Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24409; 9 Oct 91 0:50 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01415 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 8 Oct 1991 22:47:33 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12540 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 8 Oct 1991 22:47:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 22:47:19 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110090347.AA12540@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #801 TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 Oct 91 22:47:14 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 801 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Quarterly V&H Information [David Esan] Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Thomas Lapp] SMDS Intro, Anyone? [Herb Jellinek] Book Review: "Cyberpunk" [Herb Jellinek] 1-800-TELENET is Disconnected [Steve Forrette] Caller ID: Technical Question [Andy Behrens] Re: Caller ID Availability [Mike Morris] Re: CLID Okayed for Illinois [Mark Ahlenius] Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [John Higdon] Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [Tom Lowe] Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555 [Andy Sherman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: de@moscom.com (David Esan) Subject: Quarterly V&H Information Date: 8 Oct 91 18:17:50 GMT Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY Once a quarter I receive the BellCore V&H tape. Using this information I can total the number of exchanges in each area code. The twenty most populous area codes are listed below. After the written text of this article I have included the count for each of the area codes. The tape is dated 15 October 1991. I am not responsible for the information supplied in this tape. For example, ATT persists in including 706 and 905 (the pseudo-NPAs for Mexico) as Mexico, even though their use has been discontinued and the numbers reassigned. The list this time included many billing numbers, include a whole series with nxx's less than 200. To anyone who wrote to ask questions after my last posting: if I did not get back to you, it was not that I didn't want to. I was on vacation (yeah!) and then came back to an upgrade of equipment from our old NCR Towers to a new SUN Sparcstation (yeah!). Throw in a loss of seven workdays for religious holidays, you will understand that I finally am able to answer letters now, and that is probably far too late. I have not included the 52? series of area codes that are in use for Mexico, since they are not yet dialable from the US. (Note: Don't ask me when they will be dialable, I don't know, although I will guess sometime after 1995.) I have not included the 82? series of area codes which include many more Mexico exchanges, as well as the non-diable locations in the NANP. The new tape included information for three new NPA's, 310, 410, and 510. They are included below. The fields are: ------------ rank last quarter 213: 736 (1, 7) area code --^^^ ^^^ ^------- number of new exchanges |-------------- total number of exchanges 213: 745 (1, 3) 512: 670 (8, 17) 215: 610 (13, 3) 501: 576 (18, 2) 301: 703 (3, 2) 205: 652 (10, 9) 602: 609 (14, 15) 713: 573 (19, 9) 404: 702 (4, 11) 416: 650 (9, 6) 714: 598 (16, 7) 703: 566 (20, 9) 415: 686 (5, 7) 919: 641 (12, 9) 206: 597 (17, 11) 604: 560 (21, 3) 212: 678 (6, 4) 313: 638 (11, 4) 403: 596 (15, 0) 708: 554 (24, 15) Of the top 20 NPA's we can note: (I have no details on calling patterns in those NPA's not noted, and have no information of impending splits in those NPA's). #1. 213 - due to split to 310 beginning February 1, 1992. #2. 301 - due to split to 410 beginning November 1991. #3. 404 - due to split to 706 beginning in May 1992. #4. 415 - has split to 510, which will reduce the number of exchanges. #5. 212 - due to split to 917 sometime in 1992. #6. 512 - no plans to split at this point. Intra-NPA calls require the dialling of the NPA. #7. 205 - no plans to split at this point. Intra-NPA calls require the dialling of the NPA. #8. 416 - due to split to 905 in 1993. Intra-NPA calls require the dialling of the NPA. #13. 714 - will split to 909 beginning November 1992. 201: 708 304: 325 406: 343 508: 371 612: 526 714: 591 816: 449 202: 267 305: 465 407: 386 509: 240 613: 287 715: 313 817: 486 203: 485 306: 447 408: 307 510: 315 614: 403 716: 377 818: 364 204: 346 307: 153 409: 289 512: 653 615: 534 717: 469 819: 308 205: 641 308: 197 410: 386 513: 454 616: 376 718: 408 901: 223 206: 586 309: 259 412: 421 514: 484 617: 382 719: 160 902: 263 207: 337 310: 380 413: 131 515: 411 618: 326 801: 336 903: 266 208: 282 312: 423 414: 473 516: 377 619: 501 802: 175 904: 494 209: 334 313: 634 415: 679 517: 316 701: 351 803: 512 905: 311 212: 674 314: 523 416: 644 518: 251 702: 296 804: 463 906: 109 213: 742 315: 254 417: 198 519: 346 703: 557 805: 282 907: 408 214: 672 316: 362 418: 361 601: 395 704: 335 806: 262 908: 316 215: 607 317: 418 419: 334 602: 600 705: 269 807: 105 912: 324 216: 548 318: 331 501: 574 603: 232 706: 184 808: 255 913: 435 217: 356 319: 328 502: 338 604: 557 707: 180 809: 497 914: 336 218: 291 401: 134 503: 532 605: 343 708: 539 812: 277 915: 307 219: 350 402: 407 504: 331 606: 266 709: 260 813: 494 916: 427 301: 701 403: 596 505: 313 607: 164 712: 272 814: 259 918: 314 302: 114 404: 691 506: 175 608: 246 713: 564 815: 291 919: 632 303: 518 405: 545 507: 267 609: 269 David Esan de@moscom.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 09:32:54 EST From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Reply-To: thomas%mvac23@daisy.udel.edu I received the following as part of an internal memo warning people not to return pages if they show up with this number on them: The latest telephone scam is being directed at pagers. If you get a page with the phone number of 212-540-xxxx (where xxxx can be any four numbers), don't call it!! 212 is the area code for New York City and the 540 exchange acts the same way as a 900 number, where the phone you are calling from is automatically billed. The fee for calling these 540 numbers is $55.00 and the people with these numbers are calling around the country inserting these numbers into pagers to get them to call so they can collect the fee. I have a couple of questions: 1. Is 212-540 really a 900-like exchange? Or is it like 976 in that the billing only works if you are within that LATA, otherwise it is just a toll call? 2. Is there any retribution if I were to receive a page for a toll number (ie. 1-900-xxx or 1-xxx-976) and called with no intent (or perhaps knowledge) that the number I called was a billed service? Thanks, tom [Moderator's Note: (1) Apparently some LD carriers choose not to connect the call at all. From Chicago, a call to any 212-540-xxxx number was intercepted by AT&T at their switch here, 'call cannot be completed as dialed ... '. MCI also refused connection, with the message saying "MCI does not connect to 976 numbers at this time ..." My impression is it is basically a '976-style' number, i.e. only toll charges from outside the LATA *if you can connnect at all*. (2) There is no crime in someone inviting you to call a certain phone number. It is up to you to understand how phones are numbered and billing is handled. If we start allowing retribution anytime someone places a telephone toll call ignorantly assuming it is a local call with no charge just think of the can of worms that will open up. Although the tactic described is very sleazy, it is not illegal. He did not fraudulently bill a call to your number or force you to dial the number. Pay your phone bill! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 15:10:48 PDT From: herb@frox.com (Herb Jellinek) Subject: SMDS Intro, Anyone? I've recently read a couple of articles in trade rags concerning SMDS, which, if I recall correctly, stands for Switched Multimegabit Data Service. Unfortunately, nothing I read was aimed at total neophytes like me, so I decided to ask the experts. I gather that SMDS allows you to 'dial up' (as it were) high-bandwidth data ports, much as you might connect two lower-bandwidth data port with a pair of modems. My questions are basic: Will SDMS use the existing telephone network, allocating regular telephone numbers to SDMS ports, or will it use a separate number space, a la Telex? What protocol(s) does SMDS support at the lowest level? How does SMDS relate to ISDN? And when will SMDS become available, either nationally or regionally? Feel free to add your own SMDS questions and answers, if I've left any out. Thanks a lot for the information! Herb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 15:20:52 PDT From: herb@frox.com (Herb Jellinek) Subject: Book Review: "Cyberpunk" The book "Cyberpunk," by Hafner and Markoff, contains quite an interesting section on the exploits of a fellow named Kevin Mitnick and some of his friends. In particular, Mr. Mitnick had a very detailed knowledge of the inner workings of Pacific Bell's telephone network, and was capable of manipulating it in some clever, if antisocial, ways. The other two sections of the book concern the Chaos Computer Club and Robert Morris, author of the Internet worm. An absorbing book -- I recommend it highly. Herb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 01:49:53 pdt From: Steve Forrette Subject: 1-800-TELENET is Disconnected Pat, this number was disconnected a while back. I guess that Sprintnet got tired of paying for an 800 number on an AT&T prefix! [Moderator's Note: Another way to reach Telenet/Sprintnet is through their main number 703-689-6000. Maybe Dave Purks or someone in the PC Pursuit marketing office there will tell us a direct number for more information and to sign up. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Andy Behrens) Subject: Caller ID: Technical Question Reply-To: andyb@coat.com (Andy Behrens) Organization: Burlington Coat Factory Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 00:48:31 GMT The N.H. Public Utilities Commission will soon be holding hearings on Caller ID, and whether to include blocking on a per-call or per-line basis. Bob Paul, spokesman for New England Telephone, stated: "If you line block, then you automatically put the line in jeopardy as far as being able to identify numbers for any 911 service" when an overwrought caller forgets to say where he is calling from. Now I was under the impression that identification for 911 was done through a different mechanism than identification for Caller ID, so it wouldn't be affected by per-line blocking? Is Bob Paul telling the truth, or does it depend on what kind of a switch you are on? Technical answers only, please -- no debates on the merits of Called ID itself. ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: Caller ID Availability Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 07:14:59 GMT john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > nyte@milton.u.washington.edu (nyte) writes: >> I recently saw in the September issue of Radio Electronic on page 67 >> that CLID was available in the following states; AL, CA, FL, GA, IL, >> IN, MD, ME, MI, NC, NE, NJ, NV, OH, OK, SC, TN, VA, VT, WV. > CA? To my knowledge, there are as of this date not even ANY CLASS > services in the state. Something tells me that most of the states > listed above are devoid of Caller ID. According to the customer disservice rep at Pac Tel, I can have Caller-ID in July '92. Charlie.Mingo@p0.f716.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) writes: > You might want to add DC to that list (OK, it's not really a state). Yes it is. The State of Confusion. Mike Morris WA6ILQ 818-447-7052 PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077 All opinions must be my own since nobody pays me enough to be their mouthpiece... ------------------------------ From: motcid!ahlenius@uunet.uu.net (Mark Ahlenius) Subject: Re: CLID Okayed For Illinois Date: 8 Oct 91 13:05:37 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In today's {Chicago Tribune}, Eric Zorn has an interesting commentary on Caller ID. I learned that IBT will soon have available an additional service called Anonymous Call Rejection. Thus if you have Caller ID, and someone calls you with their call blocking turned on, then they will get a nice message something like "we don't want to talk to anonymous people, please check your call blocking feature and try your call again" - very loose paraphrase. This sheds a new light on the usefulness of this new feature. Mark Ahlenius voice:(708)-632-5346 email: uunet!motcid!ahleniusm Motorola Inc. fax: (708)-632-2413 Arlington, Hts. IL, USA 60004 [Moderator's Note: Did he say IBT *would* offer that, or they *should* offer that? I think it was the latter. I do know both Chicago papers have been editorializing heavily in recent weeks in favor of Caller-ID without blocking of any sort. And the mail to the Illinois Commerce Commission before and during their deliberations over the past month ran heavily in favor of disallowing the blocking of ID under any and all circumstances, but the ICC decided to placate the people who wanted it by allowing per-call blocking (but not per-line). PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 91 23:11 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival heathh@cco.caltech.edu (Heath Ian Hunnicutt) writes: > They had the same deal going at the Indianapolis St. Fair. > Here's the good part: I billed the calls to 10288. AT&T Who, of course, in turn billed the operators of the booth who no doubt had to pay for your call. You can bet AT&T did not get stuck with anything. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: tlowe@attmail.com Date: Tue Oct 8 08:01:13 EDT 1991 Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival Here at AT&T Bell Labs in Holmdel, NJ, we have centrex service with ISDN phones off of a 5ESS. Anyway, we have full access to all the other carriers via 10xxx (one guess who is our default! :-)) This has been useful on a couple of occasions where there was an AT&T network problem somewhere in the country, and even during the January 19 problem a couple years back. I don't know how the billing is handled. We get detailed bills for our office lines each month generated by our telecom department, but I don't know if the MCI and SPRINT calls end up on that bill. Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs Holmdel, NJ tel@homxa.att.com [Moderator's Note: All the LD carriers are 'customers' of each other; ie, MCI has AT&T as a customer and vice-versa. PAT] ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555 Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA Date: Tue, 08 Oct 91 15:34:23 EDT In article The Moderator wrote: > [Moderator's Note: No it does not. You can NOT override ANI sent to > the called party on an 800 call for the simple reason that end is > paying for the call, and like any reverse-charge toll call, the called > party has the right to know what it is they are paying for. Or would > you have it that they just pay and pay and pay, whenever you choose to > call, with no reference to who was calling them? PAT] Furthermore, ANI blocking would only delay the delivery of the information, not prevent it. Calling numbers appear in the billing detail, which for all I know may be delivered in machine readable form. Watch this space, the next chapter will be when somebody demands that 800 customers not receive detailed billing. :^(. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! [Moderator's Note: The day detailed billing of 800 calls is outlawed is the day I turn off both my 800 numbers. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #801 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27535; 9 Oct 91 2:29 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27071 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 9 Oct 1991 00:21:41 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27250 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 9 Oct 1991 00:21:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 00:21:16 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110090521.AA27250@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #802 TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 Oct 91 00:21:15 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 802 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Steve Urich] Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [David Ptasnik] Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Thomas J. Roberts] Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Terry Kennedy] Re: News Release Hilarity (will be: Fight Back) [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: What if The Phone Company Hears of a Crime? [Brian Litzinger] Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [Nigel Allen] Re: Israeli Hacker Caught [Warren Burstein] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: snark!beyonet!beyo@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Steve Urich) Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Date: 9 Oct 91 03:28:09 GMT Organization: Beyonet Network John Higdon writes: > Now that I have had a chance to play with both my 1ESS and 5ESS lines > side by side, I have observed a distressing difference. The difference > is in the audio quality. <*> Ok ... did you use the same phone on each line or at least use two phones that are equal in specifications? Also did you use the same ear with each phone since your left ear might be deafer then your right ear? Nothing Personal :-) [Mixed calling between 5ESS/1ESS in Bay Area Deleted] Since the problem must be in the Bay Area :-) > I can imagine what havoc this could play with modems, and is a good > reason to NOT move all of my lines over to the more modern switch. <*> True until they junk the old switch. > This is also not very encouraging in the matter of the future of > telecommunications. Perhaps the "clarity of digital" will prove to be > a curse rather than a blessing. Or maybe there is something amiss in > the particular 5ESS switch that I am experimenting with. <*> Maybe its those 20 year old phones you used the test them with. :-) I noticed that through the years the old phones we had were designed with different frequency characteristics then the new ones I just installed. Ex: the new ones don't have carbon microphones anymore. Also its real noticable on the reciever end too!! > [Moderator's Note: Personally, I'd not blame it on the switch. I've > got the same thing here and the lines are very clean and quiet. You > might try from other locations served on the same switch and see if it > sounds the same there; then also try it from other switches of the > same type in the area. Your situation may be very localized. PAT] <*> Here here! I would believe the same. Here in the Philly area I hardly don't have any noise except when I call certain locations that still have an older switch. ??? Steve Urich WB3FTP wells!beyonet!beyo@dsinc.dsi.com ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 9:28:56 PDT john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) wrote: > Now that I have had a chance to play with both my 1ESS and 5ESS lines > side by side, I have observed a distressing difference. The difference > is in the audio quality. > [Moderator's Note: Personally, I'd not blame it on the switch. I've I had a similar experience with a new 5E in a GTE area. For several months after it was installed I would occasionally dial someone and get a completely random phone number. I would hang up the phone and press the last number redial button, and get the party I wanted the first time. This happened with two different phones from two different manufacturers. It generally happened when I was dialing quickly. Still I find it difficult to believe that it was my fault when the last number redial got me where I wanted to go. A 5ESS is a VERY complex beast, not just any fool can run one. I believe that the fault was with the administration, not the switch. Just a theory. davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 09:49:19 CDT From: tjrob@ihlpl.att.com (Thomas J Roberts) Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories The audio quality of a telephone conversation, local or long-distance, is *USUALLY* dominated by the quality of the local loops at either end. The only normal exceptions to this are due to toll equipment malfunctions or misadjustments. Using the AT&T network, >90% of the calls traverse digital facilities from AT&T-POP to AT&T-POP ("Point of Presence" -- i.e. where your local telco connects to AT&T). A very large percentage of calls travel on digital facilities from EO to EO ("End Office" -- i.e. the local telco office where your local loop terminates). Digital facilities are virtually always configured to have 0dB loss, and inherently have flat frequency response -- except for inherent delay and externally-created echo they are about as "perfect" a transmission medium as possible (within the audio band and the noise parameters specified for telephony). Thus, with digital switches, such as the 5ESS(Rg) Switch, for one direction of a call there are six places in which audio degradations can occur: the transmitter, the originating loop, the A-to-D in the originating switch, the D-to-A in the terminating switch, the terminating loop, and the receiver. Of these, the loops are by far the most likely to cause problems. On the 5ESS Switch, the D-to-A and A-to-D do not contribute significant noise or distortion. The local telco will engineer the loss of the loops. > Compared to similar calls to identical destinations, the 5ESS > invariably sounds dirtier, has more random noise, and has lower audio > level overall. A call from the 5ESS to the 1ESS (co-located) is > noticably inferior to a call within either switch, and also inferior > to a call from the 1ESS to any other 1/1AESS anywhere else in the Bay > Area. > I can imagine what havoc this could play with modems, and is a good > reason to NOT move all of my lines over to the more modern switch. If you are concerned about modem operation, I would complain to the local telco; there is no excuse for service-affecting degradations. After you investigate this problem, I strongly suspect you will have found that the problem was in the local loops, and not in the digital portion of the system. > This is also not very encouraging in the matter of the future of > telecommunications. Perhaps the "clarity of digital" will prove to be > a curse rather than a blessing. Or maybe there is something amiss in > the particular 5ESS switch that I am experimenting with. Here, using a 5ESS Switch and ISDN phones (yes, digital loops; the A-to-D and D-to-A are in the station set on my desk), calls have superb clarity and no audible noise at all. This is true for all local calls, and virtually all long-distance calls; approximately 40% of my calls to Europe have the typical background "hiss", but 60% of them are totally quiet as well. The world is going digital, and it shows -- it sure sounds good to me! For the record, I work for AT&T Bell Laboratories at Naperville, IL. We design and develop the 5ESS Switch and other telecommunications products. Tom Roberts AT&T Bell Laboratories att!ihlpl!tjrob TJROB@IHLPL.ATT.COM ------------------------------ From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Date: 8 Oct 91 14:49:33 GMT Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: [Moderator's Note: See earlier messages this issue for quoted text. PAT] I have noticed the same thing here (201-200 is a 5ESS). I had assumed it was just a transient new-equipment problem, but it seems to be here to stay. One of my co-workers has his home phone on 200 (odd, since it's supposedly for ISDN customers only) and when calling him there is horrible impulse noise, both during the ring and after he has answered. Another school converted from the 547 prefix (switch type unknown, but probably a 1AESS) to 200 to get ISDN features, and they have the same noise problem, both within the campus (Centrex extensions) and on incoming and outgoing calls. So far, nobody wants to complain, or has the time to pursue it. The noises seem to come in two general types: the most common is a crackling and popping that sounds like loose connections in a pole-mounted terminal. The other noise sounds like a SxS switch when mute isn't working: sppppprrRRROOOIINNNNGGGG!!! Oh well ... progress 8-( Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, US terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381 ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: News Release Hilarity (will be: Fight Back) Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 07:57:58 GMT csense!bote@uunet.UU.NET (John Boteler) writes: > My suggestion: start an 'I Hate Pac*Bell' citizen's group and > distribute your own press releases, with the necessary spin reversal. And, of course, rapid spin-reversal will cause Pac*Bell to become seriously torqued-off. A wrenching situation, to be sure; one that is sure to loosen their screws and drive them nuts. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ From: brian@apt.bungi.com (Brian Litzinger) Subject: Re: What if The Phone Company Hears of a Crime? Organization: APT Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 05:44:30 GMT In article jim.redelfs@macnet.omahug. org writes: > Carl M. Kadie wrote: >> I think the phone company is allowed check line quality, etc. by >> listening to phone conversations. What are the rules for what they >> may do with information that is overheard? ... [ deleted ] > I have heard a crime in PROGRESS (bookmaking) during the course of > installing the ANNUAL, [ ... deleted ...] > I can do NOTHING. I am constrained by the Secrecy of Communications clause > of my employment: In some states I've heard that not reporting a crime makes one an accomplice (sic) after the fact or some such nonsense. If this is in fact the case, its seems your employment contract exempts you from certain criminal liabilities. Perhaps I should contact my boss about contractually relieving me of certain criminal liabilities? brian brian@apt.bungi.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Oct 91 17:22:45 PDT From: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County Organization: FidoNet node 1:250,438, Echo Beach, Toronto Our Moderator notes: > Moderator's note: Many years ago, we had a system here which (when > the fire alarm bell was ringing in the steeple at City Hall) allowed > one to dial "311" to learn the location of the fire. It was not an > automated system, but merely a dozen phones on a desk in the Fire > Alarm office which rang whenever someone dialed "311". Some poor soul > then had the duty of grabbing a (ringing) phone, responding "1234 Main > Street, corner Main and 12th"; disconnecting with no further discussion > and grabbing the next ringing phone to repeat the message. He might do > this five hundred times before the calls quit coming in. The year > might have been about 1940-45. PAT In Truro, Nova Scotia in the early 1970's (and probably for much earlier), the fire department had a network of red fire alarm boxes, each with a three-digit number. When an alarm was pulled, a horn at the fire hall would sound out the number twice (5-4-3 would be five hoots, a short pause, four hoots, a short pause, three hoots, a longer pause, and then the original sequence again). I went on a tour of the fire hall once, and saw the notched wheels which rotated to generate the coded horn calls (one notch to hoot). I don't know who manufactured the system, but I suspect that Northern Electric (now Northern Telecom) supplied at least part of it. The circuits between the call boxes and the fire hall were probably provided by Maritime Tel & Tel, the local telephone company. The numbers of the alarm boxes weren't secret. In fact, I remember seeing a list of them on a card with advertising from some local businesses. The fire horn could be heard several blocks away. It was also sounded once each evening (at 10 o'clock, perhaps). (There was some suggestion that this was to mark a curfew for children and teenagers under a given age, but I never saw any official confirmation of this.) I think the fire horn has probably been replaced by a pager system by now. I haven't encountered a system like this elsewhere. However, some Canadian cities have (or had until recently) a "noon gun" -- someone fires a cannon to let people downtown know it's noon. Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG [Moderator's Note: At the time of the great fire in Chicago (120 years ago today in fact, October 8-9, 1871) the Chicago Fire Department had a man in the fire alarm office whose duty it was to set the gears on the bell works in such a way that the bell would have a certain cadence to indicate where (in what part of the city) a fire had started. Then he wound up a mainspring, like one would wind up a clock, and as the escapement started unwinding, the bell would toll a certain way, then pause, and start again, etc. The trouble was, as Horace Greely (editor at the time of the {Chicago Tribune}) later wrote, when you live under the sword of Damocoles long enough, you eventually learn to ignore it. He noted the bell had been ringing almost constantly for three days due to the several small fires which had started around town. The citizens were so accustomed to seeing a team of horses racing down the street pulling a tank of water and several men, one of whom clanged a bell as they went along that they had grown bored by it all, and *that* Sunday night everyone came home from church, said to hell with it and went on to bed despite the bell's cadence indicating what was called a 'general alarm'. The Western Union clerk, despite the fire on both sides of the telegraph office stayed on duty as long as possible, sending messages asking for help. He finally signed off on the wire, locked the company's money and records in the safe, and left. The roof collapsed in flames less than a minute later. Despite the loss of their building and extensive damage to their circuits all over town, Western Union re-opened for business three days later with limited facilities, and a working line to St. Louis and a few other cities. PAT] ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.com (Warren Burstein) Subject: Re: Israeli Hacker Caught Date: 5 Oct 91 17:41:55 GMT Organization: WorldWide Software mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: > In article davids@caen.engin.umich.edu > (David Snearline) writes: >> In djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us (Dave Leibold) >> wrote: >>> Deri Schriebman, an 18-year old computer whiz from Carmiel in >>> northern Isreal, "hacked" his way into the Pentagon's computer system, >> Considering that clasified information is not allowed to be stored on >> any machines connected to the Internet, one wonders how much >> "classified" information was actually on the system, and much is >> merely the media making hot air. > Since no newspaper or other published source was cited, one wonders, > in fact, _who_ is making the hot air! It was just a "news story" > datelined, if I remember right, "Jerusalem (Special)" with no attri- > bution other than a BBS somewhere. This story was all over the major Israeli newspapers when it happened. I'm sorry that it did not occur to me to translate some of them and send them to the Digest. One of the newspapers (Yediot Achronot) also interviewed a chacker who several years earlier had planted a false story in their newspaper. The papers all referred to the accused as a "computer genius", but knowing some Israeli journalists, that term may apply to anyone who can figure out how to use the function keys on their word processor. I'm also skeptical about this "classified information" bit and think that the mention of data concerning Patriot missles might be due to someone's imagination. Patriots have been in the news here before, you know. There seems to have been some sort of phone fraud involved, too. The description sounded rather like a blue box, but details were lacking. I have no idea if a blue box will, in fact, work over here. A rumor claims that he was using stolen calling cards to place his calls, but if he did that from home I would expect that the authorities would have found him much sooner. warren@worlds.COM Jerusalem ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #802 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15070; 9 Oct 91 9:43 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16419 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 9 Oct 1991 07:59:16 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27312 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 9 Oct 1991 07:59:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 07:59:06 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110091259.AA27312@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #803 TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 Oct 91 07:58:37 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 803 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Michael A. Covington] Re: Information Wanted on Portable Satellite Phones [John Hobson] Re: Information Wanted on Portable Satellite Phones [Henry E. Schaffer] Re: Phone Listening Crimes [Kevin Kadow] Re: IN and Functional Commands (FCs) [Stacey Lebitz] Re: Surcharge For 911 in Pittsburgh [Andrew Hastings] Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [Jeffrey J. Carpenter] Re: Legalistic Fax Cover Sheet [Ploni Almoni] Re: LD Savings Plans vs. 1+ (Main Carrier) Connection [Andy Sherman] Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) [S. Spencer Sun] Re: AT&T Calling Card Question [Phydeaux] Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Jack Decker] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 04:39:28 GMT Pat, you write: > (2) There is no crime in someone inviting you to call a certain > phone number. Not so! I believe the legal term is fraudulent inducement, and a guy doing this in NYC got nailed for it recently. This is just a cross- country version of the same scam. Posting a "fake" page to a pager in order to induce the pager to call a 540-line is most definitely illegal. This subject was covered extensively here in the past. Another variant of the scam from Japan: Local Yakuza started forging the magnetic telephone cards, then paid people to use them to call a Q2 (Japanese 900) line. You can Q2 on a prepaid card because Japan uses the "pulse down the line to deduct a call unit" system. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 05:25:25 GMT > [Moderator's Note: (1) Apparently some LD carriers choose not to connect > the call at all... > (2) There is no crime > in someone inviting you to call a certain phone number. It is up to > you to understand how phones are numbered and billing is handled. If > we start allowing retribution anytime someone places a telephone toll > call ignorantly assuming it is a local call with no charge just think > of the can of worms that will open up. Although the tactic described > is very sleazy, it is not illegal. He did not fraudulently bill a call > to your number or force you to dial the number. Pay your phone bill! PAT] I disagree. If someone solicits a call to a 976-type number in such a way as to _rely_ on your not recognizing it as such, and then collects an exorbitant charge, then it certainly is wrong and I'd think that most courts would view it as misrepresentation. We're not talking about telephone tolls here, we're talking about what appears to be an obvious scam. Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | N4TMI Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A. ------------------------------ Reply-To: hobs@hcfeams.UUCP () Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 13:00:10 GMT From: hobs@hcfeams.UUCP () Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Portable Satellite Phones In comp.dcom.telecom Rick Farris writes: > In article AVW114@URIACC.BITNET > writes: >> This new system is designed to be a better combined forces >> battle doctrine that is the standard for our military at >> this time. > What does that sentence mean? Just as telco people have their own jargon, so does the military. The sentence means that the system for varying units involved in combat to work together (combined forces battle doctrine) will be improved under the new system. John Hobson 1LT INF USAR (ret) Ameritech Services 225 W Randolph HQ 17B Chicago, IL 60606 312-727-3490 hobs@hcfeams.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Portable Satellite Phones Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 23:57:51 GMT In article trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > It means that it will enhance the interface by which the first > communicating party can transmit intelligence to the second > communicating party, thus facilitating the timely and accurate > delivery of the ordinance. ^^^^^^^^^ Conducting war by sending out legal documents and attorneys is a violation of the Geneva Accords. Making such suggestions is itself improper. henry schaffer [Moderator's Note: Gee, I've been accused many times of being politically incorrect (for that matter, being crude and rude as a matter of course), but this is the first time I've ever been accused of violating the Geneva Accords in an article printed here. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Kevin Kadow Subject: Re: Phone Listening Crimes Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 18:30:14 GMT In article technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes: > During one of these delays, I picked up the phone, and heard around 15 > distinct conversations! > So I sit on the line (it's possible to pick out individual > conversations, e.g. the "cocktail party phenomena") for a while. I > can hear them, they can't hear me; it's a local call -- very interesting. > 1) What could cause this? (It has happened off and on in the last year > or so.) > [Moderator's Note: (1) 'Crosstalk' is caused by unbalanced lines, and > frequently by wet cables/wire pairs. It is common enough, especially > with old wires cramped together in leaking underground conduits, etc. > You may have noticed it went away once your party answered, and was > especially noticeable during the second or two after you went off hook > and before dial tone came to your line. It certainly isn't crosstalk (I've had crosstalk between my two lines due to bad insulation). It seems to be a function of the switching station as both the BBS and the medical center were at the same station, while I'm on the Chicago-Rogers Park station. The conversations were clear (but a little faint) with no static. I would guess that I was hearing all the calls currently going through that switch. technews@iitmax.iit.edu kadokev@iitvax (bitnet) My Employer Disagrees. [Moderator's Note: Knowing what little I do about the proximity of BBS' and medical centers in Chicago, were the two served in common by Chicago-Edgewater, our CO neighbor immediatly to the south of us? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 14:17:50 -0400 From: stacey@prefect.cc.bellcore.com Subject: Re: IN and Functional Commands (FCs) Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article Larry Muller writes: > Does anyone know the progress that has been made in the area of > functional commands (FCs)? When I say FCs I am referring to the set > of commands that a subscriber may be given in order that (s)he can > program an intelligent network: so the subscriber can customize > primative (basic) services. I don't know exactly what you are looking for, but Bellcore has released Technical Advisories on the Advanced Intelligent Network that may contain information that you are interested in. Specifically, AIN Release 1 Service Logic Execution Environment Generic Requirements TA-NWT-001124 There are other related documents: AIN Release 1 Switching Systems Generic Requirements TA-NWT-001123 AIN Release 1 Service Control Point Generic Requirements TA-NWT-001125 AIN Release 1 Switch-SCP/Adjunct Application Protocol Interface Generic Requirements TA-NWT-001126 AIN Release 1 Service Logic Program Framework Generic Requirements FA-NWT-001132 To order TAs or FAs, write to: Bellcore Document Registrar 445 South St. Room 2J-125 P.O. Box 1910 Morristown, NJ 07962-1910 Stacey Lebitz stacey@bcr.cc.bellcore.com ...!bellcore!prefect!stacey ------------------------------ From: abh+@cs.cmu.edu (Andrew Hastings) Subject: Re: Surcharge for 911 in Pittsburgh Date: Tue, 08 Oct 91 18:51:47 GMT Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon In article sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us (Ken Sprouse) writes: > Pittsburgh brought > police, fire and ems together under the umbrella of "Department of > Public Safety" several years ago and established the 911 dispatch > center at that time. I believe they have the enhanced 911 with all > the bells and whistles such as display of calling party's phone number > and that sort of thing. I don't think Pittsburgh has E911. The last time I called 911 I had to describe the location of the phone from which I was calling. And yes, this is a "backdoor" tax increase. Like many cities across the country, Pittsburgh is facing a "revenue shortfall." The Pittsburgh Press reported that the $1/month 911 charge will just about cover the salaries of the employees at the 911 center. Andrew Hastings abh@cs.cmu.edu 412/268-8734 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 23:01:22 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival Tad Cook@ssc.wa.com wrote: > I DID THIS at an AT&T booth at a fair in Seattle a few > years ago. They offered free phone calls > to anywhere, and the phones were not very carefully supervised. I > walked up to one and dialed 1-700-555-4141 just to check. Then I > dialed a couple of calls out of state, but used 10222 and 10333 in > front. The calls went through without a hitch, and I also checked > them first with the 700 number just in case. This actually surprises me. Why didn't AT&T or MCI simply bypass the local TELCO and hook these lines up directly to their facilities, thus eliminating this possibility and dealings with the local TELCO completely? Is there some regulatory restriction against bypassing the local TELCO for this? Jeff Carpenter System and Networks, Computing and Information Services University of Pittsburgh 600 Epsilon Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238 jjc+@pitt.edu, jjc@pittvms.bitnet +1 412 624 6424, FAX +1 412 624 6436 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Oct 91 13:05:40 PDT From: Ploni.Almoni@f28.n125.z1.fidonet.org (Ploni Almoni) Subject: Re: Legalistic Fax Cover Sheet Organization: Coconino County BBS 415-861-8290, San Francisco CA [Forwarded from FidoNet's FCC echo by nigel.allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org] Nigel Allen wrote: > Of course, the best way to keep your fax messages confidential is to > dial carefully and make sure you don't use the wrong speed-dialling > button. Or to use one of the newer encrypting machines which will spit out the cover sheet with a statement that the rest of the message is password-protected, and will not spit out the remaining sheets until a proper password (per message) is entered. The issues of preservation of "confidentiality" and attorney-client privileged information is a real issue in legal ethics / law-office automation circles these days (a professional interest of mine) but I don't see any FCC connection, Nigel. Origin: Coconino County BBS *415-861-8290* San Francisco, CA (1:125/28) Ploni Almoni - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Ploni.Almoni@f28.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: LD Savings Plans vs. 1+ (Main Carrier) Connection Date: 8 Oct 91 19:16:58 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA In article lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: > The IEC (InterExchange Carrier) does not really know whether they are > your PIC (Preferred Interexchange Carrier) or not. The calls look the > same to them at their POP (local Point Of Presence). The only way they > could KNOW is if you processed the PIC selection through them. This is just false. Yes the call detail looks the same regardless of PIC. PIC information is usually available -- the LEC is *supposed* to tell you when somebody selects you as their PIC. Reporting changes the other way can be a little chancier. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ From: shihsun@lamp.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) Date: 8 Oct 91 19:53:23 GMT Organization: Princeton Class of '94 In article , grady@world.std.com (Richard R Grady) writes: > In article larry@world.std.com (Larry > Appleman) writes: >>> I was able to subscribe to MCI's "Friends & Family" by having them set >>> up an account and register my phone number for 10222+ dialing. My 1+ >>> carrier is not MCI. >> But you can only get the 20% discount for calls to people who have MCI >> as their 1+ carrier. In other words, you can have any kind of MCI >> account, but your "Friends & Family" all must have MCI as their primary >> LD carrier. > If that's true, then it follows that your friends and family will not > get their 20% "Friends & Family" discount because YOU don't have MCI > as your primary carrier. I'm pretty sure that's the way it works. In order to receive the 20% discount, the party RECEIVING the call must have MCI as their primary carrier. Note also that Friends and Family does not apply to calls placed with the MCI Calling Card (this would be a serious attraction if they added F&F to the Calling Card ...) S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 shihsun@phoenix.princeton.edu WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 10:53:24 PDT From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Question I think I should add that it seems AT&T will only allow about ten calls to be placed in a row (via '#')without having to call back again. At least this was the limit the last time I had to make a *lot* of calls from a payphone. reb -- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com or reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:558 West Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365 w:reb Ingres 10255 West Higgins Road Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Oct 91 19:36:00 EDT From: Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card In a recent message, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > A small note in the paper last week reported that, along with a bunch > of other reforms directed at COCOTs and hotel switchboards, the FCC > has ordered all long distance companies to provide 950 or 800 access > numbers. This only affects AT&T, since all the rest already have > them. Nobody has ever been able to present a rational reason for > AT&T's reluctance, other than perhaps a desire to be distinguished > from everyone else. Maybe they'll use 800-872-2881, the number they > use for USA Direct in the Caribbean. When I try dialing this number from the 906 area code (Upper Peninsula of Michigan), I get a recording that states, "The 800 number you have dialed is not yet in service. Please try this number at a later date." The voice on the recording sounds very much like the same female voice that says "AT&T" when you dial an AT&T 0+ call. So I suspect you may be correct. As for 950 access, both 950-0288 and 950-1288 go to an intercept operator here. In my opinion, it's about time that AT&T realized that there are many telephones and PBX's, etc. that block access to 10288+ calls. I always wondered how AT&T could claim superiority to other carriers when they couldn't even figure out how to put in an 800 or 950 access number so their customers could reach them from oddball phones. Even now they're not doing it for the convvenience of their customers (though I'll bet they'll promote it that way!) but rather because the FCC ordered them to do it. Via D'Bridge 1:1/211 10/07 12:14 Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org) Internet: Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #803 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22487; 10 Oct 91 2:33 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23128 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:48:38 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26851 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:48:28 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:48:28 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110100548.AA26851@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #804 TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Oct 91 00:48:29 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 804 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [John Higdon] Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [Andy Sherman] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [John Higdon] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Nicholas J. Simicich] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [John R. Levine] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Carl Moore] Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [S. Spencer Sun] Pager Calls [Rob Boudrie] Telecom Humor From the Comics [Nigel Allen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 09:19 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" writes: > This actually surprises me. Why didn't AT&T or MCI simply bypass the > local TELCO and hook these lines up directly to their facilities, thus > eliminating this possibility and dealings with the local TELCO > completely? Is there some regulatory restriction against bypassing > the local TELCO for this? None at all. In fact, I have some clients who do this very thing and as a result are able to make intraLATA calls on the carrier rather than on Pac*Bell, thus saving a LOT of money. However, it is much more trouble to set up than just having a phone line installed. Either a T1 would have to be provided by the telco from the carrier's POP or a short-hop microwave would have to be involved. I seriously doubt that the expense for any of this would justify the benefits for a booth at the fair. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: I think you could avoid a T1 if you were talking only a single line or two and have the local telco wire it straight through the switch and out to you. Of course you'd have to pay the local telco for the essence of a private circuit or FX line between you and the LD switch. PAT] ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA Date: Wed, 09 Oct 91 14:22:02 EDT In article jjs+@pitt.edu (Jeff Carpenter) writes: > This actually surprises me. Why didn't AT&T or MCI simply bypass the > local TELCO and hook these lines up directly to their facilities, thus > eliminating this possibility and dealings with the local TELCO > completely? Is there some regulatory restriction against bypassing > the local TELCO for this? No, but there are some technical challenges. One is you need a line from the state fair to a point of presence (POP). Your choices are a) lease a private line from the local TELCO (who owns most of the loop plant and the trunks to your POP), b) run your own ($$$$), c) use a private radio relay ($$$ if you don't have a spare receiver at the POP and a spare roving transmitter). So you will probably rent dedicated digital facilities from the local TELCO. Then you need a way of providing dial tone. By providing dial tone, I mean handling all of the interface from an analog POTS line into a digital access trunk headed for the toll switch. This means some kind of a digital PBX. All in all a lot of work and money to drive a few POTS sets at a fair and avoid a small amount of splash billing from a few people playing games. This is just a guess as to motivation, although the technical description of what the bypass would require is real enough. Remember that the tricky part of bypass is that modern toll switches are not designed to interface with local loops. They switch traffic on trunks. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! [Moderator's Note: And even much of the splash could be eliminated by using some sort of toll-diverter or toll-restrictor on the lines which ignore digits dialed after the eleventh, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 21:27 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > Posting a "fake" page to a pager in order to induce the pager to call > a 540-line is most definitely illegal. This subject was covered > extensively here in the past. It was? It is? I have been following the Digest for a while now and I cannot remember anyone citing chapter and verse on any law that prohibits anyone from putting any number in someone's pager. Can you quote the issue in which it appeared? Or better yet, how about the law itself. This has the definite ring of "wishing it were so" to it. mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: > I disagree. If someone solicits a call to a 976-type number in such a > way as to _rely_ on your not recognizing it as such, and then collects > an exorbitant charge, then it certainly is wrong and I'd think that > most courts would view it as misrepresentation. Every scam from the beginning of time RELIES on the victim not recognizing it as a scam. You (and even I) may think it is wrong, but the courts cannot view it any way at all if there are no applicable laws. And no, we do not need more laws. The best defense against such scams is education so that people DO recognize these things for what they are. As any con man will tell you, laws are nothing to a con artist. What he fears most is his potential marks learning the ropes and avoiding his traps. Laws are easily broken; marks that refuse to take the bait are somewhat more trouble. And can we finally put to bed this "no one knows about '540'" business? Hell, I know about '540' and I have not been to NY in over ten years. Is the contention here that people who live in NY go around with blindfolds on and cotten stuffed in their ears? > We're not talking about telephone tolls here, we're talking about what > appears to be an obvious scam. If it is so obvious, why do people fall for it? Are they stupid? Stupidity comes at a price. Thomas Lapp writes: > 2. Is there any retribution if I were to receive a page for a toll > number (ie. 1-900-xxx or 1-xxx-976) and called with no intent (or > perhaps knowledge) that the number I called was a billed service? As Pat points out, this is very sleazy. But it certainly makes a compelling case for not using a pager in lieu of a secretary or an office. I have carried a pager since 1970 when all you got was a Motorola Pageboy that was about the size of a small cellular phone. It would beep and then announce through its speaker who to call. It was usually the operator at the answering service that operated the paging company, but later there were automatic systems that allowed the caller to speak his own SHORT message. But I digress. Over the years I have learned to NOT return just every number that comes along from the pager. If a number appears that I do not recognize, some research is done first. Where is the prefix? Who might be calling from an unusual location? Check the voice record on my machine, which handles the paging. Do I recognize the name? Was a voice message even left? (If not, why not?) After all of this, SOMETIMES I will return an unknown page if there are some thoughts that it has some legitimacy. If I cannot come up with anything plausible, then the page is ignored. I know that some will object, saying that operations on a budget need to use a pager as a secretary. Maybe so, but people who make it a practice to return pager calls to strangers had better be extra careful about what prefixes they call. And this is the pager holder's responsibility and no one else's. If one lives in NY, it sounds like he has a full time job keeping abreast of all the banana peels that NYNEX tosses out here and there to collect as much loose change as possible. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 09:50:10 EDT From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Reply-To: Nick Simicich > [Moderator's Note: [.....] (2) There is no crime in someone > inviting you to call a certain phone number. It is up to you to > understand how phones are numbered and billing is handled. If we > start allowing retribution anytime someone places a telephone toll > call ignorantly assuming it is a local call with no charge just > think of the can of worms that will open up. Although the tactic > described is very sleazy, it is not illegal. He did not > fraudulently bill a call to your number or force you to dial the > number. Pay your phone bill! PAT] Apparently you and the NYC District Attorney disagree about this. At least one of the people pulling this scam is up on charges for fraud. I agree with the DA. No crime in advertising a number that costs money, as long as the cost is explained up front, and the benefit you will get from calling the number is also explained. In this case, there was no intention on the dialer's part to enter into a contract to get the information that the line promised, so the $55 (or whatever) is being fraudulently billed to your number, since you were duped into contracting for the service in the first place. All this stuff could be eliminated by requiring a up-front announcement of the cost of the call and the name of the service. Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, njs@watson.ibm.com) -SSI AOWI #3958, HSA #318 [Moderator's Note: Uh yes, we do disagree on this, and it is worth noting that the DA is trying to cut a deal with the defendant, which is not usually done when the government has a good rock solid case. The defendant seems to be arguing the government should indict anyone who leaves a message (electronically or through a secretary) requesting a call back to a number which results in an additional charge on the (return) caller's phone bill if the original caller did not expressly tell the secretary, "returning this call will result in an additional charge levied by the phone company". He maintains that calls are returned regularly which result in toll charges to the person returning the call; that most people are sophisticated enough to detirmine for themselves if they wish to return the call or not; and that no force of any kind was used. He cited the technical limitations of many/most pagers in use to accept alpha-numeric messages making it impractical to give further details in his page message. He also cited the automatic dialing done by many 900 services in which messages are delivered inviting the called party to call back to a 900 number and the countless messages on late-night television inviting people to call a 900 number while quickly glossing over the charges involved for the call -- in essence giving no information at all. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 9 Oct 91 14:18:28 EDT (Wed) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) In reality, the tactic of inviting out of LATA calls to 212-540-XXXX is mostly stupid, since inter-LATA carriers are not going to handle any surcharge. Callers from 718, 516, most of 914, and some callers from 201 would get dinged since NY Tel can carry calls from there. I suspect that you could make a fraud charge stick, since this tactic is somewhat like a game of three-card monte in that nobody is forcing you to play, but you never get anything of value for your money. It's not reasonable to expect everyone to know all of the surcharged prefixes in the country -- how many of the well-informed readers of telecom know all the ones in NYC? I think it's 976, 540, and 394, but I'm not sure about the last one and there may be more. The real solution is regulation similar to that for 900 numbers: any time you call a surcharged number, you get an announcement describing the nature of the service and the price, and there's no charge if you hang up then. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl [Moderator's Note: It is true that in three-card monte you never get anything for your money, but our scammer in New York did in fact give information in exchange for the money, did he not? Opinions may differ on the value of the information. He thought it was worth the money. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 12:04:38 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Given the pagings (of apparently fraudulent intent) pertaining to calls to the 212-540 exchange: From where would the person placing such page expect you to call 212-540 exchange? [Moderator's Note: This is another point the con-artist (and I will grant you he is one, even if marginally legal, which I think he is) is arguing with the prosecutor: How should he know *where* the person returning the call will be calling from? After all, pagers are by definition mobile devices. If they are outside the NYC area, they pay only a toll charge. Is he being prosecuted for those pages also? And if so, why isn't every business person who leaves a message with a phone number in another LATA without specifying the charges involved being prosecuted also? PAT] ------------------------------ From: shihsun@bonnet.