ISSUE 351 WAS DELAYED IN TRANSMISSION AND APPEARS FOLLOWING 354.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14144; 13 May 91 1:47 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22269; 13 May 91 0:16 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01538; 12 May 91 23:09 CDT Date: Sun, 12 May 91 22:12:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #352 BCC: Message-ID: <9105122212.ab30772@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 May 91 22:12:03 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 352 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [Carol Springs] Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c per Call Charge? [Kath Mullholand] Calling Card Rates [Bill Huttig] Re: Adding a Modem to System 85 Set [Dave Levenson] Butt Set with Digit Grabber [Paul Guthrie] Another COCOT Complaint [William F. Wicks] Limited Area 800 Lines [Andy Jacobson] ITT - Comments Solicited [Lars Poulsen] Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Dave Leibold] Roaming - Changing Service Areas [Ron Heiby] Peculiar Intercept Recording [William Degnan] Followup on International Tariffs [Bryan Montgomery] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 May 91 19:14:31 -0400 From: Carol Springs Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die In article , John Levine writes: > If you have Sprint Plus, the volume discount plan, FON card > calls are counted toward the total call volume that determines the > discount for direct dialed calls, but the FON card calls themselves > don't get the discount. If you make, say, $25 worth of calls and get a ten per cent volume discount, the FONcard charges are indeed discounted at ten per cent as well. For example, on a recent bill, my pre-tax charges for 1+ calls were $21 and my FONcard calls were $6.20, for a total of $27.20. The discount was $2.72. Aside from the 75-cent surcharge, the bad thing about FONcard calls under Sprint Plus is that night rates do not start at 5:00 p.m. the way they do with 1+ calls. Carol Springs carols@world.std.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 1991 20:51:09 EDT From: KATH MULLHOLAND Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c per Call Charge? Our Sprint rep just visited us today, and said the FonCard charge was 25c per call. This may be just for us because we are on VPN, however. Kath Mullholand UNH Durham, NH ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 91 11:32:02 -0400 From: Bill Huttig Subject: Calling Card Rates Here are the calling card rates for the various long distence companies: Sprint, Telecom*USA/MCI, MCI .75 on all access numbers VisaPhone/MasterPhone by MCI .70 on all calls .20/.13/.10 (?) MetroMeadia .75 on 800 access near the same as 1+ via 950-1011/950-0488 is slightly higher. Allnet 8-6 weekdays .36/min .30/min all other times.. 10% discount to home area/weekend ... 15% discount certain cities. SouthernNet/Telecom*USA - .47 .36 .30 per min on SoutherNet travel card 950 access same as 1+ ... Star Card .30 surchange q AT&T .80 ..Universal Card is 10% off total call so surcharge is .72 ATC - No surcharge for local access number or 950 800 varies by division: MicroTel - .65 + .29 /.27 /.24 per min Telus - .65 + .235 .16 SouthTel to FLorida .44 .37 .27 elsewhere .505 .485 .465 I think that covers everything. ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Adding a Modem to System 85 Set Date: 10 May 91 03:51:51 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) writes: > I just had my phone switched from an 'analog' (standard 2500 set) to a > AT&T ten button 'digital' set on our System 85 to gain an additional > two lines. > In doing that, I lost the ability to use a modem on the line. Is there > any way to use a standard telephone device (like a modem or answering > machine) with this phone? It's got a second eight-pin RJ- jack on the > back marked 'OTHER'... No, there isn't any way to connect a modem, but there shouldn't be any need to. If you've got a digital station line from a System 85 PBX, replace your digital voice terminal with one that has a data and voice capability. It won't give you an RJ-11 jack; it will give you an RS-232 interface. You connect that to your data terminal equipment (or computer) and you get connectivity at speeds up to 9600 bps through the PBX to other digital terminals. If your PBX has a modem pool, it will also allow you to dial outbound calls, and will insert a modem from its pool if your call goes out to an analog data station. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Paul Guthrie Subject: Butt Set with Digit Grabber Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers Date: Mon, 06 May 1991 16:29:28 GMT Does anyone know of a butt-set with a built in digit grabber? I used to have a Ziad (??) that did this, but am unable to find Ziad's in the usual places (Greybar, Famous Telephone Supply). So, could someone give me a pointer on where to purchase a Ziad, or a suitable alternative? Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul or pdg@balr.com or attmail!balr!pdg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 91 14:19:55 CDT From: "William F. Wicks" Subject: Another COCOT Complaint The reason I am writin is that I remember (I think) that if you come across a COCOT that does not allow equal access via 10288, that you can write or call someone (FCC?) to complain. I would appreciate it if you could provide me with this address or phone number for the Chicago/Suburban area. I was on my way to a softball game and it started to rain hard so I decided to pull over to a Shell gas station and call my manager. I didn't think I had any change on me so I tried to use my calling card, and dialed 1028 and immediately after the 8, I got a computer voice recording saying that this was an invalid number!! If you can help me out with this I would be very thankful. I will also bring this matter up with the owner of the Shell station. Thank you in advance, Bill Wicks Motorola, Inc. Radio-Telephone Systems Group wickswf@adobe.rtsg.mot.com [Moderator's Note: I don't know of any specific organization here working on the problem. You can lodge complaints with the Illinois Commerce Commission (telephone division) at their Chicago office, or you can contact the FCC. The best bet would probably be the owner of the gas station. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 May 91 22:12 PDT From: Andy Jacobson Subject: Limited Area 800 Lines In TELECOM Digest V11 #333 > Moderator's Note: In olden-times, when AT&T was the sole player, 800 > prefixes did indeed match up to specific states or geographic areas. > They were also tied into 'calling bands', indicating if calls to the > 800 number would be accepted nationwide, or only from certain states. > Now, statewide only or limited area 800 lines are rather scarce. Most > folks have nationwide coverage on their 800 lines, and the prefixes > denote *which carrier* handles the traffic except in AT&T's case where > their (numerous) prefixes still to some extent denote a geographic > area and/or type of call to be accepted. Is this incomming WATS service rather scarce? I know of many companies that have calls routed to different 800 numbers depending on the calling region. These numbers are not dialable outside of their region. In fact it seems the larger the company (distributorships), the more likely this arrangement. I know of only one example, a herb and spice shop called No Common Scents in Yellow Springs Ohio, who have an 800 number available in only one region (OH, PA, KY, IN, MI), but I'm sure there are still many out there. Does anyone know if the one region only type service is grandfathered, or just fallen to disuse. TELECOM Digest V11 #334 > Moderator's Note: This is about the same thing that happened here in > Chicago. 312 is exclusive to postal code 606xx, while 708 is found in > the 600, 601, 604, and 605xx areas. PAT But Pat, what about 602xx, the huge suburban (708) postal code for little Evanston? Andy Jacobson or [Moderator's Note: I should have included 602xx, and in fact Carl Moore noted this in a followup message. Regards limited area WATS lines incoming and outgoing, I suppose you can still get them, but I can't imagine it being worth the trouble unless you have a huge volume of incoming/outgoing WATS calls where every penny counts. I suppose a lot of large users do fall in that catgory however. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: ITT - Comments Solicited Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA Date: Tue, 7 May 91 16:30:09 GMT A recent article recommended ITT for no-surcharge calling cards. Since I, too, originally selected MCI for "around town" use, I'm interested. I checked, and found that there is no 10ITT access here, but 950-0ITT yields a dial tone. What is ITT's profile? Cut rates, deep discount quality? Are the lines good enough for modem use? What kind of international calling plans do they have? Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 23:43:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com Some recent notes on 416/905 split postings... Nigel Allen : > (I'm M6G 1V3) while the areas adjacent to Metro Toronto have codes > beginning with L, the postal code boundary coincides with the new area > code boundary. If your postal code begins M, you remain in 416; if > you are now in 416 and your postal code begins with L, you switch to > 905. Postal area M = new area 416 boundary is correct; however, the mapping of postal L = 905 will not be exact. Some postal codes in the Collingwood ON area begin with L, yet are in NPA 705 (to be confused with the new and adjoining NPA 905). Meanwhile, some of the farthest reaches of 416 have municipalities whose postal codes begin with N (southwest Ontario) or K (eastern Ontario). Dunnville is in 416, yet postal codes begin with N1A. Cobourg, also in 416, has postal codes beginning with K9A. Mark Brader: > By the 1991 phone book, the prefixes in Metro Toronto are as follows. > Errors are mine. 461-3,5-7,9 means 461 462 463 465 466 467 469. > Actually, there are many more prefixes than Bell Canada lists in its phone books. There are cellular ones like Cantel's 416-520; then there are pager ones like 416-379. Then there are various test exchanges that occupy space on the numbering plan. It seems likely that Toronto-based cell and page numbers will stay in 416; anything based outside is 905-bound. Bell is also notorious for errors in listing its prefixes. Notice that 416-226 prefix didn't get listed in the '91 Toronto directory, though it is supposed to be active. A 416 prefix chart should be in the Archives ... those in Toronto (or cellular or pager) will remain in 416 after 1993. Any other place name will go to 905. Some other notes about the split: - Pearson International Airport, serving Toronto, will be located in 905; travellers would have to adjust to the code split. - as for the 210 area code I have mentioned in previous posts, it still would have been a better assignment in many respects that 905; the aforementioned similarity with 705 to the north is one shortcoming; the longer rotary dialing needed for all those cross-boundary local calls (905 vs 210) is another (Bell Canada charges a significant monthly premium for tone dialing). Is 210 secretly taken for something already? - there is the "Taco Bell" effect of assigning Mexico's old area code. A recent Howard Johnsons motel guide still lists a Mexico City number with the (905) code, despite its official retirement as such. David Leibold replies: dleibold@attmail.com Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.onebdos.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Ron Heiby Subject: Roaming - Changing Service Areas Date: 9 May 91 13:03:49 GMT Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL Pat, in your article about "Roaming Through the Midwest", you said, "I kept entering *18 on the Ameritech phone each time we would enter a new service area, ..." How did you know that you had entered a new service area? Do you use a map? Does your phone display the ID number of the service being used? Did you just note when you lost service and picked it up again? If the last, what about areas like going North out of Chicago (which you didn't do on your trip, I know), where the service area for Chicago and for Milwaukee overlap? Since I have my home service in Chicago, its easy to see the home-service (green) light switch to the "Roam" light. But, someone already roaming in Chicago wouldn't have that clue. Ron Heiby, heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com Moderator: comp.newprod [Moderator's Note: My phones do not display the system ID. I just keep noting them changing from 'rom' to 'no service' and back to 'roam' again. Each time I saw us going into a new area, I would use *18 to move the follow-me system to wherever I was at, and at the same time to cancel it out in the previous territory. Going north from Chicago, a wise idea would be to do *18 when you enter Wisconsin. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 22:24:00 PST From: William Degnan Subject: Peculiar Intercept Recording Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com [The following is a posting from (presumably) the Fidonet MDF echo conference... djcl] * Originally to All * Forwarded by Dave Leibold I hit an interesting recording the other day. "I'm sorry. (NXX-XXXX) ... is a working number. Please try your call again later." Interesting combination. Why would SWB be sorry the guy had a working number? And if it _is_ a working number ... well why doesn't it ... work? Regards, Bill Origin: Private Line - Austin TX [Have Briefcase/Will Travel] (1:382/39) William Degnan - via IMEx node 89:681/1 William.Degnan@f135.n82.z89.onebdos.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 1991, 09:25:41 BST From: BMONTGOM at HVTVM4 Subject: Followup on International Tariffs Hello, A while ago there was a posting asking for international tariffs. I have managed to get together this information. I thought I had noted the original poster but I had the wrong person. Sorry Jim. Additionally I would be in interested in any info that you have regarding calls from US-UK and UK-US. I hope this is of interest; pounds sterling $ = US dollars (these symbols are reversed on my system) Using: British Telecom to North America (cheapest rate) 0.603/min Mercury " " 0.465/min MCI call USA $2 charge+(??) $1.43 for 3 min then $0.930/min AT&TUSA Direct $2.5 charge, $1.20 for 3 min then $0.940/min (Orginally ATT used to vary additional mins (71 & 60c) depending on time of day but it now appears to be a flat rate as with MCI.) I hope that this may be of use to you and look forward to any comments that you have. If required I could additionally find tarrifs from BT to other destinations. All the best. Cheers, Bryan Montgomery PS There was a posting the other day regarding information for fibre cables for someone in IBM (or so it seemed). I'm not convinced that the E-mail address given was correct. If any mail gets bounced, forward it to me and I'll do my best to find the rightful owner. BMontgom@hvtvm4.Vnet.IBM.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #352 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16710; 13 May 91 2:54 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03148; 13 May 91 1:23 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad22269; 13 May 91 0:17 CDT Date: Sun, 12 May 91 23:43:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #353 BCC: Message-ID: <9105122343.ab16996@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 May 91 23:43:30 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 353 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The Sad News Reaches Us: Borow Was Fired [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience [Ralph W. Hyre] Details of NYNEX Phonesmart(sm) Proposal for MA [Steven L. Finberg] International Dialing and Area Codes [Douglas W. Martin] Watson Systems Questions [Mike Whitman] Please Update Your Switch to Allow 713-743 Prefix [J.B. Milleri]] Good Sources for DSU/CSUs? [Jesse W. Asher] Steve Jackson Files Suit Against Secret Service, et al. [Brett Slocum] Ithaca, NY Central Office Tour Planned [Steve Gaarder] Some Abbreviation Questions [Sean Petty] Re: MCI Suspends New 900 Applications [John Boteler] Re: Calling 905 from 416 Area [Tony Harminc] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Moderator Date: Fri May 10 09:02:42 CDT 1991 Subject: The Sad News Reaches Us: Borow Was Fired I received the following note in my mail yesterday. Since it was sent to me personally as a list-maintainence request, I've deleted the name of the person who sent it. Besides which, based on what he says in the note, I'm not sure his supervisor(s) would approve of it being sent ... at least not the final part. > Dear Pat, Please remove me from the Telecom Digest mailing list. We > are no longer authorized to receive messages from outside of the > company. On a final note Randy was terminated on 5/8/91. This has not > been a very pleasant week in our office. > Thanks, (name omitted) This came from someone at the same AT&T office as Randy ... I'm sorry this led up to the point that outside email is no longer welcome in the office. I've forwarded a copy of this to telecom-priv also. PAT ------------------------------ From: "Ralph W. Hyre" Subject: Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience Date: 10 May 91 13:18:25 GMT Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article det@nightowl.mn.org (Derek E. Terveer) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 344, Message 1 of 10 > jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: >> For my new line, I deliberately didn't order touch-tone service ... > I agree. For my data line, I specifically ordered it with just pulse > The only potential disadvantage that I see is if I want my Unix box to > call long distance and use some sort of calling card code number or > something like that that requires touch-tone. You can STILL send touch-tones over your phone line, whether you pay for it or not. When you pay your local phone company for 'touch-tone' that just means you can dial your initial number using touch-tone. They don't card what you dial once you are talking to your long distance carrier/information provider whatever. Calling card example: (manual dial) pulse 10288 + 0 + 700 555 4141 [switch to tone] + Card Number (My phone has a push button to switch to touch tone mode, so it's really handy for this application.) Modem example: (don't try this at home, my recollection of the Hayes command set is fuzzy.) ATDP1073207005554141T {card number digits} ------------------------------ From: "Steven L. Finberg" Subject: Details of NYNEX Phonesmart(sm) Proposal for MA Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Date: Fri, 10 May 91 14:16:12 GMT The same day the official notice of hearings on CPID was published in the {Boston Globe}, a nice slick pamphlet on Phonesmart(sm) arrived from NET. A couple of months ago I had requested information on when any hearings would be held. They said nothing of the hearings but sent a promotional piece instead along with an appology for taking so long, from the External Affairs office. The two color twelve-page piece extolls the virtues of Phonesmart(sm): "How to give your phone extraordinary capabilities" and lists rates: 1. Caller ID $4.95/month requires CPE readout. 2. Call Trace $1.50/mo +$5 " processing fee for two sucessfull traces to the same telephone number." 3. Repeat Dialing $2.25/month (Deamon Dialer goes for up to 30 min.) 4. Call Return $2.25/month. 3 and 4 together $3.95/month. A one time sign up fee of $5.70 applies to install as many services as you sign up for at a time. The sign up fee will be waved for the first three months after service introduction. A mail in order form is included or one can call 1 800 922 8383 extension 980 to get "assistance". They plan to only offer per call blocking, which would be invoked by dialing *67 (1167 rotary). In small type at the bottom of the CPID page the explain how this is done and that a display will show P or Private if Per Call Blocking is activated. You have to presubscribe to call trace for $1.50 and they charge $5 if you use it and get a trace back to a given number twice??? Little type says it works even if Per-Call Blocking is activated. Dosen't say what happens if the offensive calls come from a different phone each night! Call Trace is activated by dialling *57 (1157 rotary) immediately after the offensive call. Repeat Dialing is activated by *66 (1166) after getting a busy. Call Return *69 (1169 rotary) returns the last call received whether or not answered. Works regardless of Per-Call Blocking. Comments: 1. They seem to have a fairly detailed sales flyer out, ready to go, way before the DPU hearings are held. 2. For those of us concerned about giving out unlisted numbers Per-Call Blocking is not enough, all we have to do is make a toll call which is "Call Returned" and the unlisted number apears on the bill at the end of the month. Not quite as fast but just as released :-( From the {Boston Globe} of 7 May 1991 P78, "D.P.U. 91-64...... " The Department will conduct a public hearing... (in) room,1210 Leverett Saltonstall Building, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston MA on Wednesday, May 29, 1991 at 2:00p.m. " A procedural conference for parties who have formally intervened will be held on May 30,1991 at 10:00 a.m. ......" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 91 08:54:23 PDT From: "Douglas W. Martin" Subject: International Dialing and Area Codes 1. How are international long-distance rates calculated? Are there some one-minute calls that would be extremely expensive? For example, does it cost a lot more to call some small town in Vanuatu or Zambia than to call London or Paris? I would be interested in some comparative figures. 2. There has been talk in this Digest about area codes like 820 to cover parts of the NANP which are not presently accessable. What parts are these? I would guess parts of the Yukon or the Northwest Territories, but I thought most of these were accessable via 403-Alberta. Could someone please explain. Doug Martin martin@nosc.mil ------------------------------ From: Mike Whitman Subject: Watson Systems Questions Date: 10 May 91 17:43:17 GMT Organization: Pyramid Technology, Government Systems I have just gotten a Watson system with some of the manuals missing. If anyone out there could help me with the following questions I would appreciate it. I want to get the system to do the following: - message call back - set up conference calls - do automated surveys - use the printer to log all phone activity If anyone can help, thanks. Michael C. Whitman Regional System Engineer - Telecom Pyramid Technology Corporation 1921 Gallows Road, Suite 250 Vienna, VA 22182 Phone: (703) 848-2050 Pager: (800) sky-page pin# 45300 ------------------------------ From: JBMiller@uh.edu Subject: Please Update Your Switch to Allow 713-743 Prefix Date: 10 May 91 13:38:34 CDT Organization: University of Houston The University of Houston has just installed a new ROLM CBX for several departments on its main campus. Because of the critical nature of the research being done in these departments it is imparitive that they receive all calls to them. Unfortunately we have experienced blockage of the new prefix activated for their new switch. If you are the manager of your University's or Company's PBX or know the person who is, would you please check to see if in the 713 area code (Houston Texas), your switch is allowing the 743 prefix to be completed. Your assistance in this emergency situation would be greatly appreciated by the University of Houston and the Texas Center for Superconductivity. Joe Miller Assistant Director Telecommunications JBMiller@UH.EDU [Moderator's Note: Well, you have reached an audience here that can help you, if anyone can. I am reminded of a large firm in downtown Chicago which uses my services from time to time. They have a large Rolm PBX, but no one around who knows how to program it. I told them it was refusing to accept calls to 708-518 (the exchange where my voicemail is located.) They ignored my several requests to fix it, so I changed my phone number in their records to 708-518-6335, and told them when you get it fixed, you'll be able to call me again. They just about went crazy at that ... but a month later, it was working. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Jesse W. Asher" Subject: Good Sources For DSU/CSUs? Reply-To: "Jesse W. Asher" Organization: Health Sphere of America Inc. Date: Fri, 10 May 91 15:50:08 GMT We are about to purchase some CSUs and I'm looking for a good source for some. Right now we are looking at the UDS DDS/MR1 CSU and we'd like to get them for under $500 including shipping. Does anyone know of a good source for these or something that would be equivalent? Also, how good are the UDS CSUs? I've heard good things about them (but they were from a salesperson). Any _informed_ opinions out there? Jesse W. Asher NIC Handle: JA268 Phone: (901)386-5061 Health Sphere of America Inc. 5125 Elmore Rd., Suite 1, Memphis, TN 38134 Internet: jessea@homecare.COM UUCP: ...!banana!homecare!jessea ------------------------------ From: Brett Slocum Subject: Steve Jackson Files Suit Against Secret Service, et al. Organization: Honeywell SSDC Date: Fri, 10 May 1991 12:06:35 -0500 The following appeared on the Illuminati BBS (SJGames house BBS): 5-1-91 This afternoon, Steve Jackson Games filed suit against the Secret Service, the US government, various Secret Service agents, Assistant U.S. Attorney William Cook, and one phone company employee who acted under color of Federal authority as an instigator of the raid. Named as co-plaintiffs in the suit are Steve Jackson as an individual and three Illuminati users whose E-mail was lost in the raid. A rather extensive description of the case can be found in the Electronic Frontiers Foundation newsletter (EFFector Online) #1.04 (May 1, 1991). The net address for EFF is: eff.eff.org Subscription requests can be made to : eff-request@eff.org Brett Slocum or NOTICE: my address has changed! "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This one's mine, not my company's." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 91 19:23:50 EDT From: Steve Gaarder Subject: Ithaca, NY Central Office Tour Planned A group of us in Ithaca will be touring one of the step-by-step offices in the area on Tuesday, May 14 at 3:00. There is room for a few more people; if anyone is interested, let me know. Steve Gaarder gaarder@theory.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Some Abbreviation Questions From: Sean Petty Date: Fri, 10 May 91 19:44:09 EDT I was recently reading a telephone journal, and came across a few abbreviations and terms for which I did not know the meanings. I would greatly appreciate it if someone (anyone) could mail me the definitions and/or explanations of the terms listed below. All help is greatly appreciated!! What is a loop? What is a CBI? What is a TWR? What does 4096 do? Help!! Sean Petty INTERNET: undrground!seanp@amix.commodore.com UUCP: uunet!cbmvax!amix!undrground!seanp ICBM: 39.58.1' North 75.61.1' West 50/50: seanp@undrground.UUCP seanp@amix.commodore.com [Moderator's Note: This is a good time to remind everyone of the glossary and acronym files in the telecom-archives: use anonymous ftp to reach lcs.mit.edu, then cd telecom-archives. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: MCI Suspends New 900 Applications Date: Fri, 10 May 91 10:34:59 EDT From: John Boteler John Higdon writes: > Since Telesphere provided no ANI nor any accounting detail whatsoever, > the providers had to take Telesphere's word for it.... > Sprint and AT&T provide ANI data to the provider so that if there is > collection difficulty, the provider can take matters into his own > hands. Also, he can keep track of who calls and how much and make sure > that no individual caller runs up a major bill that would be unpaid > due to claimed hardship. For this reason, neither Sprint nor AT&T will > likely have the problems that MCI or Telesphere claim. Now, follow me closely on this. As an Information Provider (IP), my system can record the time it began processing a call and the time it finished processing a call. Using simple mathematical analysis, I can run a report which shows the duration of each call. I can then cross-reference these records to the detail billing at the end of each month, if necessary. In any case, I know how long the system was in use, therefore I know how much money the carrier owes me, less holdbacks, no matter what ANI info I have. Basically, John's saying that if they want to screw the IPs, they will. I already figured that! :( (I'd still like to know exactly why MCI in particular made this move.) John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 91 22:30:01 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Calling 905 from 416 Area >> Amusingly, when I dial 1+905+7D from here (416) I get routed to a >> message from 619 saying that the dialing procedure for Mexico has >> changed - use 011+52+, in English and Spanish. Somehow you'd think a >> switch in what will be the new 905 would be the first to be updated! John R. Covert: > Something is wrong here. When I dial 1+905 from a REAL 416 phone, I > immediately get the recording "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed > as dialled." Right after the 1-905. No more digits required. And this > has always been the case, even before 905 and 706 were taken out of service. > The old 905 and 706 area codes NEVER worked from Canada; they were special > area codes that worked from the U.S. only. Well don't be *quite* so sure. I have just retried the experiment. When I dial 1 905 555 1212 from my home phone (416 486) I get a message in English and Spanish as I reported previously. It comes from some distance away (judging by the connection time and quality), but it does not now have the 619 identifier on it. The accent in the English part is clearly American. When I dial the same call from my office phone (PBX trunk in 416 492) it gets intercepted at the Toronto toll switch (not at the local CO) with the "cannot complete your call as dialed" message. Since there are quite a few toll switches in Toronto, it seems clear that my home and office COs home on different ones that are programmed differently. My home is served by a #1ESS, while my office PBX trunks are on one of the few remaining crossbar switches in town. Probably your phone is served by a DMS or SP1 switch, both of which have fancier programing capabilities. Tell me your CO prefix and I'll tell you what kind of switch it is. > I suspect that Tony is calling from a PBX with some sort of smart routing. > Apparently his PBX has some lines to some point in the U.S., which it > uses for calls to non-Canadian area codes. Definately not. I am quite familiar with how our PBX is configured and we have no lines to the US. All our US calls go via DDD because our calling volume to the US is very low. If you check a Toronto phone book from just a few years ago you will find 905 documented as the way to reach Mexico City, and country code 52 not listed in the overseas section. Tony H. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #353 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19272; 13 May 91 3:58 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14227; 13 May 91 2:34 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03148; 13 May 91 1:24 CDT Date: Mon, 13 May 91 0:19:59 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #354 BCC: Message-ID: <9105130019.ab27655@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 13 May 91 00:19:34 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 354 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Robert J Woodhead] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Steven S. Brack] Re: Omaha Utility Victim of Phone Fraud [Steven S. Brack] Re: Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted [Jeff Scheer] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Seng-Poh Lee] Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: 410 Area Code in Maryland [Leryo Malbito] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Date: 13 May 91 01:44:47 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan ch@dce.ie (Charles Bryant) writes: > In article I (RJW) wrote. >> This swine was using the telephone to blatantly defraud people in a >> callous and totally inexcusable way, and I hope he gets a day in jail >> on each of the 50,000 counts, served CONSECUTIVELY. I'll admit, he >> was an ingenious swine, but that's beside the point. > Perhaps we need a sense of proportion. That's 136 years. It's nice to see the world is still full of straight men. I was merely expressing my moral outrage with some hyperbole. Actually, a fair penalty would be to pay back each defrauded person double the amount stolen, plus a jail term equal to the number of minutes of their time he wasted. Let's assume one minute per call, that would be 50,000 minutes or a little less that 35 days. Also, I noted Pat's attempt to analogise this with 900 number ads; I think that he is wrong and there is a clear difference. First of all, in 900 ads they tell you WHAT they are selling and how much it will cost (even if it's "twodollarsforthefirstminuteonedollareach additionalminute"). Aforementioned swine didn't do that, and that's probably the law he ran afoul of. Second, there is the issue of "fraudulent inducement," of which he is clearly guilty. The same would be true of the "Kiddies, hold the telephone up to the TV" scam. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud From: "Steven S. Brack" Date: Sun, 12 May 91 15:32:13 EDT Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4]) holos0!wdh@gatech.edu (Weaver Hickerson) writes: >> I see no lies and no coercion. The people who were charged got what >> they paid for, a $55 audiotex message. Is there anybody in Manhattan >> who can afford a pager who doesn't know that 540 numbers are toll >> calls? If there are two thousand yuppie scum who are stupid enough to >> return a page to a toll number, and they do this for no reason other >> than that they were asked to, how can it possibly be illegal or even >> unethical? > Brad, this is the most ignorant thing I have ever seen. "Yuppie Scum" > as you call them, if having a pager is the data point, might be an ER > doctor or nurse, a plumber, a janitor, HONEST WORKING PEOPLE. Some > people have a pager so the wife can call them to order Haagen Daas on > the way home. Some pagers allow you to dial the last paged number by > pressing a button on the pager, without ever looking at the number. > The "entreprenuer", in my opinion, is the scum in this picture. And > you sir, are running close second. If, in this day and age, you are ignorant enough to dial any numbner that comes over your pager, without either recognizing the number, or getting rate information from the operator, then any charges you incur are solely your own fault. Ma Bell is not looking out for us anymore. Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com | Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower | sbrack@bluemoon.uucp | The Ohio State University | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu | 50 Curl Drive. | sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu | Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112 USA | brack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu | +1 (011) 614 293 7383 | Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu | ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Omaha Utility Victim of Phone Fraud From: "Steven S. Brack" Date: Sun, 12 May 91 15:54:13 EDT Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4]) Does anyone know why the OPPD connected its 800 system to outgoing lines? It doesn't seem like a bright thing to do. Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com | Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower | sbrack@bluemoon.uucp | The Ohio State University | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu | 50 Curl Drive. | sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu | Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112 USA | brack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu | +1 (011) 614 293 7383 | Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 91 21:17:07 CST From: Jeff Scheer Subject: Re: Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted Reply-To: ivgate!command!jeff.scheer@uunet.uu.net Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha Running a Telephone Answering Service, I discovered completely by accident that if you input after the number {xxx*xxxx*00 } the 00 gets the paged person to answer their pages quicker. This also works with Alpha/numeric paging systems, provided you know the coding. Just thought it might help. JLS The .COMmand Center (Opus 200:5010/23) [Moderator's Note: How could this be? Did you mean it gets the person to return the call quicker or it somehow gets the transmission out to the pager a little faster? Why would anyone necessarily rush to the phone faster to call because they saw '00'? Explain please. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 May 91 00:28:12 -0400 From: "Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy" Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Organization: FSF Guest Machines In article is written: > The "Hayes AT Command Set," a defacto standard used by > virtually every dial-up modem for more than a decade, has had some of > its functions patent protected, but that has not kept it from being > virtually freely used. Perhaps Hayes has kept a low profile on the > matter, preferring to let its name be spread by such wide use. > However, some news did recently occur that Hayes will, on occasion > protect its rights. The following is excerpted from an electronic Interesting how Hayes goes after the smaller retail modem manufacturers. IBM and AT&T both also make and sell AT modems. I don't see Hayes challenging them in court. There are also a host of other modem manufacturers such as Codex, Universal Data Systems (both owned by Motorola), General DataComm (who I work for), Racal-Milgo, etc who also manufacture AT modems. However, these manufacturers don't concentrate on the retail markets, prefering to sell to corporate and RBOC accounts. These companies also make muxes, network management systems, and AT modems form only a small part of their business. I'd like to see Hayes go after these companies. You can bet that they will have a long court battle with Hayes before they will pay Hayes any royalty. Seng-Poh Lee splee@gnu.ai.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones Date: 11-MAY-1991 01:52:04.63 Hello again, Recently, Mark Seiden posted a meesage about "*" calls from Cellular phones. He noted: > I am curious (yellow) about * prefixed calls on cellular phones. > Has anyone got a list? Are they uniform across service providers? (fat > chance) ... I noticed that some of the California providers have > traffic information lines, etc. > Doug Reuben recently pointed out that although *611 is free, one > *might* be charged a roaming charge, which is then removed when one > complains. Are all of the *-prefixed calls free (and supposed to be > free of roaming charges?) I *think* the case I was referring to was with Vanguard/Cell One of Eastern PA. As usual, no doubt, I failed to make things clear. (Sorry, Mark). Vanguard/Cell One does NOT assess any airtime charges nor any roamer ($3/day) charges on calls to *611. The problem was between Metro Mobile/CT and Vanguard. Apparently, they never got their billing settled, and Metro read the "tapes" incorrectly. I'm not sure of the method used to encode calls on billing tapes which are sent from one cell co. to another, but what I was told by Metro (and who knows how accurate THEY are?) was that the "*611" call was tagged by Vanguard as "Free", yet Metro didn't recognize this. Metro's computer (or it's billing company's computer) didn't see any *airtime* charges, but figured that since a call was placed in the Vanguard system, I should be assesed a daily charge, since all Metro/CT customers are assesed daily charges while in the Vanguard system. After I called about this, Metro, as usual, tried their usual line "you roam, you pay" (I'm sure they have this phrase inscribed in Latin over their terminals or something.) After the usual series of explanations, I spoke to the Roam coordinator, who then called the Vanguard coordinator, and they corrected the problem about two months later. It is no longer a problem. So ... currently, I know of no system, A or B, that charges either airtime or roam charges *intentionally*. You may, of course, have such charges appear on your bill. Rather than take YOUR cell co.'s word for it, call the company in which you had roamed, and ask them what their policy is. If they assure you that they do not charge for *611 calls, then tell your home system about it, and hopefully you won't have to worry about such erroneous billings again, at least not from the specific systems in question. > Does anyone know how these are implemented? When they translate to a > real phone number, is there any way of determining the translation? Generally, yeah, they do go to a real phone number, usually the same thing as their cusotmer service number. So in the case of CT, *611 on Metro Highbill will get you the same thing as dialing (800) 346-0508. Dialing *611 from GTE/SF will get you the same thing as (800) 366-5665, etc. You should also note that USUALLY 611 is like *611, ie, they do the same thing. Some companies allow both, some do not. Thus, in Connecticut, you can use *611 to call cusotmer service on Metro. However, if you roam into the NY system, *611 will NOT work, and you need to use 611. I suspect they do this to avoid problems with calls near cell boundaries, as the two systems "bleed" into each other a lot, especially along Long Island Sound. SNET in CT is weird: In Southwestern CT, 611 gets SNET repair, while *611 gets SNET Mobile; eslewhere (like Harftord), they both get SNET Mobile, and recently 611 was just plain blocked. No charges for either, though. (BTW, the Metro One/NY 611 number is new. I dunno how Metro Mobile will "react" to it ... it would be interesting to see if they bill airtime for it. The Metro 611 system is also set up well -- automated roam info, custom calling features, etc. Very well done. Previously, NY had *no* airtime-free customer service number -- you had to call the 800 number, and when the bill came get the charges removed. Pretty pathetic ... this new system is a great improvement.) So basically, 611/*611 calls are free. > When I was recently in New Orleans, Bell South Mobility advertised > that 911 was "always free." (It was unclear whether roamers would be > charged a roaming fee.) Is this typical practice? Seems so. I've never been in a system where it wasn't. Sometimes you need to dial *911, but in any case, it has always been free. > [Moderator's Note: In many large urban areas 911 won't work correctly > from cell phones -- at least the dispatchers cannot get a reading on > your location. Here in Chicago, *999 gets the Minutemen, a division of > the Illinois State Police who handle expressway and interstate highway > duty. ... ] Many similar implementations elsewhere: for example, in Mass, it is "*MSP", which is a free call. (I think *33 also works, or used to, from Cell One phones.) Although everything other than 611/911 is not standardized, GENERALLY, *711/711 is a free call. It is either used for roamer info (a recorded message as in the case of Metro Mobile), or to "tag" your phone at the switchroom in order to help diagnose a problem which a customer reports. (Metro uses this for both, actually, although I think they can use *611 as well ... I'm not sure, but I don't see any reason why they can't "tag" any call.) But it is not always free. US Cellular/Poughkeepsie uses *711 (or perhaps *511, see below) as their "Infoline" number. US Cell also "bleeds" into Western Connecticut, around the Cornwall area. (Near the NY line). If your phone shows "home", ie, you are using Metro, and you dial *711, you may instead get the US Cell system, and a nice fat $3 daily charge and a $.90 cent per minute charge for what you thought was a free call. So you have to be careful in situations like this. *511 is used in a FEW systems to directly call the roam port for free. Instead of calling XXX-XXXX and paying just to have the port answer with a dial tone, using *511 will allow you to call a roamer (or any customer) in the system and pay only when the party answers. But again, this is by no means universally adopted, and many systems will use this for "Info" services which you will pay for. (US Cell/Poughkeepsie may use *511 instead of *711..it has been a while sine this has happened.) *111 is a free call in GTE Mobilnet/SF, and (I think) in their other CA systems as well. It allows you to call "Technical Repair" directly to report a technical problem and bypass their endless wait for *611 customer service. Basically, 611/*611 is the only "safe" number to call, and even then there can be billing irregularities between systems which will result in false charges. This is one of the main reasons I roam on the "B" carriers, which RARELY, if ever, have such problems. (I'm not sure if it will be posted because it was entirely too long, but I submitted a post on California and "A" roaming in general, and the above is only PART of the problem which I attempted to discuss in my longer post). All other "*" numbers may incur a charge. Check BEFORE you call to see what the charges will be. *INFO or *22 or *MAP or whatever are almost ALWAYS charged. Be careful of slogans that say "Call *MAP to get help anywhere in the Bay Area. This call is free, and you will be billed only for the actual airtime you use." (Call 800-366-5665, GTE/SF, and wait a while. You should hear this if they are busy.) In my book, "free" = no charge at all. I guess GTE sees it differently. Finally, make sure to check your bill. There may be problems in billing which result in charges that shouldn't be there. Usually, mobile companies are glad that you point these out to them (GTE always is; Metro, well, what can I say? :) ) I was once assesed a $3/day roamimg charge for calls in the New York system on my bill. This amounted to over $25. Metro took it off without any problem, but since there isn't SUPPOSED to be a charge for CT customers in NY, I usually ignore the "NYC Roaming" section of my bill. I've got other non-free codes for Mass, NH, CT, RI, NY, NJ, DE, MD, DC, VA, PA, CA and NV systems, but rather than submit another monster post, and since this is long enough, I'll leave that for some other time. Hope this helped ... Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 May 91 12:24:18 -0400 From: Leryo Malbito Subject: Re: 410 Area Code in Maryland Hello! Here are the details of the new Maryland 410 NPA. It will essentially change the Eastern part of Maryland, while the Western part will remain the same. I know not where specifically the dividing line is, but obviously places like Salisbury and Ocean City will become 410, while places like Rockville and Bethesda will remain 301. Annapolis will probably become 410, but my guess is that Baltimore will remain 301. I don't have a map now, but these are relatively educated guesses. To find MORE information on the change, call 800.477.4704, which interestingly is reachable from all 50 states! Or at least the Northeast, as it works from Here. (New York City) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #354 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23722; 13 May 91 6:24 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22780; 13 May 91 5:20 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01538; 12 May 91 23:09 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25410; 12 May 91 21:54 CDT Date: Sun, 12 May 91 21:07:13 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #351 BCC: Message-ID: <9105122107.ab15057@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 May 91 21:07:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 351 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem? [Sander J. Rabinowitz] Re: RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A? [Barton F. Bruce] What is the Value of Antique Phone? [David Neal] Frequencies of TouchTone Tones [Danny Padwa] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Jeff Wilkinson] Re: Japan and Modems [Jim W. Lai] Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience [Yoram Eisenstadter] AT&T Card PIN Disclosed [Jeremy Grodberg] Re: Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area [D. Broughton] Old Phone Numbers [Roy Smith] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 May 91 02:42 GMT From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem? On May 5th, I wrote the Moderator to ask him to clarify AT&T's Call Manager for me. Here's what he wrote: > [Moderator's Note: When I used it here (0 + NPA + 7D - pause for tone > - enter 15xx), the call was processed, and the billing came to my line > the following month with notations on the bill entitled 'account code > xx', where 'xx' was the two digits I had entered after the '15' when > making the call. It appears nothing further is required to use this > service. PAT] First of all, I think it's good that AT&T is doing this, and I plan to use the service myself. Having said that, however ... isn't there a security problem that arises whenever 15xx can be substituted for a valid calling card number? I would hope AT&T has a way of blocking this particular service for people who so request it ... indeed, it would seem blocking would become mandatory in certain situations (ie., public telephones, COCOTS). Sander J. Rabinowitz | sjr@mcimail.com -or- | +1 615 661 4645 Brentwood, Tennessee | sander@attmail.com | | The usual disclaimers apply. [Moderator's Note: I beleive it is blocked from payphones, but I don't know about COCOTS. It would be interesting to find out how it responds to 10288 plus calling from a COCOT. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A? Date: 9 May 91 02:35:18 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , tengi@princeton.edu (Christopher Tengi) writes: > Can anybody out there post the definitive method of pairing (with > color code) for the AT&T PDS scheme? I saw a post in comp.dcom.lans > that gave the following diagram: > WH OR WH BL WH GR WH BR > OR WH GR WH BL WH BR WH > (RJ-45F) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > | | | | | | | | > pairs: T2 R2 T3 R1 T1 R3 R4 T4 > +--+ | +--+ | +--+ > +--------+ > The trouble I have is with pair 4. Which pin is really tip, and > shouldn't it be white/brown? Also, is pair 2 really on pins 1 and 2, > or is it on 3 and 6? For AT&T 258A, your problem may be that R4 and T4 labels are reversed, but the wire colors are in the right places. Possibly there is confusion with the USOC punchdown where 7 and 8 are R3 and T4 respectively. 7 and 8 are T4 and R4 respectively for BOTH AT&T 258A and EIA. The issue of pair 2 possibly being on pins 3 and 6 is probably raised because EIA in their 'wisdom' (read: PERVERSITY) won't use AT&T's exact punchdown. Their pairs 2 and 3 are swapped from the AT&T plan. Sillyness bound to cause grief. Perhaps EIA's choice has a tad more horse sense, simply because having pair 2 on pins 3 and 6 then lets that pair exactly match USOC. You HAVE to be paranoid about every adapter or harmonica or whatever. It MUST be wired to match whatever installation it is going into. If it is a site without tight control by knowledgable folks, and various vendors have been adding things over the years, LOTS OF LUCK. Here is your diagram 'repaired' for 258A. WH OR WH BL WH GR WH BR OR WH GR WH BL WH BR WH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | | | | | | | | pairs: T2 R2 T3 R1 T1 R3 T4 R4 +--+ | +--+ | +--+ +--------+ And for EIA: WH GR WH BL WH OR WH BR GR WH OR WH BL WH BR WH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | | | | | | | | pairs: T3 R3 T2 R1 T1 R2 T4 R4 +--+ | +--+ | +--+ +--------+ And for USOC BR WH WH BL WH OR GR WH WH GR OR WH BL WH WH BR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | | | | | | | | pairs: R4 T3 T2 R1 T1 R2 R3 T4 | | | +--+ | | | | | +--------+ | | | +--------------+ | +--------------------+ Now someone will probably claim that 258A in not what AT&T is using for PDS! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 16:04 CDT From: David Neal Subject: What is the Value of Antique Phone? Last weekend I saw a antique phone at an auction and was wondering if any telecom readers knew how much it was worth ... I'm still wondering if I should have bought it. It was a Kellogg phone, with a old style speaker on a cord, which hung of the base with the mouthpiece when not in use. The handset had pat pend 1906 on it. The base was connected with a wooden box with a crank handle on the side. I opened the box and the first thing I noticed was three big magnets which were stamped pat pend 1896. Was it just some sort of reproduction fake or was it the real Mc Coy? Sorry, I didn't write down the patent numbers. ------------------------------ From: Danny Padwa Subject: Frequencies of TouchTone tones Date: 9 May 91 09:45:43 EDT With apologies for any inconvenience if the answer is already in the archives somewhere: Does anyone have a list of the frequencies generated by the buttons on a tone phone? The question came up when one of my friends impressed us all by getting an almost-decent "Happy Birthday" using the telephone keypad as a piano. I suppose I could always whip out a 'scope and mesuare the tones like we used to do in Physics, but somehow posting seems a bit easier. Thanx, Danny Padwa Padwa@Husc3.Harvard.Edu [Moderator's Note: Yo're excused this time. Yes, this comes up frequently, and there is a file in the archives someplace which gives the references, but perhaps a couple of readers will dash off a note to you. No replies needed here in the Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeff Wilkinson Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Date: 9 May 91 14:31:23 GMT Organization: Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis MN In article binder@decvax.dec.com (Simplicitas gratia simplicitatis) writes: > Toby Nixon writes: >> ... even formatting a disk does not remove old information! > I beg to differ. Vehemently so. I used to design controllers for > both floppy and hard disks - I did it for about 14 years, using SSI > The formatting operation must by its very nature destroy the old data. > Formatting is a write operation that is done without reading to verify Well, your both right. Formatting, at the controller level does destroy everything on the disk (at least as far as mere mortals are concerned. The NSA claims that its just a minor incovenience). However, DOS only does a low-level format on flexible disks. Hard disk "formatting" consists of a read test of every sector and a rewrite of the FAT (ever wonder how Norton and other utilities can advertise disk recovery, after a format?) No actual media format or writeover is done. Therefore, information on a hard disk is still available to determined disk hackers, after a format. It takes special disk utilities to do "low-level" formats on a hard disk (the BIOS knows how, but DOS doesn't). Some hard disks, notably those from Plus Development Corp, give you a warning message and halt the machine if you try to do a "low-level" format. Thus, Toby's right, DOS doesn't always clean up a disk with a format. But Dick's write [sic] too. The controller makes toast of your data. ------------------------------ From: Jim W Lai Subject: Re: Japan and Modems Organization: University of Waterloo Date: Thu, 9 May 1991 18:28:40 GMT I posted about this recently and received a few pieces of email in response. I based my judgment of the lack of availability of US modems on the ads of mail order companies in some Japanese computer magazines and the persual of a few stores on a recent visit. The two brands of modem that seemed to be most popular on the store shelves for 2400 baud were Omrom and Aiwa. Apparently US modems can be bought in Japan and vice versa. The reason I was at a loss to explain the situation is because I noted the ridiculously high cost of 1200 baud modems in Japan. I fail to find the protectionism argument satisfactory since even a 100% tariff would not pose a barrier to the sale of US 1200 baud modems. Does anyone know if Japan has strict RFI emissions standards or if there are any joint ventures with US modem manufacturers? As an aside, I was told there that the phone lines in Japan were clean enough to handle 9600 baud. However, I found their international long distance system (controlled through another company?) to be somewhat less reliable. Due to noise, 2400 baud would probably be the best that could be relied on. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 91 17:48:50 EST From: Yoram Eisenstadter Subject: Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science In article det@nightowl.mn.org writes: > The only potential disadvantage that I see is if I want my Unix box to > call long distance and use some sort of calling card code number or > something like that that requires touch-tone. The ability to use DTMF tones for non-dialing purposes does *not* depend on your subscribing to Touch-tone service (despite the lies that some local phone companies, like NY Telephone, will tell you). Having your modem dial the phone number in pulse mode, then switch to tone mode to enter the credit card number (after a suitable pause) works just fine on a pulse line -- I've done it. Once the actual phone number is dialed and you hear the "bong", you're talking to the long-distance carrier, which doesn't care whether you pay the local phone company's ripoff rates for touch-tone or not. The same principle applies to accessing services like bank-by-phone from a dial line -- just switch your phone to tone-dialing once you're connected. ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Grodberg Subject: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed Reply-To: Jeremy Grodberg Date: Thu, 9 May 91 22:20:30 GMT I had an interesting, and slightly frightening experience over the weekend with my AT&T credit card. My card had just been renewed, and I was replacing the old one in my wallet with my new one, and since I usually use MCI but now had the AT&T card in my hand, I thought I'd check to make sure I remembered the PIN for it. I tried dialing a friend long distance using the AT&T card, and used the PIN I remembered. It didn't work. I called AT&T to ask them to change it. I had set my PIN over the phone originally, and although I was somewhat worried about this, I noticed that they had one person take all my personal information (account number, name, address, SS#, etc.), and a different person take my PIN, so I took the leap of faith to think that the person who took my PIN didn't know what account it was for. I was able to believe that they were taking good security measures. Anyway, I called and told the service rep that I had forgotten my PIN, and wanted to change it. Again I was taken through the most rigorous identification process of anyone I've done business with over the phone, including banks and stock brokers. The service rep asked what PIN I had used, at which point I was stunned; after a brief pause, I said "I'm not supposed to tell anyone my PIN, you literature says that real AT&T reps will never ask you for it." The service rep then pauses, stammers, and says "Well, I'm looking right at it. OK," she says, "did you use XXXX?" where XXXX was my real PIN! Not only did she have access to it (which she shouldn't need or have), she told it to me! Yikes! I am not amused. I bet many people use the same PIN all over the place, and allowing AT&T employees to see customer's PINs, and access to their credit records and telephone records, could be an invitation to fraud. I'm very glad the PIN I gave them is one I use no where else. Continuing, now that the service rep assured me I was using the right PIN, I naturally wanted to know why it didn't work. She told my that my card was shipped "in the same mail sack" as a bunch of other cards which were stolen from the mail. They had called and left a message ("I'm calling from AT&T. It's very important you return my call at 800 xxx xxx"), and when I didn't return the call, they blocked my account. I didn't return the call because they had cried wolf before, and when I called them back they couldn't even tell me why they had called me! It sure would have been helpful if they had left a more detailed message. Even a second phone call would have been nice. As it was I just thought it was some spurious sales call or friendly check to make sure that I had gotten my card, and since I had my card and didn't want to talk to a salesperson, I didn't call back. It just goes to show how hard it is to get this stuff right, and how the risks don't go away, they just transform themselves into new and unexpected forms. Jeremy Grodberg jgro@lia.com ------------------------------ From: broughton@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area Organization: University of Saskatchewan Date: Thu, 9 May 1991 13:10:58 -0600 In article , jmason@utcs.utoronto.ca (Jamie Mason) writes: > In article clamen+@cs.cmu.edu quotes: >> The MONTREAL AREA is one of the first to be offered Call >> Management Service (CMS) from > Toronto has had it since April 22. I think Ottawa has had it > for a while now. Why don't they just say Montreal is the Nth area to > be offered CMS, subsituting the correct, but impressively low, N? > Does anyone have a list of cites which have a full scale > Caller-ID system in place, or to be in place REAL soon? Saskatoon has had Call Display (same as Caller ID) since April 1 of this year. >> The service is gradually being extended to include long distance calls. > Since at least two other Canadain cities have CMS, why does > Bell Canada not extend it to long distance NOW? Currently, we in Saskatoon can get long distance information from Regina, Prince Albert and Calgary. We probably get it from other cities but no one call me from elsewhere. Darrell ------------------------------ From: roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Old Phone Numbers Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Thu, 9 May 91 16:08:51 GMT Yesterday I found a fragment of a letterhead or invoice blank from a business my grandfather owned once. The telephone number is listed as "9305-R" (I'm not sure of the digits, but the -R is right). To put this in context, the place was undoubtedly Norwich, Connecticut, and the year was probably around 1940 or so. I assume the -R means it's the ring side of a party line, but it seems odd to me that a business would list that as part of their phone number (this was a small business, just my grandfather with a truck he owned, maybe one other partner, and it's likely it was his home phone number). Didn't each party on a party line get assigned a different last digit? If not, how does one dial a phone number like "9305-R"; do you have to ask the operator to connect you? I suppose it's likely that at this time, all calls were completed manually, so that may not have been anything out of the ordinary. 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 [Moderator's Note: Prior to automatic switching, a letter on the end indicated one leg of a party line. After automation started, the letter was dropped and the seventh digit was the deciding factor. He probably had a party line with the other 'party' being himself at his residence. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #351 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13259; 14 May 91 1:20 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05530; 13 May 91 23:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11609; 13 May 91 22:45 CDT Date: Mon, 13 May 91 22:00:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #355 BCC: Message-ID: <9105132200.ac23368@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 13 May 91 22:00:29 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 355 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Henry Mensch] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Jerry Leichter] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Toby Nixon] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Barry Margolin] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Ronald Greenberg] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Bud Couch] Re: Adding a Modem to System 85 Set [Mike Sheridan] Re: A Choice of Sending Fax or Leaving Voice Recording [David Newman] Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [Thomas J Roberts] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Henry Mensch Date: Mon, 13 May 91 10:15:58 -0700 Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Reply-To: henry@ads.com Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy" wrote: > Interesting how Hayes goes after the smaller retail modem > manufacturers. IBM and AT&T both also make and sell AT modems. The chances are excellent that both IBM and AT&T license this technology from Hayes ... neither outfit is known for taking risks with this sort of stuff; they want their intellectual property respected, and behave in kind. Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 91 09:19:22 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent In a recent issue of TELECOM Digest, Seng-Poh Lee comments on the Hayes patent by finding it "interesting" that Hayes went after "smaller retail modem manufacturers" when many others, including the likes of AT&T and IBM, also make Hayes-compatible modems. He anticipates "a long court battle" with these guys before they pay up. In fact, he's probably dead wrong. Historically, the larger vendors are usually much more willing to pay reasonable royalties than to fight. There are a number of reasons for this. First, the big guys are not trying to survive by being the absolute lowest-cost producers. As a result, they can more easily pass through a small royalty than the scrappy "cut everything to the bone" price competitors, to whom every penny counts. Second, they have much more to lose than to gain: The courts have become much more willing to enforce patent rights of late, sometimes with BIG penalties. Companies that ask their lawyers whether they can safely ignore a patent claim are likely to be reminded of Polaroid's case against Kodak, which culminated in huge damages and in Kodak being forced entirely out of the instant photography market. Finally, the big guys sell "peace of mind": The last thing their customers want to hear is that the stuff they purchased is under a legal cloud. Naturally, to avoid being taken for chumps by anyone with any kind of tenuous patent claim, even the big guys will check a claim out carefully. But for a claim for which there is a reasonable case -- and certainly one that has already been accepted by a court will look VERY reasonable -- and for which the licensing demands are reasonable, the decision will usually be that it's better to pay than fight. Jerry ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Date: 13 May 91 11:59:16 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , splee@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy) writes: > Interesting how Hayes goes after the smaller retail modem > manufacturers. IBM and AT&T both also make and sell AT modems. I > don't see Hayes challenging them in court. There are also a host of > other modem manufacturers such as Codex, Universal Data Systems (both > owned by Motorola), General DataComm (who I work for), Racal-Milgo, > etc who also manufacture AT modems. Some of the companies you mention have existing patent cross-license agreements with Hayes. Thus, no need for any lawsuits. There are dozens of other companies you didn't mention that also already license Hayes patents, either because they accepted Hayes' invitation to do so or as part of the settlement of other patent lawsuits (e.g., USRobotics and Prometheus were parties in the same lawsuit you referenced, but settled and have taken licenses). Many other companies have approached Hayes seeking licenses since the verdict was announced in the recent trial. The 170+ other US modem manufacturers have received, or soon will receive, invitations to do the same. So, don't jump to the conclusion that just because you haven't seen a media report of Hayes suing to enforce their legitimate patent rights against a particular company that (a) there's any need to, (b) they haven't, or (c) they won't. And remember that in the case of patents, there's no REQUIREMENT that the patent holder license to anyone, or license to everyone in a non-discriminatory fashion. An injunction prohibiting the further shipment of infringing products would not be a pleasant thing for your employer to endure, would it? > I'd like to see Hayes go after these companies. You can bet that > they will have a long court battle with Hayes before they will pay > Hayes any royalty. I'm sure GDC management would be pleased to know that you're publicly and actively seeking lawsuits against your company, and that you think a long and expensive court battle (in the face of a strong precedent-setting decision) would be desirable. Given GDC's financial condition, I'm sure your management would think twice before making such a decision, but they may not think twice about laying off a few people to raise money for the cause. Be careful. I won't comment on this further, except to say that I'm VERY surprised to see ANYONE, in the current highly-litigious high-tech industry, virtually inviting lawsuits, to the extent of laying down public challenges to do so! At the very least, such comments should be kept private. "So sue me" might be a cute thing to say to a neighbor who has complained of your dog crapping in his yard, but it's insane in business today. You sure won't catch ME leaving online messages asking other companies to sue MY employer! 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: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Reply-To: think!barmar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Date: Mon, 13 May 91 16:33:04 GMT In article splee@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy) wrote -- [Moderator's Note: See earlier messages this issue for text. PAT] If you had read the article carefully, you would have seen that it is not the AT command set that is patented, it is the escape sequence with guard time (i.e. the fact that you have to pause for a second before and after the "+++" to go to command mode). Not all AT modems do this. Also, do you know for a fact that the modem manufacturers that you mentioned above have not signed licenses with Hayes? I'll bet most of them have. Maybe not specifically for this patent, but probably general cross-license agreements. That's common in the manufacturing world. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 91 14:25:34 -0400 From: Ronald Greenberg Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent I don't know what are the exact details in this Hayes patent case, but it sounds like an attempt to patent "look and feel", which can be highly annoying. I don't have any recent information about activity on this topic, but people may be interested in this old message from Richard Stallman: [4155] daemon@LCS.MIT.EDU bboard 05/30/89 15:02 (56 lines) Subject: Protest Against Lotus Successful; Let's Organize Permanently Date: Tue, 30 May 89 14:54:09 EDT From: rms@ai.mit.edu To: bboard@ai.mit.edu Despite the threat of rain, we had large turnout for the protest against user-interface copyright on Wednesday: 160 to 180, depending on whose count. (The counts failed to include a couple of professors who showed up just as we were leaving.) Bryan Kocher, president of the National ACM (Association for Computing Machinery), marched with us. The organizers made around 30 signs, and many of the other participants made their own. The best sign showed a strait jacket and the caption, "Don't make me wear your suit." Once we were there, the picketers all tried their hand at inventing euphonious chants. The best ones were: 1-2-3 is not for me / Say no to monopoly. Put your lawyers in their place: / No one owns the interface. Hey, hey! Ho, ho! / Software tyranny's got to go. Apple, Lotus, Look-and-feel: / Let's go reinvent the wheel. And the world's first protest chant in hex: 1, 2, 3, 4 / Kick the lawsuit out the door. 5, 6, 7, 8 / Innovate, don't litigate. 9, A, B, C / Freedom, not monopoly. D, E, F, 0 / Look-and-feel has got to go. We were covered by reporters from the Associated Press, Reuters, Info World, Computerworld, PC Week, MIS Week, MacWeek, Computer Reseller News, National Public Radio, the Boston Herald, and the Boston Globe. The stories I have seen are sympathetic and present our arguments well. The AP article was carried in newspapers around the country. All in all, we have done good work for the cause. Numerous people said they could not attend but would like to help fight "Look-and-Feel" in some other way. To make this possible, I would like to make the League for Programming Freedom into a permanent grass-roots organization. Therefore, I'd like to announce the League's organizational meeting on Thursday, June 15 at 8:30pm in the 8th floor "playroom" at 545 Tech Square in Cambridge. This building is on Main Street, next to the railroad tracks. Those of you who came to the demonstration are invited as well. I hope we will be able to choose officers at this meeting and start enrolling members. Then we can aim for various interesting sorts of protests starting this summer. --[4155]-- ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 21:23:26 GMT In article 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: > The "Hayes AT Command Set," a defacto standard used by > virtually every dial-up modem for more than a decade, has had some of > its functions patent protected, but that has not kept it from being > virtually freely used. Perhaps Hayes has kept a low profile on the > matter, preferring to let its name be spread by such wide use. In the interest of stemming panic out there, let's be quite clear. The enforcement was to a specific patent, not to the "Hayes AT Command Set". That patent, although quite important to modem users, does not cover the "AT" _command_ set. As a matter of fact, as PN-2120, a document from TIA committee TR-30.4, the command set has been submitted to the CCITT as part of draft recomendation "V.25 ter". One of the regular contributors to TELECOM Digest, Toby Nixon of Hayes is the chairman of TR-30.4, and can probably post an update of the status of this proposal, if asked. Communication software writers can, quite freely, write software which sends the string "AT whatever" and DCE equipment may recognize that string and act upon it. The patent upheld is on the method of notifying the DCE equipment that the next data arriving should be treated as a command to the DCE, as opposed to data to be transmitted to the far end; that is, switching to command mode. Most software defaults to a one second pause, transmitting three plus (+) signs, followed by a one second pause. Hayes patent is broader, covering any time delay, followed by any unique sequence. This patent, however, covers only async data ports used for both data and command. Synchronous ports, obviously, cannot pause in sending data, and the use of separate command and data ports is also outside the scope of the patent. For those in the external async modem business, the Hayes patent is a business expense that they will have to factor in. The rest of us can continue to type in "ATxxx" without worrying that the feds are going to come after us. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox standard BS applies ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 May 91 21:42:12 CST From: Mike Sheridan Subject: Re: Adding a Modem to System 85 Set Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs!mike.sheridan@uunet.uu.net Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha Jeff, it is not possiable to add a modem to your new set. The "other" jack is for add on equipment such as a speaker phone (I have one of those sets in my office and I work on Sys 85). In order to use your digital phone line, you would need a data module on your set AND the other end!!! Then you would use Sys 85 to tranmit in its own language (digital) between the two. Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 [200:5010/666@metronet] DRBBS (200:5010/666.0) ------------------------------ From: David Newman Subject: Re: A Choice of Sending Fax or Leaving Voice Recording Date: 13 May 91 15:37:20 GMT Reply-To: David Vincent Newman Organization: MCC Austin, Texas Actually, I have a box between the telco and the rest of my phone equipment that performs a similar function. When someone calls me, it picks up after the first ring and looks for FAX tone. If it doesn't hear it, it rings the rest of the phones in the house. My answering machine is, of course, one of the other phones. If I don't answer the phone, the answering machine does, and I have instructions in my outgoing message on how to leave a message after the tone as well as how to switch to the Fax machine (by dialing *4, which the aforementioned box also listens for). Also, if the box hears a fax tone at any time during the call, it will switch to the fax machine automatically. If someone calls with a FAX machine that does not send FAX tone until it hears the answering fax machine (I understand that this is true of older fax machines), then someone has to dial *4 (me or the caller) to get the line connected to the fax machine. People who don't have an automatic fax machine call me, and I can switch them to the fax machine from any phone in the house by dialing *4. It's pretty convenient. I don't know what the machine does to caller's phone bills, but I haven't had any complaints, so I'm not too worried. The only complaints I get are not really complaints: I get a lot of ribbing from friends about being a hot-shot with a home fax machine. I'm not at home, so I don't have the brand name or model number with me. I *think* it is a "Western Data Communications TX-101" or something like that. It was about $150 at Bizmart, I think. Dave P.S. Standard disclaimer: I'm not connected to Western Data or Bizmart other than as a satisfied customer. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 May 91 18:37:26 CDT From: Thomas J Roberts Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article , by csense!bote@uunet.uu. net (John Boteler): > Toby Nixon typed: >> Rich Szabo writes: >>> Can an ISDN line be used as a voice line so that I don't need a >>> POTS line in addition? >> You definitely don't need to keep a POTS line around once you have >> ISDN. > Unless the power fails at your location. Then, no more ISDN. Correction: Unless the power fails AND YOU HAVE MADE NO PROVISION FOR THIS. Then, no more ISDN. In every ISDN installation I have been involved with (either as user, or consultant, or designer/engineer - some 20,000 lines in all), battery-backed-up power has been supplied for the NT1s and the station sets. Most users want phones that work during a power outage. Tom Roberts AT&T Bell Laboratories att!ihlpl!tjrob TJROB@IHLPL.ATT.COM ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #355 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15858; 14 May 91 2:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13809; 14 May 91 0:55 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05530; 13 May 91 23:51 CDT Date: Mon, 13 May 91 22:53:32 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #356 BCC: Message-ID: <9105132253.ab23152@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 13 May 91 22:53:20 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 356 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem? [William F Thompson] Re: AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem? [Brian Charles Kohn] Re: AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem? [John R. Levine] Re: Steve Jackson Files Suit Against Secret Service, et al. [Mike Riddle] Re: Steve Jackson Files Suit Against Secret Service, et al. [Mike Godwin] Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed [Joshua Putnam] Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed [Brian Charles Kohn] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [Steve Shellans] Re: What is the Value of Antique Phone? [Mike Berger] Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [Dave Levenson] Re: Hollings and the RBOCs [Jeff Scheer] Re: 410 Area Code in Maryland [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 13 May 91 18:09:52 EDT From: William F Thompson Subject: Re: AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem? Organization: Tex and Edna Boil's Prairie Warehouse and Curio Emporium From article , by 0003829147@mcimail. com (Sander J. Rabinowitz): > First of all, I think it's good that AT&T is doing this, and I plan to > use the service myself. Having said that, however ... isn't there a > security problem that arises whenever 15xx can be substituted for a > valid calling card number? I would hope AT&T has a way of blocking > this particular service for people who so request it ... indeed, it > would seem blocking would become mandatory in certain situations (ie., > public telephones, COCOTS). > [Moderator's Note: I beleive it is blocked from payphones, but I don't > know about COCOTS. It would be interesting to find out how it responds > to 10288 plus calling from a COCOT. PAT] Well, since I worked on the feature, I'll respond. A customer can only use the 15XXXX code from a non-coin, non-hotel sent-paid phone, such as a residence or a business. It shouldn't work from a COCOT since those trunks are marked as coin. By the way, you can enter up to four digits after the 15 (and the 15 is changeable). Just thought you'd like to know. Bill Thompson att!ihlpf!foz ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 91 16:08:28 EDT From: Brian Charles Kohn Subject: Re: AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center In comp.dcom.telecom, 0003829147@Mcimail.com (Sander J. Rabinowitz) wrote on 9 May 91 02:42:00 GMT: > I would hope AT&T has a way of blocking > this particular service for people who so request it ... indeed, it > would seem blocking would become mandatory in certain situations (ie., > public telephones, COCOTS). Uh, if I'm not mistaken, this service only works from your home phone. That is the security mechanism. It's not a calling-card service per se ... it's just a record-keeping tool. Brian Charles Kohn AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center Quality Management System E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker (bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM) Consultant PHONE: (908) 949-5850 FAX: (908) 949-7724 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 12 May 91 23:57:45 EDT (Sun) From: "John R. Levine" Being an inquisitive sort of guy, I investigated call manager codes from pay phones the moment I heard about them. Around here (Cambridge Mass, New England Tel territory) a 15XX code entered on a payphone on an AT&T call gets a quick recording that the service I have requested is not available and it hangs up. On NET calls, as soon as I dial 15 it cuts in with a recording reminding me to dial 11 for collect, 12 for third party, the card number for a calling card call, or 0 for an operator. Via MCI or Sprint, they don't know from call manager, but they do know that it isn't a valid card number, since no Bellcore-format calling card number or PIN starts with a 1. (Note that 0 + number via MCI or Sprint only accepts a local telco card number, not an MCI or FON card number, unless you fall through to the operator and let her enter it manually at extra cost. Don't ask me why.) The COCOTs around here are always broken, I don't know what they are supposed to do with call manager codes. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: "Michael H. Riddle" Subject: Re: Steve Jackson Files Suit Against Secret Service, et al. Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 11:55:08 GMT In slocum@ssdc.honeywell.com (Brett Slocum) writes: > A rather extensive description of the case can be found in the > Electronic Frontiers Foundation newsletter (EFFector Online) #1.04 > (May 1, 1991). The net address for EFF is: eff.eff.org Subscription > requests can be made to : eff-request@eff.org For those with anonymous ftp access, you can find EFFector 1.04, along with the complaint by Steve Jackson et al and the warrant application by the Secret Service, at eff.org, cd SJG. A more complete background paper by John Perry Barlow is also available at eff.org, cd EFF, file EFF.CP. riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 91 15:19:45 -0400 From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: Steve Jackson Files Suit Against Secret Service, et al. Brett Slocum writes: > This afternoon, Steve Jackson Games filed suit against the Secret > Service, the US government, various Secret Service agents, Assistant > U.S. Attorney William Cook, and one phone company employee who acted > under color of Federal authority as an instigator of the raid. Named > as co-plaintiffs in the suit are Steve Jackson as an individual and > three Illuminati users whose E-mail was lost in the raid. > A rather extensive description of the case can be found in the > Electronic Frontiers Foundation newsletter (EFFector Online) #1.04 > (May 1, 1991). The net address for EFF is: eff.eff.org Subscription > requests can be made to : eff-request@eff.org Those who can do anonymous ftp should know that this issue of the EFFector, the complaint itself, the search warrant, and related documents are available in the SJG directory via anonymous ftp at eff.org. Mike ------------------------------ From: Joshua_Putnam Subject: Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed Date: 13 May 91 19:32:35 GMT Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA In lia!jgro@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Jeremy Grodberg) writes: > I had an interesting, and slightly frightening experience over the > weekend with my AT&T credit card. [details deleted] > Again I was taken through the most rigorous identification process > of anyone I've done business with over the phone, including banks and > stock brokers. This reminds me of a problem I had with my AT&T Visa Card soon after I got it. I was out buying a new laptop computer, which was by far the largest charge I had then put on the card. The clerk had to call for authorization. What identifying information did they ask for? Mother's maiden name? No, although they had that from the application. They asked for my ZIP code! As if anyone stealing my wallet would not be able to get the code from my driver's license, voter registration, etc. I was in too much of a hurry to complain about lax security, so I gave them my ZIP code, which has been the same for twenty years. "I'm sorry," the voice on the phone said, "that is incorrect." I presented half a dozen forms of picture ID, including my passport, all showing my correct ZIP code, but they still refused to accept the charge. Finally the operator let slip the code she was really looking for, that of the main post office serving my local one. So I "confessed" to my "mistake" and the charge was accepted. End of story. (Except, of course, the half-dozen letters it took to get them to correct their records for future use.) > It just goes to show how hard it is to get this stuff right, and how > the risks don't go away, they just transform themselves into new and > unexpected forms. You can say that again! Josh_Putnam@happym.wa.com Happy Man Corp. 206/463-9399 x102 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399 fax x108 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 91 16:20:00 EDT From: Brian Charles Kohn Subject: Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center In comp.dcom.telecom, Jeremy Grodberg wrote on 9 May 91 22:20:30 GMT.: > I called AT&T to ask them to change [my PIN]. I had set my PIN over the > phone originally, and although I was somewhat worried about this, I > I was able to > believe that they were taking good security measures. Anyway, I > called and told the service rep that I had forgotten my PIN, and > wanted to change it. Again I was taken through the most rigorous > identification process of anyone I've done business with over the > phone, including banks and stock brokers. The service rep asked what > PIN I had used, at which point I was stunned; after a brief pause, I > said "I'm not supposed to tell anyone my PIN, you literature says that > real AT&T reps will never ask you for it." I believe the warning refers to the fact that no AT&T rep will ever call you and ask for it. In this case, you called them. It is assumed that you know who you called; That is not the case when you receive a call. > [many people use the] > same PIN all over the place, and allowing AT&T employees to see > customer's PINs, and access to their credit records and telephone > records, could be an invitation to fraud. One should never use the same PIN for more than one thing. Most BBSs, for example, allow the SYSOP to see your password. (UNIX will be our salvation, eh?) Brian Charles Kohn AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center Quality Management System E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker (bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM) Consultant PHONE: (908) 949-5850 FAX: (908) 949-7724 [Moderator's Note: Another thing I think our original correspondent neglected to note was that when calling *any* credit card organization to discuss changing your PIN, there is going to have to be some verbalization of the old PIN itself. Usually, discussions about the PIN itself are the only reasons the PIN need be recited, however. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Shellans Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! Date: 13 May 91 22:07:51 GMT Reply-To: Steve Shellans Organization: Computer Research Laboratory, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton OR In article reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) writes: > Hi! During a recent flight, I had my phone turned on and noticed the > 'roam' light was on. I tried to place a call but it didn't go > through. We were at about 39,000 feet, and I didn't expect it to. It > would stay on 'roam' for a few seconds and then go to 'NoSvc'. But, > when we were down to about 15,000 feet I noticed the 'roam' light was > on continuously. I tried to dial again and it worked like a charm. I > was using a .6 watt Motorola "Ultra Classic" portable with the small > (1/8 wave?) antenna, and I wasn't even in a window seat! > I realize that you're "not supposed to" do things like this, but if > anything had happened I could always have called 911 ;-) I don't think this is funny. The reason you're not supposed to do things like this is that stray signals from transmitters and other kinds of electronic equipment can interfere with the navigation instruments. Steve Shellans Tektronix, Beaverton OR [Moderator's Note: I did not think it was funny either ... maybe next time he decides to flex the rules a little in his experiments he will try the one which says 'keep all radios, including cell phones, turned off in areas where dynamite and other explosive powders are being used.' If anything goes wrong, someone will always call 911 :( PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Berger Subject: Re: What is the Value of Antique Phone? Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 21:00:23 GMT dan@sun.rice.edu (David Neal) writes: > Last weekend I saw a antique phone at an auction and was wondering if > any telecom readers knew how much it was worth ... I'm still wondering > if I should have bought it. > It was a Kellogg phone, with a old style speaker on a cord, which hung > of the base with the mouthpiece when not in use. > The handset had pat pend 1906 on it. The base was connected with a > wooden box with a crank handle on the side. I opened the box and the > first thing I noticed was three big magnets which were stamped pat > pend 1896. > Was it just some sort of reproduction fake or was it the real Mc Coy? I don't doubt that it was authentic. But value varies widely with condition. I'll pay a premium if all the phenolic is intact, the magneto is in good condition, the original cords still have insulation intact, etc. Prices go down drastically as condition degrades. In excellent restorable condition, the phone might be worth $ 200. If completely intact but rough, it might be worth $ 50. Mike Berger Department of Statistics, University of Illinois AT&TNET 217-244-6067 Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? Date: 11 May 91 15:27:39 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) writes: > I just got my AT&T Universal bill, and noticed that over 50% of the > cost of my long distance calls is due to the 75 cent per-call > surcharge which they tag onto all calling card calls. (I guess their > ads claiming you pay "only low AT&T rates" are a little bit > dishonest). Misleading, but technically not dishonest! "Low AT&T rates" have included a surcharge for calling card calls for some time. > Are there calling cards without this extra fee? I recently spent some time researching this question. It appears that a little-advertised but viable long distance carrier called "Cable and Wireless" offers calling cards with no per-call surcharge. Having just lost MCI's "around town" feature, I have asked C & W to take over as our default carrier, and to send me enough of their calling cards for our employees. As soon as we've used their service for a little while, I'll post a review of the service. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 May 91 16:48:14 CST From: Jeff Scheer Subject: Re: Hollings and the RBOCs Reply-To: ivgate!command!jeff.scheer@uunet.uu.net Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha As a disabled person, it would appear to me that Sen. Hollings is being kept by the RBOC, to serve their "warped" desires. It sounds like B*lsh*t to me! Just like the Tammy Faye Baker School of Cosmetology that recently opened here. JJ The .COMmand Center (Opus 1:5010/23) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 91 8:59:21 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 410 Area Code in Maryland No, Baltimore is going into the 410 area. The dates are correct as far as I know (permissive in Nov. 1991, mandatory in Nov. 1992). Eastern Maryland is the part getting the new area code. If you are local to DC you stay in 301, if you are local to Baltimore you go into 410. The new area code will cover the eastern shore, plus the counties of Harford, Baltimore, Anne Arundel, Calvert, (most of) Howard, and Carroll, plus Baltimore city. One exchange that I know of in Howard County, plus the counties of St. Marys, Charles, Prince Georges, Montgomery, Frederick, Washington, Allegany, and Garrett stay in 301. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #356 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16150; 14 May 91 2:35 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13809; 14 May 91 0:59 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac05530; 13 May 91 23:51 CDT Date: Mon, 13 May 91 23:41:30 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #357 BCC: Message-ID: <9105132341.ab18991@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 13 May 91 23:40:59 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 357 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Why the Bong? [Bob Frankston] Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [Brian Cuthie] Re: AT&T's Account Code System [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Ken Seefried III] Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing [D. Heale] Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? Free? [Tim Irvin] Re: RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A [Patton M. Turner] Re: Faster Answering Pages [Steve Wolfson] Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management? [Brian Murrey] ATC's New Bill and Customer Service Number [Bill Huttig] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 May 91 15:58 GMT From: Bob Frankston Subject: Re: Why the Bong? Bernard Fran Collins writes: > Is there a good reason why a > credit card call must contain a pause in the dialing in order to wait > for the bong? Why can't the card number be delivered to the LD > carrier without such a pause? I've got my own response to what "good reason" means. In the sense of "there is an historic rational explanation" the answer is "yes". The North American ten digit dialing plan is a rigid beast and such things as boings and other inband signals are attempts to get around this. Other examples include PBX's that require you to key in a number after getting an extension number and services that use DTMF codes for a dialog after completing a connection. The word good means "given the circumstances the solution sort of works and we can explain why we made each design decision against the local constraints of each decision". If "good" means that the user interface is "good" then the answer is NO. The same goes for the blunt instrument of 900/976 blocking, the problems with 976 remote access, the existence of 540 in some places, the inability to use 1-617 in 617 and random need for "1-" in 617 for some 7-D numbers, the use of 950 while waiting for 10xxx, 800 random availability etc. This covers a lot of ground so I'll go back to the boing and its ilk including fax/modem/phone switches that require something like "2" after the simulated rings to select a modem. My problem is that I need to be able teach my computer to access services over this network. Against the vast array of kludges, I have my trusty old Hayes dial string (or is it now the CCITT/AT dialing protocol?) with little control beyond a "," for pausing and no interaction. Sometimes, I can include a "wait for dialtone" and a "wait for silence". Even maybe "wait for voicelike sounds". There is not even a standard way to get to the rooted dialing level, I need to guess out prefixes such as "9", "9,", "8," or even "P9,---T---" (Pulse/Tone switching) or whatever imaginative convention is locally adopted. Now the question: Has ISDN evolved to the point where it is understood that the phone network is not to be navigated not only by humans with fingers and ears and brains and arcane knowledge, but by computers and humans assisted by computers and that placing a call involves protocoled exchanges between the participants including premises systems? Can I specify that I want to make a connection to a given service (aka phone number) and give some billing override information (aka a billing code)? Can I query the network to determine the proposed price (vs cost) for a given interaction? Will I be able to deal with systems that require additional navigation after call completion? Conversely, will my ANI codes allow the caller to add explicit descriptive/navigation information that would allow me to reach a specific service (aka internal extension?) I'll be pleasantly surprised if indeed the protocols are being designed to take into account developments of the last few decades. Given that there is Telco interest in protocols such as X.400 and X.500, perhaps this isn't so far fetched. Or do I need to wait for the next forty-year design cycle? ------------------------------ From: Brian Cuthie Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services Date: Sun, 12 May 1991 15:58:26 GMT May I suggest looking into the Northern Telecom Norstar system. It is the low end system in the Meridian line. It features phones with alphanumeric displays, LCD line indicators, reconfigurable buttons, millions and millions of software features, and a software module that can be replaced in the future with newer versionbs of the code. Each set is connected via a single pair of wires. The system is ISDN to the sets and internally. Each set get's 2B+D and can use the spare B channnel for simultanious data transmission. There is a developer's kit (which cost megabucks, incidentally) which allows a PC to monitor/control switch operation. In fact, you can even have the PC grab the keypad and interpret keys in some fashion, displaying prompts on the phone's alpha display, and then the PC can set up the call. One PC is capable of providing enhanced features for all phones simultaneously. I have had mine for more than a year now and am EXTREMELY pleased with it/ My only complaint is that the guys at NT are missing the boat by making the developer's kit too expensive (by expensive, I mean to the tune of $25k!). They need to realize that if people buy the kit to develop applications, they can only be run on NT hardware. Therefore, they sell at least one switch for every developed application. Of course, these guys want to get greedy too. I know that they will more than likely read this and say "but it cost us sooo much to support the developers." Bunk! The unbundled price for the developer's kit is on the order of $13K to get the software, documents, some equipment, and support. Then, when you're done developing your app they want another $15K [!!!!] liscense fee just for the *priveledge* of selling NT phone systems with your app wrapped around them! Geesh guys! GET A CLUE! Anyway, opportunities abound if NT ever straightens their act out, or you have a spare $25K lying around. Wishing I did, brian VOICE: 301-381-1718 Internet: brian@umbc3.umbc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11-MAY-1991 01:32:21.96 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: AT&T's Account Code System Recently, Jack Dominey (jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com), amongst other things noted that: > It's available to customers using DDD, PRO WATS, or Reach Out > America if the customer is either directly billed by AT&T, or > by a former Bell Operating Company. Call Manager is apparently > not available in GTE or other independent company areas. > EXCEPTION: NYNEX and SNET only provide Call Manager billing to > PRO WATS customers. This was from some literature printed in February. I know New York Tel has this now, even in their crossbars. I tried it out at a friend's house in NYC, and it worked fine. The same guy later tried it out at some X-bar in Ithaca (607-257), and *said* it worked there, but he may have just entered a Calling Card number instead. I'm not sure he understood it correctly. SNET allows this in the West Hartford area as well. Haven't tried it the NYTel areas of CT (Greenwich, etc.), so I'm not sure about those towns. Neat thing about the service is that you can hit the octothorpe / pound/#-key to place a new call. No need to hang up. A real bonus when you have three-way calling that doesn't care about Answer Supervision. (IE, you have to hang up for a LONG time to place a new call. Ok, ok, three seconds isn't THAT long, but ...) Of course this won't work from payphones, but I am wondering if COCOTs have this blocked as well at the telco switch? (for those rare few which allow access to AT&T :( ) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: In a message from a previous issue today, we were advised it should not work from COCOTS since they are noted as coin lines. Let us know if you find out otherwise. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ken Seefried iii Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Date: 13 May 91 16:20:40 GMT Reply-To: Ken Seefried iii Organization: The House Of Fun In article nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax. cs.indiana.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > If, in this day and age, you are ignorant enough to dial any numbner > that comes over your pager, without either recognizing the number, or > getting rate information from the operator, then any charges you incur > are solely your own fault. Ma Bell is not looking out for us anymore. Okay ... I've had enough. "Gee ... that girl should have *know* better, in this day and age, than to walk in the parking lot at night. Just her fault she got raped." "Gee ... that old lady should have *know* better, in this day and age, than to trust that building contractor. Just her fault she got bilked out of her money." Hey, after all, no one is looking out for us. It's not the criminal's fault that he's taking advantage of our lack of vigilence. That's his job, right? I got a buddy who's a plumber. Gets 30-40 calls a day on his beeper, from all kinds of numbers (he's got a service that forwards the numbers of people who have emergencies). If this guy get's ripped off in the manner we are discussing, is it *really* his fault? Quit balming the *victim*, dammit! ken seefried iii ken@dali.cc.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing Date: Mon, 13 May 91 17:35:05 BST From: D.Heale@ee.surrey.ac.uk The system used in the UK to prevent collect calls to payphones is that they send alternating tones for a few seconds when answered which the operator will recognise and presumably treat as though the call had been refused, these tones are also sent to the operator when called from a payphone to prevent services not billed by metering pulses being used. Presumably if a PABX or answering machine sent the same tones it would also stop collect calls. I have come across one PABX system where this would have been useful as some DID extensions were redirected to the main switchboard to prevent collect calls being accepted. However when the switchboard was closed at night a recorded message was given advising callers to ring the DID number for the appropriate extention even if that is what had been dialed. ------------------------------ Reply-To: irvin@northstar.dartmouth.edu Subject: Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? Free? Date: Mon, 13 May 91 11:47:18 +22323328 From: irvin@northstar105.dartmouth.edu In TELECOM Digest V11 #347, Mark Seiden writes: > I am curious (yellow) about * prefixed calls on cellular phones. > Has anyone got a list? Are they uniform across service providers? (fat > chance) ... I noticed that some of the California providers have > traffic information lines, etc. > [Moderator's Note: In many large urban areas 911 won't work correctly > from cell phones -- at least the dispatchers cannot get a reading on > your location. Here in Chicago, *999 gets the Minutemen, a division of > the Illinois State Police who handle expressway and interstate highway > duty. 911 gets a recording saying to call the operator to report the > emergency. And 911 is never 'free' ... to the caller, yes, but the > charges are always reversed to the emergency agency, at least from > landline phones. I assume cellular is the same where 911 is available, > such as New Orleans. PAT] Along the Interstates in North Carolina (in Cellular Areas) are signs that tell Cellular users to dial *HP for the Highway Patrol. Plus in some city (I can't remember which now), there was a radio station that advertised it's Cellular Traffic number as *WXXX (or what-ever its call letters were), this rang at the main switchboard for the radio station (used to report accidents and traffic jams). It was free from all Cellular telephones, don't know about roamers. Not surprisingly, the radio station advertised the two Cellular carriers constantly (I assume in trade for this *-number). Tim Irvin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 May 91 18:01:25 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A >> Can anybody out there post the definitive method of pairing (with >> color code) for the AT&T PDS scheme? >> The trouble I have is with pair 4. Which pin is really tip, and >> shouldn't it be white/brown? > Lessee now ... regarding your question of color codes, I believe you > have them right, but my memory is foggy on that one. You are correct in thinking pair 4 should be white/brown. The color codes are: blue 1 white 0 orange 2 red 5 green 3 black 10 brown 4 yellow 15 slate 5 violet 20 Add the values together to get the pair number. If there are more than 25 pair colored binders will be used. Mutiply the binder number by 25 and add to the pair number. It's really just a base 5 numbering system. This works for up to 625 pair. If I remember correctly, 1000 pair cable has a white-blue binder around the first 500 pair and a white-orange binder around pair 500-1000, but I beleve this is the only exception. Hope this helps. Pat Turner Auburn Univeristy, AL Internet> pturner@eng.auburn.edu Packet> KB4GRZ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 91 09:25:00 CDT From: Steve Wolfson Subject: Re: Faster Answering Pages It could be that the code is used for the different beeps permitted by the pager. On our system entering code you can force the pager to beep in an obnoxious "Danger, Will Robinson!" mode which is to let the pagee know that this is a big emergency. (remember when being paged at all was supposed to be only for emergencies :-) Steve Wolfson - Motorola Inc. -- wolfson@mot.com ------------------------------ From: Brian Murrey Subject: Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management? Organization: Small System Specialists Date: Sat, 11 May 91 03:00:23 GMT GEnie's boss (former boss) Bill Louden is trying to stay alive after battling lung cancer for the last two years. I'd wager that had more to do with his leaving the helm than the Kaplan ordeal. Whatever. Brian Murrey - KB9BVN - QTH Indpls : Fidonet: 1:231/30 317-535-9097 : UUCP:..towers!brian : Login:Ham Radio Password:Yagi : ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: ATC's New Bill and Customer Service Number Date: 11 May 91 06:50:13 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I received my May ATC/MircoTel invoice a few days ago. I only keep the account for emergency usage but decided to do some testing. I called a local number as 10789-NXX-NNNN and it went through and billed .09 for it. Anyway, there were three calls at nine cents plus four cent tax came to 31 cents.. I received a seven page bill (Printed on five sheets of paper) costing 47 cents to mail. (8 1/2 x 11) Page 1 - Customer Service Numbers /Message/Payment Coupon Page 2 - Charge Sumary - past payment etc... Page 3 - Detail of page 2 Page 4 - Summary of Usage by Type and Rate Period Page 5 - Call Details Page 6 - Summary by line/calling card ... number of calls, minutes, amount Page 7 - Summary by area code ... number of calls, time, cost, percent of total, day percent, evening and night percents. I think they got carried away with the new billing system. It is worse then the old ATC/TELUS/TELTEC bills are ... they are seven pages but they are only 8 1/2 by 3 1/2 or so. They also changed their phone number for Customer Service to the 749 exchange in the 800 area code ... which is listed as belonging to Teleconnect. ATC has several prefixes assigned to them. Why would they use MCI (Teleconnect-> TELECOM*USA-> MCI) for their 800 number) ? I know that they provide MCI's fiber in FL (from the MicroTel Days) and that they sold TELECOM*USA 780 numbers for HomeLine 800 (or whatever it was called at TELUS). I am begining to think that since ATC is a regional carrier, they use MCI/TELECOM*USA to carry all of the 800 calls outside of their ten state area and MCI uses them to carry 800 calls in FL (ATC/MicroTEL). When SouthernBell had a cable cut the only calls that went through were MCI 800 and MicroTel 10789 access calls. Bill ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #357 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21284; 14 May 91 4:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04423; 14 May 91 3:05 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01630; 14 May 91 2:00 CDT Date: Tue, 14 May 91 1:16:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #358 BCC: Message-ID: <9105140116.ab03456@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 May 91 01:16:35 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 358 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Is the GTE Airfone Public? [Leryo Malbito] Telemarketing Exclusions [Fred Ennis] Security and Online Services [Andy Rabagliati] Radio Shack's TeleProtector [Peter Creath] Old Telephone That Will Not Ring [Alex T. Jenkins] Information Wanted on Panasonic KSU [Jeff Scheer] Trying to Trace Hang-up Calls [Oren Haber-Schaim] Air Raid Sirens and Bell Canada [Toronto Star via Adam Mottershead] The COCOT Trade Rag [Julian Macassey] Deregulation in Telecom [Daniel R. Guilderson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 11 May 91 12:58:33 -0400 From: Leryo Malbito Subject: Is the GTE Airfone Public? While recently on the Pan Am Shuttle, I was examining the Airfone(r), and reading the little information card detailing it's features. Here I will reproduce some of it, indeed it got me quite agitated. THE SKY'S NO LONGER THE LIMIT WHAT IS THE AIRFONE SERVICE? The Airfone service is a PUBLIC phone designed for busy travelers who can't afford to be out of touch with their business while in the air. So the next time you need to know what's up, simply reach for the Seatfone(tm) system and get down to business! (Note: emphasis on 'public' mine.) HOW DOES THE SERVICE WORK? The Airfone service is a unique telecommuncations system operating on a network of more than 75 ground stations strategically located throughout the US and Canada. Each ground station is served by radio transmitter/receivers. These radios in turn are connected to a world-wide telephone network. An aircraft with the Seatfone(tm) system aboard is also equipped with radio transmitters/ receivers and an airborne computer. The computer assists the onboard radio in searching for the best ground station to complete your call. Once located, your call is sent via line-of-sight radio wave signals to one of the ground station radios where it is then integrated into the worldwide telephone network. WHERE CAN I MAKE A CALL? Calls may be placed while flying over the contiguous U.S., Anchorage, Alaska, Honolulu, Hawaii, the southern regions of Canada and within 200 miles of the U.S. coastline. Calls can also be placed while the aircraft is on the ground at most major airports. Aircraft flying overseas are out of range of the ground station network, therefore the system cannot complete your call. WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I EXPERIENCE A PROBLEM? Due to the nature of radio wave transmission, there may be times communication is impaired due to events such as adverse weather conditions or changes in terrain. Should you experience any difficulty, simply notify the GTE Airfone Customer Service representative by dialing "0" while in flight or 1-800-AIRFONE when you reach your destination. If you dial a wrong number, simply press the new call or dial tone button and redial the correct number. After completing your call, dial the GTE Airfone Customer Service Representative and explain what happened. Your bill will be adjusted. End Airfone ad -- all errors are mine. The rates for this service are $2.00 per minute domestic, plus $2.00 set-up. 800 numbers are also charged at domestic rates. International calls are $4.00 per minute, plus $4.00 set-up. DA is free, as is NPA info. Here is their little italicized disclaimer in what looks like two point printing: GTE Airfone Incorporated operates under an experimental developmental license issued by the Federal Communications Commision (FCC). The Airfone service is provided solely by GTE Airfone Incorporated. Liability of GTE Airfone Incorporated for failure of communications is limited to call charges only. Airfone(r), Seatfone(tm), and The Sky's No Longer The Limit(r) are trademarks of GTE Airfone Incorporated. Now, this is all very interesting, as now (on the Pan Am Shuttle, which I take just a little more than once a month round trip) they have a phone on the back of the center seat on each side, in each row. Therefore there are over 80 phones, assuming there are about 40 rows. I remember only several years ago when there was only _one_ phone per plane, and it got just about the same amount of usage! If I was to estimate the number of calls made per trip on all of the phones combined, I would come up with a number no greater than three or four. Of course this is speculation, as I admit I am probably incorrect, yet I cannot help but wonder whether it is more profitable to have so many calls, and what their estimate of maximum calls at a time per plane is; ie, how many outgoing lines they have alotted. BUT the point of my letter was not to promote GTE Airfone, rather to ask for someone to help me define 'Public'. The way the Airfone is set up now, one MUST have some sort of credit card in order to get a dial tone. Not everyone has a credit card. I feel they should at least make some sort of provision regarding the use of an AT&T card. They accept it, but you must have the actual card, not just the number. As I have memorized my AT&T card number (all four digits of it) I don't carry it around for several reasons. a) If I lose my wallet it is one less thing to cancel. b) There is less chance of someone seeing my card number. c) If I know the number, why bulk my wallet up, even if it IS only 1 mm thick? Therefore, even if I DID wish to use this service, I couldn't! (Assuming I have none of the credit cards they accept.) I am interested in anyone challenging my definition of public, or anyone from GTE (such as Robert Virzi, whom I have mailed this to also) commenting off the record, or anyone who has had more expereince with the service. Thanks, Leryo [Moderator's Note: I don't really see what the big deal is, considering nearly everyone has some credit card or another which is accepted. It might be interesting though to see them develop a coin / paper money operated device (a lot like those vending machines at the post office and the train station) which accept up to twenty dollar bills into which the money could be inserted on request following the manual connection of your call by the GTE operator. This would add a degree of anomynity to the process for those who desired it or did not have the cards. You would dial the operator, she would place the call and on reaching someone would have them hold; split the connection; get you to put in whatever you wanted for a certain number of minutes; then connect you and cut you off (or demand more money) when the time was up. Perhaps the airports could also sell pre-paid phone cards like in Europe, ie you buy a card with $10 in phone credit on it and insert that in the slot when on board. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Telemarketing Exclusions From: Fred Ennis Date: Sat, 11 May 91 20:55:06 EST Organization: AFI Communications - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada I'd like to put forward an idea that has been percolating in my mind for some time. Many of us object to outbound residential telemarketing, especially ADADs, carpet cleaners, subscription salespeople, etc. Here's the idea. For a nominal monthly fee, your dial tone company would disable telemarketing calls from accessing your line. How? By selling the telemarketers special lines. Any firm engaging in outbound residential telemarketing where there has been no recent previous contact with the customer (this gets around the dentist telling you it's time for your checkup or the chimney cleaner you hired two years ago telling you it's time to clean again), would be forced by the telco tarriff to use these special CO lines for all such calls. The telco would then deny access from those lines to everyone who signed up for their "telemarketing exclusion" deal. Winners: People willing to pay a buck or two a month to ensure they're not interrupted by sales pitches. Telemarketers who won't waste time with people who will be ticked off at them. The telco because it makes money from both sides. Although costs would go up slightly for everyone, I think the social benefits are worth it. Now, I'd like some feedback from the participants in the newsgroup. Is it workable? Is there are telco marketing type around here who either likes the idea or can shoot it full of holes? I am assuming we have the technology, at least in any CO that can offer CLID and other such features. Cheers! Fred Ennis Internet: fred@aficom.ocunix.on.ca UUCP: aficom!fred AFI Communications, P.O.Box 11087 Station H, Nepean ON K2H 7T8 ------------------------------ From: Andy Rabagliati Subject: Security and Online Services Organization: SGS-Thomson/Inmos Division Date: Sun, 12 May 91 05:48:54 GMT What we are seeing with Prodigy, Lotus Marketplace, Internet, UUnet, and the like is a nascent industry. When people start selling information - even selling the organization of available information, like phone numbers, we should think of encryption early on. I am sure Prodigy does not knowingly pry for information, but we, the net, know what it could do. Encryption is relatively cheap. It deals with many of the potential problems -- wire-tapping, etc. Why, I could set up a computer service, with a fast, distributed database system, where the data that passed publicly, the requests, the password algorithm, billing info, was encrypted. Maybe the information is commercially sensitive private company data; even I cant read it off the disk because it is locally encrypted before writing to any permanent storage. Computer power makes these cheap options. The issue then becomes clearer -- I am selling an organizer, someone else is selling/using the information. Many people confuse the capabilities of computers with the information itself. They are both issues that need addressing. Cheers, Andy ------------------------------ From: Peter Creath Subject: Radio Shack's TeleProtector Organization: A small corner of Hell Date: Sun, 12 May 1991 23:00:29 GMT I went by Radio Shack today to look for those little gadgets that disconnect all the other lines when I'm on the modem. Well, it turns out you have to buy one for ALL OTHER lines (except the one you want to use). They will disconnect the phones they're plugged into. Is there ANY gadget that does the same, but I only have to plug it into the line I want to protect? (please reply in E-mail) peterc@taronga.hackercorp.com peterc@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com (same thing...) ------------------------------ From: atj@ariest.uucp Subject: Old Telephone That Will Not Ring Date: Mon May 13 12:52:29 1991 Hi, would anybody care to educate me about how I could fix this very old and heavy telephone? It's one of those black units with a beautiful sounding chime, (three wires, but I only connect two?) Please reply via e-mail and I'll summarize if appropriate. Thanks! Alex T. Jenkins Aries Technology, Inc., Lowell, Mass. ..!decwrl!decvax!ariest!atj or ...!uunet!ariest!atj ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 May 91 16:47:23 CST From: Jeff Scheer Subject: Information Wanted on Panasonic KSU Reply-To: ivgate!command!jeff.scheer@uunet.uu.net Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha Please mail me the info on the Panasonic KSU. I currently use a Merlin* 410 system in my home, and want to upgrade to something different. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Ivgate!Command!Jeff.Scheer@Uunet.uu.net The .COMmand Center (Opus 1:5010/23) ------------------------------ From: "habersch@husc9.harvard.edu"@husc3.harvard.edu Subject: Trying to Trace Hang-up Calls Date: 12 May 91 20:06:33 EDT Organization: Harvard University Science Center Has anyone encountered resistance from the telephone company when requesting a standby trace to identify repeated nuisance calls? Any magic words recommended to help enlist institutional cooperation will be appreciated! Thank you. Oren Haber-Schaim ------------------------------ Subject: Air Raid Sirens and Bell Canada From: Adam Mottershead Date: Sun, 12 May 1991 11:20:08 -0400 Organization: World Center Systems, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. I found this article in the Sunday May 12th edition of {The Toronto Star}. It may be of interest to TELECOM readers. --------------------- WAILING AIR SIRENS CAUSE STIR IN MISSISSAUGA By Carol Moffatt and Peter Small TORONTO STAR Thousands of Missisauga residents were shocked from their sleep when malfunctioning air raid sirens began screeching just after 4 a.m. yesterday. "I woke up around 5:30 and thought it was a machine left on or something," Mayor Hazel McCallion said yessterday. It wasn't until she went outside to check her car alarm that she realized the noise was coming from sirens in the distance. Hundreds of residents phoned the local fire and police departments, but were told nothing could be done because the federal defence department was responsible. In fact, the siren signalling system is overseen by Bell Canada. A defective circuitry in the central office in Oakville was responsible, said Bell representative Geoff Mathews. "It just kind of wore out, kind of like a lightbulb doees. These things have a limited lifespan ... once a year you can expect this sort of thing," he said. McCallion didn't agree. "The kind of confusion that was reported is not necessary. If (the circuits) need to be maintained they should be serviced regularly," she said. "It will be thoroughly investigated Monday." Bell spokesperson Alex Bilyk said technicians receive a call from the armed forces when the sirens started at 4:15 a.m. They were shut off at 5:20 a.m. but were on again from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. before being shut off for good. John Richardson of Pinewood Rd. in Mississauga said he and his wife decided to make the best of it. "We're having what we call an air raid party." Adam Mottershead (amot@wcsd.uucp) ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: The COCOT Trade Rag Date: 11 May 91 04:23:50 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: On the Blower to the Guvnor, Hollywood California U.S.A. In the mail the other day, I received a free copy of the COCOT industry's trade publication. The rag is called "PHONE +". A years subscription costs $33.00. It is published by Taurus Publishing Inc, A subsidiary of Virgo Publishing Inc of 4141 North Scottsdale Road, suite 316, Scottsdale, Arizona 85251. Phone (602) 990-1101 FAX (602) 990-0819. Most of the mag is geared to the COCOT industry, as are the Ads, you will see more COCOT company ads than you would believe. But in the May edition there is also a pretty good article on ACDs (Automatic Call Distributors). So if you want to get in the COCOT biz, or just keep abreast of the enemy, this trade rag may interest you. If John Higdon wants my copy, I will mail it to him. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 May 91 11:59:25 EDT From: "Daniel R. Guilderson" Subject: Deregulation in Telecom gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > It sounds good on paper, but I don't believe that the real world works > like this. What happens is that the big boys push the upstarts out of > business and formally or informally start a cartel. Consider Airlines. The bottom line for me is that I have a choice of who I want to fly with in the air. On the phone I either fly with NET or I don't fly at all. At least with the LDs I have a choice. If I'm unhappy with NET I can't take my business elsewhere. I have to suffer and the government doesn't give a rats ass unless they can use it for political advantage. I don't like this situation, not one bit. If there was even one other choice it would make me feel a little better. If there is some other way besides deregulation to get many competitors into the arena then let me know about it otherwise I'm a 100% supporter of heavy duty deregulation. (Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.) Daniel Guilderson ryan@cs.umb.edu UMass Boston, Harbor Campus, Dorchester, MA USA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #358 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21533; 14 May 91 4:45 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04423; 14 May 91 3:10 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01630; 14 May 91 2:00 CDT Date: Tue, 14 May 91 1:50:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #359 BCC: Message-ID: <9105140150.ab31857@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 May 91 01:50:28 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 359 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Bay Area Cellular Service [Douglas Scott Reuben] No PRELUDE Users on the Net? [Kath Mullholand] Blocking Long Distance [Kath Mullholand] Information Wanted on Nigeria Phone System [Leroy Donnelly] India to US Data Link Needed [Arun Baheti] Re: Pac Bell Pays 7% Interest [Henry Mensch] More on NPA 404/706 Split [Bill Berbenich] Local Competition Approved in CA [Ron Dippold] Panasonic Easa-Phone Question [Fred E. J. Linton] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Bay Area Cellular Service Date: 13 May 1991 00:00:00 GMT In a recent set of postings, Steve Forette and John Higdon had mentioned the differences in service between Bay Area systems. (Sorry, comments not working tonight, but it was quite recent.) One thing which was not mentioned (specifically) was the differences between the roaming agreements which both GTE and Cell One/SF have with their neighbors. For example, GTE/SF will allow you to roam to Sacramento, Modesto, San Luis Obispo, and most other California and Nevada cities (I guess that's Reno and Las Vegas), and not incur a daily roam charge. Moreover, the rates while roaming are quite favorable. So, for example, as I am a customer of GTE/SF, can roam into Sac and pay 15 cents per minute airtime (off peak), and *NO* daily roam charge. I believe this is true for most (if not all) other California cities, yet I've heard conflicting stories about LA and Las Vegas, NV. When *I* tried using LA's "B" system, I was not billed for any daily charge, yet I believe it was posted here some time ago that LA's "B" system charges for FMR (Follow Me Roaming) activations. GTE/SF and the LA system both say this is not the case, and my own experience indicates this as well, but perhaps there are exceptions to this in other cities that I have not roamed to yet. In general, though, roaming is relatively inexpensive on the "B" systems in CA and NV. (Some systems, like Sac and Modesto, charge for incomplete calls, which is a pain, but then do some of the CA "A" systems.) As to the "A" systems, ie, Cell One/SF in particular, when I inquired as to any roam charges, I was told that if I roamed out of the SF service area, into Sac for example, I would incur a daily roam charge and pay higher rates for airtime than I would pay under GTE/SF. A friend of mine who uses Cell One/SF notes that she pays a daily charge when she drives down to Monterey, which can get quite high. (Over this past summer it was $2 per day, I believe they were talking about raising it to $3). This is a considerable expense as she tends to drive to Santa Cruz (just north of Moneterey) via CA-1. Since Monterey is at the south end of a bay, and Santa Cruz is about 20 miles north of that (direct line), signals from the Monterey system "bleed" over to the hills just north of Santa Cruz, and thus someone driving down CA-1 over those hills will frequenlty pick up the Monterey system, even if the "roam" light hasn't come on yet. I've seen this happen, and unless one blocks out the Monterey System ID code (SID), one may unexpectedly be using that system and thus paying the higher rates and the daily charge. Again, this may have changed since September when I asked Cell One about its roaming agreements with other local carriers, but if not, and you intend to roam in California a good deal, I would suggest getting an account with the "B" system. For heavy roamers, this will probably save you some money. Another (perhaps less significant) problem with roaming on the "A" systems is that they tend to "bundle" their service areas for the benefit of THEIR customers, yet bill them as separate entities when roamers use the system. To use an example which I have mentioned before in earlier posts, let's take the Cell One/SF system. Cell One/SF *says* that its system covers all the way from Santa Rosa (north of San Francisco) to Santa Cruz (south and a bit West of San Francisco). And indeed, if you are one of their customers, you will pay the same rates throughout their system, not worry about roam charges, etc. BUT, if you roam in their system, they consider EACH area to be a separate system, ie, the "Santa Rosa System", the "San Francisco System", and the "Santa Cruz System" (which Metro Mobile calls "Saint Crux" for some reason..probably their God-awful billing company). Anyhow, what this means to roamers is that if they drive from Santa Rosa to Santa Cruz, and make calls (or receive them) along the way, they will be billed $2 for EACH system, ie, Santa Rosa, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz, which is sort of cheap, and something Cell One/SF doesn't tell you about when you ask them what their rates and service area is. (The SID codes are weird for this sort of thing: Cell One/SF is 00031, yet the SID number which was quoted to me by Metro Mobile was 30031, which they said was for the "separate Saint Crux" system. Metro does this too: Their SID code is 00119, which is the same in CT and RI, but the New Bedford, MA system is 30119. If I program my phone for "00119" as home, or "00031" as home, and then roam into one of the 300xx areas, the "ROAM" light doesn't come on. Anyone know how this works and/or why it is done??) This is not to say that all the "A" systems are like this. The Sac/Stockton/ Reno, NV system will charge you only one daily charge, even if you drive up I-5 to I-80 and head to Tahoe and then Reno, ie, using all the systems. But there are lots of companies like Cell One/SF that use "tricky" means to get their daily charges (and charges and charges..! :) ), something which I have found to be MUCH less the case of the "B" systems. The "A" systems are also much more prone to billing errors for roamers. For example, when I made calling card calls from Cell One/SF to Texas, which should result in NO landline charges being billed to me by the cell co.s (ie, I get billed airtime, and AT&T sends me the bill for the call from SF to Texas), I was instead billed for BOTH airtime and toll charges! It of course took me five hours on the phone just to explain to my favorite mobile comapny (Metro Mobile/CT, who bills me for "A" calls) just where San Francisco was, after which about a week to get it through that calling card calls shouldn't be billed landline charges. After they grasped this highly complex concept, Metro Highbill took care of the problem, but it just indicates the total lack of any coordination or effective means of overseeing billing that many of the "A" systems suffer from in terms of roaming. Also note that as a roamer in Cell One/SF's system, any call outside the Bay Area (ie, outside of 415, northern 408, or southern 707) will be forced onto AT&T's calling card system, and you will need to use your card to complete any calls. This is more expensive for two reasons: (1) - You will have to pay the 80 cent surcharge for using your calling card, and (2) - Even if no one answers, or it is busy, etc., you will still pay for accessing the calling card system in terms of airtime and daily roamer charges. (This is true with most systems, ie, paying for card calls regardless of whether or not the card call completed ... yet most other systems allow you to dial direct, thus avoiding these costs.) There have also been two cases where my mobile number (or rather, prefix) was not programmed into the switch. The most recent case was over the 4th of July, in the Cell One/Sac-Stockton-Reno system, which, although promptly corrected the next business day, caused me a good deal of problems on the 4th. All of these put together indicate to me that roaming on the "A" systems has a LONG way to go. And this is not limited to California: Cell One/Wilmington, DE also forces roamers to use their cards for ALL calls; Cell One/South Jersey will bill roamers for ANY call they make, regardless of it is answered or not or if you accidentally hit SEND and then hang up even before the first ring; the Vanguard/Cell One System in Eastern PA will bill you separate roaming charges for each of their "systems" (ie, Allentown, Reading, Wilkes-Beare (sp?)), etc. Compare this to roaming on the "B" systems: I roam a lot on the "B" systems along the East Coast. I use Bell Atlantic DC and Phil, NYNEX/NY and Boston, and SNET. I have turned on Follow Me Roaming, called myself after it forwarded my calls (three days later! :) ), got the busy signal, and left it on for about thirty minutes as a test. When I got the bill the next month, nothing! That's right -- to my suprise, the BAMS/Philadelphia did not bill me for the call. I then tried this in other "B" systems, same thing. I have also talked to other "B" customers at Apple Comp. in Glastonbury, CT, and they never noted any calls on their bills which did not complete. It seems then that the "B"s generally tend to wait for answer superivsion before billing you for the call. Th B's have other problems as well, mainly FMR and small calling areas (ie, few DMXs or links between systems like the A's have), yet that's a whole other post in itself. So if you intend to stay within the "home" service area, then both systems, specifically in San Francisco and perhaps generally elsewhere as well, are quite similar in terms of coverage in the more urban areas, although there could be considerable differences in more out-of-the-way areas. (Eastern CT with SNET, for example, has very good coverage, with Metro, nothing at all. No doubt this wll change soon, though...) But, if you do intend to roam a lot, however, I personally favor the "B"s, as despite the annoyingly frequent FMR problems, the B's have a much more professional attitude towards roaming. I realize that there are many "A" systems with reasonable roam policies. Cell One/Washington DC or even *dear* Highbill do treat roamers well (it's their customers that they treat like dirt! ;) ). If you do travel a lot and intend to use different "A" systems, I think you'll find no end of problems, "suprises", and hidden charges which you would never be charged for under the "B"s. Lecture's over ... anyone still awake? :) If there are any corrections, additions, or comments, please let me know. As you may have surmised, I am somewhat interested in roaming issues and implementation, so anything you have to offer would undoubtedly be helpful. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet P.S. Not to make this any longer, but I was reading comp.dcom.telecom on my Unix system, and someone asked for some Audiovox programming instructions. I posted them a while back, but presently Telnet is down so I can't connect to the Unix. Send me E-mail and I'll send you the file. (Or I can wait until that article makes it to Wesleyan, but that generally takes a few days longer.) As to why they aren't on the Archives...err...I guess I never bothered to upload them via FTP (if that is what one is supposed to do). If anyone wants, I'll send them along for the Archives as well. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 10:21:37 EDT From: KATH MULLHOLAND Subject: No PRELUDE Users on the Net? I posted a request for Prelude help about three weeks ago, and had no response. Thought I'd try again, in case some of you with only a little information figured I'd get a lot of responses! The hotel associated with the university has a Prelude, and the administrator needs help deciphering the documentation. No training is available from AT&T, so she is looking for a resource for questions and advice. You can reply to me direct: k_mullholand@unhh.unh.edu Thanks! Kath Mullholand UNH Durham, NH ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 10:53:49 EDT From: KATH MULLHOLAND Subject: Blocking Long Distance Is there something about a DMS10 switch that makes it incapable of blocking long distance calls? A customer on a DMS10 has been able to order a 976/900 block on her line, but cannot get any other long distance calls blcoked. This doesn't make sense to me -- technically if it's possible to block one it *must* be possible to block the others. Kath Mullholand UNH Durham, NH ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 91 22:05:14 CST From: Leroy Donnelly Subject: Information Wanted on Nigeria Phone System Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs!leroy.donnelly@uunet.uu.net Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha Anyone out there have any experience with the Nigeria phone system? Good and bad? Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 [200:5010/666@metronet] DRBBS -- Keep The Royals in Omaha (200:5010/666.0) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 May 91 12:51 CDT From: Arun Baheti Subject: India to US Data Link Needed My family is involved with a new business, and has need to transfer data (text files) from India to the United States once weekly or daily if possible. Can anyone suggest possible routes? Thanks. Arun ------------------------------ From: Henry Mensch Date: Sat, 11 May 1991 17:11:40 PDT Organization: Advanced Decision Systems Reply-To: henry@ads.com Subject: Re: Pac Bell Pays 7% Interest Hmm ... I wouldn't answer those questions either, and I didn't have to pay a deposit (although the first telebozo I spoke to was insisting that I had to turn up at a Pac*Bell office with photo ID before the installation date. Maybe I should have paid .. :) (this is recent experience ... like last month!) Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / ------------------------------ From: bill@gauss.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: More on NPA 404/706 Split Date: Mon, 13 May 91 16:08:23 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu I just got a little information from the Southern Bell public information office on the proposed addition of NPA 706 to North Georgia. It's all fairly short and sweet. To those wondering where 706 used to go, it used to get northern Mexico until Feb. '91, according to a handy little DOS-based program I've occasionally used called "AC.EXE". The Metropolitan Atlanta LOCAL calling area will retain 404. The re- mainder of north Georgia (outside the Atlanta local calling area) will become NPA 706. According to Southern Bell folklore, the metro Atlanta local calling area is the largest (by square miles) toll-free calling area in the world. Let me qualify this by saying that THIS IS NOT DEFINITE, but is what Southern Bell is favoring at this point, according the public info office. Any SBT&T higher-ups watching the net and know of something different? If so, please let us know unless there is some compelling reason for secrecy in the matter. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Ron Dippold Subject: Local Competition Approved in CA Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Mon, 13 May 91 19:21:06 GMT Here's an interesting one from this Friday's {LA Times} ... seems that the way has been cleared in SoCal for competition to Pac*Bell and GTE. These must let other, smaller, companies make use of their switches, etc. to compete with them. I don't know what the long-term effects would be, but at least a short-term drop in rates seems possible if any company takes the bait. The article didn't say much, if anyone else has any info I'd be interested. Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold ------------------------------ Date: 13-MAY-1991 22:54:15.39 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Panasonic Easa-Phone Question A friend without net access but with a Panasonic KX-T3900-H cordless base, a KX-T3900-R handset (with broken antenna), and a KX-T3720-R handset (intact) wonders: (i) whether the 3720 handset can be used in conjunction with the 3900 base; and (ii) how one sets the "Code Selection of Handset and Base to same Code" (as the molded-in instructions cryptically recommend -- yup, no manuals). This venue seems like the best place to seek advice -- all advice welcome. Thanks very much. 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) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #359 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18042; 15 May 91 3:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00022; 15 May 91 2:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03103; 15 May 91 1:15 CDT Date: Wed, 15 May 91 0:37:59 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #360 BCC: Message-ID: <9105150038.ab31239@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 May 91 00:37:47 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 360 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? [Barry Margolin] Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? [Tim Irvin] Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? [Rolf Meier] Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? [Chip Olson] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Randy Bush] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Max Rochlin] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Steven S. Brack] Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? [D.Sheafer] Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? [Tony Harminc] Re: Unauthorized Repair Charges [Tim Irvin] Re: US Answering Machinesin Israel [Warren Burstein] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? Reply-To: think!barmar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Date: Tue, 14 May 91 16:40:14 GMT In article leryo@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Leryo Malbito) writes: > BUT the point of my letter was not to promote GTE Airfone, rather to > ask for someone to help me define 'Public'. The way the Airfone is > set up now, one MUST have some sort of credit card in order to get a > dial tone. I interpret "public" as meaning that anyone is permitted to use it, but that doesn't mean everyone is *able* to use it. On the other hand, my home phone is private -- only I and people I authorize are permitted to use it. If the Airphone required you to have an account with GTE, that would make it non-public. > [Moderator's Note: ... Perhaps the airports could also sell pre-paid > phone cards like in Europe, ie you buy a card with $10 in phone > credit on it and insert that in the slot when on board. PAT] Or maybe the flight attendants could sell them right there on the plane. Then, when you get the warning that you're down to your last minute, you could call a flight attendant and buy some more time. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar ------------------------------ Reply-To: irvin@northstar.dartmouth.edu Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? Date: Tue, 14 May 91 12:10:36 +22323328 From: irvin@northstar105.dartmouth.edu In TELECOM Digest V11 #358, Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: I don't really see what the big deal is, > considering nearly everyone has some credit card or another which is > accepted. It might be interesting though to see them develop a coin / > paper money operated device (a lot like those vending machines at the > post office and the train station) which accept up to twenty dollar > bills into which the money could be inserted on request following the > manual connection of your call by the GTE operator. This would add a > degree of anomynity to the process for those who desired it or did not > have the cards. You would dial the operator, she would place the call > and on reaching someone would have them hold; split the connection; > get you to put in whatever you wanted for a certain number of minutes; > then connect you and cut you off (or demand more money) when the time > was up. Perhaps the airports could also sell pre-paid phone cards > like in Europe, ie you buy a card with $10 in phone credit on it and > insert that in the slot when on board. PAT] The main problem with this is that GTE doesn't want their AIRFONEs walking off the plane in someone's carry-on. So, by forcing you to use a credit card (which they lock in the base of the phone, until you return the AIRFONE) they are making it much more difficult to steal the phone. And if you do, I guess they could charge your credit card for the value (times some huge fudge factor I am sure). Tim Irvin ------------------------------ From: Rolf Meier Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? Date: 14 May 91 18:53:51 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article leryo@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Leryo Malbito) writes: > BUT the point of my letter was not to promote GTE Airfone, rather to > ask for someone to help me define 'Public'. The way the Airfone is > set up now, one MUST have some sort of credit card in order to get a > dial tone. Not everyone has a credit card. I feel they should at In Canada, the Department of Communications has defined three market areas for cordless/wireless telephony: residential; business; and public "Residential" is home use of cordless. "Business" includes wireless PBX and key systems. The term "Public" would include cellular, telepoint, and presumably Airfone. I think the FCC has a similar distinction among the three types of wireless service. Therefore, I think that you might want to take up your point with the FCC, not GTE. Since this is a trial service, your comments about payment procedures might be welcomed. I agree with the Moderator in that I don't see the big deal. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ From: Chip.Olson Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? Date: 14 May 91 15:31:39 GMT In article , leryo@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Leryo Malbito) writes: > BUT the point of my letter was not to promote GTE Airfone, rather to > ask for someone to help me define 'Public'. The way the Airfone is > set up now, one MUST have some sort of credit card in order to get a > dial tone. Not everyone has a credit card. I feel they should at > least make some sort of provision regarding the use of an AT&T card. > They accept it, but you must have the actual card, not just the > number. I had always assumed that the reason for their insistence on the actual slab of plastic was to prevent people from, er, accidentally tucking the phone into their briefcases. Not that the phone is at all useful on the ground, of course, but there's probably plenty of people who would walk off with it just because it's not nailed down. > [Moderator's Note: I don't really see what the big deal is, > considering nearly everyone has some credit card or another which is > accepted. I'm one of the exceptions. But then again, my lifestyle isn't one that involves making phone calls from planes. :-) > It might be interesting though to see them develop a coin / > paper money operated device (a lot like those vending machines at the > post office and the train station) which accept up to twenty dollar > bills into which the money could be inserted on request following the > manual connection of your call by the GTE operator. It would be interesting, but I don't see how they could make such a machine light enough for an airline to want to put it on its planes. Profit margins in the airline industry are tight enough without things like this taking up weight capacity that could be used for fare-paying warm bodies. Chip Olson, UMass_Amherst ceo@ucs.umass.edu | colson@ecs.umass.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 91 08:01 PDT From: Randy Bush Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent > The patent upheld is on the method of notifying the DCE equipment that > the next data arriving should be treated as a command to the DCE, as > opposed to data to be transmitted to the far end; that is, switching > to command mode. You mean kinda like one tells an X.25 PAD (i.e. Telenet et al.) to drop to command mode from data mode, "@" Seeing as the above and similar uses have been in use since the '70s, how did our friends from Norcross manage to patent it? Randy Bush / news@psg.com / ..!uunet!m2xenix!news ------------------------------ From: Max Rochlin Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Organization: Gupta Technologies Inc Date: Tue, 14 May 91 17:01:00 GMT In article splee@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy) writes: > Interesting how Hayes goes after the smaller retail modem > manufacturers. IBM and AT&T both also make and sell AT modems. I > don't see Hayes challenging them in court. There are also a host of > other modem manufacturers such as Codex, Universal Data Systems (both > owned by Motorola), General DataComm (who I work for), Racal-Milgo, > etc who also manufacture AT modems. Perhaps it's because IBM pays Hayes a licensing fee and the smaller retail modem manufacturers do not. I don't know about AT&T, though, sorry. max@gupta.com Max J. Rochlin decwrl!madmax!max ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent From: "Steven S. Brack" Date: Tue, 14 May 91 14:03:21 EDT Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4]) kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) writes: > As a matter of fact, as PN-2120, a document from TIA committee > TR-30.4, the command set has been submitted to the CCITT as part of > draft recomendation "V.25 ter". One of the regular contributors to > TELECOM Digest, Toby Nixon of Hayes is the chairman of TR-30.4, and > can probably post an update of the status of this proposal, if asked. > Communication software writers can, quite freely, write software which > sends the string "AT whatever" and DCE equipment may recognize that > string and act upon it. > Most software defaults to a one second pause, transmitting three plus > (+) signs, followed by a one second pause. Hayes patent is broader, > covering any time delay, followed by any unique sequence. This patent, > however, covers only async data ports used for both data and command. > Synchronous ports, obviously, cannot pause in sending data, and the > use of separate command and data ports is also outside the scope of > the patent. This is a valid patent?? I haven't studied patent law in depth, but I would think that a patent like that would fall under the realm of overbredth (sp?). Ha this patent been upheld in court? It certainly appears that Hayes has patented a PAUSE-DATA-PAUSE sequence. If that's true, then Hayes holds license on nearly every piece of data manipulation equipment ever manufactured. If a patent that broad covering a process that basic is admissible, then the first person to patent the breathing process is in for a fortune in royalties from all those people using his "technology" all this time 8) 8) 8). > For those in the external async modem business, the Hayes patent is a > business expense that they will have to factor in. The rest of us can > continue to type in "ATxxx" without worrying that the feds are going > to come after us. Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower | sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu 50 Curl Drive. | sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112 USA | brack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu +1 (011) 614 293 7383 | Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu ------------------------------ From: David E. Sheafer Subject: Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? Free? Date: 14 May 91 10:54:24 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA In article , irvin@northstar105. dartmouth.edu writes: > In TELECOM Digest V11 #347, Mark Seiden writes: >> I am curious (yellow) about * prefixed calls on cellular phones. >> Has anyone got a list? Are they uniform across service providers? (fat >> chance) ... I noticed that some of the California providers have >> traffic information lines, etc. These are the * prefixed numbers for NYNEX Mobile in New England (MA,RI and southern NH) and the appropriate charges: *18 follow-me-roaming activation No Charge # *19 Follow-me-roaming deactivation No Charge *33 Celtics Hotline Usage Rates *37 StockQuote Usage Rates *44 WVBF-FM Call to Report Traffic No Charge *63 WPRO-AM Call to Report Trafffic in Rhode island No Charge *64 (*NH) NH State Police No Charge *68 WRKO-AM Talkline No Charge *76 WBSM-AM New Bedford Traffic Conditions No Charge *77 (*SP) MA State Police No Charge *82 AAA Emergency Usage Rates *88 Time Usage Rates *92 WPRO-FM Call to Report traffic in Rhode Island No Charge *99 Weather Usage Rates *850 WHDH-AM Call to Report Traffic or News No Charge 411 Directory Assistance Usage Rates ## 611 Nynex Customer Service No Charge # In certain instances the host cellular service carrier may charge a daily activation fee for Follow-Me-Roaming activation. ## Plus New England Telephone Directory Assistance and Transport Charges. Listed features and Charges are provided fo NYNEX Mobile Access Numbers. David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 91 18:31:12 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones > Plus in some city (I can't remember which now), there was a radio > station that advertised it's Cellular Traffic number as *WXXX (or > what-ever its call letters were), this rang at the main switchboard > for the radio station (used to report accidents and traffic jams). It > was free from all Cellular telephones, don't know about roamers. Not > surprisingly, the radio station advertised the two Cellular carriers > constantly (I assume in trade for this *-number). Around here (Bell Cellular and Cantel territory) the radio stations tell you to dial #nnn where nnn is their frequency (or some variation). So Toronto station CBL at 740 AM tells you to dial #740, while CHFI at 98.1 FM has #981. I had assumed this was some sort of standard. No so ? These calls are not free. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Unauthorized Repair Charges Reply-To: irvin@northstar.dartmouth.edu Date: Tue, 14 May 91 13:27:08 +22323328 From: irvin@northstar105.dartmouth.edu Following up on an article I sent in on Apr 25 about Unauthorized Repair Charges on my bill, and my fight to get them removed. Well, after sending a complaint to the PUC, and cc'ing New England Telephone, I got a call (yesterday) from the NET (NH) Home Office. She was extremely appologetic about the whole messy affair, and she (get this) actually is going to give me one-months free service. Who says monopolies can't be responsive to their customers complaints?? :) Actually, she was very nice (unusual -- for the phone co.) and I really wasn't expecting to get anything more than the Repair Charge Removed, so this was a nice surprise. She also is going to remove the black marks that the billing rep scarred my "Permanent Record" with. So I guess the moral of the story is: complaints to the PUC (cc'ing the TelCo) seems to get some action, out of usually actionless company. Tim Irvin ------------------------------ From: Warren Burstein Subject: Re: US Answering Machines in Israel Date: Tue, 14 May 91 0:23:03 IDT I use a PhoneMate 7300 in Israel. Adaptors between modular connectors and the connectors used by Bezeq (the Israeli phone company) are easily available here. The only problem is that the built-in clock is wrong because the power line frequency is 50Hz. I wrote a letter to Phone Mate asking if they manufactured a 50Hz model, and if it was possible to convert between the two, but they never answered. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #360 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15595; 16 May 91 4:00 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00235; 16 May 91 2:35 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29092; 16 May 91 1:28 CDT Date: Thu, 16 May 91 0:42:12 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #361 BCC: Message-ID: <9105160042.ab12686@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 May 91 00:41:29 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 361 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson An Update on Randy [TELECOM Moderator] Phone/Voice Recognition Systems Survey [Len Jaffe] A Civilized COCOT [Ted Marshall] Re: Another COCOT Complaint [Ken Jongsma] Airphone Charges [Kath Mullholand] Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing [Phydeaux] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [Ron Schnell] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [Phydeaux] Re: Line Noise [Barton F. Bruce] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 May 91 23:40:55 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: An Update on Randy I have an update on Randy .... And so that there is no confusion about who instigated what, let me say that I called him -- he did not call me. He opened the brief conversation by pointing out that part of the conditions under which he was constrained at the present time was that he was to have no further correspondence with TELECOM Digest, nor was he to discuss the pending disciplinary action against him with the Digest. He said he had NOT -- as of yet -- been fired. He was asked to stay away from the office, and is using some vacation time at present. He has NOT been given a final paycheck. At the time of his interview with the security people on May 8, he was offered an opportunity to have his union representative present for the interview. He declined at that point to do so. He has since requested intervention by his union representative, and the union has grieved on his behalf. That process is underway now, and a decision will be forthcoming later on. Randy said it could be quite some time before the union and AT&T finish the matter, and that the final decision, if unfavorable to Randy could then be appealed further. In order not to cause Randy to possibly be in further difficulty, I agreed to specifically point out that I solicited his comments -- not the other way around, and that when he pointed out the requirement that he refrain from corresponding with us in detail we terminated the conversation. He concluded the conversation by saying that he accepted full responsibility for his message which appeared in the Digest, and that he submitted it expecting it would be printed. I am forwarding a copy of this to the telecom-priv for any further discussion that may be desired. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Len Jaffe Subject: Phone/Voice Recognition Systems Survey Organization: Cincinnati Network, Cinti. OH Date: Mon, 13 May 91 14:53:42 GMT Hi, I'm posting this for a co-worker since I'm the only one with usenet access so far (but we're working on it :) ) Leonard A. Jaffe, User hawkwind@cinnet.com Cincinnati Public Access Un*x {uunet!}cinnet.com!hawkwind Just Another Hack Perler -----------begin coworker's posting----------- CARS Information Systems Corporation produces integrated administrative computer systems for colleges and universities. Most of our clients are private schools with 1,000-5,000 FTE students, though we are currently working with schools of up to 15,000 students in the community college sector. We are evaluating voice response systems through which we may use the telephone as an interface to our UN*X computer systems (eg. touch-tone registration). So far we have received information about Perception Technology, Periphonics, Applied Voice Technology (formerly 1776 Corp), AT&T Conversant, InterVoice and Octel Systems. I am interested in any comments or suggestions you may have, regarding these and any other vendors. Please respond via e-mail, and I'll summarize the responses for those who request it. Thanks in advance, Tom Hale {uunet}!cinnet.com!carsinfo!hale D. Thomas Hale Programmer/Analyst (513) 563-4542 CARS Information Systems Corporation, Cincinnati, OH 45241 {uunet.uu.net}!cinnet.com!carsinfo!hale Standard Disclaimers Apply ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 91 09:48:48 PDT From: Ted Marshall Subject: A Civilized COCOT Just to show that they aren't all bad, this weekend, I found a very civil COCOT. If they were all like this one, COCOT wouldn't be a dirty word. The machine is located in a chinese restaurant in Los Altos, California (AC 415). The following is from memory from the instruction card: Local calls $.20 (same as Pac Bell), 15 minute limit. Long distance carrier is MCI, for both coin and non-coin calls. [I verified that a 0+ call gave an MCI bong.] 911 allowed and free. [I did not verify this.] 10XXX and 950-XXXX long distance calling allowed. [102880+ did give an AT&T bong.] Long distance rates: IntraLATA $.10 InterLATA $.10 Out-of-state 20% surcharge [This is how it is written on the instructions; I assume that the 10 cents is also a surcharge.] The phone itself looks much like a standard Pac Bell payphone. However, it does produce its own dial-tone and then generate its own DTMF string on to the line (receiver not muted). On coin calls, the money request is a synthesized voice generated by the phone (it come on immediately after the last digit.) I did not actually place any calls on it, but the little playing I did seemed to confirm the printed information. An attempted coin call to the Los Angeles area (818-886) requested $1.00 for 3 minutes, which seems about right. 212-555-1212 requested $.70. Other than the (comparatively small) LD surcharge, it might as well have been a RBOC payphone. One funny thing: the phone is operated by "Western # Bell" ("#" = a white octothorpe (SP?) on a black rounded rectangle (looks like the keypad key)). Compare this to "Pacific * Bell" (TM). I guess these days, no one has a trademark on " Bell". Ted Marshall ted@airplane.sharebase.com ShareBase Corp., 14600 Winchester Blvd, Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)378-7000 The opinions expressed above are those of the poster and not his employer. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Another COCOT Complaint Date: Mon, 13 May 91 8:20:37 EDT From: Ken Jongsma Recently, there have been several posts asking how to complain about a particular COCOT. I just noticed that all of the Michigan Bell payphones in this area have been relabeled. That is, the lower info card on the payphone has been changed. Where it used to just indicate the 0+ and local carrier, it now has an FCC address for complaints. I did not write the address down, but if someone really needs it, I probably could get ahold of it. It did start out FCC Enforcement Division, so maybe the FCC is getting serious. Interestingly enough, a COCOT at the local JC Penney that I've been having an ongoing COCOT sticker battle with (I put one on, they take it off), does not have the FCC address on it. They also prevent 10XXX dialing. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 9:56:47 EDT From: KATH MULLHOLAND Subject: Airphone Charges While on a flight to Florida, my spouse thought it would be worth it to call his brother from in-flight. Never having tried an airphone before, we weren't sure what to expect in transmission quality. All we ever heard, and we stayed on the line for three minutes or more, was lots of rushing air. Kind of like holding a big seashell to your ear! Since I've heard (read) on the net of using airphones for data (Am I recalling correctly?) I was fairly sure we were having transmission problems. We hung up and did not retry the call. I wasn't surprised at all to see an $8.50 GTE charge on my VISA bill the following month. I was surprised at how difficult it was to reach GTE. First, I called the bank. Not their problem, they said, I was responsible for reaching the vendor. No, they did not have any vendor information other than what appeared on my bill. Perhaps I should try ? Tried TPC, who said, Gee, if it wasn't on my phone bill, how could they possibly be expected to help? Looked in the phone book -- nothing listed for GTE. Being a *telecom professional* ;-), I called our local rep from work. She looked up GTE and found an 800- number for them. Called that. They knew nothing about air phones. Telephone calls from a plane? What are you on, lady??? was their attitude. Asked for the supervisor. Still got nowhere. He had no idea where air phone charges were billed from or how to reach that billing location. Finally, knowing tat GTE and Sprint were related, I called our Sprint rep and asked him to hunt down the elusive billing agent. He had a number for me in less than five minutes. (I still think this rep is one of the best in the bsuiness.) This month, finally got my credit and a very nice letter of apology. I wonder, however, how often people just pay instead of trying to find out where to go for a credit. I guess if I hadn't had sources, I would have bullied my bank mor. What has been the experience of others? Kath Mullholand UNH, Durham, NH [Moderator's Note: When the bank first gave you that rap about how they could do nothing, you should have gotten a supervisor on the line and bellowed about how you were not going to pay the charge; they could charge it back to GTE if they liked; and if that wasn't enough hassle for them, you'd be glad to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission if necessary detailing the bank's billing practices. Believe me, the bank *would* have found GTE for you also! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 91 12:47:32 PDT From: Phydeaux Subject: Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing > Back in the "good old days" there was a scheme to prevent collect > calls to coin phones: within each CO prefix one entire thousands block > was set aside for coin phones, and operators had a list of which > numbers were suspect. (For far away places they had to contact Rate & > [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell still puts all their coin-phones in >the 9xxx range for the reason you mention. PAT] I don't know how long ago the 'good old days' were, but in New Jersey, my parents have a number which ends in 9207. I used to call home collect from school quite often. I remember that some time in 1979 or '80, I started having problems with operators putting me on hold for a *long* time before they would even *attempt* to place the call. After a while I figured out the 9xxx bank of numbers was set aside for pay phones. I learned to say "It's a home phone, not a pay phone" when dialing ... so they'd put it right through and check afterwards. We've had the same number since 1968, and I remember that all of a sudden they had this 'new' policy. When did they start doing this? Most everywhere I've been, pay phones are 9xxx numbers. *-=#= 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: We had a prefix here (312 - LOngbeach 1) which was a real old stepper office. It had a bunch of residences in the 9xxx series of numbers. Over the last 20-25 years, I think they have mostly vanished as the numbers were given up and not reassigned to private parties. People on that exchange have the same hassle with collect calls, the few of them there are left in 9xxx. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 91 00:37:00 -0700 From: Ron Schnell Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! In article steves@aerobat.labs.tek.com (Steve Shellans) writes: > In article reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) > writes: >> I realize that you're "not supposed to" do things like this, but if >> anything had happened I could always have called 911 ;-) > I don't think this is funny. The reason you're not supposed to do > things like this is that stray signals from transmitters and other > kinds of electronic equipment can interfere with the navigation > instruments. The reason you aren't supposed to use cellular phones in aircraft is different from the reason you aren't supposed to use FM radios and Portable computers. There is an FCC rule against the use of cellular phones from aircraft because they activate almost every cell in a 50 mile radius due to the confusion of trying to figure out the closest one. The FM radio/Computer rules are generally airline policy. It is pretty much accepted these days that these things can't really mess up the navigation equipment. Most airliners now use longer range navigation systems like LORAN or various satellite-based systems, which can't be upset by FM interference. I usually ask the pilot if I can use an FM scanner or similar device, and (s)he usually lets me. > [Moderator's Note: I did not think it was funny either ... maybe next > time he decides to flex the rules a little in his experiments he will > try the one which says 'keep all radios, including cell phones, turned > off in areas where dynamite and other explosive powders are being > used.' If anything goes wrong, someone will always call 911 :( PAT] If you didn't think it was funny, then why did you encourage him? In : > [Moderator's Note: You should have tried a few more tests of things > you're 'not supposed to do', such as *711 to ask what carrier it was, > and 0 for the operator to find out what place was getting your call. PAT] [Moderator's Note: See my reply after next message. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 91 08:39:35 PDT From: Phydeaux Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! > Warning: Using a Cellular phone on an aircraft is a violation of federal > law and probably some FAA regulations too. You risk getting arrested. Yes -- but they don't *tell* you that anywhere, so I assume I'll get at least one warning (before possible arrest) if I decide to try it again ... BTW, the connection was pretty good! I guess I'll find out where I was when the bill comes ;-) We were 20 minutes out of Orlando at the time. Pat, I don't understand ... on the one hand you tell me to let you know all the details if/when I try this again. A few days later you wrote that you hoped next time I "[decide] to flex the rules a little .. try the one which says 'keep all radios ... turned off in areas where dynamite and other explosive powders are being used.'" By the way, I don't plan on doing this again, I just wanted to see if it would work. [Moderator's Note: I changed my mind; or actually, I am sort of ambivilent about the whole thing. On the one hand, it is an interesting test, and the results -- from someone who has authenticated them through testing -- would be a fun topic here. But after originally telling you to report further results when you had them, I got to thinking it really is a bad practice and should not be encouraged. The chance of a dangerous result is probably remote, or at least about as unlikely as a dynamite explosion caused by a radio transmission, but those things *can* happen. Really, today I don't know what I think on this topic. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: Line Noise Date: 14 May 91 04:12:47 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , sg04%harvey@gte.com (Steven Gutfreund) writes: > We have been experiencing significant problems with FAX SEND/RECIEVEs. Call it in, and say you want the repair foreman to contact you. Get him to promise to let you know if they find a problem on your line or if it is due to CO problems or problems beyond. Be interested. Be unwilling to let it persist. Be friendly but make sure it is understood that you WILL escalate it fast if it isn't resolved promptly. That should work. If not, you could try calling the DPU, but probably better leave that for very last. The 'executive appeals' number is for consumer complaints. It answers 'Office of the President'. Call 743-9800 (NET&T main switchboard) and ask for executive appeals. The foreman in question or his boss will be calling you back shortly thereafter. Don't abuse it, but DO use it when necessary. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #361 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18100; 16 May 91 5:12 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17160; 16 May 91 3:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00235; 16 May 91 2:35 CDT Date: Thu, 16 May 91 1:30:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #362 BCC: Message-ID: <9105160130.ab04644@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 May 91 01:30:23 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 362 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed [Philip Gladstone] Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed [Jiro Nakamura] Re: International Dialing and Area Codes [John R. Levine] Cellular Phones on Planes [Chris Schmandt] Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [Peter Thurston] CWA on Northern Telecom - Part I [Peter Marshall] Telephone Tones Around The World [Rick Broadhead] Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists [Tom Gray] A Copy of "Hacker's Dictionary" Wanted [John Richard Bruni] IDDD Calling [Kath Mullholand] Re: Is the GTE Airphone Public? [Louis J. Judice] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: philip@beeblebrox.dle.dg.com (Philip Gladstone) Subject: Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed Organization: Data General, Development Lab Europe Date: 14 May 91 15:10:08 On 9 May 91 22:20:30 GMT, lia!jgro@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Jeremy Grodberg) said: > The service rep asked what > PIN I had used, at which point I was stunned; after a brief pause, I > said "I'm not supposed to tell anyone my PIN, you literature says that > real AT&T reps will never ask you for it." The service rep then > pauses, stammers, and says "Well, I'm looking right at it. response from me, which I don't give, because I'm starting to get > sick. OK," she says, "did you use XXXX?" where XXXX was my real PIN! > Not only did she have access to it (which she shouldn't need or have), > she told it to me! Yikes! I am not amused. The banks take a much different view on the security of PINs (at least in the UK). The device that actually stores the PINs is kept apart from the main system and is kept in a controlled (and very secure) environment. All access to this device is via its (IBM) channel attach to the mainframe. This device implements the security policies in force -- i.e. inability to read the PIN, verify only, audit trails etc. I guess the difference is that banks are trying to protect against the loss of significant amounts of money, whilst AT&T is trying to protect against a theft of service (for which you haven't paid [yet]). Philip Gladstone Dev Lab Europe, Data General, Cambridge, UK ------------------------------ From: Jiro Nakamura Subject: Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed Organization: Shaman Consulting Date: Wed, 15 May 1991 00:34:11 GMT I would like to relate that about a year ago, I forgot the PIN to my AT&T Universal Card. So I phone AT&T Univ. up and tell them that, fully expecting them to give me a whole new one. They ask my mom's maiden name, my SS number, and then *tell* me what the old one was. I was pretty shocked. :-( Compare this with my bank's Phone Access Line PIN number*. No one knows what my PAL/PIN is except the computer and it won't tell anyone. They send you the PIN in a sealed envelope (you know, the type that has carbon paper inside and is printed in one go through a dot matrix printer and has the tear ends on it). None of the tellers know it, and apparently can't find out. It's just like UNIX. If you forget the old one, the computer has to churn you a new one (no, you can't even choose your own). I like the bank's system, albeit I can't choose the number. PAL is a system by which I can do inquiries and transfer with my handy touch-tone phone. For some reason, the PIN has nothing to do with my regular ATM PIN, so I have to remember two numbers. :-( Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com Shaman Consulting (607) 253-0687 VOICE (607) 253-7809 FAX/Modem ------------------------------ Subject: Re: International Dialing and Area Codes Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 13 May 91 19:10:54 EDT (Mon) From: "John R. Levine" In article you write: > 1. How are international long-distance rates calculated? Are > there some one-minute calls that would be extremely expensive? For > example, does it cost a lot more to call some small town in Vanuatu or > Zambia than to call London or Paris? ... Glad you asked. The rate to any particular place depends on the coutry you're calling, the type of call, and the time of day. For calls to Canada, Mexico, and Cuba, the rate also depends where in the US you're calling from. The cost is roughly proportional to the distance with some notable exceptions -- one of the most expensive places in the world to call from the US is Mexico City, at nearly $2/minute. There are also special deals, e.g. I have Sprint World which for $3/month gives me a discounted off-peak rate to Canada, Mexico, most of Europe, any many Pacific rim countries. The rate periods can be exceedingly strange. For example, the most expensive time to call Guatemala and Belize, which are in the same time zone as Chicago, is 5PM - 11PM. The expensive time to Martinique is 8AM-5PM, but to adjacent St. Lucia is 4PM-7PM. The most expensive time to call Bulgaria is 1PM - 2AM which is 8PM - 9AM their time. For western Europe the times are sensible, 7AM - 1PM which is 1PM - 7PM their time if you're calling from the east coast. Here are some particular rates from AT&T's May 1990 International Telecommunications Guide, available free from 1-800-874-4000. London: $0.98-1.44 first minute, 60-94 cents/minute thereafter. $9.48 for the first three minutes person-to-person, any time. Paris: $1.15-$1.71 first minute, 65-106 cents/minute thereafter. $11.83 for the first three minutes person-to-person, any time. (The Sprint World rate to either is 58 cents/minute outside of the 7AM - 1PM peak time. I expect MCI and AT&T have similar discount rates.) Vanuatu: $11.83 for the first three minutes person-to-person, any time, $2.72 - $3.30 / minute thereafter. Not dialable, all calls go through the operator, all calls billed as person-to-person. Zambia: $1.55-2.59 first minute, 80-133 cents/minute thereafter. $11.83 for the first three minutes person-to-person, any time The most expensive places to call, via AT&T anyway, are Afghanistan and Bhutan which cost $13.33 for the first three minutes, person-to-person only, and $3.30-$3.92 per minute thereafter. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Chris Schmandt Subject: Cellular Phones on Planes Date: 14 May 91 15:58:04 GMT Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA Recently I've gotten rather fond of placing calls while sitting on the plane at the gate. Good for last minute things (esp. if you can board early and try to get some work done) and getting arrival time messages out that might actually be correct! (also much cheaper and clearer than Airfone) Knowing about the dangers associated with generating RF while flying (see recent discussion here) I first when up to the cockpit and spoke with the crew, who said "it's really not problem while we're on the ground but we prefer that you don't use the phone once we push back". This seemed very reasonable to me. Then on a recent flight I was told by a flight attendant that I couldn't use my phone (on the ground, at the gate). I explained the above, but said that the captain was the boss and I'd wait while she went to ask him. She came back many minutes later (plane had already started to taxi) and told me they looked it up in a rule book and that I could not use my phone on the plane at all. Now, I suspect that there wasn't a listed reg, or they didn't have it, and they just stalled me until it wasn't an issue. But, being an (occasionally) law abiding citizen, I'm curious if anyone knows the real story? chris PS: In response to the recent area code request, if someone has an up to date file, or version of the areacode scripts in the archives, could they update the archives (on lcs.mit.edu...) thanks. [Moderator's Note: The issue just previous to this discussed this in some detail -- sorry I did not have your message in time to include with those. Apparently the main problem is that once in the air, the use of a cell phone causes lots of ground sites to be triggered all at the same time, causing some confusion and congestion for the cellular carrier. The old theory of radios causing interference to the electronic equipment on the aircraft does not really carry a lot of weight these days, one correspondent noted. On the ground, there should be no problems at all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Thurston Date: Tue, 14 May 91 17:01:52 BST Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? Well here in the UK British Telecom (now BT), has just dropped the 20p surcharge - if that's any help! Peter Thurston ------------------------------ Subject: CWA on Northern Telecom - Part I From: Peter Marshall Date: Tue, 14 May 91 10:18:04 PDT The March edition of CWA's "Information Industry Report" contains a "Special Report" on Northern Telecom that should be of interest for various reasons, including NT's signficant role in the telecom privacy area and the perspective of the source of the report. According to the CWA report, "...in 1990 ... evidence was uncovered which disclosed that for a period of 13 years, the company had illegally wiretapped the telephone calls of its employees and monitored their private conversations through microphones hidden in the...sprinkler system. Management is believed to have used this secret surveillance to create a hit list of union supporters...." CWA further indicates that "Based on this evidence CWA and other individuals filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Northern Telecom under federal and state statutes." The union says that the suit "is now being actively pursued before a federal judge in Nashville...." This look at NT takes a broad historical view of the company. For example, the report suggests that "More than any other manufacturer, Northern Telecom was positioned to take advantage of deregulation of the U.S. telephone system and the divestiture of AT&T. In 1972 Northern Telecom's revenues barely reached the $500 million mark. It still relied on Canadian customers, primarily its parent company Bell Canada, for 80% of its sales and the United States accounted for only $35 million in revenues, or less than 7%.... Two elements changed all that. An early jump from analog to digital technology and the breakup of the Bell system propelled Northern...to be the second largest telecommunications manufacturer in the United States and the fourth largest in the world...." The report indicates that NT's "position in Canada is secured by its special relationship to Bell Canada, which formally owned it outright and now still holds a majority ownership of 53.1% of its stock." According to the report, NT "gets the lion's share of Bell Canada's purchases and is estimated to control more than two-thirds of the Canadian market for telecommunications equipment." Re: the BOCs, CWA states that NT's "penetration of the U.S. market, and particularly of the ... BOCs, has been the critical trigger to its growth. In less than a decade it leveraged the breakup of the Bell System to achieve virtual parity with AT&T in central ofice switches and to build alliances with the BOCs to distribute PBX equipment." [CONTINUED] The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA PEP, V.32, V.42 [Moderator's Note: Mr. Marshall sent this in two parts. We will have Part II in a future issue of the Digest, probably later today. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 91 16:13:23 EDT From: Rick Broadhead Subject: Telephone Tones Around the World As many of you know, ringing signals and busy signals vary from country to coun try. So do the tones a caller gets if all circuits are busy. Transit tones, t he tones which precede ringing, also differ from one country to the next. For example: * Iceland's busy signal is a short sharp tone repeated at frequent intervals. * Bangladesh's ringing signal consists of two short tones repeated at regular intervals. * Tonga's ringing signal is a short tone followed by a longer pause. My white pages directory used to provide this information, but it hasn't been included the last few years. Does anyone know where I could obtain a complete, country-by-country list of telephone tones and signals? If there's any reading available on the subject, I'd also welcome that information, since I find the topic of telephone tones rather interesting. Any information would be really appreciated. Thanks! RICK BROADHEAD e-mail: ysar1111@yorkvm1 ysar1111@VM1.YorkU.CA ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists Date: 14 May 91 19:29:52 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article sao@athena.mit.edu (Andy Oakland) writes: > In article mitel!Software!grayt@uunet. > uu.net (Tom Gray) writes: >>> service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the >>> government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other >>> communications when appropriately authorized by law. >> All this really states is that the government should have the right to >> wire tap if it gets a search warrant. I don't see anything draconian >> about this. >> You may also note that this text does NOT specicifically refer to >> encryption. > Actually, this "sense of Congress" resolution has been causing us here > at MIT Project Athena great distress, because it effectively bans > certain types of encryption. We're working on "privacy enhanced Encryption may be important in certain areas. However shared bandwidth systems are the future of the telecom network. In these systems, communications from many users will share the same physical medium. It is important that any survelliance be restricted to only those under suspicion and not to the innocent users (and probably unknowing users) of a multiplexer system. The telephone line to your house is likely terminated on a subscriber multiplexer system. A simple piece of equipment on this multiplexer could allow the systematic monitoring of all telephone loops in your neighbourhood. I have seen accounts where such systems have been used to intercept long distance trunk traffic on microwave links. ANI and routing information is decoded. It is reasonable that systems such as this be restricted and that the reasonable use of wire tapping be allowed. Only traffic specifically authorized by the search warrant should be intercepted. Additionally users can present the network with encrypted data. Encryption will take place end to end with no involvement of the network. This will be the nature of the new ISDN networks. The network will provide a shared transport function with services being performed on the periphery. ------------------------------ From: John_Richard_Bruni@cup.portal.com Subject: A Copy of "Hacker's Dictionary" Wanted Date: Tue, 14 May 91 13:33:21 PDT Pat: Re the Anterior pager article and Goodfellow, I was wondering about the book he wrote. Is the Hacker's Dictionary in print and where can one find it??? Thanx, John ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 9:59:45 EDT From: KATH MULLHOLAND Subject: IDDD Calling Is there a list available of the number of digits to be expected when dialing overseas? I know when I call the AT&T operator for help, I can usually get the structure of a valid number, for instance, two digit country code, three digit city code, seven-digit local number. Such a list for at least the major countries in Europe and Asia would be very helpful. Does one exist somewhere in a non-proprietary form? Kath Mullholand UNH, Durham NH ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 91 10:39:28 PDT From: "Louis J. Judice 15-May-1991 0933" Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airphone Public? > (many bytes of text complaining about having to lug around a cumbersome > credit card in order to make an Airphone call) I have a question for the poster ... when you buy dinner in a resturant and they give you the check, do most resturants accept your credit card number which you've memorized? If most merchants have no problem with this, I'd like to know, so I can save the extra .1 or .2 ounces of plastic I always seem to have to carry. :) ljj ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #362 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18243; 16 May 91 5:16 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17160; 16 May 91 3:46 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac00235; 16 May 91 2:35 CDT Date: Thu, 16 May 91 2:09:27 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #363 BCC: Message-ID: <9105160209.ab17859@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 May 91 02:09:12 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 363 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones [Macy Hallock] Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones [David Lemson] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Steven S. Brack] Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer [Larry Jones] Re: Omaha Utility Victim of Phone Fraud [Kath Mullholand] 900 Number Fraud on My Line [Cliff Helsel] Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [Alex Beylin] Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing [John R. Levine] Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [Christopher Lott] Re: India to US Data Link Needed [Roy Smith] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 May 91 07:53 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? Free? Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 >> I am curious (yellow) about * prefixed calls on cellular phones. >> Has anyone got a list? Are they uniform across service providers? OK, I'll throw in my $.02 here: In Cleveland/Akron Ohio: 1-800-525-5555 is the Ohio State Highway Patrol emergency reporting line. You can report any traffic emergency, DWI driver, etc. to it. No cellular company in Ohio is supposed to be charging airtime for its use. I've used it several time, it seems to ring into a single dispatch for the state and messages are relayed to the correct authority by the state computer or radio nets. This number is setup expressly for cellphone use ... and the dispatchers know it. Seems to be a well run, well trained arrangment. This number was setup before most cell carriers were able to agree on how to setup shortcut dialing ... and before 911 was widely installed. 911 rings to 911 dispatch in most areas. Very uneven info about charging for airtime. This state has a 911 law that says calls to 911 are not chargable to the caller. In some, but not all, cellular areas, dialing *911 is the same as dialing 911. Other * numbers: GTE Mobilnet initiated a uniform set of * service codes a couple of years ago and pushed the industry very hard for standardization on their scheme. So we have *70, *71, *71, *18 and others for control of features here. Mobilnet does charge for the airtime (.5 minute) when these features are invoked. *111 is tech service, *611 is billing/customer disservice, *411 is info (chargable airtime on this) and *711 is undefined for the moment (may become roamer service, I'm told) My technical sources at Mobilnet tell me that the * services are used for internal service codes (like *70) or speed dial numbers to outside lines (like *611). Billing is done on all calls by the switch, and the billing dept. prices the calls according to current company policies. I'm told that ANY number can be setup as a speed call or redirected. This is used to block 900 and 976 calls, and has been used to block certain other problem numbers in the past. The Motolola EMX's they use have a pretty decent set up for translations. Moblinet, like many other cell carriers, has made agreements with local radio stations for special numbers for traffic reporting (dial *TV8, etc). These are all billed/not billed according to the agreement made for that service. Presumably I could cut a deal with Mobilnet for *MACY to call me ... and even be a free/no airtime call ... if I worked out some type of arrangement with them. I have asked my sources at Mobilnet for more information on the standards they are putting into place in the near future concerning enhanced type cellular services. I'm told their recent change from Motorola to AT&T as a primary switch vendor was partially due to the better support of special service features of the AT&T product. (I wonder if revenue enhancement is coming to Mobilnet....) More on this when I get it. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. N8OBG 216-725-4764 Home macy@fmsystm.UUCP macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystem!macy Please use only these three reply addresses. ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Thu, 16 May 1991 01:38:11 GMT TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) writes: >> Plus in some city (I can't remember which now), there was a radio >> station that advertised it's Cellular Traffic number as *WXXX (or >> what-ever its call letters were), this rang at the main switchboard >> for the radio station (used to report accidents and traffic jams). It >> was free from all Cellular telephones, don't know about roamers. Not >> variation). So Toronto station CBL at 740 AM tells you to dial #740, > while CHFI at 98.1 FM has #981. I had assumed this was some sort of >stand ard. No so ? These calls are not free. Champaign-Urbana has one station , WLRW 94.5 FM with a free dial-in ("only from Ameritech" (the wireline carrier) phones) as *945. David Lemson University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud From: "Steven S. Brack" Date: Tue, 14 May 91 14:35:11 EDT Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4]) ken@dali.cc.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: > In article nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax. > cs.indiana.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > > [I say that dialing an unknown number w/o checking what > > charges are levied is not such a bright thing to do > > anymore.] > Okay ... I've had enough. > "Gee ... that girl should have *know* better, in this day and age, > than to walk in the parking lot at night. Just her fault she got > raped." There is a *slight* difference between a person, of his own volition, dialing a phone number and taking the consequences, and a rape victim. Besides, if the "young woman" could ask an operator whether that parking lot had a rapist in it, then it would be her fault. All you have to do is ask the phone company, and they'll tell you in what manner the number is billed. > "Gee ... that old lady should have *know* better, in this day and age, > than to trust that building contractor. Just her fault she got bilked > out of her money." No, blind trust is not a good idea. But, in this case, again not related to what wew were discussing, the contractor (I'm assuming) lied. The audiotex vendor, on the other hand, simply asked beeper users to call his number. No lies there. > Hey, after all, no one is looking out for us. It's not the criminal's > fault that he's taking advantage of our lack of vigilence. That's his > job, right? Once again, no. But if a burglar calls you up and asks you to leave your home unlocked, or simply to send him money, and you do, then I don't think the "criminal" is to blame. That situation would be more analogous to the audiotex "scam" everyone thinks is so terrible. > I got a buddy who's a plumber. Gets 30-40 calls a day on his beeper, > from all kinds of numbers (he's got a service that forwards the > numbers of people who have emergencies). If this guy get's ripped off > in the manner we are discussing, is it *really* his fault? If your buddy the plumber doesn't understand such simple concepts as dialing the operator for rate information on unrecognized numbers, then he really shouldn't use any telecom device more involved than a 500 set (not that he couldn't get himself burned there, too 8). If you decide, of your own free will, to call a telephone number, then you are agreeing to pay for the telephone service you have requested, be it a $0.25 local call or a $25.00 audiotex number. > Quit balming the *victim*, dammit! The "victim" acted of his own accord, and got what he requested from the telco. No one represented the call to be anything other than what irt was. If he or she needed more information about the charges attached to the number he or she was dialijng, the information was only a DTMF away. I wasn't "blaming" anyone who didn't voluntarily contract for a service offered them, "dammit." Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower | sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu 50 Curl Drive. | sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112 USA | brack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu +1 (011) 614 293 7383 | Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu ------------------------------ From: Larry Jones Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer Date: 15 May 91 16:08:01 GMT Organization: SDRC, Cincinnati In article , dan@sun.rice.edu (David Neal) writes: > In this month's SouthWestern Bell Bill, there is note explaining that > the PUC has ruled that 976/900 calls must be blockable for free on a > one time per line basis. Here in Ohio, the PUC ruled exactly the opposite -- Cincinnati Bell had been offering one-time-only free 900 blocking and PUCO ordered them to stop! PUCO insisted that they charge a fee sufficient to recover their costs. Ain't regulation grand? Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH 45150-2789 513-576-2070 Domain: scjones@sdrc.com Path: uunet!sdrc!scjones ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 1991 13:11:10 EDT From: KATH MULLHOLAND Subject: Re: Omaha Utility Victim of Phone Fraud Jack Winslade posted info about fraud through a voice mail system. Just a few days ago we received a very interesting letter from AT&T warning us that our voice mail system could be used to access outgoing lines and make fraudulent calls for which we could be held liable. I immediately called AT&T to ask them what the prevention for this was. they were "not at liberty to say.." The representative would not answer any questions about what we should or should not do to prevent this fraud. I can understand AT&T not wanting to print an instruction manual for voice mail fraud, but if they are going to send a warning letter, they should be willing to assist us in avoiding the pitfalls. As it is, we can only guess whether our system is secure. Kath Mullholand UNH Durham, NH ------------------------------ Subject: 900 Number Fraud on My Line Date: Tue May 14 16:46:28 1991 From: Cliff Helsel This may be of interest to persons living in an apartment complex. Last month I opened my phone bill and found a new amount due of over 300 dollars. The calls that contributed to this large amount were mainly calls to 900 numbers. I believe there were eight or so calls at 35 dollars a crack. The first thing I did was to contact the apartment complex manager and find out whether I had any type of service performed on the dates (span of two days) that the calls were made. No service had been performed so that pretty much ruled out a dishonest service person. I contacted the phone companies (local, AT&T, Sprint, MCI) and had them remove the calls from my bill. They agreed to do this as long as I put 900 blocker on my phone. I guess what happened was that a person was going around to the back of the apartment buildings and tapping into the "boxes" that had all the wiring for the apartment phones and placing calls to 900 numbers. I can just picture some guy in a trench coat holding a telephone with alligator clips :-) anyway, I just thought it was interesting. Cliff Helsle hcliff@wybbs.mi.org or hcliff@wybbs.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 91 08:35 EDT From: Alex Beylin Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI In article is written: > May I suggest looking into the Northern Telecom Norstar system. It is > the low end system in the Meridian line. Couple of questions, if I may: 1. Can this system use standard phones in addition to NT phones? 2. What are the limits for number of incomming lines and phone sets? 3. How is modem support handled? Can I make a "direct connect" between an incomming line and a modem port on my PC based on hours or can the switch detect modem on the line and automaticly transfer the call to a pre-assigned extention? 4. What is the pricing like? Thanks in advance, Alex Beylin alexb@cfctech.cfc.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 14 May 91 10:23:07 EDT (Tue) From: "John R. Levine" In article is written: > The system used in the UK to prevent collect calls to > payphones is that they send alternating tones for a few seconds when > answered which the operator will recognise and presumably treat as > though the call had been refused, In the good old days in the U.S. when men were men and telephone exchanges were soldered together from relays, a common way to identify a pay phone to the operator was to use a special line relay with a weight on the end of the contact. When the line connected to the operator, the weight would make the relay bounce and produce a distinctive sound she could recognize. Apparently, it was possible to make a collect call to a pay phone. The called party put the appropriate money into the phone. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 91 19:51:11 -0400 From: Christopher Lott Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? Organization: University of Maryland Dept of Computer Science In article is written: > a little-advertised but viable long distance carrier called "Cable and > Wireless" offers calling cards with no per-call surcharge. I called their customer service number (800-486-8686). Reps are not exactly on the ball, but after some messing around, I got some information. A traditional calling card, something like a Sprint FON Card, is apparently available only once you have 1+ service or designate them as a secondary carrier. They won't set one up the way Spring and MCI will. Anyhow, I got some quotes. "Regular" long distance service (using their network from home phone): Maryland (301-69) to Ohio (614-48) night rates $.12/min (par) "Focus 3" service is geared towards businesses; rates are better in the day Above call using this service at night was about $.15/min (poor) "Travel Service" is the calling card $.80 per call fee $.49 per minute, no matter where you call (time insensitive also?) So I dunno who told you about the "no fee calling card" or whether you made a Deal, but a no-fee calling card doesn't seem to be available to me. Or maybe I was misinformed. Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 cml@cs.umd.edu /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg 301 405-2721 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 91 20:09:52 EDT From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: India to US Data Link Needed Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City > My family is involved with a new business, and has need to transfer data > (text files) from India to the United States once weekly or daily if > possible. Can anyone suggest possible routes? Thanks. I'd say a pair of Telebit Trailblazer modems running over plain old dial-up phone lines, using kermit or uucp as a transport protocol. Trailblazers have built an amazing reputation for getting data through over the worst phone connections imaginable, and have kermit and uucp (and xmodem?) support in rom which optimizes data transfer rates when using those protocols. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #363 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11560; 17 May 91 3:38 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01294; 17 May 91 2:06 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31625; 17 May 91 0:56 CDT Date: Fri, 17 May 91 0:41:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #364 BCC: Message-ID: <9105170041.ab11169@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 May 91 00:41:32 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 364 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? [John R. Levine] Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? [Roger B.A. Klorese] Re: Adding a Modem to System 85 Set [David Ptasnik] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Mark Fulk] Re: AOS Regulation [William Clare Stewart] Re: ATC's New Bill and Customer Service Number [Alan Toscano] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Gordon Burditt] Re: 900 Number Fraud on My Line [Bob Frankston] Re: 900 Number Fraud on My Line [Ed Greenberg] Re: How is the Cost of Features Calculated? [Jeff Carroll] Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [Jeff Carroll] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 15 May 91 12:52:59 EDT (Wed) From: "John R. Levine" In article is written: > I had always assumed that the reason for their insistence on the > actual slab of plastic was to prevent people from, er, accidentally > tucking the phone into their briefcases. The seat phones found in every row of air shuttle planes have a cord but still require you to physically swipe your card through a slot on the side of the phone, even if it's an AT&T card. As has been suggested elsewhere, the number of people who would be on a plane, want to make a phone call, but not have a credit card is vanishingly small. Part of the deal with the air phone seems to be that it requires no effort at all on the part of the plane crew. Any version that accepted cash or even had the flight attendants selling phone cards would be too much work. For serious airphoners (airphoneys?) GTE has a special airphone card which requires a hefty up-front fee of about $100, but gives the user a much lower per-minute rate when it is used. Also, I am pleased to report that their customer service actually seems to work. I made an airphone call, got a connection so bad I couldn't hear anything, called the airphone operator ("What?" "I said I got a bad connection." "You'll have to speak up, we have a terrible connection.") called again later, and the indeed the bad call didn't appear on my phone bill. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl PS: Whoever suggested that a public phone has to accept cash isn't thinking clearly. Coinless pay phones have been around for years. ------------------------------ From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? Date: 15 May 91 21:11:42 GMT Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, California In article irvin@northstar.dartmouth. edu writes: > The main problem with this is that GTE doesn't want their AIRFONEs > walking off the plane in someone's carry-on. So, by forcing you to > use a credit card (which they lock in the base of the phone, until you > return the AIRFONE) they are making it much more difficult to steal > the phone. The new back-of-the-seat phones do not hold your card, but they are connected by a cord to the seatback. ROGER B.A. KLORESE MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. MS 6-05 930 DeGuigne Dr. Sunnyvale, CA 94088 +1 408 524-7421 rogerk@mips.COM {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!rogerk ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Re: Adding a Modem to System 85 Set Date: Wed, 15 May 91 14:24:19 PDT > Jeff, it is not possiable to add a modem to your new set. The "other" > jack is for add on equipment such as a speaker phone (I have one of > those sets in my office and I work on Sys 85). In order to use your > digital phone line, you would need a data module on your set AND the > other end!!! Then you would use Sys 85 to tranmit in its own language > (digital) between the two. I think you'll find that there is a work-around to this problem. One of the things that can be plugged into the "other" jack (at least on the analog sets) is a General Purpose Adapter. You can plug in a modem (certainly up to 2400 baud), a fax machine, any single line type device, into the GPA (it has a standard RJ-14 receptacle). The GPA has a three position switch on the front: Basic (grabs on outgoing line when the single line device goes off hook), Auto (in conjunction with programming, this sends ring voltage to the single line outlet and allows faxes, answering machines and modems to answer calls), and Join (interrupts an existing voice call and bridges the call to the single line outlet on the GPA). Thus you can have data connectivity thru the system 85 using a modem, but not directly from an RS-232 port on your PC. The system 85 treats the modem transmission just like a voice, converting it into it's own language for transmission through the system, and returning your voice or modem transmission to it's original form at the destination of the call (another telephone on the system, or a line port going out of the system). It is possible on the Merlin( the system 85's smaller half-brother) to set the phone up for simultaneous voice and data calls, establishing two talk paths to the phone. I forget off the top of my head if the 85 can do this as well. davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: Mark Fulk Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester Date: Wed, 15 May 1991 19:21:59 GMT Others have made some good points about overbreadth of the patent, and prior art. I am bothered by another aspect: triviality. My three year old son has more complicated and better ideas every day. If the Hayes patent holds water, I'm going to patent the phrase "excuse me" in its use to interrupt a conversation. Seriously, a patent should only be granted if the invention solves a problem that many have found difficult, or if the new solution is not trivial to find and offers significant advantages over older methods. I AM in the process of patenting a few of my own ideas, all of them much more complex than the Hayes patent, and have in fact rejected the notion of patenting other ideas as, well, patently ludicrous. (pause) +++ (pause) is, in my view, not even an idea. I have decided not to patent much better inventions (such as a nice way to keep track of transient allocations in LISP, for example). Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 91 19:54:30 EDT From: William Clare Stewart Subject: Re: AOS Regulation Organization: ENOBOZOS: Bus error In article gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) writes: > A new law that protects your rights as a telephone customer was > recently signed by President Bush. > The "Telephone Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act" is the > Federal Government's response to customer complaints about the > practices of some companies that provide operator services. Did the blurb have any references to the bill number? I'm always skeptical of things that say President Bush is trying to protect my rights :-) Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ ------------------------------ From: Alan Toscano Subject: Re: ATC's New Bill and Customer Service Number Reply-To: A Alan Toscano Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Tue, 14 May 1991 12:00:51 GMT wah@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) writes: > They also changed their phone number for Customer Service to the 749 > exchange in the 800 area code ... which is listed as belonging to > Teleconnect. ATC has several prefixes assigned to them. Why would > they use MCI (Teleconnect-> TELECOM*USA-> MCI) for their 800 number) ? ATC "purchased" the 800-749 exchange from Telecom*USA about a year ago. Newer 800 prefix listings reflect this change. From my home, calls to vacant numbers within the 800-749 exchange clearly yield ATC recordings rather than Telecom*USA recordings. A Alan Toscano Internet: P O Box 741982 ATT/MCI Mail: atoscano Telex (UT): 156232556 Houston, TX CIS: 73300,217 Prodigy: BHWR97A 77274-1982 Work: +1 713 236 6616 Home: +1 713 993 9560 ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Date: 14 May 91 06:09:56 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt > [Moderator's Note: What the guy did was certainly not very nice, but I > cannot really see the difference between what he did and someone who > calls a large number of people at random with a recorded announcement > saying to call a 900 number, then quickly glossing over the cost of > the call (to the 900 line). Surely with the recorded voice calls > urging one to call a 900 number there will be children who call > without permission and people who still are not aware of the cost. If > the folks who urge you to call a 900 number don't get prosecuted, then > neither should the joker who paged a bunch of people to call his 540 > number. PAT] This comment is absurd. If you get a call with a recorded announcement asking you to call a 900 number, you usually have a pretty good idea why you might want to call that 900 number (to enter a contest, get sports information, talk to singles, join a travel club, talk sexy with someone, or whatever). You have a pretty good idea it's not one of your patients/clients/customers whose calls you should return, and you know it's a service, even if you don't know it costs money. Glossing over the cost of the call includes revealing it, even if it's left to the end and mumbled. It may be sleazy marketing, but it's recognizable as marketing. If you get the number on a pager, the cost is NOT revealed, and there's no way to tell, assuming you don't know the 540 exchange is special (does the New York City phone book mention this? My phone book (Fort Worth) does not mention 900 numbers as special, although it does mention 976 and the mysterious 703 exchange that's blocked by default) that it's not an important call from an individual you should return. I'd say there is a fairly clear case for intent to fool people in this situation. As marketing, it's pretty lousy marketing, since it doesn't even say what the product is or who's selling it. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 91 15:56 GMT From: Bob Frankston Subject: Re: 900 Number Fraud on My Line If I understand your message, someone stole service by using your line. In order for you to get the charges removed, you must agree to be unable to ever use a 900 number yourself. Doesn't sound right. If telco's are to play the role of verification, authorization and billing agent for various services, they've got to take some responsibility for providing access to the service. After all, there are even some useful 900 services. Rather than blanket call blocking, some capability for password (PIN?) protection would make more sense. On the related topic of pager bombs (the problem of people leaving 540 numbers on pagers), one writer suggested that one should never dial a number without first calling the operator to ask the rate. I guess in a totally paranoid world, one should never take any action without proper precautions. Who knows which package contains a bomb, which diskette contains a virus (passively inserting it into a Mac will cause it to run so you can't even examine it with normal means) or even which car will suddenly start from a red light and run you down?. There must be a tradeoff between normal precautions and paranoia. I should be able to make the presumption of safety for normal activities. I do lock my doors as a matter of course, but having to verify the billing for each phone number on my pager seems to be going too far. Back to 900 numbers. They are very, very convenient (which is the whole point) and rely on the heuristic of using physical possession of a phone (line) to establish identify and authorization. This is a good first cut but rather crude. Some services do have 800 number counterparts which allow for credit cards as an alternative form of payment (at a surcharge and I'll pretend that credit cards over the telephone are safe). It would be nice if 900 numbers were viewed as a macro for a service selection, authorization and billing mechanism so that the components can be provided independently. For example, a dialing prefix to allow for credit card payments for 900 numbers (0-900??) and the option to increase the authorization/verification requirements. Yes, I know that trying to do this "right" would have probably resulted in the services not being offered at all, but that doesn't mean that one should omit the later design refinement cycles. ------------------------------ From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Date: Thu, 16 May 91 09:41 PDT Subject: Re: 900 Number Fraud on My Line Cliff Helsel writes about finding lots of 900 number calls on his bill, and speculates about a "guy in a trench coat holding a telephone with alligator clips :-) " Actually, it's easier than that, due to the pleasure of multiple wiring. If you take off the wall box in your apartment, you'll probably find a whole rats nest of wires that go through the box, and on to the next apartment. Two of those wires carry your phone line. The others carry the phone lines of other apartments in the building, probably those above and below you. It's not hard for somebody to open the box and explore the other pairs looking for dial tone. If you live in an area with an accessable ANI readback number, that person can identify the numbers and can probably discover which one belongs to which apartment. The miscreant can either choose a line at random and dial away, or take the precaution of verifying that you are not home before treating himself to phone calls at your expense. Note that your neighbor can listen to your phone calls as well. All lineman's test sets have a talk/monitor switch, and any phone can be made to do this as well, by putting a .047 mfd capacitor in series with one side of the line going to the set. The most frustrating thing is that I can't think of a single thing to do about it. Watch your phone bill carefully. edg ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: How is the Cost of Features Calculated? Date: 14 May 91 00:00:38 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > Is it just my paranoid, conspiracy-seeking mind or do the RBOC's > always seem to introduce all these new, fancy services with a monthly > price tag of between $3 and $8. Yup. But wait 'til they introduce ISDN... :^) Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? Date: 13 May 91 23:58:03 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) writes: > I just got my AT&T Universal bill, and noticed that over 50% of the > cost of my long distance calls is due to the 75 cent per-call > surcharge which they tag onto all calling card calls. (I guess their > ads claiming you pay "only low AT&T rates" are a little bit > dishonest). > Are there calling cards without this extra fee? I don't honestly know whether this is the case any more since I turned over bill-paying to my wife several months ago, but it used to be that Sprint charged no more for "calling card" calls than for calls from home. In fact, it *used* to be that you dialed both kinds of call the same way. And it *used* to be that Sprint was a whole hell of a lot cheaper than AT&T ... Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #364 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14223; 17 May 91 4:50 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19931; 17 May 91 3:21 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01294; 17 May 91 2:07 CDT Date: Fri, 17 May 91 1:31:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #365 BCC: Message-ID: <9105170131.ab25381@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 May 91 01:31:07 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 365 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [Steven S. Brack] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [Carl Moore] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [Ted Marshall] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [David Lemson] Re: Cellular Phones on Planes [Brian Kantor] Re: Airfone Charges [Ed Hopper] Re: Airfone Charges [Eric Dittman] Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? [Leryo Malbito] Cellular Information Wanted [Tony Harminc] Cellular 911 Calls [Blake Farenthold] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! From: "Steven S. Brack" Date: Wed, 15 May 91 19:12:03 EDT Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4]) steves@aerobat.labs.tek.com (Steve Shellans) writes: > In article reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) > writes: [Talks about activating his cellphone in an aircraft] >> I realize that you're "not supposed to" do things like this, but if >> anything had happened I could always have called 911 ;-)> > I don't think this is funny. The reason you're not supposed to do > things like this is that stray signals from transmitters and other > kinds of electronic equipment can interfere with the navigation > instruments. While using a cellphone in an aircraft is not a good idea (it, in fact, has the potential of denying cellular service to users over a multi-state area), aircraft navigation equipment is really very hardy. The frequency and power put out by a cellphone shouldn't have an appreciable effect on airline equipment. It may, however interfere with the equipment used in general aviation aircraft. > [Moderator's Note: I did not think it was funny either ... maybe next > time he decides to flex the rules a little in his experiments he will > try the one which says 'keep all radios, including cell phones, turned > off in areas where dynamite and other explosive powders are being > used.' If anything goes wrong, someone will always call 911 :( PAT] In all seriousness: can a cellphone trigger explosives? It seems that a radiodetonator would need to be very selective about what signals trigger it. Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower | sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu 50 Curl Drive. | sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112 USA | brack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu +1 (011) 614 293 7383 | Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu [Moderator's Note: They are very selective about signals, however a very close radio signal often times can overwhelm receivers in the area, overloading them with the signal from the nearby unit. I've never heard of a cell phone (or any radio) causing an explosion like this, but I guess it is possible. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 91 15:20:03 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! "They don't *tell* you that anywhere"? That causes concern with reference to people who are new to that. I have still from time to time seen signs about "blasting area -- turn off two-way radio". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 91 13:45:27 PDT From: Ted Marshall Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! I am wandering away from cellular and telecom in general, but I feel that someone needs to respond to this. Note: I am not an Airline pilot or in any way associated with an airline. However, I am a private pilot and am familiar with aeronautical radio navigation. In article , ronnie@sos.com (Ron Schnell) writes: > [...] The FM radio/Computer rules are generally airline policy. It is > pretty much accepted these days that these things can't really mess up > the navigation equipment. Most airliners now use longer range > navigation systems like LORAN or various satellite-based systems, > which can't be upset by FM interference. [...] This is just plain wrong! Loran-C and GPS (satellite) navigation are being used in air navigation, but, to my knowledge, mostly in smaller aircraft. GPS, in particular, cannot be used 24-hours/day because there are not yet enough satellites in place. Over-ocean operations do use other forms of navigation, including inertial navigation, but almost all domestic US enroute navigation is via VOR (VHF Omnidirectional Range). Also, bad weather approaches into all major and many minor airports are via ILS (Instrument Landing System). Both VOR and the lateral directional portion of the ILS use the frequency range 108-118 MHz. Note that this is right above the FM broadcast band. Now, say that you are on an airliner shooting an ILS approach with an ILS frequency of 110.1. If you have an FM receiver on board with an IF frequency of 10.7 MHz (very common) and you tune it to 99.4 MHz, it may well leak an RF signal at 110.1. That may not be strong enough to interfere, but if it is, I would not like to be in the next seat as the pilot shoots an approach in a 200-foot overcast and 1/2 mile visibility. Bottom line: don't assume that that FM broadcast band radio you brought on board won't cause problems. Maybe it won't, but you're betting many lives on that. Ted Marshall ted@airplane.sharebase.com ShareBase Corp., 14600 Winchester Blvd, Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)378-7000 The opinions expressed above are those of the poster and not his employer. ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 01:51:58 GMT reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) writes: >> Warning: Using a Cellular phone on an aircraft is a violation of federal >> law and probably some FAA regulations too. You risk getting arrested. > Yes -- but they don't *tell* you that anywhere, so I assume I'll get > at least one warning (before possible arrest) if I decide to try it Would someone who actually *knows* please check whether or not there is an FCC regulation against cellular use in airplanes? It is not written anywhere that I have seen in a lot of Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems literature, and several people whose LIVES are personal communication (one of whom happens to be my dad.. :-) ) (Double grin on the above statement.. :-) ) have told me that they did not believe that there is any law against cellular use in aircraft. David Lemson University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Cellular Phones on Planes Date: 16 May 91 15:53:35 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. This discussion has come up before; dunno why it keeps coming up over and over again without the Moderator referring people to the previous go-round. Anyway, what I understand is: 1. in a private aircraft, under FAA rules, the pilot in command determines what electronic devices may be used. Thus you ask permission of him (or yourself, as appropriate). 2. in a commercial aircraft, such as an airliner, again, under FAA rules,the airline sets the policy, and the pilot is generally not permitted to override that policy. Most airlines have a policy prohibiting all RF-radiating devices such as walkies, cellphones, etc. Some have will grant exceptions to that policy if the device is certified by the airline to not cause interference; after that point it's up to the pilot. 3. The FCC (different agency) prohibits the use of cellphones (explicitly cellphones) in flight because of the potential for multicell interference. So my understanding is: you might as well pack your cellphone when travelling on a commercial carrier, unless they're fudging the rules and letting you use it on the ramp, and you shouldn't use it once you're in the air no matter what kind of transportation you're using. Brian ------------------------------ From: ehopper@attmail.com Date: Thu May 16 10:15:04 CDT 1991 Subject: Re: Airfone Charges A couple of points: First regarding the acceptance of AT&T Calling Cards by GTE AirFone and some surprise by one correspondent at that fact: AT&T & GTE announced that the AT&T Calling Card would be accepted some time ago with a fair amount of fanfare including advertising in in-flight and regular magazines. I recall an ad with an AT&T Calling Card that had sprouted wings. Second, with regard to Kath Mulholland's difficulty in finding a way to contact AirFone, a word in defense of GTE. Please keep in mind that big companies are segmented and that it is common for front line grunts to NOT have information on divisions other than their own. Should they? Perhaps. We have an 800 number within AT&T to call in order to attempt to find "who's in charge" of a particular area. Not everyone, unfortunately, has the presence of mind to use it. (No I can't tell you what it is, I am specifically prohibited from doing so. It is considered an "internal" number). While a perfect world would have every rep totally knowledgeable about every aspect of the business, I don't really think it is realistic. YOu wouldn't go wandering into a Chevy dealer to ask questions about EDS would you? Now with regard to a logical approach to things, if I had been confronted with Ms. Mullholland's problem, the logical approach to me would be to contact the airline. Additionally, I believe some printed materials in the plane (either ads for the phone in the in-flight rag or the dialing instruction card) contains a customer service number. Ed Hopper ------------------------------ From: Eric Dittman Subject: Re: Airfone Charges Date: 16 May 91 16:46:09 CDT Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility In article , K_MULLHOLAND@unhh.unh.edu (KATH MULLHOLAND) writes: [problems with using the GTE Airphone and getting credit for the call deleted] > This month, finally got my credit and a very nice letter of apology. > I wonder, however, how often people just pay instead of trying to find > out where to go for a credit. I guess if I hadn't had sources, I > would have bullied my bank more. > What has been the experience of others? I had a problem with a call on the Airphone last Christmas season. When I landed, I called the number for credit. I don't know why you had so much trouble finding out how to give credit, because the phone, the instruction sheet, and the information sheet all have a notice saying to call 1-800-xxxxxxx (some name, AIRFONE, I think) if you have any problems or questions. The 800 call is even free from the Airphone, but I couldn't use it because I couldn't hear anything as well. When I called the 800 number, the person was very nice and took down the information on the problem. When I got my American Express invoice the next month, both the charge and the credit were on it. Simple, easy, with no heartburn (strange to be able to say that about GTE!). Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility dittman@skitzo.csc.ti.com dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com Disclaimer: I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test Facility. I don't even speak for myself. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 91 18:53:26 -0400 From: Leryo Malbito Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? In TELECOM Digest V11.362 Louis Judice compares my dilemma to that of a patron of a restaurant attempting to use his memorized credit card number. Although I have somewhat toned down my argument after realizing that it didn't have much substance and thinking of several cases which disprove my point, this is not one of them. The point here is that I was talking about a telephone, not a restaurant. NY Tel Calling Card phones and AT&T calling card phones which both do not accept coins DO accept card numbers. The NY TEL phones will ONLY accept numbers, as they have no slot for coins nor for cards. All the phones in the airports I have encountered, even those which accept cards, always accept just the number. This is the case with phones. Restaurants are an incorrect analogy. Leryo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 91 17:54:01 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Cellular Information Wanted Can someone recommend a good book or document on cellular mobile ? I am not looking for a Mickey Mouse (tm?) overview, but for something that describes in some detail the process of setting up a call, hand-off, paging, roaming, etc. I have the reference document from the DOC which consists of state descriptions for a finite state machine, and doesn't make a good introduction. Because this document is intended for makers of mobile *sets*, it doesn't cover how the base stations and the overall network work. I am most interested in the North American standard, but also in descriptions of other systems worldwide. I understand the UK system is a minor modification to the NA one. From what I have read, some aspects of the system design seem quite bizarre. I was expecting a neat separation of the hardware and software design, but it looks as though they are sort of munged together. Does someone here know something of the background - i.e. how did this system come to be the way it is ? Tony Harminc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 91 12:13:15 CDT From: Blake Farenthold Organization: pro-party BBS, Corpus Christi, TCX (+[+1 512 882-1899] Subject: Cellular 911 Calls > [Moderator's Note In many large urban areas 911 won't work correctly > from cell phones ... Here in Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems Area (Corpus Christi, TX) SWBMS promotes FREE 911 Calls and urges you to use the service. A call to 911 gets you a Southwestern Bell (RBOC not Mobile Systems I THINK she Identifies herself as Southwestern Bell) operator who seems to have no idea you dialed 911. You end up having to ask her to connect you to 911 ... she does, and then spends about three to five seconds telling the 911 operator you are a cellular caller (but NOT your cellular number) and giving her operator number. This whole process adds almost fifteen seconds to completing the call, and I find that ANNOYING if not dangerous. FYI I toured the 911 dispatch center a couple of months ago. Three monitors at each dispatch station ... a Computer Aided Dispatch system with a huge X-windowed monitor that had three active windows on it ... one showing the calls that the operator (different person) had taken, one showing available units and taking assignments if who got which calls and one for querying licence plate records. The second (looked like CGA) was associated with the trunked 800 mhz radio system ... showed units in that dispatchers channels and who was transmitting ... the third was off. The 911 Answer station was a regular phone with a rectangular AT&T box about the size of a digital clock that I assume showed the incoming phone number ... Corpus does not yet have the service that gives addresses as well (though we have been paying taxes for it for some time) and that it takes as long as 20 minutes to call SW Bell in San Antonio to get an address. The whole dispatch station is protected by a halon fire protection system.. when the alarm goes off they operators and dispatchers have a couple of minutes to evacuate the dispatch area before the (apparently deadly) halon is released. while evacuated dispatch continues over walkie talkies from the parking lot but 911 calls go un answered. As a side note, I was on a ride-along last week and the entire dispatch system crashed for four plus hours ... they were using scratch pads to dispatch, and couldn't look up license plates and identification information. The radios still worked though the officer I was with said they had been down (radios) last week for an extended period. UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake Internet: blake@pro-party.cts.com Blake Farenthold | Voice: 800/880-1890 | MCI: BFARENTHOLD 1200 MBank North | Fax: 512/889-8686 | CIS: 70070,521 Corpus Christi, TX 78471 | BBS: 512/882-1899 | GEnie: BLAKE ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #365 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16663; 17 May 91 6:05 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09719; 17 May 91 4:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac19931; 17 May 91 3:21 CDT Date: Fri, 17 May 91 2:11:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #366 BCC: Message-ID: <9105170211.ab01652@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 May 91 02:10:45 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 366 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Henry E. Schaffer] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Tony Harminc] Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing [Bill Huttig] Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing [Carl Moore] Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer [John Higdon] Re: A Copy of "Hacker's Dictionary" Wanted [Tom Perrine] Re: Old Phone Numbers [Robert Swenson] Re: *-Prefixed calls on Cell Phones/(NYNEX) [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: AT&T's Account Code System [Craig R. Watkins] Re: Bay Area Cellular Service [Marty Brenneis] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Henry E. Schaffer" Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 02:46:32 GMT In article bluemoon!sbrack@cis. ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > ... All you have to do is ask the phone company, and they'll tell > you in what manner the number is billed. > If your buddy the plumber doesn't understand such simple > concepts as dialing the operator for rate information on unrecognized > numbers, ... I've been getting kind of steamed at some of this discussion - (I think that this scam is wrong, even if technically it is legal) but I think that this poster has shown one type of solution. If *everyone* asks for rate information for *every* number they dial when they don't recognize the area-code/exchange, I bet it wouldn't take too long for the telcos to figure out some better method which doesn't take this much effort! henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Date: 17 May 91 02:12:47 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan bluemoon!sbrack@cis.ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > The "victim" acted of his own accord, and got what he > requested from the telco. No one represented the call to be anything > other than what irt was. If he or she needed more information about > the charges attached to the number he or she was dialijng, the > information was only a DTMF away. I wasn't "blaming" anyone who > didn't voluntarily contract for a service offered them, "dammit." I'm getting a little annoyed at your sophilism, sir. Let ME give you an example. I set up a little shop. Outside the shop, I place a sign that says "Please come in." If you think to ask, I will tell you that when you do so, you will be automatically charged a $50 cover charge. Otherwise, as soon as you put one step in the door, bingo, $50, whether you like it or not. Now, do you really think that is fair? Quite frankly, if you do, then you've got your head in the sand. More likely you'd be screaming for the cops! And what about the poor schmuck who misdials the number by accident? The solution, as has been mentioned before, is a description of charges and a grace period. And with that, I will say no more (probably to the relief of everyone, our esteemed Moderator most of all!) Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 91 15:40:14 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud There's been quite a bit of discussion about who's to blame in the "pager calls with chargeable call-back numbers" scam. But I am amazed that it appears that many (all?) US phone systems allow seven-digit calls to be billable. Here there is a rule (unwritten but pretty strong) that you can't be billed for a seven-digit call. You have to knowingly dial 1 (or 0) in order to call a billable number. This applies to 976 as well as long-distance calls. Are you USAers happy with the possibility of paying for seven-digit calls? Why is there no 1+ requirement to let you know ? It seems a little silly that everyone should have to remember a huge list of prefixes in order to avoid placing expensive calls, whether 540 or 976 type, or just normal toll calls within the NPA. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing Date: 16 May 91 17:27:50 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL My aunt's phone number is 813-xxx-9xxx and her number is fairly new. It is serviced by GTE of Florida. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 91 15:38:34 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing There might be at least one Connecticut phone number ending in 9xxx which is not a pay phone. Many years ago, I answered a ringing pay phone in Newark, Delaware on 302-366-9xxx, and heard a LOT of white noise in the background and a (British-accent?) operator trying to complete a collect call. I said I didn't think I could take it, and that she had reached area 302, 366-9xxx; the operator said "302, 203 -- oh, wrong number!" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 91 10:29 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer Larry Jones writes: > Here in Ohio, the PUC ruled exactly the opposite -- Cincinnati Bell > had been offering one-time-only free 900 blocking and PUCO ordered > them to stop! PUCO insisted that they charge a fee sufficient to > recover their costs. Ain't regulation grand? Here in kinder, gentler California, the "free" blocking is picked up by the information providers. In its usual mismanaged way, Pac*Bell originally offered "California 976" without any organization, control, or blocking even proposed. Calls from outside the state could easily reach California 976 numbers and since no billing mechanism was in place, the IP just got stiffed. In fact, a favorite pastime of out-of-staters was to call 976 numbers in CA since they were, in effect, free (except for the toll charges). Then an outcry went up from both telephone customers and the IPs. Customers complained that little Jerry could call the heavy breathing sex numbers and run up the family phone bill. IPs complained that Pac*Bell was graciously removing charges right and left ("recharges") and that it was impossible to get a handle on revenue. Then came blocking. People at Pac*Bell realized that a few characters typed in at RCMAC could prevent calls to 900/976. So they put a grossly inflated price tag on the concept of blocking and then slapped the information providers with the "cost". Pac*Bell became the telcom hero of the day. And it found yet another scam to drain the pockets of Californians. Since the blocking scheme cannot be used except in stored-program-type offices, and the PUC requires blocking be provided to all who request it (if at all available), a cheap and dirty way to get out of a crossbar switch is to order blocking. A friend had a crossbar number in an office that was also served by an ESS. Pac*Bell informed him that the ESS was "closed" (not accepting new lines) even if he wanted custom calling features. I told him to request 900/976 blocking. He now has an ESS-served number, changed at no charge by Pac*Bell. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Tom Perrine Subject: Re: A Copy of "Hacker's Dictionary" Wanted Date: 16 May 91 19:16:59 GMT Reply-To: Tom Perrine Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California In article John_Richard_Bruni@cup. portal.com writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 362, Message 9 of 11 > Pat: > Re the Anterior pager article and Goodfellow, I was wondering about > the book he wrote. Is the Hacker's Dictionary in print and where can > one find it??? The Hacker's Dictionary is really a de-mystified version of the "Jargon file" which was kept online somewhere. My original Jargon file is from 1977 or so. This came out of MIT and Stanford. Unfortunately, I no longer have an online copy :-( My copy of the Hacker's Dictionary is from 1983. I don't think that there have been any new editions yet (see below). Bib data: Hacker's Dictionary Guy Steele (and others) Harper and Row, 1983 ISBN 0-06-091082-8 There is apparently a project underway to revise the hackers dictionary and produce a second edition. Try jargon@think.com. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 1991 15:09:42 PDT From: Robert_Swenson.OSBU_North@xerox.com Subject: Re: Old Phone Numbers Talking about old phone numbers; party line phones, etc., when I was growing up in Berkeley, Calif, before and during WWII my home phone was Berkeley 1199-W. The phone of a house across the street was Berkeley 1199-J. Some frends of ours in Albany, the next city to the north, had Berkeley 1199. The Berkeley exchanges (Berkeley, Thornwall, Ashburry) were manual until quite late in time - about 1946 when they were converted to dial. They were almost the last area to go dial in the San Francisco area, always excluding the famous exchange in San Francisco, China. The operators in China knew each resident of Chinatown by name, calls could be placed within the exchange by name, and the operators could frequently track someone down if he/she was away from home. All gone now. During WWII the Berkeley area manual exchanges became very overloaded. New phone connections were almost impossible to get, but they could be gotten in extreme cases. All phone numbers were four digit except that during the war, some numbers in Ashburry were five digit. The young woman who became my wife had a five digit phone number. Exchange names: Berkeley became BErkeley became BErkeley-7 became BE7 became 237. (Our friends in Albany had been moved to LAndscape-5 with the same four digits.) Along the way our part of town became LAndscape-6 which became LA6 which became 526 except for pay phones which became CEdar-7. Note this is the same numbers as BErkeley-7 (237). Bob Swenson [Moderator's Note: Ah yes, speaking of China, have you ever seen the famous photograph which AT&T used in their centennial history book a few years ago? It was full of fascinating old photographs, but my favorite was the one entitled 'San Fransisco, China Exchange'. From right after the start of this century, it showed an old-fashioned switchboard with a Chinese woman operator, and a young girl playing on the floor next to her. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 16-MAY-1991 18:19:24.11 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: *-Prefixed calls on Cell Phones/(NYNEX) Just a quick (minor) addition: David E. Sheafer (nin15b0b@stan.merrimack.edu) wrote: > These are the * prefixed numbers for NYNEX Mobile in New England > (MA,RI and southern NH) and the appropriate charges: > *18 follow-me-roaming activation No Charge # > *19 Follow-me-roaming deactivation No Charge > # In certain instances the host cellular service carrier may charge a daily > activation fee for Follow-Me-Roaming activation. Hmmm ... there are other systems that charge for this? If anyone knows of any, could you please drop me a note? NYNEX/Boston (Mass, RI, and NH) bills AIRTIME and a daily charge for BOTH *18 and *19 calls. (Follow Me Roaming Activations and Deactivations). This is the ONLY system that I know of which does this. Thus, hitting *18 or *19 once, and not doing anything else that day will result in: $ .75 FMR ACT $3.00 Dialy Access Charge $ .22 Tax ------------------------- $3.97 Total NYNEX/Boston charges. Also note that if FMR won't activate (ie, it is not working, or slow, which is VERY common in the Boston system), you will still be charged. Additionally, if you don't receive the confirmation tone (a three-way dial tone, sort of), you will still be billed, and you will be billed for any additional *18/*19 afterwards. This happened to me once - The system did not return the dial tone, I hit *18 several times during the day, wound up with a bill for $25 for the DAY!. Note also that there is what seems to be a SEPARATE system (at least for roamers) on the Cape, and if you somehow access that system (it comes in around Hingham at times), you will also be billed the whole $3.97 all over again. I'm not too happy with this, which is why I don't use them too much, even though GTE/SF removes all these charges for me. I've gotten bills from GTE with $30 of NYNEX/Boston charges, all due to FMR, which GTE had to remove. I know GTE absorbs the cost for this, so I hate to keep doing it. I don't know of ANY other system which does this, but there may be, so look out! This is VERY unusual for a "B" system, and many systems, such as Bell Atlantic, are quite upset about this. NYNEX is making a LOT of money this way, while the other "B"s, probably in the interest of their customers (to an extent) do not asses this charge. In my opinion, NYNEX/Boston is being patently unfair, and by taking advantage of other "B" roamers, is making the FMR system (which is marginal at best) even less useful. Just some more thoughts on roaming ..:) (or really, :( ) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Ameritech charges $4.50 per month to have *18 activated on your line. Of the various B carriers I am familiar with, they are also the only ones to hedge when you activate it, by responding that ' ... follow me roaming will be activated on your line in approximatly 30 minutes ...'. None of the others respond with a message giving that delay, however Ameritech has never taken that long when I have used *18. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: AT&T's Account Code System Date: 16 May 91 18:05:28 EST Organization: HRB Systems In article , DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: > Neat thing about the service is that you can hit the octothorpe / > pound/#-key to place a new call. No need to hang up. A real bonus when > you have three-way calling that doesn't care about Answer Supervision. > (IE, you have to hang up for a LONG time to place a new call. Ok, ok, > three seconds isn't THAT long, but ...) One problem that I sometimes have is while calling a voicemail system. I dial with my account code, the voicemail system answers, and I hit # to get into a particular mode (directory lookup). I sometimes hit it before supervision and get thrown back to AT&T. A bit of a pain. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ From: Marty Brenneis Subject: Re: Bay Area Cellular Service Date: 16 May 91 04:43:08 GMT It's interesting to learn about the local cell services and confirm I made the right choice: GTE Mobilnet. Why GTE?? (I know their landline services are junk) They have better service all around. The Cellular One sales force did nothing to sell me on their network. They spent their time knocking GTE's switch, even the sales woman at Big M was knocking the GTE switch, saying it was inferior. She didn't know GTE has a Motorola switch. I use FMR regularly and the only time I had a problem was when Cell One decided to add my ESN to the hot sheet. No one could explain how it got there. The few times I've had a service complaint I got a call from a real technoid who could speak tech talk and would later get back to me and explain what was hosed in the system. The big technical difference is the cell sites. GTE has many low level sites whereas Cell One has fewer high level sites. I thought the idea was to keep the sites low and have lots of them. The other thing I learned a few days ago is how GTE bills for interlata calls. They have least cost routing amongst several IXCs. I found out when I called to try and select a "dial 1 IXC". Cell One apparently will let you select an IXC. Sounds like cool folks to me dude! Marty the Droid Industrial Magician droid@well ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #366 ******************************  ISSUES 367 AND 368 GOT REVERSED. 367 WILL APPEAR AFTER 368.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07986; 19 May 91 3:33 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23898; 19 May 91 1:53 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31597; 19 May 91 0:43 CDT Date: Sun, 19 May 91 0:38:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #368 BCC: Message-ID: <9105190038.ab18650@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 May 91 00:38:20 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 368 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Patton M. Turner] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Mike Spann] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Brian Cuthie] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [James Turner] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [John Stanley] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Martin McCormick] Re: Cellular 911 Calls [David Lemson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 May 91 12:08:00 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft > In all seriousness: can a cellphone trigger explosives? It > seems that a radiodetonator would need to be very selective about what > signals trigger it. Under proper conditions, blasting caps can be set off by an RF field. A few years ago, while installing a fiber link between two CO's near here I had some caps left over after we blasted a trench through rock on a section of highway right-of-way. Being the curious sort, I decided to see if I could set a cap off with a CB or VHF radio. I cut one leg of the wire to a resonant length (about 50 feet, slightly higher for the CB), and grounded the other leg to a ground rod. Using a 2 meter amateur transmitter feeding 150 watts in to a 5/8 wave (3db gain) antenna, the cap exploded from a distance of 20 feet (this was probably overkill). The CB did not set the cap off at a distance of 7 feet. Note: I buried the cap in the ground, I'm not stupid. There are several reason that caps are almost never set off accidentally. First, lead wires are NEVER allowed to be grounded, and splices are not even allowed to touch the ground. Secondly, the shooting line (wire from caps to blasting machine) is twisted together to prevent an induced potential between the wires. Finally, the end of the shooting line is shunted until it is attached to the blasting machine, then the blasting machine will shunt the line until the fire switches are depressed. In conclusion, I believe it would be virtually impossable to detonate a blasting cap with a cell phone. But just to be safe ... Pat Turner KB4GRZ internet: pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ From: mike spann Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft Date: 17 May 91 19:38:21 GMT Reply-To: Mike Spann Organization: gammafax In article bluemoon!sbrack@cis.ohio- state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > In all seriousness: can a cellphone trigger explosives? It > seems that a radiodetonator would need to be very selective > about what signals trigger it. > [Moderator's Note: They are very selective about signals, however a > very close radio signal often times can overwhelm receivers in the > area, overloading them with the signal from the nearby unit. I've > never heard of a cell phone (or any radio) causing an explosion like > this, but I guess it is possible. PAT] Digging way back into my memory, I do remember a story (maybe even true) where police officers were told not to dump their spare bullets into the same bag as their hand held radios. The story I was told was that should the push-to-talk button be pressed, the electro-magnetic waves could cause a round to go off. When pressed to explain, their technical expert said that the oxides between the primer and the case could act as a rectifier at 150 MHz, and convert some of the five watts of radio energy into a DC voltage. Supposedly, this DC voltage could set off the primer and therefore the bullet. I thought this was a flimsy excuse, but it seemed to be accepted by all the experts who were trying to figure out why some cop accidently shot himself. I am not sure what this has to do with Telecom other than side effects of seemingly harmless acts are often difficult to fully comprehend. Michael Spann mikes@gammalink.com Voice: +1-408-744-1430 Fax: +1-408-744-1549 UUCP: ...!uunet!gammafax!mikes CIS: 73747,441 ------------------------------ From: Brian Cuthie Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Aircraft Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services Date: Sat, 18 May 1991 04:33:24 GMT In article geek@media-lab.media.mit. edu.media.mit.edu (Chris Schmandt) writes: > Recently I've gotten rather fond of placing calls while sitting on the > plane at the gate. Good for last minute things (esp. if you can board > early and try to get some work done) and getting arrival time messages > out that might actually be correct! (also much cheaper and clearer > than Airfone) Actually, the avionics in a plane undergo some incredible testing for succeptibility to RFI. They are tested to not be affected by flying right by a 50 MegaWatt television transmitter. I doubt seriously that a 600 mw cell phone is going to be an issue. Clearly you don't want to use a cell phone in a plane as it would tie up a *lot* of cells. However, there are mechanisms within the cellular system to keep this from being catastrophic. It's just resource wastefull, since cells that reuse the same channel must be shut down (on that channel). After all, it's no worse than someone using a handheld cell phone from the 80th floor of a building or from atop a mountain. brian [Moderator's Note: Come to think of it, I've used my handheld a couple times from the observation deck at Sears Tower here, and from the Hancock Center. In fact, in the Hancock Center the Traffic Reporters have their office: you look through a glass window and a sign says to dial *123 on your Ameritech cell phone to talk to the person on duty. I wonder why they encourage a cell call like that from such a height. Of course, aircraft are quite a bit higher. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 May 91 11:01:14 EDT From: James Turner Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft I don't know if anyone has actually posted the FAR (Federal Air Regulation) that applies to this kind of stuff, but I thought I'd give you the verbatim text: FAR Part 91 (General Operating and Flight Rules) 91.21 Portable Electronic Devices (a) Except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft: (1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or (2) Any other aircraft while it is operating under IFR. (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to - (1) Portable voice recorders; (2) Hearing aids; (3) Heart pacemakers; (4) Electric shavers; or (5) Any other protable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communications system of the aircraft on which itis to be used. (c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination requried by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of any other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft. COMMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS: (a) - Not that these regs are binding over US-registered planes only. What you do on a British Airways flight from JFK is between you and them. (1) This is basically any commerical air carrier. (2) This is anyone flying under instrument conditions (poor visibility). This means any pilot in any aircraft, not just commercial. (b)(5) Note that the person making the decision must determine that the device WILL NOT interfere. This is different from prohibiting devices that WILL interfere. Basically, if you're not sure, you can't permit it. (c) Also note that the Pilot in Command (Captain) of a commercial flight is not allowed to make this determination. It must be made by the owner (read lawyers). Hope this will help clarify things. James M. Turner | > (LET ((DISCLAIMER 'INTERLEAF-NOT-RESPONSIBLE)) Senior System Engineer Interleaf, Inc ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft From: John Stanley Date: Fri, 17 May 91 20:17:57 EDT Organization: Mad Scientist lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) writes: > Would someone who actually *knows* please check whether or not there > is an FCC regulation against cellular use in airplanes? I attempted to mail this to the first questioner, but his return address was mangled. FAA: Use of electronic equipment onboard aircraft is covered by Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 91, Section 91.21. This section prohibits use of any electronic device on board an aircraft, with a VERY short list of exceptions. Para. 91.21(c) specifies who may authorize exceptions and allow other equipment. For holders of an operating certificate (i.e. air carriers) the OPERATOR of the aircraft must make the authorization. This is NOT the pilot. Some have opined that the pilot is the official representative of the operator, but this is contradicted by the next sentence in 91.21(c) which says the pilot or operator may authorize use in other aircraft. If the pilot were authorized to make exceptions to 91.21, there would not be a need to specify 'pilot' as an authorization agent for other aircraft. FCC: The use of land cellular telephones is prohibited by exclusion. Section 2.106 of 47CFR lists frequency allocations by type of service (land mobile, etc.) and 22.902 lists those frequencies allocated to the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service. The frequencies specified in 22.902 are allocated to land mobile service in 2.106. The FCC issued a Public Notice, clarifying the rules. The text of that notice follows (note that the date is 1984 and some sections of the rules have changed numbers) (also, I have talked to both the people listed as contacts, within the last two months, and the status of the situation is stil the same): PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202/254-7674. Recorded listing of releases and texts 202/632-0002. COMMON CARRIER PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES INFORMATION CELLULAR UNITS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR AIRBORNE USE Report No. CL-142 October 11, 1984 The Mobile Services Division has received several inquiries regarding the use of cellular mobile and portable units in airplanes and helicopters. The public should be aware that such use on cellular units is _not_ permitted inder the Rules. Use of a cellular unit while airborne is likely to cause serious interference both within the cellular system and in other cellular systems, because an airborne unit will have a transmitting range much greater than the land-based unit for which cellular systems are engineered. Under the Commission's rules, airborne mobile units must be individually licensed for air-ground service and may only communicate through base stations licensed for the 450-MHz air-ground service and may only communicate through base stations frequencies listed in Section 22.521. See also Sections 22.9(c), 22.15(i)(3), and 22.509. There are no cellular frequencies available for air-ground service, and persons owning, installing, or operating airborne cellular units will be subject to enforcement action. For further information, Contact Michael Ferrente on 202 653-5560 or Claudia Borthwick on 202 632-6400. - FCC - _SEE_ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - CC Docket No. 88-411, FCC 88-278, Released September 2, 1988, 3 FCC Rcd 5265 (1988). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 May 91 15:01:31 CDT From: u1906ad@unx.ucc.okstate.edu Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft Recently somebody was wondering about the warning signs seen around areas where explosives are being used, advising people to turn off their cellular phones and two-way radios. While I am not an explosives expert, I can comment on the reason for this prohibition. Some of you have probably had the unpleasant experience of hearing a CB or other type of radio transmission over something that wasn't supposed to be a radio such as a stereo amplifier or telephone. This happens because the radio frequency signal is changed from alternating current to direct current by solid-state components in the system getting the interference. The DC signal is an extra voltage introduced randomly into the system which can have unpredictable results. In an amplifier, it causes noise or actual audio to be heard. In a computer system, it may scramble data and cause a system crash. While the detonators used on a construction site, for example, may not be radio controlled, the wire leading to them can act as an antenna. A nearby radio transmitter might just develop enough current in the wire to trigger the detonator. Finally, mobile phones and frequency-trunked radios should probably be turned clear off because they can automatically transmit as a result of a command from the controlling system such as the answer to a ping. When considering the things that could go wrong, the expression "safety first" really applies. Martin McCormick amateur radio WB5AGZ Oklahoma State University Computer Center Data Communications Group Stillwater, OK ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Re: Cellular 911 Calls Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 20:20:05 GMT blake@pro-party.cts.com (Blake Farenthold) writes: > Here in Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems Area (Corpus Christi, TX) > SWBMS promotes FREE 911 Calls and urges you to use the service. A > call to 911 gets you a Southwestern Bell (RBOC not Mobile Systems I > THINK she Identifies herself as Southwestern Bell) operator who seems > to have no idea you dialed 911. You end up having to ask her to > connect you to 911 ... she does, and then spends about three to five In St. Louis (also SBMS) there are two numbers for 911: 311 for Illinois and 511 for Missouri (or is it the other way around? Once I was in an accident and dialed the wrong one by mistake because I was so shaken up -- the Illinois man was nice about it, though, but I did have to hang up and redial). Every time I've called 511, I get a 911 operator who then connects me with the emergency line of the police of the city I happen to be in! I suppose that if someone was hurt, he or she wouldn't take the time to put you on hold (I hope!) and connect you with the right city, but it's rather disheartening to be put on hold when you call 911. (Especially when it's you who was in the accident, you end up telling your story twice - grrr...) > FYI I toured the 911 dispatch center a couple of months ago. [story about dispatch center deleted] > The whole dispatch station is protected by a halon fire protection > system ... when the alarm goes off they operators and dispatchers have > a couple of minutes to evacuate the dispatch area before the > (apparently deadly) halon is released. Incidentally, Halon works by sucking up all of the available oxygen, thus killing the fire -- that's why it's a bad thing to be in the same room with vast amounts of Halon. David Lemson University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #368 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08176; 19 May 91 3:40 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23898; 19 May 91 1:49 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31597; 19 May 91 0:42 CDT Date: Sat, 18 May 91 23:43:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #367 BCC: Message-ID: <9105182343.ab07646@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 18 May 91 23:43:01 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 367 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Modems, Networking, Other Stuff [TELECOM Moderator] Administrivia: Change in BITFTP Policy [Thomas Lapp] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [George Pell] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [John R. Covert] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [H. Peter Anvin] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Scott Dorsey] Re: Cellular Information Wanted [Ron Dippold] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 May 91 19:59:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Modems, Networking, Other Stuff I am very much in need of a 9600 baud modem -- on a loan basis, unless you want to give me one as a gift! -- for use in getting the Digest out each day. The volume here has become a bit of a problem at 2400 baud, and the US Robotics modem assigned to this task has started getting a little flakey. Other expenses in recent weeks have left my budget for new computer stuff at an all-time low level. If anyone has one to spare, pulled from service, etc, please let me know the terms under which you'd be willing to part with it, either on a loan basis or permanently. Next topic: Mail from here to mcimail.com has been a BIG hassle lately. It appears to be an isolated problem at this site, and is under investigation. It is not a question of it leaving here, getting to Reston, VA or somewhere in-between and bouncing ... it just can't get past mmdf here, with mmdf claiming 'no such host'. Not everytime, mind you, just once every third or fourth time. The admin sent me a note saying the name server was being switched from epsilon (one machine here) to delta (the machine I am on). Maybe that will help. I've sent some replacement issues out today, and thus far mmdf took them all without arguments and back-talk. MCI'ers missing issues over the past couple weeks should let me know which ones. I suspect this little problem is also the reason some other places have missed their issues ... I get back some (to me) very suspicious bounced mail claiming 'no such host' ... Round three: I have no bitnet gateway site at present. All subscribers to the Digest at bitnet sites were being serviced from an expansion list on nuacc.acns.nwu.edu. I was sending one copy to that site (literally, just another machine in the complex here) and it was exploding out to bitnet. That machine (nuacc) is basically out of service, and is being shut down permanently in about a month. We have a new site for use as a bitnet gateway, but I have to go through and edit the entire list to use that site instead. Bitnet has not received the Digest for a couple weeks, but having spent several hours on that today, it should be ready to go again. This issue will test it out. Point four: The mail continues to come in heavily. There is much which is repetitive; a lot which requires considerable editing; and some responses which are totally out of date. You'll be getting a large number of issues over the weekend, but I'll still be dumping out a couple hundred messages unused. Finally, we no longer have an ftp mail server available for use at the Telecom Archives by NON-BITNET sites. The administrators of 'bitftp' have chosen to make the service available only to bitnet-originating traffic. The next message today will discuss this in detail. Until / unless a new ftp mail server becomes available to us, non-internet folks will have no way to use the Telecom Archives. I am sorry to report this, but it is totally out of my control. Can anyone set up a mail server we can use? Thanks. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 91 19:05:05 EST From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Change in BITFTP Policy Perhaps the subject line should read enforcement of policy, since I'm not sure they ever said that they would support users who were not on BITNET/EARN/NETNORTH. At any rate, since Patrick has mentioned use of BITFTP for users who do not have FTP access, but mail-only access, I thought I should pass the following message along (I received this message back this afternoon from my latest BITFTP request): > Date: Thu, 16 May 1991 16:46:12 EDT > From: Princeton BITNET FTP Server > Subject: BITFTP REPLY > 16:46:12 > FTP cs.widener.edu > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > * * BITFTP is no longer able to provide service to * * > * * nodes that are not directly on EARN or BITNET * * > * * or NetNorth. Your node appears to be * * > * * accessible from BITNET only via a mail-only * * > * * gateway. If you believe that your node is * * > * * directly on BITNET or NetNorth or EARN, please * * > * * send mail to MAINT@PUCC specifying your * * > * * BITNET/EARN/NetNorth node name. * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu (home) : 4398613@mcimail.com (work) uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Location : Newark, DE, USA [Moderator's Note: So there you have it. If/when a mail server for the archives becomes available, I will let you know here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: George Pell Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! Date: 18 May 91 05:47:17 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. In article ronnie@sos.com (Ron Schnell) writes: > The reason you aren't supposed to use cellular phones in aircraft is > different from the reason you aren't supposed to use FM radios and > Portable computers. There is an FCC rule against the use of cellular > phones from aircraft because they activate almost every cell in a 50 > mile radius due to the confusion of trying to figure out the closest > one. The FM radio/Computer rules are generally airline policy. It is > pretty much accepted these days that these things can't really mess up > the navigation equipment. Most airliners now use longer range > navigation systems like LORAN or various satellite-based systems, > which can't be upset by FM interference. I usually ask the pilot if I > can use an FM scanner or similar device, and (s)he usually lets me. Although you are correct about cellular phones activating cells in a large area from the air, your comments about aircraft navigation is far off track. Use of electronic equipment in aircraft is regulated by the FAA, not by airline policy. Aircraft and Aircraft Navigation Systems are also regulated and specified by the FAA. You incorrectly assume that because satellite-based systems and loran are available that airliners automatically use them for navigation. This is not the case. In the real world of flying technological advances are slow to be adopted by the FAA. Navigational systems such as the ILS and VOR's, are the primary navigational systems in use today and were designed in the '40s. They are still required to be used for navigation today, and are easily upset by near field radiation effects. If you decide on your own that your calculator/radio/scanner/computer/ cellular phone will not interfere with the navigational systems onboard aircraft, you are putting your's and everyone else flying with you's lives in danger. Your actions are negligent, and possibly criminal. I hope to never fly in the same aircraft as you. In case you doubt that I know what I am talking about, I have been a pilot since 1985, and have owned my own aircraft since 1986. Your assumptions can kill. Think again. geo N29531 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 May 91 11:10:33 EDT From: olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) writes: > Would someone who actually *knows* please check whether or not there > is an FCC regulation against cellular use in airplanes? OK. The FCC frequency allocations table (47 CFR 2.106) allocates the cellular phone frequencies to Land Mobile use. Airborne cellular use (i.e., Aeronautical Mobile) is therefore unauthorized transmission, and is subject to prosecution under the Communications Act of 1934. Note that this argument does not apply to cellular use while on the ground. However, an FAA regulation (14 CFR 91.21) prohibits the use of almost all electronic devices on airliners without the airline's permission, and this applies on the ground as well as in the air. Many airlines have given blanket permission for the use of tape players, portable computers, and similar items, but not for any radio equipment (receiving or transmitting). It is unclear to me whether the pilot has the authority to give this permission on the airline's behalf, but if the pilot says it's OK, no one is likely to bother you about it. The purpose of the FAA regulation is to avoid interference with the aircraft electronics. On the ground this may not be a problem, but airborne, and especially while on approach to landing, it is a risk to be avoided. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 May 91 09:55:08 PDT From: "John R. Covert 18-May-1991 1018" Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft >> Warning: Using a Cellular phone on an aircraft is a violation of federal >> law and probably some FAA regulations too. You risk getting arrested. > Yes -- but they don't *tell* you that anywhere, so I assume I'll get > at least one warning (before possible arrest) ... Ah, but they _do_ tell you. Every airline's in-flight magazine has a notice forbidding the use of any electronic devices, especially radios, on board aircraft. And besides, ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse (or so I've always heard). It was my understanding that the relevant FAA regulation (FAR 91.19) prohibits use on Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flights only (virtually all commercial flights will be IFR) and that the prohibition applies from the point at which the aircraft begins moving under its own power until cancellation of the IFR flight plan (which happens automatically upon landing). When I first got my cellular phone, the commercial pilots I talked to told me that this was the case, and I always turn my phone off when I feel the aircraft being pushed back (even if this is not under the aircraft's own power). However, the FARs, being regulations, can be changed at any time, and you are required by law to abide by them. I'll try to get an actual copy of FAR 91.19 to see what it currently says. I know it talks about electronic devices potentially interfering with BOTH navigation and cockpit communication. A critical issue for ALL radios, including the RECEIVER inside a cellular phone, is what frequencies are used for the injection frequency and the intermediate frequency (IF) of the superheterodyne receiver. In my phone, a Nokia P-30 (equivalent to the Moderator's Radio Shack CT-301), the injection frequency in the first IF stage ranges from 785.88-810.81 MHz, resulting in an IF1 of 83.16 MHz. The second stage injects 82.705 MHz, resulting in an IF2 of 455 kHz. Other phones will be designed to use other frequencies, and any of these frequencies could interfere with equipment aboard the aircraft, not necessarily because of design problems with the equipment, but because these frequencies may actually be used for communications. Any superheterodyne receiver is also a transmitter. The radiated power will be very low, but if you're sitting right on top of the antenna of a device designed to receive at the IF frequencies of your receiver, you will interfere with the other device. I have heard at least two recent reports about airlines telling passengers not to use their phones on aircraft at the gate (the one in Telecom from Chris Schmandt and one from a friend sitting in an American Airlines aircraft at the gate in Dallas/Fort Worth last Thursday), so it is possible that FAR 91.19 has been amended to apply at all times aboard aircraft. I called four airlines: American told me that the rules apply at all times. TWA told me that it was between me and the captain. Delta told me that the rules applied at all times. Continental spent the most time researching it, and told me that it was Continental's interpretation of FAR 91.19 that no electronic devices except those specifically authorized by Continental's corporate headquarters may be used from the time you step over the threshhold of the aircraft until the time you leave the aircraft. The reason stated is that even while on the ground parked at the gate, the flight crew will be in communication, by radio, with the tower to make the flight arrangements. Electronic devices, of which cellular phones are only one, may interfere with cockpit communications. Even if FAR 91.19 doesn't specifically state that the prohibition applies on the ground, there is also a broadly worded FAR which prohibits any kind of "interfering with a flight crew". This regulation essentially requires you to do exactly what you are told, within reason, by any airline employee. Failure to obey the instructions of a flight crew member is a crime punishable by law. john ------------------------------ From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Cellular Phones on Planes Organization: Northwestern University Date: Sat, 18 May 1991 21:57:42 GMT In article of comp.dcom.telecom, Brian Kantor writes: > permitted to override that policy. Most airlines have a policy > prohibiting all RF-radiating devices such as walkies, cellphones, etc. There is a second consideration that prohibites specifically walkie-talkies, cellphones etc. in carry-on luggage: they are considered potential helps for terrorists coordinating a hijacking. Therefore, most airlines prohibit the carry-on of ANY handheld communications equipment, even toy "walkie-talkies" that are connected with wires. You can bring these devices onboard but they have to be in checked luggage. ------------------------------ From: Scott Dorsey Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft Reply-To: Scott Dorsey Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 12:53:56 GMT In article bluemoon!sbrack@cis.ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > In all seriousness: can a cellphone trigger explosives? It > seems that a radiodetonator would need to be very selective about what > signals trigger it. The problem here isn't radiodetonators, but ordinary blasting caps. Because being near the scene of an explosion is a bad thing, several hundred feet of wire are often run from the detonator to the cap, enough wire to act as a reasonable antenna. It's possible that a local transmitter will get enough current induced in the leads to fire off the cap; I know that nearby 4W 27MHz CB rigs will do it. I rather doubt that anything at significantly higher frequencies and lower power would do any damage, but I do not want to be the one to find out. scott ------------------------------ From: Ron Dippold Subject: Re: Cellular Information Wanted Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Fri, 17 May 91 23:19:55 GMT In article TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) writes: > Can someone recommend a good book or document on cellular mobile ? I > am not looking for a Mickey Mouse (tm?) overview, but for something > that describes in some detail the process of setting up a call, > hand-off, paging, roaming, etc. I have the reference document from > the DOC which consists of state descriptions for a finite state > machine, and doesn't make a good introduction. Because this document The best one I've seen is a textbook by Bill Lee, a Pac*Tel VP, I believe. It's simply called "Mobile Cellular Telecommunications Systems." It's a bit heavy in the RF theory, but if you're not into that you can just bleep over those parts. Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #367 ******************************  ISSUES 367 AND 368 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 368 COMES BEFORE 367 HERE.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10005; 19 May 91 4:33 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05027; 19 May 91 2:58 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae23898; 19 May 91 1:53 CDT Date: Sun, 19 May 91 1:25:28 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #369 BCC: Message-ID: <9105190125.ab20412@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 May 91 01:25:19 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 369 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Jack Winslade] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Steven S. Brack] Re: Cellular Information Wanted [Brian Cuthie] GTE Mobilenet to Offer Cellular Encryption [Bill Berbenich] Re: Cellular 911 Calls [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: Trying to Trace Hang-up Calls [Walter Morales] Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed [Mike Morris] Re: AOS Regulation [Michael H. Riddle] Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs [Jeff Carroll] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 May 91 19:43:35 CST From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft Reply-To: ivgate!jsw@uunet.uu.net In a message of <16 May 91 20:45:26>, Ted Marshall writes: >> the navigation equipment. Most airliners now use longer range >> navigation systems like LORAN or various satellite-based systems, >> which can't be upset by FM interference. [...] > This is just plain wrong! Loran-C and GPS (satellite) navigation are > being used in air navigation, but, to my knowledge, mostly in smaller > aircraft. GPS, in particular, cannot be used 24-hours/day because > there are not yet enough satellites in place. Over-ocean operations do > use other forms of navigation, including inertial navigation, but > almost all domestic US enroute navigation is via VOR (VHF > Omnidirectional Range). Also, bad weather approaches into all major > and many minor airports are via ILS (Instrument Landing System). When I was in the Coast Guard I spent more time working with Loran equipment than I care to admit. ;-) Loran-C (the type of Loran that is used today) uses a portion of the frequency spectrum that is SO far from that which cellular phones use that unless the loran receiver is defective, it will be essentially blind to interference from any cellular transmissions on board. Loran-C uses pulse trains of 100 kHz RF. Yes, I said that right. 100 kilohertz -- that's well below the AM broadcast band and almost four orders of magnitude removed from the cellular frequencies. (Loran = 10 ** 5 Hz and cellular is ABOUT 10 ** 9 Hz.) HF transmitters in the kilowatt range are routinely used on ships that navigate with Loran-C, with the HF and loran antennas being quite close to each other. Very seldom will interference (to the loran from the radio transmission) occur in this case, let alone the case of a one to three watt UHF transmitter as in a cellular phone. Now (no grin here) for those of you who happen to live very close to a Loran-C transmitting station, this case of no interference does not hold true the other way around. These transmitters pump out RF pulses in the megawatt range and they have been known to bleed into telephone lines (sounds like an old mechanical teletype running in the background) make one heck of a racket in AM and (sometimes) FM radios, and even cause black and white horizontal 'strobe light' bars on television pictures. Good Day! JSW (Charlie-Golf 1967 - 71) [Moderator's Note: Have you ever traveled through the rural area in northern Wisconsin where the ELF (extremely low frequency) transmitters are located? They send/receive radio transmissions to submarines. The antennas are strung up and down the highway on telephone poles! The frequencies which can travel through the earth and under water are sort of special; they make it possible for a submarine to receive radio signals without having to expose at least a little of itself above water; an important feature when used in a spy operation for military intelligence ... but the base station antenna has to be about a mile in length! PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Steven S. Brack" Subject: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft Date: Thu, 09 May 91 15:48:15 EDT Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4]) reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) writes: > Hi! During a recent flight, I had my phone turned on and noticed the > 'roam' light was on. I tried to place a call but it didn't go > through. We were at about 39,000 feet, and I didn't expect it to. It > would stay on 'roam' for a few seconds and then go to 'NoSvc'. But, > when we were down to about 15,000 feet I noticed the 'roam' light was > on continuously. I tried to dial again and it worked like a charm. I > was using a .6 watt Motorola "Ultra Classic" portable with the small > (1/8 wave?) antenna, and I wasn't even in a window seat! When you activate a cellular phone that high above the ground, its transmission power is so high over such as great surface area, that you end up blanking cells over large (> 2-3 states) land areas. This can result in interruption of service. It is taken **very** seriously by the FCC and the FAA, and probably the carrier who lost revenue due to your "experiment." Pilots can lose their liscenses for allowing these devices to be used on their aircraft. > [Moderator's Note: You should have tried a few more tests of things > you're 'not supposed to do', such as *711 to ask what carrier it was, > and 0 for the operator to find out what place was getting your call. PAT] The footprint of the cellular signalcould have stretched over several states. Presumably, he could get responses from several cellular systems simultaneously, depending on the complexity of his phone. (Some automatically lock on to one signal, others are more "open." Steven S. Brack | I don't speak for OSU. InterNet: Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu | (Bill Miller just can't BitNet: Steven.S.Brack%osu.edu@ohstvmsa.bitnet| understand that.) ------------------------------ From: Brian Cuthie Subject: Re: Cellular Information Wanted Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services Date: Sat, 18 May 1991 04:42:21 GMT In article TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) writes: > Can someone recommend a good book or document on cellular mobile ? I > am not looking for a Mickey Mouse (tm?) overview, but for something "Mobile Cellular Telecommunications Systems", by William C. Y. Lee. Copyright 1989, McGraw Hill, ISBN 0-07-037030-3 brian ------------------------------ From: bill@gauss.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: GTE Mobilenet to Offer Cellular Encryption Date: Thu, 16 May 91 14:59:07 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu I saw the following on the news wire. ---------- HAYWARD, CA (MAY 16) PR NEWSWIRE - GTE Mobilnet today announced the first "encryption" or scrambling system packaged for the cellular- consumer market. It allows customers to scramble their conversations, preventing the possibility of illegal monitoring by people with scanners or other devices. GTE Mobilnet will offer the scrambling service and accompanying device to its California customers in early June, and will expand it to the Pacific Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands in the coming months. "This service is perfect for the average caller concerned about the immediate privacy of his or her mobile-telephone conversations," said Tony Frank, market manager for GTE Mobilnet's Pacific Region. "Once you connect the device to your mobile or transportable phone, you simply push a button to automatically scramble your part of the conversation. If both parties have the service, the entire conversation is scrambled and protected from scanners and other non-authorized listeners, who are breaking the law." GTE Mobilnet developed the system because some customers -- mostly government accounts and defense contractors -- are concerned about the illegal use of scanners that can monitor radio waves over which mobile- telephone signals move, allowing them to listen to others' conversations. "With this system, the voice quality is excellent and the scrambling doesn't delay the conversation," Frank said. "An eavesdropper with a scanner will hear unintelligible noise." Frank said the device, which is about the size of a pocket calculator, will work for installed car and transportable cellular phones -- but not handheld mobile telephones. It can easily be installed by customers between a mobile telephone's handset and the transceiver. GTE Mobilnet is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GTE Corp. (NYSE: GTE) GTE also owns 90 percent of the outstanding shares of Contel Cellular Inc. and, through these entities, provides cellular telecommunications products and services to more than 50 million "POPs." (POPs refers to the population of an area multiplied by the company's percentage ownership in the cellular system serving the area.) GTE is a world leader in its three core businesses -- telecommunications, lighting and precision materials. Its combined revenues and sales in 1990 were $21.4 billion with net income of $1.7 billion. GTE subsidiaries, operating in 48 states and 41 countries, include the largest U.S.-based, local-telephone company, combined cellular interests that make it the second-largest, cellular-service provider in the United States and Sylvania Lighting, the third-largest producer of lighting products in the world. CONTACT: Janet Henderson, 713-586-1418, or Mobile, 713-882-178, or Dorea Akers, 203-965-3188, or after 5 p.m. 203-968-2360, both of GTE Mobilnet. ------end article------ Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: Cellular 911 Calls Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 17:09:07 GMT In article Blake Farenthold writes: > The whole dispatch station is protected by a halon fire protection > system.. when the alarm goes off they operators and dispatchers have > a couple of minutes to evacuate the dispatch area before the > (apparently deadly) halon is released. while evacuated dispatch > continues over walkie talkies from the parking lot but 911 calls go un > answered. Halon is not "deadly". It is a nice clean chlorofluorocarbon. However, it works by displacing the oxygen in the air, which makes breathing somewhat more difficult. A more rational reason for leaving is to avoid breathing the smoke from the fire that caused the system to activate. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Date: 17 May 91 16:27:01 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , bluemoon!sbrack@cis.ohio- state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes... > If your buddy the plumber doesn't understand such simple > concepts as dialing the operator for rate information on unrecognized > numbers, then he really shouldn't use any telecom device more involved > than a 500 set (not that he couldn't get himself burned there, too .. 8). > If you decide, of your own free will, to call a telephone number, then > you are agreeing to pay for the telephone service you have requested, > be it a $0.25 local call or a $25.00 audiotex number. Mr. Brack's argument is truly nitwitted, if that's a word! He seems to think that people who receive calls on beepers shoul CALL THE OPERATOR and ASK THE RATE for every call to a prefix they don't recognize. Now, what's wrong with that picture? 1) Which operator, 0 or 00? 2) Don't we have dial-direct nowadays? Operators aren't "free". 3) Do operators know the price of every "audiotex" call? No. 4) If it's an emergency worth beeping, why should the bozo take several minutes just to verify the cost? Hell, it's a local number (7 digits) and it's not "900", so why should he even suspect that there's a bomb in the envelope? 5) To the vast majority of us, the telephone is a communications tool, not an audiotex access terminal. The cost of a telephone call is well understood. From a home phone to any other phone in NYC proper, it's under 20c/call. The fact that a prefix was assigned to audiotext is an obscure exception that few people care about. > No, blind trust is not a good idea. But, in this case, again > not related to what wew were discussing, the contractor (I'm assuming) > lied. The audiotex vendor, on the other hand, simply asked beeper > users to call his number. No lies there. OF COURSE it's a lie: He lied that there was an urgent need for a callback. There was nothing for the paged party but a recording. Call 911 and ask to play telephone chess with the guy who answers. See how he feels. Beepers are more akin to 911 (emergencies) than to the Naughty Peahen Hotline. 50k counts of wirefraud sounds good to me! Consecutive sentences. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 952 3274 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? ------------------------------ From: Walter Morales Subject: Re: Trying to Trace Hang-up Calls Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 18:29:05 GMT This is a very expensive process by the phone company, I believe their reluctance to monitor calls is due to the amount of time devoted into the porcess. If you want, you could probably "bug the heck" out of them that they would eventually do it. Good luck, Walter ------------------------------ From: Mike Morris Subject: Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 04:15:35 GMT jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: (edited...) > Compare this with my bank's Phone Access Line PIN number*. No one > knows what my PAL/PIN is except the computer and it won't tell anyone. > They send you the PIN in a sealed envelope (you know, the type that > has carbon paper inside and is printed in one go through a dot matrix > printer and has the tear ends on it). I have accounts at three banks. Two are like his, you can't pick your PIN. The third allows you to. I assume it depends on who wrote the system. Mike Morris WA6ILQ PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077 818-447-7052 ------------------------------ From: "Michael H. Riddle" Subject: Re: AOS Regulation Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 07:51:31 GMT In wcs@erebus.att.com (William Clare Stewart) writes: > In article gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org > (Gordon Burditt) writes: >> A new law that protects your rights as a telephone customer was >> recently signed by President Bush. >> The "Telephone Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act" is the >> Federal Government's response to customer complaints about the >> practices of some companies that provide operator services. > Did the blurb have any references to the bill number? I'm always > skeptical of things that say President Bush is trying to protect my > rights :-) This was discussed in FCC Docket 90-313, which was initiated before and therefore modified by the Telephone Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act of 1990. The Final Notice of Proposed Rule Making appeared in the Digest in March and would be in the archives. If my memory is right, the actual Public Law and/or text of the Bill involved is there as well. <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs Date: 13 May 91 22:42:58 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article "Steven S. Brack" writes: > Funny seeing a windowless building with offices in it. It's even funnier working in one. Trust me. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #369 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12419; 19 May 91 5:53 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00625; 19 May 91 4:14 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05027; 19 May 91 2:58 CDT Date: Sun, 19 May 91 2:21:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #370 BCC: Message-ID: <9105190221.ab21514@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 May 91 02:21:25 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 370 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [John Higdon] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Jordan Kossack] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [John R. Levine] Re: 900 Number Fraud on My Line [James Deibele] Re: Airphone Charges [Mark Kreutzian] Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [Brian Cuthie] Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed [Mark Kreutzian] Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing [Eric Dittman] Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [jimmy@denwa.info.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 May 91 13:21 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Tony Harminc writes: > Here there is a rule (unwritten but pretty strong) that you can't be > billed for a seven-digit call. No such rule here. You have been able, since the 1950s, been able in the Bay Area to dial some rather expensive 7D toll calls. You used to be able to call Crescent City from San Jose by dialing 7D back when it was all the 415 area. This is a very expensive call. Now you can even cross a LATA boundary by dialing 7D from San Jose. > It seems a > little silly that everyone should have to remember a huge list of > prefixes in order to avoid placing expensive calls, whether 540 or 976 > type, or just normal toll calls within the NPA. What is so silly about it? It would seem that if you, the caller, know who you are calling, that should take care of it, no? If people are going to dial numbers without the slightest clue who they are trying to reach, then they deserve whatever they get. I NEVER return calls to numbers that do not have a name, a company name, and some indication of the purpose of the call attached to them. If I do not already know the location of the AC/prefix, I look it up. This is just common sense. I wonder how many people just dial numbers that are written on the restroom wall, or just appear in the pager without question or thought. I wonder, after having to pay $50, how many of them would do it again. As with everything else in this world, sometimes you have to take care of yourself. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 May 91 01:32:49 CDT From: Jordan Kossack Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Howdy Pat, Am I missing something obvious here? Won't the local Baby Bell erase charges for 900 numbers (and 976, etc.) if one complains? They may force one to get those numbers blocked, but I guess that's a sure way to make sure that one doesn't make the same mistake again. If so, the point is really moot. Too, if someone is returning a call to their pager number, wouldn't they presumably be using a public phone? If so, wouldn't they get a little suspicious when they couln't place the call for a quarter? Or are things differet back east? jkoss00@ricevm1.rice.edu Jordan Kossack | (713) 799 2950 [Moderator's Note: Imagine! (nasal voice saying) "fifty five dollars for the first three minutes please ..." (caller) "wait a minute operator, I am trying to get more change! ... apparently instead of calling from a pay phone, most of these folks were calling back from the customer site where they were working, or waiting until they got back in the car with their cell phone, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 18 May 91 00:15:39 EDT (Sat) From: "John R. Levine" In article is written: > Here there is a rule (unwritten but pretty strong) that you can't be > billed for a seven-digit call. When interchangable area codes arrive in about 1995, dial-1-for-money simply won't work any more. The leading 1 will have to mean that an area code follows. Unlucky folks in areas with old equipment will have to dial their own area code for same-area toll calls. I have lived both in New Jersey where a 1 means that an area code follows, and in Connecticut and Massachusetts where a 1 means a toll call. I like the New Jersey scheme better. For one thing, I don't usually care if a call I am about to make will cost me 12 cents or not, and having the phone exchange say "if you'd dialed that call with (or without) the leading 1, I would have completed it" can get rather annoying. For another, dial 1 for money is usually a lie. I have two lines at home here. On one (voice) I have "metropolitan service" which allows me to call anywhere in metro Boston at no per-call charge. On the other (data, mostly) I have local service which allows free calling to towns adjacent to mine and "message units" which are really toll charges to other places in metro Boston. On neither line do I dial a leading 1 for a metro Boston call -- if I dial a seven digit call to my sister in Lexington from the first line it costs nothing, but if I call her from the other it costs a minumum of 20 cents. There are quite a few places where you dial a leading 1 to call some distant metro prefixes, due to old equipment. There are other billing plans in which all metro calls are charged message units, but you get a monthly allowance of free message units. Finally, there is "Bay State East" service which for about $25/month gives you free metro calling and also two hours per month of free calling anywhere in the LATA. I have no idea what in this swamp of billing options one would really call a toll call and what one wouldn't. What the local telco does is to require a 1 before any non-metro call and also before any inter-area code call, even if the call is local. This means that if some evening from my second phone I call Marblehead, which is a 10 cent toll call, I have to dial a 1, but if I call Hull, which is a 27 cent message unit call, I can't dial a 1. I realize that there are still places where the distinction between local and non-local calls appears cast in concrete, but I expect that as time goes on message units and discount plans will fuzz the boundaries to the point where you won't be able to tell what's a toll call anywhere. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl PS: So why does one dial a 1 before an 800 number? ------------------------------ From: James Deibele Subject: Re: 900 Number Fraud on My Line Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix Date: Sat, 18 May 91 18:25:58 GMT In article Bob_Frankston%Slate_ Corporation@mcimail.com (Bob Frankston) writes: > are even some useful 900 services. Rather than blanket call blocking, > some capability for password (PIN?) protection would make more sense. Given the "personal 800" service, where the last four digits actually signal where the call should go, this seems like something that does make sense. As you say, there are 900 numbers that are actually useful, and should the industry get the reforms it needs, there might be more useful numbers. Right now I would think that the costs of running a 900 service would be high: the phone company has to charge a high fee to cover the administration costs of handling all the chargebacks from angry consumers. Given more reasonable terms, there should be fewer chargebacks and problems, meaning that there should be lower transaction fees to the 900 vendor. Given enough time, the fundamental usefulness of the 900 (it's a lot cheaper to have the caller punch in the 10 digits plus a four-digit PIN than it is to have a person answer the call) might overcome the nasty repuation 900 numbers have gotten. I tend to regard any 900 number, and any institution associated with that number, as somewhat suspect. Voice: +1 503 646-8257 FAX: +1 503 248-6320 jamesd@pdaxcess.techbook.com Public Access UNIX site: +1 503 644-8135 1200/2400, N81 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 May 91 22:08:57 CST From: Mark Kreutzian Subject: Re: Airphone Charges Reply-To: ivgate!command!mark.kreutzian@uunet.uu.net Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha > [Moderator's Note: When the bank first gave you that rap about how > they could do nothing, you should have gotten a supervisor on the > line and bellowed about how you were not going to pay the charge; > they could charge it back to GTE if they liked; and if that wasn't > enough hassle for them, you'd be glad to file a complaint with the > Federal Trade Commission if necessary detailing the bank's billing > practices. Believe me, the bank *would* have found GTE for you > also! You are assuming that the bank with which you have your credit card is the only bank that issues them. The bank will not just on your request reverse a charge on your credit card statement. First it must go through a dispute process where your bank requests proof of the charge from the merchant's bank (in this case GTE). Most likely the charge will be recognized as valid and for any further action you will have to take it up with the merchant. If after taking the matter up with the merchant and it is not rendered satisfactorily then the bank may help settle the dispute. The bank's billing practices were right in line with regs. The way you proposed handling it was not. Mark K. Kreutzian ivgate!command!mark@uunet.uu.net American Express Info Svcs Co **** Place standard disclaimer here ****** The .COMmand Center (Opus 1:5010/23) [Moderator's Note: But our correspondent said the bank claimed they could do NOTHING. As you point out, the bank could do SOMETHING by at least going back to the merchant bank (and they in turn to GTE) to ask for verification. GTE and the merchant bank might well have then given some 'evidence' that the charge was valid ... but our correspondent said once GTE was contacted they in fact did issue credit. So couldn't the bank have made the same initial inquiry that our correspondent had to make? The bank at least was obliged to tell her *how* to contact the merchant. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Brian Cuthie Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services Date: Sat, 18 May 1991 04:25:17 GMT In article alexb@cfctech.cfc.com (Alex Beylin) writes: > In article is written: >> May I suggest looking into the Northern Telecom Norstar system. It is >> the low end system in the Meridian line. (actually, I wrote this) > Couple of questions, if I may: > 1. Can this system use standard phones in addition to NT phones? Yes, with the addition of a $200 digital to analog instrument adapter. It offers some of the features available on the digital instuments, but it is kind of klunky. Not bad for modem use, but I would *not* recommend it for actual human use. It does have some bugs, but will work with V.32 modems (I am using it now for this connection). One nice feature for me, is that I live between Baltimore and Washington D.C. Consequently, I have lines that are both local to DC and B'more. I have the lines grouped into pools, such that when the ATA (Analog Terminal Adapter) goes off-hook, it get's local dial-tone. Then dialing '8' get's an available DC line, '9' get's a B'more line. BTW: This system generates nice call progress tones. They are all the standard tones heard from a real PBX or C.O. Not the cheesy tones used in the Panasonic switches. > 2. What are the limits for number of incomming lines and phone sets? Three systems are made: 6 x 16 System similar in physical design (in that it mounts flat to the wall) as the Panasonic. 3 x 8 (NEW!) May not be available yet. 8 x 24 This system is expandable to up to 128 ports, in any comination, more or less, of trunk/line. The other advantage of this system is that new software seems to be available on this system first. > 3. How is modem support handled? Can I make a "direct connect" > between an incomming line and a modem port on my PC based on hours or > can the switch detect modem on the line and automaticly transfer the call > to a pre-assigned extention? There is not a specific feature that allows this, however, you may be able to use some version of NIGHT/DAY service. Also, you could do this quite nicely from a PC with the developer's kit. Of course, you'd need $25,000 (As much as I like the switch, NT is business illiterate). > 4. What is the pricing like? The instruments are about $200 to $300 a piece new. You can get them refurbed from a number of sources. In fact, you can get the KSUs refurbed from some sources as well. New price on the 6 x 16 KSU is about $800. If you beat someone over the head, and don't want service or installation, you can get the 6 x 16 for as little as $500. Brian Cuthie brian@umbc3.umbc.edu VOICE: 301 381-1718 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 May 91 22:10:10 CST From: Mark Kreutzian Subject: Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed Reply-To: ivgate!command!mark.kreutzian@uunet.uu.net Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha > printer and has the tear ends on it). None of the tellers know > it, and apparently can't find out. It's just like UNIX. If you > forget the old one, the computer has to churn you a new one (no, you > can't even choose your own). The "Black Box" that was mentioned in an earlier post is called an Atalla and the process is called DES-PIN. The process can be set to allow the customer to select the PIN or have the PIN selected solely by the Atalla box. Mark K. Kreutzian ivgate!command!mark@uunet.uu.net American Express Info Svcs Co ***** Insert standard disclaimer ****** The .COMmand Center (Opus 1:5010/23) ------------------------------ From: Eric Dittman Subject: Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing Date: 17 May 91 15:23:21 CDT Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility In article , cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > There might be at least one Connecticut phone number ending in 9xxx > which is not a pay phone. I can also verify that -9xxx is not necessarily a pay phone in South- Western Bell territory, since my second line is xxx-9xxx (deleted to avoid random calls to verify). Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility dittman@skitzo.csc.ti.com dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com Disclaimer: I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test Facility. I don't even speak for myself. ------------------------------ From: The Super User Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System Date: 17 May 91 16:30:03 GMT Reply-To: The Super User Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles In article umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu! brian@uunet.uu.net (Brian Cuthie) writes: > My only complaint is that the guys at NT are missing the boat by > making the developer's kit too expensive (by expensive, I mean to the > tune of $25k!). They need to realize that if people buy the kit to > develop applications, they can only be run on NT hardware. I know someone who was working with NT on a vertical application for the Norstar. When management heard that he only expected to be able to sell a few thousand of his application, they forbid the engineers from speaking to him any more. They said they were interested only in working with "companies like IBM and DEC". They need to realize that the innovative applications for their Norstar are not going to come from IBM or DEC. NT should be giving away the developer kit to encourage as many applications as possible. As Brian pointed out, anyone who wants to run these app's will have to buy NT hardware. Northern Telecom has the right idea (opening up the architecture), but they need to make it affordable to the very kind of companies that have the potential to develop the killer applications that could make their Norstar the standard key system around which all custom applications are built. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #370 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14713; 19 May 91 6:59 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01709; 19 May 91 5:25 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00625; 19 May 91 4:14 CDT Date: Sun, 19 May 91 3:03:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #371 BCC: Message-ID: <9105190303.ab26749@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 May 91 03:03:08 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 371 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Michael H. Riddle] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Ron Heiby] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Robert Dinse] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Floyd Davidson] Re: 900 Number Fraud on my Line [Doctor Math] Re: CLASS is Finally Coming to My Exchange [Todd Inch] CLASS Presentation at Texpo `91 [Kevin Collins] Pagers and Timeout [John Cowan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Michael H. Riddle" Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 08:03:42 GMT In fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes: > Others have made some good points about overbreadth of the patent, and > prior art. > I am bothered by another aspect: triviality. My three year old son > has more complicated and better ideas every day. If the Hayes patent > holds water, I'm going to patent the phrase "excuse me" in its use to > interrupt a conversation. > Seriously, a patent should only be granted if the invention solves a > problem that many have found difficult, or if the new solution is not > trivial to find and offers significant advantages over older methods. [My comments are not particularly directed to Mark; rather, his was the post to which I replied for convenience.] I'm just a little surprised at the tone and direction most of the comments have taken, just as I'm a little surprised by Toby Nixon's silence. Perhaps the company has not allowed him to say anything, although I'd think an approved press release might be available and, if so, would certainly help clear the air. (If I missed one you posted Toby, then I apologize. I know you try hard.) Some points need to be made: a. The Patent and Trademark Office issued the patent. b. While the PTO isn't infallible, their acts get a presumption of validity. They have the job, not you or I. c. The PTO obviously felt the Hayes application met the requirements. d. A number of modem vendors agreed, or decided licensing was easier and cheaper than a patent challenge. My understanding is that quite a number of them went the licensing route, and that even more are holding discussions with Hayes. e. A relative few companies decided to challenge the PTO decision in court, and they lost. The courts, after complete briefing and arguments, agreed with Hayes and the PTO. Personal reaction: some of the simplest and most useful inventions seem obvious /after/ invention: paper clips and rubber bands would be good examples. Yet, /before/ the invention, they were unique and nonobvious. Sometimes what may be involved is the practical method of manufacture, or some other intermediate step that is not obvious or easy to implement. The point is that Hayes has an obviously defensible patent, one which patent lawyers for a number of companies have been unable (so far) to overturn and which even more patent lawyers have felt valid enough to have their clients license the technology. We need to keep this in mind. <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA [Moderator's Note: Actually, Toby Nixon did send a good response to te Digest on this. Perhaps you are behind in your reading? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ron Heiby Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Date: 17 May 91 22:37:38 GMT Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL think!barmar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Barry Margolin) writes: > If you had read the article carefully, you would have seen that it is > not the AT command set that is patented, it is the escape sequence In fact, if memory serves me right, Hayes itself had to license the patent held by another (all but forgotten, probably) modem manufacturer who had patented the controlling of a modem by commands sent to its RS-232 port or to the same port as the data stream. Perhaps someone who knows/remembers better the details would chime in with them, or correct me if I'm wrong? Ron Heiby, heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com Moderator: comp.newprod ------------------------------ From: nanook@eskimo.celestial.com (Robert Dinse) Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Date: 14 May 91 23:17:49 GMT Organization: ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE WA. In article , kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) writes: > In the interest of stemming panic out there, let's be quite clear. > The enforcement was to a specific patent, not to the "Hayes AT Command > Set". That patent, although quite important to modem users, does not > cover the "AT" _command_ set. > The patent upheld is on the method of notifying the DCE equipment that > the next data arriving should be treated as a command to the DCE, as > opposed to data to be transmitted to the far end; that is, switching > to command mode. > Most software defaults to a one second pause, transmitting three plus > (+) signs, followed by a one second pause. Hayes patent is broader, > covering any time delay, followed by any unique sequence. This patent, > however, covers only async data ports used for both data and command. Since the timed escape is an essential part of the command set, it is impossible for a modem manufacturer to claim Hayes compatability without it. Thus, Hayes, if successful at enforcing this patent, has a monopoly on this kind of modem. Indeed, I can't think of a way you could escape from data mode to command mode not using a timed delay and some unique sequence, that wouldn't be possibly contained in transmitted data. I agree with a previous poster that says this reeks of look and feel, it's more than that, it's functionality. It's not just like someone said, hey you can't make a spread-sheet that has that user interface, they've said, hey, you can't make a spreadsheet that works at all. The ability to escape from data mode to command mode is essential in a smart modems operation. The ability to do that in a way that guarantees that escape to command mode won't accidentally be invoked by the data stream would be difficult (I can't think of a way) without timing and a unique string being an essential feature of the escape from data mode. This type of BS really torques me. I have one Hayes modem and nine clones here, I will not buy another Hayes product. Not only must modem manufacturers figure this as a cost they have to figure in, but so must consumers. And since Hayes compatables comprise nearly all consumer type modems, we are essentially all being held hostage by Hayes, they, if successful in enforcing this patent, have a complete monopoly on the field. My feeling is that the Justice Department, gutted by Reagan and Bush, really should be filing anti-trust suits against corporations that participate in monpoly by litigation. ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 07:30:39 GMT In article "Steven S. Brack" writes: > steves@aerobat.labs.tek.com (Steve Shellans) writes: >> In article reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) >> writes: > [Talks about activating his cellphone in an aircraft] >>> I realize that you're "not supposed to" do things like this, but if >>> anything had happened I could always have called 911 ;-)> >> I don't think this is funny. The reason you're not supposed to do >> things like this is that stray signals from transmitters and other >> kinds of electronic equipment can interfere with the navigation >> instruments. > While using a cellphone in an aircraft is not a good idea (it, > in fact, has the potential of denying cellular service to users over a > multi-state area), aircraft navigation equipment is really very hardy. > The frequency and power put out by a cellphone shouldn't have an > appreciable effect on airline equipment. It may, however interfere > with the equipment used in general aviation aircraft. I'm not a pilot, I'm a technician who lives in the state with the highest ratio of airplanes to people. I fly a LOT. I talk to pilots at LOT. I talk to FAA people too much. If a pilot allowed you to use a cellphone on an IFR flight that I was on, I want off the plane, NOW. If I saw you using one I would immediately make the pilot aware of it. I don't think it is funny AT ALL. I also don't see what difference it makes if the plane is a commercial airliner or a general aviation craft. The radio's and the navigation systems are the same. (Some day I'll tell you how I learned that Loran C can be 60 degrees off. No problem, just makes the pilot eyes get large when he breaks out of the clouds ...) >> [Moderator's Note: I did not think it was funny either ... maybe next >> time he decides to flex the rules a little in his experiments he will >> try the one which says 'keep all radios, including cell phones, turned >> off in areas where dynamite and other explosive powders are being >> used.' If anything goes wrong, someone will always call 911 :( PAT] > In all seriousness: can a cellphone trigger explosives? It > seems that a radiodetonator would need to be very selective about what > signals trigger it. Yes it can. A radio detonator probably would be very selective. How about just regular blasting caps with a few hundred feet wire (an antenna). Or even just a couple feet of wire (a half wave at VHF frequencies). Someone will call 911, and as Pat implies, it won't be on THAT phone! Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine floyd@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest. ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Subject: Re: 900 Number Fraud on My Line Date: Fri, 17 May 91 11:19:32 EST Organization: High Magick Order hcliff@wybbs.mi.org (Cliff Helsel) writes: > This may be of interest to persons living in an apartment complex. > Last month I opened my phone bill and found a new amount due of over > 300 dollars. The calls that contributed to this large amount were > mainly calls to 900 numbers. I believe there were eight or so calls > at 35 dollars a crack. > I guess what happened was that a person was going around to the back > of the apartment buildings and tapping into the "boxes" that had all > the wiring for the apartment phones and placing calls to 900 numbers. > I can just picture some guy in a trench coat holding a telephone with > alligator clips :-) anyway, I just thought it was interesting. Depending on the wiring in your building (I've seen a few), it's also possible that your pair is accessible from the apartment next door, as well as from the apartments above/below yours and your neighbor's. In this case, no trench coat is needed. :) ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: Re: CLASS Is Finally Coming to My Exchange Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Wed, 15 May 91 20:35:22 GMT I just finished reading a submission from John Higdon, who says: > My CO (the last of the original Alexander Graham Bell prototypes) > will be upgraded in September of this year, and CLASS will be available > in October. Well, I guess we can expect the amount of traffic in this forum to decline sharply as a result, huh? Maybe my c.d.t. reading backlog will decrease and I'll actually get caught up. (Sorry, John, I couldn't resist. :-) > I am told that this will be the first offering of CLASS in California. Are there any special (outspoken?) customers which might have caused this to happen in your location, or just luck? Inquiring minds want to know ... (tm) ------------------------------ From: Kevin Collins Subject: CLASS Presentation at Texpo `91 Date: 14 May 91 16:30:56 GMT Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca I recently attended Texpo `91, an annual show held in San Francisco and sponsored largely by our friends at Pac*Bell. One of the seminars offered was about CLASS; it was given by two of Pac*Bell's Product Managers. Below is a brief summary of my impressions. The basic gist of the presentation was an overview of the CLASS features and a brief explanation of how SS7 enabled Pac*Bell to provide them. As may be expected, however, the seminar was a bit vague on a few points: 1) Deployment: Phase 1 of the rollout (10/1/91) was specified as area codes 415, 408, and 510 in NoCal and area codes 213, 818, and 310 in SoCal. There seemed to be a definite implication that *all* offices in those NPA's would be upgraded; when pressed, however, the PM's admitted that only "most" offices would be CLASS-capable. 2) Functionality: Another point not even mentioned by the PM's but raised by an attendee was that all of the features would only work within the subscriber's LATA until SS7 is fully implemented by the IXC's. In fact, the examples given on how the features worked involved a call between SF and NY! The most annoying misrepresentation was about Caller ID and per-call blocking. Pac*Bell is totally opposed to offering per-line blocking, even to holders of unlisted numbers or crisis centers. To quote two paragraphs from a brochure entitled "Caller ID and Your Privacy": "For the new COMMSTAR features to be beneficial, it is necessary for all numbers, including those not listed in the telephone directory, to be treated the same. Otherwise, any caller could hide his identity and remain unaccountable for his actions simply by having an unlisted number. But if your number is unlisted, you will still be able to retain your anonymity through *Per Call Privacy*. [dialing *67 before every call - KC] "Importantly, *Per Call Privacy* does not hamper the basic function of the other services. So, you retain the ability to deal effectively with unwanted callers through Call Trace, Call Block and Call Return." To me, the implication here is clear: any privacy option stronger than per-call blocking would prevent features such as Call Trace from working. This is, of course, pure hogwash! All per-line blocking means is that the calling number of a certain line will never be delivered to the called party, *not* that the calling party number would be unknown to the CO. The fact that Pac*Bell is attempting to foist this BS on their customers as validation for not offering per-line blocking merely illustrates their obviously low opinion of their customers' perception. So Pat, what are my chances of getting a FX line from IBT out here to Sunnyvale? :-) Kevin Collins | Aspect Telecommunications USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc | San Jose, CA Voice: +1 408 441 2489 | My opinions are mine alone. ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Pagers and Timeout Date: Tue, 14 May 91 17:25:05 EDT The Esteemed Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: How could this be? Did you mean it gets the person > to return the call quicker or it somehow gets the transmission out to > the pager a little faster? Why would anyone necessarily rush to the > phone faster to call because they saw '00'? Explain please. PAT] Probably means that the pager system accepts up to ten digits, and if you enter a seven-digit number and then pad with "*00" it doesn't need to time out. "#" might work, too. cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan [Moderator's Note: The 'official' answer to this will be given in an issue of the Digest later today. I have a message in the queue which explains what the original author meant. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #371 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21116; 19 May 91 9:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28050; 19 May 91 6:34 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01709; 19 May 91 5:19 CDT Date: Sun, 19 May 91 4:14:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #372 BCC: Message-ID: <9105190414.ab29222@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 May 91 04:13:58 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 372 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Help: 800 Numbers Won't Work From New Home [Gerry Lachac] MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims??? [Jamie Hanrahan] Just How Stupid Can Repair Service Be? [Steve Forrette] CWA on Northern Telecom - Part II [Peter Marshall] Re: AT&T Card Pin Disclosed [Phillip V. Hull] Strange AT&T Bill [Sean Williams] Connecting American RJ11 to British CW1311 [Fernando da Silva] DAA Help Needed [Paul Sutter] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gerry Lachac Subject: Help: 800 Numbers Won't Work From New Home Organization: Dialogic Corporation Date: Wed, 15 May 91 16:32:39 GMT I've just recently moved from central NJ to northern NJ (Madison). I was calling 800 numbers in the phone book, trying to get pricing info on spring water (hey, it's the 90's :-), and for several calls I was connected with the standard error recording "We're sorry your call cannot be completed as dialed. Check the number and dial your call again 265". This struck me as odd, because these were very big companies I was calling, and for the new phone book to have three out of five wrong 1-800 numbers would be pretty odd. So I called an 800 I _knew_ worked and got the same message. I called another (Tymnet's) and was connected no problem. I thought, "ok, one of the keys on my phone is generating the wrong tone", but trying it from a different phone produced the same results. So the next day at work, (only nine miles from my home and NJ Bell just like my home) I dialed all the numbers that didn't work, and they worked fine. No problem at work, but a problem at home. Before I call NJ Bell and complain, I wanted to see if anyone had a clue about what's going on? Can certain 800 numbers be locked out from my home? (Some of these are definately national numbers and should work anywhere in the US.) Will the local telco think I'm crazy when I tell them this? gerry uunet!dialogic!gerry Dialogic Corporation OR 300 Littleton Rd gerry@dialogic.UUCP Parsippany, NJ 07054 (201)334-8450 [Moderator's Note: The thing you may want to do is make a list of the 800 numbers -- particularly the prefixes -- which are locked out from your home, *then* approach the local telco asking why 800-xxx, 800-yyy and 800-zzz are locked out from 201-nnn. If your office is served by the same telco (even if not the same exchange), point out that 800-xxx, 800-yyy and 800-zzz are not locked out from 201-bbb, and since the 800 numbers are national in scope, therefore there must be a programming error in the office serving your residence. Cover all the bases when you first call them so they cannot give you tale of how not all 800 numbers are available from all locations ... you already know that! You want to know why they are locked out of one exchange locally and available from another exchange locally. It might bolster your case if you detirmined if all the 800 prefixes thus affected were from the same carrier, or in the case of AT&T the same toll center, etc. Ask for a foreman to call you back if necessary. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cmkrnl!jeh@decwrl.dec.com Subject: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims??? Date: 15 May 91 10:09:47 PDT Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA I saw an ad on TV last night which should raise the hackles of any slamming victim. They were looking for subscribers to one of AT&T's special long-distance plans. Quasi-quoted, because I can't remember it exactly: "Give us the numbers of the friends you call on AT&T's plan. We'll give you at least 10% savings [not so bad so far] and we'll offer to switch them to MCI." I'll just bet they will. Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA Chair, VMS Internals Working Group, U.S. DECUS VAX Systems SIG Internet: jeh@dcs.simpact.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!cmkrnl!jeh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 91 01:01:39 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Just How Stupid Can Repair Service Be? Each time I deal with Pacific Bell repair service, I think I've reached a new low. Yet they always manage to outdo themselves next time. The following story will surely amuse you: I ordered collect and third-number billing blocking on my numbers, in order to prevent getting the bill for fraudulent calls (I always use my calling card). Not wanting to take the Business Office's word that it's working, I decided to place a test call to make sure that it would be denied. To test third number billing, I tried to call 408 directory assistance from 415-841. So, I picked up the phone, dialed 0 408 555 1212, and waited for the "ka-bong." (415 and 408 are in the same LATA, so this should be a Pacific Bell call). Much to my surprise, the first thing I heard was "This is 421. What city please?" Thinking I must have misdialed, I tried it again, getting the same result. I was using 0+ dialing and the call was going through as if I had used 1+. Something was obviously misprogrammed in my CO, so I called Repair Service at 611. I explained my problem, and was told that they didn't handle this sort of problem. "We have nothing to do with calling card calls - call your operator" I tried to clarify the problem, but the person was insistant. "We have nothing to do with the dialing of numbers." Can you believe that? This gets my nomination for the quote of the week. So, I called the operator, explained the problem, and was referred to Repair Service. I told the operator what I had been told by Repair, and the response was "They always say that." It was suggested that perhaps 415 and 408 DA was consolidated, and that this may be causing the problem. So, I called 411, and asked for a San Jose number. "San Jose is in 408" was the response. So, no consolidation. So, back to Repair. The same lady was very angry with me for daring to call again: Me> (explanation) Repair> "I already told you, we don't deal with that!" Me> "I called the Operator as you instructed, and was referred back to you" Repair> "We don't deal with that sort of problem. Operators handle calling card calls" Me> "But I never get the Operator because of the problem I'm trying to report." Repair> "Why don't you just dial 411?" Me> "Because I'm trying to call long distance Directory Assistance, in the 408 area code" Repair> "Did you dial 0 then a 1?" Me> "Why would I do that?" Repair> "0 for calling card, then 1 because it's long distance." Me> "I've never heard of that form of dialing before." Repair> (rude mode on) "I was just giving a suggestion. If you don't want them, I won't offer any more." Me> *sigh* "Is this the right place to report this sort of problem?" Repair> "We don't handle problems with your telephone, only in your phone line." Me> "It's neither - it's in the Central Office switch. Who handles those problems?" Repair> "We do. I'll take the report, and someone will look into it." Me> "Will someone call me back?" Repair> "Tomorrow, between 8am and 3pm" We'll see what happens then. Can you believe this? The person at Repair doesn't even know how to dial a calling card call! I would be willing to bet money that this problem goes unresolved for a long time. But I will be persistant. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 91 22:05:50 -0700 From: Peter Marshall Subject: CWA on Northern Telecom - Part II [Moderator's Note: We had part one on this last week. Mr. Marshall submitted this in two parts. Here is the concluding section. PAT] Further describing CO switch sales to the BOCs by NT, the CWA report indicates that "Total sales ... to the Bell System shot up from $108 million in 1981 to $1.4 billion by 1985, an annual compounded rate of 90%. In the four years leading up to divestiture, Northern captured 75% of all BOC switch orders and sold switches to all 22 BOCs. Fron that point on its sales to the Bell System are estimated to have exceeded $1 billion each year." Re: NT and US IXCs, this report states Northern Telecom has also benefitted from the other byproduct of divestiture: competition in ... long-distance. As MCI and US Sprint compete ... with AT&T, the other major producer of central office switches, NT has an edge on the switch orders from these two companies. Northern had provided 58 of MCI's 117 switches. The greater the penetration of MCI and Sprint in the long-distance market, the greater will be NT's penetration of specialized switches. Re: the PBX market, the CWA report says "Divestiture again provided the solution to ... penetration and survival in the highly competitive U.S. market. Beginning in 1986 it entered into contracts or joint ventures with all the BOCs to sell, install and maintain NT's PBX equipment in theire region. In most cases the BOCs bought out NT's installed customer base and the assets of its distribution network. The last agreement was reached with NYNEX in 1990." Concluding with a section on "Northern Telecom at a Crossroads," this source indicates that "Like all other manufacturers NT is preparing for equipment and software based on ... ISDN," and that "In 1987 NT began setting up trials of ISDN applications with several BOCs. Today it is conducting major tests with every BOC as well as with GTE, Contel and United Telecom." Yet these observations are qualified by the caveat that ... technological breakthroughs do not come cheaply. Just as revenues have jumped almost 400% over the last ten years, NT's research and development costs have grown ... almost ten times over the same period. During the last four years NT has had to invest an average 12% of ... total annual revenues in R&D, about 70% more than it did a decade ago. NT is counting on demand for ISDN services and for ... fiber transmission to recover its huge investment in R&D and keep in growing in the Canadian and U.S. markets. In 1989, it announced its next generation of switches and transmission products called FiberWorld, based on end-to-end fiber optics and ... SONET. Northern ... is also gambling that the telephone companies will invest in a major way in the new technology and soon. So far it seems to be on target. Finally, the plunge into the new technology is all premised on rosy projections of the demand for new services by telco customers. ------------------------------ From: hullp@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU () Subject: Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed Organization: Institute of Cognitive Studies, U.C. Berkeley Date: Thu, 16 May 1991 07:05:51 GMT In article philip@beeblebrox.dle.dg.com (Philip Gladstone) writes: > I guess the difference is that banks are trying to protect against the > loss of significant amounts of money, whilst AT&T is trying to protect > against a theft of service (for which you haven't paid [yet]). I wish this were true. The card in question is a VISA + calling card and if the PIN got into the wrong hands hundreds of dollars in cash advances at just about any ATM could be lost in days. If you didn't know about this loss of security, you'd be liable for, I believe $50 but the hassle involved would be enormous. When I got my AT&T Universal card, I called them to request a form on which to request a PIN number that I could remember (the usual way is as you describe with nobody but the PIN-generating computer knowing what your PIN is). The clerk said she could give me one over the phone. I was totally astounded and a bit pissed but ... it was very convenient I must admit as I could go out and use the thing in ATM's right away instead of waiting for a new PIN authorization which takes at least 10 days the other way. Philip V. Hull INTERNET: hullp@cogsci.berkeley.edu BITNET: hullp@cogsci.berkeley.bitnet UUCP: ucbvax!cogsci!hullp OR: ucbvax!cogsci.berkeley.edu!hullp ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Wed May 15 19:36:16 EDT 1991 Subject: Strange AT&T Bill Hi everyone! I was talking to a friend about her long distance service a few days ago (being that I sell MCI and all) and she told me that a relative of hers was using AT&T. Of course, this didn't shock me one bit. Thousands of people use AT&T. But then she went on to tell me that this relative was being billed, on her AT&T page, $40.00 every two or three months (she wasn't sure of the frequency.) This DID shock me, as I have never heard of such a thing. Immediately, I began scanning through my mind for information about Reach Out America, or other AT&T options, but nothing fit the bill (pardon the pun). If anyone knows what this charge might be, please e-mail or voicemail me immediately, as I would like to help her remove the charge (assuming it is erronous). I don't have a copy of her AT&T bill here, nor have I seen it, so don't ask for any specifics until I can contact her about it. Thanks alot! Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@attmail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | "I own Spectrum, so our 333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227 | opinions are very similar" Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA | voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 [Moderator's Note: 'thousands of people using AT&T'? How about tens of millions of us who are quite satisfied with it? This allegation of a periodic $40 charge shocks me also. I can think of nothing which fits that description, so you might want to have this person actually read the descriptive line to you the next time it appears. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Fernando da Silva (PW Ph.D." Subject: Connecting American RJ11 to British CW1311 - a Simple Query Date: 16 May 91 17:26:01 GMT Organization: Dept. Computer Science, Univ. Manchester, UK I'm trying to connect an American RJ11 male connector to a British CW1311 socket, for data communications purposes. RJ11 jack CW1311 jack 1- not used 1- not used 2- black(?) 2- red 3- red(?) 3- blue 4- green(?) 4- green 5- yellow(?) 5- white 6- not used 6- not used For most British phone connections only 2 and 5 of CW1311 are sufficient. Wich are the two important lines on the RJ11? Are all four lines important for data communications? Many thanks in anticipation. Fernando A. da Silva Dept. of Computer Science, | JANET: fds@uk.ac.man.cs The University, | Internet: fds%cs.man.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Manchester, | or : fds%cs.man.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu M13 9PL, UK. | EAN: fds%cs.man.ac.uk@ean-relay.ac.uk Tel: 061 - 275 6292 | UUCP: fds%cs.man.ac.uk@ukc.uucp Fax: 061 - 275 6280 | EARN/BITNET:fds%cs.man.ac.uk@earn-relay.ac.uk ------------------------------ From: Paul Sutter Subject: DAA Help Needed Date: 15 May 91 03:55:50 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA Three DAA questions: 1) FCC Part 68 says the dc on-hook impedance should be 5 megohms. EIA-470 says at least 25 megohms. Which should I follow? iI is much easier for me to exceed 5 megohms than 25. 2) Many DAA circuits I have seen include the following surge protection: (tip) ----/\/\/\/\/----+-------- | (varistor) | (ring) ----/\/\/\/\/----+-------- With 5 ohm resistors, how are the wattage ratings determined? I have seen anything from 1 watt to quarter watt resistors used. likewise I have seen variation in the varistor used. Since these are for surges, how do you calculate the necessary ratings? 3) Can anyone suggest a cheapo transformer with 1.5kv isolation that does not have to be beefy enough to pull the DC offset? The cheapest we have found was a Midcom for $.80 (in moderate quantity), but since it was designed to pull the DC offset, I suspect a cheaper/smaller one may be found. Any suggestions? Thanks. Paul Sutter (not writing on behalf of my employer) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #372 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01928; 19 May 91 14:19 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03622; 19 May 91 12:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28269; 19 May 91 11:45 CDT Date: Sun, 19 May 91 11:20:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #373 BCC: Message-ID: <9105191120.ab01873@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 May 91 11:20:40 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 373 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Transatlantic Calling History [Donald E. Kimberlin] Touch-Tone Selections From Overseas [Claus Tondering] Krislyn Associates With Phoenix Network [Paul Wilczynski] Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan (tm) [Skip Collins] FCC Address For Operator Service Complaints [Bruce Oneel] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 May 91 11:03 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Transatlantic Calling History In Digest (vlliss346), Dave Marthouse (n2aam@overlf.UUCP) asks: > I would like information on the first transatlantic call from North > America to Europe. When was it made? What mode was used? I assume it > was radio. If so, what form of modulation was used and what frequency > was it on? Any other technical or historical information would be > appreciated. Telephone technologists were quite a bit later developing their art to ocean-spanning reach compared to telegraphers. At least one historian records the first notion of an electrical telegraph reaching back to 1558. The idea of conductive wire to transmit electrical signals evolved from early use of wet string and rope to a wire by one recorded experiment across the Thames River in July, 1747. Numerous forms of electrical signaling followed, including a variety of "telegraphs" used largely by railways in the century that preceded S.F.B. Morse's widely heralded "invention." By 1795, one historian found a Spaniard suggested that an undersea wire could be used for a conduit for telegrams. The limitation was that no one knew what material might be used for a suitable insulator. A Portugese engineer has been said to have brought specimens of a natural material called gutta percha to England in 1843, providing the needed second material. Other sources state that water crossings for telegraphic purposes had been made in 1811 in Germany, 1838 in England and 1840 in India, but the materials used are not mentioned. The era of British empire expansion seems to have been the leading force in developing most of the needed materials and substructure of technology for global telecommunications, spearheaded by the telegraph. Much of this concerned developing communications with India and is not recorded in American books. Thus, American history books tend to begin with Morse's telegraphic work beginning in 1832, patented in 1837 and fully operational between Baltimore and Washington in 1843. Similarly, little is told in American history books of the many developmental efforts of English technologists (in cooperation with and often driven by the German, Siemens) to develop submarine telegraphy. Suffice it to say in this short note that Cyrus Field, the American that U.S. history books start their submarine telegraphy history with, was a businessman, not a technologist, who learned in 1854 that the English Channel had been spanned by a commercially successful cable in 1851. By that time, the American Western Union Telegraph Company had matured to a great heyday of ambitious growth. WUTCo had plans to reach Europe, but technology that anticipated the way to do it was to go overland the long way across British Columbia and Alaska via the Aleutian Island chain, in order to require a submarine cable only across the Bering Straits, thence via Siberia to Moscow, where connections via Denmark could be had to the capitals of Europe. Field really got his technology (and eventually his capital) from England. The technological history of submarine telegraphy and the first transatlantic telegraph cable is full of tales of learning by mistake what the "basics" are. G.S. Ohm even suffered ridicule for decades, and all this development was taking place when nobody even agreed what an Ohm was! (In the 1870's, Werner von Siemens declined the honor of having the unit of resistance named after him, deferring to his friend, Ohm, who had suffered so much ridicule for decades.) Knowing so little about the electricity and materials they used, the British-backed firm called the Atlantic Telegraph Company finally made a physical connection of 1,640 nautical miles between Valentia Bay, Ireland and Trinity Bay and transmitted messages on August 17, 1858. In that event, a tradition that heads of state should exchange the first official message began with messages between Queen Victoria and President Buchanon. This then, could be the first "call" across the Atlantic. Based on a plan that it ought to support transmission at words per minute (that's 3/10ths of character per second, folks!), the new transatlantic cable suffered such high transmission losses and similarly high earth currents that the inaugural message took sixteen hours to transmit. It wasn't going to make money. Quite a battle ensued within the Atlantic Telegraph Company between its learned advisor, William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and its amateur Chief Engineer, who "raised the voltage" and blew the cable into silence in an effort to please the investors. It lasted only a few weeks, and resulted in a Parliamentary investigation, but it had in that short time saved the British Government $50,000 in one message regarding troop movements ($500,000 or more in today's inflated currency). It took until 1865 before Atlantic Telegraph made another attempt at laying another cable that broke and was lost when 1,186 miles had been laid. But, they again braved the rough North Atlantic ocean in 1866 and not only laid a complete cable, but also salvaged and used the previous year's cable. Thus, in July, 1866 two cables started up between Ireland and Newfoundland. The technology had so improved that transmission rates were more than doubled from the earlier plan, to a raging words per minute! On the strength of this, Western Union, which had abandoned its Siberian Route project on hearing of the earlier 1857 cable, bought the Atlantic Telegraph Company and took over the cable. (Today's MCII/WUI has its roots reaching to that purchase.) Following that success, submarine telegraph cables rapidly grew, largely driven by the imperial plans of England, Germany and other Europeans, to span the globe multiple times before 1900. Submarine telegraph cables were a burgeoning, leading-edge technology until well into the 20th century. Even as late as 1950, Cable and Wireless had 150,000 nautical miles of submarine telegraph cable in operation, reaching all parts of the former Empire. Radio was an infant (with some historical roots to the late 1890's in British Naval history) when Marconi succeeded in passing a telegraphic message across the Atlantic in 1901. The prehistory of radio, however, dates to at least 1865 when a Virginia dentist. Dr Mahlon Loomis, had managed to induce a current from one kite wire to another several miles distant. Loomis envisioned telegraphy spanning the Pacific by radio in his diary. Early radiotelegraphy enjoyed an explosive development and expansion, to the point that radiotelegraphers achieved their goal of "reaching the antipodes," or halfway around the Earth, meaning they could girdle the globe, in September, 1918 by reaching from England to Australia. By this time, many shorter radiotelegraph crossings of oceans were in regular use. Telephony was evolving its own use of both cable and radio techniques, but not to such leaps of oceans as the telegraphers had accomplished. In 1921, the first use of radio for telephone calls seems to have been established permanently between Santa Catalina Island and Los Angeles, 26 miles away. Over on the Atlantic seaboard, experiments with using modified radiotelegraph transmitters (in that day, actually rotating high-frequency AC generators at power levels up to 500 kilowatts!) were being made to ships at sea. One demonstration was made linking Catalina Island via the (then new) transcontinental telephone lines to Deal Beach, New Jersey (an early Bell Labs experimental station) then again via radiotelephone to a ship in the Altantic, an unspecified distance east of New York. This was as far as the telephone could reach many years after the telegraph had spanned the globe. It wasn't until nearly another decade had passed that AT&T, in cooperation with the British Post Office, spanned the Atlantic with regular telephone service. While the telegraphers had used a frequency of kilohertz with a power level of 540 kilowatts between Hillmorton, near Rugby and the RCA plant at Rocky point on Long Island, significant problems at modulating such a low carrier frequency with speech drove the telephone researchers all the way up to 55 kilohertz, a frequency that was quite difficult to maintain stable reception at such distances in those early days. The result was that the first commercial telephone service across Atlantic wasn't opened until October 1, 1927. The 55/60 kilohertz operation was soon supplanted by shortwave operations, something that a Cable and Wireless forebear had been spreading around the Empire by the early 1920's; largely because Marconi hadn't pressed use of these even more unpredictable "shortwave" frequencies. (Hams would have jumped for joy at the lack of QRM!) While submarine telegraphy had developed so highly that much of the needed technology was at hand for mechanics, getting a bandwidth of 3,000 Hertz out of those telegraph cables was well nigh impossible. For the next several decades, expansion of telephone service between continents was by means of shortwave radio. This mode continued (and continues today to many underdeveloped nations) well into the cable and satellite era. It took development of coaxial cable telephone carrier technology in the period surrounding World War II to get adequate bandwidth at satisfactory noise levels for a transoceanic telephone cable. Some regular twisted-pair telephone cables had been laid between Key West and Havana prior to the laying of Bell Labs' type SA submarine telephone system between the same two cities, distance of 78 miles. (This may sound strange to telephone engineers, but the complications of coldness on the ocean bottom makes wire much less conductive, thus much more lossy than up on land.) Using the successful 1950 base of the Key West - Havana coaxial telephone cable, the Atlantic was spanned in 1955-56 with the Type SB submarine telephone coaxial cable between Clarenville, Newfoundland (extended to New York) and Oban, Scotland (extended to London) and the first transatlantic phone "call" by cabled was made in September, 1956. Today, fiber optics has made bandwidths unimaginable to the early developers a commonplace, to the point we see the transatlantic rate structure crumbling this year, soon to be followed in the Pacific Basin. Bandwidth at great distances is rapidly becoming such a cheap commodity that many of us simply cannot imagine how monumental the effort of the pioneers to get little more than continuity must have been. It's almost all "obsolete" today, but virtually every technique we now use with such abandon came from their gambling with unknown, barely controllable technology. It's doubtful we'll ever again see such risk-takers providing us with something we now take so much for granted. [Moderator's Note: Thank you for an *excellent* presentation! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Claus Tondering Subject: Touch-Tone Selections From Overseas Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S Date: Thu, 16 May 1991 07:02:51 GMT I frequently phone the US from Europe; but I often run into trouble if the party I am calling asks me to enter some number (e.g. an extension number or a menu selection) on my touch-tone phone. Although the touch-tone frequencies are international, these selections often do not work when used from Europe. One of three things happens: 1) It works perfectly, and I get connected as requested. 2) It works only if I hold each key down for two or three seconds. 