] With the price of the AMEX card, it's hard to argue that the customer is not paying for the call; regardless, the topic of ANI for 800 numbers is open to some disagreement. It is possible, however, that the poster was refering to some large organizations that have ISDN and that get ANI information as part of that feature. Several PUCs, I think Washington's among them, have ruled this service illegal -- at least at the present time. I don't know if ISDN ANI is available in GTE land, but I called the local branch of a national organization that has been reported in the digest to have ISDN and about 10 days later I got an application to join. (As part of the application, I agree to abide by all by-laws and regulations although none of these is specifically mentioned. Obviously, I did not sign up). Of course, the junk mail have just been a coincidence. ------------------------------ From: Bill Woodcock Subject: Re: Can 50 Conductor Phone Cable be Used For LAN? Date: 5 Mar 91 02:48:40 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz > I would appreciate information on whether a 50-conductor phone > cable, presently serving a 1A2 system, would be appropriate for > shared use as the wiring of a LAN. Is one use likely to interfere > with the other and under what conditions (ringing affect LAN, LAN > affect voice or modem calls, etc.) and what could be done to > eliminate or minimize these effects. Performance limits on the LAN > with such wiring are also of interest. I commonly run quarter megabit AppleTalk networks over unused pairs in existing building telephone wiring. There are hardware hacks which increase the transmission speed of AppleTalk from 234Kbaud up to 600Kbaud and even one megabit, and having working telephone pairs running in the same cables doesn't seem to affect these either. Both Apple and Farallon (the principal manufacturer of quarter megabit AppleTalk networking components) explicitly state that there isn't a problem with doing this. (The phone lines, not the speed hack!) In addition, most Macintosh-using offices with permanently installed network cabling use the same RJ-13 jack for both voice (inside pair) and AppleTalk (outside pair) which means that they're running side by side on the modular flatwire between the jack and devices, without benefit of pair twisting. I'm more a networking person than an electronics one, but my understanding is that the frequencies used are different enough that crosstalk and induced current aren't a problem. Similarly, 10BASET twisted-pair Ethernet will work in the same situations, for the same reasons, in so far as it works at all. You need twisted pair drop cables between your walljack and transciever or card with 10BASET, instead of the (easier to terminate) eight-conductor modular flatwire, though. Bill Woodcock BMUG NetAdmin bill.woodcock.iv woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu 2355.virginia.st berkeley.california 94709.1315 ------------------------------ Date: MON, 04 MAR 91 22.27.57 EDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Cellular Telephones on a Bicycle For the sixth year running, we are organizing this summer a bicycle ride from Buffalo to New York City. To allow members of the support crew to communicate with each other, one of the organizers suggested cellular telephones for each member of the crew. We are interested in answers to the following questions: 1) The telephones would only be needed for the duration of the bicycle trip and due to budgetary constraints, we would prefer to either rent them or accept a donation in exchange for promotion. To whom should we speak about renting cellular telephones for a ten day period (Radio Shack, the cellular phone companies...)? 2) Two to three members of the support crew ride bicycles. What would be the set-up required to install a cellular telephone on a bicycle? BTW, I've passed the BITNET address of TELECOM Digest over to the Information Institute at the University of Warsaw so the system administrators could communicate their local and wide area network problems directly to the forum. (Time to brush up on your Polish, Pat:-}) Richard Budd | E-Mail: IBMers - rcbudd@rhqvm19.ibm VM Systems Programmer | All Others- klub@maristb.bitnet IBM - Sterling Forest, NY Phone: (914) 578-3746 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 21:54 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Sprint Complaint Followup It is only fair to point out that a person from US Sprint contacted me regarding the bogus charges and subsequent dunning I was subjected to. He did so after seeing my postings (gosh -- the Power of the Press) about the matter last week. He gave me an explanation of how it happened and he resolved the matter more than equitably. I have to say that when when pressed hard enough, Sprint has come through with solutions. Well, I have been with it since it was Southern Pacific Communications. The company must be doing something right. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Jerry B. Altzman Subject: Re: Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count) Reply-To: "Jerry B. Altzman" Organization: mailer daemons association Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 02:50:38 GMT In article DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: > Nassau/516). Calls from most of Queens to Staten Island are 40 cents, > although I can't say this is still true; it was two years ago. I think FYI, those going through NYC. On the coin-op devices, it's more expensive to call "longish distance" -- e.g. from one borough to a distant one. It's US$0.40 to call from the Staten Island ferry terminal in Manhattan (inside the turnstiles) to Staten Island, I believe the opposite is true, as well. On NYTEL pay phones, it's US$0.25 from anywhere in Manhattan to most points in King's and Queen's counties. It's US$0.25 to anywhere in 212, as well (Manhattan and Bronx counties). > Interestingly, some exchanges are the SAME in both area codes. I am > not referring to "choke" prefixes for radio stations (955 for > 212/718/516/and maybe 914), nor to special feature numbers (950, 976, > 970, 540, 550). There is a "230" exchange, and you can use that from > either the 718 or 212 area codes, and you get connected to the same > number. I've seen this advertised on NYC busses for some sort of > shelter (maybe for the homeless? I dunno ...). I think there may be > other exchanges set up this way as well. I'd imagine businesses can just "buy" into certain exchanges and have the numbers auto-forward one to another -- I don't believe (and haven't heard) of any special service offered. > Also, some people on or near the Queens/Nassau line get free (or > untimed) service to a local Nassau communities, and to all of NYC! > Neat place to set up a remote-call-forward site into/out of NYC. A > friend of mine who goes to NYU but lives in Manhasset does this. > According to him, it saves money, and he leaves his terminal on all > day. Those kinds of services aren't uncommon at all--Chichester, Aston, and Marcus Hook PA (as well as several others) are al local calls to most of 312, which isn't surprising, since they are all a stone's throw from the PA/DE border. Likewise, I believe some communities in Chester County, PA may be both local to 717 and 215, since they're served by some random independent telco. jerry b. altzman +1 212 854 8058 jbaltz@columbia.edu jauus@cuvmb (bitnet) NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET) ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!) ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1991 19:13:40 EST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: Calling Lebanon: Why Not Direct? A recent submission to the Digest asked: > Does anyone know why one has to first call an AT&T operator, to call a > number in Lebanon? Do telephone companies doubt the ability of people > calling there to dial a number? And also, why are there so little > lines to this country? I know that in France, for example, it is much > easier to get through to Lebanon , and you can dial by yourself. Quite a few of the non-dialable (from the USA) international points are in Africa. There may be a little history here, but I am not sure of all the angles. If you go back a *long* time ago, many African countries were colonies of France and England. In the case of France at least, they seemed to control the possible phone connections / routings very closely. I recall well that through the 1950 - 60's era when all international calls went through the operator, calls to many or most places in Africa went from White Plains to Paris, *then* south. White Plains had to 'book' their calls through the Paris overseas operators who only accepted calls from the USA to Africa at certain times of the day. Calls to African colonies of European countries were always difficult and tedious. Calls were permitted to (what was then called) the Belgian Congo three days a week only! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #181 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15829; 6 Mar 91 4:11 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26667; 6 Mar 91 2:06 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00702; 6 Mar 91 0:58 CST Date: Wed, 6 Mar 91 0:28:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #182 BCC: Message-ID: <9103060028.ab20713@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Mar 91 00:28:12 CST Volume 11 : Issue 182 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Watch for the COCOT Warning Signs! [Sander J. Rabinowitz] Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges [David E. Martin] COCOTs at Post Offices [Ed Greenberg] Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges [John Higdon] Local Competition - "Bypass Service" [Dan Herrick] Re: Airfones and TDD? [Bruce E. Howells] Re: When to Use / Not Use the 1 [Bob Goudreau] Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell [David Lesher] Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell [Robert Jacobson] Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business [Robert Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 05:50 GMT From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Watch for the COCOT Warning Signs! ho@hoss.unl.edu (Michael Ho) wrote (on March 3, '91): > In reading John Higdon's post, it occurred to me that I've never seen > a COCOT. [...] > What should I be looking for? Do all COCOTs use AOSes, or do I have > to be more picky than that? Is there some kind of "this is a COCOT, > run for your life" message I should be looking for? I can think of several warning signs offhand ... perhaps other readers can add to this list, but here's what I have (these are tests that don't require money): 1) Pick up the receiver and listen to the dialtone. If it's a COCOT, it may not sound quite like the dialtone supplied by telco...on at least one phone I used, it sounded entirely different from the usual dialtone. 2) Dial an 800 number that you know is correct. a) Does the phone ask for money before or after dialing your number? If yes: Definitely a COCOT. b) When dialing the digits, do you hear beeps instead of touch tones? (If you hear touchtones, that's not necessarily a guarantee that you have a genuine phone, but if you hear beeps, you may have a COCOT.) 3) Generally, if you dial a number (without depositing coins) that you know is free on a genuine pay phone, and the phone asks for money, there's a good chance your dialing with a COCOT. This is by no means an exhaustive list. The point is that even if the pay phone looks like the genuine article, it'll probably give its true identity away the moment you pick up the handset (or very soon thereafter). Sander Rabinowitz | sjr@mcimail.com -or- | +1 313 478 6358 Farmington Hills, Mich. | sander@attmail.com | 8-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 18:18:42 EST From: David E Martin Subject: Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, IL I have had a similar problem in Chicago on COCOT's. I talked with Illinois Bell and there is no access code for them. In other words, if you are at a COCOT and want to make a local call with Illinois Bell, you can't. The woman I spoke to said that she would make my request for an access code known. David Martin, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL, dem@iexist.att.com ------------------------------ From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 11:32 PST Subject: COCOTs at Post Offices John Higdon wrote recently about some no-armed bandits at the Meridian Avenue Post Office in San Jose. There's a similar bandito at the Parkmoor P. O. that I frequent (95126). It's the closest one physically to John's P. O. I wonder how these COCOTs got there. Who leased 'em and who gets the royalties. I first thought it would be the landlord, since Parkmoor Station is located in a multi-use building, but the Meridian P.O. is a free standing Postal facility, and I believe that the government owns the building. Nonetheless, the public is being raped at these beasties, and, while the landlord of a building might be within his rights to put one out, the concept of the US Government profiteering at our expense IN THIS MANNER (yes, I know about all the other manners) seems inappropriate. So who do I complain to (to whom do I complain?) Getting answers out of the P.O. is usually fruitless, and we know that most people have no idea where the phone came from anyway. Suggestions, anyone? edg [Moderator's Note: In the case of federal government-owned buildings, the landlord is technically the General Services Administration. They'd be the people you should speak with. To save a lot of time and red tape, ask at the local post office to speak with the Postmaster or Station Manager. In turn, ask that person for the name and phone number of the building manager, or their contact at GSA. Don't even get into a discussion of the phones themselves until you are speaking with the right party, who would probably be a GSA supervisor with authority over the property (where the post office is housed). When you speak with the building manager at GSA for the specific location, then in all likelyhood s/he got instructions regards the phones from whoever is responsible for telecom services locally. As I implied, don't bother asking the lady who sells postage stamps. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows From: John Higdon Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1991 13:23:53 PST Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges On Mar 4 at 1:22, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Actually, the more clever COCOT operators use > phones which very closely resemble the 'genuine Bell' style. This is so true. In an effort to make its phones truly distinctive, Pac*Bell changed the color of the little square by the slot, changed the color of the instruction card, embossed the puckered*asshole logo on the coinbox cover, and plastered PACIFIC*BELL all over the sidewalk phone stands. Not three months later so had a company called "PUBLIC*PHONE". They changed the red square to blue, changed the card, embossed an actionably similar to Pac*Bell logo on the coinbox cover, and put its phones in enclosures that must come from the same company that supplies Pac*Bell. These things are so close to the appearance of a Pac*Bell payphone that I cannot spot one at a distance greater than ten feet (with my glasses on!). > Once they get your coin deposit in the phone, or your calling card number, > well then that is another matter. PAT] John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! Moderator's Note: Something else you can always depend on -- and the thing I examine first -- is the instruction card on the phone. Genuine Bell will *always* make some reference to Bell on the card. Read how it says to dial local and long distance calls. Read what it says about repair service and directory, etc. In fact I would say the instruction card is a sure way of telling one from the other. Become familiar with the instruction card on the phone. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 91 20:01:00 EDT From: "CONTR HERRICK, DAN" Subject: Local Competition - "Bypass Service" Pat reported IBT access for Teleport Communications and Metropolitan Fiber Systems to provide some alternative LEC services, reselling IBT services and asked where else alternative service is actually being implemented. This data comes from a front page article, headed "Shakeout Looms Over Bypass Mart by Bob Brown, Senior Editor in the 25 February 1991 issue of {Network World}, a weekly tabloid. (Dallas dateline) The dateline was for the annual meeting of the Association for Local Telecommunications Services, a trade group of alternative access carriers. The mood at the meeting was "incredibly optimistic" according to John Shapleigh, ALTS' new president. Philadelphia Fiber Optic went out of business, losing a competitive war. Dallas based DFW MetroLink, Inc filed for Chapter 7 liquidation, but is continuing to sign up new customers while looking for a buyer. Some others, including Institutional Communications Co, and Eastern Telelogic are looking for money. Teleport Communications Group, the industry's only profitable player, is being offered for sale by owner Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc. Metropolitan Fiber Systems, Inc is not for sale, but has suitors. These are the two Pat mentioned in the IBT story. Foreign long haul carriers Cable & Wireless PLC, British Telecommunications PLC, France Telecom, and Kokusai Denshin Denwa, Ltd are in the bidding for Teleport. (And others.) Metropolitan Fiber Systems is operating networks in 11 cities. Market revenues (all alternate companies) $60 million in 1989 and $90 million in 1990. Market share in any city tends to be less than 2% of the business business. The article has a chart, credited to Susan J Champeny of The Yankee Group, Boston, that shows investment in local fiber network by the alternate access carriers and by the local exchange carriers: 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 alternate $250 $350 $400 $450 $500 LEC 0 40 100 250 300 Robert Atkinson, senior vice-president of regulatory and external affairs at Teleport, says chances are good that carrier accessibility will get better for the alternates now that Teleport has won a bitter struggle with Nynex Corp. to collocate in New York Telephone Company central offices. Atkinson's comments suggested that the IBT agreement followed from and was related to the successful conclusion in NY. He says that the Bells are givin in to the alternative access carriers on interconnection in hopes of winning concessions from public service commissions. New York Telephone won more pricing flexibility as it conceded central office access. So, my suggestions here that we ought to compete are a few years behind the market. My report above names every company in the alternate carrier market mentioned in the Network World article. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ------------------------------ From: beh@.mit.edu (Bruce E. Howells) Subject: Re: Airfones and TDD? Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Economics Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 04:32:36 GMT In article CER2520@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Curtis E. Reid) writes: > Someone mentioned that you can't use cellular phone or radio while > airborne, right? What about use of other electronic equipment like a > laptop, GameBoy (Yes, I do play it!), or a TDD? > Before I do this, I need to know if any electronic equipment is > prohibited on an airplane while airborne? Could someone tell me > excatly what are the rules for operating such equipment on an > airplane? Thanks!! The quick, off the cuff answer is "whatever the pilot allows." The rules regulating aircraft permit the pilot full control over what electronic equipment is allowed to be operated on board. This was a big issue back when laptops first started showing up - airlines, unwilling to be a test case of avionics failure, simply banned their use, not sure of interference problems. The real answer is call your airline. Especially for the TDD, explain to them that you need the TDD, that you have special needs that you need their assistance with. They tend to be very receptive to such requests. Hope this helps, Bruce Howells, beh@pogo.ai.mit.edu (formerly beh@bu.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 17:57:49 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: When to Use / Not Use the 1 > I'm confused by what the Moderator is saying here. When an area code > runs out of NNX exchanges and starts introducing NXX exchanges, it > seems that changing intra-area long distance dialing from 7D to 1+7D > is exactly the *wrong* thing for the telco to do, because it > introduces ambiguity. Timeouts would thus be needed to distinguish > between, say, 1-312-4567 and 1-312-456-7890.... > [Moderator's Note: We seem to be back to where we were a couple weeks > ago on this: What you think about the '1' on the front depends on what > your telco has pomoted with /without it over the years. PAT] No, it has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with ambiguity. If the telco allows intra-NPA long distance dialing using 1+7D, and the telco also uses NXX exchanges (i.e., exchanges that look like area codes) within that NPA, then how does the switch know how many digits will follow "1-NXX-"? Answer: the timeout kludge. Yuck. If the telco were reasonable, it would replace 1+7D with either 1+10D or with 7D, both of which are unambiguous. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 18:23:28 EST Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers | And while we have the topic of Alternative Access open, let's | take note that MCI bought the transmission portion of Western Union a | year or so back. That acquistion included miles and miles of Western | Union conduits in the streets of more cities than any of us knew | about. I knew of a list of 17 major cities where WUTCo had cables in | the street for years. But I even heard of digging in the streets of | Oklahoma City that exposed _wooden_ conduits marked "Western Union" | just a year or so ago. Hmm, This brings up a VERY interesting scenaro. WU used to have not just cable, but pneumatic message tube virtually everywhere in many Eastern US cities. A late friend of mine who worked for WU through both World Wars talked about the seventeen-odd branch offices that they had in downtown Cleveland alone - all interconnected by message tube. Folks, you can stuff an awful lot of fiber bandwidth down just one of those tubes. Heck, if you did it right, maybe you could get the fiber pulled in by a carrier tube - no digging needed. But don't worry, John. Pac Bell is safe. Chances are, California hadn't been discovered when WU was putting in tubes;-] ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell Date: 5 Mar 91 17:40:57 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Given that there are unavoidable overhead costs associated with colocation, who picks up the tab? And who sets it? Do these new providers of local service pay any sort of access charge, or are they (1) creamskimming the business market and (2) providing telcos with a foil for arguments that will deregulate "competitive" (i.e., read "business") services and put the greater rate burden on residential customers? In California, the energy utilities were prodded by neoconservative regulators into permitting competition, too. The net result was much lower rates for very big customers (the $10 million+/year sort) and much HIGHER rates for the "core" customers, those unable to avail themselves of competitive services (who don't want the overhead of serving smaller customers). Even small business, which finds itself in a neither fish nor fowl situation pays -- in fact, in many situations, it pays the most. Local competition has a nice ring. Like the cash register's... Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business Date: 5 Mar 91 17:47:43 GMT Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle I'm sorry, perhaps I missed it, but who has refuted the argument that the local telephone monopoly does indeed allow for rate averaging and holding down local rates? In eight years of telecom policy work, I never heard a convincing argument to the contrary ... and, in fact, energy regulation has proven precisely the opposite. Throughout California, the state with which I am most familiar, residential and commercial (small-business) customers are paying billions more in gas rates so that industrial customers can be cajoled away from "competitive options" (many of which they created, for just this purpose) with lower rates. Competition just means more costs for the "core customers" who can't get access to real alternatives. I don't see cable rushing to hook up the Aunt Minnies, or you, or me. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #182 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14112; 7 Mar 91 0:37 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09430; 5 Mar 91 4:24 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07893; 5 Mar 91 2:58 CST Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 2:38:31 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #179 BCC: Message-ID: <9103050238.ab06627@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Mar 91 02:38:22 CST Volume 11 : Issue 179 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Big System Crash Here! Mail Lost [TELECOM Moderator] Alphanumeric Paging [David Dodell] Re: California Tariff Question [John Higdon] Home Telephone Tap Detector [Kevin Boyd] Question About Calling Cue Tariff [M. Bog] Re: Homebrew Caller*ID [Doug Faunt] Rotary Dial for Cellular Phones? [Steve Pershing] $2 Caller ID Chip [portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net] What Number Maps to Q or Z? [Ken Jongsma] Re: 1+206 Dialling Coming to Washington [Brian Crawford] Payment For no Connection? [Christopher Wolf] Re: Where do You Live? In a Cave? [Dave Levenson] Northern Telecom Maestro Sets [Louis J. Judice] Re: Many Software Designers ... [Peter Marshall] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 0:46:45 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Big System Crash Here! Mail Lost On Monday afternoon, a MAJOR system crash here at eecs.nwu.edu caused the loss of all mail which would have arrived here between about 2:00 AM Monday and the time of the crash early afternoon Monday. It was not just my accounts -- it was system wide. /var and other directories on that disk all went poof! The machine was down for several hours as a result, and came back up shortly before midnight Monday night. Understandably, our sysadmin Bill Lefebre is quite disturbed about the loss of mail and interruption of service. Where that leaves us: What you see today is what I have. The queue was mostly empty Monday morning .... but I suspect the usual 50-75 messages which would have arrived Monday morning/afternoon will never be recovered. ** You probably got a receipt for the mail **, but it is not here now! ** Reciepts dated BEFORE about 1 AM Sunday and AFTER 11 PM Monday mean I have the mail. It is only the stuff in the middle which is lost. ** If your submission is (a) not in this issue or the one following or (b) accounted for by a note from myself, you should assume the worst. That would include any list-change requests for adds and deletions to the mailing list, etc. Obviously, mail you sent to my personal account is also gone. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Mar 91 00:10:03 GMT From: David Dodell Subject: Alphanumeric Paging My local paging company has started to offer Alphanumeric paging using the newer style Motorola pagers (similiar in size to a large Bravo digital pager) ... they want to rent me a Motorola terminal for $10/month, but they did disclose the access number locally. From what I have been able to determine, it is a 1200 baud number, 7E1, needing half duplex operation, but I can't get anything pass this. When explaining I need to do this from multiple locations using PC, the pager company claims that you need one of the Motorola terminals due to some "special codes" ... I find this hard to believe, any one know the format so I could write some scripts. David St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD FidoNet=> 1:114/15 Internet: ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org FAX: +1 (602) 451-1165 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 00:04 GMT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: California Tariff Question Linc Madison writes: > Specifically, the charges relate to some calling card calls made in > ZUM Zone 2 (Zone Usage Measurement; Zone 2 is 8-12 miles). Remember that under the fabulous PUC Give-Away Streamlined Tariff Provisions (tm), little things like rates can blow with the wind as long as the telco plays by the Contest Rules. Or at least appear that it is. > I placed these calls on my calling card because when I attempted > to make them sent-paid, the computer quoted me an incorrect rate (75c > for the first three minutes, when the tariffed rate is .25 + .08 + > 2x.02 = .37, round down to .35). First, telco never rounds down. Second, an inside source has revealed to me that the pay phone division is screwed up big time. I have had my own major experiences in that arena (some posted here). Lately I have found that the programming on Pac*Bell coin phones is more out of date than a GTE central office. I would say that the division depends upon customer complaints to keep things current, but judging from its lack of response to my complaints it appears that no one really cares. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1991 00:12 GMT From: Kevin Boyd <8156BOYDK@vmsf.csd.mu.edu> Subject: Home Telephone Tap Detector In my latest issue of the Hammacher Schlemmer catalog, there is a device called the "Home Telephone Tap Detector". It's description really sounds too good to be true, but Hammacher Schlemmer is a very old(founded in 1848) and reputable company. It is described as follows: HOME TELEPHONE TAP DETECTOR: Used by law enforcement agencies around the world, this home telephone tap detector detects and defeats virtually all tap systems. It employs four individual detection systems to detect low and high impedance taps, wireless bugs, off-hook extensions and automatic tape recorders. Mode one scans the line for any low impedance taps or off-hook extensions and, if any are found, an indicator light goes out and your phone conversation is automatically muted. Mode two scans the radio spectrum for any operating wireless taps within or in the vicinity of your telephone, then automatically switches to mode three which actually deactivates any taps or tape recorders. Mode four nullifies any transmission bugs. Metal unit is RJ-11 compatible and can be connected in seconds. Comes with an impact resistant carrying case, line jack cord and one 9-volt battery. 7/8"H x 3"W x 5 1/2"L.(.6lb.) 35664X..... $199.95 No manufacturer is listed. Any opinions... Is this too good to be true? (For anyone not familiar with Hammacher Schlemmer, they are a rather upscale mail order company that sells everything from trench coats to fax machines.) Standard Financial Interest Disclaimer. Regards, Kevin Boyd | BITNET 8156boydk@MUCSD.BITNET Marquette University | INTERNET 8156boydk@VMSD.CSD.MU.EDU Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A. | Phone (414)223-4873 Broadcasting and Electronic Media & | FAX (414)288-3300 Computer Services Division | "All views expressed are my own..." ------------------------------ From: MURAT@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Question About Calling Cue Tariff Date: 5 Mar 91 00:46:49 GMT Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services A relatively new service named Calling Cue is being offered by BOC's(at least by Southwestern Bell as far as I know).The tariff for this is $3/month.I'm interested on how the telephone companies decide on this tariff.Have they collected statistics as to how often this service would be used by a subscriber?Would anyone knowing smt about this or any other pricing criteria for this service provide some information.I thank you for your response in advance. M. Bog The U. of Kansas ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 05:03:40 GMT From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: Re: Homebrew Caller*ID Several people asked about this, and mail to a couple of them has bounced, so... AMRAD is the Amateur Radio Research and Developement Corp, PO Drawer 148, McLean VA 22106-6148. The homebrew Caller*ID demodulator is in the December, 1990 Newsletter. You could try getting writing the publisher at lkestel@gmuvax2.gmu.edu 73, doug ------------------------------ Subject: Rotary Dial for Cellular Phones? From: system administrator Date: Tue, 05 Mar 91 00:49:46 GMT Organization: Questor: Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC Since many telcos (at least here in NorthAm) charge extra for Touch-Tone dialling, I wonder if cellular users couldn't request rotary dialling to reduce their charges? :-) Why not? :-) 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 [Moderator's Note: Rotary dial will NOT work on cellular phones, since there is no loop of wire to be opened and closed by the pulsing. In any situation where there is not a direct hardwired link to a central office switch, i.e. cellular, then rotary is not a valid service. PAT] ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net Subject: $2 Caller*ID Chip Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 04:48:28 GMT A press release just crossed my desk announcing a Caller*ID chip from Sierra Semiconductor. The SC11210 and SC11211 provide a differential input buffer, four-pole bandpass filter, FSK demodulator, programmable energy detection, and clock generator. They decode FSK-encoded Caller ID information sent on the phone line between the first and second rings. '210 is in an eight-pin DIP; '211 is in a fourteen-pin DIP, and pr