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: sleazy tactics (was Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) Date: 10 Oct 91 00:41:18 GMT Organization: Princeton Class of '94 In article , thomas%mvac23.uucp@udel.edu (Thomas Lapp) writes: [quotes memo describing people leaving 212-540-xxxx numbers on pagers, which are $55 per call] > [Moderator's note: ... (2) There is no crime > in someone inviting you to call a certain phone number. It is up to I dunno, this seems to be a very grey area ... I'm no legal expert, so I have no idea what you would call this (although I plan to consult with my legally-connected friend in a minute or two) but this seems like abuse of the person's beeper. Also, it's a bit unreasonable to expect your average citizen who does not have the honor of reading comp.dcom.telecom :^) to know that one particular exchange in that area code acts like 976 numbers. Sure, no one is being forced to call the numbers, but it is strong deception. [S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - shihsun@phoenix.princeton.edu ] [WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)] [Moderator's Note: It is deception only if the person returning the call was deceived; and the extent to which the person was decieved is relative to how much they know about the phone system. Whose problem is that, and where do you draw the line? If I did not know ahead of time that placing a credit card call will cost more than a direct dialed call, should I be able to sue telco for deception? Where do you stop and start on this? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rob Boudrie Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 16:35:01 EDT Subject: Pager Calls To the Moderator: Do you KNOW for certain that the practice of placing 540 numbers on pager displays is in fact legal? Has a court ruled on it? I seem to remember someone in NYC being charged with fraud over this practice, but don't remember the outcome. Rob Boudrie rboudrie@encore.com [Moderator's Note: It is not up to anyone to prove it is legal. It is up to the government to prove it is illegal. And the outcome is they are still haggling over it; the government wants the guy to cop a plea in exchange for maybe two year's paper, so they can show how well they protect the public. PAT] ------------------------------ From: canrem!nigel.allen@uunet.UUCP (Nigel Allen) Date: 9 Oct 91 (18:23) Subject: Telecom Humor From the Comics First man: "I talked to this really foxy chick last night!" Second man: "Hey, that's great, Elmo! Where's she from?" First man: "Heck if I know... her area code is (900)..." Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.uucp Canada Remote Systems. Toronto, Ontario NorthAmeriNet Host [Moderator's Note: Thanks Nigel ... I needed that! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #804 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24832; 10 Oct 91 3:34 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23997 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 10 Oct 1991 01:55:01 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06957 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 10 Oct 1991 01:54:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 01:54:50 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110100654.AA06957@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #805 TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Oct 91 01:54:45 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 805 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [John Higdon] Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Michael Ho] Re: Caller ID: Technical Question [Nancy J. Airey] Re: Caller ID: Technical Question [John R. Levine] Re: Caller ID Availability; Chicago Gets It 1/1/92 [Sami Khoury] Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555 [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Phone Listening Crimes [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Phone Listening Crimes [Graham Toal] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 01:52 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality snark!beyonet!beyo@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Steve Urich) writes: > <*> Ok ... did you use the same phone on each line or at least use two > phones that are equal in specifications? Also did you use the same ear > with each phone since your left ear might be deafer then your right ear? > Nothing Personal :-) Kidding and sarcasm aside, all of the lines in question appear on my KX-T1232, a system known for its superior audio quality. I am 4000 cable feet from the CO. Whatever advantage or disadvantage that pertains to the local loops is shared by the 1ESS and the 5ESS alike. The pairs ARE in the same cable. The differences that I am describing are not at all subtle. They are glaring and alarming. Yes, the 5ESS sounds ok until you use one of the 1ESS lines. What a difference! No fuzzy dial tones. No hiss in the background of the call. No funny little crunching noises (that were not there on the 5ESS lines when they were crossbar a month ago.) Quite frankly, I expected a knee-jerk response to my comments so I am prepared to conduct measurements. When one observes that the emperor is wearing no clothes, one of two possibilities exist: the observer is a fool or someone is naked. But before we commit yours truly to the funny farm let us at least be accurate in our rebuttals: Tom Roberts, AT&T Bell Laboratories writes: > Thus, with digital switches, such as the 5ESS(Rg) Switch, for one > direction of a call there are six places in which audio degradations > can occur: the transmitter, the originating loop, the A-to-D in the > originating switch, the D-to-A in the terminating switch, the > terminating loop, and the receiver. Of these, the loops are by far the > most likely to cause problems. On the 5ESS Switch, the D-to-A and > A-to-D do not contribute significant noise or distortion. The local > telco will engineer the loss of the loops. Tom, please be complete in your description. The 5ESS is a space-time-space division switch. You have conveniently omitted one of THE troublesome areas in the system: the analog concentrators. These are some diode audio switching devices that cut down on the need for a one-to-one A-to-D converter requirement for subscriber lines. These things fail, get noisy, and have another characteristic that in my case is most annoying. Ever since Pac*Bell installed the "new" network protectors on my lines, I have detected a small imbalance. This is normally not noticeable, but at certain times of the day a buzz can be heard on all lines during the dialing of numbers. On the 1ESS, the buzz disappears completely as soon as the "ka-klunk" happens. At this point, the loop is obviously properly terminated at the switch end and all is well. On the 5ESS, however, the same buzz remains throughout the call. It would appear that whatever is used at the switch end for termination is inferior to the 1E. My guess is that this is related to the analog concentrators. > Here, using a 5ESS Switch and ISDN phones (yes, digital loops; the > A-to-D and D-to-A are in the station set on my desk), calls have > superb clarity and no audible noise at all. This is true for all local > calls, and virtually all long-distance calls; approximately 40% of my > calls to Europe have the typical background "hiss", but 60% of them > are totally quiet as well. The world is going digital, and it shows -- > it sure sounds good to me! Yes, rub it in. We do not have ISDN here and probably will not for some time. But what I hear you saying is that for ISDN purposes the 5ESS is just wonderful. For us poor slobs who are still having to use telephone service the way the ancients intended, it would appear that the 5ESS is not the most desirable choice. I am sure that digital sounds good to you. It usually sounds good to me also, but what is going through the 5ESS does not sound good to me. > For the record, I work for AT&T Bell Laboratories at Naperville, IL. > We design and develop the 5ESS Switch and other telecommunications > products. Somehow I guessed that early on in your post. However, I am also aware that a subjective pissing contest is pointless. This coming week, I will be collecting the equipment to make some definitive level, distortion, and modem throughput tests. I will submit the results, for better or worse, upon competion of the tests. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Does the 'buzz' you hear sound at all like what I used to hear termed 'AC hum'? About 22 years ago, I helped a friend at the First Unitarian Church of Chicago (312-FAIrfax-4100) relocate some five-line, six-button phones from one office to another in the same building. The thing I noticed on all four CO lines and the ICOM line was the slightest little hum in the background before the (at the time, in the neighborhood) very slow-arriving dial tone, and during the ringing while waiting for an answer. Likewise, incoming callers heard a little background hum until the line was answered. I called IBT repair and asked them to eliminate it. The old frog who called me back from repair croaked, and I quote, "Calling from First Church, eh? I told you people a year ago to get that power line for the flourescent lights in the office out of *our* conduit! Keep the wires apart from each other, and your hum will go away." All my arguments about it not being *his* conduit, and Supreme Court rulings on the right to use *common conduit* or *conduit-in-common* for a variety of purposes was to no avail. Yes, I know you should not really run power lines down the same conduit as the phone line, but some contractor from years before did it. There was no problem until the incadescent lights in the office were swapped out with flourescent fixtures, and the church wasn't paying me enough to pull new 25-pair cable all over the building ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 13:40:12 GMT davep@u.washington.edu (David Ptasnik) writes: > I had a similar experience with a new 5E in a GTE area. For several > months after it was installed I would occasionally dial someone and > get a completely random phone number. ... > ... A 5ESS is a > VERY complex beast, not just any fool can run one. I believe that the > fault was with the administration, not the switch. You know, come to think of it, we have a relatively new digital switch here in Lincoln, Nebraska. I don't know for sure that it's a 5ESS, but it seems to "act" like one based on what the gurus in c.d.telecom have been saying -- short call-waiting beep with no line break, killable call waiting even on phones without three-way calling, no switching noises to other prefixes on that particular switch. Lately, a friend of mine has been getting an unusual number of wrong numbers that are not simple transpositions (i.e., he lives at 421-1XXX, and someone was trying to reach 477-5XXX). I don't know anything about that switch, but I know our phone company people are dolts (we're under an unregulated independent telco that is permitted by law to rake in 18% per year profits). It's very possible that someone misprogrammed it. [By the way: When we call from a digital switch to a prefix on an analog switch, we hear a bunch of "Touch-Tone"-like noises that aren't really touch tones, but seem to be conveying a number via tones. Is this typical or are we REALLY in the Dark Ages?] Michael Ho, University of Nebraska | Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu Disclaimer: Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be applied to any university agency. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 09:22:56 EDT From: jean@hrcca.att.com (Nancy J Airey) Subject: Re: Caller ID: Technical Question Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article andyb@coat.com (Andy Behrens) writes: > Bob Paul, spokesman for New England Telephone, stated: > "If you line block, then you automatically put the line in > jeopardy as far as being able to identify numbers for any > 911 service" when an overwrought caller forgets to say > where he is calling from. > Now I was under the impression that identification for 911 was done > through a different mechanism than identification for Caller ID, so it > wouldn't be affected by per-line blocking? > Is Bob Paul telling the truth, or does it depend on what kind of a > switch you are on? E911/911 relys on the "ANI" (Automatic Number Identification) being outpulsed over a CAMA trunk using in-band signaling to the 911 "handling" office. This is not the same as caller ID info (that discussion to follow) and would not be affected by "call blocking." Caller ID -- when instituted between switches -- uses CCS7 (Common Channel Signaling -- System 7). Messages are sent over signaling links separate from the voice path. Even if this were the way 911 was implemented it would still not affect delivery of the blicked number to a receiving switch, because the number is still sent along even if it is blocked. Blocking only prevents the called party from seeing the number displayed at their phone or getting a "read-back" if the called party puts it on a call rejection or call acceptance list. The switches *know* the number! That process is apparently part of the CCS7 protocol. If you have an automatic recall feature on your phone (call the last number that called me), you can activate it even if the number was blocked and call the person back. And if you get billed for calls that you make, that number will then display on your phone bill. att!hrcca!jean ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Caller ID: Technical Question Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 9 Oct 91 14:22:44 EDT (Wed) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) The NET spokesman is lying when he says that Caller-ID blocking would break 911, which is sadly typical of the way that telcos are promoting CID. E911 service does not depend on CID, which should be obvious since it's implemented all over the place now. CID blocking doesn't actually keep the number from being sent -- it sets a block bit which is interpreted at the callee's switch. That's why Call Return, Call Block, and Call Trace all work even in the presence of CID blocking. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Sami Khoury Subject: Re: Caller ID Availability; Chicago Gets It 1/1/92 Date: 9 Oct 91 20:15:52 GMT Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec Regarding the Caller-ID already in use by some states, or that to be implemented in the near future, is the feature of call-by-call blocking (*67 to block the CLID info) a free one ? In Canada, the only way to block a call, is by placing the call through the operator and this will cost you $0.95 per call. Sami Khoury sami@davinci.concordia.ca [Moderator's Note: Usually *67 is free. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555 Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 08:23:46 GMT In article jwt!john@uunet.uu.net (John Temples) writes: > Does the *67 I dial to prevent my number from being transmitted to > Caller*ID subscribers also prevent it from being transmitted to 800 > number services? > [Moderator's Note: No it does not. You can NOT override ANI sent to > the called party on an 800 call for the simple reason that end is > paying for the call, and like any reverse-charge toll call, the called > party has the right to know what it is they are paying for. Or would > you have it that they just pay and pay and pay, whenever you choose to > call, with no reference to who was calling them? PAT] VERY INTERESTING! I've heard all about various proposals to allow blocking of caller ID in general (whether on a per line or per call basis) as part of the proposals for caller ID here in California. Am I to guess that we already have caller ID on calls we place to 800 numbers? Does the general public know this? (I didn't) This must get kinda complicated when we go thru an alternate long distance carrier (using 950 or 800 access). I've also seen ads for equipment/software that ties caller ID in with your customer database so you know all about the customer when you answer the phone. Are "mail order" companies currently doing this with 800 numbers? Harold [Moderator's Note: You can't use 950, 10xxx or 800-access to call an 800 number, since the choice of carrier is made by the person paying for the call, in this case the 800 subscriber. All you can do is hand the call off to your local telco; they'll route it from tables on hand. And yes, ANI is given to 800 subscribers, either in real-time or in delayed time when their bill arrives each month. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Phone Listening Crimes Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 08:42:51 GMT In article technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes: > So I sit on the line (it's possible to pick out individual > conversations, e.g. the "cocktail party phenomena") for a while. I > can hear them, they can't here me, it's a local call -- very interesting. > [Moderator's Note: (1) 'Crosstalk' is caused by unbalanced lines, and > frequently by wet cables/wire pairs. It is common enough, especially > with old wires cramped together in leaking underground conduits, etc. > You may have noticed it went away once your party answered, and was > especially noticeable during the second or two after you went off hook > and before dial tone came to your line. (2) It is illegal to listen to This reminds me of the occasional "party line" that would occur when I was in high school (years and years ago). One night, I discovered that I could hear other people on the phone when I dialed a friend whose line was busy. I could also talk to these people. Rather than rely on my friend being on the phone, I dialed my own number, getting a busy. My guess as to what was happening had to do with the impedance of the busy tone generator. I guessed that all of us who got a busy number were physically swithced to the busy tone generator, which would ideally be a zero ohm voltage source. Any impedance above zero ohms would allow crosstalk between the callers. I seem to recall us high school kids also discovering a number that just gave us a quiet line that we could also all call and talk. This was probably a crossbar switch (1967 or so, Pac Bell in the SF east bay). I guess that now busy tone is generated using dsp techniques? Just send a bunch of numbers to the subscriber D/A converter? Harold ------------------------------ From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: Phone Listening Crimes Date: 9 Oct 91 21:02:55 GMT Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands In article technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes: > It certainly isn't crosstalk (I've had crosstalk between my two lines > due to bad insulation). It seems to be a function of the switching > station as both the BBS and the medical center were at the same > station, while I'm on the Chicago-Rogers Park station. The > conversations were clear (but a little faint) with no static. I would > guess that I was hearing all the calls currently going through that > switch. Aha! What you have there is what we in the trade call "NSA Promiscuous mode"... We all know that there are *far* too many conversations in the world for the NSA to monitor them all, so what they do is hire a friendly South American power and get the entire population to listen to about twenty calls each at once. This is a considerably cheaper method of keyword detection than using expensive computers. :-) Graham ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #805 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13478; 11 Oct 91 1:24 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08781 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 10 Oct 1991 23:40:47 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08715 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 10 Oct 1991 23:40:36 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 23:40:36 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110110440.AA08715@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #806 TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Oct 91 23:40:32 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 806 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Calling Party Hold and the Infinite Call [Mike Van Pelt] Re: Help Me Understand Disconnection of a Call [Tom Gray] Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [Patricia Elizabeth Houser] Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [Andrew Payne] Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) [Jeffrey M. Schweiger] Re: Information Wanted on Portable Satellite Phones [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [John Higdon] Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [John Higdon] Re: AT&T Speech Recognition [Al L. Varney] Re: RadioMail(tm) - Wireless Electronic Mail Announcement [Jeff Hibbard] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: Calling Party Hold and the Infinite Call Date: 9 Oct 91 17:52:32 GMT Reply-To: mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology In article lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) writes: > The number was for ZZZZZZ ... a free ... entertainment service. Jokes, > skits, and a variety of other homegrown amusements ... There was a number like this in Houston, about 1976 or 1977, called "The Banana-Nut Phone Company". They had some really hilarious skits, some so-so. And some nearly illegible; Lauren's mention of using 8-track tapes may explain a good bit. Does anyone know anything about who this was? ------------------------------ From: mitel!Software!grayt@uunet.uu.net (Tom Gray) Subject: Re: Help Me Understand Disconnection of a Call Date: 9 Oct 91 12:39:08 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: > Suppose A calls B. > In the US, I've seen that both A and B can disconnect the call by > putting the phone down. > In India, I've noticed that _only_ A can terminate the call. If B > puts the phone down, and A persists, the call is still running. > Why might this be the case? Or am I missing something essential? There are three kinds of disconnect used in North America. The one that you describe is called calling party control with forced disconnect. The called party can release the call if he goes on hook for a period of time (typically 30 seconds). This allows him to disconnect a nuisance caller or move to a more convenient telephone. It also allows the called switch to disconnect the trunk connections which can save valuable network resources in the case of long distance calls. However if someone calls an operator, disconnect control is assumed by the operator position. The connection will not release until the operator releases. I have always been told that this can be used in cases of emergency or to identify nuisance callers at the operator position. I've always suspected without evidence that it could also be used to prevent certain types of toll fraud. There are four types of disconnect control: calling party control (with forced disconnect) called party control both end control calling party control without forced disconnect. All are in use somewhere but the first two are the ones commonly used in North America. ------------------------------ From: Patricia_Elizabeth_Houser@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 13:19:15 PDT unisoft!dag@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Darren Alex Griffiths) wrote: > The system can be setup to dial all the phones (about > 30,000) within a few hours in the event of a toxic spill or other > disaster, or it can call every phone within a few blocks and ask > people to look out for a lost child. > Initially this sounds like a good thing, and it probably is, but there > are certainly some questions. I've never heard of this type of system > before; is Contra Costa the first one to have it? Also, I assume they > didn't test it by calling all of the phones, so how do they know it > will really work? There are also some interesting risks associated > with it. By definition the system is connected to the phone network, > I wonder what the chance of some piece of pond scum breaking in to it > and sending fake messages to people are? What if the system breaks > and goes wild at 4:00am calling up numbers all over the world? Where > does it get the address information from as well? I wonder if it uses > the 911 database or if it has it's own built by the city? I heard on KCBS-AM 740 that the system only knows numbers that are available to directory assistance, and that people with unlisted numbers need to notify the county somehow. There was no explanation as to how the notification would take place, or if the system stays current with the changes to the database. I don't know if the 911 database can read unlisted numbers. One other thing it mentioned was that it can't distinguish between a human or an answering machine (presumably a modem or fax would be noticed) and that one would likely miss the beginning of the message while the outgoing message is being played. I would think that an important message would be repeated or a number would be left where one could call the recording to get the whole message or more information. Patti Houser ------------------------------ From: payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County Organization: Cornell Theory Center Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 12:23:40 GMT In article Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1. fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes: > The fire horn could be heard several blocks away. If you live in Berkeley Sprngs, West Virginia, you can hear the fire horn several miles away (old air raid siren, I think). They still use the old fashioned system of more alarms ==> the worse the fire. > I think the fire horn has probably been replaced by a pager system by > now. I think they are getting pagers, but the fire horn remains. Both the fire and rescue services for the *entire* county are volunteer. Nearly 80% of the county is served by a single exchange (304) 258. There is no 911 service to speak of, insetad you call 258-9911 which rings into the local hospital and they dispatch from there. If you can't find anyone there, you call 258-2101, the local State Police detachment which rings through to Martinsburg, WV (about 40 miles away) after 5 PM. Martinsburg then gets on the radio and sees if they can raise one of the six or seven State Troopers (total) that patrol the county. Needless to say, emergency response time can be a little on the slow side. My dad was in an accident a few years back and it took nearly 1.5 hours for an ambulance to arrive. On the other hand, sometimes there is a volunteer on duty somewhere nearby and you get someone there in minutes. Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@theory.tc.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) Subject: Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) Date: 10 Oct 91 02:39:13 GMT Reply-To: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA In article shihsun@lamp.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes: >>> I was able to subscribe to MCI's "Friends & Family" by having them set >>> up an account and register my phone number for 10222+ dialing. My 1+ >>> carrier is not MCI. >> But you can only get the 20% discount for calls to people who have MCI >> as their 1+ carrier. In other words, you can have any kind of MCI >> account, but your "Friends & Family" all must have MCI as their primary >> LD carrier. > If that's true, then it follows that your friends and family will not > get their 20% "Friends & Family" discount because YOU don't have MCI > as your primary carrier. > I'm pretty sure that's the way it works. In order to receive the 20% > discount, the party RECEIVING the call must have MCI as their primary > carrier. I don't believe that this is the case, but don't have first hand knowledge as I have used it yet to call anyone who doesn't have MCI. I vaguely recall, though, that my parents got their F&F discount for calling my sister, and she does not have MCI. > Note also that Friends and Family does not apply to calls placed with > the MCI Calling Card (this would be a serious attraction if they added > F&F to the Calling Card ...) The way I read my last phone bill implies that I did receive the F&F discount on the MCI calling card calls I made. This may have been because I made the calls inside the area that once qualified for the Around Town plan. You might want to check this out with MCI. Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Portable Satellite Phones Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 03:11:34 GMT hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes: > (Robert J Woodhead) writes: >> It means that it will enhance the interface by which the first >> communicating party can transmit intelligence to the second >> communicating party, thus facilitating the timely and accurate >> delivery of the ordinance. > Conducting war by sending out legal documents and attorneys is a > violation of the Geneva Accords. Making such suggestions is itself > improper. Argh! My nefarious plan to get rid of all the lawyers has been exposed (no doubt, by a lawyer). Can't you just hear it, though? "Battalion, we need a salvo of 105mm PLPA at grid 3-Alpha!" (PLPA = FLA for Product Liability Plaintiff's Attorney) "Incoming..." "...but Mr. Jones, isn't true that..." <> "...so when did you stop beating your..." <> Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 09:19 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" writes: > This actually surprises me. Why didn't AT&T or MCI simply bypass the > local TELCO and hook these lines up directly to their facilities, thus > eliminating this possibility and dealings with the local TELCO > completely? Is there some regulatory restriction against bypassing > the local TELCO for this? None at all. In fact, I have some clients who do this very thing and as a result are able to make intraLATA calls on the carrier rather than on Pac*Bell, thus saving a LOT of money. However, it is much more trouble to set up than just having a phone line installed. Either a T1 would have to be provided by the telco from the carrier's POP or a short-hop microwave would have to be involved. I seriously doubt that the expense for any of this would justify the benefits for a booth at the fair. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 21:51 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes: > In my opinion, it's about time that AT&T realized that there are many > telephones and PBX's, etc. that block access to 10288+ calls. I > always wondered how AT&T could claim superiority to other carriers > when they couldn't even figure out how to put in an 800 or 950 access > number so their customers could reach them from oddball phones. Even > now they're not doing it for the convvenience of their customers > (though I'll bet they'll promote it that way!) but rather because the > FCC ordered them to do it. If you are going to bash AT&T, please do so with some intelligence. Have you forgotten that the '10XXX' was the mandated way to handle carrier access from the beginning of the MFJ? Who was at fault here, AT&T or the PBXes, COCOTs, hotels and motels that did not comply with these standards? Do you really believe that AT&T "couldn't figure out how to put in an 800 or 950 access number"? Please explain why it was AT&T's responsibilty to provide a workaround for non-compliant "oddball phones". Yes, the FCC is changing the rules in mid-game and ordering AT&T to provide extra access to its network. The OCCs have not provided 800 and 950 access for the convenience of their customers, either. They used it to, among other things, try to grab a respectable share of the market. These were stop-gap arrangements to be used until FGD became widespread. AT&T did not need these things, since it already had in place what FGD would provide the Johnny-Come-Latelies. Now it appears that the "workarounds" have become standard and the FCC is changing its usually befuddled mind. A very unusual disclaimer: I do not work for AT&T, have no stock in AT&T, get no commissions on AT&T long distance or products, and have no personal friends who work for the company. But in my experience, it is the only company that really delivers in the long haul. I would use it even if it cost more than it does now. AT&T's service is worth paying for. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 17:27:36 CDT From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Al L Varney) Subject: Re: AT&T Speech Recognition Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article HOEQUIST@BNR.CA (C.A.) writes: > In a copy of _DEC Professional_ a few months ago, I came across a > passing reference to a speech recognition system being marketed by > AT&T. It was described as having lots (64? 128?) of processors, each > using the DSP-32 chip (AT&T's proprietary signal processing chip This is NOT a proprietary Sig. Processor, at least no more proprietary than those of TI or Intel. It was covered in a special SP issue of IEEE Spectrum about two years ago. I believe we also supply support programs, debuggers, etc. for the DSP-32(tm). I will attempt to find a contact with more accurate information on the exact configurations available, as well as information on the "BT-100" or whatever speech recognizer you mentioned. {Unless that would be too close to advertising??} Regarding how well it works ... I believe the AT&T Technical Journal had some articles at the research stage a year or so ago. Of course, since divestiture, we are less able to share actual usage data in an open forum. Some of our competitors actually use our published research to their advantage, you know? Of course, if BNR or Northern Telecom would like to become a customer of AT&T, I'm sure an Account Rep. would be willing to discuss those issues and potential applications. Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, 2600 Warrenville Rd., Lisle, IL 60532 varney@ihlpf.att.com or att!ihlpf!varney ------------------------------ From: jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) Subject: Re: RadioMail(tm) - Wireless Electronic Mail Announcement Organization: Bradley University Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 07:47:18 GMT > MENLO PARK, CALIF. (OCT. 8) - "RadioMail", a new service extending the > reach of electronic mail to pocket pagers > The RadioMail gateway service interconnects electronic mail systems > and information services with one-way paging....networks nationwide. > The service communicates with many electronic mail networks, including > the worldwide TCP/IP Internet and UUCP/USENET........ [lots more hype about this wonderful new idea deleted] So what's the big deal? (or did I miss something?) Anybody in the world who can send to Internet has long been able to E-mail a message to my alphanumeric pager (or to the 16 other pagers carried by people in my group) by just sending to particular Internet addresses within ".bradley.edu". I'm the one who implemented this, and it was no big deal. The biggest problem was reverse engineering the IXO format (long before info about that was posted here), and that only took an hour or so. Haven't lots of other people done similar things at their sites? Jeff Hibbard, Bradley University Computing Services, Peoria IL ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #806 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14545; 11 Oct 91 1:58 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13214 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 11 Oct 1991 00:15:56 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11103 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 11 Oct 1991 00:15:38 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 00:15:38 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110110515.AA11103@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #807 TELECOM Digest Fri, 11 Oct 91 00:15:03 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 807 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Billing INTRA-Lata Calling To My Carrier [Jack Decker] Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones? [Esa Holmberg] Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs? [John R. Levine] Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs? [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone? [Daniel DanehyOakes] Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [Andrew C. Green] Re: 1-800-TELENET is Disconnected [Don Phillips] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 06 Oct 91 06:00:00 EDT From: Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: Billing INTRA-Lata Calling To My Carrier > I take it this means that AT&T CAN carry intra lata calling but MI > BELL chooses to route ALL 1+ dialing via themselves. If the FCC > doesn't allow this, why do the carriers complete the call? Actually, since these are intrastate calls, the FCC has nothing to do with it. What happened is that maybe two or three years ago the Michigan Public Service Commission decreed that Interexchange Carriers should be allowed to carry intralata calls within Michigan, but that customers would have to dial the appropriate "10XXX" code to specify a carrier other than the Local Exchange Carrier (either Michigan Bell or GTE North, depending on which company serves your exchange). Part of the reasoning behind this (and I don't recall all the details offhand, so this is from memory) is that the Michigan Public Service Commission decided that according to law (either Michigan or federal, don't recall which) they could only regulate facilities-based carriers, not those that simply resold transmission capability of other carriers. At the time, the only facilities-based Interexchange Carriers in the state were (as I recall) AT&T, MCI, and U.S. Sprint. Even Allnet was not considered a facilities-based carrier, if I recall correctly. So if the MPSC had decreed that only Michigan Bell or GTE could handle intraLATA calls, it would have prohibited the three largest carriers from handling such calls, but the other carriers would have been perfectly free to handle such calls. Of course, the Local Exchange Carriers could still have blocked transmission of such calls to Interexchange Carriers when 1+number (or 10XXX+1+number) was dialed, but not calls sent via mechanisms such as "950-" or local access numbers, or "1-700+number" dialing. Also, on a purely practical level, Michigan Bell had been allowing calls dialed using 10XXX + 1 + number to go to the desired carrier for quite some time, and of course calls placed using "950-" or other access numbers had always worked, and I suspect that the Commission didn't want to deal with complaints from folks who suddenly found that this formerly available access was denied. At the time all this was going on I was following it quite closely. I think the result is pretty fair -- the local telcos get the default traffic from those who don't care to choose a carrier, yet those who do care and who want to save a little extra money can dial around the local telco. In practice, last I heard was that somewhere between 95% and 98% of all intraLATA calls still go to Michigan Bell or GTE North. I don't mind that as long as the choice to do otherwise remains available. DW> I was told be the local MCI representative that he'd put a dialer on DW> my lines to "dial around" the intra lata calls to save money on the DW> Michigan Bell (Ameritech RBOC) rate. If the reps can be this blatant DW> about it, it MUST be legal. Yep, sure is. MetroNet (a company out of Lansing) does this too, and they offer some interesting features that are unique to their company ... like the first 47 seconds of every call are free (if your call is completed within 47 seconds, you're not charged for it), free directory assistance calls, and some really great rates on intrastate calls. The flip side is there is a monthly minimum or service charge and some of these feature work differently for intrastate vs. interstate calls, plus the first minute of calls that DO last longer than 47 seconds is a bit loaded (not too badly, though). I have to believe they lose some money doing things like this but they must make it back somewhere. Disclaimer: I don't work for Metronet, although if you sign up with them and tell them I referred you, I supposedly get a $20 referral bonus. If you think that makes this message too self-serving, just don't tell 'em I sent you! :-) Jack Decker 1804 West 18th St. #155, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783 Via D'Bridge 1:1/211 10/08 12:46 Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org) Internet: Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker ------------------------------ From: esaholm@utu.fi (Esa Holmberg) Subject: Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones? Organization: University of Turku, Finland Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 10:47:28 +0200 tom@travis.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes: > I don't really believe this either, but my question is: Are there any > cordless phones which use digital transmission between the handset and Yes, there is, at least one. It is called Forum and made by Nokia. That's the only one I've seen myself, though I've heard that there would be others, too. I guess they are not yet ready, but going through tests. I still like my analog DanCall though.. :-) (no, this isn't an ad :-) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 9 Oct 91 15:48:29 EDT (Wed) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) In article is written: > Their cost for fax transmissions was four dollars (US) per page, plus > the cost of any non-local call. ... > The owner said that faxes aren't a big part of his business. At those prices, I'm not surprised. (Insert the old joke about the kangaroo in the bar here, if you want.) The pay faxes I've used, both here in Massachusetts and near my beach place in New Jersey charge more like $2 first page, $1 thereafter for sending or receiving, plus toll charges. The one in New Jersey at the local 5 and 10 would even call me and tell me I had a fax waiting if the cover page had my phone number. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 21:32:12 EDT From: hsilbiger@attmail.att.com (Herman R Silbiger) Subject: Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) writes: > I was in a privately-owned mailing service office the other day and > saw their sign announcing their new fax machine. Their cost for fax > transmissions was four dollars (US) per page, plus the cost of any > non-local call. This seems a high price for sending a fax, but maybe > I'm taking too much for granted. I'm sure that Digest readers can > give me the economics of operating a public fax machine. What's the > break-even point on charging for fax use? I thought that running it > like a photocpier would make the service more popular: Price it > cheaply to encourage use. > The owner said that faxes aren't a big part of his business. Fax > costs at copy and print shops in town that send more faxes charge > about the same, however. The first fax machine ad that I saw in the > paper has a list cost of $790. At four dollars a page, the fax > machine recoups its cost after 197 pages are sent. Supplies will be > be paid for with twenty more pages, let's say. Will this fax machine > ever make a profit, or even break even? I wouldn't think so, but > someone reading this may be able to give an authoritative opinion. The AT&T Public fax machines charge $2 /page for fax domestically. If the fax goes to more than one destination (broadcast), it is $1 per page to each of the additional destinations. The machines will also receive, but I forgot what the charge was. A plain paper laser printer provides the output. An unattended public fax terminal is a lot more expensive than a office fax machine. It has to have a card reader, touch screen CRT for instructions and commands, and a strong case for security. In addition, there are rental costs and commissions to the owner of the space, billing costs etc. From this it is clear that charging $4 per page in the situation you describe should be quite profitable. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ From: djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Subject: Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone? Date: 10 Oct 91 17:03:41 GMT Reply-To: djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA In article herb@frox.com (Herb Jellinek) writes: > I've recently read a couple of articles in trade rags concerning SMDS, > which, if I recall correctly, stands for Switched Multimegabit Data > Service. Unfortunately, nothing I read was aimed at total neophytes > like me, so I decided to ask the experts. This is going to be a bit long, but I hope it's informative. SMDS is part of a general movement toward "fast packet." If you already know what packet switching is, skip the next paragraph. Packet switching is a technique for increasing the efficient use of bandwidth. Messages (which must be digital) are broken into chunks of a pre-set maximum size, or "packets," which include information about where they're going, where they came from, checksum, the order to reassemble them in, etc. These are sent into a network "cloud" that doesn't necessarily send them all by the same route; it sends them by whatever route is available. Thus, they may not all arrive in the same order sent (which is why the packets include that information). This allows many messages to simultaneously use a relatively few communications lines. Packet switching generally operates under a protocol called X.25, which has an upward speed limit of 65 Kbps -- given telco requirements, usually 56 Kbps actual customer signalling rate. Packet switching is good, but (by today's standards) slow. The telecom community began some years ago to define standards for faster packet switching. There are two primary technologies now fighting it out for the market. These are _frame_ _relay_ and _cell_ _relay_. The fundamental difference between these (as I see it) is that frame relay creates packets at ISO level 2 and calles them frames, while cell relay creates them at level 3 and calls them cells. There's actually a lot more difference than that, but I'm not trying to write a textbook here. SMDS is a cell relay technology. It is planned to take customer packets at DS1 (1.544 Mbps) and DS3 (45 Mbps) speeds, and relay them over SONET and similar technologies. The primary applications envisioned for this include high-quality image transfer (medical, CAD/CAM, etc.) and bridging of geographically dispersed LANs at LAN speeds. By charging on a usage basis, it is presumed that more companies will be able to afford this service. It should be noted that SMDS is defined only in terms of interfaces. The internal network (switching fabric) may be a 802.6, an ATM switch, FDDI, or some device specialized for SMDS. The three interfaces are: SNI (Subscriber Network Interface) ISSI (Inter-Switching System Interface) ICI (Interexchagne Carrier Interface) The interface of most interest is, of course, the SNI. Any device that can emulate this is an eligible SMDS terminal. This particularly include router cards that can be installed in PCs, LAN bridges, etc. The SMDS cell (packet) can contain up to 9188 octets of user information, along with all sorts of control information. The effective throughput at 45 Mbps, with constant sending, would be something like 34 Mbps. The addressing will be E164, or standard telephone-number-type addressing. (Of course, this adds to the continuing problem with "out of numbers," but that's being addressed too ... we hope ...) Let's see if I've covered Herb's basic questions: > Will SDMS use the existing telephone network, allocating regular > telephone numbers to SDMS ports, or will it use a separate number > space, a la Telex? It uses standard telephone numbers, but is going to be using a separate network, at least for the present, at the RBOC level. (With BISDN, I suppose, it all gets integrated. Yeah. And we'll have worker's paradise, and a land of milk and honey, and ...) > What protocol(s) does SMDS support at the lowest level? Oh, right. The three interfaces I mentioned above use three levels of protocol called SIP, SMDS Interface Protocol. > How does SMDS relate to ISDN? They're not speaking for now, but they're seeing a counsellor to try to reconcile their differences:*) Seriously: SMDS is a "step towards" BISDN; its minimum rate is ISDN's maximum rate (PRI of 1.544). They really can't talk because they're not the same kind of animule. > And when will SMDS become available, either nationally or > regionally? Current plans are for RBOCS and other local companies to roll-out SMDS in the first half of 1992. Interexchange SMDS should follow within a year. Hope all this helps. Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 12:17:19 CDT From: acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) tells us: > In Truro, Nova Scotia in the early 1970's (and probably for much earlier), > the fire department had a network of red fire alarm boxes, each with a > three-digit number. When an alarm was pulled, a horn at the fire hall > would sound out the number twice (5-4-3 would be five hoots, a short pause, > four hoots, a short pause, three hoots, a longer pause, and then the > original sequence again). > I haven't encountered a system like this elsewhere. Indeed, there was (is?) at least one: Lynnfield, Massachusetts, just north of Boston. Nigel's description is almost exactly what I remember. During a Cub Scout tour of the fire station in the mid-60's, we saw a mechanism to receive signals from the pullboxes mounted on telephone poles around town. It punched large triangular holes in paper tape to represent the box code. If someone pulled Box 372 at Archer Lane and Summer Street, for example, the tape produced "< < < < < < < < < < < <". Someone would feed it through a simple gadget on the station horn which honked out the code to the volunteer firefighters, who could then converge on the box address in-stead of going to the fire station first. (Presumably someone did go and get the fire engine, however.) Meanwhile, we kids would look up the code on our box address list, courtesy of the local hardware store, and race there on our bicycles. What a letdown it was to hear "3-3-3" on the horn: that was a phoned-in emergency, so we wouldn't know where to go; all volunteers had to report to the station. Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Datalogics Internet: acg@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg Chicago, Il. 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ From: Don Phillips Subject: Re: 1-800-TELENET is Disconnected Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 20:01:07 GMT Organization: Research Unlimited, Escondido, CA I have been a PC-Pursuit customer for about five years. I found out about the phone number change when I was attempting to report an outdial modem that was hung. The new number is 800-736-1130 for the "Telemarketing Department" (sic). The number for trouble reporting is 800-877-5045. Sign ups can be done online by calling their BBS at 800-736-1130. Unfortunately, when the numbers were moved, they also lost the ability to credit your account for the time spent hanging on a hung modem so that they could find it. Now you have to make a separate call to the billing department during "business" hours in order to receive the credit. I guess that I've done my last good deed for PC Pursuit. For the record, it took about eight minutes for the technicians to locate the modem that I was connected to and disconnect the call. This occured at about 1 am PDT. Don Phillips don@blkhole.resun.com or Research Unlimited ...!ncr-sd!blkhole!don Escondido, Calif. My opinions are just that, and no more. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #807 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21667; 12 Oct 91 18:01 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02848 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 16:19:01 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26500 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 16:18:38 -0500 Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 16:18:38 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110122118.AA26500@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #808 TELECOM Digest Sat, 12 Oct 91 16:18:30 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 808 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries [Jeff Sicherman] Telephone Privacy Adapter Circuit (Experimental!) [Jack Decker] Why Can't I Pickup This Call? [Nigel Allen] UFGATE: "How Does it KNOW?" [J. Brad Hicks] Last Four Digits in a Montana Number [Carl Moore] Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking [Glenn F. Leavell] Siemens Hicom 300 / Hicom Trading 300 [Karin Melberg] #5ESS Ringmate Broken? [Larry Rachman] Harvard and Help Center Call Tracking [Jeff Wasilko] Mexican Phone System [Dave Niebuhr] What's In Washington? [Dave Leibold] Area Code 410 Already Works [Douglas W. Martin] RF Interference on Answering Machine [Charlie Rosenberg] 800-555-Anything Seems to be a Toll Call [Douglas W. Martin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 01:11:22 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries Organization: Cal State Long Beach Can a Remote Call Forward for an existing number assigned to a rotary forward multiple calls to the new site/number itself with multiple lines grouped into a rotary, or must each line at the originating site be Remote Call Forwarded separately? Is a rotary group even compatible with Remote Call Forwarding? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Oct 91 22:45:00 EDT From: Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) Subject: Telephone Privacy Adapter Circuit (Experimental!) There's been some talk in this conference in the past (a month or two ago, I think) about telephone privacy adapters (devices that prevent others from interrupting or listening in to a conversation or data/FAX call from another phone on the line) and I just thought some of you might be interested in a CRUDE but workable circuit I built a long time ago that achieved the purpose. Now, I have to warn you that what follows is a pictorial diagram drawn as best I can with ASCII text characters (in fact, one reason I am sharing this is in the hope that someone who's more into electronic schematics can provide me with a "real" schematic diagram for this). The device used three components which, in the units I built, all came from surplus electronic part paks from a now-defunct (I think) outfit called "Poly Paks" (anybody remember them?). The bridge rectifier was an epoxy-encased unit rated 1 Amp at 400 PIV (or greater). The Silicon Controlled Rectifier (SCR) was similarly rated at 1 Amp, 400 PIV or greater. The Zener Diode could be just about any amperage (it only has to carry enough current to momentarily trigger the SCR) and according to my notes, anything from 9 through 24 volts would generally work (you might have to increase the voltage if the phone that this device was connected to could still break into a conversation on another line; conversely, if the phone was always dead even though no conversation was in progress, it would mean that the Zener Diode voltage would have to be decreased). +---------+ TO LINE >-----|AC - |-----------+ ZENER | | t | DIODE || | BRIDGE | / o \ +----|| |RECTIFIER| | SCR o-------===| ||-----+ | | \ o / +----|| | | | | || | TO PHONE >-----|AC + |-----------O-------------------------+ +---------+ One note about the portrayal of the SCR above: The units I had were in a metal can similar to the type used for transistors. If you viewed the SCR from the bottom (where the wires emerged), the small tab on the can would be at approximately the location indicated by the "t". Now, I know that SCR's have an anode, cathode, and gate, and I know that the Zener Diode (specifically, the lead coming from the "top" of the "top hat") connected to the gate, but it's been so long since I've done any real electronics experimenting that I can't tell you much more than that ... however, any electronic experimenter worth his salt can probably figure this out in a few microseconds. I have no real idea how this circuit would look pictorally if built with today's modern components. The way this would work is that you'd put one of these units inside of (or in series with EITHER wire of the pair leading to) each phone or device on a line. If some phones were connected to a line with these devices installed, and some without, the ones without the devices would be able to "break into" a conversation (in fact, as soon as one of the "non-protected" phones was picked up, all the "protected" ones would lose the connection), so you'd almost always want to put one of these inline with EACH device on the line, except in special circumstances. The units basically operated on telephone line voltage. When all the phones are on hook, the line voltage is high enough to allow voltage to flow through the Zener Diode and trigger the SCR, thereby allowing the circuit to be completed to the phone (once current flows through an SCR, the gate voltage is no longer necessary; the SCR will keep conducting until current flow is stopped or seriously reduced elsewhere, thus the trigger voltage need only be a momentary pulse). Via D'Bridge 1:1/211 10/08 12:47 Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org) Internet: Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Oct 91 21:00:07 PDT From: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) Subject: Why Can't I Pickup This Call? Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto Roger Clark Swann (ssc-bee!ssc-vax!clark@cs.washington.edu) wrote that he placed a call on hold, and wanted to pick it up on another set. It sounds like you want Call Park, a feature I have seen on both a large hospital SL-1 PBX and on Bell Canada' Centrex III, which runs on a DMS-100. As implemented on Centrex III, if you want to park a call, you hit the link hey (equivalent to flashing the switchhook), dial 120, and hang up To unpark the call, you pick up another phone, and dial 121 plus the extension number where the call was parked. (These codes may vary from customer to customer.) Call Park on the SL-1 was basically the same, except that for sets with a numeric display that showed the extension number that you were calling (or that was calling you). With those sets, when you parked a call, a four-digit code beginning with 1 would display (the hospital had no extension numbers beginning with 1), and uyopu could unpark the call by dialling that four-digit pseudo-extension number from another phone. I suspect that almost nobody but a switchboard operator would routinely use this feature, which may explain why Boeing either hasn't implemented it on its 5ESS, or hasn't bothered to tell all its employees about it. Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 14:30 GMT From: "J. Brad Hicks" <0004073044@mcimail.com> Subject: UFGATE: "How Does It KNOW?" I dropped off of the FidoNet last November, so I'm behind a bit on the technology. When my ex-wife, who took over my FidoNet node (Kim Storment, 1:100/523), started needing Internet access, a lot of the advice I gave her was obsolete. One of the new changes looks impossible to me, how does this work? Apparently the domain "z1.fidonet.org" points to multiple hosts on the Internet, and vice-versa. In the old days (a year ago?), all FidoNet to Internet traffic went through a single FidoNet node, both ways. Now you send mail to the nearest FidoNet node running UFGATE (UUCP to FidoNet Gateway), and it dumps it onto the Internet. All well and good. But if I send mail to Jane_Doe@n999.f199.z1.fidonet.org, how does "z1.fidonet.org" determine which FidoNet node to route the mail to? Or does all Internet mail into the FidoNet still pass through 1:114/15 and then get routed, like in the "old days"? Does this mean that you can't route to ... f.z1.fidonet.org unless has a dedicated UFGATE? If you can route to a FidoNet net number that doesn't have a dedicated UFGATE, well, like the famous thermos bottle, "how does it KNOW?" which Internet host to route it through? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 11:20:48 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Last Four Digits in a Montana Number Sometimes, I notice cases where only a certain range of numbers is used within a prefix. Therefore, I herein cite the use of "1876" as the last four digits in a phone number pertaining to the Custer battlefield (Custer's Last Stand was in 1876). That number is in Hardin, Montana, and I have no way of knowing what number ranges are in use within that exchange. ------------------------------ From: glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) Subject: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 18:22:19 GMT I just spoke with Southern Bell, and I was told that there is no way for me to block the calls from my Athens, Georgia phone from going into the Caller-ID system. Are there any other states in which Caller-ID is offered without ANY option of blocking, free or for a fee? Glenn F. Leavell Systems Administrator glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu 404-542-3488 University of Georgia Economics Department. 