3) Absolutely nothing happens. The American party does not recognize my touch-tones. I have even noticed both behavior 2 and 3 when calling the same (Massachusetts) number on different occasions. Why this difference in behavior? What can I do to make it work always? Where does the fault lie? In Europe? In the US? In the satellite? Claus Tondering E-mail: ct@dde.dk Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 91 19:04 GMT From: Paul Wilczynski <0002003441@mcimail.com> Subject: Krislyn Associates With Phoenix Network Krislyn Computer Services, a telecommunications marketing firm, has become associated with Phoenix Network, a Telecommunications Management Company. Phoenix, founded in 1984 and a publicly-traded company, is the oldest of the telephone rebillers. Phoenix utilizes the major carriers, and offers a variety of management reports to clients to allow for the more effective management and control of long distance usage. These reports include "$x or more", "x minutes or more", "usage during non-business hours", and others. Additionally, savings from 10 to 35% of long distance costs are offered. Phoenix provides monetary guarantees that clients will be pleased with network services. We would be pleased to provide further information if you desire. Paul Wilczynski ------------------------------ From: Skip Collins Subject: Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan (tm) Date: 16 May 91 21:34:16 GMT Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD Some months ago we were having static problems on some of our home phones. It appeared to be a wiring problem, so we called C&P to send a repair-person. The problem ended up being a corroded piece of standard phone wire which ran upstairs on the outside wall of our house. The repair lady was very competent and fixed the problem in no time. Because we had not signed up for any of the wire maintenance plans offered by C&P the charge for the repair should have been about $50. The nice woman who did the repair however offered to delay submitting the service report for a few days until we signed up for an internal wire maintenance plan. We promptly enrolled in the Guardian plan for about $2 per month. I forget the details now, but the plan covers the cost of any repair to the house phone wiring inside the demarc. It does not cover the cost of repairs to customer-owned phones. In general, I believe such insurance is a waste of money. But at that particular time it made a lot of sense. I believe that after we called to subscribe to the plan, our coverage began within 24 hours. (Perhaps it was immediately.) This raises interesting possibilities. Suppose, being a savvy consumer, I enroll at the first sign of trouble in my wiring, and then call for a repair. After the problem is taken care of, I cancel my coverage. Would this work? Is it ripping off the phone company? Just yesterday I called to cancel our coverage. Total cost of repair: $4. Skip Collins [Moderator's Note: Some telcos, Illinois Bell included, get around this by requiring a certain time period to elapse after signing up before it is effective unless you enroll when first invited to do so or during periodic 'open-enrollment' promotional periods. I think IBT requires 120 or 150 days to elapse before you can collect on this form of insurance, which is really what it is. You are 'first invited' to sign up when you install new service. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 May 91 09:04:19 EDT From: Bruce Oneel Subject: FCC Address For Operator Service Complaints From a local C&P telephone (A Bell Atlantic Company) payphone. The card seemed to be dated 12/90. Operator Service Complaints to: FCC Enforcement Division CCB Room 6202 Washington, DC 20554 My *GUESS* is that this address would apply to any area/region but maybe not. The phone numbers are: (Wouldn't want those now, would we. It's only telecom!) General 202-632-7000 Complaints, Telephone 202-632-7553 Common Carrier 202-632-6910 bruce ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #373 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04602; 19 May 91 15:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09332; 19 May 91 13:55 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03622; 19 May 91 12:50 CDT Date: Sun, 19 May 91 11:55:13 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #374 BCC: Message-ID: <9105191155.ab09804@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 May 91 11:55:04 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 374 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Ringing Tones Around the World [Andy Behrens] Phone Books Do Not Mention 540 Numbers [Wm Randolph Franklin] Re: IDDD Calling [David E. A. Wilson] Calling Cards in Britain [Linc Madison] Loss of Copyright: Phone Book White Pages ==> Maps? [Dan Jacobson] Intellectual Property (was: Hayes Wins Damages) [Ralph W. Hyre] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 May 91 07:16:22 -0400 From: Andy Behrens Subject: Ringing Tones Around the World Pat, This is the list that Rick Broadhead was asking for. (I've mailed him a copy). I can't find this in the Telecom archives - maybe you want to put a copy there. Regards, Andy ======================================== ringing.tones ======================================== > From: clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather) > Subject: Tones and Country Codes > Date: 29 Oct 90 10:02:08 GMT I just received British Telecom's latest international phone guide. A new feature in this is descriptions of the tones used in each country for ringing and engaged. Having merged this with my country codes list, I thought that readers might be interested. A few notes: BT list two country codes I haven't seen before: 905 Turkish Cyprus 290 St. Helena Six countries which are not directly diallable from the UK (and so no country code is given) are not listed in the last table of country codes I took from the Digest. Does anyone know their country codes ? Antarctica Australian Territory Chatham Islands Midway Island Pitcairn Islands Tristan da Cunha Wake Island In v10i763, Jim Rees asks for the shortest world-wide unique number. The guide gives the lengths of numbers for some countries. St. Helena (290) has three digit numbers! Country codes 247, 674, 678, and 680 have four digit numbers. Here is the up-to-date list. Lines beginning with # are comments. Lines beginning with + are continuation lines, and repeat the code and tone info. # Tone codes (first is ring, second is engaged): # A: double ring, repeated regularly (UK ringing tone) # B: equal length on/off tones - about 1Hz (UK & USA engaged tone) # C: slow equal length on/off tones # D: fast equal length on/off tones - 2Hz to 3Hz # E: tones separated by long pauses (USA ringing tone) # F: long tones separated by short pauses 1 NANP (USA, Canada, and the Carribean) +1 AB Anguilla, Dominica, Grenada & Carriacou, Montserrat, +1 AB St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & Grenadines, +1 AB Virgin Islands (UK) +1 CB Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Puerto Rico, +1 CB Virgin Islands (US) +1 EB Barbados, Canada, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, +1 EB United States of America +1 EF Antigua & Barbuda +1 FD Turks and Caicos Islands 20 CF Egypt 210 (reserved for Morocco) 211 (reserved for Morocco) 212 EB Morocco 213 CB Algeria 214 (reserved for Algeria) 215 (reserved for Algeria) 216 EB Tunisia 217 (reserved for Tunisia) 218 CF Libya 219 (reserved for Libya) 220 AB The Gambia 221 CD Senegal 222 Mauritania 223 CB Mali 224 EC Guinea 225 CD Cote d'Ivoire 226 EB Burkina Faso (Upper Volta) 227 CF Niger 228 CB Togolese Republic 229 CB Benin 230 AB Mauritius 231 ED Liberia 232 CB Sierra Leone 233 ED Ghana 234 CF Nigeria 235 CB Chad 236 EB Central African Republic 237 EB Cameroon 238 CD Cape Verde 239 CB Sao Tome and Principe 240 Equatorial Guinea 241 EB Gabonese Republic 242 CD Congo 243 CD Zaire 244 CD Angola 245 EC Guinea-Bissau 246 Diego-Garcia 247 [EA]B Ascension Island [4 digit numbers] 248 AB Seychelles 249 Sudan 250 CB Rwandese Republic 251 ED Ethiopia 252 CB Somalia 253 EB Djibouti 254 AF Kenya 255 AD Tanzania including Zanzibar 256 [AC]E Uganda 257 CB Burundi 258 EB Mozambique 259 (assigned to Zanzibar, but use 255 54) 260 EF Zambia 261 CB Madagascar 262 CB Reunion (France) 263 AB Zimbabwe 264 AB Namibia 265 ED Malawi 266 AD Lesotho 267 AB Botswana 268 AB Swaziland 269 Mayotte Island (part of France) and Comoros 27 AB South Africa 290 FB St. Helena [3 figure numbers] 295 ED San Marino (not used at present - 39 541 used) 296 AB Trinidad and Tobago (not used at present - 1 809 used) 297 EB Aruba 298 ED Faroe Islands 299 ED Greenland 30 ED Greece 31 ED Netherlands 32 CD Belgium 33 CB France (Metropolitan), Andorra (33 628), Monaco (33 93) 34 ED Spain 350 AB Gibraltar 351 EB Portugal 352 ED Luxembourg 353 AB Eire (Irish Republic) 354 CD Iceland 355 Albania 356 AB Malta 357 AF Cyprus 358 ED Finland 359 ED Bulgaria 36 FD Hungary 37 ED Federal Republic of Germany (Eastern Portion, former DDR) 38 E[BD] Yugoslavia 39 ED Italy, San Marino (39 541, see also 295), Vatican City (39 6 6982) 40 CB Romania 41 EB Switzerland, Liechtenstein (41 75) 42 ED Czechoslovakia 43 ED Austria 44 AB United Kingdom 45 BD Denmark 46 ED Sweden 47 ED Norway 48 EB Poland 49 ED Federal Republic of Germany (Western Portion) 500 EB Falkland Islands 501 ED Belize 502 CD Guatemala 503 EB El Salvador 504 CD Honduras 505 EB Nicaragua 506 EB Costa Rica 507 EA Panama 508 CB St. Pierre et Miquelon (France) 509 [EF]B Haiti 51 EB Peru 52 ED Mexico 53 CB Cuba 54 EB Argentina 55 EB Brazil 56 AB Chile 57 ED Colombia 58 CD Venezuela 590 CF Guadeloupe (France), including St. Barthelemy and French side +590CF of St. Martin 591 EB Bolivia 592 AB Guyana 593 ED Ecuador 594 ED French Guiana 595 EB Paraguay 596 CB Martinique (part of France) 597 EB Suriname 598 EB Uruguay (East Republic) 599 EB Netherlands Antilles (Sint Maarten, Saba, Statia, Curacao, +599EB Bonaire) 60 AB Malaysia 61 AB Australia 62 EB Indonesia 63 EB Philippines 64 AB New Zealand 65 AB Singapore 66 ED Thailand 670 EB Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan) 671 EB Guam 672 AB Australian External Territories (Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, +672AB Cocos I.) 673 AB Brunei Darrusalm 674 EB Nauru [4 digit numbers] 675 AB Papua New Guinea 676 EB Tonga 677 DB Solomon Islands 678 ED Vanuatu (New Hebrides) [4 digit numbers] 679 AF Fiji Islands 680 EB Palau [4 digit numbers] 681 Wallis and Futuna 682 AB Cook Islands 683 Niue Island 684 EB American Samoa 685 AB Western Samoa 686 EB Kiribati Republic (Gilbert Islands) 687 CB New Caledonia 688 Tuvalu (Ellice Islands), Saipan 689 CB French Polynesia 690 Tokelan (Tokelau ?) 691 EB F.S. of Polynesia (Micronesia ?) 692 EB Marshall Islands 7 EB Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 81 EB Japan 82 FB Korea (Republic of) (South) 84 Viet Nam 850 ED Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North) 852 AB Hong Kong 853 EB Macao 855 Kampuchea (Cambodia) 856 Laos 86 CB China (866 assigned to Taiwan, but see also 886) 870 Reserved for Inmarsat 871 Inmarsat (Atlantic East) 872 Inmarsat (Pacific) 873 Inmarsat (Indian) 874 Inmarsat (Atlantic West) 875 Reserved for Inmarsat 876 Reserved for Inmarsat 877 Reserved for Inmarsat 878 Reserved for national mobile telephone purposes 879 Reserved for national mobile telephone purposes 880 AB Bangladesh 886 EB Taiwan (normally used, but not CCITT allocation - see 866) 90 EB Turkey, Turkish Cyprus (90 5) 91 AB India 92 [EA][BD] Pakistan 93 Afghanistan 94 AB Sri Lanka 95 EB Burma 960 AF Maldives 961 CB Lebanon 962 AB Jordan 963 EB Syrian Arab Republic 964 AB Iraq 965 EB Kuwait 966 EB Saudi Arabia 967 EB Yemen Arab Republic 968 FB Oman 969 ED Yemen Democratic Republic (united with Y.A.R. 967) 971 AB United Arab Emirates 972 EB Israel 973 AB Bahrain 974 AB Qatar 975 AC Bhutan 976 Mongolia 977 CE Nepal 98 ED Iran ------------------------------ From: Wm Randolph Franklin Subject: Phone Books Do Not Mention 540 Numbers Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Date: 16 May 91 21:12:03 GMT In article on 14 May 91 18:35:11 GMT bluemoon!sbrack@cis.ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > If your buddy the plumber doesn't understand such simple > concepts as dialing the operator for rate information on unrecognized > numbers, then he really shouldn't use any telecom device more involved > than a 500 set (not that he couldn't get himself burned there, too 8). > If you decide, of your own free will, to call a telephone number, then > you are agreeing to pay for the telephone service you have requested, > be it a $0.25 local call or a $25.00 audiotex number. The Manhattan White pages do not mention the 900 area code or the 540 exchanges anywhere in the 56 page instructions in front. Neither does the Albany phone book. The only even vaguely relevant indications were these. i) the book says that NYTEL may bill you on behalf of other companies, implying other long distance companies, and ii) a footnote on page 24 says that 976 numbers are mass announcement numbers and cost 35 cents. So exactly how is a new user, even one who scans the over one million words in the phone book intro, to ever learn about the existence of these nasties? I also called the Albany customer service number to ask about these special exchanges. She told me there were no such exchanges in Albany, but that there were a dozen such area codes in addition to 900, including 540 and 976. I double checked this, and according to her, these are not exchanges but long distance area codes. So even if one suspects that some numbers may be booby-trapped, calling Nytel won't get the proper info. I propose that in the interests of unfettered commerce, we make these numbers more flexible. Allow any business to designate any number, at any designated time of the day, to cause the customer to be billed $50. What's the problem? No one's forcing you to call. If you think there's a concealed trap, then call Nytel. If they falsely tell you there is no extra charge, well then they're just imitating the IRS, who penalizes you also if you rely on their erroneous phone advice. Next we can designate special floor tiles in stores. Step on one -- they're unmarked -- and you have automatically bought something, which is nonreturnable, and owe $50. If you have a question about any specific floor tile you can go up to the manager's office and ask about it. Be sure to watch your children in the store -- you owe if they step on the wrong tile. Just because floor tiles have always been used in the past solely to allow foot traffic to get from one place to another doesn't mean that they should be restricted to that in the future. I believe that one of the 900 number business associations is opposing a bill that would require them to state the charge at the start of the call and give the caller a chance to hang up. That says it all about this "business". Maybe we apply old common law about installing booby-traps to stop this scourge. No this is not sour grapes; I've never called such numbers in my life. Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu) Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261 Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: IDDD Calling Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Fri, 17 May 91 01:30:10 GMT K_MULLHOLAND@unhh.unh.edu (KATH MULLHOLAND) writes: > Is there a list available of the number of digits to be expected when > dialing overseas? In many countries numbers are not of fixed length - for example here in Australia the internal format is two to four digit area codes (all starting with zero which is omitted when calling from overseas) and five to seven digit local numbers. A quick look at the OTC Country Codes page in my phone book shows worse examples: Area Code Austria Wien (Vienna) 1 Salzburg 662 Innsbruck 5222 Japan Osaka 6 Yokohama 45 Nagasaki 958 Ishikawa 9896 David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 91 23:21:48 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Calling Cards in Britain Peter Thurston (thurston@mrc-applied-psychology.cambridge.ac.uk) in Vol. 11, Issue 362, Message 5 of 11, mentioned British Telecom's calling card. A few ignorant foreigner questions: how do you place a calling card call? Do you have to dial the operator and give him/her the number you want to reach and your card number orally, or is there something analogous to the system in use in the US where we dial 0 + number + (wait for tone) + calling card number, instead of a direct-dial (STD) 1 + number? ["number" here may include area code/city code, etc.] Linc Madison linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Loss of Copyright: Phone Book White Pages ==> Maps? Date: Fri, 17 May 91 06:09:00 GMT After one thumbs past the newly "liberated" white pages of my Illinois Bell Naperville Ill. phone book, one encounters a fairly bland street map of Naperville, with copyright notices at the bottom of each page. Would the U.S. Supreme Court would also see this map as a mere collection of facts too? ------------------------------ From: "Ralph W. Hyre" Subject: Intellectual Property (was Hayes Wins Damages) Date: 17 May 91 17:00:15 GMT Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati [followups to comp.org.eff.talk, for lack of an intellectual property group.] In article henry@ads.com writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 355, Message 1 of 9 > Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy" wrote: >> Interesting how Hayes goes after the smaller ... >> manufacturers. IBM and AT&T both also make and sell AT modems. > The chances are excellent that both IBM and AT&T license this > technology from Hayes ... neither outfit is known for taking risks > with this sort of stuff; they want their intellectual property > respected, and behave in kind. Unless you believe Paul Heckel, in the new edition of "Elements of Friendly Software Design". (Sybex, ISBN 0-89588-768-1) He's currently trying to get IBM to license his Zoomracks card and stack metaphor patent. (Aside: I don't know how you patent a metaphor; on the surface it would seem to be even harder than patenting an algorithm.) Apple licensed the ZoomRacks technology after being sued over their Hypercard product. Asymetrix' Toolbook is a clone of Hypercard for the Windows environment for the PC, and IBM and Zenith bundle it with some of their configurations. The conclusion seems to be that IBM will deal with you if they perceive you as a threat. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #374 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09934; 19 May 91 17:43 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06609; 19 May 91 16:13 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05215; 19 May 91 15:01 CDT Date: Sun, 19 May 91 14:10:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #375 BCC: Message-ID: <9105191410.ab31375@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 May 91 14:10:14 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 375 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Natural Micro Systems ME/2 Question [Stephen F. Bush] DiamondTel 99X Weakness [Bill Temps via Tony Harminc] The GTE-Contel Merger [Peter Marshall] LEC Competition: CWA Perspective [Peter Marshall] Cheap Cellular Phone Deals [Doctor Math] World History and Telecommunications [Donald E. Kimberlin] It Still Don't Network... or? [H. Peter Anvin] Information Needed About Sprintmail => Internet Gateway [Arun Baheti] The MFJ, "Shared Facilities" and "Condominium Arrangements" [Alan Toscano] One City With Two Area Codes [Ken Levitt] Obtaining Unlisted Numbers [Dennis G. Rears] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stephen F. Bush" Subject: Natural Micro Systems ME/2 Question Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast) Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 17:41:56 GMT Has anyone had experience using the computer voice mail system called Natural Micro Systems ME/2 ? We will be using it for a research project, and I am wondering how easy it is to use and if there have been any problems with it. Thanks, Steve Bush ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 May 91 16:33:20 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: DiamondTel 99X Weakness A friend from a conference not on the Internet posted the following. I volunteered to repost it here - comments are welcome. Append on 05/15/91 at 14:50 by Bill Temps, First Chicago Corporation: I have identified what I feel is a design weakness in the DiamondTel 99X portable cellular telephone. The battery slips on the back of the device, and is held in place by a leetle tiny plastic thingy, which engages with an equally leetle tiny plastic catch on the body of the telephone. This plastic thingy is vulnerable to mechanical stress and physical trauma ... i.e., de sucka breaks. Couple o' weeks ago, the plastic thingy on the battery broke. Solution: new battery, at a cost of about 10x or 15x a set of four double-A's. Today, the catch on the phone itself broke. Kludge: hold the battery on with a rubber band. I don't know why the two plastic thingies are 3mm wide instead of, say, 10mm and made of plastic instead of titanium, but that's the ... ah ... breaks. The device has not been dropped or otherwise (in my opinion) mistreated. Evidently it can't stand the stress of being carried in a bicycle bag -- at least not with Chicago potholes. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ Subject: The GTE-Contel Merger From: Peter Marshall Date: Fri, 17 May 91 23:40:16 PDT In its recent treatment of the merger, the CWA "Information Industry Report" notes a "complex GTE/Contel structure," explaining that the companies had combined 1990 revenues of $21.8 billion, making them the largest local telephone holding company in the country. They have more than 15 million access lines, ranking them fourth in the United States and another 2.3. million in Canada, Barbados and the Dominican Republic. They will control the fourth largest cellular network but will be the second largest franchise in terms of total population served. The report notes that GTE also "owns 51% of a joint venture with AT&T to manufacture telecommunications equipment, including ... switches," and that the merged telcos will maintain telephone operations in 40 states, with both now operating in 20, and GTE operating alone in 9, with Contel now operating alone in 11. The CWA report indicates that Contel's four data centers will be consolidated into GTE's data facilities; that field work centers will be integrated; that GTE SW will become Central Area and reconfigured; GTE North, a reconfigured North Area; GTE West, the West Area, adding Utah and Alaska; with GTE South, now the South Area, unchanged in territory. The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA PEP, V.32, V.42 ------------------------------ Subject: LEC Competition: CWA Perspective From: Peter Marshall Date: Fri, 17 May 91 23:19:57 PDT The March CWA "Information Industry Report" chimes in on the theme "Local Exchange Carriers to Face Growing Competition." The CWA view is that "Within the next five to ten years, the major local exchange carriers, including all the RBOCs, will face growing competition for local phone service from a variety of companies," and that "These developments have major implications ... for residential customers." According to the CWA report, among these implications are that "Residential customers, particularly low and middle income users, will face rising rates ..." This report claims also that "The most serious challenge to the existing wired systems comes from the cable television companies and personal communication networks," noting that cable companies "are taking a dual approach to preparing for local phone service: 1) they plan to upgrade ... to handle phone calls...; 2) they will enter into partnerships with (or develop on their own) cellular systems or [PCNs] to combine the advantages of mobile radio ... and cable transmission between transmitters and switches." The "Information Industry Report" notes Time Warner, the second largest cable system operator, announced in early March beginning of construction on the first two-way interactive cable system; and that, also in March, four cable systems were granted FCC licenses to test PCNs. The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA PEP, V.32, V.42 ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Date: Fri, 17 May 91 11:31:04 EST Subject: Cheap Cellular Phones Perhaps this has been discussed in another thread (I don't recall): Let's say the local stereo store has a "deal" where you get a cellular phone for $49.95 if you agree to a one-year service commitment with some specified carrier. Obviously, to re-program the phone yourself would be breaking the contract. Do they have recourse in this case? Since the phone has been bought and paid for, it is not being rented or leased, so it seems unlikely that they could come and take it from you ... but they could theoretically "blacklist" your ESN. Another example: you buy the phone, they activate it with their carrier, you sign the contract stating that you will keep that carrier for one year. What if they give you an "A" carrier and you independently sign up for a "B" carrier (or vice-versa), and simply don't use the carrier that they gave you? The phone is still activated according to the contract, right? You're still using the carrier of their choice, right? The last time Radio Shack ran this sort of "deal", the fine print in their ad stated that this deal was not available in California and one or two other states where such deals requiring activation have been made illegal. Cute. Also, is a repository of programming instructions being accumulated somewhere in the Archives? If I can get away with one of the above scenarios, I might just get myself a cell phone! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 May 91 12:07 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Suject: World History and Telecommunications ...It seems William Shakespeare knew more about computers than historians have yet discovered: "Life is a tale, Told by an idiot..." (a medieval term for a computer) "Full of sound..." (monotone beeps) "And fury." (the frustration you feel when a computer does what you tell it to, not what you WANT it to do!) ...this gives pause when you think that Julius Ceasar had the raw materials for a cellular phone, but lacked only the manufacturing processes for sand (silicon). What would the Roman Empire have been like if Caesar had a cellular phone on his chariot? ------------------------------ From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: It Still Don't Network ... or? Organization: Northwestern University Date: Sat, 18 May 1991 22:12:11 GMT A few questions about ISDN: 1. Is is feasible/not feasible to use ISDN as a link in an IP or Ethernet network? 2. Is ISDN a worldwide standard, or another one of them "we decide what we want" USA standards? 3. Does the 64 kbit/s B-channel rate over ISDN include error correction? 4. Does the D-channel protocol include service identification (say IP, video, voice, modem)...? 5. Is is possible to call a POTS line with a modem from an ISDN connection? 6. What are typical rates for ISDN? Is it billed per minute or per block? Peter A. is Curious (blue&yellow... yes I am Swedish) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 May 1991 17:28 CDT From: Arun Baheti Subject: Information Needed about Sprintmail => Internet Gateway I'm sorry to bother you with this, but I've had no luck locating this information in the archives. In the past, there was information posted here re: Sprint-Net Mail to Internet gateways. I'm interested in finding this information again. Can anyone post a quick summary? ab ------------------------------ From: atoscano@attmail.com Date: Wed May 15 16:32:06 CDT 1991 Subject: The MFJ, "Shared Facilities" and "Condominium Arrangements" The MFJ stipulates that the Bell Operating Companies and AT&T may share facilities for up to eight years after divestiture. Those eight years will expire in a few months. What facilities, if any, are still "shared" today? Does "Shared Facilities" include the "Condominium Arrangements" created to split up wire center buildings containing both local (end office) and toll switches? Examples which come to mind: Austin-Greenwood, Chicago-Canal, San Antonio-Capitol. Will AT&T have to move out of such buildings by the end of the year? A Alan Toscano Voice: +1 713 236 6616 AT&T Mail: atoscano Telex (UT): 156232556 CIS: 73300,217 [Moderator's Note: The way I have heard it is they will remain as they are but will no longer be legally 'sharing'. In the past, all floor space and facilities was owned in common. Now, both the LEC and AT&T are tenants in a 'condominium-style' building where each separately owns their own floor space and equipment, and they do not share their own floor space and equipment with anyone. Both are members of an association which owns the building and the common areas. Nothing in the MFJ said the two could not be tenants in the same condominium building. They will all still use the same restroom, elevator, and cafeteria facilities, which are owned by the association, rather than AT&T or the LEC individually. I suspect both entities are smart enough to keep their use of the common facilities at arms-length to appease the judge, bless his soul ... or does His Honor presume that two executives, one from the LEC and one from AT&T, will spend quality time together each day seated in ajoining stalls in the men's room plotting to put Sprint out of business, using the walls to write secret inter-company memos to each other? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 91 19:06:42 EDT From: Ken Levitt Subject: One City With Two Area Codes We have a new software product that provides office and practice management for veterinarians. Because the users of the system are often low level clerical staff with no prior exposure to computers, our system makes every possible attempt to verify all data entry fields. When the system is first installed, the system administrator builds a database of cities in the area. One field in the database contains the area code. When a phone number is entered, the system requires that the area code matches the area code for that city. All this worked fine until today when a new client informed me that Westlake Village, CA has two area codes (805/818). This was something that I had never considered possible. My choices are either to hard code a check for that one city in the program, or change the database structure and modify the program to account for this happening again in another city. Are there other cities in the country with two area codes? If I sell another 500 copies of my program, how likely am I to run across another one of them? Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu [Moderator's Note: I'd think that with the numerous area code splits going on in metro areas, your scenario could become quite common. How does your program now deal with (post office) New York, NY? At the outer edges of suburbia here, some communities sit right on the 815/708 line, including Fox Lake and Lockport/Romeoville, IL. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 May 91 00:02:52 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears" Subject: Obtaining Unlisted Numbers [Moderator's Note: OK gang, here we go with another immoderate message which explains how someone (gasp!) violated the privacy of another! So come one, come all with hate messages, etc. When alt groups get a sufficient volume of flames they usually move to Usenet where they can mingle with the big boys. PAT (the one who doesn't give any.)] -------------- I promised this list a long time ago an account on how to get unlisted numbers legally. The methods I used are not very technical but useful. First some background, I was married on 30 Sep 1989, and after many moons of a blissful marriage :-) we were separated in April, 1990. After I moved out of the apartment in July, 1990 she moved back in and decided to get her new number unlisted and not give it to me (in violation of the separation agreement). She also canceled my existing phone service three days prior to when it should have been but that is another issue. As I had legitimate need to contact her and the corespondent (look that up in your legal dictionary) I needed to get the number. Without specifing the exact method that worked the following were possible methods I used: o Went to a mutual friend's house and under the pretense of calling home, called my answering machine and when the message was done hit the memory recall for Sharon's number and deposited the DTMF tones on my answering machine. o I knew what prefix her number was (201-208). I also had a local directory that I scanned into my PC. It turned out that only numbers of the form 208-[0289]XXX has been assigned. I got from a contact from TPC a list of unassigned numbers for that prefix. I then had a list of 23 unlisted numbers. I hit it on the 7th call. o Her mother works on the floor beneath me. I got her to dial her at home at a pay phone. For an ex-computer hacker who is used to picking up passwords from a user typing at a keyboard the phone pad is not a contest. Anyone want a calling card number :-). Not only that, her mother called her from work while I was there. Anyone want to bet that I used my DTMF calculator to record the number when I hit redial after she left. o It was easy to get the corespondent's number, he was a volunter fireman. We have lots of computer-illiterate volunteer fireman at work. I gave them computer training they gave me confidential info. o It unbelievable the info you can get from people once you get them suffiencently drunk ... o Of course there is Caller-ID, you call up her lawyer, say something that he will communicate to her and in her pissed-off mode she will call you. But I have Caller-ID and thus I have her number. o There is one last way -> Bluffing that I have it and she gives it to me. Guess how I got it? ... BTW, don't think the TPC will give it to you. They won't and can't. I remember five years ago when I was Staff Duty Officer (Army 1LT) and had to get in contact with a civilian employee because the office of Chief of Staff Army (ranking officer of the US Army) needed some production figures. TPC would not give it to me, even when I cited official business. The best they would do is take my number, call the party and leave a message. The moral of the story _> thanks to old tech and new tech, no real privacy exists if one wants to go to any lengths. For those of you who are wondering ... I was awarded a divorce on my terms thanks to my excellent and cheap lawyer (pro se). It's funny though the only time I called her and the corespondent was just to verify the phone number. Dennis ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #375 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12453; 19 May 91 18:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04752; 19 May 91 17:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad06609; 19 May 91 16:14 CDT Date: Sun, 19 May 91 15:38:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #376 BCC: Message-ID: <9105191538.ab08220@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 May 91 15:38:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 376 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson High Speed Transfer of X-Rays Over Phone Lines [Alan G. Farman] The Bell-Shaped Head is Not Yet Dead [Donald E. Kimberlin] It Doesn't Need to be a COCOT to Burn You [Steven S. Brack] A Very Simple ISDN Question [Kim Fosbe] MCI "Follow Me" 800 Service [Sean Williams] Hayes Patents [Benson I. Margulies] A Silly Question (Perhaps) [Brian Crawford] Knowing if You Are Dialing a Toll Call [Ken Dykes] Adding 00 to Pager Alerts [Jeff Scheer] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Roy M. Silvernail] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 May 91 15:52:33 BST From: bmontgom@hvtvm4.vnet.ibm.com Subject: High Speed Transfer of X-Rays Over Phone Lines Here is a file that I have been sent from another list. I thought that you may like to include it in the Digest. Yours, Bryan ---------------- Date: Wed, 15 May 91 06:24:28 EDT Reply-To: MEDNETS Medical Telecommunications Networks Sender: Hospital Computer Network Discussion Group and Data Base Comments: Resent-From: DFP10@ALBNYVM1.BITNET Comments: Originally-From: "Allan G. Farman (AGFARM01@ULKYVM.BITNET)" From: DFP10%ALBNYVM1.BITNET@UACSC2.ALBANY.EDU Subject: High speed transfer of x-rays over phone lines At the Telecommunications Research Center of the University of Louisville/Commonwealth of Kentucky, we have been experimenting with the high speed transmission of images using direct digital intraoral radiographs. The potential is great for control of dental insurance costs by expediting prior approvals and reducing the need for local experts. Transmission at high speeds is largely dependent upon the type of telephone service available - the slowest connection being the deciding factor. This is a real problem in the USA as there is no central system. While in France the telecommunications system for Integrated Services Digital Network is virtually universally available providing a data transmission potential of 64 kilobits/sec, ISDN is not universal in the USA at this time. The current ISDN standard in the USA is 56 kilobits/sec. Such rates are faster than achievable with standard modems; however digital switches capable of sending data files at these rates are commercially available. Using specially connected high speed lines it was possible to send dental radiographs to Paris, France from Louisville, Kentucky last month in less than five seconds from acquisition at both ends of the connection. This used the high speed AcuPulse system to the ISDN Acunet system of AT&T, through to the French ISDN system: Numeris. Special convertion cards were manufactured to connect the 56kbs system to the 64kbs system. Initial studies show no loss of image details due to the transmission. Studies concerning medical teleradiology are taking place at the Medical Schools of Bowman Gray (NC) and Washington (Seattle). There are also close to 30 providers of teleradiology "turnkey" systems; however, these tend to be quite expensive and to require special terminals for both transmission and reception. The system that I am using uses an IBM AT/XT, 286 through 486, VGA through XGA, a standard frame grabber for acquisition, but only a standard graphics program for reception. For dental radiographs, it has proven perfectly possible to use the PROFS program linked to an IBM mainframe to provide a widespread local area network. More long distance E-mail has proven to be more problematic due to file size limitations and data "massaging" in the various mainframes along the E-mail route. I do hope that this rambling message is of use. Best wishes, Allan G. Farman (AGFARM01@ULKYVM.BITNET), Professor of Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology, University of Louisville School of Dentistry, Louisville, KY 40292. (TEL: 1-800-334-8635 ext.1241) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 91 03:32 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: The Bell-Shaped Head is Not Yet Dead In article , John Higdon reports: > Since the blocking scheme cannot be used except in stored-program-type > offices, and the PUC requires blocking be provided to all who request it > (if at all available), a cheap and dirty way to get out of a crossbar > switch is to order blocking. A friend had a crossbar number in an office > that was also served by an ESS. Pac*Bell informed him that the ESS was > "closed" (not accepting new lines) even if he wanted custom calling > features. I told him to request 900/976 blocking. He now has an ESS-served > number, changed at no charge by Pac*Bell. How doggedly the "Bell-Shaped Head" lives on! One could not imagine it's been more than seven years since we lynched Ma Bell. John's story relates how we must still use the same sort of embarrassment techniques on that mentality, catching them at their "tricks" from an oblique angle, rather than talking sense to them. And, the monopoly-era attitudes aren't limited to PacBell or to the LEC's either. I lost a good bit of the past two weeks and had a WAN rearrangement blown by AT&T, when after first arguing, then agreeing their position was ignorant, then balking at the last minute, finally agree after a presentation that they had done exactly what they kept saying was "illegal" a dozen times over in the same way in the same city. They even tried calling my boss to see if they couldn't get me off their case. Well, now we'll get what we wanted, which they had to admit wasn't "illegal" at all ... a couple of weeks late. All the AT&T breast-beating about being the "leaders" and those others copy wears very thin when one keeps getting these throwbacks to the Stone Age of Telecommunications. The sad truth is that AT&T still is filled with people who remember too much of the "good old days," their competitors are filled with their cast-offs, and so the "old ways" continue. It's getting so that every month I find they are constantly amazed with what they can accomplish instead of being their own worst enemy. Despite all the glitz and claims, we really have not gotten very far at all. The Era of Telecommunications is yet to dawn. ------------------------------ Subject: It Doesn't Need to be a COCOT to Burn You From: dsac!bluemoon!sbrack (Steven S. Brack) Date: Thu, 16 May 91 16:07:19 EDT Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4]) I recently had an experience with an ATT-defaulted Ohio Bell payphone. I was at work and received an urgent message to call home. I live in Columbus (614), but my "home" is in Toledo (419). So, I pulled out my trusty ATT nonsubscriber calling card (thanks for the tip, Pat), dialed 0-419-XXX-YYYY, got the "AT&T" announcement, dialed my card number, and got connected. I talked only long enough to find out that nothing terrible had happened, then hung up. Well, I got my ATT bill yesterday, and it showed a one minute call (the call I just described) as costing $1.17!! My "normal" alling-card rate is $0.21 / minute. I called ATT, and the rep I spoke with told me that since it was an Intra-LATA call, Ohio Bell handled it, and could charge up to $1.20 per minute. If the phone "says" AT&T to you when you place the call, isn't it reasonable to assume that AT&T rates would be applied? The system already knew where I was calling from & what number I was dialing, so it should have been able to tell me Ohio Bell was handling my call. I can't help but think that saying AT&T was handling the call, then having Ohio Bell actually handle it is a little unfair to the consumer, to say the least. Is what happened to me legal? Steven S. Brack | I don't speak for OSU. InterNet: Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu | (Bill Miller just can't BitNet: Steven.S.Brack%osu.edu@ohstvmsa.bitnet| understand that.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 May 91 21:52:00 CST From: Kim Fosbe Subject: A Very Simple ISDN Question Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs!kim.fosbe@uunet.uu.net Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha I already know about what ISDN is and about all those wonderful things that it will do which we will wonder how we got along without. What I don't know is just how it will effect those of us who use regular plug-in modems. Nobody seems to know this. Will ISDN make our modems obsolete? Is it true that all we will have to do is plug in an RS232 cable from the PC port to the phone and dial up any system like we do now? Is there a way to use your plug-in modems when you have ISDN at home? Has anybody ever thought of that? Also, is there a way to use your answering machine when you get ISDN? Another question while I am on the subject. Are these black AT&T digital phones that are replacing the hold-button phones in offices actually ISDN phones? One guy tells me they are and another guy tells me no. Both of them are electronic people. Full of questions, aren't I? Thanks in advance for any and all information. Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 [200:5010/666@metronet] DRBBS -- Keep The Royals in Omaha (200:5010/666.0) ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Fri May 17 13:48:24 EDT 1991 Subject: MCI "Follow Me" 800 Service After reading about MCI's "Follow Me" 800 service several times in the Digest the past few weeks, I decided to call MCI to see what it was all about. I was disappointed to find out it's really nothing at all too special. Basically, the representative said all you have to do is call your Personal 800 number. Instead of entering your "security code", just wait for the operator to come on. Tell the operator what number you would like to forward your 800 number to, and the operator will immediately make the changes. Every time you do this, you will be charged $1.00 (but of course, you qualify for MCI's 2% volume discount when your bill reaches or exceeds $100.00 during one billing cycle.) Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@attmail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | "I own Spectrum, so our 333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227 | opinions are very similar" Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA | voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 [Moderator's Note: Is there any sort of security check built in which prevents me from calling your 800 number, letting it time out to an operator and telling her to forward your 800 number to my line? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 91 09:26:48 EDT From: "Benson I. Margulies" Subject: Hayes Patents It amazes me how contributors to this list feel compelled to bewail the disasterous and "monopolistic" implications of the Hayes patent from a position of apparent total ignorance of patent law and practice. People seem to think that having to pay a license fee is the end of the world. Guess what? Companies pay each other licence fees on patents all the time, on all kinds of "trivial" and "obvious" items. It dosen't seem to stifle competition. If the holder of the patent charges a moderate fee, then most would-be users will find it cheaper and safer to pay up then to litigate. If they change an extortionate fee, they provide an incentive to hire bigger and better lawyers, and risk losing their patent altogether. So the system is self-corrective -- patents that represent really big novelties command high royalties, and patents that are more minor command low ones. Inventors are rewarded for their efforts, and things all come out in the wash. An important difference from apple/lotus is that those are based on copyright, not patent. A real expert can undoubtedly tell the list why copyrights do not lend themselves as well to this self-adjustment process. I can also provide two alternatives to the Hayes method: 1) a break signal. 2) send a sequence and THEN pause, rather than the other way around. No one asked all these other companies to choose the AT set as the "standard." There's no ANSI spec that I know of. The whole idea of patents is to guarantee that inventors of useful novelties get some compensation from other users. If Hayes went and invented a command set that is so widely admired as to be universally copied, I think they deserve a reasonable royalty on every modem, be it on the escape sequence, AT, or whatever. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 91 12:50:23 -0700 From: Brian Crawford Subject: A Silly Question (Perhaps) Is "950" carrier access available FROM Canada (B.C. specifically) ? Comments appreciated. 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, 19 May 91 14:05:42 EDT From: Ken Dykes Subject: Knowing if You Are Dialing a Toll Call johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) wrote: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 370, Message 3 of 9 > In article is written: >> Here there is a rule (unwritten but pretty strong) that you can't be >> billed for a seven-digit call. > When interchangable area codes arrive in about 1995, dial-1-for-money > simply won't work any more. The leading 1 will have to mean that an > area code follows. Unlucky folks in areas with old equipment will... So, why doesn't the foney company come up with "Yet Another Dialing Prefix" which means "do not complete this call if it is a toll call." The paranoids and pager users can use it; the rest of us lazy-slobs-happy- with-the-status-quo can forget about it. Heck, maybe some brain damaged pbx/key systems could be programmed to prepend all outgoing calls with the prefix when coming from unauthorized extensions. Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1] watmath!kgdykes ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 May 91 18:39:13 CST From: Jeff Scheer Subject: Adding 00 to Pager Alerts Reply-To: ivgate!command!jeff.scheer@uunet.uu.net Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha Pat, what I meant was that by adding the 00 and other numbers, people that see this coming up on their display pagers usually call in quicker as the numbers peak their curiousity. If for example a client (let's say a mortician ) is unavailable for voice contact, we as the service ring that pager and display the message check in number followed by 00. If this is an emergency, we keep paging him/her and add 01/02/03 etc ... After so many times of the pager going off, the client will call in just to quit getting "bothered". Score one for that pushy answering service. We can usually get a message out of a caller before they even know what happened. Jeff The .COMmand Center (Opus 1:5010/23) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Sun, 19 May 91 12:51:04 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) writes: > Are you USAers happy with the possibility of paying for seven-digit > calls? Why is there no 1+ requirement to let you know ? It seems a > little silly that everyone should have to remember a huge list of > prefixes in order to avoid placing expensive calls, whether 540 or 976 > type, or just normal toll calls within the NPA. I used to have to do just that in Alaska. Toll calls from Anchorage did not require a leading 1 when I lived there, and you could as easily be calling across the state as across town. While it didn't have _quite_ the potential for surprise as the 540 scam, it could still be expensive. Alaska used to have abominable in-state rates. It was cheaper to call Los Angeles than to call Nome. I don't know what the rates are, these days. Roy M. Silvernail roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu roy@cybrspc.uucp (maybe!) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #376 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15580; 19 May 91 20:00 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25512; 19 May 91 18:33 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04752; 19 May 91 17:19 CDT Date: Sun, 19 May 91 16:36:09 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #377 BCC: Message-ID: <9105191636.ab24752@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 May 91 16:35:53 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 377 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan [Christopher M. Lott] Re: Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan [Peter M. Weiss] Re: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims??? [John Higdon] Re: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims??? [Sean Williams] Re: Strange AT&T Bill [reynhout@cs.uri.edu] Re: Strange AT&T Bill [Earl Hall] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [John Higdon] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Michael H. Riddle] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Jordan Kossack] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 May 91 14:01:10 -0400 From: Christopher M Lott Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan Organization: University of Maryland Dept of Computer Science In article is written: > wire maintenance plan. We promptly enrolled in the Guardian plan for > about $2 per month. I forget the details now, but the plan covers the > cost of any repair to the house phone wiring inside the demarc. It > does not cover the cost of repairs to customer-owned phones. I believe Mr. Collins is mistaken; the Guardian plan as I understand it explicitly DOES cover all customer telephone equipment, and includes a loaner phone while the offending instrument is in the shop. A cheaper plan ($.85/mo in C&P territory) covers only the wiring, no phones. I don't know about elapsed time before you can place a claim. But Pat, 120 days sounds pretty harsh. You sure about this? On a related note, I'll be moving into student housing run by the University in July. I had to sign a statement acknowledging receipt of a copy of the C&P Line Maint. policy (will check for time before claims when I get home) and a copy of the housing office's strong recommendation that I purchase not just the basic plan ($.85/mo) but the Guardian plan ($2/mo). Reason given was that the wiring in those apts is apparently original (some 40 yrs old). Wonder if they get a cut or if they're honestly trying to help. BUT WHAT HAPPENS if some yahoo snarls the wires on the outside of the building? The C&P plan explicitly covers only the wiring within your four or so walls (gee, a whole lot of wiring in a one-bedroom apartment) and explictly does not cover any wiring outside your apartment. It also does not cover problems due to vandalism or other tomfoolery that I think it should. Is there anyone living in an apartment who has used this insurance? Where was the problem (according to them)? What was the resolution? Does anyone know who is responsible for maintaining the punchdown blocks etc. that pertain to telephone service for apartment complexes? Is it telco? I sorta figure I should get the $.85 insurance because if anything at all goes wrong, the morons in the housing office will be quick to charge me, I'm certain. ``Hey, you were warned. You signed the receipt.'' Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 cml@cs.umd.edu /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg 301 405-2721 ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 19 May 1991 14:03:01 EDT From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan In article , collins@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Skip Collins) says: > This raises interesting possibilities. Suppose, being a savvy > consumer, I enroll at the first sign of trouble in my wiring, and then > call for a repair. The Telephone Company should have you call from the telephone requesting the plan using the phone number(s) at the residence; then check it with Caller-ID ;-) Pete ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 91 11:27 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims??? cmkrnl!jeh@decwrl.dec.com writes: > "Give us the numbers of the friends you call on AT&T's plan. We'll > give you at least 10% savings [not so bad so far] and we'll offer to > switch them to MCI." Did you get that number right? Does MCI honestly believe that any person in his right mind would, for the measley chump change amount of 10%, take on all of the problems of MCI? From my many experiences with MCI, that company would have to offer calls at "90% off" before I would even entertain ANY thoughts of signing up. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Sun May 19 10:58:09 EDT 1991 Subject: Re: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims??? cmkrnl!jeh@decwrl.dec.com writes: > ...I saw an ad on TV last night which should raise the hackles of any > slamming victim. They were looking for subscribers to one of AT&T's > special long-distance plans ... We'll give you at least 10% savings, > and we'll offer to switch them to MCI."... The service MCI is describing is called Friends and Family. Here's how it all works: First of all, you must be an MCI customer yourself. Look at your phone bill. Write down the twelve numbers you call most often. If these numbers are either friends or family, call MCI and tell them. MCI will check to see if they are also MCI customers. If they are, they will become part of your "Circle of Callers". What does this mean? It means that if you call them, you will get a 20% discount on the call, on top of any other discounts you are entitled to (a PrimeTime plan, for example.) Of course, if they are not MCI customers, MCI will tell them that YOU requested them to join MCI. If they eventually do join, they will then become part of your circle of callers. Their benefit? They get to call YOU for 20% off. You are automatically part of your own circle, so when you call home with your MCI Card you get a 20% discount also. MCI compares this plan to AT&T's SuperSaver, which gives discountes to specific area codes. I would assume that SuperSaver gives a 10% discount, and this is why MCI says "save an additional 10%" in the ad you mentioned. (Hence a 20% discount, total). I would assume the Friends and Family plan is catching on fairly quickly in the realm of BBS callers. Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@attmail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | "I own Spectrum, so our 333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227 | opinions are very similar" Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA | voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 91 11:27:21 EST From: Andrew Subject: Re: Strange AT&T Bill seanwilliams@attmail.com writes: > I was talking to a friend about her long distance service a few days > ago (being that I sell MCI and all) and she told me that a relative of > hers was using AT&T. Oh terrific. Another proseletyzing LDC salesperson. :-) > Of course, this didn't shock me one bit. Thousands of people use > AT&T. But then she went on to tell me that this relative was being > billed, on her AT&T page, $40.00 every two or three months (she wasn't > sure of the frequency.) > I don't have a copy of her AT&T bill here, nor have I seen it, so > don't ask for any specifics until I can contact her about it. Well, this may come as a surprise to you (it does to me), but some people still LEASE their equipment from AT&T. Billing for equipment leasing is done either monthly or quarterly, depending upon the amount. I do not remember the cutoffs (it's been a few years since I worked there,) but this sort of confusion is relatively common. Things to note: AT&T does its OWN billing for leased equipment. It will arrive under seperate cover from her LEC telephone bill. Many people don't realize that they're still leasing. Many people have thrown away the telephones involved. Sometimes, their billing is even wrong at the fault of the Company. I pose this merely as one of several possible explanations to her problem, if it's a problem at all. I suggest you find out more. It sounds to me like you're passing secondhand vague information here, and there's very little we can do with it. :-) Andrew reynhout@cs.uri.edu> ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 91 10:36:02 PDT From: cdp!erhall@labrea.stanford.edu Subject: Re: Strange AT&T Bill Sean E. Williams writes: > I was talking to a friend about her long distance service a few days > ago (being that I sell MCI and all) and she told me that a relative of > hers was using AT&T. > Of course, this didn't shock me one bit. Thousands of people use > AT&T. But then she went on to tell me that this relative was being > billed, on her AT&T page, $40.00 every two or three months (she wasn't > sure of the frequency.) No doubt the person could be better described as "an older relative" and is still renting her phones (and phone-related equipment). It seems that the equipment rental from the local Bell companies was moved to AT&T during the breakup. After my mother's death last year I found a similar, but less expensive (apx. $15), charge included every three months in her Michigan Bell bills. I called AT&T (number included on the statement) and found out that the charge was for her old, black, rotary-dial phone and for an external ringer. I remember that external bell being in the basement of the house I grew up in. AT&T was very nice about closing out the rental. I explained I couldn't return the phone to her local AT&T Phone Store during weekdays. So they sent a large envelope to my Chicago address and I returned the phone via US Mail. They didn't force me to return the basement ringer after I explained that my parents had sold that house ten years ago! Earl Hall | via PeaceNet: | GEnie: ERHALL Chicago IL | cdp!erhall@labrea.stanford.edu | +1 312 685 9735 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 91 03:14 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud "Fred R. Goldstein" writes: > He seems to think that people who receive calls on beepers shoul CALL > THE OPERATOR and ASK THE RATE for every call to a prefix they don't > recognize. Now, what's wrong with that picture? As a pager carrier for over twenty years, I cannot imagine that someone in any profession would put his pager number in the hands of the public at large. Whether he be a plumber, doctor, lawyer, radio engineer, or a salesman, his pager number should be only in the hands of his answering service, voicemail system, office, or other screening entity. If an unfamiliar number shows up, a call to the central point that paged would reveal the information about the call. If that info is not available (in other words, the call did not come through the answering service, etc.), then the call could be ignored as a wrong number. Wrong numbers are very common on direct dial pagers. A pager is not a substitute for an answering machine or service. Anyone who uses it as such and blindly calls every number that appears in the display is likely to ultimately get burned. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Michael H. Riddle" Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Date: Sun, 19 May 1991 16:20:51 GMT In ivgate!Jack.Winslade@uunet.uu.net (Jack Winslade) writes: [Most of Jack's comments about HF and Loran-C deleted. Anyone whose idea of a vacation spot is Cape May....] > Now (no grin here) for those of you who happen to live very close to a > Loran-C transmitting station, this case of no interference does not > hold true the other way around. These transmitters pump out RF pulses > in the megawatt range and they have been known to bleed into telephone > lines (sounds like an old mechanical teletype running in the > background) make one heck of a racket in AM and (sometimes) FM radios, > and even cause black and white horizontal 'strobe light' bars on > television pictures. > [Moderator's Note: Have you ever traveled through the rural area in > northern Wisconsin where the ELF (extremely low frequency) > transmitters are located? They send/receive radio transmissions to > submarines. The antennas are strung up and down the highway on > telephone poles! The frequencies which can travel through the earth > and under water are sort of special; they make it possible for a > submarine to receive radio signals without having to expose at least a > little of itself above water; an important feature when used in a spy > operation for military intelligence ... PAT Well, this is getting off the telecom topic a bit, but when I was still in the Air Force I had the job of VLF Systems Integration Manager, and additionally flew as a Communications Control Officer on the SAC Airborne Command Post ("Looking Glass"). We had VLF transmit capability, but our antenna wasn't a mile long. We always had at least 27,000 feet (five miles, more or less) of wire on the reel at takeoff. If we had to extend to transmit, the actual length was frequency dependent but was measured in miles, not feet, for lay purposes. We were using 30-60 kHz. The ELF is down in the 3 - 30 kHZ range, so I suspect the Wisconsin site antennas are bigger than merely one mile and/or are loaded substantially. With sufficient loading, and long ground-plane radials, the actual "in the air" portion of some VLF ground transmitters doesn't have to be more than 2000 feet or so. It all depends on how you design it to meet whatever goals you are addressing. (Historic interlude. If I remember correctly, Marconi's original station on Cape Cod was a VLF installation.) Incidentally, we never extended our VLF antenna over land during peacetime, which is to say we always practiced over water. The SAC airborne used the transverse electric component, so we basically dragged the antenna "straight" behind us. (Obviously, there was a droop.) Some other airborne VLF transmitters would fly in predetermined circles to get a "straight" drop and maximize the transverse magnetic component. Pat's comments about "spy" operation aren't quite on point. Equally important is the invisibility (and hence invulnerability) of the SSBN force (sub-launched ballistic missiles). Finally, in regards to the part of the thread about environmental impact and Jack's comments about receving Loran in TV's, radios and maybe teeth fillings, there was a great deal of opposition to the Wisconsin site because of anticipated interence and unknown long-term effects to low level low frequency radiation. Recent EPA reports, while not yet admitting cause and effect, reinforce the need for concern and study even with power lines. As I remember, the Wisconsin site was scaled back after the protests. I haven't heard what, if any, day-to-day interference they have actually observed. <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 91 12:28:22 CDT From: Jordan Kossack Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft In article , hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin) writes: > There is a second consideration that prohibites specifically > walkie-talkies, cellphones etc. in carry-on luggage: they are > considered potential helps for terrorists coordinating a hijacking. > You can bring these devices onboard but they have to be in checked > luggage. Well, not to drag this topic out any longer than necessary, but this has not been my experience. On several occasions, I've flown with my handi-talkie in my carry-on bag and I have NEVER been hassled about it nor even asked to show that is actually a radio and not some strange detonator. Mind you, two of these flights were this past Winter when the airports were all worried about security, so I don't think this is something that folk need to worry about these days. Besides, would you trust the baggage handlers with a $400 HT? ;-) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #377 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18265; 19 May 91 21:10 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12313; 19 May 91 19:45 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25512; 19 May 91 18:34 CDT Date: Sun, 19 May 91 17:33:43 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #378 BCC: Message-ID: <9105191733.ab21698@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 May 91 17:33:39 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 378 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson 9000 Series Numbers: The Step Switch Mentality Persists [Donald Kimberlin] Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key System [Jeff Sicherman] SW Bell Readback Number [Bob Izenberg] Re: Touch-Tone Selections From Overseas [Phillip V. Hull] 900 Political Fundraising [Peter Marshall] Manuals needed [Macy Hallock] Cellphone Billing Security [Macy Hallock] 911 Operator Fired Over Call Handling [Curtis E. Reid] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 May 91 03:36 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: 9000 Series Numbers: The Step Switch Mentality Persists There's been quite a thread going on here about assignment of phone numbers in the 9000 range. Recently, Bill Huttig posts in Digest v11,iss366: > My aunt's phone number is 813-xxx-9xxx and her number is fairly new. > It is serviced by GTE of Florida. All through the era of the step switch, the "higher" one's number, the more (statistically and sometimes empirically) likely it was to get an error in connecting to that number. The simple reason: It's more difficult to get the rotary step switch to accurately jump up to its highest levels, 9000, and even 0000. When the technology was that simple and easily controlled, the Bell leaders of our monopoly era, in the interest of quality (which was also then known to be self-interest in corporate reputation), set as their own norm that numbers in the 9000 and even 0000 range would not be used for the public. They did assign numbers in the 9000 range for their own use, understanding it would economize of number use for their prime customers (the public) and simultaneously make for a simple way for any employee to know the call was to an "official" number ... including the monopoly-era coin phone. While the scheme was known in a general way, as usual, there was considerable variation within the local companies about how it was used. Thus, in many areas, 9960 (later nxx-9960) was the Business Office, while in others, it would be a test tone. In yet others, some other 9000 series number would be used for either function. AT&T's practice of using numbers like 9927 for the "toll testboard" pretty consistently still sticks in a lot of places, where LEC's still proliferate that number for their "test desk." Again, there was no solid national norm; it's just a tendency, and the range of variation is wide. Non-Bell LEC's are less likely to follow even that simple "rule." 0000 was even more "unwanted," and many step offices weren't even "equipped" (so far as the business office was concerned) to use those numbers. Somehow, they couldn't ever see that while they wouldn't assign you one on request, they were stuck in the middle of non-sequential hunt groups! (In all fairness, they were aliases in many hunt schemes.) In 1966, crossbar was already in fair deployment, and I learned of a cute "trick" a Southern Bell foreman used in his own office: He assigned 0000 to his home phone. It was unique; a lot of people (like telemarketers) wouldn't think it was real and wouldn't call him. Two years later, I was up in NYC, living in New Jersey. I requested of NJ Bell that my new phone (in a crossbar office) be assigned 0000. I was made to write a letter requesting it; I was grilled by phone a half-dozen times about why I wanted it, and told that using such a number would be a disservice to myself. I got the "old stories" about the step switches and how many of them "weren't equipped." Finally, I got told (NOBODY would write a letter answering my letter) that 0000 was "reserved for plant test purposes." Today, two decades later, I dial it occasionally to see if it ever got used. It's still unassigned. I wonder what neat "test" they have in mind for 0000? Returning to 9000 numbers and coin phones, the operators were all told when given a 9000 number, to "check for coin." This meant to call an operator in the distant city, and ask a local operator to look it up in the local directory. Because they could not tell from the calling end if the called party put coins in the phone (and they never did set up a means to get assistance colelcting coins from the called city), the "policy" was to not permit collect calls to coin phones. (New Yorkers may recall that Imus in the Morning had a favorite trick of embarrassing NY Telephone by making collect calls to a coin phone in Cleveland. He'd run up the entire hierarchy of NY Telephone between records of a morning, trying to get a call to his freezing buddy said to be waiting in a phone booth along Lake Erie.) Even though operator turnover is gigantic, I'd venture that Bill Huttig's aunt will have incidents in which collect calls to her 9xxx number are refused. Old ways die hard, especially when today's minions of the network don't even understand WHY it once had to be that way! Moderator's Note: To place a collect call to a payphone, the operator called 'inward' in the distant city and asked for assistance in collecting the coins. The distant 'inward' would call the pay phone, and if the call was accepted would collect the money, then notify the originating operator to extend the call. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 91 01:16:32 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article The Super User writes: > NT should be giving away the developer kit to encourage as many > applications as possible. As Brian pointed out, anyone who wants to > run these app's will have to buy NT hardware. > Northern Telecom has the right idea (opening up the architecture), but > they need to make it affordable to the very kind of companies that > have the potential to develop the killer applications that could make > their Norstar the standard key system around which all custom > applications are built. I suspect there's more to this policy than than mere technical innovation considerations. A company as large as NT is going to want to have there product associated with VAD's who have the financial, development, and marketing resources to adequately support what they sell. This often does not apply to the garage type operation. If there are problems, who do you think the customer is going to go to (or after) if the system doesnt work and the developer doesnt have the resources to deal with it or goes out of business? There is also a prestige issue of who their product is associated with and what effect this may have on sales. In this context, the high cost of the kit is intended as a barrier to those who either lack the resources or are not very serious about their ideas (and can convince others of the value). It's more of a test than a reflection of the kit's value or cost (to NT). Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Subject: SW Bell Readback Number From: Bob Izenberg Date: Sun, 19 May 91 14:30:23 CDT I just ran scross (by accident) a Southwestern Bell number in the Austin area that read me back my own phone number. When I've had to find out which number that a series of unlabeled modem lines actually was, I called an operator and requested the number that I was calling from. The machine that I reached has a lot less overhead, and would save both myself and an operator some time. The bad news is that this was a misconnection, so I don't know what number actually was dialed. Bob Izenberg [ ] Ralph Kirkley Associates work: 512 838 6311 [ ] bei@rt_trace.austin.ibm.com home: 512 346 7019 [ ] bei@dogface.UUCP Opinions expressed in this message are those of its author, except where messages by others are included with attribution. No endorsement of these opinions by Ralph Kirkley Associates or IBM should be inferred. ------------------------------ From: hullp@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU () Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Selections From Overseas Organization: Institute of Cognitive Studies, U.C. Berkeley Date: Sun, 19 May 1991 20:35:37 GMT In article Claus Tondering writes: > I frequently phone the US from Europe; but I often run into trouble if > the party I am calling asks me to enter some number (e.g. an extension > number or a menu selection) on my touch-tone phone. Although the > touch-tone frequencies are international, these selections often do > not work when used from Europe. One of three things happens: > 1) It works perfectly, and I get connected as requested. > 2) It works only if I hold each key down for two or three seconds. > 3) Absolutely nothing happens. The American party does not recognize > my touch-tones. > I have even noticed both behavior 2 and 3 when calling the same > (Massachusetts) number on different occasions. I have had similar problems in getting my US tone-controlled answering machine to play back messages from overseas phones. I've had such problems both with foreign phones *and* using a Radio Shack pocket tone generator (where there's no touch-tone phone available) from Spain, the UK, and from Guatemala. I *think* the problem is simply poor lines on which tones don't have a high enough volume (or maybe the frequencies get messed up?). The only solution I've found is the same as your #2: To hold the button down for several seconds. For this reason, I don't like phones (such as many Panasonic models) on which the length of time each tone is generated is automatically controlled i.e., if you hold the button down the tone is *not* generated continuously until you take your finger off. Philip V. Hull INTERNET: hullp@cogsci.berkeley.edu BITNET: hullp@cogsci.berkeley.bitnet UUCP: ucbvax!cogsci!hullp OR: ucbvax!cogsci.berkeley.edu!hullp ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 May 91 09:55:13 -0700 From: Peter Marshall Subject: 900 Political Fundraising An article in the May issue of {INFOTEXT} notes: With the 1992 presidential and congressional campaign season approaching, the financial potential of 900 fund raising should strike a responsive chord for candidates and the pay-per-call industry. 900 technology permits the solicitation of contributions from thousands of people, particularly small contributors, more cheaply than traditional forms of fund raising. But, says the {INFOTEXT} article: Despite this potential, several factors have hindered the development of this segment of the industry. 900 service itself is still a novelty and, until recently, many political candidates were unaware of its fund-raising potential. Moreover, most ... LECs have refused to bill and collect for such programs. However, the article is entitled "Feds More Pragmatic About 900 Political Fund Raising," and explains that although "The pay-per-call industry traditionally has been reluctant to enter this field because of the regulatory uncertainties and burdens involved, recent Federal Election Commission actions are helping to alleviate these concerns." For example, according to the article, Call Interactive sought an exemption from FEC separate account requirements several months ago, whereas the FEC had previously ruled that to comply with campaign record-keeping and reporting requirements, such programs couldn't be offered "unless telephone companies could provide political campaigns with the name and address associated with each 900 contribution." Purportedly responding to the claim that LECs are "often unable" to do so, the FEC indicated more recently the if 900 service bureaus obtained this information, 900 political fundraising would be allowed: The commission endorsed a suggestion that service bureaus be permitted to use reverse directories and voice capture with written transcripts of the recorded information. (Presumably, these and other requirements would also apply to information providers acting between political campaigns and IXCS.) The article concludes by noting "it still may be too soon to successfully use 900 technology for political fund raisers. Although recent FEC 900 fundraising rulings offer promising developments, related programs -- such as political polling -- may ultimately prove more feasible for 1992 campaigns." [Moderator's Note: I'll tell you who else is finding the use of 900 numbers quite lucrative: Our own Public Television station, WTTW Channel 11 has had an annual fund raising campaign for many years. They take a few days away from regular programming, usually in April or May, and hawk for donations, giving away premiums to donors, etc. A few months ago they started using a 900 number year 'round: dial it and after a recorded message thanking you for your support of public television, $10 is automatically billed to you by Illinois Bell. It has been a smashing success, and they may eliminate the traditional fund raising marathon in lieu of the 900 number full time. Both the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and Lyric Opera are watching the results at Channel 11 very closely, and will apparently start somehing similar for themselves. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Macy Hallock Subject: Manuals Needed Date: Sun, 19 May 91 0:11:04 EDT Reply-To: macy@ncoast.org I am looking for a copy of the programming manuals for the following OCC dialers: Telelogic LD2 and LD4 Teletronics Network Manager Series I have manuals for the Mitel Smart One and UTC units, if anyone is in need. Looking for parts or complete units: Mitel Smart One's and Western Electric Touch-A-Matic series phones (single or multiline), willing to pay modest but reasonable price for these. (Well, at least playing with these keeps me off the streets at nite ...) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. N8OBG 216-725-4764 Home macy@fmsystm.UUCP macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy Please use only these three reply addresses. [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you.] ------------------------------ From: Macy Hallock Subject: Cellphone Billing Security Date: Sun, 19 May 91 0:21:41 EDT Reply-To: macy@ncoast.org Bought a used cellphone Saturday from an individual who had originally purchased the unit at Fretter's (a regional electronics discount chain). This was at a swap meet. The deal was cash, no names exchanged. The guy looked very honest (this was an IEEE sponsored event, not sleazy at all ...) ... maybe he was too honest. He told me that he had dropped service a few months ago due to lack of use and general cheapness on his part. I asked and was assured the phone worked just fine. So I bought it and on the way home I fire it up and ... he was not kidding: I found the phone is currently still activated and working on power up. Local calls complete just fine. GTE Mobilnet never pulled the plug on the account? Real smart, GTE. Since my company is a Mobilnet agent, I will call them on Monday and find out the real story on this. Nice service: buy a used phone a make all the phone calls you want for free ... [grin]. Maybe I should go roaming this weekend ... Macy M. Hallock, Jr. N8OBG 216-725-4764 Home macy@fmsystm.UUCP macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy Please use only these three reply addresses. [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you.] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 1991 16:41 EST From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: 911 Operator Fired Over Call Handling I haven't seen this news in a recent issue of TELECOM Digest so I'll post this. Rochester, New York's {Sunday Democrat and Chronicle}, 5/19/91, page 7A: 911 operator fired over call handling The Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO - A 911 operator has been fired for giving a low priority to a frantic call from a man who later was found beaten to death. Scott Quackenbush, 20, was killed last Sept. 28 shortly after calling 911 operator Diane Fisher from a telephone booth at a closed gas station. The body of Quackenbush, a student at California State University at Fresno, was found three days later behind the service station. The operator claimed she couldn't hear sounds of a struggle because of noise in the police communications room. Curtis E. Reid CER2520@RITVAX.Bitnet (Bitnet) CER2520@RITVAX.isc.rit.edu (Internet) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #378 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06688; 20 May 91 4:31 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17447; 20 May 91 3:02 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31853; 20 May 91 1:57 CDT Date: Mon, 20 May 91 1:05:33 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #379 BCC: Message-ID: <9105200105.ab16552@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 May 91 01:05:15 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 379 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [John R. Levine] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Eric A. Rasmussen] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Floyd Davidson] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Carl Wright] Re: Loss of Copyright: Phone Book White Pages ==> Maps? [Robert Woodhead] Re: Bellcore and the NNX Area Codes [Carl Wright] Re: Just How Stupid Can Repair Service Be? [John Higdon] Re: Change in BITFTP Policy [Rod Troch] Re: MCI "Follow Me" 800 Service [Sean Williams] Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Rick Broadhead] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 19 May 91 14:54:34 EDT (Sun) From: "John R. Levine" In article is written: > The ability to do that in a way that guarantees that escape to > command mode won't accidentally be invoked by the data stream would > be difficult (I can't think of a way) without timing and a unique > string being an essential feature of the escape from data mode. The other approach is to reserve some character sequence to mean switch to command state, and to have some way of protecting that sequence if it appears in data, most typically by doubling the first character of the sequence. This works perfectly well, and is what one does with synchronous modems, but means that the communications software on each end has to do some of the filtering, while the timed technique has the advantage of the escape sequence being so unlikely in the normal data stream that no protection is necessary. > My feeling is that the Justice Department, gutted by Reagan and > Bush, really should be filing anti-trust suits against corporations > that participate in monpoly by litigation. The whole point of a patent is to allow monopoly by litigation (or more typically by the threat thereof) for a limited period. On the other hand, someone pointed out that the way you escaped to command mode on an arpanet PAD was delay-@-delay, which is basically the same as Hayes approach and was almost certainly invented and more important published earlier. I haven't heard whether that example was presented to the court. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Eric A Rasmussen Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute Date: Sun, 19 May 1991 20:51:31 GMT In article nanook@eskimo.celestial.com (Robert Dinse) writes: > In article , kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net > (Bud Couch) writes: >> Most software defaults to a one second pause, transmitting three plus >> (+) signs, followed by a one second pause. Hayes patent is broader, >> covering any time delay, followed by any unique sequence. This patent, >> however, covers only async data ports used for both data and command. > Since the timed escape is an essential part of the command set, > it is impossible for a modem manufacturer to claim Hayes compatability > without it. Thus, Hayes, if successful at enforcing this patent, has a > monopoly on this kind of modem. Indeed, I can't think of a way you > could escape from data mode to command mode not using a timed delay > and some unique sequence, that wouldn't be possibly contained in > transmitted data. Perhaps I am missing something obvious, but for computer equipment such as PC's (as opposed to dumb terminals) which have control of basically all the serial port lines, what would be so hard about using the terminal ready line to toggle between command mode and data mode? I always disable the 'feature' in my modem where it disconnects when the terminal ready line is not high. After all, what's the point if I can use the +++ ATH method to disconnect when I want. If I ever have to reboot while on-line I don't want to lose my connection. (Yes, this does happen. Say you download a program, run it, and it crashes.) Thus, I really have a free line which could readily be used for this purpose if I didn't have a Hayes compatible modem. Eric A. Rasmussen ear@wpi.wpi.edu ear%wpi@wpi.edu ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Mon, 20 May 1991 03:24:19 GMT In article cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: > TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) writes: >> Are you USAers happy with the possibility of paying for seven-digit >> calls? Why is there no 1+ requirement to let you know ? It seems a >> little silly that everyone should have to remember a huge list of >> prefixes in order to avoid placing expensive calls, whether 540 or 976 >> type, or just normal toll calls within the NPA. > I used to have to do just that in Alaska. Toll calls from Anchorage > did not require a leading 1 when I lived there, and you could as > easily be calling across the state as across town. > While it didn't have _quite_ the potential for surprise as the 540 > scam, it could still be expensive. Alaska used to have abominable > in-state rates. It was cheaper to call Los Angeles than to call Nome. > I don't know what the rates are, these days. The rates are lower, but the ratio is still the same. LA would be cheaper than Nome. I don't know for sure, but isn't intrastate service more expensive than interstate just about everywhere? Part of breaking up AT&T was separating the costs and making each part pay for itself. It used to be that your call to LA was charged at a higher rate than it actually cost, just so that your rate calling Nome could be charged less than what it really cost. Now the interstate rate structure is based on the cost of providing interstate service, and the same with intrastate service. As a result, your call from Anchorage to Nome is no longer being subsidised by calls to LA. Instead the call to Nome is charged a higher rate to help subsidise calls to places like Sleetmute (a small village that will never generate enough revenue to pay 20% of the cost to provide service). That just happens to be one of the "down" sides to breaking up the old system. There are other sides that are very much "up". Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine floyd@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest. ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Date: 20 May 91 03:36:26 GMT Organization: UMCC I'm not enough of a lawyer to say this with authority, but doesn't it seem clear that the calls to the pagers were made with the intent to defraud those who were paged. Everything else, like in Judge Wopner's court, is irrelevant. It reminds me of an old computer scam where an operation in Texas had invoice forms printed up and rented mailing lists. They mailed out small bills to all the people on the mailing list. Many people paid the bills rather than complain or assumed that their spouse was responsible for the charge. The FBI closed it down eventually. 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: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: Loss of Copyright: Phone Book White Pages ==> Maps? Date: 20 May 91 02:51:17 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan Dan_Jacobson@att.com writes: > After one thumbs past the newly "liberated" white pages of my Illinois > Bell Naperville Ill. phone book, one encounters a fairly bland street > map of Naperville, with copyright notices at the bottom of each page. > Would the U.S. Supreme Court would also see this map as a mere > collection of facts too? You are confusing facts with expression. Copyright law covers the expression of ideas (or facts, or whatever), not the underlying ideas themselves. Thus, that *particular* map (expression) can be copyrighted, but the idea behind it (the configuration of streets) cannot. Personally, I think the SC ruling is a flawed one. I certainly believe that it is inequitable. TPC spent time and money to generate the phone number listings in the book, and rival white pages companies should pony up if they want to use them -- or generate them a different way. TANSTAAFL! Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: Bellcore and the NNX Area Codes Date: 20 May 91 03:59:28 GMT Organization: UMCC I have quietly read references to pseudo-NNX codes for Mexico as 52n, but I can't take it any longer. The only way I can make sense of this reference is if we assume that the pseudo area code for this pseudo NNX is "011". Sorry, but aren't these international country codes, just like Belgium and Australia use? Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 91 11:18 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Just How Stupid Can Repair Service Be? Steve Forrette writes: > To test third number billing, I tried to call 408 directory assistance > from 415-841. So, I picked up the phone, dialed 0 408 555 1212, and > waited for the "ka-bong." > We'll see what happens then. Can you believe this? The person at > Repair doesn't even know how to dial a calling card call! I would be > willing to bet money that this problem goes unresolved for a long > time. But I will be persistant. The amazing thing about all of this is that no one has been able to tell you up to this point that there is NO problem and that is the way it is supposed to work. A little known quirk of CA regulation is that while IECs may charge for DA, and LECs may charge for local DA, LECs may not charge for DA within the LATA in another area code. So in essence, you are trying to dial a mandated free call with a calling card! The biggest problem here is not that the call just went through, but that you did not get some sort of recording advising you that you had misdialed. I would suggest that you use a REAL number to make that test call with. You are probably going to give repair service a stroke while they try to fix something that really is not broken. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Rod Troch Subject: Re: Change in BITFTP Policy Date: 20 May 91 04:03:55 GMT Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. In article thomas%mvac23.uucp@udel.edu (Thomas Lapp) writes: > > Subject: BITFTP REPLY [text deleted] > > * * BITFTP is no longer able to provide service to * * > > * * nodes that are not directly on EARN or BITNET * * > > * * or NetNorth. Your node appears to be * * [text deleted] There exists a FTP Server called ftpmail via dec.com the address is: ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com Send 'help' as the message body. No header is needed. It works, but is slow compared to bitftp via pucc.princeton Peace, Rod If you yell try : Rod Troch internet : troch@pilot.njin.net : troch@luau.kean.edu : troch@bart.kean.edu <--> NeXT Mail (Lip Service) ------------------------------ From: seanwilliams@attmail.com Date: Sun May 19 18:55:47 EDT 1991 Subject: Re: MCI "Follow Me" 800 Service seanwilliams@attmail.com (That's me!) writes: > Tell the operator what number you would like to forward your 800 number > to, and the operator will immediately make the changes. Every time you do > this, you will be charged $1.00. . . . > [Moderator's Note: Is there any sort of security check built in which > prevents me from calling your 800 number, letting it time out to an > operator and telling her to forward your 800 number to my line? PAT] Okay ... Here's the deal. I had the same question while I was writing my last post, but didn't want to say anything. I called my Personal 800 number, and let it time out to an operator. I presented the operator with the same question. The operator was confused and transferred me to customer service. The customer service person was much more knowledgeable. (At least she *knew* about the service!) She asked for my home phone number (There's the first security check.) She then put me on hold, and checked on the information. She came back, and gave me the following info: Call customer service at +1 800 444 3333, do not call the Personal 800 operators. You must tell your customer service representative your home phone number, at which time they can look up your Personal 800 information. Then you tell them the number to which you would like your Personal 800 number forwarded. (At this point, she slipped and said the word "POTS". I think she really *did* know what she was doing! She figured I wouldn't understand, so she called it a "terminating number" :) ) She also pointed out that customer service will need two weeks' notice (security step two, I would assume) and that the charge is $1.00. Hope that straightens it out for everyone! Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@attmail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | "I own Spectrum, so our 333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227 | opinions are very similar" Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA | voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 [Moderator's Note: So in other words, I can still fraudulently change your 800 number over to ring where I want it; I just have to know your actual number as well, and wait two weeks for it to take effect. I really have to wonder how good this 'follow me' service is for folks on the go a lot; as compared for example to Cable & Wireless' similar service which you change yourself in a minute or so, with an actual 800 number of your own as well. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 91 21:07:56 EDT From: Rick Broadhead Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World For those of you who are interested, another source for telephone ringing and busy signals is Telecom Canada/Teleglobe Canada's "International Calling Guide. " It contains essentially the same information as British Telecom's international phone guide. I've also noticed that busy signals and ringing signals can vary WITHIN a country. For instance, in Canada and the United States, these tones vary depending on the exchange dialed. At least that's what I've found here in Toronto, and when calling various directory assistance numbers throughout the United States. The difference lies not in the length of these tones, but in their sound. What determines what exchanges will have what tones? Why should different numbers in the same city, Toronto for example, behave differently? Can anyone provide an explanation? I've tried to get an answer from the folks at Bell Canada, but the typical resp onse to my assertion that ringing signals differ from exchange to exchange is: "They do? -- I've never noticed that." I was told by a very helpful person at Teleglobe Canada that a non-technical discussion of telephone tones can be found in a publication called "Notes on the Networks." AT&T has informed me that this book has been discontinued. It apparently discussed issues such as "line-signalling" and "register signalling, " among other things. The libraries around here have never heard of this book. Could anyone suggest an equivalent publication today, or one that deals with topics such as line and register signalling? (anyone ever heard of *Notes on the Networks* before?) Rick Broadhead [Moderator's Note: 'Notes on the Network' is a well-known publication which has been mentioned here in the Digest many times. As to the difference in ringing/busy signals here in the USA, the difference is due purely based on the manufacturer of the equipment used in the office in particular. One sounds one way, another some other way. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #379 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21819; 20 May 91 23:09 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21020; 20 May 91 21:21 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24632; 20 May 91 20:14 CDT Date: Mon, 20 May 91 19:50:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #380 BCC: Message-ID: <9105201950.ab07793@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 May 91 19:49:43 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 380 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Mike Ardai] Re: Cellular Phone Use In Aircraft [John Stanley] Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [H. Peter Anvin] Re: It Still Don't Network ... or? [R. Kevin Oberman] Re: It Still Don't Network ... or? [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy [Carl Wright] Re: CLASS Presentation at Texpo `91 [John Higdon] Re: Bellcore and the NNX Area Codes [Carl Moore] Re: Connecting American RJ11 to British CW1311 [Charlie Lear] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Weaver Hickerson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Ardai Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft Date: 20 May 91 01:31:38 GMT Organization: Teradyne EDA, Inc. In article Mike Spann writes: > Digging way back into my memory, I do remember a story (maybe even > true) where police officers were told not to dump their spare bullets > into the same bag as their hand held radios. The story I was told was > that should the push-to-talk button be pressed, the electro-magnetic > waves could cause a round to go off. [This is getting rather far from Telecom...] Actually, it is much simpler than that. Most handheld radios have metal contacts on the bottom for recharging. Putting one of them into the same pocket as bullets will cause the bullets to short out the charging studs. This will heat them up and cause them to fire. I seem to rememeber that a cop shot himself that way back in the 70's in NYC. (I had a similar experience with some keys and my ICOM - they sure got hot :-) Michael L. Ardai N1IST Teradyne EDA East sun!teda!ardai (preferred) or ardai@bu-pub.bu.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use In Aircraft From: John Stanley Date: Mon, 20 May 91 00:32:28 EDT Organization: Mad Scientist floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: > (Some day I'll tell you how I learned that > Loran C can be 60 degrees off. No problem, just makes the pilot eyes > get large when he breaks out of the clouds ...) It is not hard. I live withing flying distance of the master station for the 9960 (Northeast) chain of Loran. One of the standard airways between Syracuse and Buffalo passes right over it. During my last flight to Buffalo on that airway (using VOR's and not LORAN for navigation) the LORAN told me that I was alternately going north, south, east or west at anywhere from 200 to 400 knots, for the entire last half of the flight. The display updates about every six seconds, and turning from north at 400 knots to south at 400 knots withing six seconds would certainly exceed the G limits of the airplane, if not the limits of the human body. This was in a Cessna 172. The 'never exceed' speed is about 130 knots, and this aircraft cannot reach that speed in level flight. ------------------------------ From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft Organization: Northwestern University Date: Mon, 20 May 1991 15:54:05 GMT In article of comp.dcom.telecom, Jordan Kossack writes: > In article , hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. > Peter Anvin) writes: >> There is a second consideration that prohibites specifically >> walkie-talkies, cellphones etc. in carry-on luggage: they are >> considered potential helps for terrorists coordinating a hijacking. >> You can bring these devices onboard but they have to be in checked >> luggage. > Well, not to drag this topic out any longer than necessary, but > this has not been my experience.... > Besides, would you trust the baggage handlers with a $400 HT? ;-) I have been asked to qualify where my experience from this comes. I have experienced this on two flights; one in Europe (Milano-Copenhagen I believe); that was the case where they would not even let onboard a wire-bound walkie-talkie lookalike. On a recent (March 91) flight on American Airlines I asked the check-in representatives about my 144 MHz ham handietalkie; they said I could take it onboard only if I put it in the check-in luggage. [Moderator's Note: This thread has gotten quite far from telecom, so unless there is something really new and different not yet posited by the readers, let's close it out. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov Subject: Re: It Still Don't Network ... or? Date: 20 May 91 16:01:42 GMT In article , hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin) writes: > A few questions about ISDN: > 1. Is is feasible/not feasible to use ISDN as a link in an IP or Ethernet > network? An ISDN B channel is simply a bit pipe. IP or anything else is perfectly feasible. It should be noted that Ethernet is a 10 Mhz system and ISDN is only 64Kb (B channel), so some sort of remote bridge would be required and protocols with tight timing requirements (IP is NOT one of these) might have problems. > 2. Is ISDN a worldwide standard, or another one of them "we decide > what we want" USA standards? Yes, ISDN is a worldwide standard. Yes, it is another one of them "we decide what we want US standards." It's "Two ... two ... two standards in one." Actually the problem is that the basic telephone link speed is different in the US and, as a result, the ISDN must be different to work. The US uses 1.5 Mhz T1 lines while much of the world uses 2 Mhz links. So there are two ISDNs, one carrying more B channels (30) than the other (23). But, since the B channels are the same, the phone company can handle conversion of the 2 Mhz version to the US 1.5. It does mean that the terminal equipment is totally incompatible. > 3. Does the 64 kbit/s B-channel rate over ISDN include error correction? It is just an HDLC bit pipe and has very little difference form LAPB, the link layer standard used for OSI networking. The error detection/correction is very limited because LAPD (the HDLC protocol used for ISDN) is very light weight. > 4. Does the D-channel protocol include service identification (say IP, > video, voice, modem)...? D-channel is a very different bird. It does include a "service identification, but the only defined protocols I am aware of are X.25 and native ISDN. I wouldn't be surprised to see others added. There are plenty of bits available. But you need to understand that D-channel is NOT a bit pipe and is a packet protocol. It run IP over a D channel (IMHO a silly idea) would have to be like running it over X.25. It would not be a protocol at this level. In fact, it probably would be over X.25 as would modem (by connection to an ISDN PAD). Voice and video on a shared 16 Kb channel? You're kidding, right? > 5. Is is possible to call a POTS line with a modem from an ISDN connection? Not directly. As mentioned above, you would not use a modem but an ISDN PAD. Our site has a pool of modems for outgoing calls from ISDN lines. You call a magic number to be assigned a modem and then enter the command sequence to dial the analog modem. You can't hook up any POTS equipment to an ISDN line. This includes modems, answering machines and any other analog component. > 6. What are typical rates for ISDN? Is it billed per minute or per block? ISDN is currently tariffed in California for Centrex service only. ISDN runs about $30 / mo. with all other services charged the same as POTS. I believe there is a new tariff on the docket, but I wouldn't swear to it. At this time there is no residential ISDN tariff in this state. But other states may vary. In the "For what it's worth department", Pac*Bell is hoping to have ISDN in my central office by late this year and SS7 for connection to other ISDN islands like Berkeley and Sunnyvale. Who knows. Some year I might even be able to get a connection to another state. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything. ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: It Still Don't Network ... or? Date: 20 May 91 17:31:47 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin) writes... > A few questions about ISDN: > 1. Is is feasible/not feasible to use ISDN as a link in an IP or Ethernet > network? Sure. There's even an Internet mailing list on the topic of IP over ISDN. Ethernet, on the other hand, is a LAN subnet, and ISDN is a WAN subnet, so you're comparing apples to pie there. You could however run Ethernet remote bridges over ISDN. Or anything else, since it's a bit pipe. > 2. Is ISDN a worldwide standard, or another one of them "we decide what we > want" USA standards? Worldwide. CCITT I-series, to be specific, albeit with national standards for some of the finer details. > 3. Does the 64 kbit/s B-channel rate over ISDN include error correction? In circuit mode, no, it's raw bits. You run the error correction. In packet mode, it's like X.25, with a checksum on each packet. > 4. Does the D-channel protocol include service identification (say IP, > video, voice, modem)...? Generally, yes. It has specific codepoints for CCITT and ISO standard protocols at various layers. IP, on the other hand, is not CCITT-standard, so it'll probably be a) unidentified or b) identified using the "user specified" codespace. > 5. Is is possible to call a POTS line with a modem from an ISDN connection? Yes, if you run a modem over ISDN. ISDN is essentially an access arrangement, and it interworks fine with the analog phone world. > 6. What are typical rates for ISDN? Is it billed per minute or per block? Up to your local telco. Figure that circuit mode ISDN is billed like a phone call, maybe a surcharge for clear-channel data calls (but regular price for voice calls). Packet mode will probably have the usual per-packet (X.25-style) rates. Plus monthly line charges, usually between one and two times the usual phone rate, for the Basic Rate (2B+D) ISDN line. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 952 3274 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy Date: 20 May 91 03:05:09 GMT Organization: UMCC David Gast referred to how you can use the account number of a person to determine the approximate balance by making repeated request on whether the balance exceeds a certain dollar amount. The only innovation involved here is that you don't deal with a human operator. The ability to call a bank and ask if a specific account has enough money to cover an imaginary check is a standard bank service in all the U.S. I've done it myself on my less trustworthy customers. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 91 13:32 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: CLASS Presentation at Texpo `91 Kevin Collins writes: > So Pat, what are my chances of getting a FX line from IBT out here to > Sunnyvale? :-) Kevin, just take it like a man! I have lived with Pacific {Telephone/Bell} all of my life. There is no escape. California has been offically designated as a Bad Telephone Service Area. Besides, YOU are not "served" out of a crossbar switch. [Ka-Klunk] John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: How does a man take 'it', John? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 May 91 9:35:19 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Bellcore and the NNX Area Codes I'm not in Bellcore, and have to rely on what is reaching me via the Digest. The pseudo-area-codes of form 52x for Mexico are not in use yet, and cannot be used until the system can handle area codes of form NXX, not just of form N0X/N1X. Area codes 706 and 905, which had been used (at least from the U.S.) for parts of Mexico, were discontinued (and have since been announced for use elsewhere), and instead of these codes it is now necessary to use 011-52- ... to call Mexico. There is some confusion, at least on my part, about those 52x codes. If they will indeed be dialed like area codes, it would go against the idea of using NN0 codes as the first slew of NNX area codes: being able to keep 1+7D for intra-NPA long distance in some areas after the NNX area codes begin (areas keeping such 1+7D usage would have to disallow prefixes of NN0 form). ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Connecting American RJ11 to British CW1311 Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ Date: 20 May 91 23:01:29 NZT (Mon) From: clear@cavebbs.gen.nz In article Fernando da Silva writes: > I'm trying to connect an American RJ11 male connector to a British > CW1311 socket, for data communications purposes. Connect 3 and 4 on the RJ11 (red and green) to 2 and 5 on the BT. The easiest way to do this is get a standard four-wire cable and twist the outer two pairs at one end. A straight-through cable simply will not work. We've had to make adapter cables like these for years, ever since foreign modems were allowed to be sold here. Some modems are sensitive to line polarity. The RJ11 3&4 is referred to as "tip" and "ring", the BT 2&5 is called a "line pair". If you get don't get dialtone from the above, try swapping 2 and 5 over in the wall socket (its easier than fiddling with tightly crimped connectors). Administrative note: every RJ11 I have ever seen has been made from clear (but brittle) plastic. You can tell at a glance what wires go where. Every BT plug I've ever seen is moulded in white. You have to hold them up to a 100W bulb and peer very closely to tell how it is wired ... 8-) Charlie "The Bear" Lear | clear@cavebbs.gen.nz | Kawasaki Z750GT DoD#0221 The Cave MegaBBS +64 4 642269 V22b | PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Organization: Holos Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA Date: 20 May 91 10:54:49 EDT (Mon) From: Weaver Hickerson In article John Higdon writes: > A pager is not a substitute for an answering machine or service. > Anyone who uses it as such and blindly calls every number that appears > in the display is likely to ultimately get burned. John, you are right about this. People are likely to get burned. The fault, however, lies in the perpetrator and not with the victim. Look at these parallels to your statement above: Anyone (little old lady) who blindly contracts with someone to [ patch her roof, help the "FBI" catch a bank embezzler, you name it ] is likely to ultimately get burned. Anyone (yuppie scum) who ever goes into any automobile mechanic anywhere in the world is likely to ultimately get burned. Need I say more. The original poster, in an explosive display of ignorance, seemed to think that it is okay to take advantage of people's trust just because they are trusting, and it it their fault for not being less trusting. I myself blame the [900 number, mechanic, roofing contractor] who take the money and run. I cast my vote that people who would do things like this be used at the Yerkes primate center for drug, ballistic, and cosmetic research -- not necessarily in that order. Weaver Hickerson Voice (404) 496-1358 : ..!edu!gatech!holos0!wdh ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #380 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23554; 20 May 91 23:55 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14565; 20 May 91 22:27 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21020; 20 May 91 21:21 CDT Date: Mon, 20 May 91 20:32:27 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #381 BCC: Message-ID: <9105202032.ab00819@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 May 91 20:32:17 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 381 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Alan Bland] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Elliott S. Frank] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Charlie Mingo] Re: A Very Simple ISDN Question [R. Kevin Oberman] Re: A Very Simple ISDN Question [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: Just How Stupid Can Repair Service Be? [Linc Madison] Re: Touch-Tone Selections From Overseas [John Higdon] Re: Transatlantic Calling History [Wm Randolph Franklin] Re: One City With Two Area Codes [John Cowan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Bland Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Date: 20 May 91 16:20:40 GMT In article , nanook@eskimo.celestial.com (Robert Dinse) writes: > monopoly on this kind of modem. Indeed, I can't think of a way you > could escape from data mode to command mode not using a timed delay > and some unique sequence, that wouldn't be possibly contained in > transmitted data. One technique I've seen is to use a timed BREAK to switch to command mode. A short BREAK is passed on the communications line, but a longer one (e.g. two seconds) goes to command mode. So there is indeed another way to do it without infringing on the Hayes patent, though you'd probably be violating someone else's patent :-) Alan Bland att!druwy!mab == mab@druwy.ATT.COM AT&T Bell Laboratories, Denver CO (303)538-3510 ------------------------------ From: "Elliott S. Frank" Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Date: 20 May 91 17:27:26 GMT Reply-To: "Elliott S. Frank" Organization: Time Waits for No Man, Processors Wait for the Disk My, how short the memory of almost everyone commenting on the validity of the Hayes patent. Not too long ago, the way that you got a modem to "dial" was that you used an ACU (Automatic Calling Unit) in conjunction with the modem. You gave the ACU the number to call, and it dialed the line on behalf of the modem. When your modem call was completed, you could drop DTR, signalling the modem to drop the line. You then redrove the ACU for your next outbound call. [There are probably hundreds of WeCO 801 ACU's still in service ...] The first modems that allowed dialling over the data line used various schemes to get the attention of the dialler. The Hayes scheme was only one of several available in the late Seventies/early Eighties. The ubiquity of the Hayes scheme is due to brilliant marketing, not to being the only viable mechanism for escaping the dialler. Elliott Frank ...!{uunet,sun}!amdahl!esf00 (408) 746-6384 or ....!esf00@amdahl.com [the above opinions are strictly mine, if anyone's.] ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Mon, 20 May 1991 16:04:58 GMT In article johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > In article is written: >> The ability to do that in a way that guarantees that escape to >> command mode won't accidentally be invoked by the data stream >> would be difficult (I can't think of a way) without timing and >> a unique string being an essential feature of the escape from data >> mode. > The other approach is to reserve some character sequence to mean > switch to command state, and to have some way of protecting that > sequence if it appears in data, most typically by doubling the first > character of the sequence. This works perfectly well, and is what one > does with synchronous modems, but means that the communications > software on each end has to do some of the filtering, while the timed > technique has the advantage of the escape sequence being so unlikely > in the normal data stream that no protection is necessary. Funny you should say that. In fact, the usefulness of "+++" is fast coming to a close, because many modems are at the far end of a network with buffering, and there is no good way to insert "time" into a buffer. My understanding is that the next generation of modems will use the old BiSync technique of DLE (Data Link Escape) + character to send commands to the modem. DLE + DLE will be sent as a single DLE to the other end. There is no more problem with this (from the point of view of computers) than there is with XON/XOFF. (Yes, I know that BiSync used DLE as a framing escape rather than a modem escape, but the principle is the same) Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: Charlie Mingo Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent Date: 20 May 91 19:10:52 nanook@eskimo.celestial.com (Robert Dinse) writes: > [S]ince Hayes compatables > comprise nearly all consumer type modems, we are essentially all being > held hostage by Hayes, they, if successful in enforcing this patent, > have a complete monopoly on the field. > My feeling is that the Justice Department, gutted by Reagan and > Bush, really should be filing anti-trust suits against corporations > that participate in monopoly by litigation. The purpose of patent law is to grant a limited monopoly to the inventor of a new product or process. Every patent, therefore, creates a monopoly which would be illegal under the antitrust laws, except that patents are specifically excluded from antitrust prohibitions. Now if Hayes were attempting to enforce an invalid patent, or attempting to expand the scope of the patent beyond that granted by the government, it might be a different story. In this case, the patent is valid and, as a consequence, so is any monopoly created thereby. ------------------------------ From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov Subject: Re: A Very Simple ISDN Question Date: 20 May 91 16:20:34 GMT In article , ivgate!Kim.Fosbe@uunet.uu. net (Kim Fosbe) writes: > I already know about what ISDN is and about all those wonderful things > that it will do which we will wonder how we got along without. > What I don't know is just how it will effect those of us who use regular > plug-in modems. Nobody seems to know this. > Will ISDN make our modems obsolete? Is it true that all we will have > to do is plug in an RS232 cable from the PC port to the phone and dial > up any system like we do now? Is there a way to use your plug-in > modems when you have ISDN at home? Has anybody ever thought of that? > Also, is there a way to use your answering machine when you get ISDN? > Another question while I am on the subject. Are these black AT&T > digital phones that are replacing the hold-button phones in offices > actually ISDN phones? One guy tells me they are and another guy tells > me no. Both of them are electronic people. Full of questions, aren't I? Plu