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602 ------------------------------ From: motcid!melberg@uunet.uu.net (Karin Melberg) Subject: Siemens Hicom 300 / Hicom Trading 300 Date: 9 Oct 91 20:17:41 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I am interested in technical information on the Siemens PBX Hicom 300 and especially the Hicom Trading 300. Although these products are not currently being produced for larger-scale domestic use, I imagine there is a certain amout of information available here. I would really appreciate any help on this topic. Thanks, Karin (melberg@rtsg.mot.com) ------------------------------ Date: 09 Oct 91 16:44:16 EDT From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@CompuServe.COM> Subject: #5ESS Ringmate Broken? I just tried to place what I thought was a simple order with the telco business office. It was for two lines; the first hunts to the second, and the second has two 'Ringmate' numbers on it (that's what New York Telephone calls the coded ringing service here). The rep told me that it wouldn't work that way; that if the first line hunted to the second, then the Ringmate wouldn't work. (Actually she told me the lines had to have separate *billing*, but I'm sure that she must have been meant they couldn't hunt.) I told them to install it anyway, and I'd judge whether or not it worked. If its true, though, it sounds like a pretty annoying, ahem, feature of this particular #5ESS release. My questions are: 1) Do Ringmate and hunt really conflict? 2) Is there a later version of the generic that fixes it, and if so, what is its version name/number? Larry Rachman, WA2BUX 74066.2004@compuserve.com (fax) 516-427-8705 ------------------------------ From: jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) Subject: Harvard and Help Center Call Tracking Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 19:43:14 EDT Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY A while ago, I saw someone from Harvard posting about a Help Desk call tracking application that they were working on. Our computing department is looking for a similar application (including using call data from our System 85). I'd appreciate it if the person from Harvard would get in touch with me. If someone else remembers when his query was posted to the Digest, I'd appreciate hearing from them (so I know where to look in the archives...) Thanks, Rochester Institute of Technology, Jeff Wasilko jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu or jjwcmp@ritvax.isc.rit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 13:52:36 -0400 (EDT) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Mexican Phone System Today's {Newsday} (10/10/91) has an article in the Business section about Telemex (Mexico's telephone monopoly, Telefonos de Mexico) becoming a hot item on the New York Stock Market despite it's failures back home. One person said that his phone has been down (out) for three months and they (the company) hasn't done anything about it to date. Last week, the government daily {El Nacional} reported that some 600,000 phone lines were damaged or out of order in Mexico City. The government naturally denied that. The consumer agency said, however, that Telemex is the worst company for complaints. "In Telemex, apathy and corruption overshaddow the interests of the public ... The company is simply not in touch with the needs of the humble Mexicans", said one angry consumer. As for a rebuttal the company said "As we speak, Telemex is investing more in itself than any other telephone company in Latin America, and possibly the world -- $10 billion over a period of six years -- to combat present and future problems," said another Telemex spokesman. (I'm not sure whether the $10 billion is in U.S. dollars or Mexican pesos.) One example of their ambition is a satellite network to meet a target of another 2.5 million telephone lines by 1993. I may have gripes about my service from time to time, but I'm glad I don't live there. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Oct 91 00:30:00 PDT From: djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us (Dave Leibold) Subject: What's in Washington? I hope to be in Washington DC before too many weeks; does anyone know of any telecom points of interest, libraries, other related stuff? Of course, this would be the home of the FCC, Library of Congress, etc. Thanks for response, which I will expect to be net mailed to dleibold@attmail.com, djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us and/or djcl@sol.cse.fau.edu. Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:3609/1 UUCP: !bnw!djcl INTERNET: djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 13:31:42 PDT From: martin@cod.nosc.mil (Douglas W. Martin) Subject: Area Code 410 Already Works I didn't think the 301-410 split was due to happen for at least another month. Here in San Diego (619) you could find out the number of the phone from which you were calling by dialing 410-xxxx. This didn't work for all exchanges, but it did for 223, 224, 225, etc until a couple weeks ago. I tried it last night, and was told by an intercept that I had to dial a one first. I tried this and was talking to someone in Maryland. So area code 410 works, but now, how do I learn the number of my phone here in San Diego? Doug Martin martin@nosc.mil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 18:17:24 PDT From: Charlie Rosenberg Subject: RF Interference on Answering Machine Recently all the messages left on my answering machine have the same radio station playing in the background. Last time I had this problem, I call repair service and they gave me a new line and the problem went away. Today I called and they told me I needed to go to the store and put a "supressor" on my phone. I said, "what kind of a suppressor"? They said, "Just go to the store and ask for one, you plug it into your jack and then plug your phone into it." I said "Thanks, you have been very helpful". I am more than happy to buy a suppressor, but any suggestions as to what I should buy? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 10:56:53 PDT From: martin@cod.nosc.mil (Douglas W. Martin) Subject: 800-555-Anything Seems to be a Toll Call I just made up a number: 1-800-555-2323 and dialed it. I got an intercept which said, "The number you have reached, 800-555-2323 has been disconnected. Call your AT&T long distance operator for a credit." A credit? I thought 800 numbers were supposed to be toll-free. Apparently, the whole 555 exchange is now charged to the caller. Any more info on this would be appreciated. Doug Martin martin@nosc.mil [Moderator's Note: Well, 800-555-1212 is still free to the caller. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #808 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29532; 12 Oct 91 21:20 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17765 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 19:36:23 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26771 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 19:36:13 -0500 Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 19:36:13 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110130036.AA26771@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #809 TELECOM Digest Sat, 12 Oct 91 19:36:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 809 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Making Your Own ISDN [Martin McCormick] New Zealand 900 Numbers [Ben Kinchant] Digital Cellular in Los Angeles? [Robert Lindh] Handheld Cellular Uses TDMA to Reach Base Station [Robert Lindh] HBO/Cinemax and Sprint [Dave Niebuhr] U S WEST Comm/France Telecom Joint Venture [Jim Redelfs] Telecom Directories [Nigel Allen] Sleazy Tactics; Possible Solution [Christopher Phish] RBOC Attitudes (was Caller ID: Technical Question) [Kevin Collins] Prison Phone Phraud (or The RISKS of Spanish) [Jim Flanagan via RISKS] Mass. Approves Caller-ID; Orders Two Kinds of Blocking [Adam M. Gaffin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 7:16:23 CDT From: u1906ad@UNX.UCC.OKSTATE.EDU Subject: Making Your Own ISDN Quite some time ago, there was a question on one of the amateur radio news groups about the practicability of using ISDN chips to digitize and demodulate audio in amateur radio repeater systems. I never saw an answer, but I had wondered the same thing. Just as one can use a 48-volt DC supply in series with a resistor to simulate an analog telephone line, is there a particular ISDN device which generates the 2B+D signal needed to make ISDN subscriber equipment work? Basically, the thought behind all of this is that the ISDN technology would make it easier, in the long run, to interconnect various parts of a repeater system with some form of standardization. Being digital, the ISDN signal could even be sent over the air with no change in sound quality. While I have seen catalogs of interesting looking ISDN IC's, I have never actually worked with any hardware. Many thanks for any help in getting started. Martin McCormick Amateur Radio WB5AGZ Oklahoma State University Computer Center Data Communications Group Stillwater, OK ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 91 21:46:05 NZD (Thu) From: portunus@kcbbs.gen.nz Subject: New Zealand 900 Numbers New Zealand has had 900 numbers for about two years now. The services available on them at present are such things as weather forecasts, sharemarket prices and various information. In the latest Telecom "Customer Hotline", there was some interesting points about New Zealand 900 numbers. (part of Customer Hotline follows) Safeguards have been built in for customers using the Telecom 0900 service: o From the moment your call is answered you have 10 seconds in which you can hang up and not incur a charge. o During this time the title of the information service and the cost per minute is stated. o If you have dialled the wrong 0900 number or don't want to pay the charge quoted, you can hang up within 10 seconds of the call being connected and not be charged for the call. o Telecom suggests parents set out the ground rules for children who may want to use the Telecom 0900 service. (my comments again) I'm not really sure if the last one is a "safeguard", a help in some families though! I have read in TELECOM DIGEST about the 900 problems in USA and Telecom seem to have quite a good idea. Ben Kinchant, portunus@kcbbs.gen.nz +64 9 726527 ------------------------------ From: Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se (Robert Lindh) Subject: Digital Cellular in Los Angeles? Reply-To: Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 12:31:36 GMT I think some tests are going on in the LA area (Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company) in the use of TDMA as a communication method between the base station and the mobile units (the mobile cellular equipment). Does anyone know if/when they are going to start using it? Has they perhaps started advertising it to customers in some way? Standard disclaimer: "Only my personal opinion, of course." ------------------------------ From: Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se (Robert Lindh) Subject: Handheld Cellular uses TDMA to reach base station Reply-To: Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 12:41:37 GMT Quote from an Ericsson press release: [text deleted] ...the GSM digital handheld telephone will be launched on the market during the second half of 1992. At the same time a similar TDMA/Dual Mode model will be available for the ADC system. [text deleted] The main specifications are given below: GSM ADC (TDMA Dual Mode) Weight: 345 grams 345 grams Volume: 245 cc 245 cc Dimensions: 147x62x30 mm (HxWxD) 147x62x30 mm Standby time: 40 hours 13 hours Talk time: 2 hours, 45 minutes 2 hours [text deleted] Standard disclaimer: "Only my personal opinion, of course." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 9:02:39 -0400 (EDT) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: HBO/Cinemax and Sprint An ad appeared in yesterday's {Newsday} (10/9/91) about HBO/Cinemax and Sprint offering 100 free minutes using their SprintFone (sp) card if a person signed up for either of those cable services. There was also something about 300 free minutes but I just kept on reading the paper. A little portion of the ad said that you didn't have to have Sprint as your long distance carrier; you'd still get the 100 minutes. I don't intend to sign up (I have HBO and don't want Cinemax) so I guess I'm down the tubes for the 100 free minutes. I'd love to turn the kids loose and let them get the phone out of their system once and for all. That's somewhat new to me but I guess that Sprint is looking for more subscribers. I'll stay with AT&T; I've never had a problem with them and can't see where it would pay me to switch. I'll just keep the Sprint and MCI access codes as reference should I lose AT&T for some reason. Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 17:49:04 cst From: Jim.Redelfs@ivgate.omahug.org (Jim Redelfs) Subject: U S WEST Comm/France Telecom Joint Venture Reply-To: jim.redelfs@macnet.omahug.org Organization: Macnet Omaha U S WEST Today - Nebraska October 8, 1991 Special Bulletin Published for U S WEST Communications employees in Nebraska U S WEST Communications and France Telecom today, October 8, 1991, announced a joint venture that includes accelerated plans to introduce U S WEST's Community Link* service in the Seattle area in the fourth quarter of 1992. As the first project of a wider agreement between U S WEST and France Telecom, CLM (Community Link Minitel) Associates will manage and market Community Link, a gateway to easy-to-use videotex services. Intelmatique, S.A., a subsidiary of France Telecom, will have a 40 percent ownership in the joint venture. Linda Laskowski, U S WEST vice president and CEO of the joint venture said: "This is the first time an international company has joined in ownership and marketing of a network service offered by a local telephone company. We are delighted to join with France Telecom, the world leader in videotex, whose ten year success and experience with its Minitel system will be invaluable in opening gateway markets, such as Seattle." The Seattle area will be the third metropolitan area to have Community Link service, which brings together a variety of computer-based services on a single telephone number. The gateway service was introduced in Omaha-Council Bluffs in late 1989 and is planned for Minneapolis-St. Paul this month. In the Twin Cities so far, five service bureaus plan to offer services. There are 90 service listings and some 250 different services available in Omaha-Council Bluffs. Following the introduction in Seattle, the partnership anticipates extending Community Link to other metropolitan areas in U S WEST territory such as Denver and Phoenix. What started in Omaha has gotten the attention and investment of one of the world's largest telecommunications companies -- France Telecom. Today's announcement of the joint venture reaffirms the commitment of two videotex leaders to the growth of gateways in Omaha and the Twin Cities. Any questions regarding this announcement may be directed to Kathy Larsen at 392-7060. *Registered Trademark of U S WEST. Tabby 2.2 MacNet Omaha (402) 289-2899 - O.M.U.G. On-Line (1:285/14) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Oct 91 23:06:06 PDT From: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) Subject: Telecom Directories Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto Here is a list of directories that you can get your company listed in free of charge. The VoicePower directory emphasizes enhanced services like voice mail and broadcast fax, although it also lists consultants, law firms with an interest in telecommunications, and other telecommunications-related companies, associations and government agencies. If you phone, write or fax, they'll send you a questionniare to complete and return. It has a deadline of November 15, 1991, I think. The other ones won't be published for a while, so if you send them a letter asking to be listed, they will send you a questionnaire in several months when they start to work on the next edition of the directory. The first two accept paid advertising. Being listed in any of these many not bring you in much business, but it couldn't hurt. The International VoicePower Directory & Buyers Guide published by: VoicePower, Inc. P.O. Box 313 Don Mills, Ontario M3C 2S7 Canada telephone (416) 449-7229 fax (416) 449-8944 TE&M Directory 1 East First Street Duluth, Minnesota 55802 telephone (218) 723-9552 Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory Gale Research Inc. 835 Penobscot Building Detroit, Michigan 48226-4094 telephone (313) 961-2242 Finally, consultants of any kind may want to be listed in the Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory. There is no charge to be listed. Just request a questionnaire from: Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory P.O. Box 6789 Silver Spring, Maryland 20916 U.S.A. telephone (voice or fax) (301) 871-5280 Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: chris@zeus.calpoly.edu (The Squire, Phish) Subject: Sleazy Tactics; Possible Solution Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business. Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 08:58:43 GMT As some 900 services are doing, why not just a global requirement that all pay-service calls are required to offer an out? "You've reached 976-xxxx, which will provide you with the latest gossip about the TELECOM Digest, and the last known whereabouts of the Moderator. This call will cost you 42 cents. Press One on your touchtone(tm) phone to continue, or just hang up if you don't wish to pay the fee." Christopher(The Squire, Phish); (805) 542-0336/H chris@zeus.calpoly.edu (129.65.16.21) 756-2005/W I hereby disclaim EVERYTHING. Flames to /dev/pooperscooper. ------------------------------ From: aspect!kevinc@uunet.uu.net (Kevin Collins) Subject: RBOC Attitudes (was Re: Caller ID: Technical Question) Date: 11 Oct 91 19:35:20 GMT Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca In message , johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > The NET spokesman is lying when he says that Caller-ID blocking would > break 911, which is sadly typical of the way that telcos are promoting > CID. E911 service does not depend on CID, which should be obvious since > it's implemented all over the place now. This reminds me of a Pac*Bell seminar on Caller*ID at Texpo `91 about six months ago. The main argument they gave against per-line blocking was that it would enable harassing callers to remain anonymous and unpunished. This "reasoning" was in the same brochure that stated quite clearly that Call*Return, Call*Trace, and Call*Block would work even if the calling party used per-call blocking!! The gall and arrogance apparent in statements like these from the RBOC's really amazes me. They seem to still have the attitude that "it's _our_ network; no one else could _possibly_ know anything about it, so we can say whatever the @!&$ we want!" Kevin Collins | My opinions are mine alone. USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc | GO BEARS! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 16:51:16 -0700 From: Jim Flanagan Subject: Prison Phone Phraud (or The RISKS of Spanish) This notice appeared in the University of Washington staff newspaper University Week: PHONE FRAUD It recently was discovered that inmates from the Clallam Correctional Center in Clallam Bay, WA have been using an automated phone system to try to scam unsuspecting employees at the UW. Fone America, the long-distance provider for the correctional center, supplies automated service for collect calls. Inmates are supposed to make recordings of their names to identify themselves to the called parties. A recording should say, "If you will accept a collect call from ... (name of caller) ... please press the number 3 on your telephone twice." Fone America also supplies the same automated message in Spanish. In the scam, inmates chose the Spanish option and record, in place of their names "If you want to hear this message in English, press 33." They then call a number at the UW and try to reach employees who will press 33 which automatically accepts the collect calls. If the inmates get through, they ask to be transferred to the outside operator or to the switchboard operator. They will then attempt tp place long distance calls and have them billed to campus phones. Since late July, this scam has occourred a number of times. It is important for University employees to recognize this or similar phone scams. [The notice goes on to suggest ways to minimize the impact of phone fraud.] Jim Flanagan, Systems Programmer, UofW Statistics flanagan@stat.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) Subject: Mass. Approves Caller-ID; Orders Two Kinds of Blocking Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 13:32:55 GMT Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass., 10/11/91 State approves Caller-ID, and way to get around it By Adam Gaffin NEWS STAFF WRITER BOSTON - State regulators have approved a controversial new technology that will let people view the numbers of incoming phone calls. But the state Department of Public Utilities also ordered New England Telephone to provide a free method for callers to prevent their numbers from appearing on any "caller-ID" devices, in a decision announced this week. [Weds.] "In allowing NET to offer these services, we have sought to balance the privacy interests of the caller and the called party," DPU Chairman Robert Yardley Jr. said in a statement. "Today's decision will enable NET's customers to take advantage of new technology while allowing customers to prevent the transmission of their telephone numbers." Caller-ID service will initially be available only on the North and South shores, but will be extended to the entire state by 1995, the company says. This is because those regions are currently the only ones in the state whose central switching stations use software that can process caller-ID. Under the system, people will pay New England Telephone $4.95 a month for the service, and will have to go to a store to buy a caller-ID device for $35 to $80. Under the DPU order, callers who do not want their numbers displayed can either punch in a two-digit code that will blank the number on an individual call, or request that all of their calls automatically be blanked. Users of Caller-ID, however, can fight back with another device that hangs up on people who refuse to provide their phone number. However, the system may of limited usefulness at first, because it only works with calls from other exchanges upgraded to handle the technology. The DPU also decided to let New England Telephone offer three other services that take advantage of the new software in its "Phone Smart" package: Call return, which will let somebody have their phone re-dial the number of the last person to call him or her; repeat dialing, which lets somebody's phone check a busy number until it's free; and call trace, which will aid somebody who is the target of harassing phone calls. Call trace would signal the phone company's annoyance bureau if somebody receives these calls from the same number. However, the state ordered the phone company to charge $3.25 per use for this service, rather than the $1.50 a month it wanted to charge. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #809 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03137; 12 Oct 91 22:51 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17077 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 21:07:14 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12717 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 21:07:03 -0500 Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 21:07:03 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110130207.AA12717@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #810 TELECOM Digest Sat, 12 Oct 91 21:06:21 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 810 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Caller-ID Approved in Massachusetts [John R. Covert] Caller-ID Approved in MA [Adam Gaffin, ne.general via Paul Wexelblat] Bravo Plus Pager Codes Needed [Max J. Rochlin] Telephone Wire Staples [Paul Selig] Blocking Service From NY Telephone [George Smith] Desire For Low Fixed-Cost Cellular Use [Bryan Carpenter] Interesting Reading on Telecommunications [Bob Goudreau] St. Pierre et Miquelon -- Off Canada? [Carl Moore] New Bell Answering Option [Rick Broadhead] South African "M" Numbers [Dave Leibold]p AT&T Advertising [S. Spencer Sun] A New COCOT Scam? (Maybe) [Nickolas Landsberg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 10:53:51 PDT From: John R. Covert Subject: Caller ID Approved in Massachusetts As I'm sure many writers will report, the Massachusetts DPU has approved Caller ID but will require both per-line and per-call blocking. There was one open issue about this. Current implementations of per-line blocking use the _same_ code to unblock on a blocked line as to block on an unblocked line. Thus, when you pick up a phone and aren't sure whether the line is blocked or not, you don't know what dialling the code will do. The DPU informed N.E.T. that they needed to use separate codes for causing the number to be sent and causing it to _not_ be sent. john ------------------------------ From: wex@cs.ULowell.EDU (Paul Wexelblat) Subject: Caller-ID Approved in MA Reply-To: wex@cs.ulowell.edu Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept. Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 18:14:18 GMT The following is an article posted in ne.general. Note the comments on both kinds of blocking and the fact that both are FREE. A followup to the same group pointed out the problems of using the same code to invert the sense of both kinds of blocking; you don't know the default of anyone else's phone ... From adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) Newsgroups: ne.general Subject: Caller-ID approved in Mass. Date: 11 Oct 91 02:08:37 GMT Now don't go telling the Globe this :-), but... On Wednesday, the Mass. Department of Public Utilites approved caller-ID. To satisfy civil-liberties types, the DPU also required New England Telephone to provide *two* types of blocking. In one, your number will automatically show up on a caller-ID device unless you first punch in a two-digit call before you dial. In the other form, though, your number will automatically NOT show up UNLESS you punch in a two-digit code! The telco must offer both of these for free. But don't rush off to Lechmere to buy a caller-ID box (which will set you back $35 - $80 depending on model, in addition to the $4.95 NET monthly charge) just yet. At first, caller-ID is only going to be available in 32 North and South shore towns, which are the only parts of the state that currently have the switching software that can handle caller-ID. What this means, also, is that people who live there who get the service won't be able to ID incoming calls from other parts of the state (or country, for that matter), until those areas are also changed over to this switching software. NE Tel estimates it will take until 1995 to complete the entire state. And before the phone company can turn anybody on, they have to conduct an extensive educational campaign, the DPU ordered. Is this a good thing? Adam Gaffin Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass. adamg@world.std.com Voice: (508) 626-3968. Fred the Middlesex News Computer: (508) 872-8461. I've been paid for my opinions for so long that I'm beginning to think they're valuable. Wex ------------------------------ From: max@queernet.org (Max J. Rochlin) Subject: Bravo Plus Pager Codes Needed Organization: QueerNet Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 03:31:01 GMT I just got one of the new Motorola Bravo Plus Pagers. It has more memory than the old unit (six messages, five that can be locked), a clock, and timestamping of pages. According to the minute manual that came with it there is a way to re-configure the clock so that it displays in 24HR mode instead of that AM/PM oh-so-American way. (There are a lot of other configuration options as well that I'm interested in playing with, too). Anyway, the person who knows how to tweak the pager is on vacation until next Thursday and I'm someone here can give me the codes to do-it myself. Thanks, max@queernet.org | Max J. Rochlin | {uunet,mips,decwrl}!unpc!max ------------------------------ Subject: Telephone Wire Staples Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 19:34:51 EST From: Paul Selig After seeing all the talk about "good" tools to purchase, can anyone name a source for the cable staplers (and staples) that telephone installers use? I've been able to find cable staplers, but the staples are too big for the small telephone wires. All of the installers that I've seen use a stapler with a large Bell logo on the side. Paul Selig, Jr. selig@gwm.serenity.org Serenity, Inc. ...!uunet!dayvb!udcps3!gwm!selig ------------------------------ Subject: Blocking Service From NY Telephone From: saviour!bywater!scifi!george@uunet.UUCP (George Smith) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 07:00:54 EDT Organization: Genius Systems, Poughkeepsie NY Based on information in "Hello", a billing insert the following call blocking options are available: 550 only [550 is group bridging/chat] 970 only [970 is "Adult Services"] 394, 540, 550, 700, 900, 970, 976 [it doesn't say what the others are] It adds that basic phone service can't be disconnected as a result of charges to these numbers. However, if you have problems with the charges twice, it may result in having blocking turned on for you. You can get a detailed statement of charges for 540, 550, and 976 by asking your billing office. George Smith, george@saviour.UUCP 1 (914) 452 5538 Open 24 hours a day george@saviour.UUCP (George Smith) ------------------------------ From: Bryan Carpenter Subject: Desire For Low Fixed Cost Cellular Use Date: 10 Oct 91 20:16:56 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO I'm looking for some information about the cellular phone system to see if there's any way I can justify purchasing one. For me, the ideal setup would be to buy a cellular phone, pay a very low or zero fixed monthly fee to be registered somewhere, and pay higher than normal airtime fees for occasional outgoing calls. I don't really care whether I can receive calls at all. To me, it would be worth the cost of a phone to be able to use it for emergencies and only occasionally for other outgoing calls. It's a shame that with all the infrastructure in place, the high fixed monthly subscription charges exclude someone with my simple requirements and limited budget. It is my understanding that most or all cellular systems will not even recognize your phone unless it is activated on some system, somewhere. Is this true? I remember some discussion about some systems that will put your call through if you provide a valid credit card number for them to charge the call to. Will cellular systems accept 911 calls from unknown phones? On a recent trip to California, I was pleased to see the solar-powered emergency callboxes placed at one mile intervals along the major highways. It made me realize just how good the coverage of the cellular system has become. I wish there were some way to take advantage of this infrastructure without paying such high monthly fees. Are there any cellular companies anywhere that will register a phone for a low monthly fee, after which it will be accepted in the system and be effectively roaming for every call? I understand that these companies must charge enough to recoup their plant investments and operating costs, and to make a profit, but why do they ignore the desires of many possible new customers who want low cost and very occasional use? Thanks in advance for any info. Bryan Carpenter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 12:30:53 edt From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Interesting Reading on Telecommunications This past week's issue (Oct. 5) of the _Economist_ has a special 40-page survey of telecommunications which readers of this Digest might find interesting. The main theme is "the new boys", the upstart telecom firms that are challenging the plodding old PTT monopolies and, in the process, breathing new life into the telecom industry. Topics covered include: - mobile phones, and how they soon could end up being the rule instead of the exception - monopolies vs. competition; state-owned telcos vs. privatization - the future of the "giants of the PTT era" - the globalization of the industry - telecommunications in developing countries - the common future of telephony and television - the future of telecommunications regulation Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 17:17:50 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: St. Pierre et Miquelon -- Off Canada? Notice that the territory discussed in this message has country code 508. Country code 507 is Panama, and country code 509 is Haiti, but notice the location below: It has come to my attention that the St. Pierre et Miquelon ("et" is French for "and") islands are located just off Newfoundland (a Canada maritime province) and are the little bit of territory up there that France was allowed to keep when forced to give the rest of what is now Canada after the French and Indian war about 230 years ago. They are now an overseas department of France. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 23:24:18 EDT From: Rick Broadhead Subject: New Bell Answering Option By Philip DeMont TORONTO STAR Bell Canada wants to make it easier for you to reach out and touch someone even if they are on the phone or aren't at home. Bell, the telephone arm of Montreal-based BCE Inc., plans to offer Toronto subscribers an answering service which can record and replay phone messages for customers starting in early Novemeber. The introduction of Bell's new option is subject to approval by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. Subscribers can "receive messages on their telephones regardless of whether they are on the phone or not. As well, the caller doesn't receive a busy signal," said Anna di Giorgio, a Bell spokesperson. Bell plans to offer the new service in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City and Hull, Que. if the CRTC approves the utility's application. Under Bell's proposal, subscribers would sign up for its Call Answer service at a cost of $5.50 a month for residences and $9.95 for single-line business users. Customers only need to have touch-tone phone service, not a special phone, to receive the answering machine option, di Giorgio said. If the subscriber is using the phone or just not answering, the caller hears a voice mail greeting, similar to a store-bought answering machine, on the telephone line. Then the caller leaves a message. To retrieve stored messages, a customer would call a Toronto telephone number to get into Bell's system and then dial a personalized code number to listen to his own communications. Bell's answering option is likely to be an improvement over other answering machines, said Judith Cole, a telecommunications analyst with Toronto's DMR Group Inc. "Voice Messaging gives you a higher quality than on an answering machine you would use at home," Cole said. That's important in order to make callers feel comfortable enough to leave a message, she said. As well, Bell is likely to offer more "bells and whistles" than other voice mail machines, Cole said. Di Giorgio said customers can change their passwords as many times as they wish to protect their messages. But, Bell can't protect subscribers against mischief-makers, who could dial passwords at random until they break into a mail box, she said. As well, the company can't censor what subscribers put on their answering messages, "not anymore than we can control the content of a telephone call," di Giorgio said. In January, Bell plans to start a trial in Ottawa of a service which, among other things, lets customers screen and redirect calls, di Giorgio said. * * * Does this mean that every time I get off the phone, I should check my voice mail to see if there are any urgent messages? I wonder if there's an option where I can disable the voice mail when I'm on the line, so the system will activate only when there's no answer? How about if I don't want to be disturbed? Can I have my calls directed right to voice mail without my phones ringing, so I don't have to turn off the ringers on all the phones in the house? These are questions I'd want to ask. Rick Broadhead Toronto, CANADA ysar1111@VM1.YorkU.CA York University [Moderator's Note: The system here in Chicago, which I expect is the same as yours, or similar, is set up so call-waiting overrides the 'transfer on busy' feature. If you have call-waiting, additional calls will just keep ringing at you and never go to voicemail. You can have the opposite effect with *70 or whatever you use to suspend call-waiting, in which case additional calls *will* go to voicemail. If you want to check for new messages at any time, just go offhook and listen for the 'stutter dial tone' instead of the regular tone you hear. Our system does not allow bypassing your own line and going direct to voicemail. You must have incoming calls ring you 3-5 times, at which point they exit from your line and go into voicemail. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 00:38:00 PDT From: djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us (Dave Leibold) Subject: South African 'M' Numbers South Africa seems to have something called M-numbers; this could be a toll-free service as it was listed without reference to a charge rate. The code listed was 043 362 which presumably got an operator who would complete the call from there. This was to have been changed to the 0401 area code, which would be an automated service at that point. Anyone confirm or deny these findings (which were found in a Johannesburg directory)? Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:3609/1 UUCP: !bnw!djcl INTERNET: djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 10:09:43 EDT From: S. Spencer Sun Subject: AT&T Advertising I've been greatly amused by the AT&T ads since the accident or whatever recently ... but this one takes the cake (maybe belongs in rec.humor) From this week's {Newsweek}, picture of a guy talking, "I have confidence in [AT&T] -- I've never had a problem. I mean, why fix something that's not broken?" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 20:55:32 EDT From: npl@mozart.att.com (Nickolas Landsberg) Subject: A New COCOT Scam? (Maybe) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories As is obvious via the "from" line, I work for AT&T, but, just a day ago I ran across what may be yet another COCOT scam. (Note: being a regular reader of c.d.telecom I have instructed my family about the evils of using COCOTS and the flogging with wet noodles which will surely come if they use one without thinking! :) My wife was out on a shopping errand and had need to call someone at home. The only pay phone in the vicinity was a COCOT. The call was LOCAL (Bricktown NJ to Lakewood NJ). No matter how many times and in whast manner she tried, the phone would not accept the two dimes she deposited, but insisted on saying "deposit 20-cents for the first four minutes please." She, being rather desparate, called collect, and was connected, but WITHOUT ANY OPERATOR ASKING ME WHETHER OR NOT I WOULD ACCEPT THE CHARGES! Even though I think I know what I am going to do about this, I ask for the collective wisdom of c.d.telecom. Once I get the what I expect to be out- rageous billfrom the AOS, should I refuse to pay it because I never agreed to accept the charges? Should I report the particular phone in question to whatever powers that be to be in violation? Inquiring minds want to know. :) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #810 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07906; 13 Oct 91 0:52 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11465 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 23:05:18 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11166 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 12 Oct 1991 23:05:07 -0500 Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 23:05:07 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110130405.AA11166@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #811 TELECOM Digest Sat, 12 Oct 91 23:04:37 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 811 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Information Wanted on Electronic Publishing [rfreeman@chinet.chi.il.us] Even More 5ESS Woes [John Higdon] Re: #5ESS Ringmate Broken? [Bob Frankston] FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions List Revised [TELECOM Moderator] CNID Availability Newsletter [John Boteler] Charge on 800 Calls [Helmut Heller] Charges For 800 Calls (USA Today / Disconnected Number) [Lauren Weinstein] Re: Caller Charged For Calling 1-800-555-5555 [Dennis Blyth] Re: AT&T Speech Recognition [Al L. Varney] Caller ID in Cincinnati [Dennis Blyth] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 15:47 CDT From: rfreeman@chinet.chi.il.us Subject: Information Wanted on Electronic Publishing I'm looking for sources of information on electronic publishing ... does anyone know of an appropriate bulletin board or an Internet conference? I publish a little journal myself that I distribute through Internet and I subscribe to the TELECOM Digest and CUD. Has anyone come across a list of similar publications? I have found, by the way, that having free electronic journals like Telecom sent to my MCI Mail box is an excellent way to handle them. MCI has an 800 dialup and for $35 per year I can read online to my heart's content and download what I want to save ... I have never had a busy signal or a bad line from MCI. Internet: rfreeman@chinet.chi.il.us MCI Mail 487-8467 Prodigy GCDS20A ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 18:03 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Even More 5ESS Woes New observed annoyance with the 5ESS: When calling a busy number, sometimes the switch takes its time returning a busy signal. This delay can take up to two seconds AFTER the switch has received the call data (via MF or SS7). I am told that returning a busy signal is a low priority function and this can happen when things are hopping. My own gurus have told me that so far, every deficiency that I have reported on the 5ESS is real and that there is no fix or workaround. So far they include: fuzzy audio, poor analog line termination, low level on Three Way, no Call Waiting while on Three-Way, slow dial tone, slow busy, acute sensitivity to bad ringer loads, and variable audio level -- call to call. In essence, the only thing that the 5ESS can do that is of any interest to me is ISDN. But since Pac*Bell does not offer any meaningful form of this service (that is outside of Centrex), it appears that I would have been better off to have the crossbar left in place. When I mentioned this to a very knowledgeable switch person, his comment was, "That is correct." The crossbar sounded MUCH better, appeared faster, and actually provided better "featureless" POTS service. It will be a sad day when my 1ESS lines are moved over to the 5ESS. But then maybe it will be perfected by then. I am told that most of these problems (including the deficient feature implementations) have been overcome on the DMS switches. The audio is better, the features more closely emulated the 1/1AESS implementations, and they at least appear to operate faster than the 5Es. Now why did they not install a DMS100? Did Pac*Bell's sweetheart deal with Northern Telecom go sour? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: The experiences you are describing there simply are not typical of 5ESS everywhere, at least here in Chicago. We *do* get call waiting when on a three-way call; we do get fast dial tone and generally decent and *quiet* (i.e. not noisy) lines. Maybe yours was just a very sloppy, poorly administered installation. I would not trade my existing service back for crossbar under any circumstances. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: #5ESS Ringmate Broken? Date: 12 Oct 1991 21:04 -0400 There are two services that seem very similar, though I presume the software is different. Hunting will ring a second number if the first is busy. There is no charge, in Massachusettes, for residential services. Interstingly, the two numbers are billed separately. According to NET (Nynex) hunting is indeed incompatible with Ringmate but call-forward busy seems identical to hunting in capability and does support Ringmate. Two gottchas. One is that there is a charge for CFB (about $1.95/month??). The other is that if I have Ringmate on line #1, the ringing pattern is not preserved. I presume (just a guess), however, that if you have Ringmate on line 2, you can CFB to a specific number on that second line so that you can distinguish a forwarded call. Note that CFB is not subscriber changeable. There is also call-forward no-answer, which forwards after a number of rings, again, not subscriber controlled. ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 22:38:19 -0500 Subject: FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions List Revised Dave Leibold has sent along the second edition (first revision) to the Telecom FAQ list. I'm getting it edited up now, and will try to have it available in the archives over the weekend sometime, as well as out in circulation here as a special mailing. New subscribers on the list will receive it automatically when they sign up beginning around the first of the week. Thanks to Dave for his work in preparing this. PAT ------------------------------ Subject: CNID Availability Newsletter Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 9:55:53 EDT From: John Boteler Although there ain't no free lunch, those who wish to keep abreast of the progress of Calling Number ID around the nation (better than Radio Electronics:) might wish to try out a newsletter advertised in the back of "Voice Processing" magazine -- for free. I know, I'm leery of a 'free' newsletter which may be subscribed to via an 800 number, but if you are careful enough you probably won't be flooded with junk mail in the future from related concerns. In fact, the ad says you will become a "beta-tester" for the newsletter. It is supposed to focus on the potential benefits and limits of CNID, as well as on ANI regulatory and privacy issues. (PAT should enjoy the break.) Published quarterly by Baird & Associates, Seattle, 800.321.1670. John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ From: heller%lisboa@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Helmut Heller) Subject: Charge on 800 Calls Reply-To: heller@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 16:28:46 GMT Hello, I just talked to Illinois Bell and found out that they charge me five cents not only for every local call, but also for each call to an 800 number and also for each call that is handled by my long distance company (MCI). This is really surprising to me, as 800 calls cost you not a single penny if you use a public phone. Also the five cents they charge in addition to my long distance company do not seem right to me. Is there anyone on the net who would like to comment on this? I can't remember ever reading about five cent charges for 800 calls from your home phone. Servus, Helmut (W9/DH0MAD) heller@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu u27013@ncsagate.bitnet Phone: (217)244-1586, FAX: (217)244-2909 Helmut Heller, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Beckman Institute Theoretical Biophysics Group, Transputer Lab, Room 3151, MC 251 405 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801, U.S.A. [Moderator's Note: This is absolutely false! Its too bad you did not get the name of the employee who told you those things; I'd like to see them get into a training class and get help as soon as possible. The monthly 'network access' fee you pay as part of your basic monthly service takes care of telco's expenses in extending you to your LD carrier or the LD carrier of the 800 number you are calling. You pay *nothing* above that monthly fee to the local telco. The reason such calls are 'free from payphones' is because they are 'free', period. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 17:18:23 PDT From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Charges For 800 Calls (USA Today / Disconnected Number) Greetings. We've seen a number of messages lately from people who think they might be getting charged for calling various 800 numbers, such as the {USA Today} info number, or an odd "ask your operator for credit" number. It's worth noting, however, that there have been *no* messages from people who have actually seen a charge for an 800 number they called on their bills. In all these cases, people simply heard audio messages that implied something about charges. Frankly, I don't believe that any 800 numbers are charging the callers, period. The USA Today number is probably the result of a network routing error, or perhaps is a number for internal use by USA Today (the former seems most likely). The disconnected number recording ("ask your operator for credit") is probably meant for some other purpose, and some 800 numbers may be routing to it erroneously. But I've *never* seen a tariff or other implication that there are any mechanisms for charging callers to 800 numbers. Nor does PacBell, GTE, nor AT&T seem to know of any situations where a caller to an 800 number would be charged for that call. If anyone out there has *actually* gotten a charge on their phone bill for a call they made to an 800 number, I'd very much like to know about it. But until proven otherwise, I don't believe such charges exist. --Lauren-- [Moderaor's Note: Regarding the {USA Today} news/entertainment line on 800-555-5555, I spoke two days ago with Mr. Blake in the newspaper's corporate offices in Virginia. His responsibility includes managing the 900-555-5555 service which has somehow for lack of a better term, sprung a leak over to 800-555-5555. He admitted to me they had just recently become aware of the free 'backdoor', and said they were 'going to do something about it'. He was vague about how/when the problem (from his point of view, it is a problem) would be corrected. He did stress that people calling the number would not be charged for using the service, and asked that the 800 number not be 'abused'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dblyth@oatseu.daytonoh.ncr.com Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 13:41:46 GMT Subject: Re: Caller Charged For Calling 1-800-555-5555 Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton [Moderator's comment that perhaps there was an error by telco in programming the 800 line.] Six questions: 1. If it could be proven that our esteemed Moderator was indeed correct, then could {USA Today} try to collect from that telco, since the fact that charges were allowed to go through was (apparently, and IF the Moderator is correct) due to the fault of the telco that did the programming? 2. OK, given that all this is hypothetical discussion anyway, what is the probability of this happening? 3. Is there some 'quality check' on telco 800 number programming? 4. Can anybody explain what the quality procedures typically are on this type of thing? In view of recent failure of telco management systems (New York area recent snafu), quality procedures are a hot topic now. 5. What is the way, if any, for somebody to tell what telco provides the 800 number service? 6. Isn't there a national database of these things? At one time, I believe, Ma Bell controlled the 800 number allocation. This evening, on the way from work (yes, it will be late!), maybe I'll find a pay phone and call the 800 number! Or better yet, I wonder if I can find someone to invite me into her/his hotel room to use their COCOT for the same call! :-) :-) If I were in the Atlanta area, I'd go to their airport and use the AOS there. They've already stung me several times. Thank goodness, Cincinnati Bell was kind enough to remove the charges for the uncompleted calls. Just because a phone rings and rings, why should I, the consumer, pay? (Yes, I know, it ties up CO equipment while I am waiting for the pickup. But I was always told to 'let it ring at least eight times' 'You never know what you might be interrupting' (Use your imagination! :-) Dennis Blyth, Marketing Research, NCR Europe Group Dennis.Blyth@daytonOH.NCR.COM Phone: 1-513-445-6580 Fax: 1-513-445-6078 [Moderator's Note: See my comments on the previous message. Yes, there is a national database of who is routed where, and the 800-555 prefix is assigned to AT&T. I suppose {USA Today} could collect money from the telco(s) involved, but it would probably be handled as an inter- company transaction between AT&T, the 900 carrier (AT&T also?) and the telco(s) involved, through the process of Separations and Settlements, where telcos adjust their accounts with each other. Intercompany billings and settlements between telcos is a very technical process and outrageously boring to discuss. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 17:27:36 CDT From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Al L Varney) Subject: Re: AT&T Speech Recognition Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article HOEQUIST@BNR.CA (C.A.) writes: > In a copy of _DEC Professional_ a few months ago, I came across a > passing reference to a speech recognition system being marketed by > AT&T. It was described as having lots (64? 128?) of processors, each > using the DSP-32 chip (AT&T's proprietary signal processing chip This is NOT a proprietary Sig. Processor, at least no more proprietary than those of TI or Intel. It was covered in a special SP issue of IEEE Spectrum about 2 years ago. I believe we also supply support programs, debuggers, etc. for the DSP-32(tm). I will attempt to find a contact with more accurate information on the exact configurations available, as well as information on the "BT-100" or whatever speech recognizer you mentioned. {Unless that would be too close to advertising??} Regarding how well it works ... I believe the AT&T Technical Journal had some articles at the research stage a year or so ago. Of course, since divestiture, we are less able to share actual usage data in an open forum. Some of our competitors actually use our published research to their advantage, you know? Of course, if BNR or Northern Telecom would like to become a customer of AT&T, I'm sure an Account Rep. would be willing to discuss those issues and potential applications. Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, 2600 Warrenville Rd., Lisle, IL 60532 varney@ihlpf.att.com or att!ihlpf!varney ------------------------------ From: dblyth@oatseu.daytonoh.ncr.com Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 13:41:46 GMT Subject: Caller ID in Cincinnati Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton Cincinnati Bell phone store representatives told me they will not offer caller ID until Ohio Bell does. I wonder if this is because of the equipment Cincinnati Bell has is not as advanced at this moment or more so because they are just playing the game conservatively. Cincinnati tends to be a conservative town. Dennis Blyth, Marketing Research, NCR Europe Group Dennis.Blyth@daytonOH.NCR.COM Phone: 1-513-445-6580 Fax: 1-513-445-6078 [Moderator's Note: Yep, so conservative they stood by while P&G raped and pillaged the telco billing computer with impunity. That got me so annoyed I was kind of hoping someone would start that rumor about P&G and Satan again :). I'd not put a lot of stock in what a phone center rep told me about anything unless s/he could first answer a simple question in 25 words or more: Who was Theodore Vail? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #811 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13289; 13 Oct 91 2:43 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12891 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 00:45:06 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00781 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 00:44:55 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 00:44:55 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110130544.AA00781@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #812 TELECOM Digest Sun, 13 Oct 91 00:44:55 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 812 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Ron Newman] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Bob Frankston] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Steve Kass] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [S. Spencer Sun] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Stan Brown] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [John R. Levine] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Dave Levenson] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Erik Blake] Re: Telecom Humor From the Comics [Robert J. Woodhead] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Newman Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc. Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 15:24:02 EDT In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > And can we finally put to bed this "no one knows about '540'" > business? Hell, I know about '540' and I have not been to NY in over > ten years. Is the contention here that people who live in NY go around > with blindfolds on and cotten stuffed in their ears? Why should everyone in the U.S. need to know that in New York, '540' is another name for the 900/976 sleaze? I'm sure that in many other area codes, 540 is a perfectly ordinary exchange with no unusual toll charges. In Massachusetts, for instance, (508) 540 is in Falmouth. The sooner these things are shut down, the better. Ron Newman rnewman@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Date: 10 Oct 1991 18:14 -0400 I thought we'd been through this thing a long time ago. I do carry a pager for my own convenience so I'm not tied to being at a single phone number. How does enticing someone to call a 540 number differ from my placing a 800 number on a pager, capturing the ANI and then billing for the call through Visa or Mastercard. How does it differ from a small town placing a two m.p.h. speed limit on a 100 foot stretch of a highway; how does it differ from a bar having a $200 cover charge but not telling you till you try to leave, or a chain letter which says that you will get $100 if everyone after you in the chain mails you a $1. I agree that we don't need more laws since frauds and scams and such are no more legal because some con artist discovers a new twist. If I get unsolicated merchandise delivered to me, I'm not responsible, if I didn't want to buy the service that 540 provides how does that differ? Just because telco provides some new form of entrapment doesn't mean someone is obliged to take advantage of it. BTW, I'm serving notice that there will be a $100 charge for walking on my lawn when you try to get close enough to read the interesting sign next to my house. ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 11:30:43 GMT > [Moderator's Note: It is true that in three-card monte you never get > anything for your money, but our scammer in New York did in fact give > information in exchange for the money, did he not? Opinions may differ > on the value of the information. He thought it was worth the money. PAT] PAT, here is an analogy for you. You are walking down the street. You see a door. On top of the door is a sign that says "Please come in." You go in. It's a strip joint (or whatever). You are not in- terested in strippers, so you turn to leave. A big guy comes out and says "Sorry Buddy, you came in, so you have to pay our $55 cover charge!" I think you will agree that this is clearly unfair, and constitutes fraudulent inducement. When you go to court, the strip joint owner claims that there wasn't enough room to mention the cover charge on the sign, and that you should have known that doors with "Please come in" signs on them would cost you money if you went in. If the NYC person under indictment gets off, it will not be because what he did was ok. It will be because, as is so often the case in situations where the law and technology collide, the law is 20 years behind the technology. Ask Craig Neidorf if you don't believe me... Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 11:28 EDT From: SKASS@DREW.BITNET Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? In Issue 804, PAT writes: > [Moderator's Note: [...] If I did not know ahead of > time that placing a credit card call will cost more than a direct > dialed call, should I be able to sue telco for deception? Where do you > stop and start on this? PAT] When you use your card, you agree to the terms sent with the card or available on request. It's not the same story. Related questions: How easy is it to find out what the call is going to cost ahead of time? Would someone in 212 call a NYTel operator and ask for rates on this number and report back? What laws govern the permissible charges for a call? If I wanted to (I don't), could I ask NJBell to charge $100 for calls to my home phone number? What are the arrangements and laws for setting up this kind of service, and at what numbers can it be arranged? SteveKass/Math&CS/DrewU/MadisonNJ07940/skass@drew.edu/2014083614 ------------------------------ From: shihsun@lamp.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Date: 10 Oct 91 16:13:22 GMT Organization: Princeton Class of '94 In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > And can we finally put to bed this "no one knows about '540'" > business? Hell, I know about '540' and I have not been to NY in over > ten years. Is the contention here that people who live in NY go around > with blindfolds on and cotten stuffed in their ears? And of course, you are representative of everyone else in the country, and what you know, everyone else knows. You know, you really should have a higher opinion of yourself and assume you know things that aren't common knowledge. >> We're not talking about telephone tolls here, we're talking about what >> appears to be an obvious scam. > If it is so obvious, why do people fall for it? Are they stupid? > Stupidity comes at a price. He meant "obvious" to those of us who know about the scam now. Not "obvious to whoever is being scammed on." > But I digress. Over the years I have learned to NOT return just every > number that comes along from the pager. If a number appears that I do > not recognize, some research is done first. Where is the prefix? Who > might be calling from an unusual location? Check the voice record on > my machine, which handles the paging. Do I recognize the name? Was a > voice message even left? (If not, why not?) After all of this, > SOMETIMES I will return an unknown page if there are some thoughts > that it has some legitimacy. If I cannot come up with anything > plausible, then the page is ignored. Seriously speaking now, not everyone is as careful or thoughtful as you. (In fact, now that I think about it, being that lots of drug dealers carry beepers, we ought to try and find out their numbers (yes, I know that's incredibly unrealistic) and then plague them with these 212-540 numbers in hopes that it'll expend all their money. Nah.) [S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - shihsun@phoenix.princeton.edu ] [WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 12:11:21 -0400 From: brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown) Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast) In article TELECOM Moderator wrote: > [Moderator's Note: This is another point the con-artist (and I will > grant you he is one, even if marginally legal, which I think he is) is > arguing with the prosecutor: How should he know *where* the person > returning the call will be calling from? After all, pagers are by > definition mobile devices. If they are outside the NYC area, they pay > only a toll charge. Is he being prosecuted for those pages also? And > if so, why isn't every business person who leaves a message with a > phone number in another LATA without specifying the charges involved > being prosecuted also? PAT] PAT, the situations are not parallel. The standard of fraud is what will take in the mythical "reasonable and prudent man." A reasonable and prudent person can be assumed to know which calls are toll calls, where "toll" means "a distance- and time-based charge for calling." I daresay a case might be made that a reasonable and prudent person knows that a call to 1-900-xxx-xxxx carries a surcharge that is not related to distance and may not be related to time. But the FCC has decided that the mere fact that most people know there are extra non-toll charges for 900 numbers does not excuse them from disclosing the specific amount of the call, during the call, before billing begins. The same reasoning applies even more to the case where someone personally solicits a callback (as opposed to general advertising on mass media). Here the con artist uses a medium where the assumption is that calls are valid, and fails to disclose the _extraordinary_ charges (this is the key word) either before or during the call (before billing). If people are not reasonably expected to know the specific costs of a 900 call before dialing (and I agree with the FCC on this), how much less can they be expected to know the specific charges for what apparently looks like a local call? And 540 is by no means standard as a 900-type prefix. (In 216, 540 is a cellular prefix in Youngstown.) Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems +1 216 371 0043 Cleveland, Ohio, USA email: brown@ncoast.org ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 11 Oct 91 17:37:44 EDT (Fri) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) An evil daemon must be inhabiting your mail posting software. I didn't write this. (I did write another related message which you posted a day or so ago.) But don't worry about printing a retraction, since there's nothing in it that I'd particularly mind having attibuted to me. Regards, John Levine, joh nl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl In article the daemon claims I wrote: > Given the pagings (of apparently fraudulent intent) pertaining to > calls to the 212-540 exchange: From where would the person placing > such page expect you to call 212-540 exchange? [Moderator's Note: Actually, the author of the above, re-printed in its entireity was Carl Moore . In the Digest edition of Volume 11, Issue 804, Message 6 it came out okay saying his name. But in the comp.dcom.telecom version, the bursting process (where the whole digest is broken into individual messages as part of going out to the internet), the above got attributed to the message just before that which *was* John Levine. It seems I have a couple more little bugs in the bursting and poster-daemon programs to be ironed out yet; something do to with blank spaces getting at the start of a line in the header accidentally, causing many of the strings to take the value the string had earlier. And while on the topic of getting bugs out of things, many more of you should now be getting autoreply messages than were getting them when mmdf was running here (or sendmail this time last week for that matter). I *finally* got the ELM filter working correctly in connection with autoreply (I think!). PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.WESTMARK.COM (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Date: 11 Oct 91 12:15:37 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: [ regarding the scam of the con-person who displays his 212-540 number on a pocket-pager, inducing the owner of the pager to make a very expensive and worthless phone call... ] > And can we finally put to bed this "no one knows about '540'" > business? Hell, I know about '540' and I have not been to NY in over > ten years. Is the contention here that people who live in NY go around > with blindfolds on and cotten stuffed in their ears? I have lived in the New York City metropolitan area since 1968. I have worked in data and voice communications most of that time, as a reseller of PBX equipment, as a data network designer, and as a consultant to AT&T Bell Laboratories. 540 was known (but by hardly anybody outside of the broadcast or telecom industries) as a choke prefix. Radio call-in contests usually have 540 numbers. During my years in this part of the country, I don't remember ever wearing a blindfold. I don't remember ever putting cotton in my ears. Where did I learn about the possibility that a 540 number might have a huge toll associated with it? By reading the TELECOM Digest! (Note that I read the Digest for eight years before the subject was mentioned.) I really appreciate the light that has been brought to the subject here (I carry a pager). But Mr. Higdon: No, we can not "finally put to bed this 'no one knows about 540' business". Not until the telephone company, the news media, or someone else on an appropriate soapbox makes it widely known here that 212-540 numbers can be expensive. I think the telephone companies make it easier for the con man by 'disguising' a number like this one. 201-540 is a normal prefix serving ordinary business, residence, and centrex customers in Morristown, NJ. How is someone supposed to learn (except the expensive way) that 212-540 is different? What is the equivalent prefix in every other area code? How are travelers to know about it? My opinion? If the 900 service access code does not provide enough access to the services of this type, and if a 'local' prefix is also required, then I suggest a requirement that the same prefix be used everywhere, and that it be widely publicized. Until then, it is a con, and the telephone companies are accomplices. I know -- I'll be roundly criticized here for suggesting such a thing. After all, there is probably no universally-available prefix for such a service. In that case ... why not require that SAC 900 be used for _all_ such services? 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: blake@geop.ubc.ca (Erik Blake) Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Organization: Dept. of Geophysics, UBC, Vancouver, BC, Canada Date: 10 Oct 91 10:05:05 Here is a perspective from Canada, where as far as I know there are no toll charge local exchanges (like 976/540/etc.): If I were to receive a message asking me to call a number in another LD area code (perhaps I am even expecting such a message), then I can check in my phone book to see what the toll charges will be (current daytime rates to 212 run at CAN$0.57/min). No mention is made of 540 exchange charges and if no warning is given when I first call the number, I will not be aware of these charges until I get my phone bill. The charges listed in the phone book (or those obtained from the operator) are those I expect to pay, and I enter into a contract to pay only these LD charges when I dial the number. 1-900-xxx-xxxx calls are different because they are advertised (even in the phone book) as having additional charges associated with them. How can these 976/540 charges be legal when the investigative options available to me fail to inform me of the extra toll? Perhaps the next time someone phones me LD, I'll give some 'information' and then send a bill for $100. The way these 976/540 numbers seem to work, I don't even have to inform the caller of the charge. It's wonderful! ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Telecom Humor From the Comics Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 11:16:03 GMT canrem!nigel.allen@uunet.UUCP (Nigel Allen) writes: [a 900 number joke] There's another joke along the same lines that I heard on an HBO special. The comic calls this girl on a 900 line and gets a $100.00 bill. His question : "$100 for a ten minute phone call? Where do these people live!!?" Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #812 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17646; 13 Oct 91 4:00 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04849 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 02:13:09 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24712 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 02:12:58 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 02:12:58 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110130712.AA24712@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #813 TELECOM Digest Sun, 13 Oct 91 02:13:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 813 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [David Cornutt] Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [Marvin K. Hoffman] Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone? [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone? [Lars Poulsen] Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Steve Urich] Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Ken Abrams] Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs [Arthur Rubin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt) Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County Organization: NASA/MSFC Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 19:35:47 GMT This reminds me of something that was proposed for Huntsville in the early '60s, that I've heard tell of. North Alabama is tornado country, and in those days there was only one local TV station (UHF at that), and only a few radio stations (and anyway, people around here weren't in the habit of leaving their TVs or radios on all the time, like we do today). This meant that there was no good way to broadcast a tornado warning. Someone suggested rigging the COs so that a tech in each office could flip a switch and cause every line on that CO to ring simultaneously, with a special cadence that would indicate a tornado warning. I guess the idea was that police dispatch would have a phone at each CO that they could call to tell the techs to activate the system. Apparently the idea never got off the ground. I don't know how the debate went, but there are three problems that I can think of: 1. Obviously, off-hook phones couldn't be rung. 2. How much current would it take to ring every line on a switch simultaneously? (Keeping in mind that there were only electromechanical ringers in those days.) 3. On some party-line systems, it might not have been possible to ring more than one phone on a line simultaneously. (From having dug around in old phone books and other places, it appears that Huntsville had both Bell and Automatic Electric party-line setups at the time.) David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL (205) 461-6457 (cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov; some insane route applies) "The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary." ------------------------------ From: hoffmanmk@stat.appstate.edu Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County Date: 12 Oct 91 07:33:27 EDT Organization: Appalachian State University In article , acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM writes: > Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) tells us: >> In Truro, Nova Scotia in the early 1970's (and probably for much earlier), >> the fire department had a network of red fire alarm boxes, each with a >> three-digit number. When an alarm was pulled, a horn at the fire hall >> would sound out the number twice (5-4-3 would be five hoots, a short pause, >> four hoots, a short pause, three hoots, a longer pause, and then the >> original sequence again). >> I haven't encountered a system like this elsewhere. > Indeed, there was (is?) at least one: Lynnfield, Massachusetts, just > north of Boston. Nigel's description is almost exactly what I > remember. During a Cub Scout tour of the fire station in the mid-60's, > we saw a mechanism to receive signals from the pullboxes mounted on > telephone poles around town. It punched large triangular holes in > paper tape to represent the box code. If someone pulled Box 372 at > Archer Lane and Summer Street, for example, the tape produced "< < < < > < < < < < < < <". Someone would feed it through a simple gadget on the > station horn which honked out the code to the volunteer firefighters, > who could then converge on the box address in-stead of going to the > fire station first. (Presumably someone did go and get the fire > engine, however.) Meanwhile, we kids would look up the code on our box > address list, courtesy of the local hardware store, and race there on > our bicycles. What a letdown it was to hear "3-3-3" on the horn: that > was a phoned-in emergency, so we wouldn't know where to go; all > volunteers had to report to the station. Actually, these were called Gamewell systems, after the company that made most of the equipment for fire alarm telegraph systems during the late 1890's or so nearly up to the present. The circuits were supervised, which is to say the circuits were closed dc loops serving particular sections of town. The fire alarm boxes had code wheels which broke the circuit in accordance with the number assigned to the box. Breaking the circuit, such a a tree pulling down a fire alarm cable, or a vehicle crashing into the pole and damaging the box, caused the closed loop to open without any coded pulsing. Fire alarm would then send out a maintenance person to ride that particular area to find where the loop was broken and of course fix it. In big cities, fire alarm headquarters might have 20-50 or more loops serving particular parts of the city. When a box was pulled, or when a sprinkler system in a factory activated a box on the outside of the building, the coded signal did in fact appear as punches on a register tape at fire alarm. Fire Alarm would then retransmit it over another circuit to the stations where bells rang in the stations (and another tape was punched) indicating the location of the call. In many smaller towns the tapping out of the box number was indeed repeated over outside audible devices such as air horns or steam whistles so that volunteers could hear the box number and proceed to the fire. Now pagers are used because they are quieter and can the fire personnel more information about what is going on. Such fire alarm box systems have been dropped in most of the country because: a. high maintenance cost for the dedicated wire network used by the system. b. anonymous false alarms since someone can pull a box and run away. c. people started calling in by telephone - approximately 90% of all fire calls came by phone and it was not uncommon to have 90% of all box alarms to be false. d. 911 caught on Some areas, particularly in New England, where Gamewell was located, still use the system but upkeep is very expensive. Marvin K. Hoffman (Formerly a fire chief) Appalachian State University Political Science/Criminal Justice Boone, NC ------------------------------ From: goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone? Date: 10 Oct 91 21:19:41 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , herb@frox.com (Herb Jellinek) writes: > My questions are basic: Will SDMS use the existing telephone network, > allocating regular telephone numbers to SDMS ports, or will it use a > separate number space, a la Telex? What protocol(s) does SMDS support > at the lowest level? How does SMDS relate to ISDN? And when will > SMDS become available, either nationally or regionally? Interop is now running an SMDS Interest Group; it's a big "new thing". In a nutshell, SMDS is a Bellcore-defined service, CONNECTIONLESS (so you don't make calls, just send packets); it is defined now for T1 and T3 access lines with SONET likely in the future; the protocol is based on DQDB (802.6) and uses 53-octet cells with variable-length packets; the address in each cell is an E.164 (ISDN/Telephone) number; and it's being tried now, with "production" equipment from a few vendors within a year or so. Being a Bellcore/RBOC service, it'll initially be intra-LATA, but there's a spec for the LD Carriers to connect and provide inter-LATA service. And there is international interest too; a very similar service (FastPac) is in Australia, and several European countries will do SMDS or very close too. 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: lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone? Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 02:02:38 GMT In article herb@frox.com (Herb Jellinek) writes: > I gather that SMDS allows you to 'dial up' (as it were) high-bandwidth > data ports, much as you might connect two lower-bandwidth data port > with a pair of modems. > My questions are basic: Will SDMS use the existing telephone network, > allocating regular telephone numbers to SDMS ports, or will it use a > separate number space, a la Telex? What protocol(s) does SMDS support > at the lowest level? How does SMDS relate to ISDN? And when will > SMDS become available, either nationally or regionally? I am posting this from a public terminal room at the INTEROP conference/trade show in San Jose, California, where SMDS is a hot item this week. SMDS is a service offering based on broadband ISDN, intended for data transmission at high speeds. Initially, SMDS is being offered by RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) over T1 access lines, but T3 is expected soon. There is a different service called Frame Relay that is offered over similar access provisions but with different protocols. SMDS is available NOW from most RBOCs, but SMDS traffic may not cross LATA boundaries yet, because there are no tarriffs for IXC interconnection, and the specification for IXC access to the switches are not final yet. SMDS uses familiar ten digit phone numbers, but I presume the access points are on special prefixes. SMDS is a fallout from the increasing concentration of bandwidth on fibers. The fiber backbone is mostly running at 150 million bits per seconds now, but will soon be going up to 600 megabits. This makes it economical to move an ethernet's worth of data on a "dial-up" connection. So this traffic travels on the fibers that make up the backbone of the public switched telephone network. The underlying service is known as ATM (asynchronous transfer mode) and several packagings will be competing. These have slightly different characteristics in performance, and of course each one will only interoperate with its peers. The most popular competitor to SMDS is called Frame Relay. Frame Relay is like X.25 without flow control and without error correction, and without guaranteed delivery. In other words, it provides only the elements of X.25 that are useful for TCP/IP or OSI Connectionless Network Service to send datagrams over. It uses HDLC encapsulation, so existing multiprotocol routers can use it with only a minor software upgrade. At the present time, FR is available nationally from WilTel and Sprint. Nothern Telecom switches support it directly. Presently, only permanent virtual circuits are available, but switched virtual circuits are expected to be offered about a year from now. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: snark!beyonet!beyo@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Steve Urich) Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Date: 10 Oct 91 20:31:44 GMT Organization: Beyonet Network John Higdon writes: [Steve Urich advanced technical questions deleted :-)] > Kidding and sarcasm aside, all of the lines in question appear on my > KX-T1232, a system known for its superior audio quality. I am 4000 > cable feet from the CO. Whatever advantage or disadvantage that > pertains to the local loops is shared by the 1ESS and the 5ESS alike. > The pairs ARE in the same cable. <*> Ok :-) There wasn't any change in wiring to the local punch-out blocks? How far are you to the local blocks? This IS unexceptable! Sometimes the local blocks are not properly grounded and a change in the resistance produces humlike distortion like an open-loop. > The differences that I am describing are not at all subtle. They are > glaring and alarming. Yes, the 5ESS sounds ok until you use one of the > 1ESS lines. What a difference! No fuzzy dial tones. No hiss in the > background of the call. No funny little crunching noises (that were > not there on the 5ESS lines when they were crossbar a month ago.) <*> You know John, this almost sounds like your getting overloaded by the new 5ESS? What are the levels like to you? If the levels are the same then there is a problem. But if the 5ESS is louder then maybe your noticing saturation in levels producing a fuzzy dial-tone and high background noise. You might be too close to the CO? Or the levels on the 5ESS are not set properly. Steve Urich WB3FTP wells!beyonet!beyo@dsinc.dsi.com ------------------------------ From: kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 20:01:54 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > The differences that I am describing are not at all subtle. They are > glaring and alarming. Yes, the 5ESS sounds ok until you use one of the > 1ESS lines. What a difference! No fuzzy dial tones. No hiss in the > background of the call. No funny little crunching noises (that were > not there on the 5ESS lines when they were crossbar a month ago.) I hope my comments won't be classified as a "knee jerk" reaction but I'll take that chance ;-). Your observations regarding transmission levels are NOT unique to the 5ESS. The older switches were "hot" (by current standards) on an intra-office call in particular and in some cases, on inter-office calls to nearby switches too. We have had similar comments from people who share lines in a 1A and a DMS 100. We "never" get comments like this from folks who do not have access to both types of lines in close proximity. I respectfully suggest that there is no "fix" for this; as you aptly pointed out, even you don't find the transmission level objectionalbe in the new switch until you compare it with the old. In addition, I think you will find (in general) that there is much less variance in the transmission between local and non-local calls. In the old switches, it was usually pretty easy to identify a "toll" call because of the lower levels. In the new ones, this difference is much less pronounced (in my experience). The noise problem is a mixed bag. The higher levels in the old switches tended to cover up minor noise problems in a voice mode. This same noise could cause problems with data. The new switches don't mask this "minor" noise as much as the old and ,in some respects, are more sensitive to external imbalances and the like and do a "better" job of amplifying the noise right along with the voice or data. It is possible that you now hear the noise that has been causing you data trouble for years (not you specifically but a general "you"). At the same time (if the noise has a source external to the switch), it may become more of a problem than before but it should be easier to convince the repair folks that there IS a problem since they can now hear it. The bottom line is (IMHO) that you should not dwell on the difference in transmission levels but you SHOULD persue the noise problem. From your description, my guess is a subtle problem in the loop (the minor imbalance you noticed may be just the tip of the proverbial iceburg). As you are already aware, "noise" can be generated within a digital switch and timing problems and slips can garble data in ways that are not detectable on a voice call. I'm sure there IS a fix for your noise problem and the "technicians" at PacBell might learn something in the process. Ken Abrams nstar!pallas!kabra437 Springfield, IL kabra437@athenanet.com (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 08:06:58 PDT From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com Subject: Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs? In comp.dcom.telecom, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > The pay faxes I've used, both here in Massachusetts and near my > beach place in New Jersey charge more like $2 first page, $1 > thereafter for sending or receiving, plus toll charges. $3 and $1 here in sunny (110 degrees yesterday) Brea, California. 2165888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #813 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08147; 13 Oct 91 13:17 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04151 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 11:32:59 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14068 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 11:32:50 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 11:32:50 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110131632.AA14068@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #814 TELECOM Digest Sun, 13 Oct 91 11:32:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 814 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Help Me Understand Disconeection of a Call [Bud Couch] Re: Help Me Understand Disconnection of a Call [Joel M. Hoffman] Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) [Michael Ho] Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) [S.E. Williams] Re: LD Savings Plans vs. 1+ (Main Carrier) Connection [Jack Decker] Re: AT&T Calling Card Question [Ralph W. Hyre] Re: AT&T Calling Card Question [John Slater] Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [Randal L. Schwartz] Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [Floyd Davidson] Re: What if the Phone Company Hears of a Crime [Charlie Mingo] Re: What's the Caller ID Spec? [John Boteler] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) Subject: Re: Help Me Understand Disconnection of a Call Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Sat, 13 Oct 1991 17:01:20 GMT In article ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes: > Suppose A calls B. > In the US, I've seen that both A and B can disconnect the call by > putting the phone down. > In India, I've noticed that _only_ A can terminate the call. If B > puts the phone down, and A persists, the call is still running. > Why might this be the case? Or am I missing something essential? In both countries, two methods area available to disconnect a call. The originator (A, above) or the switch itself. In the US, most of the switches have enough "smarts" to recognize that the called party (B, above) has hung up, and, after a time out period, force the connection to release. Evidently, either most of India is not populated with these switches, *or* the PTT has not seen fit to program them to do this. Try this (in the US): experiment with how long you can push the hook-switch (hang-up) without disconnecting. You will find that, as the originator of a call, anything over 150 to 300 mS will release. In other words, you will be hard put to tap the switch fast enough to keep from dropping. As the called party, however, you will find that you can keep the switch down for at least 1.5 sec to as long as ten seconds (depending on the types of switches the call is being routed through) before the call is disconnected. The difference between the two condition is whether or not you have *direct* control over the call supervision. As the originating party, you do, so the calls are disconnected very fast. As the called party, you don't, so some time is involved in getting the switch(es) to force a disconnect. In some areas of the US, mostly out in rural counties, the local CO is an older type (usually step by step) which will operate (for local calls) exactly as you have described for India. And, as a postscipt, all of the above doesn't apply for special calls, for instance, to an operator, or "911". In these cases, the control is passed to the special trunks used for these calls, and the origiating party can hang up indefinitely without disconnecting a call. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: joel@wam.umd.edu (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Help Me Understand Disconnection of a Call Organization: University of Maryland, College Park Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 15:15:46 GMT In article johns@scroff.UK (John Slater) writes: > It follows that B can switch from one phone to another simply by > hanging up and picking up another handset a few seconds later. Also that if A doesn't hang up the phone properly, B's phone is unusable. Joel ------------------------------ From: ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) Subject: Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 19:29:53 GMT An acquaintance of mine who used to work at Sprint (in an advertising internship) mumbled that MCI's F&F program was in jepoardy because it was too complicated to bill (i.e., who's on your list, how many are on MCI, etc.). Is there any truth to this rumor, or is it just a bunch of misinform- ation from a competitor? AT&T people: From your perspective, how difficult would it really be to implement the billing for something like that? How much harder would it be than standard billing or Reach Out billing? ... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska | Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu Disclaimer: Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be applied to any university agency. ------------------------------ From: sew7490@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.E. Williams ) Subject: Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 15:24:52 GMT In article shihsun@lamp.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes: > Note also that Friends and Family does not apply to calls placed with > the MCI Calling Card (this would be a serious attraction if they added > F&F to the Calling Card ...) You are incorrect. The Friends and Family program DOES work with the MCI Card. If you are using your card and call anyone on your Friends and Family list you will receive 20% off the cost of your call. This is also correct if you call home, as you are automatically on your own list. Another interesting feature is that if you have a Personal 800 number you will receive a 20% discount on calls made to your number. This brings the per-minute rate down from $0.25 to only $0.20. Call the Friends and Family update line at 1-800-FRIENDS for more information. Sean E. Williams Rochester Institute of Technology ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Oct 91 05:47:00 EDT From: Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: LD Savings Plans vs. 1+ (Main Carrier) Connection In a message dated 3 Oct 91 16:30:05 GMT, larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman) writes: >> I was able to subscribe to MCI's "Friends & Family" by having them set >> up an account and register my phone number for 10222+ dialing. My 1+ >> carrier is not MCI. > But you can only get the 20% discount for calls to people who have MCI > as their 1+ carrier. In other words, you can have any kind of MCI > account, but your "Friends & Family" all must have MCI as their primary > LD carrier. But how would they know? Consider the following scenario: You call up MCI and say you want MCI "Dial 1" service. They set up an account and tell your phone company to change your "Dial 1" carrier to MCI. Now you call another carrier (maybe your original one) and say you want to go back to them ... they send a notice to your telco telling them to switch you to THEIR service. At this point does the phone company send some sort of notice to MCI telling them that you've been switched off of their service? Or do they, as I suspect, just switch you to the new carrier and never say a word about it to MCI? If the latter is the case, then MCI would still think you're their customer and any calls you dialed using the 10222 access code would be billed as though you were still an MCI customer, right? This falls apart if the phone company DOES notify MCI when you switch to another carrier, OR if some additional information is transmitted to MCI on each call to indicate that you dialed it using a 10XXX prefix (as opposed to just 1+). I don't think that either of these are true, though. Now, what would be interesting is to know what would happen if you told MCI to sign you up for "Dial 1" service, then called your telco business office and said, "you're probably going to receive something from MCI telling you to change my 'Dial 1' service to them ... please just ignore it, I've decided not to switch, so DON'T change my line to any other carrier unless *I* call and authorize it personally." If that would work, MCI would still set you up for a "Dial 1" account but your "Dial 1" calls would still default to another carrier. Just remember that YOU are the phone company's customer, not the LD carrier, so the phone company is required to follow your instructions in selection of a long distance carrier! Via D'Bridge 1:1/211 10/09 12:46 Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org) Internet: Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker ------------------------------ From: rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Question Date: 10 Oct 91 19:31:36 GMT Reply-To: rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article John Higdon writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 797, Message 7 of 12 > casterli@lamar.ColoState.EDU (leroy Casterline) writes: >> Our call forwarding device uses the DTMF '#' character as a code to >> control a 'serial calling' feature. Today, one of our customers told >> us that AT&T calling cards use the # to access their 'serial calling' >> feature. > This should never be a problem. The '#' only works for serial calling > when the line is "unsupervised". Unless your device is doing something > shady, its requirement for ... Unfortunately, you still may be at the mercy of whatever payphone you happen to have. AT&T Card Caller phones used to interpret the '#' as the same as pushing the 'new call' button on the phone -- no attention was paid to whether the call supervised or not. I discovered this while trying to use my voicemail system from one of these phones. Had I not been able to get credit for the call, I would NOT have been amused at the interoperability problem between products of the same company. Disclaimer: This happened a year ago; I have no idea if it still doesn't work. The card caller phones are gradually being replaced with the new phones w/ built-in terminals, according to press reports. Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. (N3FGW, rhyre@cinoss1.att.com) Alternate e-mail: rhyre@attmail.com Phone: +1 513 629 7288 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 17:31:05 BST Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Question From: johns@scroff.UK (John Slater - Sun UK - Gatwick SE) In article 12@eecs.nwu.edu, reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux writes: > I think I should add that it seems AT&T will only allow about ten calls > to be placed in a row (via '#')without having to call back again. At > least this was the limit the last time I had to make a *lot* of calls > from a payphone. With a BT ChargeCard in the UK the limit is three follow-on calls, presumably to limit fraud. This can be very irritating. John Slater, Sun UK, Gatwick Office ------------------------------ From: merlyn@iWarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card Reply-To: merlyn@iWarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA References: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1991 05:28:14 GMT In article , john@zygot (John Higdon) writes: > If you are going to bash AT&T, please do so with some intelligence. > Have you forgotten that the '10XXX' was the mandated way to handle > carrier access from the beginning of the MFJ? Who was at fault here, > AT&T or the PBXes, COCOTs, hotels and motels that did not comply with > these standards? Do you really believe that AT&T "couldn't figure out > how to put in an 800 or 950 access number"? Please explain why it was > AT&T's responsibilty to provide a workaround for non-compliant > "oddball phones". Not just PBXes, COCOTs, hotels and motels, but entire phone companies. My GTE (blech) phone doesn't understand 10XXX, and probably won't for at least a few more years. Yes, the company that charges me for "cancel call waiting" as a separate feature from call waiting, and lets me pick my 1+ carrier (how nice of them) also does *not* allow 10XXX. It's not like I live in a rural area either. I'm ten minutes from Portland (Oregon) city limits, in the heart of the Silicon Rain Forest just to the west (world headquarters of Tektronix, Sequent, FPS, Nike, and home to most of the Intel expansion). GTE hasn't even heard of 10XXX, I bet. :-) I still think AT&T is silly for not having a 1-800 number for their phonecards. That's why I carry a Sprint card just in case I get caught behind a dainbramaged PBX. The revenue that AT&T has lost just with *me* over the years is probably enough to pay for a prime-time television commercial (a short one, maybe :-). Just another AT&T believer, even when they make it difficult, Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn ------------------------------ From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 14:17:25 GMT In article andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) writes: > Remember that the tricky part of bypass is that modern toll switches > are not designed to interface with local loops. They switch traffic > on trunks. Hmmm ... with a DMS-200 (a trunk switcher only) it is not too difficult to come up with a trunk group that works very well with a phone tied to the other end of each trunk. Just using a little magic with the miscellaneous drop equipment. I'm guessing that AT&T switches are just as easy to arrange that way. The trick is the right circuit engineer who can figure out how to make the telephone set look like a trunk to the switch. 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: Charlie.Mingo@p0.f716.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) Date: 09 Oct 91 17:01:56 Subject: Re: What if the Phone Company Hears of a Crime brian@apt.bungi.com (Brian Litzinger) writes: >>> I think the phone company is allowed check line quality, etc. by >>> listening to phone conversations. What are the rules for what they >>> may do with information that is overheard? ... [ deleted ] >> I have heard a crime in PROGRESS (bookmaking) during the course of >> installing the ANNUAL, [ ... deleted ...] >> I can do NOTHING. I am constrained by the Secrecy of Communications >> clause of my employment: > In some states I've heard that not reporting a crime makes one an > accomplice (sic) after the fact or some such nonsense. No. Accomplices after the fact are people who knowingly provide aid and assistance to assist a criminal scheme. No state tries to punish members of the general public with no affiliation to the crime other than inadvertant knowledge (eg, happening to overhear something on the phone). The US Constitution requires that there be a voluntary act affiliating oneself with the crime before liability can be imposed. Total strangers have no duty to intervene. Of course, installing a phone line every year permitting a bookie to take bets might begin to cross the line. Normally, the phone company is protected from liability because it doesn't know what the customers use the phones for. Jim Redalfs was knowingly assisting the bookmaker when he installed the extra lines. > If this is in fact the case, its seems your employment contract > exempts you from certain criminal liabilities. This is legally impossible. Private parties cannot "exempt" themselves from criminal liability by contract. Any contract which tries even to indemnify against criminal penalties is void as against public policy. If it were possible to do this, I expect the Mafia would have tried it by now. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What's the Caller ID Spec? Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 10:01:16 EDT From: John Boteler The specs for CNID are also known to Sierra Semiconductor's SC11210 & SC11211 decoder chips, suitable for embedded implementations of CNID decoding, saving you the hassle of doing it by hand. While my documents have not yet arrived from BellCoRe concerning the CNID specifications, I must say that the wait will be all the more pleasant thanks to the unusually kind BellCoRe woman who took my order. I wish all telemarketers were so nice! John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #814 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09650; 13 Oct 91 13:50 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19112 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 12:09:22 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13164 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 12:09:11 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 12:09:11 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110131709.AA13164@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #815 TELECOM Digest Sun, 13 Oct 91 12:09:02 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 815 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking [Bill Berbenich] Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking [Dave Levenson] Re: Southern Bell Oddities [John Temples] Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [S Spencer Sun] Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [G. Burditt] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [John Higdon] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Stan Krieger] Re: Calling Number ID in California (No Decision Yet) [Dell H. Ellison] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 19:09:04 EDT From: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Glenn F. Leavell writes: > I just spoke with Southern Bell, and I was told that there is no way > for me to block the calls from my Athens, Georgia phone from going > into the Caller-ID system. Are there any other states in which > Caller-ID is offered without ANY option of blocking, free or for a > fee? Caller ID is blockable from most any phone I know of. Southern Bell recommends (or at least they recommended to me) that you dial via the Southern Bell operator, which is about $0.85 if I remember right. Tell the operator what you want and he will place the call for you. Your number will not show up on the recipient's CLID box, if he has one. Caller ID blocking is available here. It is identical in function, if not in price to CLID blocking elsewhere. Other possibilities are to not place the call at all or to place it from a cellular or pay phone. Southern Bell does offer per-line blocking to law-enforcement agencies and social intervention organizations in the North Georgia area. Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: +1-404-894-3134 Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill | Group 3 fax: +1-404-894-8363 Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu | or: +1-404-853-9171 ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.WESTMARK.COM (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking Date: 13 Oct 91 12:51:45 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) writes: > I just spoke with Southern Bell, and I was told that there is no way > for me to block the calls from my Athens, Georgia phone from going > into the Caller-ID system. Are there any other states in which > Caller-ID is offered without ANY option of blocking, free or for a > fee? New Jersey Bell has offered Caller*ID since 1988. (They also offer Call*Block, but that is another service, and does not refer to preventing one's number from being displayed in front of the callee.) They do not offer anonymous calling. I have found that calls placed with operator assistance (including mechanized operator assistance, such as 0+ calls billed to calling cards) and calls placed through inter-exchange carriers are displayed as OUT OF AREA. This is probably a artifact of current technology in that the SS7 links do not connect between the intra-LATA network and the IEC networks and operator positions. It will probably be corrected at some future time. I suggest that we refer to suppressed-number services as Anonymous Calling, not as call-blocking. Call*Block is a service offered by NJ Bell and others. It allows a subscriber to block inbound calls from a selected list of originating numbers. I subscribe to both of Caller*ID and Call*Block. Caller*ID tells me what number is calling me. Call*Block causes the local telemarketer in Bound Brook, NJ, to get a recording which says: "The number you have dialed is not accepting calls at this time", when he (or his machine) dials my number. 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: jwt!john@uunet.uu.net (John Temples) Subject: Re: Southern Bell Oddities Organization: The Museum of Barnyard Oddities Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 19:25:37 GMT In article djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us (Dave Leibold) writes: > They have an automated repair voicemail system which takes down the > number you're reporting via means of touch tones. [...] you are > transferred to a live operator who asks (again) for the number you > want to report and the trouble to be reported ... apparently taking > the time to put the number in during the touch tone phase is all for > naught. I've also noticed this with Southern Bell's repair system. They put you through a series of questions (e.g., "Do you have the problem at all phones?") which is obviously designed to filter out the people who don't know enough to determine whether they've got a bad phone or an inside wiring problem. I don't know why they ask you for your phone number, when you always have to repeat it to the operator. I've found that as soon as you enter the voicemail system, you can just hit "0" to get a live operator, bypassing the voicemail foolishness. John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john) ------------------------------ From: shihsun@lamp.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) Date: 10 Oct 91 16:19:35 GMT Organization: Princeton Class of '94 In article , TELECOM Moderator noted: > [Moderator's Note: It is deception only if the person returning the > call was deceived; and the extent to which the person was decieved is > relative to how much they know about the phone system. Whose problem > is that, and where do you draw the line? If I did not know ahead of > time that placing a credit card call will cost more than a direct > dialed call, should I be able to sue telco for deception? Where do you > stop and start on this? PAT] If the information is in the phone book (Bell Atlantic notes in their Yellow Pages that credit card calls to local numbers are billed at the same rate as operator-assisted calls, etc.) then it would be reasonable to expect a person to know it. In other words, I would have no problem if a phone book said that certain exchanges in your calling area will result in charges, much like 976 and 1-900 numbers. This takes care of New York, in the case of 212-540. But now the question becomes, is it reasonable to expect every single phone book in every single area code where it is possible to dial 212-540 to include the notice "dialing a number in the 540 exchange in the 212 area code will result in a charge similar to that incurred by dialing a 976 number"? I think not. So what this boils down to is, if the NY phone book mentioned the 540 exchange and its characteristics, then someone putting a 212-540 number on a NY-area beeper wouldn't be at fault for anything. But if the scammer did it to someone else who did not have reasonable access to this information, it would be fraud/deception/ whatever the legal term is. Clarification: Above is MY OPINION on how this sort of thing SHOULD be handled. I do not mean to imply that any of the above is legally correct, nor should any such inference be made. [S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - shihsun@phoenix.princeton.edu ] [WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)] [Moderator's Note: But so far as we have been able to detirmine, calls to 212-540 are NOT dialable from outside the New York City LATA, or at least not dialable *and* premium-charge collectible. So why should phone books in other cities worry about it? PAT] ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 15:50:04 GMT > [Moderator's Note: It is deception only if the person returning the > call was deceived; and the extent to which the person was decieved is > relative to how much they know about the phone system. Whose problem > is that, and where do you draw the line? If I did not know ahead of > time that placing a credit card call will cost more than a direct > dialed call, should I be able to sue telco for deception? Where do you > stop and start on this? PAT] The surcharges for credit card calls are detailed in the front part of the phone book (all the ones I recall seeing, anyway). If it's a long-distance call handled by an IXC, you may not know the rate, but you're given a strong indication that there might be a surchage. There is also information there that gives you some idea what is a long-distance call, and how much local calls cost. Lots of phone books have rate listings for calls within the area code by mileage, (or sometimes zone), with the usual glaring omission of any rate or zone for the "information services" exchanges. In the presence of such a rate chart, and the absence of any mention of 976 (or 540) being special, I think it is reasonable to conclude that 976 or 540 numbers don't cost more than the highest rate listed on the rate chart. (If only it worked that way ... ) A challenge to the Moderator and John Higdon: show me where a non-telcom-aware user would find out, *in writing*, that *ALL* 212-540 numbers carry a charge for information services in addition to a toll charge, or that 212-540 numbers are significantly more expensive than calling most ordinary exchanges in the area code (or most foreign countries on this planet), or both. For that matter, show me where one would find out the same thing about 976 or 900 numbers. If it's not in the phone book, would an ordinary phone user know enough to ask for the information? My Southwestern Bell phone book mentions 976 numbers, and 817-703, but not 900 numbers. There was a bill insert about 900 numbers and blocking availability, but bill inserts are generally seen only by the family member who pays the bills. That was also a couple of years ago. They've had plenty of time to put information about 900 numbers and blocking into the most recent phone book, but they didn't. (Yes, I know few people read the front pages of their phone book, but the information is at least there if they want it). Mr. Moderator, and John Higdon, do the phone books in your local areas warn about information service charges on 900 and 976 numbers? Demonstrating that there are a lot of commercials for specific 540, 976 or 900 numbers that state the charges isn't good enough. Like the 1+ == toll call argument, demonstrating lots of examples doesn't prove the general case. Since this particular number on my pager didn't state any information service charges, and all the ads for information services state charges, isn't it reasonable to assume that there are no information service charges on this call? (I have also heard an ad several times for a "toll-free 900 number". Is this even possible? or is it a scam or mix-up in the ad copy?). I think phone companies ought to be required to put this information in the phone book if they won't do it voluntarily. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 01:13 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Ron Newman , , trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead), SKASS@DREW.BITNET, shihsun@lamp.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun), brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown), Carl Moore , Dave Levenson [and a host of others take either the Moderator or myself to task for suggesting that the 900/976/540/10XXX700/whathaveyou business is a non-problem.] Now my question to all of you: who has actually HAD TO PAY such a charge after making a reasonable attempt to get it removed from the bill? 100% of you? 50% of you? One of you? Anyone you know? Anyone you have ever heard of? Come on folks. Is this REALLY a problem? Or is it an exercise in "what ifs"? And then there is this: blake@geop.ubc.ca (Erik Blake) writes: > Perhaps the next time someone phones me LD, I'll give some > 'information' and then send a bill for $100. The way these 976/540 > numbers seem to work, I don't even have to inform the caller of the > charge. It's wonderful! If you can make it stick and actually collect and keep the $100, go for it. Again, does anyone have a single, solitary, documented case where someone had to chuck over big bucks when he was "duped" into calling an information services number? I am beginning to think that a lot of you are jealous that you cannot make some pet scam or another work in the manner that you imagine these scams work. Yes, it would be sleazy to put a sign on your doorstep and have it read, "Now you owe me $100". You and I know it will not work. And no one is making any money over the accidental calling of IP numbers either. Now do you feel better? No one has got one up on you. And one final point about the sleazy practice of putting these numbers in pagers: who says that the operator of the service is putting the number in the pager? Last week, a number appeared in my pager, "408-266-4400". Do you know what this is? It is a free 900-style "party line" that happens to sit not twenty feet away from me. Who could have put that number in my pager? Certainly not the sleazy operator of the service--that's ME! Must have been someone else. Get the point? When a 900 number appears in your pager, how do you know who put it there? Especially if you publish your pager's phone number! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 10:39:48 EDT From: stank@cbnewsl.att.com Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? >> [Moderator's Note: [...] If I did not know ahead of >> time that placing a credit card call will cost more than a direct >> dialed call, should I be able to sue telco for deception? Where do you >> stop and start on this? PAT] > Related questions: How easy is it to find out what the call is going > to cost ahead of time? Would someone in 212 call a NYTel operator and > ask for rates on this number and report back? etc? There's one underlying issue in this whole discussion of 900 and 212-540 numbers that we're still avoiding; specifically, when, all of a sudden, did the mere act of calling certain phone numbers result in the purchase of anything more than a completed call from the "telephone company"? Even though other things could be charged to a phone bill (Pat pointed out Western Union telegrams the last time this discussion came up), such charges were not automatic; we still had to provide Western Union with billing information -- merely calling them did not automatically put a charge, other than for maybe a toll call, on our phone bills. Since 900, 212-540. 976, etc. numbers are "retail purchases" and not just phone calls, the same controls that are in place for VISA or MasterCard purchases over the phone should be in place for call to these numbers. Minimally, this should be a separate PIN code for any call costing more than the maximum toll charge for calls to that area code. Stan Krieger All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even AT&T UNIX System Laboratories if related to my employment, are my own. Summit, NJ smk@usl.com ------------------------------ From: motcid!ellisond@uunet.uu.net (Dell H. Ellison) Subject: Re: Calling Number ID in California (No Decision Yet) Date: 10 Oct 91 21:29:37 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article , lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) writes: > this as an empty threat. The telcos worst fear for their marketing > of CNID is the availability of per-line blocking, since surveys > have shown that in California, where the majority of people have ^^^^^^^^ > unlisted phone numbers, a very large percentage would choose per-line > blocking. This would detract from the core goal of CNID -- to Is that really true? The MAJORITY of people have unlisted numbers? Over 50 percent?? That's a lot. (If it's true.) Dell H. Ellison ...!mcdchg!motcid!ellisond Motorola, Inc. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #815 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17657; 13 Oct 91 16:34 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29776 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 12:54:37 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08008 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 12:54:27 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 12:54:27 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110131754.AA08008@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #816 TELECOM Digest Sun, 13 Oct 91 12:54:24 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 816 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telephone Wire Staples [John Higdon] Re: Telephone Wire Staples [Julian Macassey] Re: Information Wanted For Purchase of Cellular Phone [Andrew Klossner] Re: Laser Pointer Information Wanted [Will Martin] Re: Phone Problems [Jim Redelfs] Re: Problems Conferencing on Panasonic KX-T123210? [Jack Winslade] Re: Surcharge for 911 in Pittsburgh [Joel Upchurch] Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine [Michael A. Covington] Re: Charge on 800 Calls [Lauren Weinstein] Re: Even More 5ESS Woes [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 21:16 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Telephone Wire Staples Paul Selig writes: > I've been able to find cable staplers, but the staples are too big for > the small telephone wires. All of the installers that I've seen use a > stapler with a large Bell logo on the side. Get an Arrow T-25 staple gun. This uses the rounded top staples that are just the right size for anything up to about four-pair cable. It is a nice, industrial unit that should be available at just about any decent sized hardware store. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey) Subject: Re: Telephone Wire Staples Date: 13 Oct 91 15:20:38 GMT Reply-To: julian@bongo.info.com (Julian Macassey) Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article selig@gwm.serenity.org (Paul Selig) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 810, Message 4 of 12 [requesting information on the purchase of staples] There are several sizes of staples used for installing telephone wires. The T-18 size is good for quad and 3 pair wire. The T-25 size is good for 4 and 6 pair and RG-59 Coax The T-37 size is good for 12 pair and doubled 3 pair etc The T-75 size is used for 25 pair cable and RG-8 Coax In a pinch, you can use the T-25 for T-18 type jobs. These guns cost between $30 and $50 each depending on size and where you buy them. They will last a lifetime unless dropped from ladders. You can buy parts to rebuild them. The staples come in several lengths. They are measured in mm and fractional inches. For T-18, T-25, 3/8" will usually do the job. The staples are available as shiny plated metal or painted "beige" which is the telco name for "artificial limb pink". Staples come in boxes of 1,000. They cost about $2.00 per box for the smaller sizes and $5.00 per box for the T-75s. Yes, besides telco wire, these guns can be used for TV and Ethernet Coax cable, speaker wires and even RS-232 cables. Where to get: Many electrical wholesalers (where electricians get conduit etc) carry them and will sell to the "public". Many electronic parts stores carry them. All Telco distributors carry them. Specialized Products Company cary the T-25 and T-75 guns. They are at (800) 527-5018 International Number (214) 550-1923. Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 15:08:16 PDT Subject: Re: Information Wanted For Purchase of Cellular Phone Suddenly I'm in the market for a cellular phone. I look through telecom and see: Dennis G. Rears writing: > I am finally in the market for a cellular phone. I need it > [Moderator's Note: We've had numerous postings on this topic in recent > weeks, and my recommendation would be to check out the past hundred or > so issues of the Digest in the Telecom Archives. Or perhaps some of > the readers will write direct to you and help with your questions. PAT] Okay, I can do that. I looked through the last 250 postings, and here's all I found: > From: kennyl@bonehead1.west.sun.com > Subject: Advice Wanted on Purchasing Cellular Phone > Date: 13 Sep 91 00:58:24 GMT > I would like to purchase a hand-held cellular phone and would like to > know if there were any articles posted about this subject? Experiences > and opinions would also be helpful. > [Moderator's Note: There have been many articles here in the past > about cellular handheld phones. Maybe a couple readers with a specific > interest in the topic will pass along appropriate messages to you. PAT] In short, there seem to be no such articles in the last 250 postings, except for discussion on Motorola's new, not-yet-shipping product. I takes a *long* time to capture archives from my site -- grepping 250 postings took two hours. Can you suggest a faster way to find this information? (I noticed that it's not in the FAQ file.) -=- Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) [Moderator's Note: Well, you could always write Andrew Klossner and Dennis Rears to ask them what responses they received. :) Or, maybe its about time to run another series of messages on specific cellular phones with their good and bad points. If any readers want to get the thread started, please submit messages. Regards grepping the archives, I will have something to say about that in a special mailing hopefully later today. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 7:57:59 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Re: Laser Pointer Information Wanted Laser pointers are available from a number of sources, and I found three last night looking thru some catalogs. All are cheaper than the Sharper Image $199 price, and one is noticeably cheaper: That one first: On page 3 of the Sept/Oct. 91 catalog from Herbach & Rademan (H&R Company) 18 Canal St. PO Box 122 Bristol, PA 19007-0122 (800-848-8001 or 215-788-5583; hours 0830 - 1700 Eastern Time, Monday-Friday) is their stock # ES-LA102 pen-sized laser pointer at $140.00. Uses TR175 battery or equivalent, operating time 1 hr. 15 min. continuous. 2.3 oz., 5 3/8" long 5/8" diameter, output 3mW. (They don't mention that they offer spare batteries and I couldn't find them listed elsewhere in the catalog. See below.) [H&R also has a retail store.] Other sources: Meredith Instruments 5035 N. 55th Ave., #5 PO Box 1724 Glendale, AZ 85301 800-722-0392 or 602-934-9387 has a laser pointer which appears to be identical to the one above; the specs are the same except they claim a 5mW maximum output. Price is $175.00, stock # LP-5, and extra TR-175 batteries are $5 each. ******* MWK Industries 1269 Pomona Road Cornona, CA 91720 800-356-7714 or 714-278-0563 sells their stock # 1FN6 Laser Pointer at $185.00, which again appears to be the same item. No mention of batteries. ******* Note: All these people have shipping charges based on price; since this is a very light but very expensive device, every one of them will be cheating you if you pay the default shipping charge. I would insist on negotiating to be charged actual shipping costs as a condition of sale. ******* If you decide a cheaper, less high-tech device will suit you, H&R also sels a "Flashlight Arrow Pointer" at $19.50 (stock # Q5826), that uses 4 AA batteries and high-intensity bulbs (spares are 3 for $11.75, so I suppose they burn out frequently). Hope this is of help! Regards, Will wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil OR wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Oct 91 07:00:32 cst From: Jim.Redelfs@ivgate.omahug.org (Jim Redelfs) Subject: Re: Phone Problems Reply-To: jim.redelfs@macnet.omahug.org Organization: Macnet Omaha Jack Meth wrote: > For some time now, at least once a day a caller cannot hear me > speaking. We can hear the other party, they can't hear us. Sometimes > we originate the call sometimes they do. > How should a frequently but randomly occuring problem with phone > service be diagnosed? I suspect that your trouble is Central Office-related. Cutting your service to new (different) line equipment MAY solve the problem. If the local repair folks can't find the problem, you might do well to keep a log prior to your next call for service. Track: Time of day The number you were connected with Who originated the call Does your problem occur on calls placed WITHIN your exchange, or perhaps only on those extending to a different NNX? It is likely that, if the latter applies, your calls are frequently being carried by a dying circuit pack. JR --- Tabby 2.2 MacNet Omaha (402) 289-2899 - O.M.U.G. On-Line (1:285/14) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 11:13:12 cst From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: Re: Problems Conferencing on Panasonic KX-T123210? Reply-To: jack.winslade@drbbs.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha A very common problem on many phones and KSU/KTU's that supposedly have conference features is that the two (or more) end callers will often have difficulty hearing each other, sometimes to the point that they may appear to be inaudible to each other. These devices do not use 'real' conference bridges, but simply connect the two lines together using something like a 1:1 audio transformer. This works, almost, but it is never possible to get a normal-level signal between two off-premesis users with something like this. If we assume that there will be a 6dB to 9dB loss on each connection to the center user in the conference, the two end users will see at least a 12dB to 18dB loss between themselves. Add to this loss the loss in the transformer (1-2 dB) and any other circuitry the manufacturer has chosen to put into the conference circuit. (Another possible loss is due to the loading of the transformer in addition to the load of the set.) Many of these 'imported' phones use bridging transformers that are similar to those you can by at Radio Shark and elsewhere. I've measured the loss across them in projects I have made and never found one that did not have at least 1 dB loss. >>REAL<< conference bridges are amplified and equalized and deliver equal volume to all connections off of the bridge. Doing this type of amplification and equalization on the subscriber end of the loop is somewhat of a black art since the bridge must be properly balanced to avoid 'singing' and distortion. Because the impedance -- both resistive and reactive components -- of subscriber loops will vary significantly, it is difficult for a manufacturer to install a 'one size fits all' amplified and equalized conference circuit in a device to be used at a subscriber's premesis. (As a side note, I would be interested in hearing how John H. deals with this in his 'party line' bridge.) Even the 'real' conference bridges are sometimes quirky. We have a System-85 at work with 'real' conferencing, and sometimes it seems that the conference circuitry is just on the point of oscillation -- there is a definite echo in there. I'm sure if someone came out with a design of such a thing that could work on the majority of real-world subscriber loops, the market would be wide open and the developer could pursue a very lucrative patent. (If Ma Bell doesn't have one already. ;-) Good day. JSW Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 DRBBS, Keep On WOC'n in the Free World (200:5010/666.0) ------------------------------ From: joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch) Subject: Re: Surcharge for 911 in Pittsburgh Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 05:48:17 GMT Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL In article , sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us (Ken Sprouse) writes: > A recent {Pittsburgh Post Gazette} article said that the city was > considering adding a one dollar per line surcharge to city residents > phone service for the operation of the 911 dispatch center. They went > on to state that this was possible due to a change in state law which > gave the city the ability to impose this charge. I'm curious about what their plans are for 911 calls from pay phones. Should I make sure I always have four quarters on my person when I'm in Pittsburgh? :) Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809 joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982 [Moderator's Note: That's one dollar per line/month, not one dollar per call. If the payphone is semi-public or a COCOT, then the one dollar would be added to the phone bill of the proprietor. If a public, 'genuine Bell' payphone, then telco would pay the dollar each month in their tax settlements with the city, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 02:43:28 GMT Try a 0.001-uF, 200-volt capacitor across the line. This should be very cheap. Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | N4TMI Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 23:02:11 PDT From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Re: Charge on 800 calls Greetings. I suppose there is one clarification that should be made -- there is one case when you might get charged for calling an 800 number. That one case is when you make a call from a sleazy hotel PBX or private payphone. Until new FCC regulations kick in, there's no way to control what such entities might try to charge you for practically ANY call. But even in this case, there actually is *no* charge for calling the 800 number itself -- you're dealing with an arbitrary charge that the hotel PBX or payphone operator is imposing through their local phone equipment. A call from an ordinary residential or business phone would incur no charges for calling the same number. However, if we learn of any domestic 800 numbers that *do* charge ordinary domestic callers ... well, that's something that should not be happening -- and so far there are no known examples of this. By the way, the misinformation provided by IBT (the false statements about a nickel charge for calling 800 numbers from home phones) is very unfortunate and only helps to further confuse the already confused average telephone subscriber! --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 23:54 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Even More 5ESS Woes On Oct 12 at 23:05, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: The experiences you are describing there simply are > not typical of 5ESS everywhere, at least here in Chicago. We *do* get > call waiting when on a three-way call; we do get fast dial tone and > generally decent and *quiet* (i.e. not noisy) lines. Maybe yours was > just a very sloppy, poorly administered installation. I would not > trade my existing service back for crossbar under any circumstances. PAT] My direct experience with digital CO switches is limited (for obvious reasons, living in Pac*Bell Land), but I am advised by those in the know that there is no known generic available for the 5ESS that allows reception of Call Waiting during a Three Way call. Since I do not doubt your powers of observation, there can only be one explanation: you, Pat, are not served by a 5ESS. When I have called you, my ear has told me that you are served by a 1AESS (the finest CO switch ever built, IMHO). A test call to your prefix (not you at this hour!) confirms my previous observation. And that would explain your complete satisfaction with the service you receive. I have heard that there is a generic available for the DMS100 that strives to emulate the features on a 1AESS and possibly even has CW on 3W, but this is the only known digital implementation of this. Now there has been considerable debate as to whether this ability is "part of the spec", but since it was part of the 1/1AESS feature package from the beginning it would be reasonable to assume that this is the "standard". Like it or not, pre-divestiture AT&T defined a number of standards that have been preserved since the breakup. But unfortunately, AT&T has NOT seen fit to perpetuate its own definitions by including CW on 3W on its pride and joy, the 5ESS. So far, my experience is that AT&T stumbled on this one. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #816 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23908; 13 Oct 91 19:33 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23705 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 16:23:28 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 16:23:28 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110132123.AA23705@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Telecom Frequently Asked Questions - Revised 10/13/91 Attached is the second printing (first revision) of the Telecom Frequently Asked Questions file. My thanks go to David Leibold for his work in editing this, and for the various contributors who sent material for inclusion in this edition. This file will be sent automatically to all new subscribers to the telecom mailing list starting today. See the end of the file for the address to use for corrections and updates. Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Moderator -------------------------- Subj: FAQ - Frequently Asked Telecom Questions TELECOM Digest - Frequently Asked Questions - v.2 9 October 1991 This is a list of frequently asked questions made in the TELECOM Digest. As this list is rather new, some topics and questions will no doubt be updated and added as time goes on. Much of the telecom information that is requested can be found in the TELECOM Digest Archives, which is a collection of text files on telecom topics. These archives are available for access through the FTP protocol at lcs.mit.edu, or through another Archive site that has been set up at letni.lonestar.org. The monthly posting of the description of TELECOM Digest should contain more details on how to access these Archives. This list is in the archives under the file name: frequently.asked.questions Direct netmail requests to persons posting on topics of interest to you may also be helpful. In fact, doing things "behind the scenes" can be more productive as the Digest Moderator is frequently swamped with other items. Future editions of this list could include netmail addresses of contacts for certain topics (say for ISDN, cellular, area codes/numbering plan, consumer protection matters, etc); offers to that end would be appreciated. The index to the Archives should be obtained and kept for reference. This index has also occasionally appeared as a posting in the Digest. You may also read the file intro.to.archives in the Archives to get a better understanding of the Archives. A list of terms commonly used in TELECOM Digest may be obtained from the Archives under the file names glossary.acronyms, glossary.txt and glossary.phrack.acronyms. Suggestions for other common questions, or corrections or other amendments to this file may be made to djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us, dleibold@attmail.com or Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.imex.org. This file will be updated as necessary and all information herein should be considered subject to change. Thanks to Nathan Glasser, Dan Boehlke and Maurice E. DeVidts and those other inquiring TELECOM Digest minds for their frequent questions. Tad Cook also noted an incorrect touch tone in the 1st edition of FAQ, an error which should be corrected with the second edition. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q: How do phones work? A: A file in the TELECOM Digest archives under the name "how.phones.work" is available and should explain some details of the workings of the common telephone. Q: What is a COCOT? A: Customer-Owned Coin-Operated Telephone, or perhaps Coin-Operated Customer-Owned Telephone. Essentially, this is a privately-owned public telephone as opposed to the traditional payphone that is owned and operated by the local telephone company. The COCOT is the target of much scorn, as it often delivers less than what one would hope for in competition. Cited deficiencies of many of these units include lack of access to carriers like AT&T, default "carriers" that charge exorbitant rates for long distance calls, etc. Some of them don't even understand the new 908 area code that is now officially in service in New Jersey. Q: What does NPA, NNX, or NXX mean? A: NPA means Numbering Plan Area, a formal term meaning the common North American area code (like New York 212, Chicago 312, Toronto 416 etc). NNX refers to the format of the telephone number's prefix; (the first three digits of a phone number). The N represents a digit from 2 to 9; an X represents any digit 0 to 9. Thus, NNX prefixes can number from 220 to 999, as long as they do not have a 0 or 1 as the middle digit. NXX means any prefix from 200 to 999 could be represented, allowing for any value in the middle digit. Obvious special exceptions include 411 (directory assistance) and 911 (emergency). Q: What happens when all the telephone numbers run out? A: Within an area code, there are a maximum number of prefixes (ie. first three digits of a phone number) that can be assigned. In the original telephone "numbering plan", up to 640 prefixes could be assigned per area code (of the NNX format, 8 * 8 * 10). Yet, prefixes get used up due to growth and demand for new numbers (accelerated by popularity of separate fax or modem lines, or by new services such as the distinctive ringing numbers that ring a single line differently depending on which phone number was dialed). When the prefixes of NNX format run out, there are two options in order to allow for more prefixes, and in turn more numbers: 1) "splitting" the area code so that a new area code can accomodate new prefixes, or 2) allowing extra prefixes to be assigned by changing from NNX format to NXX format. The preferred option is to go with 2) first, in order to avoid having a new area code assignment. Yet, this gives the area code a maximum of 160 new prefixes, or 8 * 10 * 10 = 800. When the NXX format prefixes are used up, then 1) is not optional. New York and Los Angeles are two regions that have gone from NNX to NXX format prefixes first, then their area codes were split. Interestingly enough, some area codes have split even though there was no change from NNX format prefixes to NXX. Such splits have occurred in Florida (305/407) and Colorado (303/719). The precise reasons why a change to NXX-style prefixes was not done in those cases is unknown to this author, but switching requirements in those areas, plus telephone company expenses in changing from NNX to NXX format (and the likelihood of an eventual area code split) are likely factors in these decisions. Note that it is prefixes, and not necessarily the number of telephones, that determines how crowded an area code is. Small exchanges could use a whole prefix for only a few phones, while an urban exchange uses most of the 10 000 possible numbers per prefix. Companies, paging, test numbers and special services can be assigned their own prefixes as well, such as the 555 directory assistance prefix (555.1212). Q: Why does the long distance dialing within an area code often change so that 1 + home area code + number has to be dialed, or changed to just seven digits (like a local call)? A: When prefixes change to NXX, that means that the prefix numbers can be identical to area codes. The phone equipment is no longer able to make an easy distinction between what is an area code and what is a prefix within the home area code, based on the first three digits. For instance, it is hard for central offices to tell the difference between 1+210 555.2368 and 1+210.5552 Thus, 1 + area code + number for all calls is used in many area codes. Or ... just dialing seven digits within the area code for all calls, local or long distance (thus risking complaints from customers who thought they were making a local call when in fact the call was to a long distance exchange). It is up to each phone company to decide on how to handle prefix and dialing changes. The rules can change from place to place. Q: Are we really running out of area codes? A: Indeed, there are only a few possible area codes that can be assigned from the existing format. At present, all area codes have a 0 or 1 as the middle digit (212, 907, 416, 708, etc). However, the only standard area codes left to be assigned in that format would be 210, 810 and 910. It may be possible to free 610 from its usage in Canadian TWX service, and 710 from what is apparently reserved for government services. These exclude special cases such as area codes ending in -00 for special services like 800 or 900. Also, -11 area codes could be confused with services like 411 (directory assistance) or 911 (emergency); indeed, a few places require 1+411 for directory assistance. Q: What is Bellcore? A: Bellcore, or Bell Communications Research, is a company that does a number of things for the telephone system in North America. It assigns area codes, publishes and sells technical documents relating to the operation of the phone system, and does research and development on various communications technologies. Recently, Bellcore did development on MPEG, a video data compression method to allow transmission of entertainment-quality video. The Bellcore catalogue can be ordered by calling 1 800 521 CORE (that is, 1 800 521 2673) within the USA, or +1 201 699 5800 outside the USA (+1 201 699 0936 is the fax number). Q: How will we make room if the area codes are running out? A: Bellcore, which oversees the assignment of area codes and the North American Numbering Plan in general, has made a recommendation that "interchangeable" area codes be allowed as of July 1995. That means that there no longer need to be a 0 or 1 as the middle digit of an area code, and in fact the area code will become NXX format. While some suggest that eight-digit local numbers or four-digit area codes be established, the interchangeable area code plan has been on the books for many years. One aspect of the plan is that, initially, the new area codes will end in 0 (such as 220, 650, etc). This would make it easier on a few area codes so that they could conceivably retain the ability to dial 1+number (without dialing the home area code) for long distance calls within the area code, provided that they have not assigned prefixes ending in zero that would conflict with new area codes. That option is not possible for many area codes that have already assigned some prefixes of "NN0" format, however. Eventually, the distinction between area code and prefix formats would be completely lost. It is conceivable that the date for changing North America over to interchangeable area codes (yes, this change will be felt throughout the U.S. and Canada) could be moved to an earlier date, or that the existing area codes plus the few waiting to be assigned will have to make do until 1995, causing some service shortages in some areas. Another possibility includes using some of the special -00 or -11 codes (like 200 or 311) as area codes as a last resort. Q: What are touch tones made of? A: The touch tone system uses pairs of tones to represent the various keys. There is a "low tone" and a "high tone" associated with each button (0 through 9, plus * (star) and # (octothorpe or pound symbol). The low tones vary according to what horizontal row the tone button is in, while the high tones correspond to the vertical column of the tone button. The tones and assignments are as follows: 1 2 3 A : 697 Hz 4 5 6 B : 770 Hz (low tones) 7 8 9 C : 852 Hz * 0 # D : 941 Hz ---- ---- ---- ---- 1209 1336 1477 1633 Hz (high tones) When the 4 button is pressed, the 770 Hz and 1209 Hz tones are sent together. The telephone central office will then decode the number from this pair of tones. The tone frequencies were designed to avoid harmonics and other problems that could arise when two tones are sent and received. Accurate transmission from the phone and accurate decoding on the telephone company end are important. They may sound rather musical when dialed (and representations of many popular tunes are possible), but they are not intended to be so. Q: Why is a touch tone line more expensive than a rotary dial line (in many places)? A: This has been an occasional debate topic in the Digest. Indeed, there can be a surcharge from $1 to $3 per month to have the ability to dial using touch tone. In modern equipment, touch tone is actually better and cheaper for the phone company to administer that the old pulse/rotary dialing system. The tone dialing charge can be attributed to the value of a demanded service; tone is better, thus a premium can be applied for this privilege. Also, it is something of a holdover from the days when tone service required extra expense to decode with the circuitry originally available. This is especially true on crossbar exchanges, or where tone would have to be converted to dial pulses as is the case with step-by-step exchange equipment. Today, integrated circuits are readily available for decoding the tones used in dialing, and are a standard part of electronic switching systems. Some telephone companies have abandoned a premium charge for tone dialing by including this in local service. Others still hold to some form of tone surcharge. Q: What's this about the FCC starting a modem tax for those using modems on phone lines? A: This is one of those tall urban legends, on the order of the Craig Shergold story (yes, folks, Craig's doing okay as of last report and he doesn't need any more cards of any kind). This is an unsubstantiated rumour and as such should not be acted on. Official information from the FCC would come forth were such a proposal to occur. Reading up on regulators' announcements is a good pastime in any case, as one can get the information from the source and watch for such concerns. Q: What is the calling card "boing" and what is it made of? A: When a North American call is dialed as 0 + (area code) + number, a "boing" is heard after the number is dialed. This is the prompt to enter a telephone company calling card number to bill the call with, or to select the operator (0) for further handling, or in a growing number of areas to specify collect or third number billing for the call. The boing consists of a very short burst of the '#' touch tone, followed by a rapidly decaying dial tone. The initial '#' tone is used in case any tone-pulse converters exist on the line; such converters use the '#' to disable conversion of tones to dial pulses, a conversion which would interfere with card number dialing. Q: How can I find out what my own phone number is? A: If the operator won't read your number back to you, and if you can't phone someone with a Calling # ID service, there are special numbers available that "speak" your number back to you when dialed. These numbers are quite different from one jurisdiction to the next. Some areas use 200 222.2222; others just require 958; still others 311 and others have a normally-formatted telephone number which can be changed on occasion (such as 997.xxxx). Check the Archives for any lists of test numbers or "ANAC" (Automatic Number Announcement) numbers. Q: Is there a way to find someone given just a phone number? A: Sometimes. There are often cross-referenced city indexes available in libraries and other places that have lists ordered by the phone number. These directories go by names such as Mights or Strongs or other companies. Unlisted numbers are not listed, nor are they intended to be traced by the general public. One catch is that such directories are necessarily out of date shortly after their publication what with the "churn" of changing telephone numbers and addresses. In addition, there are phone numbers provided by telephone companies that connect to live lookup services. Operators at these numbers will determine a person according to the phone number. Only a few of these lookup numbers are intended for the general public (eg. Chicago and Tampa). Otherwise, most of these lookup numbers are for internal telephone company usage. Again, unlisted numbers are not intended to be provided by these services. Private detectives seem to have other means of getting these numbers, but that's another story... Q: What is call supervision? A: Call supervision refers to the process by which it is determined that the called party has indeed answered. Long distance calls and payphone calls are charged from the time the called party answers, and no charges should be assessed where the other end doesn't answer nor where the called party is busy or unreachable due to circuit problems. Q: How come I got charged at a hotel for a call where no one answered? Why is the timing on some of the long distance carriers inaccurate? A: Where real call supervision is unavailable or inconvenient, a ploy used by some call billing systems is to guess when a call might be answered. That is, a customer dials the call, and the equipment times the progress; after a certain point in time the billing will commence whether or not the party at the other end actually answers the phone. Thus, calls left ringing for more than five or six rings can be billed. Adding to the problem is the fact that calls don't necessarily start ringing at a fixed time after the last digit is dialed. Needless to say, some calls can be left uncharged in this scheme. Should the call be answered and completed before the billing timer goes off, the call won't be billed. There are reports that California requires proper billing and supervision of calls, at least as far as hotels are concerned. Other areas may adopt similar requirements. Q: Are there other kinds of test numbers used? A: Yes. Again, space (and available information) does not permit a complete list of what each telephone company is up to in terms of test numbers. The most common number is a "ringback" test number. When a two or three digit number is followed by all or the last part of your phone number, another dial tone occurs. Tests for dialing or ringing may then be done. Other numbers include intercom circuits for telephone company staff, or switching centre supervisors, or other interesting tests for call supervision or payphone coin tests. Again, this depends on the phone company, and such services are not usually found in the phone book, needless to say. Q: How can I prevent the call waiting tone from beeping in mid-conversation? A: If you place the call, and don't want to get interrupted, a call waiting suppression code is dialed before dialing the call itself. The most common code for this is *70 or 1170 (on rotary dial phone lines). 70# (or 70 and wait on rotary phone) could also be used in some areas. Thus, to call 555.0000 so that call waiting is disabled, dial *70 (or whatever the correct code is for your area), wait for another dial tone, then dial 555.0000 as usual. Suppressing call waiting tone on an *incoming* call may be possible depending on how your phone company has set the central office. One possible way of doing this is to flash your switch-hook briefly, see if a dial tone comes on, then try dialing the call waiting suppress code (*70 or whatever). This method is not guaranteed, however; your phone company might be able to give a better answer if the preceding doesn't work. NOTE: each phone company will determine the capabilities of Call Waiting features, and what codes will be used to activate them. The codes are not necessarily the same from place to place. Please consult your phone company for official information in your particular area if any of the above codes do not work properly. The following questions were suggested by Nathan Glasser (nathan@brokaw.lcs.mit.edu): Q: What are the A, B, C and D touch tone keys used for? Why are they not found on touch tone phone sets? A: These are extensions to the standard touch-tones (0-9, *, #) that had their origins in the miltary's phone network. The original names of these keys were FO (Flash Override), F (Flash), I (Immediate), and P (Priority) which represented priority levels that could establish a phone connection with varying degrees of immediacy, killing other conversations on the network if necessary with FO being the greatest priority, down to P being of lesser priority. The tones are more commonly referred to as the A, B, C and D tones respectively, and all use a 1633 Hz as their high tone. Nowadays, these keys/tones are mainly used in special applications such as amateur radio repeaters for their signalling/control. Modems and touch tone circuits tend to include the A, B, C and D tones as well. These tones have not been used for general public service, and it would take years before these tones could be used in such things as customer information lines; such services would have to be compatibile with the existing 12-button touch tone sets in any case. Q: Where can I find a list of equal access (10XXX) codes? A: The TELECOM Digest Archives has lists of these codes. They are contained in the files occ.10xxx.access.codes and occ.10xxx.list.updated in the Archives at lcs.mit.edu or letni.lonestar.org. New information on these codes, or other access codes, appears in TELECOM Digest on occasion as well. Q: How can I tell who my default carrier is (or that of a 10XXX+ carrier)? A: Dial 1 700 555.4141, and that should get a recording indicating the default carrier. This should be a free call. From regular lines, dialing 10XXX + 1 700 555.4141 can yield the identifying recordings of other carriers. On payphones, AT&T is always a "default" carrier for coin calls (not for calls placed on other carriers cards, though), thus their recording is heard whatever carrier access codes are used. FAQ submission from Dan Boehlke (with formatting and some proofreading thrown in): Q: What is the best way to busy a phone line? I have a bank of modems which are set up as a hunt group. When a modem dies I would like to be able to busy out the line that is disconnected, so that one of the other modems in the hunt group will take the call. A: Our modem lines all enter on RJ21 "punchblocks" so I've got some rather nice clips that can be pushed over the terminals on the blocks and make contact with the pair that I want to busy out. Between the two terminals on the clip I have a red LED and a 270 ohm 1/2w resistor in series. As long as I get the clip on the right way, it busies out the line and lights up so I can see that I've got one of the lines busied out. Since most of our modems have error correction, I've even gotten away with putting one of these on a line that's in use -- when the user disconnects, the line remains busy and I can then pull the modem at my leisure. The modem's error correction fixes the blast of noise from the clip as I slip it in. Brian [Further notes: A setup like this is not necessary. For most systems simply shorting tip and ring together will busy out the phone line. Some older systems, and lines that do not have much wire between the switch and the point at which it terminates will need a 270 ohm 1/2 watt resistor. The resistor is necessary because on a short line will not have enough resistance to make up for the lack of a load. Most modern systems have a current limiter that will prevent problems. Older system may not have a current limiter and may supply more current than modern systems do. In the followup discussion, we learned that we should not do this to incoming WATS lines and other lines that will cause the phone companies' diagnostics centers to get excited. A particular example was an incomming 800 number that was not needed for a few days. The new 800 number was subscribed to one of those plans that let you move it to another location in the event of a problem. Well the AT&T diagnostic center saw the busy'ed out line as a problem and promptly called the owner. -dan] >From Maurice E. DeVidts (ceham@wam.umd.edu): Q: How can I get specifications on how Caller ID service works? A: The official documentation on how the Caller ID or calling line ID works is available for purchase from Bellcore. A description of what those documents are and how to get them is available in the TELECOM Digest Archives file caller-id-specs.bellcore. In general, the Caller ID information is passed to the set in ASCII using a 1200 baud modem signal (FSK) sent between the first and second rings. ( end of list ) --------- Send future Frequently Asked Questions direct to dleibold@attmail.com and not via any of Telecom Digest's addresses. Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:3609/1 UUCP: !bnw!djcl INTERNET: djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24706; 13 Oct 91 19:50 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25669 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 18:04:36 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11117 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 18:04:25 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 18:04:25 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110132304.AA11117@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #817 TELECOM Digest Sun, 13 Oct 91 18:04:27 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 817 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson ITU Standards Available Online [Carl Malamud and Michael Schwartz] ZZZZZZ Saga to Come (And Request For Disk Space) [Lauren Weinstein] Unix ClassMate 10 Caller ID Monitor Daemon Source [Bob Izenberg] 10xxx vs 950 vs 1-800 [David Lesher] Public FAX Machines/Phraud [Paul A. Houle] Hayes Compatible ISDN or Switched 56 Card For PC? [Harold Hallikainen] Seeking Unicom Expo Opinions [John Boteler] Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries [John Higdon] Re: Caller-ID Approved in MA [Bob Frankston] Re: A New COCOT Scam? (Maybe) [John Nagle] Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) [John Higdon] Re: HBO/Cinemax and Sprint [Marshal Perlman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: schwartz@latour.cs.colorado.edu (Michael Schwartz) Subject: ITU Standards Available Online Reply-To: schwartz@latour.cs.colorado.edu (Michael Schwartz) Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 04:27:55 GMT As announced recently at Interop, the International Telecommunication Union standards documents (including the CCITT Blue Book) are now available online. You can get them by anonymous FTP from bruno.cs.colorado.edu (soon to be renamed digital.resource.org) in pub/standards. There is a HELP file in this directory that explains what you need to know. You can also access these documents by sending mail to infosrv@bruno.cs.colorado.edu, with the message body (not subject line) containing commands to a mail server. Use the command help to get started. Alternatively, send HELP will send a more detailed description. These documents will soon be available at a number of other sites as well. Please be aware that the standards on this server are being offered on an experimental, volunteer basis. They are currently in a preliminary state of typesetting conversion. Please bear with us concerning imperfections. The standards are being offered free of charge and we expressly waive all guarantees and warranties. If you want a guaranteed version of the standards, you MUST refer to the printed versions available for purchase from the International Telecommunication Union. Sincerely, Carl Malamud Michael Schwartz The Digital Resource Institute and the Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 17:22:44 PDT From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: ZZZZZZ Saga to Come (And Request For Disk Space) Greetings. There seems to be considerable interest in the early days of telephone entertainment, in particular as this subject relates to ZZZZZZ as it existed in L.A. starting over 20 years ago. The experience of Z involves a wide range of topics related to TELECOM. These range from technical (in 1970, all there was to work with was, as Mr. Spock would say, "zinc-plated, vacuum tube technology" (well, maybe not *that* bad...), to interactions with callers, TPC, and the PUC. The story will have to broken up into a number of segments and will almost certainly take considerable time to be completed--so think of it as an old-time movie serial presented in "exciting" installments (I'm not promising cliff-hangers, though ...) Of course, it would be interesting if the readership could actually hear some of the Z tapes. Well, that might be worth considering. One possibility would be to provide TELECOM with some digitized versions of a few "classic" Z recordings for FTP access. I suspect that it would be best to provide these both in SUN/SPARC format (ulaw, 8192 samples/sec), and in a raw, unsigned byte format (also at 8192) for everyone else. However, the Telecom Archives are limited in disk space, and even with compression these files are going to be fairly large (average tapes would probably be a couple of minutes of length). So, before there can be any consideration of providing actual audio, we'll need to know that there is some FTP point with spare disk that is willing to hold and provide anonymous access to those files for TELECOM. If you have an Internet system that falls into that category, please let me know and we'll see if a few old tapes can live again, so to speak, in the digital age. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) Subject: Unix ClassMate 10 Caller ID Monitor Daemon Source Organization: The Happening World Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 04:24:48 GMT John Temples just posted his source for a Unix daemon that reads the Caller ID from a ClassMate 10, looks up the number in a database and displays the name of the caller. If you don't get alt.sources but want the program, drop me a line and I'll get you a copy. Bob DOMAIN-WISE: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us BANG-WISE: ...cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei UN-WISE: bei@dogface.uucp POUND-FOOLISH: 1 512 346 7019 (voice) ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: 10xxx vs 950 vs 1-800 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 14:48:53 EDT Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex I've just found another reason for FGB access to carriers. I'm staying in short term quarters that includes phone service. Besides the obvious problem of only one line (primitive, right folks;-?) no Etherhose, etc, outgoing calls go via the PBX. (BTW, their AOS is Metromedia.) So LD calls must be 8+, even when it is an 8+1+800, while local calls are 9+. Many a time, all the LD trunks are busy. But the MCI 950- works just fine. Variety is the spice of life. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 13:41:52 MDT From: pahsnsr@jupiter.nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle) Subject: Public FAX Machines/Phraud In the area where I used to live (603), there were a number of pay fax machines in public libraries and similar places, and some people in the BBS community discovered a number of methods of phraud based upon these machines. Some of these machines contain an automatic dialer that automatically calls an 800 number, where an operator picks up the phone and asks for your credit card number, verifies it, and connects you to your destination fax machine, running the call through. I don't know exactly how answer supervision is handled here, but using fax machines, one could use the carrier tone. I discovered that, when the machine was unplugged, one could pick up the handset and get a regular dial tone. There is no touch-tone pad, so it's impossible to dial out normally, but one can dial by clicking the switchhook, and bopping the switchhook ten times connects you to an operator, and you can give her the phone number that you want to dial. I used this to make a local call just to see if this could be done, and I mentioned this to a friend. Other people in the BBS community in that area later discovered that there was no toll restriction on those lines, either, so one could dial two zeros, get an AT&T operator, and then call his phriends anywhere in the world. A person armed with a tone dialer would have a whole spectrum of phraudulent options availible to him -- the 'start a conference and transfer control to a pay phone' trick, never mind just calling 900 numbers with a tone dialer just for the hell of it. Of course, I can't advocate any of this behavior because it is illegal or immoral, but public fax machines, like COCOTS, have some weaknesses against phraud -- and they really could design them quite a bit better so they both provide better service and are more resistant to people with evil intent. [Moderator's Note: The public Fax machine that was installed in the post office downtown was a sham, security-wise. They had the phone line plugged into a modular jack mounted on the wall next to it. By unplugging the Fax machine and plugging in an ordinary phone, you got dial tone that would get you anywhere. And no one at the post office seemed to keep an eye on the machine or care who did what over in that corner of the (relatively, in the wee hours of the morning) deserted lobby area. The machine was removed a couple months ago and the phone line -- I assume -- turned off ... but who knows. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Hayes Compatible ISDN or Switched 56 Card For PC? Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1991 04:27:39 GMT I wonder about the availability of a card I could plug into a PC that would look to the PC like a real fast (64 Kbps or 56 Kbps) Hayes compatible modem. Anything like this available? It'd be useful to me to exchange a few Kbytes of data every hour or so, which could be done in a call of about a second or so. Looking at my LD bill, it looks like a daytime one minute call anywhere in the country costs me about $0.24. So, for $0.01, I should be able to do a two second call and exchange 16 Kbytes of data (for ISDN). So, any card like this available? Are telcos allowing a two second call (and billing for two seconds). Does the old two second "billing delay" apply to ISDN or switched 56 calls? Harold Hallikainen ap621@Cleveland.Freenet.edu Hallikainen & Friends, Inc. hhallika@pan.calpoly.edu 141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4 phone 805 541 0200 fax 544 6715 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590 telex 4932775 HFI UI ------------------------------ Subject: Seeking Unicom Expo Opinions Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 21:41:01 EDT From: John Boteler Reply-To: csense!bote@uunet.UU.NET If you have attended NATA's Unicom Expo, I would be interested in your observations of its usefulness, by email preferably. Does the exhibition floor provide a good breadth of telecom products in the industry or is this a very narrowly targeted show? I already live in D.C., the site of Unicom 91, so this will not be one of those 'get away and party all week' shows. I save that for Comdex :) John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 16:31 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries Jeff Sicherman writes: > Can a Remote Call Forward for an existing number assigned to a > rotary forward multiple calls to the new site/number itself with > multiple lines grouped into a rotary, or must each line at the > originating site be Remote Call Forwarded separately? Is a rotary > group even compatible with Remote Call Forwarding? This is very confusing. How do you have "Remote Call Forwarding" for an existing number? RCF is known as "simulated facilities" that allow a customer to have a number in a given city permanently forwarded to a number of his choosing. There is no outside plant equipment assigned to this RCF number. If a number has real facilities (such as an appearance somewhere) then it cannot have RCF. A given RCF number can make multiple forwards simultaneously to the target number which can itself be associated with a rotary (or more correctly, a hunt group). This generally requires supervision on the preceding call before the next can be forwarded and on rare occasions requires a statement to the telco specifying how many lines will be receiving the calls. But there is no such thing as an RCF hunt group. Call Forwarding of the ordinary type can be used with a hunt group, however. If a hunt group member is forwarded, it forwards all calls and will not jump to the next member. So if you have three lines in a hunt group and forward the first line somewhere else, the second and third lines will never ring as a result of calls directed to the first line. This is typically used by businesses that have an answering service that is forwarded to at night. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: Caller-ID Approved in MA Date: 13 Oct 1991 03:18 -0400 I'm puzzled about why it takes so long to implement Caller-ID. I realize that there might need to be some tweaking to adjust blocking, but two years seems to be a long time for this adjustment. Is it that the software just doesn't work on a DMS-100? ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: A New COCOT Scam? (Maybe) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 17:39:52 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Encountered a COCOT in LA which, when given a long distance carrier code, responded with "Please deposit ten dollars". John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 11:40 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) writes: > An acquaintance of mine who used to work at Sprint (in an advertising > internship) mumbled that MCI's F&F program was in jepoardy because it > was too complicated to bill (i.e., who's on your list, how many are on > MCI, etc.). Mention has been made on this forum about how MCI and Sprint "savings" plans seem to suddenly disappear without warning or notice of any kind. (If AT&T behaved in this manner it would make banner headlines, but that is another can of worms.) For instance, MCI's "Around Town" evaporated without a peep and Sprint Plus became the "standard" rate. My prediction, based on past performance, is that this "Friends and Family" deal is a temporary promotion designed to increase the PIC customer base. Sooner or later, it will vanish without notice. People will discover that there is no longer any 20% discount and calls to the business office will reveal that for some Good Reason MCI has discontinued the plan. Some, but not many, will switch back to their old carrier. Your post has mentioned a Good Reason for MCI to discontinue the plan. Of course, it will have all those new PIC customers so everything will have turned out OK (for MCI anyway) when it is "forced" to drop the 20% discount. Now if MCI could just channel as much talent and energy into its network as it does toward its marketing department ... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: mperlman@isis.cs.du.edu (Marshal Perlman) Subject: Re: HBO/Cinemax and Sprint Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 18:46:30 GMT NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes: > An ad appeared in yesterday's {Newsday} (10/9/91) about HBO/Cinemax > and Sprint offering 100 free minutes using their SprintFone (sp) card > if a person signed up for either of those cable services. There was > also something about 300 free minutes but I just kept on reading the > paper. I do not know if you people back east get this (most readers of this are ... aren't they?), but we have these great books called "ENTERTAINMENT 92" (or whatever year it is) and it is full of two for one coupons FOR EVERYTHING, but anyhow ... in the back ... there are two offers from Sprint: one is for 60 free minutes if you aren't a Sprint customer , and the other one is 60 free minutes if you are a Sprint customer ... flat out and simple. AND UNLIKE THE DEATHSTAR (AT&T), they don't have those dumb restrictions like "You can only call states with the first letter of its name being a vowel ... and you can only call on the third rotation of the solor plexis [isn't that a body part?] on every other Wednessday ..." Marshal Perlman mperlman@isis.cs.du.edu Huntington Beach, California ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #817 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28847; 13 Oct 91 21:43 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13237 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 19:57:09 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26406 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 19:56:57 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 19:56:57 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110140056.AA26406@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #818 TELECOM Digest Sun, 13 Oct 91 19:55:01 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 818 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [John Higdon] Re: Problems Conferencing on Panasonic KX-T123210? [John Higdon] Re: Caller ID in Cincinnati [Stan Brown] Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card [John Higdon] Re: AT&T Advertising [John Higdon] Re: Making Your Own ISDN [Harold Hallikainen] Re: FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions List Revised [J.Gao] Telecom Archives Index / Access [David L. West] The Trouble With Telecom Archives [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 12:28 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) writes: > A challenge to the Moderator and John Higdon: show me where a > non-telcom-aware user would find out, *in writing*, that *ALL* 212-540 > numbers carry a charge... I don't have any copies of NY telephone directories, so answering that challenge will have to be deferred. However ... > For that matter, show me where > one would find out the same thing about 976 or 900 numbers. From Pacific Bell White Pages (San Jose-Santa Clara effective through March 1992), Page A11: BEGIN {quoted text} California 900/976 Numbers These are special numbers which allow you to access information and entertainment services for a charge. The providers of services, not Pacific Bell, are responsible for the content of programs. The charge is set by the information providers and can range from $0.05 to $20.00 per call for 900 numbers and from $0.20 to $2.00 plus any applicable long distance charges for 976 numbers. You will be billed for any 900 and 976 calls under the title "Information Services" in your monthly bill. For information on refund of 900 and 976 charges under certain conditions, see "Consumer Rights and Information" section of this guide. Information Services Call Blocking Most customers can choose to have calls to California 900 and 976 numbers blocked from their telephone line. This means that these numbers cannot be dialed from your telephones. Residential customers can order blocking for free. Blocking is not available in all areas. If you have any questions on blocking please call your local Business Office. {and from page A48} A One-Time Refund of California 900 and 976 Charges Residential customers are eligible for refund of charges for calls made to California 900 and 976 numbers. This refund is available one-time only in most cases under the following conditions: 1. You did not know that you would be charged for the calls. 2. Your minor children made the calls without your permission. 3. Someone made the calls without your authorization. You must request a refund within 60 days of the bill date on the bill in question. We will not disconnect your phone service for non-payment of any 900 and 976 charges. However, you will be responsible for paying charges not covered by this refund. END {quoted text} That all seems rather plain to me. Granted, many people never crack the front of the phone directory, but whose responsibility is that? You can lead a horse to water ... > They've had plenty of time to put information about 900 numbers > and blocking into the most recent phone book, but they didn't. It sounds as though you have a beef with Southwestern Bell. > John Higdon, do the phone books in your local areas warn about > information service charges on 900 and 976 numbers? You betcha. You just read it. > I think phone companies ought to be required to put this information > in the phone book if they won't do it voluntarily. I would have thought they all did. My general operating rule of thumb: if Pacific Bell does something, all other telcos in the country have been doing it for at least seven years. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 13:19 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Problems Conferencing on Panasonic KX-T123210? Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) writes: > >>REAL<< conference bridges are amplified and equalized and deliver > equal volume to all connections off of the bridge... > (As a side note, I would be interested in hearing how John H. deals > with this in his 'party line' bridge.) There are two general ways to provide the amplification required for a REAL conference bridge. One is switched gating used by TelLabs and others. In such a conference, the loudest person speaking effectively shuts off the transmit side of all the other participants. Only one transmit is enabled at a time, determined by who is actually speaking. This has the disadvantage of sounding like a speakerphone, but keeps the noise level down on the bridge. The other method is a "mix-minus" system where the transmit side of each line is amplified and fed to each of the other receive sides, but not its own. Now this IS a black art, but allows for a conference in which all participants can be heard at all times, much like a normal telephone call. This is the method that my party-line uses and it does require carefully adjusting the level and equalization on each line. An amusing note: the night the crossbar cut to 5ESS, the party line bridge went completely to hell. It squealed and howled to beat the band. I had to do a considerable amount of level and eq readjusting to get things to quiet down. Both conferencing methods require precision hybrids to split the two wire line to a four wire domain. > Even the 'real' conference bridges are sometimes quirky. We have a > System-85 at work with 'real' conferencing, and sometimes it seems > that the conference circuitry is just on the point of oscillation -- > there is a definite echo in there. This is obviously a "mix-minus" that needs adjustment. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 11:43:09 -0400 From: brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown) Subject: Re: Caller ID in Cincinnati Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast) In article Dennis Blyth writes: > Cincinnati Bell phone store representatives told me they will not > offer caller ID until Ohio Bell does. I wonder if this is because of > the equipment Cincinnati Bell has is not as advanced at this moment or > more so because they are just playing the game conservatively. > Cincinnati tends to be a conservative town. No, it is because the PUCO (Public Utilities Commission of Ohio) has not yet approved Caller ID. If Cincinnati Bell is not a perty to the hearings (which I don't know), then I would guess they're expecting to ride in on Ohio Bell's coattails. Information can be had from: The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio 180 East Broad St Columbus OH 43215 1 800 282 0198; my phone book doesn't say whether that works from outside Ohio but I would imagine not. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems +1 216 371 0043 Cleveland, Ohio, USA email: brown@ncoast.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 11:49 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card merlyn@iWarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: > I still think AT&T is silly for not having a 1-800 number for their > phonecards. That's why I carry a Sprint card just in case I get > caught behind a dainbramaged PBX. That is why I, as the administrator for a number of PBXes, set up the routing tables to process '0+' calls to AT&T by default. If you use one of the phones on such a system and you dial '9 + 0 + AC + NUMBER', you will get the AT&T 'kabong'. The OCCs have their 800 and 950 numbers and you are free to use them if you like. On those systems that have a PIC other than AT&T, the switch prepends a '10288' on '0+' calls. This way all cases are covered and '10XXX' is not even required. And I will be the first to admit that setting up '10XXX' on a PBX in any secure way is very difficult, if not impossible. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 21:27 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: AT&T Advertising S. Spencer Sun writes: > I've been greatly amused by the AT&T ads since the accident or > whatever recently ... but this one takes the cake (maybe belongs in > rec.humor) > >From this week's {Newsweek}, picture of a guy talking, "I have > confidence in [AT&T] -- I've never had a problem. I mean, why fix > something that's not broken?" > Hee hee, yourself. What amuses ME is the hay that the OCCs try to make on AT&T's liberally publicized failures. Over the past decade, there has been exactly one total system outage and one or two regional AT&T outages that have received press attention. MCI and Sprint have been very quick to crow and gloat over this, but conveniently leave out the fact that their systems suffer almost constant minor outages of their own. For some reason, the press seems to be uninterested (because it happens so often?) in the numerous Sprint "fiber cuts" or the mysterious call incompletions that plague MCI, Sprint, and all the others who own and operate networks. And what is worse than the actual outages is the cavalier attitude that a network failure is of about the same importance as a grocery store running out of a particular brand of dog food. Well, after all, you can always use AT&T if nothing else works. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: hhallika@zeus.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Making Your Own ISDN Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 05:32:24 GMT In article u1906ad@UNX.UCC.OKSTATE.EDU writes: > the thought behind all of this is that the ISDN technology would make > it easier, in the long run, to interconnect various parts of a > repeater system with some form of standardization. Being digital, the > ISDN signal could even be sent over the air with no change in sound > quality. While I have seen catalogs of interesting looking ISDN IC's, I think the problem area here is that the ISDN data being sent down the twisted pair is real high speed digital (as I recall, it'll be at least 128 Kbps to handle the 64 Kbps voice in each direction, plus the signalling in each direction). If you just drop this into a typical FM transmitter (going around preemphasis networks and audio band limit networks, and ignoring restricted RF bandwidth of the transmitter), you end up with a REAL WIDE RF signal. I'd guess that some more efficient modulation technique could be used to get the bandwidth down to something suitable for UHF use (my favorite modulation technique is QAM). I've always thought the amateur community should use some of the higher frequency bands (10 GHz and up) to set up a digital backbone. They could provide the equivalent of DS1 or DS3 circuits going point to point around the country. The ends of these links would be handed over to the amateur computer community (such as Fido Net), who would handle traffic routing, etc. The equivalent of the telco "local loop" would be the local ham repeater, which links the local operator into the backbone (equivalent to the long distance carrier). At the real high frequencies, a simpler modulation technique could be used (perhaps FSK), since more spectrum is available. Just some thoughts ... Harold ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 20:08:12 EST From: gaojeng@durras.anu.edu.au (J.Gao) Subject: Re: FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions List Revised In comp.dcom.telecom TELECOM Moderator wrote: > Dave Leibold has sent along the second edition (first revision) to the > Telecom FAQ list. I'm getting it edited up now, and will try to have > it available in the archives over the weekend sometime, as well as out Where is this archives, please? > in circulation here as a special mailing. New subscribers on the list > will receive it automatically when they sign up beginning around the > first of the week. How can I subscribe to it? Thanks, J. Gao [Moderator's Note: By now you should have received a copy of the FAQ for telecom. It was sent out to the mailing list on Sunday afternoon and put in the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup at the same time. A copy was also placed in the Telecom Archives. If you did not get a copy in your mail (if you are on the telecom mailing list) or in today's feed of comp.dcom.telecom to your site, then you can get a copy from the Archives or by writing to me. New subscribers to the mailing list will automatically get a copy sent out as part of the autoreply to new readers. For more information on the Archives, see the next message. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 08:05:34 EDT From: dwest@ihlpb.att.com (David L West) Subject: Telecom Archives Index / Access Pat, You are probably tired of hearing this, but I could sure use a tutorial on how to obtain an Index of the material stored in the Telecom-Digest Archives, and additionally, access to the same. [Moderator's Note: Sometime Sunday evening I plan to send out a new version of the Telecom Archives index (when requesting files via anonymous ftp) and a copy of the help file for reference when asking for files via the mail/ftp service operated especially for telecom by one of our readers. It will go to the mailing list as well as to the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup. Read the next message for a little more background on the Archives. PAT] ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: The Trouble With Telecom Archives Date: Sun 13 Oct 1991 19:10 CDT Later this evening I will be sending out the most recent index to the Telecom Archives, along with a help file on how to obtain the archives files using an email/ftp service provided by one of our readers. Of course, anonymous ftp can also be used, as will be explained in the file. But for now, I want to address a problem with the archives that makes them difficult to use, and ask for the assistance of someone who is experienced in programming to help alleviate the problem. For some time, I've wanted to see an index to the back issues of the Digest. This might be difficult to construct for issues prior to Volume 9 because of lack of standardization in many of the early issues. But everything from 1989 forward was done the same way. We need to have all the old issues broken up into individual files (there are currently fifty issues per file). We need to have an index which allows cross reference checking by article name (what author wrote it, what volume and issue it was in plus subsequent plies); by author name (what articles were written, what issues the articles appeared in); by volume and issue (what articles were in that issue and who wrote them); and by keyword (a dozen or so common words which appear in article titles -- what volumes and issues had those keywords in the subect index.) We would apply it to *all* the old issues, with the understanding it would be complete from volume 9 forward and catch- as-catch-can prior to that point. A big task? You bet! And I cannot do it myself ... yet the archives is growing to the point that it is now very cumbersome and unweildy trying to search for things. In the old days, when we had an issue every couple days, the telecom- recent file (the most recent issues until fifty have accumulated) took a couple months to fill. Now it fills every two or three weeks. If you want to get a single missing back issue, you've got to pull many, many megabytes across the net just to get one thing. This has to change, or very soon, the archives will be worthless as far as retrieval of back issues of the Digest is concerned. I'm open to your comments, in private mail which won't be published in the Digest. I'm more interested in someone actually *doing* it instead of just talking about it. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #818 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05650; 14 Oct 91 0:33 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16179 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Oct 1991 20:56:27 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 20:56:27 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110140156.AA16179@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Exploring the Telecom Archives The Telecom Archives is a large repository of files relating to telephony. In addition to over ten years of back issues of TELECOM Digest (a/k/a TELECOM Digest), the archives contains numerous files of interest on specific topics relating to telecommunications. The archives can be accessed two ways: 1) Anonymous FTP: ftp lcs.mit.edu login anonymous use your-name@site.domain as password cd telecom-archives Then use regular FTP commands for your session. There are several sub-directories devoted to various topics such as security. 2) Email, using an email/ftp server: A service to obtain archives files via email has been made available specifically for readers of comp.dcom.telecom and TELECOM Digest who do not have ftp access at their site. Caution: Users at UUCP sites should consult the administrator at their site *before* pulling some the *huge* telecom files back to their site. Since UUCP sites cooperate with one another in matters such as the cost of phone lines, transmission times and such, your administator may not want to alienate the neighbors by hauling humongous mail back and forth. Clear it first! Various email/ftp servers will work, but here is a help file for the one I recommend. --------------- This service is intended for NON-INTERNET sites who would otherwise not have access via ftp. If you can use ftp lcs.mit.edu, then you are strongly encouraged to continue doing so. The program described below was written by Doug Davis so that our many readers on the commercial mail services, Fido, and similar sites (Portal and Chinet for example) can also participate. Here is a help file, prepared by Doug Davis: From: "Doug Davis at letni.lonestar.org" Subject: Help File Date: 27-May-91 23:14:40 CST (Mon) This mail server is pretty simple minded, commands are sent as a single line in the body of the message. The ``Subject:'' (if any) will be returned as the subject line from the mail off of this site. This way you can keep track of your own requests. The following commands are available. Pretend the parser is stupid and spell and space them exactly as they are listed here. Anything else in in the body of the message will be quietly ignored. Path:{rfc-976/internet/@) return address for yourself} The parameter of this command should be internet style notation for your username. If your machine is not locateable on the internet via an MX record or gethostbyname() don't bother trying this, since the returning mail will undoubtably be lost. Command:[sub-command]{parameters/filenames} Currently the only supported subcommand right now is "send" with the parameters being the filenames separated via spaces to be sent via return mail to you. For example, to get the index file, send the server a message with the line below in the body of the message. Command: send index This will cause the index of available files to be sent back to you. Also, this is a system V site (hey it was cheap) so you will have to request the file via it's short time. Some later version of the server software will work with the longer names. Oh, yeah, in the above, means the space-bar, i.e. a character with the value of 0x20 hex. Not the word itself. Mailing addresses: telecom-archive-request@letni.lonestar.org: The mail server itself telecom-archive-server@letni.lonestar.org: Returning mail to you will come from this address. Mail sent TO this address will be silently ignored. doug@letni.lonestar.org: My address. Other notes, There is a 500k (per-day) limit on messages leaving the server. If the backlog has exceeded this you will be sent a short note saying your request is acknowledged and how many requests are in the queue before yours. Also presently the back issues of the Digest are being reformatted and are not presently available, my hope is to finish them by the first part of June. doug (Mon May 27 1991) [Moderator's Note: Doug has not mentioned to me if this part of the job is finished yet as of today (10-13-91). PAT] ----------------- Next, I have attached here the current index to the archives, for the benefit of ftp users. *This is not the same index as Doug will give you if you use his new program*. Same articles, but use his index to order via his service. Below is the main directory, and the sub- directory devoted to telecom.security.issues. I have not included here the sub-directories on Minitel, Tymnet or a couple other things. The back issues of the Digest are in sub-directories by year and volume number. Again, I stress this is the ftp version ... Doug does not yet have any back issues of the Digest on line. We are running TWO archives right now in parallel: the one at MIT which has always been there for users with ftp-ability, and the new one at Doug's site which is gradually being constructed, although quite a bit is available now. Bitnet people may continue to use 'bitftp@pucc.bitnet' if they wish, or they may use this new service. Internet people can use it if they want to see how it works, but please don't abuse it: keep the load down for the benefit of the folks who *must* use this system. total 3340 (as of 10-13-91) drwxrwxr-x 12 telecom telecom 5632 Oct 13 21:13 ./ drwxrwxr-x 24 root wheel 1024 Oct 13 01:03 ../ dr-xr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Mar 2 1991 1981-86.volumes.1-5/ dr-xr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Mar 2 1991 1987.volumes.6-7/ dr-xr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Mar 2 1991 1988.volume.8/ dr-xr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Mar 2 1991 1989.volume.9/ dr-xr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Mar 2 1991 1990.volume.10/ drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Oct 8 23:51 1991.volume.11/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 663 Jan 27 1991 READ.ME.FIRST -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 25799 Sep 12 1990 abernathy.internet.story -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 68508 Mar 14 1991 aos-new.fcc.proposals -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 68224 Nov 20 1990 aos-rules.procedures -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 60505 Feb 24 1991 apple.data.pcs.petition -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 18238 Nov 9 1990 area.214-903.split -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 35017 Mar 2 1991 areacode.guide -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9397 Mar 2 1991 areacode.program.in.c -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 20826 Mar 3 1991 areacode.script-c.moore -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21264 Apr 14 1990 areacode.script-dupuy -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9078 Mar 2 1991 areacode.script-revised -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 474 Feb 11 1990 att.service.outage.1-90 -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 18937 Aug 1 1989 auto.coin.collection -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 4788 Jun 10 1990 books.about.phones -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21702 Nov 20 1990 braux.bill.call.blocking -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 61504 Jul 30 1990 caller-id-legal-decision -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 4569 Apr 14 1991 caller-id-specs.bellcore -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 39449 Dec 14 1990 cellular.carrier.codes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16188 Mar 14 1991 cellular.fraud.abernathy -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2755 Mar 14 1991 cellular.fraud.prevention -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 17016 Aug 5 1990 cellular.phones-iridium -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 24455 Feb 6 1991 cellular.program-motorola -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 15141 Aug 1 1989 cellular.sieve -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 298 May 31 1990 cellular.west.germany -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16292 Mar 18 1990 class.ss7.features -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15023 Sep 30 1990 cocot-in-violation-label -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 38981 Oct 12 1990 cocot.complaint.sticker -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 70477 Sep 5 1990 computer.bbs.and.the.law -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 23944 Aug 1 1989 computer.state -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 9150 Jan 31 1990 country.code.list -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11370 Feb 9 1990 country.codes.revised -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11267 Feb 25 1990 cpid-ani.developments -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 436 Mar 16 1991 deaf.communicate.on.tdd -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15877 Sep 1 1990 dial.tone.monopoly -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 28296 Sep 29 1990 dialup.access.in.uk -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 39319 Aug 1 1989 docket.87-215 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13622 Aug 18 21:42 e-mail.system.survey -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16367 Sep 1 1990 e-series.recommendations -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 3422 Jan 20 1990 early.digital.ESS -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 62602 Aug 1 1989 ecpa.1986 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 97987 Aug 4 1990 ecpa.1986.federal.laws -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 39956 Jul 14 1990 elec.frontier.foundation -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 5922 Feb 22 1991 email.middle-east.troops -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 20660 Sep 5 1990 email.privacy -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8504 Jan 27 1990 enterprise-funny-numbers -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8234 Sep 26 16:59 exploring.950-1288 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 19836 Nov 20 1990 fax.products.for.pc -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 33239 Aug 1 1989 fcc.policy -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 19378 Aug 1 1989 fcc.threat -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 484 Jan 14 1990 fcc.vrs.aos-ruling -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 9052 Aug 1 1989 find.pair -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 47203 Aug 1 1989 fire.in.chgo.5-88 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1998 Jan 27 1990 fire.in.st-louis.1-90 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 377 Jan 27 1990 fires.elsewhere.in.past -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1247 Feb 10 1990 first.issue.cover -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 24825 Oct 13 16:39 frequently.asked.question -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14105 Nov 24 1990 genie.star-service -rw-r--r-- 1 map telecom 117277 Sep 21 22:20 glossary.acronyms -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 43101 Jan 27 1991 glossary.isdn.terms-kluge -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 42188 Jan 14 1990 glossary.phrack.acronyms -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 67113 Jan 14 1990 glossary.txt -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 68804 Feb 2 1990 hi.perf.computing.net -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2337 Jan 27 1990 history.of.digest -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 32625 Mar 29 1990 how.numbers.are.assigned -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 31520 Aug 11 01:49 how.phones.work -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15302 Jan 20 1991 how.to.post.msgs.here -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1616 Nov 20 1990 index-canada.npa.files -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 411 Nov 20 1990 index-minitel.files -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 10406 Oct 13 21:13 index-telecom.archives -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1861 Sep 20 23:15 index-telecom.security -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 343 Jan 20 1991 index-tymnet.info -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 936 Mar 3 1991 intro.to.archives -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12896 Nov 20 1990 isdn.pc.adapter-hayes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 10590 Aug 11 01:50 lata.names-numbers.table -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 4816 Aug 1 1989 lauren.song -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 801 Aug 1 1989 ldisc.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 2271 Aug 1 1989 ldnotes.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 13675 Aug 1 1989 ldrates.txt -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12961 Aug 18 21:42 lightning.surge.protect -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12260 Jan 20 1990 london.ac.script -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12069 Mar 5 1990 london.codes.script -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15604 Aug 1 1989 mass.lines -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 463 Aug 1 1989 measured-service drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Nov 20 1990 minitel.info/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 36641 Aug 1 1989 mnp.protocol -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2450 Jan 20 1990 modems.and.call-waiting -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 29973 Aug 11 01:58 monitor.soviet.xmissions -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 7597 Feb 10 1990 named.exchanges -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16590 Oct 21 1990 net.mail.guide -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 3014 Jan 27 1990 newuser.letter -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 32815 Mar 25 1990 nine.hundred.service -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 34805 Jul 30 00:57 npa.301-410.split -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2795 Aug 3 16:09 npa.510.sed.script -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 45105 Mar 2 1991 npa.800-carriers.assigned -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 30091 Jul 23 19:27 npa.800.carrier.list -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13779 Sep 19 1990 npa.800.prefixes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 45109 Mar 2 1991 npa.800.revised -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 33440 May 12 1990 npa.809.prefixes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15488 Nov 20 1990 npa.900-carriers.assigned -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15099 Mar 8 1991 npa.900.how.assigned dr-xr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Feb 2 1991 npa.exchange.list-canada/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16534 Feb 11 1990 nsa.original.charter-1952 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9886 Jan 23 1990 occ.10xxx.access.codes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 6847 Mar 2 1991 occ.10xxx.list.updated -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 7714 Jul 23 19:26 occ.10xxx.new.revision -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8593 May 5 1990 occ.10xxx.notes.updates -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14354 Aug 12 1990 octothorpe.gets.its.name -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8504 Jan 27 1990 old.fashioned.coinphones -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 2756 Jan 27 1990 old.hello.msg -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 60707 Aug 18 21:44 pager.bin.uqx -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13079 Aug 22 01:34 pager.ixo.example -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 70153 Aug 1 1989 pc.pursuit -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 5492 Aug 1 1989 pearl.harbor.phones -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11489 Sep 29 20:07 phone.home-usa -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 28922 Aug 11 01:49 phone.patches -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 38772 Aug 1 1989 pizza.auto.nmbr.id -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14189 May 6 02:39 radio-phone.interfere.1 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11696 May 6 02:40 radio-phone.interfere.2 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8452 May 6 02:40 radio-phone.interfere.3 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 17950 Jan 14 1990 rotenberg.privacy.speech -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 4184 Jul 27 23:58 sprint.long-dist.rates -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 20526 Jun 11 00:32 st.louis.phone.outage -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9764 Jan 20 1990 starline.features -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 46738 Jan 18 1990 starlink.vrs.pcp -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 103069 Apr 26 1990 sysops.libel.liability -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 3857 Aug 1 1989 tat-8.fiber.optic -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 27533 Feb 9 1990 telco.name.list.formatted -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 31487 Jan 28 1990 telco.name.listing -rw-rw-r-- 1 ptownson telecom 320013 Oct 13 19:51 telecom-recent -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 610 Sep 5 01:00 telecom-recent.read.first drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Sep 20 23:17 telecom.security.issues/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21831 Jan 20 1991 telsat-canada-report -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 11752 Aug 1 1989 telstar.txt -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 18138 Sep 29 19:58 toll-free.tolled.list drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Dec 10 1990 tymnet.information/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 26614 May 29 1990 unitel-canada.ld.service -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 427 Sep 20 22:59 usa.direct.service -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 116 Oct 22 1990 white.pages -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 37947 Aug 1 1989 wire-it-yourself -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 4101 Aug 1 1989 wiring.diagram -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 24541 Aug 1 1989 zum.debate Next is the index for the directory of telecom security issues: total 1025 drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Sep 20 23:15 ./ drwxrwxr-x 12 telecom telecom 5632 Sep 20 23:14 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 24515 Sep 3 02:06 atm-bank.fraud -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 6144 Mar 14 1991 cellular.fraud.abernathy -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2755 Mar 14 1991 cellular.fraud.prevention -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13343 Feb 25 1990 computer.fraud.abuse.act -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 27395 Jun 23 1990 craig.neidorf.indictment -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9354 Jul 30 1990 craig.not.guilty -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 67190 Jun 23 1990 crime.and.puzzlement -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 62602 Aug 12 1990 ecpa.1986 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 97987 Aug 12 1990 ecpa.1986.federal.laws -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21918 Dec 2 1990 illinois.computer.laws -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 0 Sep 20 23:15 index-telecom.security -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 28935 May 19 1990 jolnet-2600.magazine.art -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 30751 Mar 7 1990 jolnet-attctc.crackers -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 43365 Jan 28 1990 kevin.polsen -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 35612 Apr 1 1990 legion.of.doom -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 20703 Aug 12 1990 len.rose-legion.of.doom -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2516 Jun 14 01:03 len.rose.in.prison -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 184494 Jun 22 22:04 len.rose.indictment-1 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 192078 Jun 22 22:05 len.rose.indictment-2 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 67099 Nov 4 1990 telecom.usa.call.block-1 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 31995 Nov 20 1990 telecom.usa.call.block-2 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 10833 Nov 20 1990 telecom.usa.call.block-3 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14821 Sep 12 1990 war.on.computer.crime There are several other directories not included in this article, dealing with Minitel, Canadian areacodes/prefixes, and other things. People using Doug's new service will probably find the same file names as above in the index there ... but use his index to check exact spellings and any little differences there may be. Have fun! Do catch up on back issues you have missed as well as any special files you may have not seen before .... and remember to check Doug's index regularly since it will be getting larger as he gets his files completely on line. And why not send a note of thanks to Doug also, for his work over the holiday weekend in getting this up and running for telecom readers. From all of us Doug, thanks! Patrick Townson TELECOM Moderator   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14781; 15 Oct 91 2:29 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09407 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 00:41:55 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18018 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 00:41:46 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 00:41:46 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110150541.AA18018@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #819 TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Oct 91 00:41:35 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 819 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine [Robert L. McMillin] Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine [Nick Reid] Re: Phone Listening Crimes [Mike Morris] Re: Phone Listening Crimes [Jack Winslade] Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [Roy Smith] Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [Mark Fulk] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [S. Spencer Sun] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [Roy Smith] Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries [David Lesher] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 17:13:43 PDT From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine Charlie Rosenberg asks about RFI suppressors: > Recently all the messages left on my answering machine have the same > radio station playing in the background. [additional stuff deleted] > I am more than happy to buy a suppressor, but any suggestions as to > what I should buy? AT&T makes one that works quite well. Ask for their Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) filter at an AT&T Phone Center. It fixed a problem I had with a modem and a clear-channel radio station that was nearly in my back yard. ------------------------------ From: reidn@jacobs.cs.orst.edu (Nick Reid) Subject: Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine Organization: Oregon State University, CS Dept. Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 08:14:59 GMT In article crosenberg@igc.org (Charlie Rosenberg) writes: > Recently all the messages left on my answering machine have the same > radio station playing in the background. Last time I had this > problem, I call repair service and they gave me a new line and the > the store and put a "supressor" on my phone. I said, "what kind of a > suppressor"? They said, "Just go to the store and ask for one, you An RF filter which AT&T call a "Z100A" filter (or equivalent). About $14. ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: Phone Listening Crimes Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 19:33:41 GMT hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > This reminds me of the occasional "party line" that would > occur when I was in high school (years and years ago). One night, I > discovered that I could hear other people on the phone when I dialed a > friend whose line was busy. I could also talk to these people. > Rather than rely on my friend being on the phone, I dialed my own > number, getting a busy. > My guess as to what was happening had to do with the impedance > of the busy tone generator. I guessed that all of us who got a busy > number were physically swithced to the busy tone generator, which > would ideally be a zero ohm voltage source. Any impedance above zero > ohms would allow crosstalk between the callers. I seem to recall us > high school kids also discovering a number that just gave us a quiet > line that we could also all call and talk. This was probably a > crossbar switch (1967 or so, Pac Bell in the SF east bay). I guess > that now busy tone is generated using dsp techniques? Just send a > bunch of numbers to the subscriber D/A converter? This was very popular with the local kids up until they went from step to ESS on the 446 and 447 exchanges. I know this was in the 1975-1985 time frame, perhaps earlier. There would be notes on the bulletin boards all over town telling the kids to call their own numbers at precisely 7pm (doubtless to load the busy generator) for a "party line". Apparently they used the same busy generator for both exchanges. I always thought that if I could turn up a large enough conference bridge surplus I could have some fun. Now the 976 people have done the same thing. Mike Morris WA6ILQ 818-447-7052 evenings PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 13:00:36 cst From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: Re: Phone Listening Crimes Reply-To: jack.winslade@drbbs.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha Related to crosstalk, but definitely a better connection ... ;-) A long time ago in another life in a galaxy far away (ca. 1971 or so) I was served by one of Ma Bell's aging 'panel' switching offices. This system had some amazing quirks, one of which was to dump you right into the middle of an existing conversation. This did not happen often, but occasionally. It seemed to happen in two cases. One was when the receiver was picked up. Instead of dial tone, there was a muted connection to another conversation in progress. I would usually say 'hello' into the transmitter, but could not get a response. Hanging up and going back off hook would clear this. (Although not guaranteeing a quick dial tone next try.) Another case was when a number was dialed on the same switch. After the last number was dialed and the call should have been set up, just before the ringback or busyback should have occurred, there was a loud 'clunk' and a three-way connection was made into an existing conversation, sometimes with a lot of noise as well. ('Hello ??' 'Who the hell is this ??' 'What are you doing on our phone ??' etc.) These were infrequent, but they happened a number of times. Again hanging up and retrying resulted in a successful ring, a busy, or any of several other quirky failed call indications. One particular case I remember quite well. The panel switch had a quirk where on a busy line, it would not return busy tone immediately but would give one or two cycles of ringing tone (sometimes with busy tone in the background) followed by a 'clunk' and a normal busy tone. (A CO tech said this was common and was due to dirty contacts.) I dialed the number of a friend of mine in the same switch (crossing my fingers as usual, hoping the call would go through) and just before the ring/and/or busy should have occurred, I heard maybe three seconds or so of a conversation between two friends of mine quite distinctly. I yelled into the transmitter, but it cut to busy tone in just a few seconds. I mentioned the incident to them, and yes, they were talking at that time, no they did not hear me in there, and maybe they heard some clicks, but those were so common they could not say so for sure. So thus endeth Yet Another Story about an incident that got me interested in this stuff in the first place. ;-) Good Day JSW Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 DRBBS, Keep On WOC'n in the Free World (200:5010/666.0) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 13:24:49 EDT From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York) gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) writes: > show me where a non-telcom-aware user would find out, *in writing*, > that *ALL* 212-540 numbers carry a charge... John Higdon replies: > I don't have any copies of NY telephone directories, so answering that > challenge will have to be deferred. However ... My curiosity (and sense of outrage) piqued, I just grabbed my 1989-1990 Manhattan Area Code 212 NYNEX White Pages (sorry, couldn't find this year's; I can't imagine things have changed much) and perused the 56 pages of fine print before the listings. Didn't find any mention of 540 numbers being anything special. In fact, the only mentions of the 540 exchange I found at all were in the listings of phone numbers to call to speak to your Residence or Business Service Representitive. In both listings, the 540 exchange appears perfectly ordinary. Are there really residential customers in the 212-540 exchange!? I even went one step further, I dialed "0" (from my 718 area code residence phone) and asked the NYTel operator who answered for the place-name (a buzzword I picked up here) for 212-540. I was told that that wasn't a call NYTel handled so she couldn't tell me. Upon enquiring further how I could find out where it was, she suggested I call my business office. I tried again and got a different operator who asked if I got that number from "the paper". I said "yes", and she said it was a "customer dialable number", or something like that. Pressing the issue, I asked her (politely) what that meant, and she said there would be an extra charge. Ah ha! 56 pages of fine print and two determined phone calls later, I finally found out that 212-540 was something special. roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA ------------------------------ From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) Subject: Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 13:53:32 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) writes: >> A challenge to the Moderator and John Higdon: show me where a >> non-telcom-aware user would find out, *in writing*, that *ALL* 212-540 >> numbers carry a charge... > From Pacific Bell White Pages (San Jose-Santa Clara effective through > March 1992), Page A11: Long quote of Pac Bell white pages, explaining 900/976 billing, deleted. >> I think phone companies ought to be required to put this information >> in the phone book if they won't do it voluntarily. > I would have thought they all did. My general operating rule of thumb: > if Pacific Bell does something, all other telcos in the country have > been doing it for at least seven years. I have a counterexample to this claim. I just searched the 40 pages of information in the front of the 1991 Rochester Telephone (NY) white pages, as well as the 24 pages of government and 800 number listings after that, and found no references whatsoever to 900 or 976 numbers. I read all the titles and topic sentences of paragraphs, so if that information is there, it is really buried. This is surprising, since the local news shows have covered 900 number problems a few times already. Fine print really angers me. Anything in the front matter of a phone book, beyond the first page, is fine print as far as I am concerned. If I read every long explanatory pamphlet I received from Sprint, the phone company, my credit card holders, the other utilities, the various taxing agencies, the manufacturers of my cars, my banks, insurance providers, and mail order companies, I wouldn't have much time left for anything else. For telephone information, I would have to memorize a bunch of stuff so as to not run into trouble when I didn't have my phone book handy. If I happened to read that 212-540 numbers were service providers, I would probably forget that information; it wouldn't be worth remembering because I would have no reason ever to call such a number. Fortunately, most of these companies bother to make important information available easily, generally by posting it near the point of use. For example, L.L. Bean's return policy and shipping rates are printed next to the order form in their catalog. Citibank Mastercard puts its current finance charges on every bill. Mark Fulk ------------------------------ From: shihsun@dial.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Date: 14 Oct 91 02:43:07 GMT Organization: Princeton Class of '94 In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Ron Newman , , > trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead), SKASS@DREW.BITNET, > shihsun@lamp.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun), brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan > Brown), Carl Moore , Dave Levenson > [and a host of others take either the Moderator or myself to task > for suggesting that the 900/976/540/10XXX700/whathaveyou business is a > non-problem.] > Now my question to all of you: who has actually HAD TO PAY such a > charge after making a reasonable attempt to get it removed from the > bill? 100% of you? 50% of you? One of you? Anyone you know? Anyone you > have ever heard of? > Come on folks. Is this REALLY a problem? Or is it an exercise in "what > ifs"? So what you're saying is, as long as the victim succeeds in getting the charge removed, nothing should be done to the perpetrator? What an enlightened view. Ever notice what happens with credit card fraud? The specific example I have in mind is when your card gets stolen and the scum that finds it starts using it to buy stuff. I'm sure the companies and the police do not settle for just removing the charge from the victim's bill. Let me add one more thing here ... I had a talk with the friend I mentioned (we usually consult each other about heavy matters ) and the basic point he was making was that it is not the responsibility of the government to protect people from their own stupidity. Maybe so ... I suppose we'll get the "legal" answer when this court case gets settled. I still stick to my point though, that there is a difference between someone not knowing anything through stupidity, and someone not knowing something because it was unreasonable for the person to know it. (Oh, same friend, the one who is legally-connected, mentioned that the NY phone company would pretty much HAVE to include the info that one will be charged for calling 540 numbers, which is what I was saying too...) [S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - shihsun@phoenix.princeton.edu] [WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis,38.4k)] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 10:40:15 EDT From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York) I'm afraid I've lost track of who originally said this: > Hell, I know about '540' and I have not been to NY in over ten years. Is > the contention here that people who live in NY go around with blindfolds > on and cotten stuffed in their ears? That's about the most asinine thing I've read in a long time. I've lived and/or worked in NYC for 14 years and have lived in or near NYC all my life. I'm tuned into this sort of stuff more than most people. I'm not a phone wizard by the standards of the folks that inhabit comp.dcom.telecom but I would guess I know more about telephony than 99 out of 100 random people. I certainly don't go around with blindfolds on and cotton stuffed in my ears. Until this topic came up on this forum, if you showed me a 540 phone number out of context (i.e. on my beeper display, assuming I had a beeper, as opposed to on a sign in the subway advertising aural sex) it would never occur to me it would be anything unusual. roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 20:39:52 EDT Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex J.H said: > This is very confusing. How do you have "Remote Call Forwarding" for > an existing number? RCF is known as "simulated facilities" that allow > a customer to have a number in a given city permanently forwarded to a > number of his choosing. There is no outside plant equipment assigned > to this RCF number. If a number has real facilities (such as an > appearance somewhere) then it cannot have RCF. Alas, John is again suffering from Pac*Bell disease. Several other regionals, including BS in FL. are now offering RCF that consists of Remote-Controlled Call Forwarding on a real assignment. I thinks it's about 1.5* the cost of old CF. In recent weeks BS changed the name in their ads, likely to reduce customer confusion. After all, if CDT is confused, think of the public;-} wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #819 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17782; 15 Oct 91 3:21 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23689 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 01:34:37 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29333 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 01:34:25 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 01:34:25 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110150634.AA29333@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #820 TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Oct 91 01:34:17 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 820 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Caller ID Availability [Scott Hinckley] Re: CNID Availability Newsletter [Bill Berbenich] Re: Caller-ID Approved in MA [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Terry Kennedy] Re: 5ESS Audio Quality [Jack Winslade] Re: Even More 5ESS Woes [Tad Cook] Re: Telephone Wire Staples [Jim Redelfs] Re: Telephone Wire Staples [Barton F. Bruce] Re: What's the Caller ID Spec? [S. Spencer Sun] Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) [David G. Lewis] Re: Charge on 800 Calls [Edwin D. Windes] Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555 [Mike Morris] Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking [S. Spencer Sun] Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs? [Mike Berger] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com (Scott Hinckley) Subject: Re: Caller ID Availability Date: 14 Oct 91 12:52:25 GMT Reply-To: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com In nyte@milton.u.washington.edu (nyte) writes: > I recently saw in the September issue of Radio Electronic on page 67 > that CLID was available in the following states; AL, CA, FL, GA, IL, > IN, MD, ME, MI, NC, NE, NJ, NV, OH, OK, SC, TN, VA, VT, WV. It is not available in AL yet either. (The PSC OK'd it, but with the per-line/call block required as an option. SCB then decided it wasn't worth doing.) VoiceNet:Scott Hinckley | ATTnet:+1 205 461 2073 | VW & Apple Forever! Internet:scott@hsvaic.boeing.com | UUCP:...!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott US snail:110 Pine Ridge Rd / Apt# 608/ Huntsville / AL / 35801 DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions ------------------------------ Subject: Re: CNID Availability Newsletter Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 14:46:33 EDT From: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu In article csense!bote@uunet.UU.NET (John Boteler) writes: > Although there ain't no free lunch, those who wish to keep abreast of > the progress of Calling Number ID around the nation (better than Radio > Electronics:) might wish to try out a newsletter advertised in the > back of "Voice Processing" magazine -- for free. I just called about this newsletter. Only the first issue is free, then they want you to pay for a subscription. Future callers may want to bear that in mind if they are expecting more than one free issue. ------------------------------ From: goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Caller-ID Approved in MA Date: 14 Oct 91 18:22:00 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , frankston!Bob_Frankston@ world.std.com writes... > I'm puzzled about why it takes so long to implement Caller-ID. I > realize that there might need to be some tweaking to adjust blocking, > but two years seems to be a long time for this adjustment. Is it that > the software just doesn't work on a DMS-100? Simpler than that. CallerID requires Signaling System 7 to deliver the caller's number, and the "presentation restricted" indication, to the destination office. New England Telephone is just getting around to beginning to install SS7 in Massachusetts, starting at the North Shore and not hitting Boston for a while. 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: terry@spcvxb.spc.edu (Terry Kennedy) Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Date: 14 Oct 91 21:16:03 GMT Organization: St. Peter's College, US Due to my posting here about 201-200, I received a message from someone at AT&T who offered to help in any way he could with the problem. As my co-worker only has a single residence line, I instead forwarded the message to the telecommunications manager for the other college (the one with many thousands of Centrex lines on the noisy switch). I'll keep the group informed -- the AT&T supervisor seemed quite eager to assist. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, US terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Oct 91 16:37:04 cst From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Reply-To: jack.winslade@drbbs.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha In two cases here in the Omaha area, systems have converted to the 5ESS with corresponding modem problems. Fortunately over time, all problems were resolved. In 1985 or so, the West Center office converted from a 5 crossbar to a 5ESS. Following this, I received a deluge of complaints from users in that office of line noise on the BBS line. Similarly, calls to that office from all over the area would frequently result in noisy connections. For over a year, the Omaha prefixes of 333, 334, and 330 had the reputation of being 'BAD' BBS prefixes. Just over a year ago, the 156th. St. office (the one that serves our area) cut from a very clean 1AESS to a 5ESS. Almost immediately this was accompanied with a flood of 'noisy line' complaints from BBS users. What was funny was that many local calls were dirty, even at lower speeds, but LD calls on both AT&T and Sprint were quite clean. Several of the users phoned in repeated 'line noise' complaints to Ma Bell and feedback from some Ma Bell employees confirmed such things as trunk interface units connected improperly. Eventually the new office became as clean as, if not cleaner than the old one. As of now, all lines that I know of from both of these 5ESS systems are clean. Personally, I think there is less background hiss/loss/distortion on the 5ESS than there was on the 1AESS. When the cut was made, I did several test calls, and in many cases I could hear noise and distortion. The one thing I have noticed is that the dial tone on both the 1AESS and the 5ESS out here in the west part of the city sounds 'dirtier' than it did when I lived closer in and had service on a 1ESS and a 1 crossbar. Holding the receiver just slightly away from the ear reveals a definite raspy quality (possibly harmonics or just plain noise) which was not there on the older switches. Good Day JSW Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 DRBBS, Keep On WOC'n in the Free World (200:5010/666.0) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Even More 5ESS Woes From: hpubvwa!tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) Date: 14 Oct 91 07:19:49 GMT John Higdon sez: > My direct experience with digital CO switches is limited (for obvious > reasons, living in Pac*Bell Land), but I am advised by those in the > know that there is no known generic available for the 5ESS that > allows reception of Call Waiting during a Three Way call. Since I do > not doubt your powers of observation, there can only be one > explanation: you, Pat, are not served by a 5ESS. Wrong! I am served at home by a #5ESS by US West. Take my word for it. It IS a #5ESS! I just did a test. I called up our now famous 800-555-5555 and then hookflashed, called a local weather number from KOMO TV/Radio, then hookflashed again to conference. I listened to both recordings babbling away on my speaker phone, then picked up another phone on my other line and dialed the line I was conferenced on. I heard a call waiting tone. I also do not experience the problems that John Higdon does with his #5ESS. The audio is great, the switching is fast, and they just hooked up some kind of backbone between the switches in town (SS7?) and the ringback tone starts the instant I go buttons-up on the last digit ... even in other exchanges. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 18:09:42 cst From: Jim.Redelfs@ivgate.omahug.org (Jim Redelfs) Subject: Re: Telephone Wire Staples Reply-To: jim.redelfs@macnet.omahug.org Organization: Macnet Omaha Paul Selig wrote: > can anyone name a source for the cable staplers (and staples) that > telephone installers use? We use staple guns manufactured by Arrow. The T18 model using T18 staples (rounded for quad wire, also marked "Monel") is what I use most often. The T25 model uses a larger, rounded staple. Those staples come in either 7/16 or 9/16-inch lengths -- suitable for fastening three to six pair station wire. JR Tabby 2.2 MacNet Omaha (402) 289-2899 - O.M.U.G. On-Line (1:285/14) ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Telephone Wire Staples Date: 15 Oct 91 01:32:32 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. > The T-25 size is good for 4 and 6 pair and RG-59 Coax > The T-75 size is used for 25 pair cable and RG-8 Coax > Ethernet Coax cable, speaker wires and even RS-232 cables. Some folks NEVER staple COAX. Some folks are less particular ... > The staples are available as shiny plated metal or painted "beige" Some sizes are also available in MONEL for a LOT more money. They will NOT rust and are popular for outdoor use near salt water. If you only have a small amount of work to do once, try a tool rental yard. ------------------------------ From: shihsun@dial.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: What's the Caller ID Spec? Date: 14 Oct 91 02:45:25 GMT Organization: Princeton Class of '94 Incidentally, another friend of mine mentioned that a friend of HIS built a kludge caller-ID to computer interface ... he hooked wires up to the LED's or whatever in the display, then sent these signals to the computer. The computer then determined the actual digits by checking to see which segments of the display digit were lit up. (Not a very useful post but perhaps interesting ... I found it kinda neat.) [S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - shihsun@phoenix.princeton.edu ] [WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)] ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Friends and Family (was LD Savings Plans) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 13:45:19 GMT In article ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) writes: > AT&T people: From your perspective, how difficult would it really be > to implement the billing for something like that? How much harder > would it be than standard billing or Reach Out billing? Well ain't that just typical. Let's ask the AT&T folks to answer the tough technical questions, then use their answers to grab market share ... (That was a joke, by the way. Don't get mad, Bob.) Gosh, it's great to be part of a Critical National Resource. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 10:26:05 EDT From: edw@ihlpf.att.com (Edwin D Windes) Subject: Re: Charge on 800 Calls Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL In article heller@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu writes: > I just talked to Illinois Bell and found out that they charge me five > cents not only for every local call, but also for each call to an 800 > number and also for each call that is handled by my long distance > company (MCI)... And our Moderator squeeks: > [Moderator's Note: This is absolutely false! Its too bad you did not > get the name of the employee who told you those things; I'd like to > see them get into a training class and get help as soon as possible. > The monthly 'network access' fee you pay as part of your basic monthly > service takes care of telco's expenses in extending you to your LD > carrier or the LD carrier of the 800 number you are calling. You pay > *nothing* above that monthly fee to the local telco. The reason such > calls are 'free from payphones' is because they are 'free', period. PAT] The asterisks around "nothing" don't prove your assertion PAT. If you do a little investigation on this subject, you may be surprised. Could you please provide references for your notes? They are tolerable when you are correct, but really irritating when you are way off. [Moderator's Squeek: My references are these: (1) Lauren W. submitted a message a couple days ago in agreement. He is rather knowledgeable. (2) my telephone book says the monthly access fee is intended to pay the telco for their expenses in connecting the caller to the long distance gateway of choice, by 1+ default or 10xxx dialing. (3) I make lots of long distance and 800-number calls monthly. I examine my phone bill closely. I have yet to see a five cent charge for these calls, either listed separatly or imbedded in the rate charged by the long distance carrier or buried in the 'monthly service' charge from IBT. And what has your investigation revealed which might surprise me? PAT] ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555 Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 19:39:14 GMT hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > VERY INTERESTING! I've heard all about various proposals to > allow blocking of caller ID in general (whether on a per line or per > call basis) as part of the proposals for caller ID here in California. > Am I to guess that we already have caller ID on calls we place to 800 > numbers? Does the general public know this? (I didn't) This must get > kinda complicated when we go thru an alternate long distance carrier > (using 950 or 800 access). I've also seen ads for equipment/software > that ties caller ID in with your customer database so you know all > about the customer when you answer the phone. Are "mail order" > companies currently doing this with 800 numbers? Yes. I have had a couple customer disservice persons ask me "Have you moved recently?" when I've called them from work. All my credit cards, including American Express fall into this category. It's obvious that they have my account up on the screen before they answer the call. Mike Morris WA6ILQ 818-447-7052 evenings PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077 All opinions must be my own since nobody pays me enough to be their mouthpiece ... ------------------------------ From: shihsun@dial.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Me Caller-ID Blocking Date: 14 Oct 91 02:18:35 GMT Organization: Princeton Class of '94 In article , glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) writes: > I just spoke with Southern Bell, and I was told that there is no way > for me to block the calls from my Athens, Georgia phone from going > into the Caller-ID system. Are there any other states in which > Caller-ID is offered without ANY option of blocking, free or for a > fee? If you find a state that does, are you going to move there? [S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - shihsun@phoenix.princeton.edu ] [WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)] ------------------------------ From: berger@clio.sts.uiuc.edu (Mike Berger) Subject: Re: Free Market Fax Machine Costs? Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 18:56:11 GMT bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) writes: > I was in a privately-owned mailing service office the other day and > saw their sign announcing their new fax machine. Their cost for fax > transmissions was four dollars (US) per page, plus the cost of any > non-local call. This seems a high price for sending a fax, but maybe > I'm taking too much for granted. I'm sure that Digest readers can > give me the economics of operating a public fax machine. What's the Here in Champaign, IL. the public library will send a fax anywhere in the country for 75 cents/page flat rate (including phone call). The local copy shops charge around $ 1.50 per page. Cheap FAX machines are available for $400 and up -- you can get a pretty good one for $700. Mike Berger Department of Statistics, University of Illinois AT&TNET 217-244-6067 Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #820 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21128; 15 Oct 91 4:16 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24909 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 02:19:57 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03463 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 02:19:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 02:19:45 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110150719.AA03463@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #821 TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Oct 91 02:19:32 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 821 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Problems Conferencing on Panasonic KX-T123210? [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Hayes Compatible ISDN or Switched 56 Card For PC? [Toby Nixon] Re: Area Code 410 Already Works [S. Spencer Sun] Re: AT&T Advertising [S. Spencer Sun] Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries [Ken Abrams] Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone? [Vance Shipley] Re: Information Wanted For Purchase of Cellular Phone [Bob Yazz] Re: ZZZZZZ Saga to Come [James Parkyn] Re: Calling Number ID in California (No Decision Yet) [John Gilbert] Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine [Barton F. Bruce] Re: ISDN on BBC [Alan Boritz] Re: Telecom FAQ List [Joshua E. Muskovitz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Problems Conferencing on Panasonic KX-T123210? Date: 15 Oct 91 02:26:45 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. >>>REAL<< conference bridges are amplified and equalized and deliver > equal volume to all connections off of the bridge. Doing this type of > amplification and equalization on the subscriber end of the loop is If one has a digital switch, there is what is known as "the instant speaker" algorithm. One simply feeds everyone whichever digitised voice byte that for that 1/8000 sec has the largest absolute value. Who ever is speaking will obviously be heard. If several are all speaking, you get remarkably much like what you would hear from an analog bridge. Your ears/head can do an amazing amount of filtering. ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Hayes Compatible ISDN or Switched 56 Card For PC? Date: 14 Oct 91 17:24:13 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > I wonder about the availability of a card I could plug into a > PC that would look to the PC like a real fast (64 Kbps or 56 Kbps) > Hayes compatible modem. Anything like this available? Sure. From Hayes! Hayes has both internal (PC/XT/AT and compatibles) and external ISDN adapters. They both use the Hayes AT command set with ISDN extensions. The internal card also has available the Hayes ISDNBIOS, for very high-speed data transfer. If you'd like more information, contact Hayes ISDN Technologies in San Francisco at 415-974-5544. > Are telcos allowing a two second call (and billing for two seconds). > Does the old two second "billing delay" apply to ISDN or switched > 56 calls? No, the two-second delay doesn't apply. But the shortest billing I'm aware of is six seconds (tenths of minutes). 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 | BBS +1-404-446-6336 AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15 USA | Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: shihsun@dial.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: Area Code 410 Already Works Date: 14 Oct 91 02:20:48 GMT Organization: Princeton Class of '94 In article , martin@cod.nosc.mil (Douglas W. Martin) writes: [found out, semi-accidentally, that 410 already works for 301 split] My understanding was that the 410 area code was supposed to be active, in effect, on top of the 301 area code, beginning this November. Shortly before I left for college here in NJ, the 301 sysops in WWIVnet had a get-together in which someone mentioned that 410 was already working then (this was in August I think, might have been late July). However at this time it did not work reliably or from anywhere in Maryland because other sysops reported trying it and not meeting with success. I think I'll try it when I call home next time. [S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - shihsun@phoenix.princeton.edu ] [WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)] ------------------------------ From: shihsun@dial.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: AT&T Advertising Date: 14 Oct 91 02:30:07 GMT Organization: Princeton Class of '94 In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > S. Spencer Sun writes: >> I've been greatly amused by the AT&T ads since the accident or >> whatever recently ... but this one takes the cake (maybe belongs in >> rec.humor) >> From this week's {Newsweek}, picture of a guy talking, "I have >> confidence in [AT&T] -- I've never had a problem. I mean, why fix >> something that's not broken?" >> > Hee hee, yourself. What amuses ME is the hay that the OCCs try to make > on AT&T's liberally publicized failures. Over the past decade, there > has been exactly one total system outage and one or two regional AT&T > outages that have received press attention. MCI and Sprint have been > very quick to crow and gloat over this, but conveniently leave out the > fact that their systems suffer almost constant minor outages of their > own. Yes, but while Sprint and MCI may capitalize on AT&T's failures when in fact they have more or less the same reliability, Sprint and MCI don't make reliability the main selling point of their ads and they haven't eternally published ads that try to drive it into the heads of American consumers that their company is synonymous with reliability. AT&T is always pushing how error-free it is. AT&T also finds it necessary to have people in its TV ads say things like "I tried the others but they just couldn't measure up" (when in fact I have yet to notice major differences between the major LD carriers). Then I'm reminded of the story I heard (I forget if it was on this group or rec.humor.funny but it was several years ago) about someone who was talking to an AT&T Rep about establishing some sort of individualized service for his business and he asked the rep (They were talking on the phone) to mail him some info. The rep replied that they didn't have any, and he said "You mean you CAN'T put it in writing?" Dead silence on the other end for several seconds. Then promised to put something in the mail right away. (OK, don't get me wrong, MCI and Sprint aren't exactly angels when it comes to advertising, but for some reason I have an ingrained bias against AT&T. So I'm imperfect, sue me ) [S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - shihsun@phoenix.princeton.edu ] [WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)] ------------------------------ From: kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 15:30:27 GMT In article sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > Can a Remote Call Forward for an existing number assigned to a > rotary forward multiple calls to the new site/number itself with Yes. You need only convert the old "listed" number to RCF and specify the number of simultaneous calls you want it to be able handle when placing your order. There is, of course, a slight additional charge for the capability to forward more than one at a time. Rates vary by telco; check with your local company. The rest of the numbers in the "old" rotary (hunt group is really a better term since "rotary" has several different uses) can simply be disconnected, assuming that people only dialed the main number. Ken Abrams nstar!pallas!kabra437 Springfield, IL kabra437@athenanet.com (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone? Organization: SwitchView Inc. Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 16:26:59 GMT In article djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: > Current plans are for RBOCS and other local companies to roll-out SMDS > in the first half of 1992. Interexchange SMDS should follow within a > year. I believe MFS (Metropolitan Fiber Systems) is offering SMDS now. I saw them at the TCA show in San Diego a few weeks ago. Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ From: Bob Yazz Subject: Re: Information Wanted For Purchase of Cellular Phone Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 02:28:59 GMT I'd like to see a thread on specific cellular recommendations. My use of cellular would be occasional (and personal), rather than frequent (and business-oriented). When I found out how cheap it really is to have an 800 number I was amazed, and got one forthwith. It would be nice to learn that the costs I imagine for cellular were inaccurate as well. ------------------------------ From: jparkyn@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (James Parkyn) Subject: Re: ZZZZZZ Saga to Come Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 23:59:35 GMT In addition to hearing about Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z, I would like to know how many folks heard of the "Wrong Number" (714/535-3635) back in the 70's and it's friendly competitors called Zzygot and Aardvark, both in SoCal. The "Z" number was incredibly inspirational and led to the Wrong Number being created. The "W-N" required building long-life answering machines with high audio almost completely from scratch as nothing was really available. The name was deliberately chosen for it's consequences on the 411 operators! By 1978 there were five lines operating and the total call count for the year was in the high 900,000's. Too bad 976 didn't exist then. ------------------------------ From: gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) Subject: Re: Calling Number ID in California (No Decision Yet) Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1991 21:09:40 GMT In article motcid!ellisond@uunet.uu.net (Dell H. Ellison) writes: > In article , lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren > Weinstein) writes: >> this as an empty threat. The telcos worst fear for their marketing >> of CNID is the availability of per-line blocking, since surveys >> have shown that in California, where the majority of people have >> unlisted phone numbers, a very large percentage would choose per-line >> blocking. This would detract from the core goal of CNID -- to > Is that really true? The MAJORITY of people have unlisted numbers? > Over 50 percent?? That's a lot. (If it's true.) I don't think it is all of California, just areas. A recent article in the Seattle times about privacy reported that areas of significant population studied show a trend towards unlisted numbers, with many areas averaging over 30%. It cited that some areas in the Los Angeles region are over 50%. John Gilbert gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com ...!uunet!mdisea!gilbert ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: RF Interference on Answering Machine Date: 15 Oct 91 02:36:53 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: > Try a 0.001-uF, 200-volt capacitor across the line. This should be > very cheap. If you only use a 200 volt unit, put it on the phone side of the hook-switch (i.e. NOT on the line at all times). A 600 volt one would be much safer if you want to have a common cap at some block where phone/ans-machine/modem all meet. Normal CO voltage is 48, but might be boosted to 72 or 96. Ringing is biased by that, so peaks can get near 200v. For that reason, even the best protectors telco might put on your line are rated no lower that 230 volts and often are a LOT higher. If you live in a lightning prone area, the 600 volt cap should last longer. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 91 17:23:37 EDT From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: ISDN on BBC In an article Harold Hallikainen writes: > In article bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob > Izenberg) writes: >> Speaking of heavy signal processing, I remember going to a New York >> SBE meeting and getting a tour of Andy Alford's multiplexor antenna. >> station's segments of the multiplexor had common household fans aimed >> at their exposed innards. Each of the stations with a fan punched up >> the bass and used companding. It was amusing to watch a VU meter >> measure their audio level: Never more than a 4db change in amplitude. >> (PPM metering told a much different story, however.) > I don't think "punched up bass and companding" would make the use of > a fan necessary on the multiplexor. The fans were made necessary because of seasonally high ambient temperatures within the mooring mast, since there is no ventilation system installed in that area of the building. The apparent sloppiness is a testimonial to something other than "ingenuity," since a few clever station "engineers" rigged more asthetically pleasing muffin fans under the reject loads. When I last inspected them in August, the "household fans" were gone and most of the muffin fans were seized or burned out. The extra fans were merely a precautionary measure, since the reject loads should be well within manufacturer's tolerance during normal operation. The system was designed with thermostatic switches and optional fans for the diplexor cavities, but it appears that after the power increase project in the 70's all thermostatic switches were gone in favor of everyone running their cavity cooling fans continuously. Unfortunately, that also means that the interlock has no temperature sense, but at least 10 of the 11 stations on the system have a VSWR alarm that will shut down all the stations in the event of a VSWR fault. However, none of the stations use "companding," just a garden variety of contemporary broadcast audio processors. I would hope the original writer wasn't referring to the uncalibrated reject load reflectometers as "VU" meters, since they look similar and are mounted on the diplexor supports. > The power on an FM should be independent of the modulation, unless > real high frequencies modulate real heavily, going outside the > bandbass of the multiplexor, which I don't think was the case. Well, the last AEL transmitter in the US is still there, though not in daily use. Just fire up one of Arno Meyer's old half-finished AEL exciters into that thing and you'll see LOT'S of heat! ;-) Incidently, speaking of FM's and high temperatures, the system failure earlier this year wasn't caused by air temperature at all. The neoprene sleeve inside one of the diplexors (through which a tuning bullet slides) shrunk, allowing dust and dirt to enter the inside of one of the diplexor cavities and deposit itself within one of the rf hybrids. An arc across the contamination started it burning, and the rest is history. Funny thing was that Alford identified precisely that problem about 20 years earlier (even the section that recently burned), and presented a method of preventing it from happening. Needless to say, it was never followed, even though all of the stations received a copy of the inspection report. Sure gives you a warm fuzzy feeling to know that radio stations in the nation's largest radio market know their business so well, eh? ;-) alan.boritz@hourglas.fidonet.org former Telecom Manager, Empire State Building ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 13:48:41 EDT From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" Subject: Re: Telecom FAQ List I'm sure I'm just one of many who will point out the last few errors in the list, and I still applaud the effort, but here goes: With regard to the default long distance carrier at coin phones, I have encountered a number of RBOC coin phones (in MA and NY) that do not use AT&T as their default carrier. Specifically, I encountered one in the lobby of the Marriot in Saratoga Springs, NY (a NYTel phone) which had MCI listed as the default carrier. And yes, I did use it and confirm that. josh ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #821 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14857; 15 Oct 91 23:32 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14043 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 21:41:02 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24993 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 21:40:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 21:40:51 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110160240.AA24993@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #822 TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Oct 91 21:40:39 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 822 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hayes Compatible ISDN or Switched 56 Card For PC? [Robert L. McMillin] MCI's F&F (Since I Started This Thread) [S. Spencer Sun] Call Parking (Was: Why Can't I Pickup This Call?) [Richard H. Miller] Re: Laser Pointer Information Wanted [Robert L. McMillin] Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions [Steve Gaarder] AT&T 0+ For Local Calls in NY [Douglas Scott Reuben] CO Line Conditioning [Bruce J. Miller] Latest AT&T Announcement: ROA/Calling Card Changes [Ed Greenberg] Very Nice Motel Telecom Policy [Ed Greenberg] Long Distance Horoscope in Israel [Warren Burstein] Pal Charged For Five-Hour LD Call [Michael Ho] BT Sleaze [Charles Hoequist] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 19:14:20 PDT From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Hayes Compatible ISDN or Switched 56 Card For PC? > So, any card like this available? Are telcos allowing a two > second call (and billing for two seconds). Does the old two second > "billing delay" apply to ISDN or switched 56 calls? Two years ago, when I got my last Hughes Aircraft phone bill (they actually sent us a monthly summary of the phone charges made against our access codes back then), the smallest 'quanta' of time charged was a tenth of a minute, or six seconds. I rather doubt that you would be able to get your bill charged by the second, and in any event, even six second billing wouldn't be available to you unless you were on some kind of bulk calling program with the telco. (Sprint says they don't charge in less than six-second intervals, anyway.) Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (213) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (213) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com ------------------------------ From: shihsun@dial.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: MCI's F&F (Since I Started This Thread) Date: 14 Oct 91 02:14:54 GMT Organization: Princeton Class of '94 Ok, in fact, you can get F&F on MCI calling card calls ... the reason I thought you couldn't is beacuse I strongly remembered calling someone using my calling card while I was on vacation who is on my F&F list. Then I remembered that while his BBS and the phone number for his net server (he runs a server for WWIVnet) were on my F&F list, I never put his voice number on my F&F list, thus misleading me into thinking that you couldn't get F&F discounts on your calling card. Apologies for being confused :-) [S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. '94 - shihsun@phoenix.princeton.edu ] [WWIVnet #1 @6913: The Corner Pocket 609/258-8647 (HST/v.32bis, 38.4k)] ------------------------------ From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) Subject: Call Parking (Was: Why Can't I Pickup This Call?) Date: 14 Oct 1991 02:15:22 GMT Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx In article Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1. fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes: > I suspect that almost nobody but a switchboard operator would > routinely use this feature, which may explain why Boeing either hasn't > implemented it on its 5ESS, or hasn't bothered to tell all its > employees about it. I find this not to be the case. We have call parking on our SL-1[00?] PBX. Our department uses it very heavily since we operate two machine rooms and have console positions at any number of telephone locations. It is much easier to park a call and move to the correct location and retrieve it. This is true since most of the instruments only have one real number [or in some ases a pseudo-number since they are not direct-dialable] so we can't place the call on hold. Richard H. Miller Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu Asst. Dir. for Technical Support Voice: (713)798-3532 Baylor College of Medicine US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H Houston, Texas 77030 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 18:33:39 PDT From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Laser Pointer Information Wanted In a messaged dated Thu, 10 Oct 91 7:57:59 CDT, Will Martin wrote about laser pointers, getting one small detail wrong: > MWK Industries > 1269 Pomona Road > Cornona, CA 91720 ^^^^^^^ That's Corona, CA, 91720. On the same subject, I spotted a company selling laser pointers at the North Orange County Computer Club's monthly swap meet for the meager sum of $100 each. They worked just fine, although the housing was a little plain-Jane black box. If I had known then ... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 02:18:47 EDT From: gaarder@anarres.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions Where I work, we have a Pnansonic KXT-123211 mini-PBX. The manual, sadly, in not very well written, and leaves me with some questions. Aparrently, either standard telephones or special Panasonic ones can be used (so far, all we have hooked up are the latter). Does the system automatically detect which type of phone is hooked up, or do you need to program it? Can two of the special sets be connected in parallel to one port (clearly, two regular ones could be)? Also, we are about to outgrow the beast's 32-extension limit. Since we have all these Panasonic phones, I presume that the most economical upgrade is to another Panasonic. Any suggestions for suppliers? Thanks, Steve Gaarder gaarder@anarres.ithaca.ny.us gaarder@tc.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 14-OCT-1991 02:33:47.80 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: AT&T 0+ For Local Calls in NY I just noticed today after using a payphone (a COCOT no less!) from Roslyn, Long Island, NY (516-621) that AT&T is now allowed to offer 0+ for LOCAL calls in NY. I tried this about two months ago, and it didn't work back then, so this seems to be something new. (Note that this wasn't unique to to COCOT -- I also tried it from a NYTel payphone immediately afterwards, so this wasn't a case of "splashing" via the COCOT's AOS -- the COCOT simply prefixed 10288 to call Intra-LATA calls with an area code. Thus, a call to Little Neck, in area code 718 is really a local (toll?) call from Roslyn, and thus NYTel would get any 0+718 calls, but the COCOT seems to have thought that 718 was an "AT&T" Long Distance call, and prefixed it with 10288. Local 0+621-9970 from the COCOT got NYTel just fine, though.) AT&T recently made a big deal about providing 10288 access even for local calls, one of the reasons being that customers "know" to dial 10288 for AT&T, and thus they are frustrated at payphones (or whatever) in areas which don't allow 10288 dialing for Intra-LATA calls. I'm not sure how this reasoning applies to areas where the LATA is the same as the area code, Connecticut or Rhode Island for example. In Connecticut, you dial 0 + seven digits to anywhere in the state, while AT&T tells its customers to dial 0 + area code + seven digits. Same goes for Rhode Island. Even if CT or RI were to allow 10288 + 0 + seven digits, AT&T customers could STILL not follow "standard" AT&T 10288 dialing procedures, as dialing 0 + 203 + seven digits is not allowed in CT or RI. Note that this is NOT the same thing as allowing "Sequence Calls" after getting on the AT&T Calling Card System, (which Sprint, MCI, et. al. customers can do already, and thus AT&T should do this as well for competitive reasons.) Thus, in single LATA areas where 0 + area code + seven digits is not a valid dialing string, why is AT&T pushing for this? It will only confuse their customers even more (ie, blocked calls). The only thing I can come up with is that AT&T knows that after the present "Area Code" system is exhausted, 0 + Area Code + seven digits will eventually be required, and thus see an opporunity to have a "standardized" system once again (not that it ever really was), or they see 10288 + 0 + dialing as a small way to start providing Intra-LATA service. Thus, after they are allowed to provide this service, they will start asking for 10288 + 1 + access as well, and penetrate Intra-LATA markets which at the present deny any Intra-LATA competition. One interesting note -- although AT&T (and any other IXC) can not provide 10288 service in MOST of Connecticut, if you dial into or out of the Greenwich area served by NYTel as a sequence call on an AT&T Calling Card Call, the call is allowed. These are two separate LATAs, and this is presumably why such calls are allowed. Note that you can also use SNET (CT) or NYTel (NY) to provide Calling Card Service, thus one can call from Greenwich to Hartford, and hear "Thank you for using New York Telephone", even though the call terminates in SNET territory (Hartford) and is only carried by NYTel for a short distance in CT. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: miller@gvlv1.gvl.unisys.com (Bruce J. Miller) Subject: CO Line Conditioning Reply-To: miller@gvlv1.gvl.unisys.com (Bruce J. Miller) Organization: Unisys Defense Systems, Great Valley Labs, Paoli, Pa Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 12:57:40 GMT We have a requirement to provide data communications for a customer who is providing the transmission media, which is specified to be a "four wire leased line with CO conditioning". We had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that "CO conditioning" was the same as "unconditioned". Our customer maintains that there is a specification for "CO conditioning", but has yet to provide us with a copy. The customer is providing the modems, which range from single channel 2400 baud sync through multiplexing 6 x 2400 baud units. Can a helpful reader provide me with a definition for "CO conditioning", or point me to an easily obtainable source (anonymous FTP would be nice) for such a definition? Email me directly, or post a followup is you think this of general interest. Thanks in advance to all respondees. miller@gvlv1.gvl.unisys.com (Bruce J. Miller) (or 72247.202@compuserve.com) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 17:16 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Latest AT&T Announcement: ROA/Calling Card Changes According to an outbound telemarketer working for AT&T, who disturbed the peace on my closely held unlisted phone number, the Reach-Out America discount applied to calling cards will no longer be offered on AT&T handled calls billed to your LEC calling card number. As of December, you must use your AT&T calling card, with the unconnected 14 digit number, to get the ROA discount. I tried the telemarketer out on some follow-on questions, and she could respond with nothing but "I don't know." I asked her if my AT&T card would work for intra-lata calls in my home LATA? "I don't know." I asked if my AT&T card would work for intra-lata calls in a foreign lata, like out of state. "I don't know." I asked a few more similar questions. "She didn't know." She was eminently capable of reading her script, but that was all. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 17:19 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Very Nice Motel Telecom Policy I stayed at the Harris Ranch Inn, an chomp-and-snooze on Interstate 5, midway between LA and SF this weekend. The telecom policy was as refreshing as a dip in their lovely pool: Free access to AT&T Long Distance by dialing 9 + 0 + number. Free local calling in the 209-935 (Coalinga) local exchange. 15% over AT&T rates (plus tax) for calls billed to the room. No telecom deposit for a customer paying cash on check-in. I was impressed. Only downside was no modem port. ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.com (Warren Burstein) Subject: Long-Distance Horoscope in Israel Date: 13 Oct 91 19:38:13 GMT Organization: WorldWide Software An ad appears from time to time in various Israeli papers advertising dial-a-horoscope numbers. The strange thing is, they're in Australia. This is made clear in the ad, it even tells you that you will pay between 4.24 and 6.06 shekels a minute ($1.78 to $2.55) which is probably the regular rate to Australia. The service, it would appear, is delivered in Hebrew. The numbers are all 611 41 17 XX. 61 is the country code for Australia, perhaps the rest of the number will mean something to someone who knows about Australian tariffs. warren@worlds.COM Jerusalem ------------------------------ From: ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) Subject: Pal Charged For Five-Hour LD Call Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 04:42:09 GMT Okay, gurus, this question is a natural extension of a couple of threads floating around in here. A friend of mine who lives on my same prefix (and thus is on my same digital, possibly 5ESS, switch) just got roached by his LD carrier. Seems he changed extensions while on a phone call to California and forgot to hang up the extension. He discovered his faux pas over five hours later. I told him, "No problem, after 30 seconds or so that line disconnected and your phone just went off hook." No such luck. The IXC -- Lincoln Telephone Long Distance, an offshoot of the local telco -- said they had records of a 5 hour 23 minute call, and if he didn't want to pay it, he didn't really need to have long distance service. I told him he didn't need LTLD and advised him to go back to AT&T. Aggravating factors: * He has auto-debit from his checking account (I advised him to tell the bank that charges are in dispute and should not be paid as requested, but the contract you sign with the telco appears to waive that right and give the telco unconditional control over its auto-debits... I told him to try anyway and start screaming to regulators). * LTLD is a subsidiary of the local telco and can, theoretically, shut down his local service if it feels like it. * The Nebraska PSC has become trained to become industry lapdogs ever since the Nebraska Legislature stripped them of their rate- setting authority. They've already told him they're unwilling to do anything. Does anyone have any useful information that could be used in his defense? Is the disconnect time controlled by a tariff of any kind? Is the disconnect time controlled by the originating CO or the terminating end? Any pointers would be appreciated. ... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska | Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu Disclaimer: Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be applied to any university agency. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 91 09:31:00 EDT From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist Subject: BT Sleaze The following is taken from the 24 May 91 issue of _Private Eye_, a British magazine known for digging up embarrassing tidbits (and getting sued a lot): "More news has emerged of the inefficiency of British Telecom and the hidden costs in our telephone bills as BT puts pressure on its departments to present good 'end of year' figures. "A disgruntled BT engineer has told the _Eye_ how the pressure has encouraged inefficiency and buckpassing. The problems concern the green BT boxes in our streets and on telegraph poles. Each box acts as a small exchange and contains one 'speaker pair' which allows enginers to ring through to the main exchange to rectify faults on individual lines. "Until recently when finding a fault on the 'speaker line' the engineer would use any other line to dial the operator and specifying a service call. No charge would be registered. But now the engineer has been issued with a hi-tech credit card and individual PIN code of 13 digits, which have to be dialled before the number being rung. As this is such a long-winded procedure many engineers simply pick any old line -- yours or mine -- and make the necessary calls. Subscribers have no way of checking whether their lines are used in this way and the cost is absorbed into quarterly bills. [ nb: all English residential lines charge by units; different tariffs show up by how fast the units tick over. There is no flat rate calling. ] "Having found a fault on the 'speaker' line the engineer must then fill in an 'external plant fault form' including the address of the box in question and the problem. This is then sent to the maintenance department. The buck-passing starts when the forms mount up until a suitable pile can be shunted back to the engineers, asking for the number of the box (although no such detail is required on the original form). This could be dealt with by the maintenance department simply picking up the phone: but instead the job is put off for a few more weeks to contain costs. "The maintenance department claims most speaker pairs are working, while the engineering department reckons around 30 percent are out of order." Charles Hoequist |Internet: hoequist@bnr.ca BNR Inc. | 919-991-8642 PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #822 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17767; 16 Oct 91 0:40 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09752 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 22:44:26 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13291 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 15 Oct 1991 22:44:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 22:44:15 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110160344.AA13291@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #823 TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Oct 91 22:43:51 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 823 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson ISDN Lab Tour Report [Jeff Wasilko] FCC Commissioner Qualifications: Proposed Legislation [Nigel Allen] Change 800 Vendors But Same Number! [J. Philip Miller] Who Was Theodore Vail? [Charles Hoequist] AT&T/SkyTel Venture [Ed Hopper] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) Subject: ISDN Lab Tour Report Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 22:19:44 EDT Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY Last Wednesday, a group of Telecom'mers from RIT and Mitel were invited to Rochester Telephone's ISDN Technology Showcase Lab. Rochester Tel was tariffed for BRI ISDN in 4/91, and for Centrex, Business and Residential ISDN service in 7/91. Rochester Tel History: Rochester was one of the last metro areas to go dial service. The conversion to direct dialing was started after World War II, and finished during the 1960's using mostly #5 crossbars. In 1981 Rochester Tel installed their first digital switch (an NEAX 66?), and in 1982 they installed their first 5ESS. Since then, there have been 55 cutovers. Rochester Tel Now: Rochester Tel serves 343,000 customers with 470,000 lines. They have over 7,000 miles of fiber. All COs have digital switches, with 96% of the lines served on digital switches (there are three COs with a 5ESS co-located with something else). All of the 5ESS switches are at 5E5 generic or later (most are at 5E6, and some at 5E7). Rochester Tel is actively pursuing SS7. Over 90% of their LD trunks are SS7 trunks, and they are pushing for LEC connectivity (to be able to pass CLASS-type data from region to region). They use two AT&T 2A STPs. ISDN: 18 host COs and three remote COs are equipped for ISDN, meaning that ISDN is accessible to 75% of Rochester Tel's customers (Roch Tel's service area includes a large, mostly rural area south of Rochester). Right now, Rochester Tel has 4500 ISDN lines active (with 1000 of those for 30 customers [Can you say Centrex? I knew you could ;-)] and 600 lines for Rochester Tel's own use). Rochester Tel's lab had a variety of interesting devices. The one that I think holds the most promise is an AT&T device called the Hydra (note that the Hydra we saw was an alpha-test model and the final unit might be very different or never be produced). The Hydra is a combination NT1 (the NT1 sits between the telco's line and the customer's phones) and power supply with battery backup (all ISDN devices need a power supply at the customer's premises). The Hydra's main function is that it allows you to use existing analog devices with an ISDN BRI connection. The Hydra provides a series of line cards for analog devices, and one or two RS-232 ports for switched data over the D channel). All of the standard ISDN features (and many more like wake-up calls and time-scheduled control of extensions) can be controlled from touch-tone phones, and the device supports intercom between phones. The Hydra is currently in beta-test in other areas. It's hoped that the device will cost around $500. Other interesting devices were the video conferencing (near real-time video and audio over one B channel), Group IV fax (four-second fax transmission) and a wide variety of neat ISDN sets from AT&T and Fujitsu. Other more mundane ISDN applications are file transfer, LAN connections and 3270 Coax elimination. One current practical application of ISDN is high-quality audio. Rochester Tel is part of a NY ISDN trial which involves ISDN connections from Jamestown (southwest NY state), Rochester and Manhattan. The studio that produces the voice-overs for Inside Edition promos is here in Rochester, and they use a standard ISDN line to send the voice-overs to Manhattan. One point about ISDN that I didn't know is that it's possible for up to 8 ISDN sets to share one 2B+D (BRI) connection (and I think one NT1). More realistically, two users can share one BRI, and not really miss much functionality. Each user would have access to packet-switched data on the D-channel, and would share the 2 B channels for voice. Since all of the special features (like conference calling) are done in the switch, the user can still have multiple line appearances on their set. The down side of Residential ISDN in the Rochester area is that the tariff is for 1B+D (not 2B+D). Also, with only 9600 baud packet-switched data available (and a kilochar charge for data connections), I can't see how it can compete with untimed high-speed dial-up modem connections. For $500 these days (the cost of something like the Hydra or an ISDN phone with data capability) you can buy a v.32 modem and get a second line. Will residential ISDN ever become a reality? For those folks in the Rochester area, I'm scheduling a tour of the Plymouth Street CO/Control Center. If you're interested in attending, drop me a line and I'll let you know what I work out. (Disclaimer: Some of the numbers may be wrong -- I had a bit of a difficult time deciphering my notes.) Jeff Wasilko (jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu or RIT Communications jjwcmp@ritvax.isc.rit.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 19:36:33 PDT From: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) Subject: FCC Commissioner Qualifications: Proposed Legislation Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto Bill Sepmeier (bill.sepmeier@f104.n325.z1.fidonet.org) posted a message on FidoNet's FCC echo announcing that Mr. (first name not specified) Ritter of the U.S. House of Representatives had introduced, or planned to introduce, legislation to require that at least one member of the Federal Communications Commission be a professional engineer or have equivalent skills, in light of the increasingly complex technical questions the FCC has to deal with. I am not clear whether the bill has actually been introduced, as the FidoNet message included only a "discussion draft", rather than an actual bill showing a bill number and date of introduction. If you would like more information, I suppose you could write to: Mr. Ritter U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 or to your representative. I am a Canadian, and don't understand U.S. domestic politics well enough to know how good a chance of passing this bill has. Perhaps engineering groups will be lobbying strongly for it. (If anyone wants to follow up on this, it would be interesting to know whether Mr. Ritter is an engineer himself, or whether he represents a high-technology district.) [DISCUSSION DRAFT] September 4, 1991 102 CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. ______ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. RITTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the committee on _________________ A BILL To amend the Federal Communications Act of 1934 to require that at least one member of the Federal Communications Commission be skilled in the engineering sciences. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Communications Commission Engineering Sciences Qualifications Act of 1991". SECTION 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds that-- (1) the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created in 1934 as a technical regulatory agency, mandated to regulate the radio frequency spectrum so as to make available a rapid, efficient, nationwide and worldwide wire and radio communication service; (2) in the 56 years since the creation of the FCC, the technical sophistication and complexity of radio spectrum regulatory issues has increased significantly. At the same time, of the 64 past and present FCC commissioners, only 8 have been engineers, or have had apparent training in the engineering sciences; and (3) though the FCC commissioners may appoint professional assistants, few have engineering assistants, and such is not a suitable substitute for firsthand comprehension of technical complexities and technical policy alternatives. SEC. 3. AMENDMENT. Section 4(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: (page2) "(6) At least one Commissioner shall, by virtue of possessing at least a bachelor of science degree in any engineering discipline from an Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology-approved educational institution, or by virtue of holding senior or fellow status in a nationally recognized engineering society, or by virtue of registration as a professional engineer, be skilled in the engineering sciences at the time of his or her appointment." --------------- Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) Subject: Change 800 Vendors But Same Number! Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 8:20:04 CDT In {Update}, a SWBT rag (no 3, 1991) there is an article extolling the virtues of 800 service, I found the following interesting paragraph: And, toward the future -- with its eventual operation pending regulatory approval -- Bellcore (Bell Communications Research), the regional Bell operating companies' joint R&D arm, is developing a database that could put all 800 numbers into a central system. That would allow businesses to switch 800 suppliers without changing their 800 numbers -- saving them costly revisions in their advertising and marketing copy, for example -- and 800 calls to be routed to different numbers per time of day or week or caller location, a big booon to telemarketing efforts. "It would free companies to shop for the best 800 service price," figures Dan Winters, SWBT's St. Louis based area manager for access product management, "without having to go through the hassle of completely changing their number." Anyone know more information about this proposal? Is it based on a centralized database where every switch in the country would have to query it in order to complete each 800 call, or is it distributed to each switch or ...? J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 91 10:16:00 EDT From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist Subject: Who was Theodore Vail? The Moderator noted: > I'd not put a lot of stock in what a phone center rep told me about > anything unless s/he could first answer a simple question in 25 words > or more: Who was Theodore Vail? Although well exceeding the 25-word limit, I thought the rhetorical question deserved this answer, quoted from the book _Uncle Joe Cannon_, a biography of House Speaker Joseph G. Cannon: "...I was on Newspaper Row, on Fourteenth Street, where the newspaper men had their offices, and I met Uriah Painter, one of the veteran Washington correspondents. He was also a good business man. Painter asked me if I had ever seen a telephone and I confessed that I had not. "We went into his office and he walked over to a little box on the wall. He put a little instrument to his ear, rang a bell and spoke into the box. He said, 'Hello, Puss, how are you? I want you to speak to Mr. Cannon, who is here in my office.' He handed me the receiver and putting it to my ear, as I had seen him do, I heard Mrs. Painter's voice distinctly. It was amazing. Then he told her to play on the piano and I heard the music. It was magic. "I was very much interested, and Mr. Painter told me about the young Scotchman Bell, how they were organizing a company and insisted the men who invested their money could not lose. He said if I had a thousand dollars to invest, I would be sure to double, perhaps quadruple my money in a few years; I might even make ten thousand by getting in on the ground floor. I had been much impressed by hearing a human voice that I recognized come out of that little piece of metal ... but I was even more impressed by the propostion to get in on the ground floor. I remembered my experience with the wonderful discovery to make gold out of any old thing, and I said, 'Nay, nay Brother Painter, I've tried these get-rich-quick inventions and I am done'. "Not long afterwards I went down to the office of the Superintendent of Railway Mails to get a young man appointed to that service. The Superintendent, Theodore Vail, was a bright young fellow, accommodating and always ready to help me when he could. That morning Mr. Vail was not there. His assistant told me that poor Vail had suddenly become moonstruck and resigned to be the manager of a telephone company that had been foisted on the market. Vail had saved up about four thousand dollars, and in a crazy moment he had blown it all on telephone stock and resigned from the Government service. Worse than that, he had persuaded every friend in the office who had a dollar to let him have it for investment. "We all liked Vail and were much concerned about his suddent madness, for he was a good Superintendent of Railway Mails and we though he had a future in the service. We condemned him for the reckless use of his influence over other young men in the service who had saved a little money, and we did not know what would become of them when the magic bubble burst and the telephone stock went like that of the company that was to make gold out of junk. [which Cannon had invested in several years earlier] "Some years later, I was in Boston and met Theodore Vail. He was round and olly and looked prosperous. He was the President of the American Telephone Company and the Western Union Telegraph Company. I asked a mutual friend how much Vail was worth, and he said at least twenty-five million. All those fool friends who had let Vail have their savings thirty years ago had made money ... I had the same opportunity as Vail but guessed on the wrong card." Charles Hoequist |Internet: hoequist@bnr.ca BNR Inc. | 919-991-8642 PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478 [Moderator's Note: Thanks so much for bringing back a wonderful story which has been told time and again, but never grows too old to hear again. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T/SkyTel Venture From: ED.HOPPER@ehbbs.hou.tx.us (ED HOPPER) Date: 15 Oct 91 17:48:04 GMT Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575 AT&T ANNOUNCES *** AT&T and SkyTel Corp. yesterday (10/14/91) announced the industry's first international "wireless mailbox" enabling business people on-the-move to link electronic mail and paging capabilities with a notebook computer. The AT&T Safari notebook computer is the first fully featured computer able to receive wireless messages from the SkyTel satellite-based messaging network, and AT&T EasyLink Services is the first public electronic mail vendor to establish a connection to that network. With SkyTel's network and the new SkyTel Link (a pocket-sized message receiver and an interface adapter), Safari notebook users will have a Wireless Mailbox to receive electronic mail any time, across North America and in other parts of the world. The gateway between AT&T EasyLink Services and SkyTel will give several hundred thousand users of AT&T's electronic mail services the capability to send messages to users of the SkyTel Link and the AT&T Safari notebook computer. A signal from the message receiver notifies users that they have incoming electronic mail from the SkyTel network. The interface in the SkyTel Link package connects the receiver to the Safari notebook computer so messages can be downloaded for viewing. Downloaded messages can be read, stored and edited using pre-loaded Windows-based software, including AT&T Mail Access PLUS for Windows. The messages also can be read directly on the receiver. The Safari Wireless Mailbox package has a suggested retail price of $450. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #823 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20569; 16 Oct 91 1:50 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11169 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 16 Oct 1991 00:07:23 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26721 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 16 Oct 1991 00:07:11 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 00:07:11 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110160507.AA26721@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #824 TELECOM Digest Wed, 16 Oct 91 00:07:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 824 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems [Jacob R. Deglopper] Fire Alarm Box Systems (was Emergency Dialers) [Nicholas J. Simicich] What's in Washington? [John Boteler] McCaw Announces Nationwide Service [Ed Hopper] Effect of Calls to D.C. During the Thomas Hearings [Fred Brooks] US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service! [William Kucharski] Telecom Articles in The Economist, Oct 5 [Werner Uhrig] Gadget Needed to Prevent Other Extensions From Picking Up [Stephen Pearl] Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries [John Higdon] Re: South African 'M' Numbers [Pat Verner] Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Caller ID Blocking [Charles Hoequist] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) Subject: Telegraph Fire Alerting Systems Reply-To: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 01:39:55 GMT Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) tells us: > In Truro, Nova Scotia in the early 1970's (and probably for much earlier), > the fire department had a network of red fire alarm boxes, each with a > three-digit number. When an alarm was pulled, a horn at the fire hall > would sound out the number twice (5-4-3 would be five hoots, a short pause, > four hoots, a short pause, three hoots, a longer pause, and then the > original sequence again). > I haven't encountered a system like this elsewhere. Believe it or not, the National Institutes of Health Fire Department in Bethesda, MD still uses this system. It's been supplanted by computer decoders and the such, but the pull stations on the grounds and in some buildings simply come out on this telegraph. The computer does the lookup for the location though, and NIH is a fulltime paid department which does more HAZMAT work than fire. _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad jrd5@po.cwru.edu -- Biomedical Engineering '95, Case Western Reserve Opinions my own... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 16:26:10 EDT From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" Subject: Fire Alarm Box Systems (was Emergency Dialers) Reply-To: Nick Simicich acg@dlogics.com Andrew C. Green writes: > Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) tells us: >> In Truro, Nova Scotia in the early 1970's (and probably for much earlier), >> the fire department had a network of red fire alarm boxes, each with a >> three-digit number. When an alarm was pulled, a horn at the fire hall >> would sound out the number twice (5-4-3 would be five hoots, a short pause, >> four hoots, a short pause, three hoots, a longer pause, and then the >> original sequence again). There was one of these in Peekskill, NY, until recently. It had a very loud klaxon that sounded the code for where the alarm box was. People hated that klaxon, and someone even tried to organize a neighborhood rally against it, but the fire department stood firm, even though they had a radio system to alert volunteers, and finally someone took matters into their own hands, and sabotaged it. The people who sabotaged it didn't manage to kill it completely, and it still bleated feebly at 6:00 PM every day as well as whenever anyone called in an alarm or pulled a box for a couple of weeks before it finally died. The fire chief insisted that it was absolutely required, and after six months of blessed peace and quiet, replaced it with a louder, more obnoxious one. But this didn't last very long, and I think that the six month gap managed to show that modern communication methods had supplanted and replaced the klaxon, and it was finally disconnected for the last time a couple of years ago. Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, njs@watson.ibm.com) -SSI AOWI #3958, HSA #318 ------------------------------ Subject: What's in Washington? Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 20:37:05 EDT From: John Boteler One stop to make in Washington for telecom-interested readers is the Smithsonian Museum of History and Technology. Although I have heard that many displays at other facilities around the country put this one to shame, this one gives an informative overview of the various stages in the evolution of telephony. They even have a small 'breezeway' connecting two parts of the display area with an overhead speaker spewing out an MF tone and 2600 sequence! I am disappointed that they don't have a true Stepper there, but there is a two-station intercom setup with an imitation Type 6A Strowger thrown in; pick up the receiver, wait for the tone plant to spin up (poor thing!), and pulse out your call. There is also an operating panel switch and the guts of some ESS1 switching and electronics modules. History and Technology is on the mall in a rectangular, rather modern looking building, and is well worth the visit for the other exhibits on display there. Enjoy! John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ Subject: McCaw Announces Nationwide Service From: ED.HOPPER@ehbbs.hou.tx.us (ED HOPPER) Date: 15 Oct 91 17:48:11 GMT Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575 From {The Wall Street Journal}: McCaw Cellular Communications will announce the beginnings of a national cellular phone service that lets customers receive calls no matter where they are in its system. Today, cellular customers must dial a set of access codes to make and receive calls in territories not served by their regular service provider. McCaw said it will announce tomorrow that it has linked at least four U.S. regions into a "North American Cellular Network" served by computerized exchanges that will automatically pass calls to its subscribers regardless of where they are in the McCaw networks. ------------------------------ From: sma2!fred@uunet.uu.net (Fred Brooks) Subject: Effect of Calls to D.C. During the Thomas Hearings Organization: Guns For Peace Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 18:47:54 GMT Does anyone have stats on the level of calls and effects on the telephone system during the Hearings and vote? Fred Brooks Portland Oregon [Moderator's Note: The telecom manager for the Senate reported to the AP that 505,000 calls were received on Friday alone. That is to say, completed calls inbound through the centrex to various senators, employees or the main switchboard number. That number did not include 'lost' calls, i.e. where the caller abandoned the call after a number of rings had passed with the call unanswered because the operators were unable to attend to it. Nor did it include busy signals. C&P Tel said they took a terrific pounding all weekend, with no immediate let up in sight as of Monday. C&P also noted there was a large number of incompleted call attempts both in and out of the Senate on Friday. People dialing 9 could not get an outside line, and many calls going in simply never got there, let alone reach a busy signal or unanswered ringing. I guess it was a real mess all weekend. Telecom people at the White House also reported their system was considerably overtaxed for several days, with the operators at 202-456-1414 unable to answer in any realistic timeframe. The Western Union machines in the Senate telecom office which receive incoming `opinion-grams' (or whatever they call the messages the public can send in) were printing continuously over the weekend and running about nine hours behind schedule in their ability to keep up. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kucharsk@Solbourne.COM (William Kucharski) Subject: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service! Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 20:43:45 GMT Listening to today's (10/15) Rush Limbaugh program, a very interesting event occurred. Mr. Limbaugh had a 900 phone number, (900) VIP-RUSH, which you could call to get information about his program and, more importantly, to leave comments on a voice mail system. Well, today Rush urged listeners who wanted to make a comment regarding Judge Thomas and were frustrated attempting to call in to the radio program to call the 900 number and leave comments there (he had someone monitoring the voice mail and was occasionally playing selections on the air.) About one hour into the program, Rush announced a new number for the VIP-RUSH line, because US Sprint had CANCELLED their service in mid-show, stating that they were unable to deal with the load to their network and were terminating service IMMEDIATELY. Their other 900 provider, which uses MCI, said that MCI's network was running at 100% capacity for a 900 phone poll regarding Thomas on yesterday's show, but MCI didn't yank their service, either. I can understand US Sprint's desire to protect their network from overload, but their action today seems a bit harsh, to say the least ... William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc. | Opinions expressed above Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com Ham: N0OKQ | are MINE alone, not those uucp: ...!{boulder,sun,uunet}!stan!kucharsk | of Solbourne... Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO 80501 ------------------------------ From: werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 05:12:09 -0500 Subject: Telecom Articles in The Economist, Oct 5 The British weekly magazine {The Economist} features in its Oct 5, 1991 issue a special center section of 20+ pages of articles and (interesting) ads, titled "A Survey of Telecommunications: The New Boys". In it is addressed the telecommunications situation and future of Europe (West and East), the US, as well as the Third World. A few (highlighted) random quotes: The first article "Politics on the Line" starts out with: Step inside the bedroom of a smart hotel in any West European city, and look at what is on offer. A bellboy could spend several minutes demonstrating all the electronic gadgets that hotel-hopping executives have come to expect. But on the bedside cabinet, beside the TV's remote control unit, the light dimmer switches and the radio alarm, sits a curious example of Ersatz-technology: an old-fashioned telephone, masquerading as its modern equivalent. and highlighted: The telecoms monopolies of the past face new competitors heeding the call of the market, not the ministry. Politicians and civil servants now have less time than they think to ditch their old ways, writes Duncan Campbell-Smith. and "Tomorrow's Bulging Pockets" starts out: Some people, like Britains's chancellor of the exchequer, still sneer at them as the plaything of the yuppie. ("One of the greatest scourges of modern life", he called them in his budget speech last March.) But mobile telephones are changing the ground rules of the telocoms industry, by transforming its basic product. and highlighted: Once they offered entrepreneurs the only way into telecoms. But the day is coming when mobile telephones could see the old-timers off. "High Roads and Low Roads" starts with: Almost all reformers share the same ultimate goal. They want to shake a new commercialism into the monopolies descended from the post, telegraph and telecommunications age - the companies are still labelled as the "PTTs" (with the P, as it were, now silent). the usual first step has been to break the cosy arrangement that used to link the typical PTT to its domestic equipment manufacturer ... Postal and telecoms have to be separated, and disentangled from the machinery of state. and highlighted a graph that shows that in France the number of lines increased from <4 million in 1970 to 30 million in 1991 and a text stating: Too many reformers see competition much as St. Augustine saw chastity ... [for reprints of articles in this or any other issue of {The Economist}, in the US contact Bradley Cleaton in New York, voice (212) 541-5730, fax (212) 541-9378] ------------------------------ From: pearl@remus.rutgers.edu (Starbuck) Subject: Gadget Needed to Prevent Other Extensions From Picking Up Date: 15 Oct 91 18:29:24 GMT Organization: the Worlds Welfare Work Association Hi! Sorry for the cryptic subject but I have no idea what the gadget I'm looking for is called. Basically, I am looking a device that when hooked up to a phone extension, prevents other people in the house from picking up the phone extension and listening in. It should make all the other extensions dead. Is there such a gadget? I remember reading about it somewhere. Any pointers to where it may be obtained would be very appreciated. Thanks! Stephen Pearl (Starbuck) Work: (908)932-3465 Home: (908)566-6842 UUCP: rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!pearl Internet: pearl@remus.rutgers.edu GEnie: S.PEARL6 CI$: >internet:pearl@remus.rutgers.edu US MAIL: 359 Lloyd Rd, Aberdeen, NJ 07747 [Moderator's Note: Radio Shack has exactly what you want. Just describe it to them the way you did here. Under ten dollars. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 01:00 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Rotaries David Lesher writes: > Alas, John is again suffering from Pac*Bell disease. Several other > regionals, including BS in FL. are now offering RCF that consists of > Remote-Controlled Call Forwarding on a real assignment. PLEASE. I may live in Pac*Bell Land but I do not live in a vacuum. The poster was asking about RCF, Remote Call Forwarding NOT Remote- Controlled Call Forwarding. Even I was able to deduce that from his original post. We have exchanged e-mail, and indeed, his questions were about ordinary, standard, RCF. Everything I said about RCF, the topic in question, was true. > In recent weeks BS changed the name in their ads, likely to reduce > customer confusion. After all, if CDT is confused, think of the > public;-} In this case, I was not confused. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 20:14:00 PDT From: Pat.Verner@p6.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Pat Verner) Subject: Re: South African 'M' Numbers On <13 Oct 1991 13:19>, Dave Leibold wrote: > South Africa seems to have something called M-numbers; this > could be a toll-free service as it was listed without reference to > a charge rate. > The code listed was 043 362 which presumably got an operator > who would complete the call from there. This was to have been > changed to the 0401 area code, which would be an automated service > at that point. > Anyone confirm or deny these findings (which were found in a > Johannesburg directory)? I would guess that the "M-" would be a "Manual" exchange, certainly the number 043 362 would indicate a small exchange near East London. The 0401 code corresponds to the town Bisho, about 40 km North and West of East London. The lack of a charge rate could be because this call would be charged in units of three minutes or part thereof, and would be explicitly shown as such on the account. Toll-free numbers are indicated by a prefix 080-. I wonder what the date was of the Johannesburg directory, as I have just spent a while with the Pretoria book and an old Johannesburg book in an attempt to trace this info :-) Regards, Pat Msged/Q 1.60 * Origin: Pats Point in Pretoria, RSA *HST* (5:7101/22.6) uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!5!7101!22.6!Pat.Verner Internet: Pat.Verner@p6.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 91 09:17:00 EDT From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist Subject: Re: Southern Bell Doesn't Offer Caller ID Blocking Glenn Leavell writes: > Are there any other states [ besides GA ] in which > Caller-ID is offered without ANY option of blocking, free or for a > fee? By coincidence, I just returned from a Bellcore video on CLASS features, and the presenter's standard example of a state which offered Calling Number Display with no blocking option whatever was New Jersey. Charles Hoequist |Internet: hoequist@bnr.ca BNR Inc. | 919-991-8642 PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #824 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23393; 16 Oct 91 2:55 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00021 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 16 Oct 1991 01:12:31 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00690 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 16 Oct 1991 01:12:17 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 01:12:17 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110160612.AA00690@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #825 TELECOM Digest Wed, 16 Oct 91 01:12:09 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 825 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [John Higdon] Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) [Steve Thornton] Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? [John Higdon] Charges to 800-555-2323 [Tom Lowe] 800-555-2323: No Charge and Never Was [dquist@ben3b01.attmail.com] Re: 800-555-Anything Seems to be a Toll Call [Don Phillips] Re: ITU Standards Available Online [muszynsk@tne09.tele.nokia.fi] Re: AT&T Advertising [Tom Horsley] Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones? [Rolf Meier] Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [Andrew C. Green] Re: Hayes Compatible ISDN Card or Switched 56 Card for PC [Bud Couch] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 00:45 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes: > Fine print really angers me. Anything in the front matter of a phone > book, beyond the first page, is fine print as far as I am concerned. > If I read every long explanatory pamphlet I received from Sprint, the > phone company, my credit card holders, the other utilities, the > various taxing agencies, the manufacturers of my cars, my banks, > insurance providers, and mail order companies, I wouldn't have much > time left for anything else. Now hold it right there. Several people have legitimately pointed out that the various NY telcos have been somewhat lax about printing 900/976/540 information and I agree that an improvement is in order. But to declare that you do not have time to learn about things you use in daily life is outrageous. So you complain if the telephone charges you for things you do not know about. And perhaps when your car fails, you can blame the manufacturer for insisting that you read the owner's manual, eh? And when your bank leavies a hefty charge because you mistimed some deposits or withdrawals you can bitch about that as well. Do you purchase complex instruments or equipment and then throw the manual away? I can imagine that your satisfaction with products must be very low. "If it doesn't work the way I think it should, then to hell with it!" LIFE is a bitch. And the less you know (or care to learn) about the things that you use in life, the more of a bitch it will be. I have no sympathy for you. Those things that I do not care to learn about, I pay someone to handle them for me (such as accounting and taxes). Otherwise, it is up to ME to learn how things work. Yes, you bet I read those pamphlets from the bank, from my IEC, from my local telco, from the California State Franchise Tax Board (or at least give it to my accountant), from my car manufacturer, from my motorcycle manufacturer, etc., etc. Perhaps you are too busy to learn how to use the telephone. Maybe you shouldn't use one, except under close supervision. In essence, I seem to be able to read all those pesky instructions and I hardly qualify for genius status. What arrogance to declare that you are "too busy" for such things! > Fortunately, most of these companies bother to make important > information available easily, generally by posting it near the point > of use. And do they provide icons if you don't want to bother to learn how to read? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 10:27:50 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: Sleazy Tactics (was Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll?) Regarding the notification of costs of "special" dialing services, here's what it says in the 1991 Boston NYNEX White Pages about 1-900, 976, etc. Obviously there's nothing about New York 540, as this ain't New York. Note the absence of any cost information: [begin quoted material] Selective Blocking Service [under "Optional Services, p.16] Selective Blocking Service (SBS), available in most Massachusetts exchanges to single-party residence and single-line business customers, blocks access to some or all prerecorded announcement and talk lines. These lines are identified by their own distinct numeric prefix and provide services such as: > 550 - Group Conversation Lines > 1-900 - Long Distance Programs of all types > 940 - Adult Programs (prerecorded) * > 976 - General Information Programs (prerecorded) * All customers are automatically denied access to 940 (Adult) calling but will have access to 900, 976, and 550 lines. Any customer wanting access to 940 (Adult) calling must give New England Telephone written authorization to remove the blocking. [end of quoted material] The section then goes on to describe the types of blocking and how much they costs involved for residential and business subscribers. You will notice that NET/Nynex seems to regard the moral aspects of calling porno ("Adult", right) lines to be significant, but not the costs. These types of numbers are referred to as "services" and "programs", but no mention at all is made of how much they cost, not even the minimum/maximum mentioned in the Pac Bell book as reported by Mr. Higdon. While I'm not nearly as offended by the suggestion that I read my contracts as Mr. Fulk is, I do think this is a shoddy practice. I _did_ read it, and it says nothing about it. To suggest, as Mr. Higdon does, that "everybody knows that" is a poor excuse for leaving it out of the official descriptions of services -- the White Pages. There are pages of rate information further on in the book, with nothing about added-cost calls. I don't like it, I don't like 1-900 numbers, and I don't like NET. Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / +1 617 495 3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 00:51 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? shihsun@dial.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes: > So what you're saying is, as long as the victim succeeds in getting > the charge removed, nothing should be done to the perpetrator? What > an enlightened view. No. "Victim" and "perpetrator" are your words. I never said anything about victims or perpetrators. My point was that I had yet to hear of an instance where a person unwittingly dialed an information service number and was expected to pay for the call regardless. "Fraud" was not part of my mention. But then no one has ever mentioned the matter of fraud committed against IPs by people who claim all manner of phony reason why they should not have to pay, either. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Thanks to everyone who participated in this very interesting thread. There were many diverse opinions expresssed, but due to a backlog of other items, it must be closed now, with no further rebuttals printed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tlowe@attmail.com Date: Tue Oct 15 08:24:15 EDT 1991 Subject: Charges to 800-555-2323 It used to be that if you wanted credit for a wrong number or disconnected call, you would call 800-555-2323. These days, you have to call the AT&T operator. That's what the recording on that number means! Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs Holmdel, NJ tel@homxa.att.com ------------------------------ From: dquist@ben3b01.attmail.com Date: Tue Oct 15 16:03:15 EST 1991 Subject: 800-555-2323: No Charge and Never Was 800-555-2323 used to be an AT&T Coin refund center for money lost in payphones. Callers are now directed to call an AT&T Operator to arrange for credit or refunds. Dave ------------------------------ From: Don Phillips Subject: Re: 800-555-Anything Seems to be a Toll Call Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 05:32:18 GMT Organization: Research Unlimited, Escondido, CA Just some additional data points: From a coin-operated, Pac*Bell phone (in La Mesa), 1-800-555-5555 was a "free" call (no intercept, but the message advising of the 95 cents/minute was there). From a coin-operated, non-Pac*bell phone(in Escondido), the same number got a recording requesting that I deposit 60 cents! Maybe they get a discount :-) A call to 1-800-555-1212 went through without interruption. Don Phillips don@blkhole.resun.com or Research Unlimited ...!ncr-sd!blkhole!don Escondido, Calif. My opinions are just that, and no more. ------------------------------ From: muszynsk@tne09.tele.nokia.fi Subject: Re: ITU Standards Available Online Organization: Nokia Telecommunications. Date: 15 Oct 91 12:55:17 EET In article , schwartz@latour.cs. colorado.edu (Michael Schwartz) writes: > As announced recently at Interop, the International Telecommunication > Union standards documents (including the CCITT Blue Book) are now > available online. You can get them by anonymous FTP from > bruno.cs.colorado.edu (soon to be renamed digital.resource.org) in > pub/standards. There is a HELP file in this directory that explains > what you need to know. You can also access these documents by sending > mail to infosrv@bruno.cs.colorado.edu, with the message body (not > subject line) containing commands to a mail server. This is very interesting news as I work closely with Blue Book standards. I retrieved the ISUP specifications in the (two) ASCII file formats and in the Word for Windows format. The ASCII versions have troubles with tables and diagrams but the latter version resembles quite good the original printed text (except for the missing SDL diagrams and some tables). The TROFF file format seems to be the ideal one, unfortunately our (company) text processing system is based on NROFF which doesn't support the tables. From the perspective of the switching vendor one application might be the annotation of the Recommandations for internal use, e.g. commenting on design / implementation details or defining test plans. I am interested to know how this pilot project will continue. Are there plans: - to convert the Recommendations of the current study period (to appear in the White Book soon) ? - to convert and distribute also temporay documents (TD) produced in the study periods and make so the developments inside the CCITT more transparent for a wider audience ? - to establish "electronic" meetings (e.g. using media like in- ternet news / mail) for expert meetings or audits and enable so the participation of people with limited time / budgets ? - to offer other file formats then those currently supported ? ------------------------------ From: tom@travis.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) Subject: Re: AT&T Advertising Date: 15 Oct 91 14:03:16 GMT Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division It seems to me the latest rounds of AT&T television ads must have been written by some company with a name like "Death Wish Marketing, Inc.". A while back we got the AT&T sponsored ads with two identical phone calls being made where the MCI call is shown to be *cheaper* than the AT&T call (MCI countered with an ad that said something like "If AT&T doesn't mind, we'd like to save your business a few hundred dollars a year ..."). Now we have a new series of ads on the ``We want you back'' theme, where the entire commercial consists of descriptions of businesses which have left AT&T for someone else (the pictures of the businesses show what appear to be perfectly happy thriving workplaces). You have to wonder if AT&T actually paid real money to an ad agency to design these incredibly bad campaigns. I can just see their next slogan: "AT&T - it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick!". P.S. I don't even have anything against AT&T, I have always used them for long distance, but these ads make me wonder if anyone with even a small particle of brain works in AT&T marketing. P.P.S. Actually, I even wonder if maybe these are really MCI ads... domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com USMail: Tom Horsley uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley 511 Kingbird Circle Delray Beach, FL 33444 ------------------------------ From: mitel!Software!meier@uunet.uu.net (Rolf Meier) Subject: Re: Are There Any Digital Cordless Phones? Date: 15 Oct 91 16:13:18 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article esaholm@utu.fi (Esa Holmberg) writes: > tom@travis.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes: >> I don't really believe this either, but my question is: Are there any >> cordless phones which use digital transmission between the handset and > Yes, there is, at least one. It is called Forum and made by Nokia. If you are referring to the CT2 Forum, it is made by Shaye Communications, which is owned by Sinclair and Timex. Other makers of CT2 digital cordless phones are Motorola and GPT. CT3 digital cordless phones are made by Ericsson. Forget about getting one in the US unless you are a keen experimenter. They are expensive and require an experimental license in the United States. Digital cordless telephony is an area that the U.S. is rapidly falling behind in. Canada will adopt a standard later this year. Europe and the far east are already seeing the deployment of thousands of units, and the DECT standard comes into effect next year in Europe. There is no sign of the FCC making this technology available to Americans. Rolf Meier/Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 15:28:46 CDT From: acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County hoffmanmk@stat.appstate.edu (Marvin K. Hoffman) writes: > Such fire alarm box systems have been dropped in most of the country > because: > b. anonymous false alarms since someone can pull a box and > run away. True, although I remember seeing some verrry old film (in a TV documentary on weird inventions) on a product to combat this, circa 1930, I'd say. It showed the pole-mounted alarm box enclosed within a shoebox-shaped housing. Pulling the alarm would lock the housing around the perpetrator's wrist, holding him or her to the spot until the fire engine arrived and the firefighters released the caller. I don't know what this invention was named; the phrase "Caller I.D." comes to mind ... :-) Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Datalogics Internet: acg@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg Chicago, Il. 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ From: kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) Subject: Re: Hayes Compatible ISDN Card or Switched 56 Card for PC Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 21:44:16 GMT In article hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > In article , hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu > (Harold Hallikainen) writes: >> Are telcos allowing a two second call (and billing for two seconds). >> Does the old two second "billing delay" apply to ISDN or switched >> 56 calls? > No, the two-second delay doesn't apply. But the shortest billing I'm > aware of is six seconds (tenths of minutes). I think that you are wrong about this, Toby. The latest version of the FCC regs (CFR 47) that I have ( revised 10/1/90) specify that "the answering terminal equipment prevents both transmission and reception of data for at least two seconds after the answering terminal equipment transfers to the off-hook condition". Sec 68.314, Billing Protection. The note also states that this applies to digital services inter- connected to the analog telephone network, which certainly describes ISDN. I also know that my company has implemented this two second billing delay in both of our Switched 56 product lines. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #825 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26648; 17 Oct 91 3:12 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07639 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 17 Oct 1991 01:16:12 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32090 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 17 Oct 1991 01:15:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 01:15:49 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110170615.AA32090@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #826 TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Oct 91 01:15:31 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 826 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: UFGATE: "How Does It KNOW?" [William Degnan] Re: UFGATE: "How Does It KNOW?" [Jack Winslade] Re: #5ESS Ringmate Broken [David Ptasnik] Re: Calling Number ID in California (No Decision Yet) [Lauren Weinstein] Re: Telephone Wire Staples [Patton M. Turner] Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival [Andy Sherman] Re: AT&T/SkyTel Venture [Robert J. Woodhead)] Re: Change 800 Vendors But Same Number! [Al L. Varney] Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone? [Dan'l DanehyOakes] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William.Degnan@p0.f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org (William Degnan) Date: 14 Oct 91 16:10:48 Subject: UFGATE: "How Does It KNOW?" On J. Brad Hicks writes: > One of the new changes looks impossible to me, how does this work? > Apparently the domain "z1.fidonet.org" points to multiple hosts > on the Internet, and vice-versa. In the old days (a year ago?), all > FidoNet to Internet traffic went through a single FidoNet node, both Well ... kind of. If the net the addressee is in doesn't have a gateway, the mail defaults to f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org. In our maps we list the nets for which we gate. You can send outbound through almost any gateway. Inbound may come through your local gateway or it still may be routed via the default gateway (when it hits somebody who doesn't have current maps). > All well and good. But if I send mail to Jane_Doe@n999.f199.z1. > fidonet.org, how does "z1.fidonet.org" determine which FidoNet node to > route the mail to? Or does all Internet mail into the FidoNet still > pass through 1:114/15 and then get routed, like in the "old days"? This is a trick question. Here is a trick answer. "No." If Jane is at 1:199/999 then her address would be jane.doe@f999.n199. z1.fidonet.org. It only goes to stjhmc (1:114/15) if it is a net for which he gates or if mail defaults to him. > Does this mean that you can't route to ... f.z1.fidonet.org > unless has a dedicated UFGATE? No, but if it goes to stjhmc, it may be routed via the fidonet backbone, perhaps going the long way. Here is a list, but really you don't need to know because it "do". (Check your nodelist for local listings) FidoNet <-> uucp Approved Gateways -- Dated 10-12-91 (Authorized to use Guucp in Fidonet nodelist) Corrections to: Hostmaster (David Dodell) Fidonet = 1:114/15 Internet = hostmaster@fidonet.fidonet.org SiteName Node Gateway for Net afitamy 1:110/300 [ 110 ] artspc 1:170/203 [ none ] blkcat 1:109/401 [ 109, 261, 265, 276 ] branch 1:369/11 [ 135, 369, 3609 ] buscard 1:324/121 [ 324 ] busker 1:105/14 [ 17, 40, 105, 345 ] business 1:363/42 [ 363 ] casino 2:515/800 [ 2:220, 2:221, 2:222, 2:227, 2:490 ] camphq 1:143/42 [ none ] catpe 5:7104/2 [ none ] ccfcc 1:205/42 [ 205 ] cmhgate 1:226/20 [ 226 ] cpanet 1:270/311 [ none ] dawggon 1:105/6 [ none ] dehnbase 1:104/418 [ none ] eddysf 2:285/406 [ none ] egsgate 1:250/98 [ 250 ] ehsnet 1:233/13 [ 233 ] eilc 1:3610/60 [ none ] emdisle 1:300/14 [ 300 ] fidogate 1:125/777 [ 125 ] fidosw 1:125/111 [ none ] fquest 1:19/23 [ none ] gisatl 1:133/411 [ 133 ] gnfido 2:254/70 [ 2:254, 2:25] gstore 1:103/234 [ none ] halluc 1:109/345 [ none ] hndymn 1:114/30 [ none ] hnews 1:141/420 [ none ] hourglas 1:269/310 [ none ] idic 1:104/424 [ 104 ] isengard 1:234/15 [ 234 ] isishq 1:163/162 [ none ] jadpc2 1:202/723 [ 202 ] kcufgat 1:280/500 [ 280 ] kennel 1:143/8 [ none ] kisbbs 1:3624/11 [ 360, 3624 ] klbbs 1:141/370 [ 141 ] lansend 1:143/3 [ 143 ] linn 2:320/101 [ 2:320 ] lri 1:105/126 [ none ] malymi 1:103/110 [ none ] masnet 1:259/404 [ 259 ] mcastl 1:107/528 [ none ] mcws 1:102/851 [ 102, 103, 206, 207 ] mdf 1:382/39 [ 382 ] memco 1:139/610 [ 139 ] neis 1:267/201 [ 267 ] newport 1:107/820 [ 107, 278 ] nss 1:129/104 [ none ] nwark 1:391/1060 [ 391 ] oamicus 1:367/9 [ 367 ] ocitor 1:124/2206 [ none ] ofa123 1:103/302 [ none ] ohiont 1:157/512 [ 157 ] orioneb 1:141/705 [ none ] pacifier 1:105/101 [ none ] palind 1:124/3107 [ none ] paranet 1:104/422 [ none ] pdnfido 1:107/230 [ none ] psycho 1:3610/75 [ 374, 3610 ] puddle 1:105/42 [ 2,3,4,5,17,134,138,153,340,342,343,344, 346,347,348,349,350,351 ] quadrant 1:105/209 [ none ] redstar 1:115/639 [ none ] resq 1:269/133 [ none ] rochgte 1:260/222 [ 260 ] royaljok 1:120/183 [ 11,108,115,120,121,154,159,201,227,228, 230,231,232,236,237,238,239,2200,2201, 2210,2220,2222,2230,2240,2250,2260,2270 2280,2290 ] rrgate 1:101/660 [ none ] shire 1:114/55 [ none ] slinky 1:147/63 [ 147 ] spuzz 1:143/642 [ none ] srrt 1:322/337 [ none ] sscreen 1:141/9 [ none ] stjhmc 1:114/15 [ 1, 114, default gateway for all un-gated nets ] sunbrk 1:343/15 [ none ] tdkt 1:282/31 [ none ] terrabit 1:282/341 [ 282 ] therip 1:228/24 [ none ] tinylk 1:170/500 [ 170 ] umagic 1:373/12 [ 373 ] urchin 1:106/88 [ none ] w8grt 1:234/1 [ none ] weyr 1:140/22 [ 140 ] wsyd 1:325/2 [ 325 ] yantar 1:129/128 [ none ] zorro9 1:16/390 [ 16, 101, 322 ] William Degnan, Communications Network Solutions -Independent Consultants in Telecommunications- P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | !wdegnan@attmail.com | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 20:34:56 cst From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: Re: UFGATE: "How Does It KNOW?" Reply-To: jack.winslade@drbbs.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha UFGATE does not know about anything except what it is given. If I am correct, all of the fidonet.org domain is served out of a nameserver at ieee.org and the zone and net in the message determine how it is routed. The default Internet to Fidonet gateway is 114/15, but many other nets have their own using other Internet/UUCP connections. The routing information knows this, and sends the correct net's traffic to the correct Internet or UUCP system. Another trend that has come up recently is that systems that use Fidonet technology are getting set up in domains other than fidonet.org. To the outside world, these may appear as such things as MX'ed sites within an Internet domain or mapped or unmapped UUCP sites. Believe it or not, there is a lot of Usenet news flying around out there in FTS-0001 packets. Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 DRBBS, Keep On WOC'n in the Free World (200:5010/666.0) ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Re: #5ESS Ringmate Broken Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 9:38:56 PDT 74066.2004@CompuServe.COM (Larry Rachman) wrote: > I just tried to place what I thought was a simple order with the telco > business office. It was for two lines; the first hunts to the second, > and the second has two 'Ringmate' numbers on it (that's what New York > Telephone calls the coded ringing service here). > The rep told me that it wouldn't work that way; that if the first line > hunted to the second, then the Ringmate wouldn't work. (Actually she > told me the lines had to have separate *billing*, but I'm sure that > she must have been meant they couldn't hunt.) > My questions are: > 1) Do Ringmate and hunt really conflict? > 2) Is there a later version of the generic that fixes it, and > if so, what is its version name/number? I have a situation that seems to work, would meet your needs, and be acceptable to the telco. I'm on a #5, I have one line billed under one name that has call forward busy to my second line billed (billed under a different name). The second line has ringmate for a third number. Every thing works just fine, and call forward busy is less expensive than hunting. At least you now know it's possible. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 10:39:19 PDT From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Re: Calling Number ID in California (No Decision Yet) The latest info I have is that, *overall*, the majority of numbers (or subscribers?) in California are unlisted. This is especially true in the metro areas such as L.A., S.F., and S.D. While there are no doubt parts of the state where this is not the case, presumably the high percentage of unlisted numbers in the metro areas swamps them out, statistically. Part of the question may revolve around whether we're counting telephone subscribers or telephone numbers. Sometimes the articles that discuss such matters are unclear on this point. I'd welcome more up-to-date statistics for both that would clarify the figures and validate (or invalidate, for that matter) this topic. Another increasingly common "trend" in California, by the way, is for people who *are* listed in the book to not show any address. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 17:48:33 CDT From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: Telephone Wire Staples A good mail order source for the staple guns is Tools on sale. They sell the whole line of Arrow staple guns. The T-25 is $25.25 and staples are about $1.50/K. I have have had good luck ordering several power tools from them. The T-25 gun is sutabile for most work. Smaller wires might not be stappled as tight however, if a larger than needed gun is used. The steel staples should do for most purposes. The Monel (tm, I think) staples, being nickel based, are used where corrosion would be a problem for steel staples. (outside, bare conductors, etc) Tools on Sale 216 W. Seventh St. St. Paul, MN 55102-2599 (They have an 800 number but I don't have it with me.) Patton Turner pturner@eng.auburn.edu KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 23:44:57 EDT Subject: Re: MCI Booth During Fort Lauderdale Festival Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA In article floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu writes: that I wrote >> Remember that the tricky part of bypass is that modern toll switches >> are not designed to interface with local loops. They switch traffic >> on trunks. > Hmmm ... with a DMS-200 (a trunk switcher only) it is not too > difficult to come up with a trunk group that works very well with a > phone tied to the other end of each trunk. Just using a little magic > with the miscellaneous drop equipment. > I'm guessing that AT&T switches are just as easy to arrange that way. > The trick is the right circuit engineer who can figure out how to make > the telephone set look like a trunk to the switch. Oh, yeah, I could probably find the facilities *somewhere* to get a voice line attached to a 4E. Who knows where, though? In the POP? In the End Office? The point of my posting was not so much that it couldn't be done, but rather that it was probably not worth the effort. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: AT&T/SkyTel Venture Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 05:02:28 GMT ED.HOPPER@ehbbs.hou.tx.us (ED HOPPER) writes: > AT&T ANNOUNCES *** AT&T and SkyTel Corp. yesterday (10/14/91) > announced the industry's first international "wireless mailbox" > enabling business people on-the-move to link electronic mail and > paging capabilities with a notebook computer. > The interface in the SkyTel Link package connects the receiver to the > Safari notebook computer so messages can be downloaded for viewing. One wonders what provisions for encryption are provided by the system; if the messages are delivered "in the clear" then anyone with a little bit of technical skill can read any mail delivered via this method. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 23:54:54 CDT From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Al L Varney) Subject: Re: Change 800 Vendors But Same Number! Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: [I've trimmed it] > In {Update}, a SWBT rag (no 3, 1991) there is an article extolling > 800 service, I found the following: > And, toward the future -- with its eventual operation pending > regulatory approval -- Bellcore (Bell Communications Research), ... > is developing a database that could put all 800 numbers into a > central system. That would allow businesses to switch 800 suppliers > without changing their 800 numbers ... and [allow] 800 calls to be > routed to different numbers per time of day ... "It would free > companies to shop for the best 800 service price." > Anyone know more information about this proposal? Is it based on a > centralized database where every switch in the country would have to > query it in order to complete each 800 call, or is it distributed to > each switch or ...? Yes. And sorta. The revised FCC order for Docket 86-10 was released 9/16/91(?), allowing the database mechanism to support "portable 800 numbers" to be used under some conditions that address its current weaknesses. In essence, each LATA will have one or more switches with access to a LEC database containing the 800 number data. Each LEC will probably have two or more databases (capacity + reliability will determine how many). Each database will be accessed with an existing SS7 mechanism that asks the 800 number to be translated into an IXC (or route within the LATA), along with a possible real DDD number and other information. One of the many unanswered questions in the Order was the issue of database maintenance (updates). Bellcore has proposed a central mechanism that would allow updates to be propagated to the appropriate databases, but the exact mechanism of getting the data to Bellcore and paying all the parties is, as far as I know, undetermined. For example, the potential for "slamming" must be examined -- how does Bellcore assure that database changes are really desired by the customer? And how does the customer verify that ALL THOSE DATABASES got updated properly? And who's at fault if they aren't? The plan for the BOCs and GTE to solve these and other issues is due into the Common Carrier Bureau on 3/1/92. Public comment period will follow. Reference the FCC News Report No. DC-1925, 8/1/91 on the proposed order. Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL varney@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------ From: djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Subject: Re: SMDS Intro, Anyone? Date: 15 Oct 91 17:39:09 GMT Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA In article vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) writes: > In article djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l > DanehyOakes) writes: >> Current plans are for RBOCS and other local companies to roll-out SMDS >> in the first half of 1992. Interexchange SMDS should follow within a >> year. > I believe MFS (Metropolitan Fiber Systems) is offering SMDS now. I > saw them at the TCA show in San Diego a few weeks ago. Well, hey, you can't really blame me for not mentioning it. I mean, I _work_ for Pacific Bell, after all ... Dan'l Danehy-Oakes Net.Roach ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #826 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25929; 18 Oct 91 1:46 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10400 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 17 Oct 1991 23:58:21 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08813 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 17 Oct 1991 23:58:09 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 23:58:09 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110180458.AA08813@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #827 TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Oct 91 23:57:34 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 827 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions [John Higdon] Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service! [John Higdon] Re: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service! [John M. O'Shaughnessy] Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555 [Robert Virzi] Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555 [Charlie Mingo] Re: Charge on 800 Calls [Charlie Mingo] Re: Latest AT&T Announcement: ROA/Calling Card Changes [Andy Sherman] Re: Who Was Theodore Vail? [Sandy Kyrish] Re: Even More 5ESS Woes [R. Kevin Oberman] Re: FCC Commissioner Qualifications: Proposed Legislation [Al L. Varney] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 23:53 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Panasonic KXT-1232 Questions gaarder@anarres.ithaca.ny.us writes: > Does the system automatically detect which type of phone is hooked > up, or do ou need to program it? If the KSU does not receive return data from an electronic set, it assumes a standard telephone is connected and will behave appropriately. That is, it will use loop supervision and send ring voltage. > Can two of the special sets be connected in parallel to one port? > (Clearly, two regular ones could be.) No, the data from the two sets would conflict with each other. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Emergency Dialers in Contra Costa County Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 07:43:40 GMT acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM writes: > Pulling the alarm would lock the housing > around the perpetrator's wrist, holding him or her to the spot until > the fire engine arrived and the firefighters released the caller. One hopes the firemen arrive at the box before the fire does! Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 00:31 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service! kucharsk@Solbourne.COM (William Kucharski) writes: > I can understand US Sprint's desire to protect their network from > overload, but their action today seems a bit harsh, to say the > least ... Several observations. First, Sprint has previously annouced its intention to discontinue 900 service for everyone eventually. Second, I guess Sprint has never heard of "choke" methods for dealing with a high volume of calls directed to a single number. I know for a fact that MCI knows how this is done (although in the situation that I was aware of, they botched it badly). Once again, this is an example of when the going gets tough, the OCCs will fold on you every time. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@ygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: osh@osa.com (John M. O'Shaughnessy) Subject: Re: US Sprint Cancels Rush Limbaugh 900 Service! Organization: Open Systems Architects, Inc., Mpls, MN Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 11:52:09 -0500 I find it hard to believe that anyone's 900 service was cut off (permenently?) due to technical reasons. One of the neat things I remember about my visit to Sprint's command center in Atlanta was that any surges in calls could be easily rerouted. Now, of they blocked the calls due to service overload because of some contractual agreement, that I might understand. John M. O'Shaughnessy osh@osa.com Open Systems Architects, Inc. Minneapolis, MN ------------------------------ From: rv01@gte.com (Robert Virzi) Subject: Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555 Date: 16 Oct 91 16:53:35 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA I think I may be able to offer two explanations as to why the 800-number to access {USA Today's} information line may function the way it does. This is pure speculation on my part -- I have no knowledge of the particulars of the situation. What happens is this -- Whether you call their info line via 800.555.5555 or 900.555.5555 you get the same recorded message telling you that the call will cost 95 cents per minute. Controversy raged in this forum over how they (or anyone) could charge for an 800-call. {USA Today} has been offerring this service via a 900-line for some time now. I think it is safe to say that very few service providers are making money charging for information access, particularly in the residential market. It is possible that {USA Today} is also finding it difficult to sell telephone access to information. If this is in fact the case, they may be taking either of two approaches. First, they may try giving the information away for free for a while, just to get people hooked. Once enough people are hooked, the 800 number could be yanked, leaving the info-junkies no choice but to pay the 900-number rates. A second possibility is that this is a precursor to the introduction of advertisements to the system. {USA Today} may give the service away to callers, providing they are willing to listen to ads. {USA Today} would then make their money by selling ads to other companies interested in reaching their callers. This is more in line with the newspaper's modus operandi anyway. Advertisers provide the major revenue stream, readers do not. For either scenario, the reason for the "billed at 95 cents per minute" message may simply be that they have only got one system, and no matter how you call that system, the opening message warns you about the charge. Don't forget, the message is not provided by the network, it is delivered by CPE (USA Today's, in this case). If there were a regular old telephone number to call, I bet it would also warn you about the 95 cent charge. As I said earlier, these are only my guesses as to what's going on. I don't know anything about the particulars of this case. I might as well add that GTE, GTE Labs, or anyone else takes no responsibility for what I have said, nor do they necessarily agree with it. Bob Virzi rv01@gte.com ------------------------------ From: Charlie.Mingo@p0.f716.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) Date: 15 Oct 91 14:09:12 Subject: Re: Caller Charged When Calling 1-800-555-5555 morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) writes: > It's obvious that they have my account up on the screen before they > answer the call. According to the {Wall Street Journal}, AmEx used to answer the phone with "Hello, Mr. Morris," but that freaked too many customers out. ("How did you find my name? Are you watching me?" etc.) Now they feign ignorance. ------------------------------ From: Charlie.Mingo@p0.f716.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) Date: 15 Oct 91 13:57:31 Subject: Re: Charge on 800 Calls Our Moderator writes: > (3) I make > lots of long distance and 800-number calls monthly. I examine my phone > bill closely. I have yet to see a five cent charge for these calls, > either listed separatly or imbedded in the rate charged by the long > distance carrier or buried in the 'monthly service' charge from IBT. It sounds like you have flat-rate service. When I went to the University of Chicago, I (and most people I knew) had metered service. 5 cents sounds just about right for a message unit (soon to be 8.3 cents here in DC). Pat, if you don't have metered local service, your 800 calls are being covered by the flat-rate plan. And if you do have metered service, how could you know the number of local calls you've placed so precisely that you could detect the addition of a few 800 and LD calls to the total? [Moderator's Note: We have not had flat rate service here in YEARS. All calls are billed in 'units', at prices ranging from 3.5 to 5 cents depending on the time of day and the number of units consumed that month. And I know how many calls I have made because the bill from IBT is broken down each month to tell me (this is standard practice now with IBT). It says so many calls to the A zone, so many to the B zone, so many to the C zone, etc. And it says nothing about a charge for 800 calls or a surcharge for long distance calls. On another page where the monthly service is broken down however it does say the monthly 'network access fee' compensates IBT for calls handed off to various other carriers for long distance calls, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: Latest AT&T Announcement: ROA/Calling Card Changes Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 09:50:53 EDT In article Ed Greenberg writes: > According to an outbound telemarketer working for AT&T, who disturbed > the peace on my closely held unlisted phone number, the Reach-Out > America discount applied to calling cards will no longer be offered on > AT&T handled calls billed to your LEC calling card number. As of > December, you must use your AT&T calling card, with the unconnected 14 > digit number, to get the ROA discount. While I don't want to start a flame war on outbound telemarketing, let me point out that AT&T is a company with whom you have an established business relationship (related to your unlisted telephone) involving the extension of credit. Is it unreasonable that they (us) have your telephone number? I assume the date has to do with the 1/92 deadline in the MFJ for eliminating remaining shared network arrangements like the current shared calling card database. > I tried the telemarketer out on some follow-on questions, and she > could respond with nothing but "I don't know." > I asked her if my AT&T card would work for intra-lata calls in my home > LATA? "I don't know." The answer is yes. The LECs (at least BOCs, anyway) are able to get verification services from AT&T's separate card database, just as AT&T can get verification services from the BOCs soon to be separate card database. That is how inter-lata calls get billed to Universal Cards (as well as the new Calling Cards). > I asked if my AT&T card would work for intra-lata calls in a foreign > lata, like out of state. "I don't know." Same answer as above. The only caveat I have is that I have know idea what the deal is in independent telco territory. Your mileage may vary there, but that caveat seems to apply to a *LOT* of issues. > I asked a few more similar questions. "She didn't know." > She was eminently capable of reading her script, but that was all. Sigh. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 14:36 GMT From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Who Was Theodore Vail? The story about Theodore Vail prompts me to add these historical tidbits. Theodore Vail's eight years of service in the Government Railway Mail Service did much towards revolutionizing the abominable mail system. Vail introduced mail sorting; previously, local postmen selected their mail from randomly stuffed mailbags brought by train, and sent the remainder ricocheting around the country. His department also devised the first civil service tests in an attempt to rid themselves of political patronage employees. When the government heard about the idea, it developed a nationwide program. Also, Vail's understanding of the value of a networked system of telephones is due in part to his comprehensive view of the national railway and telegraph systems. In 1879, the 33-year-old Vail accepted a $3,500 annual salary to manage the struggling Bell Telephone Company. It represented a $1,500 salary cut, but Vail had tired of his unsuccessful dealings with Congress and was anxious to promote the telephone enterprise. Vail's co-workers and supervisors couldn't believe that a "nice fellow like Vail" could abandon his job for a "piece of wire with two Texan steer horns attached to the ends, with an arrangement to make the concern blate (sic) like a calf." One congressman wrote: "Can't you wait and see if Congress will not fix your salary? Don't rob the public of an invaluable servant just because we tried to cheat and starve you." BTW, I always wished he'd had a son named Noah Vail. ------------------------------ From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov Subject: Re: Even More 5ESS Woes Date: 16 Oct 91 15:58:02 GMT In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > New observed annoyance with the 5ESS: I don't know just what anyone else is on, but I know that I'm connected to a 5ESS since we own our own switch. We are currently running the 5E6 generic and I have experienced none of the problems John described. This may be because we don't really push the switch, so there is no reason for delays, but the reason we don't push it is that we specified capacity requirements in the bid and got enough switching modules to handle the present and anticipated load. As to audio quality issues, the first thing I noticed on the day of cutover was the amazingly clarity. The audio quality was a significant improvement from the days of old. There is no noticable drop in levels on three-way. Since I consider call waiting a social abomination, I can't comment on it. I should mention that I'm on an all digital connection from the local CO (which has both a 1AESS and a DMS100) to my desk. Maybe the analog cards are causing the problem, but I was still on analog service when the switch was installed and I noticed no problems then, either. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icaen.llnl.gov (510) 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. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 11:06:47 CDT From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Al L Varney) Subject: Re: FCC Commissioner Qualifications: Proposed Legislation Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1. fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes: > Bill Sepmeier (bill.sepmeier@f104.n325.z1.fidonet.org) posted a > message on FidoNet's FCC echo announcing that Mr. (first name not > specified) Ritter of the U.S. House of Representatives had introduced, > or planned to introduce, legislation to require that at least one > member of the Federal Communications Commission be a professional > engineer or have equivalent skills, in light of the increasingly > complex technical questions the FCC has to deal with. [... stuff deleted ...] > (If anyone wants to follow up on this, it would be interesting to know > whether Mr. Ritter is an engineer himself, or whether he represents a > high-technology district.) From the 1991 National Communication Forum 9/30/91 Luncheon Program, where the Honorable Dr. Ritter addressed a large audience of Telephone and Telecommunications diners. "Congressman Don Ritter, PA, will discuss his vision and proposed legislation for a nationwide "seamless" integrated fiber-optic network. Congressman Ritter is one of a handful of members of the House with a technical background and the only one at a doctoral level -- a doctor of science from MIT." The speech was a re-iteration of his view on the need for a nation-wide high-speed, high-capacity comm. network, funded and/or directed by the US government. In his view, this is the comm. equivalent of the current Interstate Highway system, with similar reasons for construction: Better comm. inside the US will result in more efficient, competitive products and services in the US. His views were, in effect, that private industry could fund and operate the network (he is a Republican), but some direction and standard-setting by Uncle Sam would speed up deployment and allow universal access. The first step (or is it step three or four) in this capability is the proposed National Research and Education Network (NREN), with funding already under way for several Gigabit Testbed initiatives. The objective is a coast-to-coast 1-to-5 Gbps network, replacing the T1 and T2 links of today's Internet, and the T3 links of NSFNET. The young lady sitting next to me (from US Sprint) commented, "A nationwide fiber network? Gee, we already have one ..." I'm not sure the audience was the most receptive he could have had. He's talking PACKET to a largely CIRCUIT-switched group. Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #827 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27232; 18 Oct 91 2:15 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09251 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 18 Oct 1991 00:36:07 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16318 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 18 Oct 1991 00:35:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 00:35:56 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199110180535.AA16318@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #828 TELECOM Digest Fri, 18 Oct 91 00:35:48 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 828 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Caller ID and COCOT Questions [John Goggan] What a Length of Wire Will Do [Brian Rice] Wiring Sequences [braun@dri.com (Kral)] NYNEX Voice Mail [Michael Schuster] Interesting Pac*Bell Response [John Higdon] ANI in C&P-Land [Charlie Mingo] Incremental Communication [Jaco de Vroed] Billing Delays [Bud Couch] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jgoggan@gnu.ai.mit.edu (John Goggan) Subject: Caller ID & COCOT Questions Date: 15 Oct 91 18:34:25 GMT Reply-To: jgoggan@gnu.ai.mit.edu (John Goggan) Organization: Free Software Foundation Ok, I hope none of these are FAQs ... just a couple things I want to get cleared up in my head so I understand more of the normal postings. Caller ID 1. Does anyone have a general list now of what states DO offer Caller ID services? (I noticed that a few disagreed with the last state posting and I was hoping for an update -- I'm especially concerned with Michigan.) 2. When I called the 800 number posted a few days ago (it was 800-282-0911 and they read back your phone number -- it's an alarm company promotion or something similar to that) they read back '517-774-4000' - which is the MAIN controlling number (the operator) of the PBX at my school -- my number is 517-774-4723. So, if Caller ID WAS available, might the PBX create problems (something like it always reading `517-774-4000' as the calling number since that is the controlling number or something?) 3. [This one isn't a question -- just a comment] People were discussing that they heard some companies have hooked caller ID units into their database to automatically pull the callers file when he/she calls. Just wanted to let people know that there is a company which sells a unit for just that purpose (the post said that the company had to wire the unit manually into the computer) -- There is a program available for reading/looking up names on a UNIX system written to work with that device (the name & address to order it from is listed in with the program which is available from alt.sources) 4. Just because caller ID is not avilable in an area, does that mean the information is not sent out also? I.E. Let's say Caller ID is not available in Michigan but is in California -- if I call from Michigan to California, they still recieve my number even though actual Caller ID services aren't available where I am, right? OK - that's it for Caller ID -- now one COCOT question ... Does anyone have the address of any companies that sells COCOTs? There is supposed to be one available in an auction (there was a fire at a nearby restaurant) and if it was cheap enough, I was hoping to get it just to have to experiment with and as an interesting phone to have for when the neighbors come over! -- anyways, I don't want to try to get it if I won't be able to get any documentation on HOW to use it so I am hoping that a company will sell me some instruction manuals for their phones (if I can find a company that sells the same type of phone.) Thanks for your time! Sorry again about any FAQs posted here. John ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1991 01:24:49 -0400 From: rice@dg-rtp.dg.com (Brian Rice) Subject: What a Length of Wire Will Do I have residential Touch Tone POTS from my friends at Southern Bell in my apartment. Previous inhabitants of the apartment have graciously installed two extension jacks in addition to the one mounted in-wall...one is a four-prong jack, into which I've plugged an RJ-11 adapter, and the other is one of those spiffy RJ-11 jacks where a spring-loaded plate swings down over the plug and holds it in place. Both of these jacks look somewhat ad hoc, but they work. I've got a cheap random-Korean-maker hand-held phone in one, and the other is where I plug in my 9600 baud modem when I'm using it -- I power the modem off when I'm not calling out using it. I plug in a Panasonic answering machine/phone combination in the original-equipment jack. No cordless phones, nothing up my sleeve. An interesting phenomenon developed several months ago ... a loud noise on the line, sort of like a particularly satanic electric clock alarm, at all times, during dial tone, dial, and conversation. It varied in loudness, only rarely increasing to a level where it would disturb the conversation, but I called Southern Bell repair anyway, so that I could enjoy the pin-drop clarity I get from Sprint :-). The service was not particularly successful, since they would keep coming by my apartment and leaving notes saying they needed to get in, and I would keep calling them back and saying "Please have someone from Repair call and explain why they need to get in, so that I can decide whether I really want to bite the bullet and involve the landlord." After several days of this, the noise faded back down to a more tolerable level of its own accord, so I cancelled the service request. Of late, however, my friends have made known to me a new problem: they would call my number, get a split second's worth of a ring (or none at all) then a busy signal! Whoa! I was able to reproduce this behavior nine times out of ten calling from various places (including some served by local telcos other than Southern Bell), with and without each of the phones plugged in. I figured that the modem didn't matter, since it was always powered off. So I called Southern Bell, made a repair request, and of course I haven't heard hide nor hair of them this time. But a person like me can't resist the urge to keep testing, and to try permutations of the problem which don't make any sense. (Hell, it's my job.) So I checked to see what would happen if I unplugged the cord leading from the jack to the (powered-off) modem. Voila! You could now dial in successfully every time. I replaced the cord, and the behavior returned. What's more, the aforementioned alarm noise is greatly mitigated when the modem cord is unplugged. So naturally thoughts like the following leapt into my head: "RF interference! Improper grounding! NSA snoops at work!" Just kidding about that last item. Anyway, I am going to pick up one of those RF line filters mentioned here recently, but I can't help but think that's not the whole problem. There could be any kind at all of wiring mishap (after all, some heating ducts from the neighboring apartment lead into mine!), and it will probably be easier for me to fix those than to try to get the landlord to do them. But I'm baffled about grounding, since, in my limited understanding of telecom, that's the local telco's responsibility. Ideas? Brian Rice rice@dg-rtp.dg.com +1 919 248-6328 DG/UX Software Quality Assurance Data General Corp., Research Triangle Park, N.C. ------------------------------ From: braun@dri.com (Kral) Subject: Wiring Sequences Organization: Digital Research Inc Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 16:20:28 GMT Last month I posted an article detailing what I thought to be current USOC and 258A wiring standards wrt banded wire coloring vs. solid wire coloring vs. channel ID vs. Modular pin number vs. RS232 pin and signals. I received one reply which said it was mistaken in a couple of respects, namely wrt to the assignment of channel id (Tn,Rn) to wiring colors. I need to confirm this, so I'm hoping that someone currently in the industry can do so, or failing that, I'm hoping to get a pointer to an authoratative reference. Basically, what I was told was this: This is for small numbers of bundled pairs, not 25 pair or more cables, and for banded coloring: 1. White/xx is always Tip 2. xx/White is always Ring 3. White/xx is always twisted with xx/White. 4. Color sequence is: Blue = 1, Orange = 2, Green = 3, Brown = 4 The solid coloring seems pretty standard, so I'll leave that out. If you have any info or pointers, please send me email. I'll post a summary when I finally get this all straightened out. Very confused, kral * 408/647-6112 * ...!uunet!drivax!braun * braun@dri.com ------------------------------ From: panix!schuster@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Michael Schuster) Subject: NYNEX Voice Mail Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 21:04:22 GMT Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY NY Telephone has begin advertising a personal voice mail system which acts as though it were your personal answering machine. Apparently it will even answer the phone if you're on the line, sparing your caller the busy signal. A double dial tone greets you when you pick up the phone with messages waiting. They say to call 1-800-MESSAGE for information, but I'd rather not hear it from a NYNEX telemarketer. Does anyone have more specifics on this? Is this just like voice mail? Does it feature time/date stamping? Online editing of messages when caller enters them? Forwarding to beeper? Selective save/delete per message? Remote activation/deactivation? Cost??? Mike Schuster NY Public Access UNIX: schuster@panix.com | -70346.1745@CompuServe.COM The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com | -MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 21:26 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Interesting Pac*Bell Response Today I had a call from a very nice person from Pac*Bell who mentioned that she was most concerned about my comments concerning the 5ESS. In particular, she emphatically insisted that the no CW on 3W had been "fixed" years ago. I have no custom calling on any of my seven 5ESS lines here at the house and have been relying on statements from knowledgeable collegues regarding the call waiting limitations. Concerned that I might have a mess to clean up here on the Digest, I went to a location that has 5ESS with all the usual features -- a transmitter site served out of the Junction Ave. CO in San Jose. Here are the results of the actual hands-on tests: Directed call to number while another call was in progress; received CW tone (verifying that CW was enabled on the line). Placed second call while on first and three-wayed them together. All parties verified that they could hear one another. Directed call to number while this three-way converation was in progress. No CW tone heard; line appeared busy to calling number. Dropped second call on three-way. Directed another call. CW tone heard; ringback received by caller. Tests were repeated several times in several fashions. The inescapable conclusion: Call Waiting is NOT possible on the 5ESS while a Three-Way call is in progress. This is personally verified and I have witnesses. A secondary conclusion: one of two situations exist. Either CW does not work with 3W on a 5ESS at all, or Pac*Bell is running some old or inferior generic. At this point, I am inclined to believe the former to be true, since the switch in question is on the SS7 network. I have decided to escalate this Cal