TELECOM Digest Sat, 23 Nov 91 01:25:59 CST Volume 11 : Issue 951 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: How Do They >>Know<< ? (Gary Morris) Re: Follow Up; Fraudulent Calling Card Attempt (Bud Couch) Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different (Tad Cook) Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (ROA) (Robert J. Woodhead) Re: Information Needed: GlobeCom91 in Phoenix (Jeffrey Hunt) Re: Telemarketing COS (Steve Forrette) Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Warren Burstein) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Gary W. Sanders) Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? (Nicholas J. Simicich) Re: AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet? (Andy Sherman) Telemarketing Fools (Douglas W. Martin) Re: Does Each Long Distance Carrier Have It's Own 800 Service? (J. Higdon) Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Pete Tompkins) Re: The ZZZZZZ Saga -- Part 1 -- "The Books" (Dell H. Ellison) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: telesoft!garym@uunet.uu.net (Gary Morris @wayward) Subject: Re: How Do They >>Know<< ? Reply-To: garym@telesoft.com Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 17:38:14 GMT > In mperlman@isis.cs.du.edu (Marshall > Perlman) writes: >> I went to the other machine, erased the >> number and name from the header, and send a blank page to them and >> guess what happened two minutes later?... >> Now can anyone tell me how they know my number? > [Moderator's Note: You said the answer yourself: They have real time > ANI. Your number is delivered to them along with your fax. PAT] It is common for fax machines to have their phone number set in the "station message" that is exchanged when the fax connection is setup. It usually appears in a little window (or in a dialog box on my Mac) while the connection is in progress so you can see who you are connected to. This station message doesn't appears on the fax itself. They could be getting your number that way. Gary Morris Internet: garym@telesoft.com KK6YB UUCP: ucsd!telesoft!garym TeleSoft, San Diego, CA Phone: +1 619-457-2700 [Moderator's Note: He said he specifically erased that information. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) Subject: Re: Follow Up; Fradulent Calling Card Attempt Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 23:30:27 GMT In article johnp@gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: > PAT, you're on! The bill came today, and his number is 212 221-9242. > Is this a pay station or not? If I win, you owe me a Chicago pizza. > If you win, I owe you a plate of Rocky Mountain oysters! > [Moderator's Note: You win. The phone is a pay station located 'next > to the pizza restaurant' by the subway entrance at 42nd and Broadway > in New York City. Don't be so quick to concede, Pat. A Sprint security man told me that a large amount of the toll fraud out of NYC was controlled by the mob. He said that a NY Telephone person would be bribed or threatened into cross connecting a line in an apartment to a payphone in the area at some distribution box outside of the CO. This ANI's back as a payphone, but the perp is warm and dry, and difficult to catch since a physical inspection of each splice point in the cable would be required. He said these things are put up and used for about a month, then moved. Then again, living in Chicago, maybe you really don't want to know, since the boys have been known to do favors for one another. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew ... standard BS applies [Moderator's Note: I still say the best thing would be to turn the entire matter over to the Investigation Department at the Tucker Telephone Company and let them convince the practioners of phreakcraft to find a new hobby, like stamp collecting or something. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different From: tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) Date: 19 Nov 91 23:52:46 GMT madams@aludra.usc.edu (Marcus Adams) writes: > It used to be that when I got a call on my call-waiting, there would > be a click that was audible to whoever I was talking with at the time. > It was handy because they would hear the click and say something like > "Sure, go ahead and answer that." > Sometime a couple years back, I noticed that this click disappeared on > my phone. Friend's call waiting would still emit a click, but whenever > I get a call-waiting call, the tone is only audible to me (although my > girlfriend says she can hear my voice "drop out" for a second instead > of the click). > What happened? Is it my phone that caused the change? Is it the switch > in my area? This happened when they changed my residential service from a 1AESS to a 5ESS. The only audible difference to the other party is if they are listening quite carefully while I am talking, my voice will go away during the brief period that the tone appears at my end. I think that on the older switches there was also a flash ... a very brief period of no battery on the line during the switching to the tone. The new system is much cleaner sounding, but can be annoying, because it is more subtle and harder to tell when I am being signalled. So they probably changed your office to a modern digital switch. Tad Cook | Phone: 206-527-4089 | MCI Mail: 3288544 Seattle, WA | Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA | 3288544@mcimail.com | USENET: tad@ssc.wa.com or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (ROA) Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 03:00:41 GMT peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > No matter *what* they do automatically, they're damned. The only > appropriate action is to call the customer and ask. Agreed. But they might also set things up so that *IF* they are not the primary carrier *AND* there are no billable LD calls in a month, then there are no ROA charges. That way, more or less, you'd get to eat your cake and keep it too. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 08:51:01 MST From: ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!huntj (Jeffrey Hunt) Subject: Re: Information Needed: GlobeCom91 in Phoenix Organization: gte I'm signed up for GlobeCom, so I have the booklet right at my side. The dates are Deceber 2-5. Registrar: Frank Young P.O. Box 40495 Phoenix, AZ 85067-0495 602-266-1991 fax 602-235-5829 Jeffrey Hunt (602) 581-4082 UUCP: ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!huntj Compuserve: 73760.767@compuserve ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 20:59:11 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Telemarketing COS In article John Higdon writes: > Telco's should be all for this idea because they can then inflate (by > a factor of four or five as they have done in the 900/976 business) > the costs of providing these special lines and make some extra profit. > The people should all be in favor since they would now have the > ability to positively block all junk calls. And who cares about the > telemarketers? This plan would most likely drastically reduce the number of telemarketing calls made, as I would imagine that a great number of people would opt for a non-telemarketing-receiving line. And anything that greatly reduces the number of completed calls is not going to be in favor with TPC. But, if they were allowed to charge for Telemarketing*Block (R), then you might have an idea ... Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein) Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone Date: 20 Nov 91 11:39:09 GMT Reply-To: warren@itex.jct.ac.il Organization: WorldWide Software jhood@banana.ithaca.ny.us (John Hood) writes: > The big deal is that a telephone call demands your time and attention, > wherever you may be. Junk mail you can let pile up in the mail box > for a few days, newspapers and TV you can ignore, but the ring of a > phone brings you running. Was it in TELECOM Digest, or was it somewhere else, that I saw that during some war there was a campaign to get people to pick up the phone as soon as possible to cut down on the load on the phone network and since then Americans are the only people who will interrupt love-making in order to pick up the phone? Or am I spreading an Urban Legend? warren@itex.jct.ac.il ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 08:58:48 EST From: gws@cblph.att.com (Gary W Sanders) Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > As of late I have been getting calls every couple of night from > telmarketers wanting to know about my radio listening habits. A > number of local radio stations have change formats so guess they want > to know is the switch is working. Since I like to have fun with a tel-e-scum calls, Ill talk with them for a bit. They wanted to know age, own/rent, income level (I lied a litte on that one, we're all millionares aren't we??). They wanted to know what radio stations I listen to at home and in the car. I live in Columbus, Ohio and apparently the telmarketers preload a database with only local radio stations before calling. When responding on what radio station I listen to at home I replied CFMI. CFMI is in Vancover BC and I listen to it via a TVRO satellite channel. Well that really confused the telemarketer and even got the computer confused. Apparently the database does a lookup on US calls only and CFMI didn't fit in and the database crashed. She took the rest of the info by hand ... I wonder what that will do. Second favorite radio station at home WWV. Favorite radio station while in the car W8ZPF (local ham repeater). People need to have fun with the tele-scum ... answer with some left field answer and most of all HAVE FUN ... Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio gws@cblph.att.com 614-860-5965 [Moderator's Note: You are confusing telemarketers with survey takers. There is a difference. Don't paint them with the same brush. Survey takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT (really, not!) selling anything. And many of them do provide a valuable service. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 11:30:45 EST From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? Reply-To: Nick Simicich Actually, Roy's suggestion has a lot of merit: You could own your own 540 or 976 number, which you were perfectly happy to recieve telemarketing calls on, at $$$/minute, 10 minute minimum. Just refer people to that number, then you answer and listen to their spiel with an open mind. I can see it now, as a 30 second spot on late night TV: Frustrated telemarketers? Been hung up on 450 times this week? We have people who are willing to talk to you, listen attentively, and buy, buy, buy!!! Call 1-900-BUY-ERS1, and you will be connected to sales prospects who *want* to hear your pitches, and will not only act interested, but will also give you constructive criticism. $2/minute, ten minutes minimum. The info-marketer could just relay incoming calls to regular people who had signed up with the service, might actually be interested in buying something over the phone, and recieved mailings about constructive criticism; and split with them based on the number of calls that they got. Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, njs@watson.ibm.com) -SSI AOWI #3958, HSA #318 ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 12:11:04 EST Subject: Re: AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ In article jsw@drbbs.omahug.org writes: [ A description of a promotional announcement for what is purported to be AT&T Software Defined Network that was blasted to Fidonet coordinators. It had a lot of claims about OCC overbilling due to lack of answer supervision, etc. ] > Questions for those who are more in the know on these telecom issues: > Is this type of promotion officially sanctioned by AT&T ?? No definitive answer, but I will be *REAL* surprised if the marketing people for SDN could even spell FidoNet. I do know that as a general rule AT&T ads don't go out with unsupportable claims. Claims about call set-up time and tear-down time in normal print/broadcast ads can be believed. Personally, I don't know what the current situation on answer supervision is for OCCs and AOSs, so I can't comment. This sounds more like an ad from an aggregator rather than from AT&T. He buys SDN from AT&T, signs up his customers and puts them on the SDN, and then bills you from the call detail received from AT&T. > Is this guy getting a kickback from the calls placed by those he signs > up ?? I >KNOW< some LD companies do this. I was offered to just such > a deal myself recently if I would sign others up for a certain plan. If my guess is correct, that this is an offer from an aggregator, kickback is the wrong term. He is not representing AT&T, he is representing himself. His profit comes from *MARK-UP*, by billing you more than he is paying out. Needless to say, I am conjecturing based on experience, not speaking for the Company. 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, 20 Nov 91 09:26:45 PST From: martin@cod.nosc.mil (Douglas W. Martin) Subject: Telemarketing Fools Regarding telemarketers, last night between 6 and 7 pm, I got two calls from two different people, both from the same insurance company. (I won't say which one, but the name has to do with people involved in agriculture.) Anyway, both tried to sell me auto insurance. I am totally blind, and if they want to insure me to drive, I'm all ears! Doug Martin martin@nosc.mil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 10:00 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Does Each Long Distance Carrier Have It's Own 800 Service? billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes: > 1-800-abc-defg on AT&T is Spacely Sprockets, NO! 1-800-abc-defg is "Hooked on Phonics" Obviously, you do not listen to network radio much! :-) Actually, Pat's explanation was correct. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 10:56:29 PST From: pete!tompkins@uunet.UUCP (Tompkins) Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of geb1@Isis.MsState.Edu (Granville Barker) wrote: > In some places in MS you can dial 1 - 310 - 555 - 1212 or 5555 and a > Computer voice will come on and say the number you are calling from. Not likely anymore! 1-310-555-1212 gets you Directory Assistance in the new 310 area code (213/310 were split 11/2/91) ------------------------------ From: motcid!ellisond@uunet.uu.net (Dell H. Ellison) Subject: Re: The ZZZZZZ Saga -- Part 1 -- "The Books" Date: 20 Nov 91 21:28:03 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article , lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) writes: > This is Part 1 of a series chronicling the history of the ZZZZZZ > telephone entertainment service; from 1970 to 1980 the last listing > in the Los Angeles telephone directory, and at the time "the most > frequently dialed residential telephone number in the world". I remember ZZZZZZ very well as a kid. We used to have a lot of fun dialing it. But it did get a lot more busy as time went by. I grew up in West Los Angeles, about a half block from the corner of Westwood Blvd and National Blvd. (Maybe you know the area). I had forgotten all about it until you posted your article. Dell H. Ellison ...!uunet!mcdchg!motcid!ellisond Motorola, Inc. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #951 ******************************  ^A^A^A^A Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17632; 23 Nov 91 15:41 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18580 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 13:50:52 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25188 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 13:50:40 -0600 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 13:50:40 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111231950.AA25188@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #952 TELECOM Digest Sat, 23 Nov 91 13:50:36 CST Volume 11 : Issue 952 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Network Info and Access (Will Martin) New MC145447 CLID Chip -- Comments on Application Notes (Marcus Leech) CD-ROM Databases (Monty Solomon) Short Supervision Transition (SST) Low Without Radar (Kevin Houle) WWII Telephony Propaganda? (Edward Floden) How About an Annoyance Tax? (Rob Stampfli) Information Wanted: FTP Sites Storing CCITT Recs (Matt D. Nguyen) GEnie and the Internet (Mikel Manitius) Talk About Pushy! (John Higdon) US West: BBSs are Businesses (Peter Marshall) Phone Charges and Technology in the US (Juergen Ziegler) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 11:49:28 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Network Info and Access As the local e-mail answer-man and contact-point, and someone who has been involved with the Internet since the ARPANET of 1976 vintage and who has had on-and-off USENET access in the years since then, I'm ashamed to say I don't have the answer to this question at my fingertips or in my brain. But maybe the resource I'm looking for doesn't exist. I'm often asked if this or that organization has Internet connectivity; if it can be reached via e-mail or accessed with FTP or telnet. The latest example of this was a query regarding the Library of Congress. Sometimes I know the answer off the top of my head, but I don't know about the LoC, and I don't even know where to look it up or who to ask to get a definitive answer. In the old days, it was simple -- you checked the host tables. Nowadays, with the move to domain addressing and the growth of interconnected sub-nets and gateways between disparate networks, even the concept of a "host table" is sort of laughable. So I ask the question: where does one look now to search for organization names who are Internet-connected, to find out their host IP addresses and names? Or where can one ask this question and expect an accurate response? (And, while I'm asking, is the LoC on the Internet and can its catalogs be remotely accessed electronically? Does the latter require the establishment of an account or is public or anonymous access possible?) And, in a related topic, where can one find out about "public" or "free" or reasonably-priced methods for network access? Here in Telecom, we recently saw a description of the PANIX public-access UNIX system in New York, and there have been references to others like the Well in the Bay Area of CA, or the Cleveland Free-Net. How can I find if there are any similar systems in other areas of the country? For example, here in the St. Louis area, in the 314 area code, and across the river in Illinois in 618? As people retire here, or otherwise leave, having become used to Internet e-mail and access to various mailing lists or interest groups, many wish to continue to have such access after they no longer have accounts here, and I am often asked about alternatives. While toll phone calls to out-of-area systems such as those cited above are possible, and perhaps alternatives like PC Pursuit could be used to reduce the toll-call bill, it would still be preferable for there to be a local system providing low-priced accounts with Internet access. I don't know of one myself, and have pointed people to the local UNIX users' group as a place to begin asking. (I've gotten no feedback yet from this.) But perhaps there is some central directory or at least a forum where one might inquire about such things? [It may be more important to find such a resource in the 618 area code; I have heard from people who live in that part of Illinois that there are no local-call dial-up data-service numbers for the commercial services like Genie. Calls from there to the 314-area numbers for such services incur oppressive toll charges and thus are not a viable option.] So pointers to network resources for obtaining information as described above would be appreciated! Regards, Will wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil OR wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 91 09:02:00 EST From: Marcus (M.D.) Leech Subject: New MC145447 CLID Chip -- Comments on Application Notes I got my MC145447 sample earlier this week (five day turnaround from request to getting it in the mail -- way to go MOTOROLA!). I was keen to try the chip out, so I built up one of their application notes with a MAX232 RS-232 driver. Here are a few comments based on my experience: - The circuit as shown introduces a *lot* of hum into the line, since one side of the ring-detect bridge is directly grounded. In real life, CO ground and your ground are not the same, so you have to provide a lot of isolation between your ground and its. The grounded portion of the diode bridge circuit should be changed to be isolated from ground by a 180K resistor. - The MAX232 has a built-in pull-up on its input circuit (400K), which buggers up the R/C time constant used on the output of /RING DET OUT and /CARRIER DET. This time-constant is used to allow the /PWR UP signal to "ride out" the interval between /RING DET going high (end of ring) and /CARRIER DET going low. If you use the suggested 0.33uf capacitor/4.7Meg resistor, the time-constant will be too low because of the pullup on the MAX232. Change the capacitor to be between 3.3uf and 4.7uf. The time-constant here is critical to allowing the automatic PWR UP circuitry to work. On "real" COs, there can be substantial wobble in the timing between end-of-ring and start of data, so the time-constant has to be long-enough to account for the worst-case wobble. Once you've fixed these little problems, the chip seems to work "as advertised". You could run the chip in PWR UP mode all the time, except that if you're using it on a an incoming modem line (my application), it'll "false" on many non-202 carriers. Marcus Leech, 4Y11 Bell-Northern Research |opinions expressed mleech@bnr.ca P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C |are my own, and not ml@ve3mdl.ampr.org Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7 |necessarily BNRs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 01:33:41 EST From: monty@roscom.UUCP (Monty Solomon) Subject: CD-ROM Databases There are two interesting articles today (11/21) on page B1 of the {Wall Street Journal}. The first article is about CD-ROMs. Phonedisc USA offers two CD-ROMs with nationwide residential phone and address listings for about $1,000 each. SpeedDial from Dataware is a $299 disc that contains nine million business telephone listings from around the country. The second article is about the FCC's new plan to revamp the Bell network. It indicates that the Bell companies would have to unbundle phone services (e.g. call routing and switching) and provide them on an "a la carte" basis. This would probably cause phone rates to rise and computer modem users to see sharp hikes. The article also mentions that the Bell companies can use information about subscribers for marketing purposes. They can identify customers whose phones are frequently busy and try to sell them a voicemail system, for example. Monty Solomon roscom!monty@bu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 12:46 CST From: Flying Low Without Radar Subject: Short Supervision Transition (SST) Organization: Iowa Network Services, Inc. I am investigating a large number of call records which have been stripped out into an error file by our billing system, and I am hoping to find some advice or information. The call records have all errored out due to an "Unexpected Bellcore call type code". The structure code on the CR's is 10002 and the call types are 34. I've traced this through our switch documentation and found that particular call type to translate to "Signaling Irregularities". As the vast majority of the call records involved have both originating and terminating NPA-NXX's, the conclusion we are seeing is these must be calls initiated by a customer but receive a switchhook before the call is terminated. Is this a correct assumption, or are there other possibilities? These types of errors make up about .5% to 1% of all the call records we process through our switch. Personally, I hang up before completing a call more than once every 100 attempts. :) Kevin Houle Bitnet Address : kh1461a@drake Internet Address : kh1461a@acad.drake.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 10:26:17 CST From: edward@pro-ren.cts.com (Edward Floden) Subject: WWII Telephony Propaganda? Organization: Technological Renaissance Users Group, Wonder Lake, IL My dad has told me that he remembers that Western Electric (he thinks) had a sort of "Rosie the Riveter"-type campaign during World War II, a sort of inspirational female character. Does anyone recall details of this? Dad's not certain of the specifics, and he'd like to know if he's right or wrong. Internet: edward@pro-ren.cts.com UUCP: crash!pro-ren!edward DDN: crash!pro-ren!edward@nosc.mil ProLine: edward@pro-ren ------------------------------ From: colnet!res@cis.ohio-state.edu (Rob Stampfli) Subject: How About an Annoyance Tax? Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 04:21:39 GMT Try this on for size: Petition your legislators to mandate an annoyance tax on calls you receive that you don't want. It would work like this: If you are called by someone that interrupts you for no good reason, after hanging up, you could dial a special code that would add a $1.00 tax to that person's phone bill. It would be implemented sort of like the dial-back-most-recent-number-that-called- you service. You could impose the tax on any phone that calls your number, once per call. You would not receive any of the money back yourself, but the proceeds could go to offsetting the cost of everyone's service. To make it less likely that people would play games, like leaving a note on an answering machine and zapping the innocent party when they returned the call, the first few instances of the charge would be forgiven each month. But it would make matters very interesting for the telemarketers. They would have to carefully determine in advance just who would really be interested in their product, or face huge charges from indescriminate calling. But, if they really have a hot product, they wouldn't be prohibited from trying to market it by phone. Now, both you and I know such a scheme would never fly, since the telemarketers have more lobbyists and political clout than you or I. But I bet such a program would sure be popular with the masses, and dramatically reduce the number of annoyance calls. Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, res@kd8wk.uucp (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), kd8wk@n8jyv.oh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 14:25:20 EST From: mdn@ihlpy.att.com (Matt D Nguyen) Subject: Information Wanted: FTP Sites Storing CCITT Recs Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I am looking for FTP sites storing CCITT Recommendations and other ANSI and international standards. Please email the info directly to me. My machine can't access bruno.cs.colorado.edu. Thanks, Matthew Nguyen (att!ihlpy!mdn) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 14:29:36 EST From: mikel@aaahq05.aaa.com (Mikel Manitius) Subject: GEnie and the Internet There have been several rumors recently about an Internet gateway for email on GEnie. Last night I noticed a survey on GEnie which asks questions such as how many messages one would send/receive, and how much one would be willing to pay (in a flat monthly fee) for the service. GEnie is currently priced at a $4.95 per month flat fee for unlimited off-peak usage, and email is currently included. One of the survey questions proposes a price structure which would impose an additional montly flat fee for the email Internet gateway service ranging from $5 to $25. GEnie = General Electric Network for Information Exchange. Mikel Manitius mikel@aaa.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 23:31 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Talk About Pushy! I was visiting my mother yesterday and the phone rang. It was yet another call from someone pushing MCI. Even though I have given Mom rude lessons, particularly so she won't inadvertantly buy an "I've Fallen And I Can't Get Up" machine or worse, she politely talked to the MCI gentleman. He insisted that she would save a great deal over AT&T. She replied that she was very happy with her current arrangement. "But wouldn't you like to pay less money for your phone service?" Mom: "I'm happy with what I have now." At this point you have to understand that a monthly interLATA total on her bill is less than five dollars, and is frequently zero. She talks to me (local), my sister in San Francisco (intraLATA), and very infrequently, my brother in Los Angeles (the only interLATA call she would make). This guy kept badgering. "Why don't you switch, and if you don't like it you can switch back?" Good old Mom was finally moved to say, "My son is in the telephone business and he set up what I have now." The reply? "Do you always do whatever your son says?" This is absolutely the most offensive and aggressive telemarketing that I have ever seen. I cannot believe that MCI needs a little old lady's $50/year that badly. If I had not actually been sitting there it is very possible that she would have given in, but as it was she actually managed to convince the salesanimal that the answer was definitely "no". Next time I'm by, we will be dialing 700 555-4141 just to see if MCI has changed its slamming ways. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 10:11:11 -0800 From: ole!rwing!peterm@cs.washington.edu (Peter Marshall) Subject: US West: BBSs are Businesses According to a 11/5 {Communications Daily} article, "System operator of ... (BBS) in Portland has asked PUC to block US West from charging him business rates for service..." The article states that Fidonet sysop Tony Wagner's "problems with US West began in early October, when he applied to add three lines into his house to go with two he had. US West took order, but then wrote him Oct. 10 informing him that he must pay business rates," which "are about $30 monthly, residential rates about $10 less." The US West letter, according to the article, indicated "...you have computer bulletin board services and you have been using your residential telephoneserviBulletin board services are considered a business, therefore, subject to business rates." Sysop Wagner, says the article, "objected, saying he never had charged for access to his board, called 'First Choice Communications.' Extra lines are needed because he's regional ... coordinator for FidoNet ... One of additional lines was for TDD, Wagner said." The article indicates Wagner filed a formal complaint against US West on 10/14 and that a US West spokesman "said difference of opinion stems from view of what constitutes business service," and that "under US West tariff, individuals who operate bulletin boards are considered to be offering service, subject to business rates." The article quotes the US West source as stating that "Business rates would hold even if [the] operator doesn't charge for access, as in Wagner's case ..." Tony Wagner is represented by legal counsel, and the Oregon PUC has set a pro forma reply to the complaint from US West was submitted before the hearing was set. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 12:20 From: "Juergen, ZIEGLER" Subject: Phone Charges and Technology in the US Hi TD-readers, I am a German reader of TD. As the majority of the TD readers know, there is still a monopoly (telephone and network) on most telecomm- unication services in Germany. This results in higher charges and the lack of modern services (e.g. call-waiting, ...). To get a picture about the state of telecommunications services , I am interested in some information about rates, services and technology. First of all I would like to know when certain features first became available and then widely available. Here are some features: Touch-tone dialing Itemized billing 800 service 900-(also 976,..) service Centrex Enhanced phone features (call waiting, forwarding, three-way, ...) Class Services (caller-ID) .... Second I am interested in the rates/(per month or use) of several services: Local Phone Service Enhanced Services Long Distance .... Thanks, Juergen BITNET : UJ32@DKAUNI2.BITNET Internet : UJ32@ibm3090.rz.uni-karlsruhe.dbp.de X.400 : S=UJ32;OU=ibm3090;OU=rz;P=uni-karlsruhe;A=dbp;C=de ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #952 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21188; 23 Nov 91 16:11 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24705 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 14:24:33 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22177 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 14:24:23 -0600 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 14:24:23 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111232024.AA22177@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #953 TELECOM Digest Sat, 23 Nov 91 14:24:13 CST Volume 11 : Issue 953 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson LEC Competition to Come to Chicago (Wall Street Journal via Charlie Mingo) NT Wins Ameritech Network Upgrade Contract (Dan J. Rudiak via Jack Decker) Telephone Tapping Scandal in Brazil (Toronto Globe & Mail via Nigel Allen) CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Craig Neidorf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charlie.Mingo@p0.f716.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) Date: 22 Nov 91 17:21:26 Subject: LEC Competition to Come to Chicago TELEPORT PLANS TOUGH ASSAULT ON ILLINOIS BELL By John J. Keller, {The Wall St. Journal}, November 22, 1991 at B1. Teleport Communications Group, which has been struggling to gain entrance to the telephone services market dominated by local phone monopolies, may soon get a big boost from the Illinois Commerce Commission. Teleport executives said the company within a couple of weeks will file with Illinois's chief utility regulatory agency a request to expand the private-line services it now sells Chicago-area businesses into public switched services. These would compete directly with the local phone monopoly, Illinois Bell Telephone Co. Illinois's chief regulator says he will work hard to support Teleport's plan to become Chicago's second phone company. "Teleport is going to ask for permission to provide a public switched service ... [that] would ultimately mean the breakup of the local telephone monopoly," said Terrence Barnich, chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission. "This will be the most significant event since [the American Telephone & Telegraph Co.] divestiture. And I would give them permission to do it." "That's a powerful message from a local regulator," notes Kenneth Leon, telecommunications analyst at Bear, Sterns & Co. In fact, he says a rivalry is growing among regulators in states such as New York and Illinois to lower the barriers for alternative carriers such as New York-based Teleport and Metropolitan Fiber Systems, Inc., which is based in Oakbrook Terrace, Ill. Any inroad by an alternative carrier such as Teleport into local phone service could ultimately bring greater competition and drive down local phone rates, which unlike long-distance rates, have barely budged since the breakup of AT&T in 1984. "The customers are getting a choice they didn't have before. It's going to put pressure on the local operating company to lower pricing, and provide network redundancy" in the event of a network outage, says Mr. Leon. The local phone monopoly may benefit, too, since more competition could help it win deregulation. "We've always been pro-competitive ever since the divestiture" of AT&T, says John Ake, vice president of regulatory affairs at Illinois Bell. But, "if competition is going to enter our market, [then] we have to be able to price our services to our costs in places where we're seeing competition. We'd like more flexibility than we have now." Teleport, which is 100% controlled by Merrill Lynch & Co., has installed highly efficient fiber-optic communications loops in New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas and Houston. Teleport uses the lines to provide private-line voice and data communications services to businesses. Merrill has recently agreed to sell a 12.5% stake to cable operator Cox Enterprises, Inc., which had been seeking to expand into local telecommunications services as a way of finding more cable subscribers. The first step in Teleport's Chicago expansion would be to install a multi-million dollar switching center that would provide so-called Centrex- type and shared-tenent services to businesses in Chicago, said Scott Bonney, Teleport's director of regulatory affairs. Most of the customers are currently served by Illinois Bell, which is owned by Ameritech, one of the seven regional Bell holding companies. By the middle of next year, Mr Bonney said, Teleport will take the second step and ask the Illinois agency to require Illinois Bell to provide alternative carriers access to pieces of the phone company's network, including subscriber lines, so that Teleport could provide their own switched service and even billing to customers. In addition, Teleport will ask the Commission to have the phone company make physical connections to its local lines more accessible and allow the alternative carriers to assign and service customer telephone numbers. "Our ultimate goal is to become the second phone company in the Chicago area ... and in all the other areas in which we now operate," Mr. Bonney said. Illinois Commerce Commission Chief Barnich acknowledges he must line up at least four commission votes out of seven to open up the local phone network to a second carrier. But he says he already has two votes, his and Commissioner Calvin Manshio's. "He's collaborated with me on this, and I haven't even gone searching for the other votes." Mr. Manshio couldn't reached for comment. Alternative carriers have been gaining more ground lately in their turf battle with the local monopolies. Last spring, the Federal Communications Commission proposed that fiber-optic companies such as Teleport be allowed to connect their networks to phone systems run by the regional Bell companies and GTE Corp. for equal access to interstate long-distance networks. The FCC has yet to issue a final order on its proposal, which would allow phone company competitors to monitor and control their own circuits, and would require the local phone companies to make certain equipment available to rivals such as Teleport. The FCC's proposal is initially limited to private-line services that corporations could use to connect branch offices or other buildings through the public network. However, the Commission is also considering allowing alternative carriers to plug into local phone networks and provide public switched service when it is used to access a long-distance company. In April, Illinois Bell began allowing Teleport and other alternative carriers to connect to its network and provide business customers with a backup telecommunications system that can prevent interruptions in service during a network outage. However the service is limited to intra-state high-speed, digital private-line services and other services dedicated to a particular customer. It doesn't include interstate or switched services, such as Centrex, which the industry calls "plain old telephone service," or POTS, which Mr. Bonney says Teleport ultimately wants to provide. Centrex is a type of phone service for businesses that uses the phone company public-network switching facilities rather than private switching facilities owned by the customer itself. Shared-tenent service is a service that extends Centrex service to corporate tenants in a single building. Teleport's plan is to expand into a regular local phone service. "We already have two switches in New York and we plan to put one in Chicago," said Mr. Bonney. "We're not making this investment of millions of dollars of switching equipment just to provide Centrex. That second switch is going to be used to become the second phone company." --------- Perhaps the Moderator will subscribe and tell us what it's like ... Charlie Mingo mingo@well.sf.ca.us mingo@cup.portal.com [Moderator's Note: I really doubt it. They're cream-skimmers also. I need a full service phone company. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 16:39:05 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: NT Wins Ameritech Network Upgrade Contract The following message originally appeared in the Fidonet MDF conference: Original From: Dan J. Rudiak Chicago, Ill., November 12 -- Northern Telecom has won a large contract to upgrade more than four million telephone lines in Ameritech's telecommunications network. The contract is part of a $1.05 billion network modernization program involving more than six million telephone lines across five states. Digital central office equipment and software will replace older analog technology to improve transmission quality and enable the five Ameritech Bell telephone companies to make the latest telecomm- unications services more widely available in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Digital technology is particularly important to computer networking and video teleconferencing, and essential to the growth of commerce in today's business environment. The upgrade also positions the Ameritech companies to deliver Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) capabilities. With ISDN, people can transmit voice, data and images over a single, ordinary telephone line. "Ameritech is assembling the telephone network its customers will need to meet the challenges of the information age," said William Kashul, regional vice president, Northern Telecom Inc. "Northern Telecom is proud to have its products play such a prominent role in this endeavor." Much of Northern Telecom's public networks product line, known as the DMS family, is manufactured in Research Triangle Park, N.C., where the company employs more than 8,000 people. Northern Telecom has more than 22,000 employees in the United States, and 60,000 worldwide. Blue Wave/Max v2.00 [NR] Origin: Gorre & Daphetid - ASP Approved BBS (1:134/14.0) Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 21:50:25 -0500 From: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) Subject: Telephone Tapping Scandal in Brazil Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach From {The Globe and Mail}, Toronto, November 22, 1991. Scandal / Retired Brazilian intelligence officers trying to earn extra money are using phone company to steal business secrets. Telephone tapping threatens economic reform. By Isabel Vincent South American Bureau RIO DE JANEIRO --- Brazilian president Fernando Collor de Mello's attempts to liberalize his economy and encourage foreign investment have been dealt a severe blow by allegations that retired intelligence officers are using Brazil's state-run telephone company to steal business secrets. The scandal, which broke last month when a U.S.-owned company discovered that its phones were being wiretapped, has left the foreign business community concerned about the security of Brazilian telecommunications. Princeton do Brasil Ltda., a Sao Paulo company owned in partnership by a U.S. and a European company, pulled out of Brazil's first privatization auction last month after discovering that a competitor had learned the amount it was willing to bid for the state-owned Usiminas steel mill. Princeton administrator Carlos Roberto Damasceno said he realized in September that his phones were being tapped and hired a private intelligence firm to conduct an investigation. "They found out our most important secret as a result of the tap. That's why we bowed out of the Usiminas auction," Mr. Damasceno told a Sao Paulo newspaper. Usiminas was auctioned to a consortium of Brazilian companies in late October. The investigation found that 12 retired intelligence officers are involved in wiretapping within Telesp, the Sao Paulo branch of Brazil's national telephone company. "There have been various instances of clandestine wiretapping, and it's obvious to me that there are a group of people at Telesp doing what they shouldn't be doing," said Waldemar Marques Ferreira, who heads Segamr, the Sao Paulo firm that investigated the Princeton case. Mr. Marques, who formerly headed security operations at Telesp, says retired army colonels are trying to earn extra money by trading in business secrets. When he heard of Mr. Marques' findings last month, Telesp president Oswaldo Nascimento immediately ordered a separate police investigation, which recently confirmed the tap on Princeton's line. A report by Gerson Carvalho, the police officer conducting the investigation, indicated that the tap was traced to one of Telesp's high-security switching stations in Sao Paulo. Mr. Carvalho suspects that Raul Ruffino, a retied colonel who is a senior executive at Telesp, may have ordered the wire-tapping, but Mr. Ruffino denies any involvement and no charges have been laid. Mr. Marques says Mr. Ruffino and the other colonels at Telesp tapped political dissidents' telephones during military rule in Brazil from 1964 to 1985. "Now they just want to make a little money," he said, adding that he has received several death threats since doing public with his investigation. He suspects the military group at Telesp. In an official statement released earlier this month, the federal department of strategic affairs in Brasilia said that none of the colonels implicated in the Telesp scandal are connected to the government. Robert Brydon, president of the Royal Bank of Canada's Brazilian subsidiary and head of the Brazil/Canada Chamber of Commerce in Sao Paulo, said that Canadian executives working in Brazil have not complained about wire-tapping. "Maybe we should start being concerned about the security of our phones," he said, "but I don't think we really have big business secrets." Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 16:55:20 -0500 From: Craig Neidorf Subject: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service The Secret Service's response to Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility's (CPSR) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request has raised new questions about the scope and conduct of the agency's "computer crime" investigations. The documents disclosed to CPSR reveal that the Secret Service monitored communications sent across the Internet. The materials released through the FOIA include copies of many electronic newsletters, digests, and Usenet groups including "comp.org.eff.talk," "comp.sys.att," "Computer Underground Digest" (alt.cud.cu-digest)," "Effector Online," "Legion of Doom Technical Journals," "Phrack Newsletter," and "TELECOM Digest (comp.dcom.telecom)". Currently, there is no clear policy for the monitoring of network communications by law enforcement agents. A 1982 internal FBI memorandum indicated that the Bureau would consider monitoring on a case by case basis. That document was released as a result of a separate CPSR lawsuit against the FBI. Additionally, we have found papers that show Bell Labs in New Jersey passed copies of TELECOM Digest to the Secret Service. The material (approximately 2500 pages) also suggests that the Secret Service's seizure of computer bulletin boards and other systems may have violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 and the Privacy Protection Act of 1980. Two sets of logs from a computer bulletin board in Virginia show that the Secret Service obtained messages in the Spring of 1989 by use of the system administrator's account. It is unclear how the Secret Service obtained system administrator access. It is possible that the Secret Service accessed this system without authorization. The more likely explanation is that the agency obtained the cooperation of the system administrator. Another possibility is that this may have been a bulletin board set up by the Secret Service for a sting operation. Such a bulletin board was established for an undercover investigation involving pedophiles. The documents we received also include references to the video taping of SummerCon, a computer hackers conference that took place in St. Louis in 1988. The Secret Service employed an informant to attend the conference and placed hidden cameras to tape the participants. The documents also show that the Secret Service established a computer database to keep track of suspected computer hackers. This database contains records of names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers, known associates, a list of activities, and various articles associated with each individual. CPSR is continuing its efforts to obtain government documentation concerning computer crime investigations conducted by the Secret Service. These efforts include the litigation of several FOIA lawsuits and attempts to locate individuals targeted by federal agencies in the course of such investigations. For additional information, contact: dsobel@washofc.cpsr.org (David Sobel) Craig Neidorf - Washington Intern Electronic Frontier Foundation 666 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Suite 303 Washington, D.C. 20003 (202) 544-9237 Voice (202) 547-5481 FAX *** Attribute no comment contained in this message to the *** *** Electronic Frontier Foundation unless explicited stated! *** [Moderator's Note: Nice try, Craig. I'll respond in detail in the next issue since space is short this time around. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #953 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24608; 23 Nov 91 18:27 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16261 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 16:46:24 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26826 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 16:46:12 -0600 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 16:46:12 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111232246.AA26826@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #954 TELECOM Digest Sat, 23 Nov 91 16:46:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 954 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telemarketers Targeting Families of Vietnam MIAs (NamVet via D. Niebuhr) Off Hook Detection Circuit (George Brown) Single Source Wanted For Tariff Publications (David Esan) Connecting to the Network (Ken Sprouse) Re: New AT&T Mail Rate Clarification (David Leibold) Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 15:52:59 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Telemarketers Targeting Families of Vietnam MIAs This was on the soc.veterans newsgroup, submitted by Al Aharon. Volume 5, Number 10 October 24, 1991 In-Touch or Soft Touch By Ray "Frenchy" Moreau NamVet's In-Touch Section Editor VETLink #2 - Herndon, VA (703) 471-8010 The elderly couple relaxed in their special chairs were fascinated with what was appearing on the television screen. It appeared as though nothing could shake them loose from the modern imagery except for a phone call. Leo got up from his chair and grabbed the clattering device. "Damn," he thought,"been saying to myself to silence this ringer." "Hello." "Hello!! Is this Mr. Snapwood speaking?" "Yes! Who is this please?" "You don't know me, Mr. Snapwood, but you will. Do you remember Albert Marion Snapwood?" "Yes, he is my nephew and he has been MIA since 1966." "We found him Mr. Snapwood ... is the Mrs. available?" Puzzled, Leo laid the receiver down and motioned for Jay to come to the phone. "Guy on the line says he found Albert ... he wants to talk to you" Jay picked up the phone and again reiterated what Leo had said. "Who is this?" "Mrs. Snapwood this is good news for your family. We have reason to believe that Albert is very much alive. If we cannot prove he is alive then we will make sure his name will be placed on The Wall." The above is an excerpt from a conversation my in-laws had just a few weeks ago. Somehow, somewhere a new scam is crawling out of the midst of toxic waste. That scam, although small, is growing and is attacking our elderly. They have suffered enough. Yet, some devilish fiends are trying to make easy money by preying on those that have loved one's presumed to be MIAs. My in-laws know about the "In Touch" system. Within its databases all the information relative to each and every soldier, sailor, or marine that has been killed, POW and MIA is available. Additionally, many offices in Washington, DC provide to the public information about an individual if found. The one question which Jay asked had stopped the would-be beggars from continuing. That question was simple and to the point - "How come my sister was not notified? And, by the way, Albert's name IS on the Wall". The guy hung up ... Please educate your neighbors, especially the elderly, concerning the possibility of falling into the arms of a con artist. With the latest news about the possibility of the US Government's cover-up about the MIA and POW's, our families would be more attuned to getting assistance from these gutter bums. --------------- [Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for passing this along. Just as I would not compare all survey takers to telemarketers, neither would I put all telemarketers in the category of creeps like this. Mr. Moreau's report is a very sad commentary. I am reminded of the quatrain by Rudyard Kipling: God and the soldier, we adore In time of danger and in time of war -- The war over and the trouble righted, God is forgotten and the soldier slighted. The vets get screwed all the time anyway, so why not by the telemarketers as well, I guess. PAT] ------------------------------ From: George Brown Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 11:21:08 EST Subject: Off Hook Detection Circuit Perhaps someone can help me, I am looking for a simple circuit that will reliably detect on/off hook for an extension phone. The circuit must be FCC approved. Because I don't read news often, please respond via Email. Thanks, George Brown School of Electrical Engineering, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332 USENET: ...!{allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,ulysses}!gatech!eedsp!brown INTERNET: brown@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: Yes please, reply to Mr. Brown by email. PAT] ------------------------------ From: de@moscom.com (David Esan) Subject: Single Source Wanted For Tariff Publications Date: 21 Nov 91 16:42:19 GMT Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY We subscribe to various services to get copies of intrastate and local telephone tariffs. I have often thought that it would be nice (and save money) if we could order these tariffs directly from the state Public Service (Utility) Commission. Wading through 50 states worth of bureaucracy is not my idea of a good time, and I wonder if anyone else has been through this, has been sucessful, and has any tips or pointers to help. Thanks. David Esan de@moscom.com ------------------------------ Subject: Connecting to the "Network" Date: 19 Nov 91 11:19:57 EDT (Tue) From: sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us (Ken Sprouse) In article 5825 David G Lewis writes: > Doesn't *anyone* have a right to call and ring your phone when they > please? And don't you have the right to not answer it, to screen > using an answering machine, to get an auto-attendant, or to take any > number of other strategies to not talk to whomever may be calling? I don't have a problem with 98% of the people who ring my phone. There are certain times of the day I would prefer it not ring such as dinner time and after I have gone to bed. I ask friends and business associates not to ring my phone durnig those times and they have obliged me. I also know that the rest of the world does not run on my schedle so if someone missdials the phone or has been given a wrong number in error and calls me I don't get upset. (Even at 2 in the morning!) This DOES happen but not often. However, when I go answer the phone only to have some machine babble away at me, one that I know dialed my number at random or because it was the next one in numeric order, then I do get upset. I DO have an answering machine at home. I also have an 86 year old grandmother who I'm glad to talk with any time she chooses to call me who also REFUSES to utter a sound when the answer machine picks up the line. I have tried to get her to leave a message to no avail. I also feel that I should not have to screen my phone calls to avoid what I consider nusiance calls. > It seems to me that by purchasing service on a public network, you are > implicitly permitting anyone else on that public network to attempt to > call you. If you don't like it, don't answer. Or purchase something I basically agree with you with some limitations. > Face it -- if you want restrictions on whether or not a call is > permissible based on the reason for the call, the intent of the call, > or whether or not the call has a "legitimate purpose" or some such, > you're getting into regulating content. And having anyone -- > certainly the telco, but even worse the government -- starting to > regulate content of telecommunications is to me a very scary thought. Perhaps "intent" was a bad choice of words on my part and I did not make my meaning clear. The thought of the phone company or the government regulating the content of conversations is a scary one indeed. However there are limitations set on what you can do when connected to the "public network". You can not for example use your phone to harass or annoy other useers of the "network". If I have a problem with the way local school board is doing there job I can't call each member up at 3 AM and read them the riot act five nights a week. I'm sure if I did I would be hearing from not only the local police but the phone compay as well. How do you think they would respond if I told them "If you don't want to be bothered with my 3 AM calls get an answering machine or other technology that will prevent me from calling you." Not well I think. My point is that "we" the users of the "public network" just as here on Usenet have set some limits on the behavior of the other users. In my opinion the telemarketing people have crossed that line. Judging from the mail I have received since my original post a number of other people feel the same way I do. I saw an analogy between telemarketing and door to door sales. In the town I live in if you want to go door to door selling or soliciting you must first go to the borough building and get a permit and the permit sets limits on what you can do. Ken Sprouse / N3IGW sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us GEnie mail KSPROUSE Compu$erve 70145,426 ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1991 18:03:01 EST From: DLEIBOLD@YORKVM1.BITNET Subject: Re: New AT&T Mail Rate Clarification Organization: York University I have spoken with some AT&T Communications folk in Canada, and this USD$25/month minimum usage seems to be news to them; the Canadian rates seem to be set on the Canadian end of things, and no one out of AT&T Canada is talking about any monthly minimum usage fee. However, I still have to get my attmail account out of U.S. action before the $25/month kicks in. The annual fee in Canada is somewhat higher, when various taxes are thrown on top, but USD$25/month would be a killer compared to <$CAD$38/yr (I don't have the exact rate handy, but it is in the $30s and things get billed in CAD$). We'll see how things turn out from my end and see if I got out of there in the nick of time. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 15:43:39 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service In TELECOM Digest V11 #953, Craig Neidorf tells of efforts by the Computer Professionals For Social Responsibility to seek out evidence of U.S. Secret Service activity relating to investigations that agency has undertaken. TELECOM Digest was mentioned as one electronic journal apparently examined as part of one or more investigations. Perhaps Craig thought that seeing this journal in the agency's files would somehow excite (or incite?) me to action. Well, he is right. I was motivated to write this response. > The Secret Service's response to Computer Professionals for Social > Responsibility's (CPSR) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request has > raised new questions about the scope and conduct of the agency's > "computer crime" investigations. The documents disclosed to CPSR > reveal that the Secret Service monitored communications sent across the > Internet. Since the Internet is a government-owned and managed resource in cooperation with numerous publicly funded institutions and others, it is fair game for anyone who wishes to 'monitor' its traffic, provided that traffic is intended for public consumption and display, as are the various e-journals and newsgroups. Anyone is free -- even members of CPSR -- to interconnect with this network and read the newsgroups or subscribe to the various e-journals. Craig makes it sound, in his context, like the Secret Service did something wrong. In this instance, they did not. > The materials released through the FOIA include copies of > many electronic newsletters, digests, and Usenet groups including > "comp.org.eff.talk," "comp.sys.att," "Computer Underground Digest" > (alt.cud.cu-digest)," "Effector Online," "Legion of Doom Technical > Journals," "Phrack Newsletter," and "TELECOM Digest (comp.dcom. > telecom)". Well I don't know about those other guys mentioned here, but I have no problem with TELECOM Digest being in anyone's files. > Currently, there is no clear policy for the monitoring > of network communications by law enforcement agents. A 1982 internal > FBI memorandum indicated that the Bureau would consider monitoring on a > case by case basis. Well, why should there be a 'clear policy'? That which is available to the public is available to anyone, including employees of government agencies. If I can read it, take offense to it and (feeling it might be a criminal action) report it to authorities, then why can't an employee of the Secret Service read something here, feel the same way and report the matter? Or conversely, why can't any member of the public read something here, be disinterested in it or bored by it and forget the matter. > Additionally, we have found papers that show Bell Labs in New > Jersey passed copies of TELECOM Digest to the Secret Service. FYI, I have numerous names on the mailing matrix for TELECOM Digest of people associated with various government agencies, including the Secret Service, the IRS and many others. I ask for one thing from people who wish to subscribe: an interest in telecommunications policy and practice; and an enthusiasm for understanding telecommunications in an intellectually and ethically honest way. I specifically forbid and repudiate copyright of TELECOM Digest in the hopes people will share their understanding and ideas with others. If Craig's implication here is that there was something sneaky about the passing of the Digest to the Secret Service, then he is entitled to think that way; my answer is that had I known someone at Bell Labs was going to all that trouble (passing along issues of the Digest) I would have added the names of the interested parties to the matrix here, or started yet another expansion mailing list (there are currently over 100 such expansion mailing lists serviced from the main list here). > Another possibility is that this may have been a bulletin board set > up by the Secret Service for a sting operation. Such a bulletin board > was established for an undercover investigation involving pedophiles. I think that's an admirable goal ... investigating pedophiles. > The documents we received also include references to the video > taping of SummerCon, a computer hackers conference that took place in > St. Louis in 1988. The Secret Service employed an informant to attend > the conference and placed hidden cameras to tape the participants. Well again, a public event is a public event. It was advertised widely and people were invited to attend. That which can be seen with the eyes does not become forbidden to view later through the lens of a camera for strictly that reason alone. > The documents also show that the Secret Service established a computer > database to keep track of suspected computer hackers. This database > contains records of names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers, known > associates, a list of activities, and various articles associated with > each individual. Not that you would ever keep any computer database of people with interests like your own ....:) > CPSR is continuing its efforts to obtain government documentation > concerning computer crime investigations conducted by the Secret > Service. These efforts include the litigation of several FOIA lawsuits > and attempts to locate individuals targeted by federal agencies in the > course of such investigations. Fine ... you do your thing. But let me make it perfectly clear you do not speak for Patrick Townson and/or TELECOM Digest, although you may speak for various readers of the Digest who have asked you to represent them or speak for them. I have no problem whatsoever with the Secret Service or any other government agency reading what I publish here. They don't have to sneak around reading it. > For additional information, contact: > dsobel@washofc.cpsr.org (David Sobel) By all means, dear readers, contact CPSR if you want more information, but as for myself, I support government efforts to crack down on computer crime, and electronic invasion of computers by unauthorized users. I do not support organizations which would deny the government the right to participate in any public forum. Email is a whole different matter ... notice I have not mentioned it once today. I am talking about newsgroups and public mailing lists. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #954 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06213; 24 Nov 91 1:53 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17958 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 23:40:57 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06448 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 23:40:47 -0600 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 23:40:47 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111240540.AA06448@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #955 TELECOM Digest Sat, 23 Nov 91 23:40:45 CST Volume 11 : Issue 955 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody (Jack Decker) Re: Telecom Sucks on the Road (Steve Forrette) Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different (Tony Harminc) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (David Leibold) Re: Telemarketing and the Slippery Slope (Steve Forrette) Re: USWest Voice Mail Problems (Laird P. Broadfield) Re: Cellular Antennas (Chris Arndt) Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Wolfgang Zenker) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 16:35:59 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody In a message dated 17 Nov 91 15:29:10 GMT, Steve Simmons writes: [[a long posting about phone calls in excess of 300 per month being billed extra has been deleted ]] > There's not much excuse for ignorance on this one; even a wimp rag like > the {Detroit Free Press} has been covering it. We don't get the {Detroit Free Press}, and I make no apologies for that. When Michigan Bell goes to the MPSC for a rate increase, or a fundamental change in the way they want to charge customers, they have to publish a notice in all newspapers in their service area (even our little rag here in Sault Ste. Marie). Obviously, in this case they didn't see the need to do that. > As for circumventing the regulatory process by getting a law passed, > you've got it turned around here. The regulatory process is subservient > to the law, as it should be. The regulators are subservient to the house > and senate, as they should be. When private citizens petition the > legislature to change the laws that control the regulatory agencies, > it get's called "seeking to make the bureaucracy more fair". When MI > Bell does the same thing, it's called "circumventing the regulatory > process". Go figure. You mean you CAN'T see the difference here? You mean the fact that Michigan Bell can hire a staff of lobbyists and attornies to get their point across doesn't phase you? The only real "watchdog" that we "private citizens" have is the MPSC. They are SUPPOSED to watch out for the interests of customers here. Please remember that this is a regulated monopoly we're talking about, not a business where consumers have the option to patronize another firm if they don't like the way the first one charges. > That aside, I'm in *favor* of what Mi Bell is asking for. Jeez, billing > people for actual use. Next we'll want to charge timeshared users for > CPU and disk, and then where will we be? MI Bell should go all the way, > and charge *nothing* if you don't use your phone at all. Your phone bill > should reflect the actual costs of providing the service. Fine. Please explain to me how my making x number of calls in a given day drives up their costs of providing service. A better comparison would be to say "let's charge cable TV viewers for all the time they have their TV set turned on." You see, the phone company would like you to THINK you are somehow "using up" their resources when you place calls, but it just isn't so. Virtually all modern exchanges have plenty of capacity to handle the highest calling volumes that would ever be expected. Another thing you might ask yourself is why they are wanting to charge by the call rather than per minute of use. If there are resources that really are somehow consumed by usage, then why is it fairer for the person who makes ten one-minute calls to pay more than the person who makes one phone call that lasts four hours? (I had a call that lasted that long once!). The phone companies don't want to charge by time because they would then most likely be required to itemize calls on the bill, and customers could actually check and verify the accuracy of the billing. The largest expense of providing phone service is what is called "outside plant" ... that is, the network of wires and cables that connect your home to the telephone network. If you REALLY wanted to have users pay for the actual costs of providing service, then the person who lives ten miles away from the central office should be paying ten times as much as the person who lives only one mile from the central office. My point is that the actual costs of providing telephone service bear almost no relation at all to the amount of usage on a line, and therefore usage is not a valid criteria for charging for telephone service. When you have measured service, it's like paying a monthly rental fee to have a painting hanging in your home or office, and then being charged extra every time someone looks at it! > Anything else is subsidising the big user (you and me, Jack) at the > cost of the little user. You are making an unwarranted assumption here (and you know what they say about people who ASSUME...). When Michigan Bell was putting phone call counts on their bills last year, my personal local usage rarely went much over 150 calls per month, and I was making more calls then than I do now. Supposedly I would benefit from measured service, but I still don't like it in principle because it isn't a fair way to charge for the service. It also ignores the fact that for many decades the phone companies have managed to provide flat-rate service without going broke, and now that their labor costs are much lower (ask any telephone company employee how many people they have laid off due to automated equipment taking over jobs that were performed by people), they feel they need more revenue. For what? So they can finance their NON-telephone related ventures?! Now, who is subsidizing whom? Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 16:08:13 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Telecom Sucks on the Road Regarding hotel telephone policies, over the past two months, I've had three surprises: one bad and two really great! Bad: Hyatt Regency O'Hare near our Moderator's city. Placard states "no charge for 800 calls - calling card calls 75 cents." So, I of course used my Sprint FON card instead of AT&T. When I check out, there are 75 cent charges for every call to 800/877-8000. I complained, stating that the placard said 800 numbers were free. The response was "But it also said that calling card calls are 75 cents." Me: "So, all 800 numbers are free, except 800/877-8000?" Response: "Yes, that's right. A new law was passed a few months ago which forces us to charge the same amount for each carrier's calling cards." Yea, right! They did remove the charges, though. Some law if it can be ignored if you complain. Good: Sheraton Station Square, Pittsburgh, PA and Embassy Suites, Washington, DC: No surcharge for 800 or calling card calls, and AT&T as the default carrier. They had something like 75 cent charges for local calls, but I can live with this, as they incur some cost with these. I think that if these are chain-wide policies, that these chains will score major brownie points with travelers. I know that I for one am fed up with paying for calling card and 800 access, which of course cost the hotel nothing to provide. Much like the COCOT situation, I think that merchants are finally waking up to the fact that the (small) extra profit these schemes generate are just not worth the customer bad will they create. One interesting note is that one of the last two (I think it was the Sheraton) provided a "data port" on the back of the phone. The instruction card said that it supported data rates up to 1200 baud. That's an interesting limit on a voice grade line. However, I noticed that whenever placing an off-premises call, there was a large amount of "hiss". This hiss was apparent even when entering the calling card number, so it was not the "long" distance part of the call that was creating the hiss. I had no terminal with me, so I could not experiment further. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 19:40:51 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different madams@aludra.usc.edu (Marcus Adams) wrote: > Sometime a couple years back, I noticed that this click disappeared on > my phone. Friend's call waiting would still emit a click, but whenever > I get a call-waiting call, the tone is only audible to me (although my > girlfriend says she can hear my voice "drop out" for a second instead > of the click). > What happened? Is it my phone that caused the change? Is it the switch > in my area? I really hate not having that audible click because its a > pain to stop someone mid-sentence to tell them I have another call, > and some people don't believe me, saying "I didn't hear a click ..." It's the switch. On older switches (ESS type, and others like Northern Telecom's SP1), the connection is made with electromechanical means (reed relays in one case -- mechanical crosspoints in the other). To give you the call-waiting beep while *not* beeping the other party, the switch has to break the connection momentarily, beep you, and reconnect the call. This makes two closely spaced clicks. On digital switches (5ESS, DMS100, etc.) the connection is made by time- division means and there is no audible click. But indeed the connection must still be broken (otherwise some portion of the beep would be echoed to the other party and they might think it was *their* call-waiting going off). Now most people like it the new way. In fact when my sister moved recently from an area served by a DMS100 to one served by a 1ESS, she cancelled call waiting after a few days because she couldn't stand all the clicking! Tony H. ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1991 18:15:15 EST From: DLEIBOLD@YORKVM1.BITNET Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood Organization: York University I get the odd early-evening telemarketer, and on occasion they even pop up on the answering maching during the day. Rather interesting to hear a canned voice babble on and using up your incoming message tape (not to mention raping the environment with all the electricity used). One canned telemarketer called, and when the time came to give some kind of response, I turned up channel 47 (the multi-language TV station in Toronto) and gave them a dose of international dialogue. It would be interesting if the telemarketers actually tried to do something with it. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 16:50:53 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Telemarketing and the Slippery Slope Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article : > I got to thinking about this along the following lines: > How much would it annoy you if you got one telemarketing call in > six months? > How about once a month? > Once a week? > Once a day? > Once an hour? > Five times in an hour? > Every two or three minutes? > The machinery and phone service are cheap enough. What's to keep > someone from setting up a machine that simply calls people and > delivers a canned advertising message, not caring whether it gets a > response? What's to keep 500 people from doing the same thing? The thing that will keep it from getting to the last example is that the marketplace will self-regulate this to some extent. If everone were to receive a telemarketing call every two to three minutes, I doubt very much that anyone would be interested in buying anything over the phone. At this point, the calls would stop, as it would be no longer profitable to place them. As far as the frequency of calls, I for the most part have been fortunate to avoid "avalanches" of calls that some readers report. I wonder how much this is a result of living in a targeted area, or rather having their individual numbers on some widely-distributed lists? Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com [Moderator's Note: The {Chicago Sunday Tribune Magazine}, 11-24-91 has a major article on telemarketing: statistics from the industry; the history of the industry, and a lot more. Get the paper today if you can, or send a couple dollars to Chicago Tribune Public Service Bureau, 425 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611 and ask for a copy of the Sunday Magazine, 11-24-91. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Re: USWest Voice Mail Problems Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 00:38:35 GMT In asuvax!anasaz!bobm@handies.UCAR.EDU (Bob Maccione) writes: > At last, a reason to post to telecom! I have USWEST (tm, no doubt) > voice mail and am experiencing a problem with missing data (so to > speak). It seems that whenever someone pauses the next couple of words > are lost. This is most apparent when the person is leaving a phone > number; I seem to lose at least one digit. I did call the friendly > USWEST rep and her reply was that it was supposed to happen whenever a > person paused. I said (in my Monday voice) "But that's not acceptable, > I shouldn't lose any of the message", her reply was "That's just the > way it works" ... > Needless to say I'm pissed. Any net hints on what to do? Yes. Purchase a real answering machine. Seriously though, this seems to be a characteristic of voicemail systems in general, particularly noticeable on Octels. I leave messages on Octel boxes a lot, (since 1: we have one, and 2: they have the largest market share (by a long shot), so everyone else has one too) and I noticed that I was adjusting my own speech patterns to prevent the digit-dropout. (Avoid pausing after the third digit, keep voice-carrier (so to speak (ha ha)) going between digits, run them together a bit; sounds (ha ha) more difficult than it is.) I've noticed the same adjustment in other people here, I suspect most of them are doing it unconsciously. (We use the voicemail system at three times the person/usage that Octel terms "very heavy", so people here are on it a lot.) Aside from speech therapy for everyone who calls, I don't have any better suggestion. I have contacted my engineering contact to find out if there's a service parameter that can be patched, I know there isn't a customer (i.e. box-owner, not user) one. If I learn anything, I'll follow up. (I don't know how the original correspondent's experience has been with US West, but the PatheticBell horror stories have been rampant. My suggestion to get a "real" answering machine was not at all tongue-in- cheek.) Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb NET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 13:04:49 -0800 From: carndt@nike.calpoly.edu (Chris Arndt) Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas Our first mobile phone was a used IMTS we bought for use when we travel in our motorhome. (Pac Bell IMTS service Highly recommended -- includes free follow-me-roaming in all PAC Bell IMTS areas with no long distance charges.) Our second mobile phone was a cellular for my wife's car for her business use. Our third was a Nokia hand portable for my business use. (Nokia mobile mounting kits include RJ11 datajacks.) Upshot: Two more mounting kits and antennas gives us three phones in the motorhome. (And, yes, we do have a portable FAX that travels with us.) So, yeah, some people have two phones in their vehicle. IMTS note: I selected IMTS service for the motorhome for its longer distance ability coverage. We are very rarely without service when we travel, especially in the mountians. We can hit the Sacramento terminal from Kirkwook Ski Area. (about 60 air miles.) The record so far was from Brianhead Utah to an ATT terminal in Nevada, about 80 (!) air miles. We were calling hotel 800 numbers in Las Vegas, and ATT didn't even nail us for airtime! The longest short distance call I made was from a payphone at the lodge at Kirkwood, home to the IMTS number (209 to 805) roamed to the motorhome a half mile away (805 to Sacramento terminal in 209 and then 80 air miles to motorhome. ------------------------------ From: wolfgang@lyxys.ka.sub.org (Wolfgang Zenker) Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 02:09:32 GMT As a side note: Here in Germany any unsolicited calls on phone, fax or telex are considered unfair trade practice and illegal, unless the caller and called party already have some business relations. Telemarketing calls during night-time would break an additional law that prohibits disturbing noise between 10 pm and 7 am. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #955 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11612; 24 Nov 91 4:33 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03361 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 00:36:04 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04232 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 00:35:52 -0600 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 00:35:52 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111240635.AA04232@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #956 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Nov 91 00:35:49 CST Volume 11 : Issue 956 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Future of Printed Books (Jeff Sicherman) Re: The Future of Printed Books (John Higdon) Re: Calling Card Wars (John Higdon) Re: Calling Card Wars (Dan Hartung) Re: Calling Card Wars (Harold Hallikainen) Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (H. Peter Anvin) Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (David W. Tamkin) Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 23:38:22 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books Organization: Cal State Long Beach > [Moderator's Note: Thank you. You phrased it very well. I have no > complaints about competition. I fully favor the right of anyone and > everyone to offer telecommunications services, and let the public > decide who is the best. But to allow MCI, Sprint et al to compete with > AT&T is not the same thing as smashing AT&T into pieces. The *only* > legitimate thing Judge Greene could have done was to order AT&T and > the Bell Companies to interconnect in an even-handed and arm's length > way with the new competitors. He should have ruled the competitors > were permitted to string wires, set up exchanges, solicit customers > and compete in every way -- both at the local and long distance level > -- with the Bell System, with the assurance their customers would be > able to connect with Bell System customers. PERIOD. END OF COURT > ORDER. Let *them* put together a nationwide integrated network, even > if it took them over a century to do so. Let them start out like Bell > started out at the turn of the century. That would be fair. The rest > of the MFJ was simply theft of AT&T's property, based in large part on > Greene's own bigotry toward and dislike of AT&T. PAT] There PAT goes again. The fact is that Greene is not responsible for the breakup, AT&T agreed to it because they recognized that they would have lost the anti-trust suit because they had engaged in anti-compet- itive and illegal practices. There was no 'smash into pieces'. It was neatly divided into pieces because AT&T had demonstrated that it could not operate as a ethically responsible corporate citizen within the context of our anti-trust laws. It's punishment was to be denied the right to continue in its present form which it used and abused to the detriment of its competitors and the public at large (hey, PAT, notice how LD prices *have* come down since AT&T had to play honestly). BTW, AT&T had no property as such. Its shareholders did, and they were given shares in the entities into which AT&T was divided (and remained) so there was no direct loss (or theft, as you mischaracterize it) other than the power held by the corporate honchos who didn't know how to exercise it legally and responsibly. Perhaps, PAT, you would have proposed that Al Capone be told to not due naughty things anymore and just let go. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 02:08 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books On Nov 20 at 23:01, TELECOM Moderator writes: > He should have ruled the competitors > were permitted to string wires, set up exchanges, solicit customers > and compete in every way -- both at the local and long distance level > -- with the Bell System, with the assurance their customers would be > able to connect with Bell System customers. PERIOD. END OF COURT > ORDER. But this is so short-sighted. There are many services for which there are competition that it is unreasonable to expect that the service provider should have to create an entire network from scratch. I submit, as an example, answering service bureaus. Do you expect an answering service or voicemail provider to set up his own network? Of course not. But His Honor had enough forsight to realize that if the Bell System was not broken up, there could never be REAL competition. "Arms Length" is a myth. The Bells literally had to be removed from certain areas of the arena. As further proof, look at what is happening as the RBOCs are being allowed back into certain areas. Pac*Bell is already manipulating its policies and procedures to force the smaller providers off its network. What is not widely known is the new "streamlining" of its ESP (Enhanced Service Providers) office from sixteen representatives to four. Why? "We do not anticipate growth in ESP." And you can bet the farm on that, even if Pac*Bell has to lie, cheat, and undercut everyone at ratepayer's expense. My only complaint about the "breakup" is that some misguided people are trying to put it back together again. IMHO, to the degree that they succeed we will have the worst of both worlds. > Let *them* put together a nationwide integrated network, even > if it took them over a century to do so. Let them start out like Bell > started out at the turn of the century. That would be fair. The rest > of the MFJ was simply theft of AT&T's property, based in large part on > Greene's own bigotry toward and dislike of AT&T. PAT] That is really the old Bell line if I ever heard it. One of the reasons that the Bell System was so stogy was that it really did consider almost every aspect of telecommunications "its property". To remind yourself of that, just look at the bottom of a 70s phone. "BELL SYSTEM PROPERTY. NOT FOR SALE." How you or anyone can look fondly on an era when ONE COMPANY jealously guarded the technology of telecommunications is beyond me. Oh, sure, there was competition before divestiture. Through CDH couplers and the like. And when you even THOUGHT about buying a Stromberg Carlson E120, the Pacific Telephone representative would be out telling you how all that "cheap, imitation junk" did not work properly with "Bell lines". The way those couplers impared service, this even had some truth to it. No, the field of telecommunications does not belong to the Bell System. And, pray tell, just what was stolen from it? Were there facilities that were arbitrarily given to some third party? Were there patent infringements? Oh, sure, it pained Mother mightily to have to chuck over the BSP manuals so that EVERYONE could know what the standards were. And maybe this is what you mean by "theft". But we are SO much better off with all the cards on the table. I think that you will find that those of us who are up to our elbows in the deep and dirty generally approve of divestiture. The opportunities for innovation and accomplishment would have been non-existent in the pre-divestiture environment. Back when I was a kid, everyone just assumed that I would end up working for "the phone company". Not in my wildest nightmares would that have ever happened! Were they kidding? Unions, policies, bureaucracy, seniority, and secrecy were not my idea of a good time. But divestiture changed all of that. Many who had something to contribute could do so outside of that non-creative environment. The creation of procedures, standards, networks, and enhanced services became possible on a much more free-wheeling basis. Even the enhanced services that the RBOCs are now offering were created OUTSIDE the "Bell" environment. I and many like me have been able to roll up our sleeves and work hard in telecommunications and make contributions to the art that would have been impossible under the iron hand of Ma Bell. Jeez, every time I think I am going to answer you in a line or two about this topic it turns into a diatribe and lecture. But I am still unable, apparently, to view this from your prospective. I just do not see the advantages of the "before" nor the disadvantage of the "after". Oh, sure, you have to make some educated choices now. One of the most frequent observations of immigrants from Eastern Bloc countries was that you had to make so many choices when you lived in a free society. Some even returned, unable to cope with a society that did not "take care of them". So it is with telecommunications. If you want choices, you have to make them. If you don't want them, just order vanilla POTS with AT&T as your carrier and it will be just like the old days. Only it will be cheaper and better. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 01:12 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) writes: > In article , simona@panix (Simona Nass) > writes: >> At least here in New York it is. I just got a notice from NYTel that >> AT&T would no longer be able to use customers' home phone number as >> part of their calling card. > For sure, one arrangement that must end on 1/1/92 is the shared > calling card database. So AT&T and the RBOCs have no choice -- they > must have independent databases. Well, I can tell you for sure that Pac*Bell is not racing headlong into this arrangement. Last week, my wallet was stolen after I dropped it at a gas station. In it was (foolishly) a PAC*BELL calling card. So, among the many calls to card issuers was one to Pac*Bell. The rep told me that not only could I cancel the card with this phone call, but I could select my new PIN for immediate use. This I did and thought nothing more about it. In yesterday's (Wed) mail, my new AT&T calling card showed up. Guess what number it showed! It bears my phone number just as always, with my new self-selected PIN! Now, today is 11/21/91 and the claim is that the databases will have to separate on 1/1/92. Why on earth would AT&T issue me a brand new card with my Pac*Bell calling card number? Presumably, it will not work after the first of the year for AT&T calls, right? Am I missing something here? > However the AT&T card option of calling plans (like the Reach > Out (SM) Card Option) will only work with the new AT&T card numbers. So why did AT&T just issue me a card with the OLD number on it? This would have been the perfect opportunity to give me a new card. I have numerous plans with AT&T, including WATS, ROW, ROC, and ROA. Am I getting second rate service from my beloved carrier? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 07:12:27 GMT simona@panix.com (Simona Nass) writes: > At least here in New York it is. I just got a notice from NYTel that > AT&T would no longer be able to use customers' home phone number as > part of their calling card. Anybody know why this is? This just happened to my father, and he really feels inconvenienced. He used to be able to remember the whole dialing sequence, now he has to pull his card out, etc. NYTel offered to allow customers ("How many plastic cards would you like?") to keep the same number (home phone) and PIN from their AT&T card, but with it under NYTel's jurisdiction. This is sounding like Judge Greene ruled that the local telco "owns" the number? Dan Hartung dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 11:20:00 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > [Moderator's Note: One or the other (AT&T or local telco) has to > change the card number; otherwise how would a distant telco know who > to (intercompany) bill for the call you made on your trip? PAT] I seem to remember something like if I use my PacBell card to place a call that PacBell cannot handle, my default (1+) long distance carrier gets billed for the call (who then bills me). So, I can use my PacBell card to place AT&T calls from whereever. Actually, it seems that PacBell could just act as a credit verification system for any LD carrier. If I key in a card number that is a PacBell number (followed by my id code), the LD carrier could check with PacBell and see if it's a valid number. If it is, then the LD carrier bills PacBell, who then bills me. It seems to me that AT&T is supposed to move away from using phone numbers for credit card numbers, since that may have given them an unfair advantage. Actually, why not let all the LD carriers use the phone number plus personal ID for credit card numbers. The credit card number only identifies who the calling customer is, not which carrier is supposed to be used. All carriers could use the same customer ID number. The customer determines which carrier to use thru 950 or 10+ dialing. The LD carrier could either contract with the local telcos to do the billing, or could just do card validation thru them. Or, the LD company should be free to use any number for the customer account number, including one suggested by the customer, which could quite likely be based on the customer telephone number. The LD carrier then has a record of the account number and the personal ID number and needs to do no further checking. Harold ------------------------------ From: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP) Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 01:25:02 GMT In article of comp.dcom.telecom, wolfson@motsat.sat.mot.com (Stephen Wolfson) writes: > how could they really choose any boundary other than Chicago/Suburbs > to make the split without totally upsetting all the suburbs that > didn't get 312. Well, they could have given Chicago 708! The reason why the suburbs wanted to keep 312 was to keep this marker of belonging to Chicagoland. Well, would anyone doubt Chicago is in the Chicago area? :-) Regarding the IBT argument that changing Chicago's area code would be global mayhem, I'd just like to point out that more subscribers were changed to 708 than kept 312. INTERNET: hpa@nwu.edu TALK: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu BITNET: HPA@NUACC HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 NeXTMAIL: hpa@lenny.acns.nwu.edu IRC: Xorbon X.400: /BAD=FATAL_ERROR/ERR=LINE_OVERFLOW ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 19:13:50 CST From: dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David W. Tamkin) Stephen Wolfson wrote in volume 11, issue 949: > Bellcore had given them two choices, 901 and 708. It must have been 910 or 708; 901 was already in use in Tennessee. Most others already were prefixes in the old 312. When the split was first rumored I noticed that 708 was the only unused area code that wasn't an existing prefix here, but it was 1987 and I didn't know back then that N10 combinations were permissible. There was a 910 prefix (now in 708) by the time of the split, but it might well have opened in the intervening two years. The story given out for public consumption was that of all the choices available, 708 had the advantage of being entirely at the bottom of the keypad whereas 312 is entirely at the top. How that is an advantage I cannot tell; it's important that the two codes be dissimilar but they needn't be diametric. I find 708 to be very high on pulls, and there must be more pulse customers in the city dialing 1708 to reach suburbia than there are in the suburbs pulsing 1312 to call into the city. Today I saw an ad for an apartment complex in the Chicago-Superior service area that gave a seven-digit number (with no area code) beginning "708". Illinois Bell assures me that there is no such prefix in area code 312; things haven't gotten that far out of hand. It must have been a misprint, perhaps for 703 or 908. David W. Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines, Illinois 60018-7002 +1 708 518 6769 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com CIS: 73720,1570 MCI Mail: 426-1818 +1 312 693 0580 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 15:04:42 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 No, 901 was not a possible area code for the Chicago suburbs. 901 was already in use in Tennessee. Suppose a firm in Utah advertises something like: Toll-free 800-xxx-xxxx In Utah 801-xxx-xxxx Has there been any problem with these similar area codes? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #956 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20403; 24 Nov 91 11:54 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01540 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:20:17 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14163 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:20:06 -0600 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:20:06 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111241620.AA14163@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #957 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Nov 91 10:20:01 CST Volume 11 : Issue 957 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Linc Madison) Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Ron Schnell) Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Marcus Adams) Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Tad Cook) Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. (Wilson Mohr) Re: Caller ID Capable Answering Machines (Scott Coleman) Re: Caller ID Capable Answering Machines (Laird P. Broadfield) Re: Automatic Emergency Dialers in Chicago (David W. Tamkin) Re: Automatic Emergency Dialers in Chicago (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Busying Out a Phone Line M. (Pat Turner) Re: USWest Voice Mail Problems (John R. Levine) Re: The March of Progress (Floyd Davidson) Re: Discount International Calls (Heard on BBC Mediawatch Program) (G Toal) Re: RCMP Raids Montreal BBS (Peng H. Ang) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 02:49:05 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article geb1@Isis.MsState.Edu (Granville Barker) writes: > In some places in MS you can dial 1 - 310 - 555 - 1212 or 5555 and a > Computer voice will come on and say the number you are calling from. Not any more! That number is DEFINITELY not an ANI number ANYWHERE, because it is the number for directory assistance in coastal areas of Los Angeles, as of November 2, 1991. Have any other areas used N10 as pseudo-area-codes for special purposes, only to have them abruptly change as 210/310/410/510 have been assigned? Linc Madison == linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 15:52:09 -0500 From: Ron Schnell Subject: ANI Numbers That I Know of In GTE Los Angeles, either 114 or 1223. In PACBell San Diego 211-2111. *Interesting note: In San Diego, 211-2112 gives you your number, but with Touch-Tones(tm)! I think it playes a # at the beginning. ------------------------------ From: madams@aludra.usc.edu (Marcus Adams) Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of Date: 22 Nov 91 01:12:21 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA In article alan@hercules.acpub. duke.edu (Alan M. Gallatin) writes: > In article Joe Stein writes: >> I know of several. Here in GTE-Northwest, you dial 999, or 611. >> In US-West territory, it is 956-2742. >> Also, 1-200-555-1212 is supposed to work in the "little" offices. > Is anyone compiling a list? If so, two additions: NY Telephone (at > least in NYC and on Long Island) = 958 GTE-South (at least in Durham, > NC) = 711 Add 114 for GTEland here in West LA (I'm in 310-477) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know Of From: tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) Date: 21 Nov 91 23:01:00 GMT geb1@Isis.MsState.Edu (Granville Barker) says: > In most places there is some special number you can dial and it will > tell you what number you are dialing from. In some places in MS you > can dial 1 - 310 - 555 - 1212 or 5555 and a Computer voice will come > on and say the number you are calling from. I was wondering if anyone > knew of any other simular numbers? Incredible! Why don't you get Directory Assistance for the 310 area code in Southern California? Tad Cook | Phone: 206-527-4089 | MCI Mail: 3288544 Seattle, WA | Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA | 3288544@mcimail.com | USENET: tad@ssc.wa.com or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad [Moderator's Note: He probably meant in pre-310 days, and had not updated his information recently. PAT] ------------------------------ From: motcid!mohr@uunet.uu.net (Wilson Mohr) Subject: Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. Date: 22 Nov 91 18:23:14 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article , Jack.Winslade@ivgate. omahug.org (Jack Winslade) writes: > Shortly after moving out here, I noticed two things about the > telephone. One was a sharp increase in the number of wrong numbers. > We have xxx-1379, which has no repeated digits, and I would not call > it an 'easy' number to remember. I would say we get a couple of wrong > numbers per week. AHHH, but if you look at the normal touch-tone(tm) phone, these last four digits are the corners of the pad. Your local "dialing without a cause" individual picks the number probably because of the pattern. There are other numbers like this that are frequently (ab)used. i.e 1234, or other (un)meaningful four letter words. We have a WATS line here at work like this and most people remember "the four corners" rather than the number itself! Wilson Mohr - Motorola CIG ...!uunet!motcid!mohr ------------------------------ From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) Subject: Re: Caller ID Capable Answering Machines Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 18:04:18 GMT In article technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes: > What's the lowest rate for a simple serial output Caller ID box? By far the cheapest way to get a CNID device is to build one. Motorola has just come out with a single chip call identifier, the MC145447. They were recently giving away free samples of this chip (call 800/521-6274 to request one). The chip comes with data and sample application schematics. The output is serial, so all you need is an MC145407 EIA driver chip to get EIA-232 level serial output. I haven't had the opportunity to play with this chip yet since I live in Central Illinois and we won't get CNID until well after Chicago gets it in January. :-( I'd love to hear from anyone who has built something based on this chip. ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com Date: Fri Nov 22 13:32:27 1991 From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Re: Caller ID Capable Answering Machines Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 21:32:25 GMT In technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes: > Illinois is scheduled to have Caller ID in mid-January 1992, and I > have been considering getting a CID box, but since my answering > machine takes my calls more often than I do it would make more sense > to get a machine that would have a DATE/TIME/CALLER ID stamp. [can't find one...] > Has anybody seen one of these available in states that already have > Caller ID? Hmmm. Sounds like an aftermarket product idea: A box, that you would have inline with your answering set (or even with your whole house) that would detect the calling party disconnect, grab the line itself to prevent the answering set from hanging up, and speak the time/date/callerid, and then disconnect. Anybody who's more familiar with disconnect-detection who can reality-check this? Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Automatic Emergency Dialers in Chicago Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 18:51:28 CST From: dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David W. Tamkin) Michael J. Graven wrote in volume 11, issue 949: > So, will this eliminate the LifeCall systems as well? My only > knowledge of them stems from some rural New Jersey installations, in > which the devices call the local police department directly because > the exchange lacks 911 service. My parents live in Chicago and subscribe to a comparable service. When an alarm is triggered, live human operators call for police, firefighters, or paramedics. They do not play a prerecorded tape. David W. Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines, Illinois 60018-7002 +1 708 518 6769 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com CIS: 73720,1570 MCI Mail: 426-1818 +1 312 693 0580 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 12:55:09 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Automatic Emergency Dialers in Chicago Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > The Chicago Police Department will no longer respond to calls > generated by automatic taped messages received over the police > emergency 911 system. > Have injunctions like this been instituted in other urban areas > besides Chicago? It seems to me that ill cordless phones would pose > more of a problem than off-kilter autodialers, and idle minds (the > devil's workshop) more so than that. San Luis Obispo (not exactly an "urban area") has disallowed automatic alarms calling the police or fire for many many years. I think that when the ban was first instituted, it was in response to their lines being jammed during momentary power interruptions. Here, all such alarms are to report to an answering service or alarm company, who may then call the police. Harold ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 12:23:03 CST From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone Line > Given an "ordinary" phone line, how would one go about busying the > line out? I don't think crossing the two wires is an appropriate way > of doing it, and it probably doesn't work ... Shorting tip to ring is fine if you are far away from the CO. A generally safer way to do this is to place a resistance of 200-300 ohms across tip and ring. Just make sure you use resistors with a high enough power rating. Four 1K, 1/2 w resistors in parallel will have 250 ohms of resistance, and should have no problem with the power. I would guesstimate that using a VOM to make sure you have 10 to 40 mA of loop current will yield a satisfactory result. Too high a loop current might trigger a trouble report in electronic CO. I think either the DMS-100 or the 5ESS will "lock out" any loop drawing too much current until reset. This is a handy way to busy out a loop you are working on, so ringing voltage will not be applied at the CO. Pat Turner pturner@eng.auburn.edu KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA ------------------------------ Subject: Re: USWest Voice Mail Problems Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 23 Nov 91 10:25:00 EST (Sat) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) In article is written: [US West voice mail clips out entire words in messages] > Needless to say I'm pissed. Any net hints on what to do? Sure. Since the service is unusable, refuse to pay for it and make sure they know why. The can hardly say with any credibility that an answering machine that makes it impossible even to leave a phone number is working correctly. Technically, it sounds like some eager beaver in a misguided effort to get the maximum storage on undersized disks has cranked up the compression much too high. In the larger picture, this is yet another reason why it is a terrible idea to allow telcos to provide enhanced services, since you can be sure that US West will price their voice mail so low and the network features that competitors need to use to priovide third party voice mail so high, that all the competitors will be driven out leaving only US West's third rate offering. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl [Moderator's Note: Ameritech's voicemail service is definitly not third rate. It has worked very well for me in the two months I have had it on my line. It works well with my distinctive ringing number also, although the person who sold it to me said it would not. PAT] ------------------------------ From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) Subject: Re: The March of Progress Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 11:03:36 GMT John Higdon writes: > And in the next article, dill@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dill) writes: >> Is it not the case that AT&T would not bill for a call until after >> the first second or two or five? I remember hearing that somewhere. > This was a technical limitation in the old mechanical (including > crossbar) switches. It took up to several seconds for such equipment > to recognize supervision from the far end and as such would take that > long to start the billing record. This was not done as a courtesy or > to provide a "grace period". It was merely a technical limitation. It may or may not be true, but I'm lead to believe that at least well into the '60 it took more like 30 seconds to start billing. And that it essentially was a "grace" period. That went by the way when people figured out how to record something and play it back faster, thus being able to transfer a significant amount of information in less that 30 seconds. I'm sure that data communications via modems put the final touch on any significant "grace" period. However, apparently in some places (perhaps all?) regulations require at least 2.0 seconds of off hook supervision before billing begins. I don't keep up with regulations, but the DMS-200 documentation states that the parameter is set by default to be 2.08 seconds to comply with any such 2.0 second regulation. (The parameter may be set from .16 seconds to 40.8 seconds in .01 second increments on a DMS switch.) >> Recently, I noticed that I have had a large increase in one minute >> calls. So, last month I tried making a few calls and hanging up the >> moment the other side picked up (say it was an answering machine or >> something to that effect). Sure enough, these one minute calls showed >> up on my bill. Is AT&T trying to dig out a few pennies or am I just >> wrong? > Modern electronic equipment can recognize supervision almost > instantly. Added to this is the conversion from inband signaling. > Your observations are correct, but your assumptions regarding cause > and purpose are not warranted. Yes, the grace periods are over. But > remember, AT&T has no control over what the originating switch is. > That equipment belongs to the LEC and when call timing begins depends > on the local switch. Even when it does not, as in the case of some > OCCs, billing will generally begin immediately because most equipment > is now capable of it. Call timing for billing purposes is a function of whichever switch does the AMA recording, which is usually the toll switch (ie. AT&T). That switch inserts whatever delay (which defaults to 2.08 seconds on DMS-200 toll switches) there is between called party off hook supervision and the recorded call start time. (I don't really think that the length of time it takes to recognize supervision has much to do with it. The two second delay is to avoid false supervision.) I have no idea if AT&T (or Alascom) or any OCC is required to provide a 2.0 second delay. I also have no idea how that delay is handled in AT&T ESS switches. I do know that Alascom does in fact use the default timing of 2.08 seconds. 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: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: Discount International Calls (Heard on BBC Mediawatch Program) Date: 22 Nov 91 22:00:09 GMT Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands In article david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) writes: > the # key [pronounced pound by the person describing the service] to > terminate a call and get a fresh dial tone). I have no idea how this > could be made to work -- ANI would not be available internationally > would it? Now there's a thought; assume it is CLID (not ANI) and that it works in Britain, that implies CLID - which is not passed on to customers in the UK, but is passed around between exchanges - is passed on to the US phone system. Has anyone in the US with a CLID-identifying device ever received a call from the UK which showed the ID? *Or* ... maybe you were right about ANI, and it works from one of the BT 0800 numbers which is linked directly to the US. Graham ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 13:45 EST From: "Peng_H.Ang" <20017ANG@msu.edu> Subject: Re: RCMP Raids Montreal BBS How did they get the horse through the door? [Moderator's Note: The same way our FBI manages to get their bureau through the doorway, silly! :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #957 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21436; 24 Nov 91 12:32 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32160 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:56:53 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15358 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:56:42 -0600 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:56:42 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111241656.AA15358@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #958 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Nov 91 10:56:32 CST Volume 11 : Issue 958 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (John Higdon) Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem (Charles Hoequist) Re: Cellular Antennas (Will Martin) Re: Copyright on Phone Books (Peng H. Ang) Re: How Do They >>Know<< ? (Ken Abrams) Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions (Douglas W. Martin) Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (John T. Ellis) Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches (John Higdon) Re: 5ESS Audio Quality (Graham Toal) Bell System Consent Decree (was Future of Printed Books) (Tad Cook) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 01:22 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes: > Note also that if this premise was carried to its logical conclusion, > "slamming" would not be a problem. If IXC presubscription is a > service I get from the LEC, only I can change that service, not an > IXC. I got so tired of the various companies slamming one client that I finally told Pac*Bell that I wanted no PIC and that if they put one on anyway it would not matter. The client's switch uses ARS, and so it appends the carrier code of choice on each and every call, depending on the selected route. Each of the client's twenty or so trunks could each have a different pre-subscribed carrier for all I know or care at this point. No matter who tries to slam what, the call WILL go over the expected carrier. This is the best way I know of to "slam proof" someone's service. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: 21 Nov 91 08:05:00 EST From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist Subject: Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem Bob Maccione writes concerning his US WEST voicemail: > It seems that whenever someone pauses the next couple of words > are lost. Every voicemail system I've come across has some algorithm for editing out silences over a certain duration. It has the obvious benefit that someone doesn't fill up your buffer with a long relfective pause; but I have yet to find a silence clipper that doesn't trim off the beginning of the first word following the silence. That, however, doesn't sound like your problem. You should not be losing entire words. One possibility: the voicemail silence-detector (to know when to start and stop cutting) is taking its noise floor (='silence') reading from your line, and your line has unusually high noise. The detector is thus overenthusiastic about what to cut, since its 'silence' threshold has been set too high. If this is the case, then other people using the service should have widely varying experiences: some should have your problem, some not. Obvious solution: get the line fixed. (or tell everyone to talk _loudly_ after the beep, and not to pause before saying phone numbers :-) ) On the other hand, if everybody is losing big chunks, then it's the voicemail's fault (or USWest gives everybody noisy lines). In this case, what the rep told you is true. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Obvious solution: stop using USWest voicemail. Charles Hoequist |Internet: hoequist@bnr.ca BNR Inc. | 919-991-8642 PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 7:25:27 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas motcid!ahlenius@uunet.uu.net (Mark Ahlenius) wrote: > Now once while driving on Rt. 53 (Illinois) I saw a van with 13 > cellular antennas, unless it was a special test vehicle, your guess is > as good as mine. Why, that sounds as if it must have been John Higdon's mobile home! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Regards, Will [Moderator's Note: Nah, John never gets this far east. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 11:13 EST From: "Peng_H.Ang" <20017ANG@msu.edu> Subject: Re: Copyright on Phone Books I have not kept in touch with the law in that area but it is a drastic change from the previous position to say now that lists of information are no longer copyrightable in the US. Back in 1988/89, I'd done some research on the area and the law there seemed settled. (Not surprising that the defendants lost in the lower courts.) The rationale was that protection was to reward effort and that although there was minimal creativity, the law was not out to judge the amount or quality of creativity. Does anyone know what has been the impact since? Did the database community raise a brouhaha? What about the impact on international copyrights as the US has bilateral agreements with countries that protection would be reciprocal -- ie we will protect your company to the level that they are protected at home. ------------------------------ From: kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) Subject: Re: How Do They >>Know<< ? Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 16:04:19 GMT > [Moderator's Note: It is not a question of them being 'special'. ANI > (auto number ID) is not the same thing as Caller-ID. The end results > do look the same, but the method of delivery is different and the > purpose of the information is different. ANI is delivered on calls to > 800 numbers. Caller-ID is delivered to customers who pay for that > service on regular POTS lines. PAT] I think a little clarification is in order. Pat is correct when he says that the "method of delivery" is different. ANI has been around for a long time and is the method used internally in the network to capture the billing number of the calling party. Prior to 1984, the ANI generally did not propogate out onto the network but went only as far as necessary to create an originating billing record (closest tandem). In most cases, it never left the originating office. It didn't need to because all the billing was done by the BOCs at the end offices or local tandems. Enter Judge Green ... Now inter-exchange carriers (and other service providers) have the option to send their own separate bill to the originating party for the service used. To accomplish this, the ANI (originating number) is sent to IXCs and other qualified service providers. Some of these service providers have arranged to pass the ANI all the way to the terminating end of the call. When this happens, the ANI CANNOT be delivered to called customer over a plain old line. The final connection to the called customer must be a trunk type connection (DID) or a direct connection to the service provider. A "normal" phone line is not capable of sending ANI to the station equipment. Enter Caller ID ... To over simplify a bit, CID offers all the same functionality of ANI but the purpose and method of delivery is different. CID was designed explicitly to deliver the calling number to the called party over a "normal" line wereas ANI requires a trunk type connection at the terminating end. I guess you could consider CID as a modification or enhancement to ANI but it requires SS7 inter-office signalling to pass the "ANI" from one end to the other. Ken Abrams nstar!pallas!kabra437 Springfield, IL kabra437@athenanet.com (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 11:51:07 PST From: martin@cod.nosc.mil (Douglas W. Martin) Subject: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions A few notes, and some questions about intercept recordings: Most intercept recordings begin with a three-tone seequence. Some, however, do not; e.g. the intercept recordings in exchange (619) 811 which connects to various Pac Bell offices. Also, (403) 920-1212, in Yellowknife Northwest Territories gets a recording "Your call cannot be completed as dialed" with no tones and a human male voice. I also called an intercept recording in Zaire (country code 243). I got the same three-tone sequence as in the states, but the recording was in French, saying "Your call cannot be completed as dialed. Some questions: why are some intercept recordings preceeded by one or more rings, whereas some come on immediately, with no ringing? Why is it generally impossible to forward calls to an intercept recording? (I have found a few numbers to which I can forward calls, but usually it doesn't work for most numbers.) Can someone explain what causes the intercept: "Your call did not go through." What indeed happened to my call? "Call cannot be completed as dialed makes sense; most unassigned numbers are routed to this recording. Finally, if I start an answering machine message with the appropriate three-tone sequence, can my number then be called long-distance with no charge? If not, why not? Doug Martin internet: martin@nosc.mil ------------------------------ From: motcid!ellis@uunet.uu.net (John T Ellis) Subject: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? Date: 21 Nov 91 20:52:17 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Grp., Arlington Hgts, IL Dear netters, This request comes after an interesting discussion with a friend of mine. Since I don't know the answer, I'm asking you for assistance. This buddy has RESIDENTIAL phone service through Illinois Bell here in Chicago. He has enjoyed service with them for the last 20 odd years but now finds himself in a most peculiar situation. He would like to control the ability of his phone (here I refer to the number ie 312-xxx-xxxx) to place outgoing calls. He has contacted Illinois Bell on this, and they said they do not offer any such capability. Why would you want to control outgoing calls, you may ask? Well, it seems his kids do not realize what kind of costs are involved in making phone calls and refuse to stop using the phone. He would rather not rip out the phone since he is interested in receiving calls. However, that has been listed as the last option. Ideally what he wants is this. ALL incoming calls are accepted. ALL outgoing 312, 0, 911 and 411 calls are accepted. ALL OTHER outgoing calls are rejected. This situation allows him to be in contact with the world as well as make emergency and operator assisted (ie. credit card calls) calls. Now, is this possible to do by just going through the telco (even though Illinois Bell has said no)? If not, is (are) there any pheripherals he can buy and add-on to achieve this? Any and all responces are appreciated. If something like this has been discussed before, excuse my ignorance and send me the reference(s). Thanks in advance. John T. Ellis 708-632-7857 Motorola Cellular ellis@blue.rtsg.mot.com [Moderator's Note: Yes it is possible. He might want to include 708 in the places to be dialed. He has to get some service rep at IBT who knows what they are talking about. That may be the biggest part of the job right there. They know about 900/976 blocking, but many do not know about other kinds of toll-restriction. He can also purchase an inexpensive device from Hello Direct (1-800-HI-HELLO) which is installed at his end to do the same thing. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 13:09 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches On Nov 20 at 23:01, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: I suspect I would have outlasted that incident at > the least when I explained that my intent was only in one thing: to > stop the theft of telco resources, and that since the subscriber would > not agree to curtail his theft of resources he would need to be placed > in an environment (ie on a prefix) where such theft could be > controlled by the company. PAT] I would hardly use the term "theft" if no effort is made by the telco to protect the commodity. The fact is (and you of all people should know this) that when ANY customer came off hook, a tone receiver was connected to the line. At that moment, the resources are committed whether a DTMF tone is sounded or not. A good analogy would be a continously running drinking fountain in the public square. The water is consumed whether anyone actually takes a drink or not. It is no drain on resources if someone takes a sip of the water. If a customer used pulse dialing, he would tie up these facilities for about 20-30 seconds. If he used DTMF, it would be less than five. Which is more of a "theft of service"? Now if the telco actually had the facilies to put the customer in a more modern switch that could have restricted use of DTMF, he probably would gladly go along if for no other reason than to have better service. But in this case, there was not even tariff relief for the telco (nothing in the rules that allowed it to take any type of action against the customer given the current availability of the facilities). Therefore I fail to see your position of indignation over what was done for the customer. Technically, it was a BENEFIT for the telco. Ethically and morally, I had no problem benefitting the telco even against its protestations while simultaneously benefitting my client. And legally, the telco had no recourse. My customer was not violating any tariffs. The tariff simply said that the telco could charge for the service if the customer ordered it. The customer never ordered it, even though the telco tried many times to get him to do so. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Date: 22 Nov 91 00:02:08 GMT Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands In article goldstein@carafe.enet. dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > The MD-110 should derive all of its own timing from the digital CO > line! Otherwise you WILL get clock slips, causing } on modems. In > Europe, where telcos don't give customers so much freedom, it's > usually a requirement. In America, it's simply the way things work; > telco can't force you to do it right, but it only works right if you > do it right! Not in Britain. I've had the { noise ever since we moved to digital exchanges five or six years back. I knew at the time (from postings here) that it was clock synch problems between digital exchanges, but *never* in those six years have I been able to get a BT person to admit this. If anyone in the UK had had any better luck, let me know please. Not that I think anything can be done about it; they're not going to redesign the UK phone system for a few modem users ... ------------------------------ Subject: Bell System Consent Decree (was Future of Printed Books) From: tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) Date: 21 Nov 91 22:59:36 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Thank you. You phrased it very well. I have no > complaints about competition. I fully favor the right of anyone and > everyone to offer telecommunications services, and let the public > decide who is the best. But to allow MCI, Sprint et al to compete with > AT&T is not the same thing as smashing AT&T into pieces. (stuff deleted here) > The rest of the MFJ was simply theft of AT&T's property, based in > large part on Greene's own bigotry toward and dislike of AT&T. PAT] Boy, do you have it backwards! Greene did not dismember the Bell System. The Bell System asked to be broken up when they offered to settle the anti-trust case. They were tried for violating anti-trust laws. They lost. Characterizing this as "theft" is like characterizing imprisonment of convicted defendents in any other court case as unconstitutional "involuntary servitude." Tad Cook | Phone: 206-527-4089 | MCI Mail: 3288544 Seattle, WA | Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA | 3288544@mcimail.com | USENET: tad@ssc.wa.com or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #958 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23835; 24 Nov 91 14:02 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31910 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 12:21:31 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29487 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 12:21:11 -0600 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 12:21:11 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111241821.AA29487@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #959 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Nov 91 12:21:06 CST Volume 11 : Issue 959 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Paul Coen) Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (John Higdon) Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Dave Niebuhr) Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Mike Godwin) Re: Value-Added Service and Local Competition (Joshua E. Muskovitz) Re: Value-Added Service and Local Competition (Bob Ackley) Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Bill Martens) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 21:09 EST From: Paul Coen Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service Sorry, Pat. While I often agree with what you say, I'm going to have to disagree on a few points here. > Since the Internet is a government-owned and managed resource in > cooperation with numerous publicly funded institutions and others, it > is fair game for anyone who wishes to 'monitor' its traffic, provided > that traffic is intended for public consumption and display, as are > the various e-journals and newsgroups. That's a matter of perception. My description is that the Internet started as a DARPA project, and quickly grew. Now, only a portion of it is under government control. The international sites certainly aren't. While I agree that the federal government has a vested interest in what's on the .mil and .gov sites, or what is going over lines that the federal government is paying for, that's not a whole lot of the net these days. I'd certainly stop short of saying that it is "government owned." > Anyone is free -- even members of CPSR -- to interconnect with this > network and read the newsgroups or subscribe to the various > e-journals. Craig makes it sound, in his context, like the Secret > Service did something wrong. In this instance, they did not. You're right -- anyone is free, including the Secret Service. More on this later, as this actually raises questions about the Secret Service's behavior. > Well I don't know about those other guys mentioned here, but I have no > problem with TELECOM Digest being in anyone's files. Yes, but did all of the people who made contributions realize that it could end up in a file pertaining to a Secret Service investigation? > Well, why should there be a 'clear policy'? That which is available > to the public is available to anyone, including employees of > government agencies. If I can read it, take offense to it and (feeling > it might be a criminal action) report it to authorities, then why > can't an employee of the Secret Service read something here, feel the > same way and report the matter? Or conversely, why can't any member > of the public read something here, be disinterested in it or bored by > it and forget the matter. This is a tough issue -- if the net is considered "public behavior," and statements made here are not criminal in nature (none in TELECOM Digest have been to date -- ie, no credit card numbers :), then why should it end up in a Secret Service file? Doesn't it then become government monitoring legal public activities/statements by citizens? Sorry, that's a bit too much like a police state for my liking, in flavor if not degree. > FYI, I have numerous names on the mailing matrix for TELECOM Digest of > people associated with various government agencies, including the > Secret Service, the IRS and many others. I ask for one thing from > people who wish to subscribe: an interest in telecommunications policy > and practice; and an enthusiasm for understanding telecommunications > in an intellectually and ethically honest way. I specifically forbid > and repudiate copyright of TELECOM Digest in the hopes people will > share their understanding and ideas with others. Do you really think the people who placed those excerpts in the files were interested in telecom issues? Or in who was saying what? Not the people who passed them on, but the "investigators." (Using the term loosely -- Foley certainly wasn't much of an investigator IMO.) > Not that you would ever keep any computer database of people with > interests like your own ....:) Of course, who knows how many people are in that database that shouldn't be -- considering that the Secret Service seemed to think that the statement that Kermit is a file transfer protocol used on mainframes was so serious. I'm surprised that they haven't busted Digital Press and confiscated the MS-Kermit User's Guide :). > By all means, dear readers, contact CPSR if you want more information, > but as for myself, I support government efforts to crack down on > computer crime, and electronic invasion of computers by unauthorized > users. I do not support organizations which would deny the government > the right to participate in any public forum. The problem is that you are dealing with two different entities here. On the one hand, you have the individual government employee, who has a right to participate in a public forum, and on the other, you have a governmental investigation agency, represented by that individual. Unless it clearly relates to the comission of a crime, or it falls under the heading of "expert opinion," relating to an issue under investigation (and no copyrights are violated), the government should not be placing legal, public statements in the record of a criminal investigation is out of line. Sure, they can read it -- but to place it in that file implies that there is something wrong with the statement. Considering law-enforcement infiltration of legal lobbying groups who disagree with policy, and other abuses, you really have to wonder who is more paranoid -- extreme privacy advocates who would deny the government any role, or the agents of the government. These folks really seem to feel that anyone is a potential threat. And winding up, even by accident or chance, in one of their files is not a trivial matter. It can cost you security clearance, it can cost you a job, a promotion, or an appointment. It's very easy for a paper-pusher to get the idea that "it's all criminals on these here groups," based on the appearance of excerpts in files (why else would they be there -- remember Ed Meese's "innocent people aren't accused of crimes" comment?) -- so anyone who posts must not be trustworthy. The government understanding of the net is not yet mature enough to assume that they're not going to react that way. So far, they've been pretty predictable. Paul Coen, pcoen@drew.drew.edu, pcoen@drew.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 01:09 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service On Nov 23 at 16:46, TELECOM Moderator writes: > I have no problem whatsoever with > the Secret Service or any other government agency reading what I > publish here. They don't have to sneak around reading it. They why do they behave in this manner? The fact is they DO sneak around when indeed getting a subscription would be no problem at all. After dealing with FBI and telco security types for the past couple of years, I have come to believe that they would figure out a complex and covert way to gleen some information even if it was painted in ten-foot high letters on Shasta Dam. The fact of the matter is that many of these gum shoes are in way over their heads on a lot of this computer stuff and it is a full time job to keep from looking like the horse's ass. And most of the time they are not successful. Secret Service and FBI types have no idea what is "sensitive" and what is garbage. I have seen agents pore over documents in a case that I would not even fish out of the trash. Most amusing was watching a telco security person fawn over a box of "evidence" that was filled with stuff supposedly "stolen" from Pac*Bell that I would pay you to remove from my garage. It was garbage that even Pac*Bell has not used in any way for over thirty years. Unlike Patrick, I have little or no faith and confidence in law enforcement when it comes to "hackers". Even the "experts" I have met on that side of the fence tend to drool a bit and would have not a clue concerning who and what was "dangerous" or not. For all the seizures and raids that have occurred we have seen precious little in terms of court action and that which actually has landed in court has proven my point. It is unfortunate that more enlightenment has not managed to find its way into government's enforcement arm in the form of knowledgeable personnel. But what can you expect when even the laws dealing with these "crimes" are confusing and inadequate. You have policemen enforcing laws they do not understand, serving warrants issued by judges who have not a clue, and occasionally, courts dispensing justice in the dark. Until you have personally witnessed the wheels of enforcement and justice grind away on the field of computers and telecommunications, you cannot grasp the pitiful nature of these processes, nor comprehend the damage that is being done to rights and protections that we all used to take for granted. I cannot believe that Patrick would be so gung-ho on this matter if he could see the reality of what he euphamistically refers to as "enforcement" and "justice". It could not be a bigger joke. > By all means, dear readers, contact CPSR if you want more information, > but as for myself, I support government efforts to crack down on > computer crime, and electronic invasion of computers by unauthorized > users. Surely you cannot be referring to any of the efforts to date. I have personally looked into many of these efforts, some in great detail, and am horrified at what misguided efforts these are. To be honest, these efforts are also as ineffective as they are unnecessarily harsh. > I do not support organizations which would deny the government > the right to participate in any public forum. Since when is sneaking around obtaining covert copies of a forum's output "participation"? I support organizations that strive to ensure that the government operate within the framwork of laws and the constitution, regardless of how "important" and "urgent" the matters under investigation may be represented by that government. > Email is a whole different matter ... notice I have not mentioned it > once today. I am talking about newsgroups and public mailing lists. A thin line, to be sure. A line that most (if not all) enforcement agencies have no problem crossing. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:22:27 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service Pat's rebuttal to Craig Neidorf's article fits my perspective 100% when it comes to using a public access media such as Usenet. I feel that if I put something onto it, then I'm willing to have anyone read what I want to say. Conversely, if I don't want anyone to see it, then I don't post it. Good show, Pat. Dave ------------------------------ From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 11:52:16 EST Pat writes: > By all means, dear readers, contact CPSR if you want more > information, but as for myself, I support government efforts to > crack down on computer crime, and electronic invasion of computers by > unauthorized users. I do not support organizations which would deny > the government the right to participate in any public forum. It should be noted that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has never argued that there is a principled rationale for denying the government access to public forums. Moreover, both EFF and CPSR have hosted public forums on computer crime, civil liberties, and privacy matters at which government representatives have been informative and enthusiastic participants. > But let me make it perfectly clear you do not speak for Patrick > Townson and/or TELECOM Digest, although you may speak for various > readers of the Digest who have asked you to represent them or speak > for them. This seems to me to be an odd comment. I don't know of anyone, including Craig Neidorf, who has claimed to "speak for" TELECOM Digest or Pat Townson. You seem to be expressing opposition to CPSR's efforts to find out the contours of the government's efforts to fight computer crime. This surprises me, since I'd have thought that anyone in a democratic society would be interested in knowing how the government is spending our tax money -- not to mention whether some of its efforts might affect the exercise of the Constitutional right to free speech in a public forum. Mike [Moderator's Note: Readers who are interested in more information about the Electronic Frontier Foundation and/or membership should contact Mike Godwin . PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 09:52:13 EST From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" Subject: Re: Value Added Service and Local Competition Jack Decker wrote about providing "retro-fifties" style phone service through an alternate (human) service. When speaking about the "busy executive", you failed to notice that this service exists today -- it's called a secretary! For inbound service, the secretary effectively chokes the line or forwards the call to an underling, etc. For outbound service, the exec just tells the secretary, "Get Jack on the phone for me". With regard to the physically handicapped, don't services like this exist today? (And aren't they subsidized?) For language barriers, it might be useful, but then you still have a problem if the person you are calling doesn't speak the same language. Again, didn't we read here in the Digest about AT&T's language service? Oh well -- A good idea is one that makes you think, and this one did. josh ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 09:15:44 cst From: Bob.Ackley@ivgate.omahug.org (Bob Ackley) Subject: Value-Added Service and Local Competition Reply-To: bob.ackley@drbbs.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha In a message of <18 Nov 91 22:31:14>, Jack Decker writes: > Now, suppose you offered a service where a person's phone line, > instead of being directly connected to the phone company, was instead > sent to another location. In other words, when that person picked up > your phone, they wouldn't be connected directly to the telephone > company's central office exchange switch, but rather to a piece of > equipment is some other location. They'd still be using the > facilities of the telephone company for the circuits, but not for dial > tone. > And what would be connected at the other end? OPERATORS! Real, > human, flesh-and-blood OPERATORS, that could complete calls between > subscribers and also to customers served by the "real" telephone > company! Isn't this called a 'PBX'? I suspect that the telco will take a dim view of using a PBX to compete with their monopoly local service. Of course, the telco took a dim view of MCI when that company was reselling WATS long distance service in direct competition with Long Lines ... msged 1.99S ZTC Bob's Soapbox , Plattsmouth (1:285/666.7) ------------------------------ From: billm@fujisan.info.com (Bill Martens) Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Date: 23 Nov 91 09:39:05 GMT Reply-To: billm@fujisan.info.com (Bill Martens) Organization: Info Connections @ Mt. Fuji Well, there have been many well publicized cases where the telco's turn these same 15 year old phreakers into mince meat and take away their little computers. But I wonder if any of these people with these government agencies were ever a kid or if they were born grown up. As for SCUM like these people who are quite old enough to know better and have had their freebie (when they were kids), I say fry them! When I say quite old enough, I mean 18+. [Moderator's Note: Are you saying a 19 year old hacker should be punished in the electric chair on conviction? Geeze, that makes *me* even feel like siding with the EFF. I know I was a kid while I was growing up, and we used to have great fun with the three-slot pay stations -- the original ones with a cloth-covered cord from the main box to the handset instead of the armored cable they use today. Those phones didn't have trap doors on the coin return slot either. A safety pin sending tip to ground momentarily connected the line and brought the operator's 'number please' -- no five cent coin needed. And when the operator wanted more money for toll calls, we'd give it to her, and use a flexible piece of wire up the coin return slot to dump the shelf holding the coins down the return slot before the operator had a chance to hit the 'collect' key on her end. We'd use the same quarter over and over to accumulate the dollar she was demanding ("just a minute operator, I'm looking for more change!"). I'm sure glad they didn't fry me. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #959 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25539; 24 Nov 91 15:14 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29659 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 13:24:45 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01133 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 13:24:15 -0600 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 13:24:15 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111241924.AA01133@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #960 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Nov 91 13:23:31 CST Volume 11 : Issue 960 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Gary L. Russell) Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Charles McGuinness) Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody (John Higdon) Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody (David G. Lewis) Caller ID Tariff Information Needed (John Bertot) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: /PN=GARY.L.RUSSELL/O=GTE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com Date: 22 Nov 91 20:07 UT Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books The following items should be of interest concerning the copyrights of both white and yellow page phone directories. {The Wall Street Journal}, 10/2/1990 LAW: TELEPHONE BOOK COPYRIGHTS, page:B-10. The justices also agreed to decide whether a federal copyright for a telephone directory prohibits another company from using that listing as a source for names, addresses and phone numbers to publish its own directory. {Business Week}, 11/19/1990 INFORMATION PROCESSING: COPYRIGHT LAW: THE HIGH COURT PONDERS THE PHONE BOOK, page:138C Do phone books deserve the same copyright protection that literary works enjoy? The Supreme Court will take up that issue in its next term. The test case, Feist Publications vs. Rural Telephone Service Co., pits an independent directory publisher against a tiny, non-profit phone cooperative in Lenora, Kan. Rural refused to license its listings. When Feist copied them anyway, checked them for accuracy, and put out its own white pages, Rural sued. {The Wall Street Journal}, 11/20/1990 SEE 'L' FOR LAWYERS: PHONE FIRMS, RIVALS SCRAP OVER WHO OWNS DIRECTORY NAMES, page:B1 Amid the plains of Nevada, Iowa, Dun & Bradstreet Corp. workers sit copying telephone listings into a computer. It may not be the world's most glamorous work, but it's the foundation of a $200 million business that sells lists of consumers to marketing companies. It also may not be legal. BellSouth Corp., the regional phone company for the Southeastern U.S., is suing Dun & Bradstreet for copyright infringement. {The Wall Street Journal}, 3/28/1991 PHONE LISTINGS CAN BE COPIED, JUSTICES DECIDE, page:B1 Washington - The Supreme Court, in a decision with major ramifications for the direct marketing and information-services industries, made it even easier for marketers to gain access to consumers' telephone numbers and addresses. The high court, in a 9-0 ruling, said that a telephone directory's white-pages listings of names, addresses and phone numbers isn't protected by federal copyright law. {The Wall Street Journal}, 9/24/1991 YELLOW-PAGES REUSE IS FOUND NOT TO VIOLATE COPYRIGHT, page: B1 In a decision that could have major implications in the $8 billion yellow-pages industry, a federal appeals court ruled that listings from yellow-page phone directories can be copied by competitors as long as changes are made in the way the material is organized. The decision follows a U.S. Supreme Court decision this year that dealt with how copyright law applies to white-pages listings. The appeals court applied the Supreme Court ruling explicitly to the lucrative yellow-pages market, where the Baby Bells and their partners generally control the information needed to publish such directories and reap enormous revenue from selling yellow-pages ads. also January 9, 1991 The Supreme Court heard arguments Jan. 9 regarding copyright protection for telephone white pages. Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co.: Feist, a non-telephone publisher of a Kansas area-wide directory contends, that the names, addresses and telephone numbers in white pages are not copyrightable. Feist claims, it did not infringe Rural's copyright when it copied some listings without first obtaining the information through its own independent survey. Rural answers that precedent supports its contention that the particular arrangement of names, addresses and numbers in a telephone directory is copyrightable and that Rural's original compilation was wrongly used by Feist. also APRIL 1, 1991 The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there is no copyright protection for telephone directory white pages. The decision favored Feist Publications, Inc., a directory publisher in Kansas who competes with the directory published by the regional telephone company, Rural Telephone Service Co. The decision reversed two lower court decisions against Feist. Justice O'Connor, said that Rural's white pages did not meet the constitutional or statutory requirements for copyright protection. Facts themselves cannot be copyrighted because they are not original works of authorship. Compilations of facts are copyrightable if they are selected, coordinated or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The originality requirement is not very stringent, requiring only some minimal degree of creativity. Presumably the vast majority of compilations will pass this test, but not all will, said Justice O'Connor. --------------- [Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for preparing this compilation of articles. It should prove useful to several readers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Charles McGuinness Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 10:54:23 EST In TELECOM Digest Volume 11 : Issue 942, Dale Gass comments: > I noticed that the Halifax (Nova Scotia) phone book is copyrighted > (and I assume most are), so I assume it's up to the phone company to > provide it on diskette. > How far does this copyright extend? In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service) that the white pages are not entitled to copyright protection. The key element missing was originality. Some selected comments from the opinion make this clearer: "Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original and, thus, are not copyrightable." "While Rural has a valid copyright in the directory as a whole because it it contains some forward text and some original material in the yellow pages, there is nothing original in Rural's white pages. The raw data are uncopyrightable facts, and the way in which Rural selected, coordinated, and arrange those facts is not original in any way. Rural's selection of listings -- subscriber's names, towns, and telephone numbers -- could not be more obvious and lacks the modicum of creativity necessary to transfer mere selection into copyrightable expression." So you're free to scan the white pages, build a database, and do as you please. Of course, this ruling does not apply to Halifax ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 02:04 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody Jack Decker writes: > Virtually all modern exchanges have > plenty of capacity to handle the highest calling volumes that would > ever be expected. Usually this capacity is determined by the peak daytime business load which generally dwarfs any evening and night usage by residences. For this reason, there have been from time to time measured usage schemes that called for measured service during the day and unmeasured during off-peak hours. In the eighties, Pac*Bell experimented with a plan (I was a participant) that allowed, for a fee of $35/month, residences to have unlimited calling within the metropolitan Bay Area from San Rafael to San Jose, and east to Concord during any hours except 8AM to 5PM weekdays. The truth of the matter is that the capacity is there for the business day and just sits there essentially unused during the rest of the time. Pricing is designed to encourage use during off-peak times. This is why Pac*Bell offers a 30% evening and a 60% night discount for intraLATA and local calls. GTE's latest rate proposal apparently considers this now less important than picking up more money from residences (so it can woo businesses with more attractive rates). It wants to cut the 30% discount to 20% and the 60% discount to 40%. > My point is that the actual costs of providing telephone service bear > almost no relation at all to the amount of usage on a line, and > therefore usage is not a valid criteria for charging for telephone > service. This is absolutely true. But it is always the slop that the telco peddles to get support from the public. It is a simple concept that the unwashed can understand, even if it has no basis in reality. Telco says, "Now don't you think that those who use the service more should pay more?" And the average consumer says, "Yes, that makes sense to me." In comes measured service and no one complains. The real problem with measured service, as Mr. Decker has pointed out previously, is that it makes the local rates so easy to manipulate. It also removes the "cap" that is inherent in flat-rate service. In other words, even if a transition from flat-rate to measured is "revenue neutral" initially, the telco can pump up its revenue by encouraging the use of the telephone. Since this is happening in the natural course of events, what is "revenue neutral" today will definitely become a positive increase tomorrow. The other thing is the little deception of rates. The cries have gone out about the proposed increase from $8.35/month to over $13/month for residence service. This is several dollars a month or around $50 per year. People perceive this to be a major increase. What people are ignoring is the additional minute local rate increase from $0.01 to $0.02. But I can assure you that this is the major increase for the telco. This will amount to major dollars and will seriously soak customers, but it has had scant notice by any of the consumer groups. With measured service, major increases can be had by simply changing the local rates by what looks like a small amount. It gives telco a shell game to work with. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 15:30:47 GMT In article Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: > In a message dated 17 Nov 91 15:29:10 GMT, Steve Simmons > writes: >> Your phone bill >> should reflect the actual costs of providing the service. > You see, the phone company would like > you to THINK you are somehow "using up" their resources when you place > calls, but it just isn't so. Virtually all modern exchanges have > plenty of capacity to handle the highest calling volumes that would > ever be expected. Well, yes, but that capacity costs money to provide. The more traffic on a switch, the more capacity which must be provided, and the higher the cost. A switch in an urban/business setting seeing 10 CCS/line for a given number of lines, with 20% intra-office traffic is going to be more costly than the same switch with the same number of lines in a rural/residential setting seeing 3 CCS/line with 65% intra-office traffic. Telco engineers, like all engineers, build in spare capacity -- but that spare capacity costs money. The analogy presented with cable TV is somewhat erroneous; since CATV is broadcast, once you have the bridge tap on the line, the signal's there whether you watch it or not. Switched service, however, uses resources (processor, memory, switchpaths, service circuits) when it's in use that it doesn't use when it's not. There is, therefore, an incremental cost of use for switched services. > Another thing you might ask yourself is why they are wanting to charge > by the call rather than per minute of use. If there are resources > that really are somehow consumed by usage, then why is it fairer for > the person who makes ten one-minute calls to pay more than the person > who makes one phone call that lasts four hours? (I had a call that > lasted that long once!). There are resources that are used by the call, not by minutes of use (e.g. DTMF or DP receivers, dialtone generators, call store memory); however, that cost is usually captured in usage-sensitive charging by having a higher cost for the first rate period (usually first minute) than for succeeding rate periods. Please note that I'm not arguing for or against the philosophy of setting a per-call maximum or arguing for or against Michigan Bell's method of dealing with the PSC, customers, and state legislature; merely trying to clear up some technical issues. > The largest expense of providing phone service is what is called > "outside plant" ... that is, the network of wires and cables that > connect your home to the telephone network. If you REALLY wanted to > have users pay for the actual costs of providing service, then the > person who lives ten miles away from the central office should be > paying ten times as much as the person who lives only one mile from > the central office. If you wait long enough, you may see this ... Note, however, that this would be a higher monthly cost, not a higher usage cost, because the OSP is independent of usage (it's there whether it's used or not). > My point is that the actual costs of providing telephone service bear > almost no relation at all to the amount of usage on a line, and > therefore usage is not a valid criteria for charging for telephone > service. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "almost no relation", but I agree that price of local telephone service and cost of local telephone service are rather weekly related. There is a reason for this, however; it's referred to by the regulatory agencies as "the public interest, need, and necessity." The cost of providing switched service is comprised of three parts: a nonrecurring cost (for installation, database entry, billing record establishment, etc.), a monthly fixed cost (for maintenance of the outside plant, transmission plant, building facilities, and other fixed operational costs), and a monthly variable cost (for usage of switched resources). There's somewhat of a match with price; you pay a fee for new installation, a monthly fixed fee, and if you have usage-based pricing, a monthly usage fee. Do they match exactly with cost? No, because it is "not in the public interest" to require some people to pay $10000 for installation while others pay $25; it is "not in the public interest" to have some subscribers pay a $2 monthly fee because they live nextdoor to the CO and to have others pay a $50 monthly fee because they live 20 miles away. So, costs are averaged across subscribers and averaged across time and in some cases averaged across usage and a tariff structure is built that, in the opinion of the regulatory agency, provides a fair and equitable price to the consumer and a reasonable return on investment to the telco. At least, that's the theory; I'm not going to get into a discussion about how well it works in practice. Usage-based pricing is part of a general trend towards cost-based pricing; It recovers costs based on the use of resources in way which is generally deemed by regulators to be fair and equitable, and the usage of those resources is relatively easy to measure. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 09:42:25 EST From: John Bertot Subject: Caller ID Tariff Information Needed I am a doctoral student in Information Studies at Syracuse University and am researching Caller*ID's implementation across the US. I have followed the Telecom usegroup for some time, and have found the discussions concerning Caller*ID most interesting. At this point, I am looking for actual costs of Caller*ID to residents and businesses in various states which have Caller*ID currently in operation. Specifically, I am looking for initiation, monthly and other incurred costs to users of the service. I thank you in advance for your help. John Bertot JCBERTOT@SUVM ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #960 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27416; 24 Nov 91 16:23 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17675 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 13:58:03 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13241 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 13:57:50 -0600 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 13:57:50 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111241957.AA13241@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #961 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Nov 91 13:57:34 CST Volume 11 : Issue 961 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Michael A. Covington) Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone (Michael G. Katzmann) Re: AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet? (William Degnan) Re: AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet? (David G. Lewis) Re: Network Info and Access (Syd Weinstein) Re: Network Info and Access (Frederick G.M. Roeber) Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to 2 Housholds (S Crichton) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 19:08:46 GMT In article knight@eff.org (Craig Neidorf) writes: > The Secret Service's response to Computer Professionals for > Social Responsibility's (CPSR) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) > request has raised new questions about the scope and conduct of the > agency's "computer crime" investigations. The documents disclosed to > CPSR reveal that the Secret Service monitored communications sent > across the Internet. The materials released through the FOIA include > copies of many electronic newsletters, digests, and Usenet groups > including "comp.org.eff.talk," "comp.sys.att," "Computer Underground > Digest" (alt.cud.cu-digest)," "Effector Online," "Legion of Doom > Technical Journals," "Phrack Newsletter," and "TELECOM Digest > (comp.dcom.telecom)". Currently, there is no clear policy for the > monitoring of network communications by law enforcement agents. Two of these are unfamiliar to me, but all the rest are forums which everyone is welcome to read. You might as well complain that the Secret Service reads your local newspaper. Seriously, I am concerned about possible violations of people's rights by over-zealous agents. But reading comp.dcom.telecom hardly counts as snooping! In article PCOEN@drew.drew.edu (Paul Coen) writes: >> Anyone is free -- even members of CPSR -- to interconnect with this >> network and read the newsgroups or subscribe to the various >> e-journals. Craig makes it sound, in his context, like the Secret >> Service did something wrong. In this instance, they did not. >> Well I don't know about those other guys mentioned here, but I have no >> problem with TELECOM Digest being in anyone's files. > Yes, but did all of the people who made contributions realize that it > could end up in a file pertaining to a Secret Service investigation? This is something we have had a hard time hammering into the heads of the users here at the University of Georgia. A newsgroup is a public forum. Posting something in a newsgroup is like publishing it in a major newspaper. The person posting it should expect that it will be read by practically anybody anywhere. "I've just posted this for 100,000 people, but don't tell anybody!" is unfortunately a common attitude. People seem to think that the newsgroups are some kind of underground society where everyone is sworn to secrecy. 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. ------------------------------ From: vk2bea!michael@uunet.uu.net (Michael G. Katzmann) Subject: Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone Date: 22 Nov 91 17:26:25 GMT Reply-To: vk2bea!michael@uunet.uu.net (Michael G. Katzmann) Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland. In article deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes: > kclark@cevax.simpact.com (Ken J. Clark) writes: >> I'm not sure when AT&T introduced Touchtone(R) to the market place. > 1963, according to EOBS. It was the same day as J.F.K. was assasinated (No connection that I know of.) Michael Katzmann Broadcast Sports Technology Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A Amteur Radio Stations: NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV opel!vk2bea!michael@uunet.uu.net [Moderator's Note: As a matter of fact, JFK was killed 28 years ago this weekend. How well I remember that! Touchtone became available here in Chicago during 1965-67. The downtown business district had it in late 1965. I could not get it on my 312-RAVenswood line in 1966-67 but IBT offered it when I moved and had a HYDe Park number in the summer of 1967. PAT] ------------------------------ From: William.Degnan@p0.f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org (William Degnan) Date: 22 Nov 91 22:38:01 Subject: Re: AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet? On Jack Winslade (Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org ) wrote: > This is the one that caught my eye, and made my BS detector go 'beep'. The biggest secret about the SDN packages is that I understand one must sign a letter of agency (LOA) that makes someone else the _only_ party who can issue orders for LD service on the lines the LOA covers. This means that you can't change it unless you get a reverse LOA from the SDN management. If they won't exchange one with you up front, you may be stuck with whatever you get. Good luck. 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 * Origin: Private Line - Stealth Opus in Austin (1:382/39.0) ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 14:17:59 GMT I'm going to take a crack at some of this, but because it deals with issues which my company finds touchy in some cases, I wanted to emphasize: my comments are based on my perception of what AT&T does, drawn largely from experience acquired outside AT&T. They should not be construed as representing AT&T policy. In article jsw@drbbs.omahug.org writes: >> ... describes how the AT&T Software Defined Network is saving my company >> a lot of money in their long distance charges. Additionally, NETxxxx >> is using the AT&T SDN to cut their costs of echomail. > Here's another thing that I thought AT&T did not officially support >> With their calling card, you dial a TOLL-FREE 800 number and enter >> your special code (your social security number) and the number you >> want. Sounds like a lot of numbers but it is only four more digits >> than a using a regular AT&T card. AT&T offers a service called SDN Network Remote Access. It enables a customer to place calls onto an SDN from an off-net location. The service requires an authorization code, but I don't know offhand what exactly the auth code is (like whether or not it can be SSN). However, I can't see why NRA would be at all applicable to using SDN for intercomputer links, as the computers are unlikely to be moving around a whole lot... >> TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMPARISON OF LONG DISTANCE CARRIERS [deleted] I know that AT&T seriously frowns upon *anyone* citing performance comparisons without them being formally blessed. The figures I've seen have been limited to distribution on a need-to-know basis, internal to AT&T only. That section certainly doesn't look like it was sanctioned by AT&T. > Questions for those who are more in the know on these telecom issues: > Is this type of promotion officially sanctioned by AT&T ?? I don't know that it is; I don't know that it isn't; but my *guess* is that it isn't. Hey, we spend enough buying ads during the World Series, why would we resort to mass-email? :-) I'm also going to go a little bit out on a limb with an hypothesis. There is a fairly large group of businesses called "SDN aggregators". They purchase SDN service from AT&T, getting nice volume discounts, and resell it as long-distance service to other individuals and companies. (SDN allows calls to off-net locations as part of the tariff, so everywhere you call doesn't have to be part of the SDN.) This sounds to me somewhat like at SDN aggregator deal. It is my experience, working with AT&T from the outside, that AT&T isn't too crazy about SDN aggregators. > How long would these rates (and the lack of monthly charge) last ?? If it's an aggregator, anywhere from forever to never. If it's AT&T, it's tariffed. (Actually, I'm not sure if promotional discounts are tariffed per se, but it would be stated in the contract.) > Is this guy getting a kickback from the calls placed by those he signs > up ?? I >KNOW< some LD companies do this. I was offered to just such > a deal myself recently if I would sign others up for a certain plan. So far as I know, AT&T does *not* do this. Aggregators may. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ From: syd@dsi.com (Syd Weinstein) Subject: Re: Network Info and Access Reply-To: syd@dsi.com Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 21:54:33 GMT Will Martin writes: > I'm often asked if this or that organization has > Internet connectivity; if it can be reached via e-mail or accessed > with FTP or telnet. > I don't even know where to look it up or who to ask to get a > definitive answer. The 'easy' way to check for Internet Connectivity is to call them on the telephone and ask them :-). However, what has replaced the host tables is DNS. When registering for DNS you choose what domain you wish to be listed under. Each of these domains has a principal contact. These principal contacts are all listed in the "whois" database. As an example, mine is: $ whois datacomp Datacomp Systems, Inc. (DSI-DOM) 3837 Byron Road Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006-2320 Domain Name: DSI.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Weinstein, Sydney S. (SSW5) SYD@DSI.COM (215)947-9900 Record last updated on 27-Feb-91. Domain servers in listed order: DSINC.DSI.COM 192.65.202.1 PHLSUN.PREPNET.COM 129.250.2.1 SPOOL.MU.EDU 134.48.1.31 Those without internet access (thus no whois command) can send their whois requests to the electronic mail responder SERVICE@NIC.DDN.MIL Having said that, note: the NIC just changed hands on a new contract, and the new NIC does not have its act totally together yet. So sometimes you get back things you don't expect such as: "Sorry, you shouldn't see this record." Hopefully this will improve with time. Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator - Current 2.3PL11 Datacomp Systems, Inc. Projected 2.4 Release: Early 1992 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd Voice: (215) 947-9900, FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ From: roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch (Frederick G.M. Roeber) Subject: Re: Network Info and Access Date: 24 Nov 91 15:23:31 GMT In article , wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes: > [How can you find out if some random company is on the internet?] This isn't perfect, but if you can make a stab at the name, you can do domain nameserver lookups. Guessing that the Library of Congress would be "loc.gov," I tried: VXCRNA $ mu nsl /type=any loc.gov. Server: d-name-1.cern.ch Address: 128.141.200.5 Non-authoritative answer: LOC.GOV nameserver = RS1.LOC.GOV LOC.GOV nameserver = NOC.SURA.NET Authoritative answers can be found from: LOC.GOV nameserver = RS1.LOC.GOV LOC.GOV nameserver = NOC.SURA.NET RS1.LOC.GOV internet address = 140.147.2.12 NOC.SURA.NET internet address = 192.80.214.100 (This is with Multinet on a VMS system, your system's command may be different.) So there are entries for loc.gov, and even a published nameserver. Next step: telnet to the published name, and see if the banner announces the organization. (It doesn't, in this case.) Or, try anonymous ftp and look for a README. (No aftp in this case, either). If you have a program to do it (Multinet doesn't, and I haven't gotten around to writing one yet), you could do a domain nameservice "zone transfer" from the published nameserver, and peruse its contents. It is debated whether or not honoring all zone transfers is a security threat or not, so this avenue may be closed. There are fields in the DNS for further information -- including generic text information that could announce contact points -- but I've never yet seen anybody use them. Since we still don't even know if this "loc" is what you're looking for, the final step (left as an exercise) would be mail. The SOA record for loc.gov shows a mail address of root@rs1.loc.gov; though that's really intended for DNS problems, a brief note asking for a more proper address should be ok. Or you could try the user "postmaster" at the nameserver, this is not a standard, but it is common. BTW, I would venture to guess that this "loc" -- whatever it is -- is well endowed with networked computers: notice that rs1's address is on a Class-B network. Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research e-mail: roeber@caltech.edu or roeber@cern.ch | work: +41 22 767 31 80 r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 42 19 44 ------------------------------ From: sharonc@meaddata.com (Sharon Crichton) Subject: Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to Two Housholds Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 13:33:13 GMT Reply-To: sharonc@meaddata.com In article , billc@pegasus.att.com (William J Carpenter) writes: >> My questions to the telecom group are: how easy is it to >> assign duplicate numbers on different lines, how are long >> distance charges assigned back to a household > The Moderator suggests that it is more likely that only the directory > is wrong. I find that position particularly easy to support, since a > local department store has my phone number as one of its half dozen or > so listings in the Monmouth County white pages. In case you are > wondering, I also assume that this is somewhat more inconvenient than > having another household with the same listing (since the latter is > somewhat self-correcting over time, while the former, I have > experimentally determined, is not). I am currently experiencing the joy of having two households with the "same" listing. I moved to a new apartment in May and had to change my phone number at that time. Had one of those "The number you have reached ..." recordings put on my old number. For the first three months, no problems. Then in August, I kepts getting multiple phone calls a week, sometimes multiple ones per day, for a "Debbie Heinz." Yup, my new number used to be her number, and it's annoying as h*ll (not the one in Michigan) to have to explain to people that: 1. They have the wrong number. 2. Yes, this is XXX-XXXX (which I'm not sure I should confirm). 3. This used to be her number, now it's mine. > Two questions have twirled around my brain since the situation first > came to our attention: (1) who to be mad at; and (2) how to get it > fixed. > (1) Who to be mad at? In my case, I'm mad at Ohio Bell. I don't how long the number sat unused before they gave it to me, but the 1991/92 phonebooks still have us listed at our old addresses. So I don't know if the number was unused for a day, a week, a month, or longer. > (2) How to fix it? > (a) Wait for new phone book. Thanks ... we thought of that two years Or wait for all of this person's friends, relatives, business contacts, etc. to get the message (usually through me or my answering machine) that she ain't got this number no more. :-( I've also gotten a lot of strange calls on my machine, from people assuming I'm this woman, even though I say "This is Sharon ..." on the greeting. What I'm really waiting for is a telemarketer to call, asking for her. What I'd love to do is order multiple hundreds of dollars of merchandise from them, keeping them hanging on the line for minutes? hours?, then at the last moment, tell them that they've reached the wrong number. :-) Sharon Crichton CE-Application Software sharonc%meaddata@uunet.uu.net Mead Data Central sharonc@meaddata.com P.O. Box 933 uunet!meaddata!sharonc Dayton, OH 45401 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #961 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27887; 24 Nov 91 16:42 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10262 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 15:02:53 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23208 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 15:02:37 -0600 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 15:02:37 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111242102.AA23208@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #962 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Nov 91 15:02:35 CST Volume 11 : Issue 962 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different (Scott Reuben) Re: DID Specs? And What is ANI? (David G. Lewis) 1 + 10D on Local Calls (was Shared Area Codes) (Carl Moore) Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Cross Country Data Pipe (Antonio Desimone) Re: What Does Internet Cost Per Person? (Dave Levenson) Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (Patrick L. Humphrey) Mac/PC Emululation Modem Problem (David Brightbill) Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Eric Florack) Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (ROA) (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22-NOV-1991 04:17:57.64 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different On 19 Nov 91 00:37:17 GMT, madams@aludra.usc.edu (Marcus Adams) wrote: > It used to be that when I got a call on my call-waiting, there would > be a click that was audible to whoever I was talking with at the time. > It was handy because they would hear the click and say something like > "Sure, go ahead and answer that." <...> Sometime a couple years back, > I noticed that this click disappeared on my phone. Friend's call > waiting would still emit a click ... You are one of the few people I have heard who actually liked the old Call-Waiting signal! They just changed your exchange. The 1/1A/2(?)ESSs made these annoying clicks. There was a really good post on here maybe four years ago dealing with early ESSs, and it described, inter alia, how a call-waiting call would "latch on" (?) to an existing call via some mechanism, which would result in the clicks. (The article also went on to say that that second series of clicks was less "severe" than the first, etc.) Newer DMS-100/200 or 5ESS exchanges don't make these clicks -- they just mask out your voice for the fraction of a second it takes to produce the tone. Thus, if you are talking during a call-waiting beep on your end, your voice will be cut off to the person you are talking to for brief period of time. I used to think that there were some hard and fast rules for distinguishing between a DMS and a 5ESS, but after all the debates on "generic" DMS software I am no longer sure. Try calling a changed or disconnected number, and see if you hear a ring before you get the AIS/Tritone/Alert message (ie, " The number you have reached 5-5-5-1-2-1-2 has been disconnected.") (Try calling 617-698-9963 to see what a DMS "Not in Service" sounds like. BTW, can the DMS generate its OWN recordings/referrals without having to use the AIS system?) Or, if you have Three-Way-Calling and Call-Forwarding as well, try forwarding your calls while on a call (ie, make a call, talk to the person, click the hookswitch, dial 72# and the number you want to forward to). If this works and calls forward properly, you're probably on a DMS. I've tried this on three different 5ESSS (718-643, 716-271,718-263/268) and it never worked, while it does seem to work on the Tarrytown, NY (914-631/332), West Hartford, CT (203- 231/230/233/232/236), and the Croton-On-Hudson (914-271) DMSs. Anyhow, basically, you got a new exchange and your friend didn't, so he gets the clicks, and you don't. As to what sort of new exchange you are on -- if the above "tests" are not conclusive, maybe just call the telco and ask them! :) Oh, and to the person who wanted a good wrong number recording in Japan, try 81-78-555-1212. It is in English and Japanese. I'm not sure if you are hearing a recording in the US rather than wasting bandwidth to Japan, but there is a good deal of Japanese on the recording as well which is clear and easy to record. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: DID Specs? And What is ANI? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 14:46:35 GMT In article burgess@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Ken Burgess) writes: > Also can anyone tell me what ANI is? Seems to have somthing to do with > "the" caller's phone number ... > [Moderator's Note: See the message on this earlier in this issue. ANI > is automatic number identification. It is the process of sending the > phone number of a caller to an 800 number to the subscriber of the 800 > number for billing purposes. PAT] Pat, you're confusing the readers again. OK, one more time for tilting at the terminology windmill. ANI, Automatic Number Identification, is the process used to send the *billing number* (which may or may not be the same as the phone number of the caller) of the caller to the *interexchange carrier* which carries the call, for use by the interexchange carrier in billing. The billing number is sent on all inter-LATA calls, not just 800 calls. It must be sent to the IXC so that the IXC can properly bill the calling (or called) party for the service. A service offered by some interexchange carriers, which is generically (and improperly) referred to as "ANI Delivery" ("Billing Number Delivery" is a more proper term), uses some sort of signaling method to send the calling party's billing number to an 800 subscriber at call setup. AT&T uses ISDN signaling to directly-connected customers. I believe MCI and US Sprint do as well. Some IXCs may offer this delivery service via a type of inband signaling. In addition, most if not all IXCs which offer 800 services provide, in the bill for 800 services, call detail recording which includes the billing number for each call. As Pat has said several times, the 800 subscriber is paying for the call, and should therefore be able to know where the call came from. Sorry to get all bent out of shape about this again, but you'd be amazed how much confusion can be avoided with a little bit of emphasis on accurate terminology. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 11:04:30 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 1 + 10D on Local Calls (was Shared Area Codes) I think the 1+10D scheme being available on local calls is already the case in the Washington, DC area, whether or not you cross an area code boundary when making a local call. (It's not clear whether this also applies to local calls across the 301/410 border, which are publicly announced as being NPA+7D, leading 1 being omitted.) Local calls in the DC area are publicly announced (in the call guide, etc.) as being dialed this way: 7D within your own area code. NPA + 7D to another area code (notice that some MD suburbs are local to parts of the 410 area) with long distance being 1 + NPA + 7D. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 10:44:49 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > Another thing you can do is just record the generic intercept, which > we get around here if we call an unallocated prefix (not many of those > left in 313). > I'd also like to collect a nice generic Japanese language intercept. > Can someone suggest a number? Years and years ago (more and more stuff seems to have happened years and years ago), I tried calling ringback and ANI prefixes (which apparently existed then, I seem to remember 960 and 840) around the continent, listening to the different intercept messages. Got a real nice one in French from Canada. Also, in high school, consulted my local phone book and compiled a list of every three digit sequence that was not an area code or a prefix, and called them! Found the telco test board and various other unpublished numbers. Harold ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 19:02:26 EST From: tds@hocus.att.com (Antonio Desimone) Subject: Re: Cross Country Data Pipe Reply-To: tds@hocus.att.com Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories On 20 Nov 91 05:41:48 GMT, malcolm@apple.com said: > I was at a workshop over the weekend where there was a discussion > about the NREN (National Research and Education Network) and mention > was made of about 100Gbits/second of cross country capacity. > Which made me wonder ... just how much capacity is there from coast to > coast? Let's see, where's that back-of-the-envelope ... Consider only the switched network. Say 100,000,000 calls completed in the AT&T network in a 12-hour day (from numerous Mother's Day, Christmas, etc. press releases), five minute holding time gives about 6*10^5 erlangs carried, which we'll pretend is the offered load (blocking's small, otherwise there wouldn't have been a press releases:-), which we'll pretend is the number of trunks if it were one trunk group (blocking's small, but it's not zero, and it's a big trunk group), which at 64kb/s/trunk, comes out to about 40Gb/s of switched capacity, which is no doubt a gross underestimate but we should be in the neighborhood. Course it's not all coast to coast, etc, etc. Make of it what you will. I for one would be interested in hearing more about the NREN workshop if the original poster cares to follow up. Tony DeSimone AT&T Bell Laboratories Holmdel, NJ 07733 ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.WESTMARK.COM (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: What Does Internet Cost Per Person? Date: 23 Nov 91 02:50:38 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) writes: >> Has anyone calculated the exact cost per taxpayer to support the >> Government's share of Internet operating expenses? (I must admit, I >> wish all standards could be implemented as RFCs ...) > I doubt that anyone has, but IMHO whatever it is, it is worth it. The > Internet is one of those unusual gummit sponsored projects that > actually has benefit to education, business, and individuals. Maybe it > is because there is so little gummit control ... I have never seen the total cost to the public of the Internet. Even for government programs where we do see the total cost, the media never bothers to try to compute the 'cost per taxpayer' which I would find far more interesting. Generally, the cost of a government program is discussed by folks who would prefer not to pay for it. I think we're better off not trying to publicize the public cost of Internet. While I agree with John regarding its public benefit, I suspect that we are in the minority. Most citizens have probably never heard of it, and would see no reason why they should have to pay for it. I think the only time I saw it mentioned in the news was when Mr. Morris subverted it with his now well-known worm, several years ago. CNN, in its usual scare-story delivery style, displayed a computer with a red lightning-bolt striking it, and a blinking word 'VIRUS' in pseudo-OCR font, and text that mis-spelled the name 'Arpenet'. Meanwhile, the talking head told the audience that a new and deadly computer virus was attacking computers all over the place, but not to worry about your PC -- it only attacks UNIX systems. I thought about the PC that was then in my household: an AT&T PC6300PLUS, running UNIX. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 Organization: Rice University Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 14:18:51 GMT In article wolfson@motsat.sat.mot.com (Stephen Wolfson) writes: > Bellcore had given them two choices, 901 and 708. Well, within a > short period of time they decided 901 was too close to 911 (Actually > in hindsight also way to close to 900, "Grandma, you want to do > what?!" :-) ) and how could they really choose any boundary other than > Chicago/Suburbs to make the split without totally upsetting all the > suburbs that didn't get 312. There's only one small problem with your story -- it's pretty unlikely that Bellcore offered them a choice between 901 and 708, if for no other reason than the fact that 901 had already been in use in the western third of Tennessee for the past three decades. Could you have been thinking of 905, instead? Patrick L. Humphrey (patrick@is.rice.edu) Rice Networking & Computing Systems +1 713 527-4989 at Rice. 713 981-5952 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub. [Moderator's Note: The thing I found fishy about the story was that I recall years ago -- like three or four years before any mention was made of 708 -- that dialing '708' from here (in 312) produced some odd responses. That is, it would produce a few clicks when dialed and usually no other response ... or sometimes calls would complete to the 312 version of the number. I asked a 'knowledgeable friend' at IBT about this and he said (if I remember his exact words) "708 is sort of a special code. It is in reserve for the *possibility* 312 may get too crowded and have to be split up." This was at least a couple years before even any discussion of 708 came up by the sophisticates. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 09:44:54 -0500 From: David Brightbill Subject: Mac/PC Emulation Modem Problem This is a rather convoluted problem. I am trying to connect to an application running via PC-Anywhere IV. I'm using a Mac running Universal Soft PC. I have PCAW set for flow control=none. What happens is that every once in a while, the system locks up. Sometimes it happens during a file download ... sometimes while reading text, sometimes it just happens while manipulating a cursor. Using a breakout box between the mac and the modem, I've tried various combinations of DTR, RTS, CTS, DCD and DSR. If things are locked up, if I momentarily short the above to Sig Gnd, the system either frees up or else drops the line. I suspect that this may be some sort of flow control problem. I'd be real interested in hearing any suggested solutions. Thanks. Dave Brightbill ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 06:17:38 PST From: Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books In Digest 942, Dale Gass writes: > I noticed that the Halifax (Nova Scotia) phone book is copyrighted > (and I assume most are), so I assume it's up to the phone company to > provide it on diskette. > This started me thinking about a numerically-sorted phone book I saw a > few years back; it obviously wasn't produced by the local phone > company. Was this an outright case of copyright violation? No, Dale. What you saw was a licensed thing. It was ROBERT'S CRISS-CROSS directory. Just about every police and fire dept in the country has one of these things. The cost for getting them, I'm told, is quite high, and in large part the cost is because of the license fees paid to the copyright holder ... telco. And, on the bottom of every page of that criss-cross, a footer is printed, re-stating copyright law as it applies to that book. [Moderator's Note: Various publishers seem to have the country divided up. Each publisher has its best coverage in different areas. Here in the midwest, Haines Publishing Company has dozens of these directories, but in Florida, Dressers and City Publishing Company are the criss-cross people. R. L. Polk seems to have quite a few cities. They seem to never overlap in any territory. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 01:35 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (ROA) If I were a long distance company, I think that my default would be to leave customer plans in place even if I became a secondary carrier to that customer. Recently, Sprint shot itself in the foot on this very point. A client of an associate of mine switched from Sprint to MCI Ultra WATS and 800 service on T1-delivered circuits. Since the employees already had FON cards and knew how to use them, it was decided to keep Sprint as secondary carrier and continue to put the rather hefty amount of calling card traffic over them as before. But (as we heard of many cases last month here) Sprint, immediately upon being notified of its downgrade of status from PIC to secondary, cancelled all of the FON cards. Well, since MCI was the new major carrier, guess where the customer went for reinstatement of calling card service? I suspect AT&T would not have made that mistake. 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 #962 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06307; 24 Nov 91 22:01 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08597 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 20:22:24 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18111 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 20:22:09 -0600 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 20:22:09 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111250222.AA18111@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #963 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Nov 91 20:21:45 CST Volume 11 : Issue 963 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Mark Fulk) Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (John Higdon) Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses (Randy Bush) BBS = Business - What About ... (James E. Hartman) Re: Talk About Pushy! (Bryan Richardson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 21:27:49 GMT In article telecom (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > In TELECOM Digest V11 #953, Craig Neidorf tells of ...Long inclusion deleted, consult the previous articles... I think Pat is attacking a straw man here. Craig Neidorf's posting offered no evaluation of the purpose, danger, or legality of the included material; Pat only assumed that CPSR/CN/EFF object to the government keeping such files. A more appropriate response would be "why should this matter?", since no reason for caring was offered. I'll offer two reasons I care: 1) Further evidence that the government investigators are operating in the dark. 2) The use by demagogues of "presence in a file" as evidence for guilt. "Ah, yes, Mr. Townson, but we have seen your name in the FBI's computer crimes file. Now stop telling us you don't know any credit card thiefs." This tactic is the reason the John Birch society used to send out postcards accusing people of being communists. The postcards were sometimes used by HUAC as evidence of guilt. Among the people who were the subject of such postcards were John Kenneth Galbraith and Amitai Etzioni (they weren't investigated by HUAC). >> was established for an undercover investigation involving pedophiles. > I think that's an admirable goal ... investigating pedophiles. On the surface. I must admit that I know next to nothing about pedophilia. However, I'm fairly certain that it is a condition requiring treatment more than a crime requiring punishment. And it seems likely to me that the Secret Service's bulletin board would very likely be an entrapment; would very likely result in the arrest of people who never touch a child despite their condition; and almost certainly will do nothing whatsoever to contribute to the safety of children. On the other hand, an investigation of the Diocese of Chicago would, it seems, be of great value. For some reason, that investigation has not yet begun. >> The documents we received also include references to the video >> taping of SummerCon, a computer hackers conference that took place in >> St. Louis in 1988. The Secret Service employed an informant to attend >> the conference and placed hidden cameras to tape the participants. > Well again, a public event is a public event. It was advertised widely > and people were invited to attend. That which can be seen with the > eyes does not become forbidden to view later through the lens of a > camera for strictly that reason alone. Not all events at a conference are public. Most of the interesting work goes on in private meeting rooms and bedrooms. People have a right to privacy where they might reasonably expect it; if a meeting room is labelled private, taping there would violate privacy. Taping in anyone's hotel room would certainly be a violation of privacy, lacking the permission of the people present. It has been a long time since Summercon '88 was a current topic, but I recall that the taping occurred in someone's hotel room. >> The documents also show that the Secret Service established a computer >> database to keep track of suspected computer hackers. This database >> contains records of names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers, known >> associates, a list of activities, and various articles associated with >> each individual. > Not that you would ever keep any computer database of people with > interests like your own ....:) Again, no evaluation of the data was offered, Pat. You're barking at the mailman. The point was to give a clear idea of the amount of effort the Secret Service has expended. I would expect them to construct such a database. What concerns me is the quality of information in the database. I think CPSR's efforts are clearly worthwhile. >> CPSR is continuing its efforts to obtain government documentation > Fine ... you do your thing. But let me make it perfectly clear you do > not speak for Patrick Townson and/or TELECOM Digest, although you may > By all means, dear readers, contact CPSR if you want more information, > but as for myself, I support government efforts to crack down on > computer crime, and electronic invasion of computers by unauthorized > users. I do not support organizations which would deny the government >the right to participate in any public forum. The straw is flying now! Of course the government has a right to participate in c.d.t, and to record articles. Of course it should crack down on computer crime, provided that in so doing it respects the Constitution and the law, and provided (1) that the crackdown is directed at substantial crimes, not at teenage pranks that should be dealt with by parents and relevant local authorities, and (2) that the crackdown has some chance of success. The problem with Secret Service efforts is that they SEEM to be a bunch of Keystone Kops. Since they are apparently unable to approach the real problems, they are spending time collecting massive quantities of irrelevant material to pad their files. I suspect that they are also padding their suspect lists, which makes the matter of their database of suspected hackers AND ASSOCIATES a bit of a worry. One might ask, "How SHOULD the SS proceed?" My prescription: for decades there have been persistent rumors of computer thefts by insiders. The perpetrators, once caught by their employers, would be let go for minimal restitution and silence. The SS should track some of those rumors down, and if any turn up correct, prosecute. The effort, of course, would be substantial. The probability of success is not 100%. But, by all accounts known to me, this is the best way to get at the real bulk of computer crime. Mark A. Fulk Computer Science Department fulk@cs.rochester.edu University of Rochester Omit needless words -- Strunk Rochester, NY 14627 [Moderator's Note: One glaring inaccuracy in your response was your comment that 'an investigation of (pedophilia in) the Archdiocese of Chicago would be of great value and it has not begun.' The truth here is that following several detailed articles in the {Chicago Sun Times}, the {Chicago Reader}, a couple articles by myself in misc.legal which drew considerable attention, and several news reports on television, the 'pedophilia problem' in the Archdiocese of Chicago WAS investigated at the church level and IS being investigated by the Cook County State's Attorney now. During the past two weeks, six priests have been removed from their positions, and more are expected to be removed soon. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 01:18 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? On Nov 23 at 0:31, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Aren't all hackerphreaks poor, misunderstood > people? When I've used the term 'burglar' and 'burglary' to describe > computer break-ins in the past, I have been widely castigated, in > particular by some of our Socially Responsible readers who don't like > it that I phrase the activity in such stark, plain terms. I agree -- to a point. I doubt that even our Socially Responsible readers would condone or approve of anyone sitting down at a terminal and hacking into a private or government system. I know of no one who does. In fact, on this very system is essentially my life's work. There is vast information about the cases that I am working with, the clients that I work for, not to mention megs and megs of source code. There are a few trusted friends with accounts on the system for the purpose of news and mail access. I would feel violated in the extreme if someone unknown to me logged in and even just looked around. But here is where I believe we diverge in our attitudes. The security of my system is MY responsibility, not the FBI's, not the Secret Service's, not the Sheriff's Office's, nor that of the police. It is up to me to make sure that all logins are adequately passworded and that they are changed regularly. If I detect any hacking attempts, it is up to me to take evasive action. I do not feel that breaking down the doors of kids' homes, holding them at gunpoint, confiscating everything they own, and theatening them with thirty-year sentences helps in the slightest. "Hacker laws" are a waste of time and resources. They protect no one and prevent nothing and I think you know that. One does not have to condone hacking (in the intrusive sense) to believe that "hacker hysteria" is counter productive. And let us keep it all in perspective. Even if someone broke into my system and simply looked around, what WAS the damage? No, I would not like it and would be pissed as hell, but if no files were damaged and none of my intellectual property was taken, so what? Bell South would probably come up with some five or six figure amount that the break-in cost them, but even they lost round one in that battle. If it happened to me, I would close the hole and move on. No, "burglar" and "burglary" are inappropriate words to use. We are in a new age and we need to expand our vocabulary. Breaking into a computer system cannot be compared to the more traditional physical "breaking and entering" because nothing is "broken". And entering a computer system is not the same as physically entering a home or office. Therefore, using the ancient descriptions of common crimes is inaccurate at the least and at most inflammatory. > They'd rather play word games and talk about the dire consequences of > stifling the intellectual curiosity of the hackers. I am less concerned about stifling the intellectual curiosity of hackers as I am concerned about destroying the lives of people that get in the way of our ignorant, blunderbus law enforcement system. I am talking about the practices of confiscating computer equipment for the dual purpose of trying to collect some evidence of a "crime" and the dispensation of punishment without benefit of due process. Those that have been through this nightmare would have fared better to have committed some violent crime. They would have not suffered the loss of equipment, means of livelihood, or money for very expensive specialist lawyers. They would also not have faced penalties that were as stiff. In some countries hacking is not a crime. Is it not peculiar that there is no evidence that there exists a rampant computer security problem in those countries? No, ironically, hackers in those countries prefer to explore around in the US via phone line, probably because computer owners here are so lax about security. I, for one, would much rather rely on technical means and normal prudence to keep interlopers out of my system than on laws enforced by Keystone Kops. On Nov 24 at 12:21, TELECOM Moderator writes: > I know I was a kid while I was growing up, and we used to have great > fun with the three-slot pay stations ... > and use a flexible piece of wire up the coin return slot to dump the > shelf holding the coins down the return slot before the operator had a > chance to hit the 'collect' key on her end. We'd use the same quarter > over and over to accumulate the dollar she was demanding ("just a > minute operator, I'm looking for more change!"). I'm sure glad they > didn't fry me. PAT] I'm glad they did not fry you, either. But the Secret Service and the FBI and others are figuratively trying to fry many who are exhibiting the same inquisitive juvenile behavior. The only difference is that you used a piece of wire and kids today are using personal computers. It would appear that you are being sucked in by the same irrational fear of computers that grips the public at large today. Would you characterize your manipulation of the coin telephone as an attempt to defraud the telephone company or an exercise to see if the act could be done (a puzzle-solving challenge, if you will)? I would be willing to bet that gun-toting agents never appeared at your parents' home for the purpose of hauling away your life's possesions. Time marches on. Using wires in old, insecure pay telephones has given way to kids using computers to fool around in currently insecure computer systems. I see little difference. Eventually, computer designers and programmers will wake up in the manner of payphone manufacturers and produce a product that is not such a pushover. I'll bet your wire trick would not work on today's instruments! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) Subject: Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon, US Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 01:18:52 GMT ole!rwing!peterm@cs.washington.edu (Peter Marshall) writes: > Sysop Wagner, says the article, "objected, saying he never had charged > for access to his board, called 'First Choice Communications.' Extra > lines are needed because he's regional ... coordinator for FidoNet ... > One of additional lines was for TDD, Wagner said." a - TW is not FidoNet RC. TW is the regional echo hub. b - He does run commercial systems. He is the support system for a commercial product, D'Bridge, from which he derives income. c - He receives income from those systems for providing echomail. d - The honest people in similar circumstances in the area pay business rates for similar use. e - As Portland has a very wide free calling area, and the telcos have been very liberal with BBSs, TW's actions can only make things worse, not better. One person's greed can harm us all. randy randy@psg.com ...!uunet!m2xenix!randy ------------------------------ Subject: BBS = Business - What About ... From: unkaphaed!phaedrus@moe.rice.edu (James E. Hartman) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 17:04:07 GMT Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy On the continuing saga of "BBSs are businesses," what about the following scenario: A small system (for example, running Waffle to receive news/mail) that is not open to the public, but IS answering the phone/dialing out for news/mail. This system is accessed remotely by the owner of the computer, as well as a few of his friends. Again, the system is NOT open to the public. What would (hypothetically) happen in this case? If it comes up that that system isn't a business, I see an awful lot of loopholes opening up. phaedrus@unkaphaed.UUCP (James E. Hartman) Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728 ------------------------------ From: richard@cs.purdue.edu (Bryan Richardson) Subject: Re: Talk About Pushy! Date: 23 Nov 91 22:37:47 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University In article John Higdon writes: > I was visiting my mother yesterday and the phone rang. It was yet > another call from someone pushing MCI. [stuff deleted] > This guy kept badgering. "Why don't you switch, and if you don't like > it you can switch back?" Good old Mom was finally moved to say, "My > son is in the telephone business and he set up what I have now." The > reply? "Do you always do whatever your son says?" > This is absolutely the most offensive and aggressive telemarketing > that I have ever seen. About a year ago, I received a call from MCI. I, too was amazed by how aggressive they were, considering I told them straight-away I was employed by AT&T. ...Touting the wonders of MCI... MCI: Would you like to switch to MCI? (or some such) Me: I work for AT&T. MCI: Does this mean that you won't switch? Me: (Dumbfounded that this has continued after the first response) I will not switch. MCI: What would it take for you to switch? Me: I already get free long distance from my employer--I suppose you'd have to pay me to make calls on MCI. MCI: Bryan Richardson richard@cs.purdue.edu AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #963 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08315; 24 Nov 91 23:20 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07077 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 21:40:24 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03118 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 21:40:06 -0600 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 21:40:06 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111250340.AA03118@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #964 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Nov 91 21:40:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 964 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Network Info and Access (Jacob R. Deglopper) Re: Telemarketers: One Good Solution (Graham Toal) Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (H. K. Henson) Re: Phone Charges and Technology in the US (John Higdon) Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (Ihor J. Kinal) Re: Telecom Sucks on the Road (David Appell) Re: Telecom Sucks on the Road (Bob Denny) Re: Calling Card Wars (Bob Denny) Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions (John Higdon) Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (J. Philip Miller) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) Subject: Re: Network Info and Access Reply-To: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 23:03:21 GMT In a previous article, wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) says: > doesn't exist. I'm often asked if this or that organization has > Internet connectivity; if it can be reached via e-mail or accessed > with FTP or telnet. The latest example of this was a query regarding > the Library of Congress. Sometimes I know the answer off the top of my > head, but I don't know about the LoC, and I don't even know where to > look it up or who to ask to get a definitive answer. > (And, while I'm asking, is the LoC on the Internet and can its > catalogs be remotely accessed electronically? Does the latter require > the establishment of an account or is public or anonymous access > possible?) LoC itself is not currently on the Internet at all. Network design is underway, and they hope to be on the net for mail within a few years. This is, of course, subject to the normal government funding and other sorts of delays. I don't know if they plan online catalog access, but I would expect something. There is a fairly cryptic system in place inside the library now, but there would most likely have to be some work before it could be directly accessed from outside. There is a commercial company which provides access to a subset of the LoC database for free, as far as I can tell. telnet to dra.com, and you're popped right into the system. _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad jrd5@po.cwru.edu -- Biomedical Engineering '95, Case Western Reserve Opinions my own... ------------------------------ From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: Telemarketers: One Good Solution Date: 18 Nov 91 23:23:59 GMT Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands In article RAF@CU.NIH.GOV (Roger Fajman) writes: > To get on the association's list (and removed from many mailing and/or > telephone lists), send your name address and telephone number to: > Mail Preference Service and/or Telephone Preference Service > Direct Marketing Association > 6 East 43rd Street > New York, NY 10017 We have a Mailing Preference Service in Britain, but we will never have a Telephone Preference Service -- at least under that name ... because the Telephone Preference Service is the name of a secret BT facility to allow certain lines to be enabled during those times of emergency when the phone system is turned over to the military. No-one *knows* if they are on the TPS (there are two level of service depending on the grade of the emergency), and frankly you don't really want to be on it - as it means your house/office is on the list of places to be taken over for civil defense. This information is found in Duncan Campbell's "War plan UK". Graham ------------------------------ From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 22:22:19 PST Since someone mentioned the great old {Mad Magazine} article, I can't resist adding to this thread, though I may have already told this story in the Digest. (And it will likely get added to my FBI file.) Many years ago when the phone co. was less picky, I listed my phone under a club name from high school, Heimdallr The Watcher, or H. T. Watcher. My friends all knew me by that handle, so a call for "the Watcher" was from one of them. But a call for Mr. or Mrs. Watcher, well, that was certain to be some kind of solicitor. Ring, ring. "Hello" "Is Mrs. Watcher there" "Yes, she is right here, but unfortunately, she is unable to speak to anyone." Sometimes they would bite and ask; "Gee, why is that" "Well, you see, Mrs. Watcher used to be a telephone solicitor" (long dramatic pause) "until someone caught her at it" (another long pause) "AND CUT HER TONGUE OUT!" Usually that was the end of it, but one lady solicitor told me it was the best joke she had heard in the whole time she had been in the business. Only got a call or so a month in those days. Get three or four a week nowadays. Keith Henson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 19:26 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Phone Charges and Technology in the US "Juergen, ZIEGLER" writes: > First of all I would like to know when certain features first became > available and then widely available. Here are some features: Here is an off-the-cuff observation of the availability of services: > Touch-tone dialing This was introduced in 1963. I first laid eyes on it in Danville, VA in 1965 and actually had the service in Laurenburg, NC in 1966. Raleigh, Greensburo, etc. all had the service available around 1965 in many exchanges. Imagine my surprise to come to California in 1967 and find no such thing (and not until the next year, at that). Touch tone dialing was generally available by 1975. > Itemized billing This has been part and parcel of US telephone service from the beginning. In fact, some of the slowness to implement DDD came as a result of billing difficulties rather than the ability to actually complete the call. Americans have always had and insisted upon itemized billing. > 800 service This was introduced by AT&T in the late sixties. Within a very few years many businesses were taking advantage of 800 numbers. > 900-(also 976,..) service The first time the 900 prefix was used was on a nationwide talkshow hosted by President Jimmy Carter. It was designed to be a huge choke network to handle the large anticipated traffic. It was in the early eighties that the 976 prefix was born. Shortly thereafter, 900 service was devised to allow more than one carrier to handle such calls. Both services have been generally available for the past five years. > Centrex Centrex has been around for decades, but it has not always been done the same way. Back when it was "the phone company", switching equipment would be placed on the customer's premesis and trunks would be provided back to the CO. In reality it was a giant DID arrangement although it was called "Centrex". Later, after the Bells were prohibited from providing equipment, Centrex was done entirely in the CO equipment. It has been done in this manner since divestiture. For instance, the Santa Clara County offices have Centrex on 408/299. Years ago, the phones were served by a SXS switch in the county facilities. Now, all the lines go back to 95 Almaden Ave. where they are served by an ESS. > Enhanced phone features (call waiting, forwarding, three-way, ...) I remember these features being available from the early seventies. They came as part of the ESS equipment which was then being installed so every time a CO was installed or cut over from mechanical equipment, the "enhanced" phone features appeared. > Class Services (caller-ID) Well, we still do not have it here in California but a number of states do. They were first introduced several years ago. > Second I am interested in the rates/(per month or use) of several > services: California's rates are not representative of the rest of the country, so I'll let someone else pick up the topic of cost. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 11:40:28 EST From: ijk@violin.att.com (Ihor J Kinal) Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP) writes: > Regarding the IBT argument that changing Chicago's area code would be > global mayhem, I'd just like to point out that more subscribers were > changed to 708 than kept 312. There's another aspect that I haven't seen mentioned, but it came to my attention when Northern New Jersey split its area code recently: the cost of printing up NEW business cards, letterheads, etc. And apparently these costs are fairly substantial. [ Think about it -- you hardly want to send out correspondence with your old phone number on it, even during the optional phase -- so fairly quickly, all of this becomes obsolete]. Since presumably, businesses are more concentrated in the 312 area, I suppose the decision made sense. [standard disclaimers apply - I'm a software person]. Ihor Kinal att!cbnewsh!ijk ------------------------------ From: appell@attmail.com Date: Sun Nov 24 08:27:46 MST 1991 Subject: Re: Telecom Sucks on the Road On Wed, 20 Nov 91 16:08:13 pst Steve Forrette writes: > Regarding hotel telephone policies, over the past two months, I've had > three surprises: one bad and two really great! > Bad: Hyatt Regency O'Hare near our Moderator's city. Placard states > "no charge for 800 calls - calling card calls 75 cents." So, I of > course used my Sprint FON card instead of AT&T. When I check out, > there are 75 cent charges for every call to 800/877-8000. I > complained, stating that the placard said 800 numbers were free. The > response was "But it also said that calling card calls are 75 cents." > Me: "So, all 800 numbers are free, except 800/877-8000?" Response: > "Yes, that's right. A new law was passed a few months ago which > forces us to charge the same amount for each carrier's calling cards." Wonder how they plan to bill such a surcharge for AT&T's SDN calling card ("Network Remote Access")? With this service, there is a different 800 number for each SDN customer. David Appell attmail!appell Gold Systems, Inc. ------------------------------ From: denny@dakota.alisa.com (Bob Denny) Subject: Re: Telecom Sucks on the Road Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 16:59:39 GMT Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc. In stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > Regarding hotel telephone policies, over the past two months, I've had > three surprises: one bad and two really great! > One interesting note is that one of the last two (I think it was the > Sheraton) provided a "data port" on the back of the phone. The > instruction card said that it supported data rates up to 1200 baud. > That's an interesting limit on a voice grade line. However, I noticed > that whenever placing an off-premises call, there was a large amount > of "hiss". This hiss was apparent even when entering the calling card > number, so it was not the "long" distance part of the call that was > creating the hiss. I had no terminal with me, so I could not > experiment further. We recently set up a demo in a suite at the Red Lion Inn in San Jose. They had those data ports on the phones, and I happened to have a PM9600SA modem and my Mac A/UX system disk with me so I could read news after hours. I tried a 9600 baud call back to our office (my news feed is the office VAX/VMS system), and it worked great. SO at least some of those data ports are full-quality grade. Robert B. Denny voice: (818) 792-9474 Alisa Systems, Inc. fax: (818) 792-4068 Pasadena, CA (denny@alisa.com, ..uunet!alisa.com!denny) ------------------------------ From: denny@dakota.alisa.com (Bob Denny) Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 16:31:20 GMT Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc. In hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > It seems to me that AT&T is supposed to move away from using > phone numbers for credit card numbers, since that may have given them > an unfair advantage. Actually, why not let all the LD carriers use > the phone number plus personal ID for credit card numbers. The credit > card number only identifies who the calling customer is, not which > carrier is supposed to be used. All carriers could use the same > customer ID number. The customer determines which carrier to use thru > 950 or 10+ dialing. The LD carrier could either contract with the > local telcos to do the billing, or could just do card validation thru > them. Or, the LD company should be free to use any number for the > customer account number, including one suggested by the customer, > which could quite likely be based on the customer telephone number. > The LD carrier then has a record of the account number and the > personal ID number and needs to do no further checking. At one time I had PacPell and ATT credit cards that _both_ had my office number and the _same_ PIN. Then our office manager got paranoid and had both changed to some off-the-wall numbers, forcing me to remember yet another "secret". Recently she changed our LD carrier to MCI, and our new MCO credit cards came through with, yup, our office number. I don't know if we could have had a PacBell, ATT _and_ MCI card with our phone number, but I do know that at one time or another our phone number was used on all three. Robert B. Denny voice: (818) 792-9474 Alisa Systems, Inc. fax: (818) 792-4068 Pasadena, CA (denny@alisa.com, ..uunet!alisa.com!denny) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 11:20 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions martin@cod.nosc.mil (Douglas W. Martin) writes: > Finally, if I start an answering machine message with the appropriate > three-tone sequence, can my number then be called long-distance with > no charge? If not, why not? Only if you make the call from a COCOT or maybe some sleazy long distance company. Answer supervision in not done inband (anymore) and even when it was, those tones had nothing to do with it. Answer supervision is a positive signal that passes all the way to your long distance carrier and recordings such as you describe do not supervise. COCOTs on the other hand guess at supervision. Indeed, it is the presence of the SIT (special information tones) that will result in the return of your money in many cases. One major complaint is that cellular companies do not have SIT in front of the "Not Available" recording so that calls to mobile phones from COCOTs always charge whether or not there is an answer (it hears a voice and collects the money). John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 16:12:19 CST > Compilations of facts are copyrightable if they are selected, > coordinated or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a > whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The originality > requirement is not very stringent, requiring only some minimal degree > of creativity. I now see why SWBT wants to sell me the opportunity to have my name printed in script, bold, other distincitive type face - this imparts some minimal degree of creativity to the process. In fact, some of the proposals for methods in which one uses a creative form of one's name should actually be encouraged by the phone book publishers! Perhaps we can convince them to pay us a small royalty, the more creative we are in presenting our listing :-) J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #964 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11229; 25 Nov 91 1:15 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08856 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 23:29:34 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28994 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 Nov 1991 23:29:12 -0600 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 23:29:12 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111250529.AA28994@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #965 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Nov 91 23:28:50 CST Volume 11 : Issue 965 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The March of Progress (John Higdon) Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls (Dave Niebuhr) Screening Calls (Albert M. Berg) Self-ID for 818-792? (Bob Denny) What About Ring-Back Numbers Instead of ANI Numbers? (Simona Nass) Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Dale Miller) Re: Two Cellular Questions (Alan Boritz) Re: Cellular Antennas (Alan Boritz) What is IMTS? (was Cellular Antennas) (Bob Denny) They're All the Same to Me (Jim Haynes) Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Brett G. Person) Re: Wasting the Slime's Time (Brett G. Person) Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA? (Galloway Digital Switch Limitations? (Rudy Maceyko) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 11:37 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: The March of Progress floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: > I have no idea if AT&T (or Alascom) or any OCC is required to provide > a 2.0 second delay. I also have no idea how that delay is handled in > AT&T ESS switches. I do know that Alascom does in fact use the > default timing of 2.08 seconds. And I can tell you for a fact that Pac*Bell (and any carriers that I use therewith) does not have any delay or grace period whatsoever. In fact, I have seen a situation where a call answered AFTER the caller had hung up (but before the disconnect delay had timed out) resulted in a charge. With crossbar if you were quick enough on the draw you could hang up before billing would begin; not so anymore. The fact that there was a delay then and none now indicates that this particular telco is simply pushing the billing capability envelope. But then, Pacific {Telephone|Bell} has always been exceptional at that. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 16:39:55 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls In John T. Ellis, ellis@blue.rtsg.mot. com writes: > Why would you want to control outgoing calls, you may ask? Well, it > seems his kids do not realize what kind of costs are involved in > making phone calls and refuse to stop using the phone. He would > rather not rip out the phone since he is interested in receiving > calls. However, that has been listed as the last option. Ideally > what he wants is this. > ALL incoming calls are accepted. > ALL outgoing 312, 0, 911 and 411 calls are accepted. > ALL OTHER outgoing calls are rejected. > This situation allows him to be in contact with the world as well as > make emergency and operator assisted (ie. credit card calls) calls. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ $$$$$$$$$ There's a simple soulution and will possibly save money. LAY DOWN THE LAW TO THE KIDS! Do it in no uncertain terms. It is the subscriber who is responsible and make sure the kids know just who is paying the bill. Tell them that using the phone costs money, just as in turning on a light or turning on a faucet. Maybe I'm in an unusual situation but when I told my kids years ago why I don't want them to play with the phone (and I'll agree it's fun sometimes when curiousity gets the better of you) and that it costs me then they will go along. I had to lay down the law when it came to utility usage, especially phone costs, and I told them in no uncertain terms that they were going to reimburse me for the costs incurred. The bill came in and they paid even though it was not in money. Calls have stopped, cold. Why should the telco have to go out of its way to stop a situation that should not have occurred in the first place (I'm no fan of NYTel but I feel that since the phone is under my control then I should exercise some rules)? Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 18:47 GMT From: "Albert M. Berg" <0001177220@mcimail.com> Subject: Screening Calls An inquiry: My wife and I recently moved in to a duplex apartment, where we have phones all over the joint. We always screen all of our calls to avoid tele-scum and to fend off my boss who tends to call to discuss office matters on evenings, weekends, etc. What I am trying to find is some sort of device to allow me to screen calls from a room other than the one where the answering machine is located. We have one of those machines that shuts off if you pick up any extension on the line. Is there such a device? If not, I sense a market opportunity here ... Thanks, Al Berg Phone 212/768-2273 No one else wants NETLAN Inc. Fax 212/768-2301 the blame for my 29 W 38th Street Email alberg@mci.com opinions. NYC NY 10018 ------------------------------ From: denny@dakota.alisa.com (Bob Denny) Subject: Self-ID For 818-792? Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 16:08:03 GMT Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc. Does anyone know what the number is for my area/exchange (818-792) to get your phone number spoken back to you? We have 24 lines in our office, and the installers that originally put in our NEC Mark 2 switch made a mess of it. I need physically to identify the lines in order of the hunt group we have with PacBell. Also, we have 2 lines that have been used for outgoing modem calls only, and noone can seem to remember the numbers for them! I hesitated to ask this question till I saw the "ANI numbers that I know of" discussion, and noticed that nobody seemed to be nervous about those numbers being talked about. [Moderator's Note: Don't worry ... you're among phriends here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: simona@panix.com (Simona Nass) Subject: What About Ring-Back Numbers Instead of ANI Numbers? Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 02:38:37 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC Years ago, I knew of two numbers: the ANI number, which here in New York was and is 958, and also a ring-back number, which I think used to be 611 and was taken over by NYTel's repair service some years ago. The way it worked was that you'd dial this three-digit number, get a special tone, dial in your phone number that you wanted rung back, and hang up. After a few seconds, the phone would ring, and continue ringing until picked up, at which point you'd get a dial tone. Do these numbers still exist? What is that number in New York? (simona@panix.com or {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona) ------------------------------ From: Dale Miller Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of Date: 24 Nov 91 11:51:35 -0500 Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock Well, I haven't seen any like ours yet. Central Arkansas (SWBT) uses 828-2222222 (yes, you must dial ten digits; seven does not complete the call). Dale Miller - domiller@ualr.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 91 08:55:22 EST From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions In a message , Michael Lyman writes: > When the phone is just sitting there, it tends to transmit for about > one oe two seconds every hour or so. What is it transmitting? Is the > cellular switch polling it or is the phone taking it upon itself to > transmit something? > This is most likely because the "reregistration" bit is set in the > overhead signaling stream. This is an option when set by the switching > operator that changes a bit in the signaling scheme to the phone that > tells the unit to start a timer. Upon timeout the unit will > momentarily transmit and send its registration parameters to > the switch (via the base site of course). Doesn't this kind of polling activity present a significant RFR risk for someone using, for example, a Motorola flip-phone? It's bad enough to have a live transmitting antenna close to one's internal organs when a call comes in (from another customer), but regular transmissions would appear to be an unusually high health risk. Alan Boritz 72446.461@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 91 08:55:08 EST From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas In a message Chris Sattler !uunet!motcid!sattlerc writes: > Such a system is all but useless. IF you're seeing two cellular > antennas, someone has bought a dummy antenna and stuck it up there. > (Gee, he has TWO phones?) Funny part is, even if the second antenna > isn;t hooked up, it's likely as not to be fouling the performance of > the first ... but that's another story. > The purpose of having two antennas for a cellular phone is to supply > antenna diversification when receiving a signal. No, that's not always the reason. Some people have two or more discrete radios for simultaneous use. Diversity RECEPTION really shouldn't be necessary if the cellular service-provider did his homework, so to speak. Alan Boritz 72446.461@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: denny@dakota.alisa.com (Bob Denny) Subject: What is IMTS? (was Cellular Antennas) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 16:18:18 GMT Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc. In carndt@nike.calpoly.edu (Chris Arndt) writes: > Our first mobile phone was a used IMTS we bought for use when we > travel in our motorhome. (Pac Bell IMTS service Highly recommended -- > includes free follow-me-roaming in all PAC Bell IMTS areas with no > long distance charges.) What _is_ IMTS? How does it work (freq's, modulation, multiple access method, etc.)? Robert B. Denny voice: (818) 792-9474 Alisa Systems, Inc. fax: (818) 792-4068 Pasadena, CA (denny@alisa.com, ..uunet!alisa.com!denny) ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 91 11:02:15 -0800 Subject: They're All the Same to Me > [Moderator's Note: You are confusing telemarketers with survey takers. > There is a difference. Don't paint them with the same brush. Survey > takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT (really, not!) > selling anything. And many of them do provide a valuable service. PAT] I paint them with the same brush. Whether or not they are selling, they make me interrupt what I am doing to answer their calls. If they want me to answer their survey they can mail it and then I will decide at a time of my own choosing whether to fill it out and mail it back. ------------------------------ From: plains!person@uunet.uu.net (Brett G Person ) Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Date: 24 Nov 91 23:48:39 GMT Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND What I can't figure out is why it is legal to do telemarketing in the first place. I also can't figure out why people would want to BE telemarketers. My perspective on this comes from dealing with the group of supposedly handicapped people who sell outrageously priced light bulbs. These people -- who were operating locally at the time -- called me exactly ONCE! When I explained to them that I was blind and legally consid- ered disabled, they offered me a job selling the damned things! I know that some of my associates went to the state to ask that telemarketing be banned in Minnesota because of these people. Brett G. Person North Dakota State University uunet!plains!person | person@plains.bitnet | person@plains.nodak.edu [Moderator's Note: There are a large number of people who for whatever reason, by virtue of a physical impairment or otherwise are unable to do other types of work. If not for telemarketing, they'd be unemployed and receiving public assistance. Having a job like this, as undesirable as it may seem, provides dignity, a legitimate income and sense of self- worth. Good telemarketers call perhaps 60 numbers an hour; 50 of whom curse them and hang up the phone; a few of whom waste their time and then hang up; and one or two who listen to the pitch and buy the product. Out of all the suggestions made here in the past few days for ways to annoy and harass telemarketers, none of them -- not one! -- is original. Long-time telemarketers have seen them all, and believe it or not, some of them wouldn't want any other type of work. PAT] ------------------------------ From: plains!person@uunet.uu.net (Brett G Person ) Subject: Re: Wasting the Slime's Time Date: 25 Nov 91 03:16:51 GMT Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND I once got a call from a tele-sales person on my data line ( un-listed number). I told the young lady that she had dialed my computers phone number and that I would be very haooy to let her talk to my computer. I then proceeded to bring my modem on-line ( C'mon, we've all done this, haven't we?) Eventually, the tele-person got around to dialing my voice line. When she realized that it was me, she apologized and offered to lock out my data line, promising never to call it again. I didn't give her the number. It was un-listed. Brett G. Person North Dakota State University uunet!plains!person | person@plains.bitnet | person@plains.nodak.edu [Moderator's Note: Why not give it to her? Time is money for those people and a phone number known to be disconnected or not in use for human conversation is not dialed -- if they know its status ahead of time. You see, its not like anything you do or say is going to make any real difference. Take a chance -- she'll probably add it to the list of numbers not to call, and if not, what have you lost since they rang the modem number anyway. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Curtis Galloway Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 15:27:19 PST Subject: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA? So does anyone know of a way for a normal person to avoid using PacBell for calls within the Northern California LATA? For example, I tried using 10222 to call from Santa Cruz to San Francisco, but it still ended up on my bill as a PacBell call. With the rates PacBell charges, it would be cheaper for me to dial up a timeshare system in Chicago than one in San Jose. Surely there's a cheaper way to go. Curtis Galloway, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. uunet!sco!curtisg -or- curtisg@sco.com [Moderator's Note: If I meet any normal people I'll ask. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: "USENET News System" Subject: Digital Switch Limitations? Date: 23 Nov 91 22:29:02 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh Recently, there has been some discussion of perceptible call-waiting differences between analog (1A) and digital (5E, for example) switches. Here's a different question: I subscribe to "Answer Call" ("the Bell Atlantic Voice Messaging Service"), a voice-mail kind-of answering system provided by Bell of Pennsylvania. It's "connected" to my telephone service via a busy- or-don't-answer call-forwarding arrangement. When I decided to get "Identa*Ring" (single line with separate numbers and distinctive ringing pattern), the Bell of PA customer service reps told me the two services were incompatible. After some checking around, one CSR said that I _could_ have both services, because I was on a 1A (analog, right?) switch; only 5E (digital) switches caused the incompatibility. Am I to believe that the new, modern digital switch has some kind of limitations not present in analog ones? That seems counter-intuitive. I'm sure about the "incompatibility" issue, because everytime I discuss my telephone set-up with Bell of PA, they always say something like, "Well, we were told not to sell Answer Call and Identa*Ring for the same line ... are you sure it works???" Thanks, Rudy Maceyko rm55+@pitt.edu University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA [Moderator's Note: I have both (telco voicemail and distinctive ringing) on my line and they work fine. And if I call-forward my main line, that overrides voicemail, but the distinctive ringing number still rings through and eventually transfers to voicemail anyway. There is no incompatability here at all. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #965 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16643; 25 Nov 91 3:46 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02783 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 25 Nov 1991 01:18:20 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12715 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 25 Nov 1991 01:18:03 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 01:18:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111250718.AA12715@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #966 TELECOM Digest Mon, 25 Nov 91 01:17:57 CST Volume 11 : Issue 966 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson A Humorous Look at Caller-ID and Telemarketing (Several of You) Government Phone Books (Nigel Allen) Dial Tone After Hangup (Monty Solomon) Sprint "QuickConference" Three-Way Call (Linc Madison) 900 and 976 Billing (Mark Allyn) NET Rate Changes (Monty Solomon) Phantom Ringing (Steve Thornton) Correction: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (ROA) (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman) Subject: A Humorous Look at Caller-ID and Telemarketing Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 07:58:39 GMT Did you see the skit about Caller-ID that was performed on Saturday Night Live this week (11/23/91)? Paraphrasing from memory: CALLER is the sleaziest kind of telescamster, picking numbers out of a phone book and calling from a rundown fleabag hotel room, telling VICTIM that she has won a cruise, and he just needs her credit card number -- "Any credit card will do." VICTIM: "Maybe you should give me your phone number first." CALLER: "I can't do that." VICTIM [looking at Caller-ID machine]: "Oh, that's all right -- I have it. It's 555-xxxx, isn't it?" CALLER [after hanging up]: "Hmm. She has my number. Now I've got to KILL HER." VOICE-OVER: "At U.S.Fon, we don't have Caller-ID. Maybe we're right for you." Larry Appleman P.O. Box 214, Cambridge B, Mass. 02140 [Moderator's Note: My thanks also go to Linc Madison, Steve Thornton and others who submitted this on Sunday. Steve Thornton recalls the final lines this way: Then the voiceover comes up (it turns out this has been a commercial for The Phone Company) and intones, "Now, aren't you glad we don't have Caller ID in _your_ area?" Well, I thought it was funny. They managed to dig at telemark- eting sleaze and deceptive phone company ads at the same time ... Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / +1 617 495 3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu I'm sorry I missed it ... SNL is usually a pretty funny show. I also want to remind everyone that the {Chicago Sunday Tribune Magazine} had a lengthy article this week on telemarketers, including statistics, comments by people in the industry and the people they call. Robert Bulmash and his organization were also discussed. If you don't usually get the {Chicago Tribune} you can get the magazine for this week by writing to the Chicago Tribune Public Service Bureau, 425 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago IL 60611. Enclose a couple dollars and ask them to send you the Sunday Magazine for 11-24-91. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nigel.allen@canrem.uucp (Nigel Allen) Date: 24 Nov 91 (04:25) Subject: Government Phone Books Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Journalists and others who often need to contact government offices can save time by using a government telephone directory. I don't know that much about government bookstores in the U.S., but anyone who wants a Canadian federal government telephone directory can order one by mail from the Canadian Government Publishing Centre (Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9) or visit one of several privately- or university- owned bookstores that stock government publications. (Actually, there are several federal government phone books for different geographic areas. The thickest is the one for the National Capital Region, as the government refers to Ottawa, Hull and their suburbs.) Provincial government phone books are generally available both by mail order and from provincial government bookstores. In some cases, individual departments may publish their own directories. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission does, for example. Departmental directories are not generally available for sale, but you may be able to get one free from the issuing department if you ask nicely. I don't just use the directories to look up phone numbers, of course. They're also useful for confirming names and office addresses when I'm planning to send a letter, and they include some fax listings as well. If you don't know where to buy a state, provincial or federal government telephone directory, call the appropriate government switchboard. In some cases, you will be directed to a government- owned bookstore; in other cases, you will be able to buy the directory at a university or privately-owned bookstore. Canada Remote Systems. Toronto, Ontario NorthAmeriNet Host [Moderator's Note: For a few years a number of years ago, AT&T published a directory entitled 'U.S. Government'. It was similar in appearance to the telephone directory of any medium-sized city except it covered the entire country, and had both an alphabetical section and a 'yellow pages', with the back part of the book (the 'yellow pages') being a classified index by federal department, plus division and bureau within departments. The introductory pages included an area code map, and the usual stuff you find there. I think it also had basic inter/intraagency dialing instructions and an areacode/prefix locator table for phone numbers of federal offices all over the USA. There were probably 100,000 listings of individuals of management level or above, including department heads, etc. For a number of years now, there have been various private publishers of almost the same information. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 05:15:52 EST From: monty@roscom.UUCP (Monty Solomon) Subject: Dial Tone After Hangup I have recently moved to Framingham, MA and the central office serving my new location exhibits behavior which I have never experienced before. If someone calls me and then hangs up (or gets disconnected) my line doesn't immediately get a dial tone. The line stays quiet for a while and then I get a recording which states that I should hang up the phone if I want to make a call. I've reported this problem and they claim that it is working properly and is probably caused by my answering machine! They suggested that I disconnect the answering machine for at least 24 hours to fix the problem. I didn't believe them but tried it anyway and it didn't fix the problem. Why don't I get an immediate dial tone like I used to? I have verified that my former COs still work as I remembered. If the CO is smart enough to give me a recording, why can't it give me dial tone instead? I think that my current CO is of an older vintage since some new features (Ringmate, Caller ID) are not available here. Monty Solomon roscom!monty@bu.edu [Moderator's Note: Well, you gave the answer to your own question. Not all CO's work the same way. Even some which are otherwise the same have different generics. It's not broken, and not your answering machine at fault. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 02:46:26 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Sprint "QuickConference" Three-Way Call My parents (in Texas), my brother (in New York), and I (in California) have been trying to coordinate holiday travel plans. Rather than make a near-infinite chain of calls between us, I decided to set up a three-way. The last time I wanted to do this, I went to the lab on campus, which has regular three-way calling, and used my MCI "Around Town" feature to bill the calls to myself with no surcharge. Since then, two things have happened: MCI no longer offers "Around Town" card calls without surcharge, and Sprint now offers "QuickConference" (sm). The catch is that you must use your FON-CARD for the call. The procedure is simple: dial the first call normally (1-800-..., 0 + AC + number + card number) and then dial *12. At the stutter tone, dial the area code and number of the other party. If they answer, dial *13 to bridge to three-way; if they don't answer or are busy, dial *14 to kill the second call and return to the first. In each case, hold the * key for at least a full second to be sure the Sprint switch captures it. The audio quality was fine -- all three parties sounded like local calls to one another. This is one (all too rare!) example of an OCC offering a useful service that AT&T doesn't. (AT&T charges person-to-person rates for three-way calls, resulting in over four times the surcharge.) Linc Madison == linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: But if your phone has three-way calling, can't you dial the first number, routing it over 10222, then flash and dial your second number, routing it the same way, then flash and join all three parties together? I've noticed here I can make three-way calls with both of the other parties being long distance *and* being routed over separate carriers! (Example: 11222 + 0 + number + MCI card number; wait for answer, then flash, 10333 + 0 + number + Sprint card number; then flash and all three of us are talking with reasonable clarity. PAT] ------------------------------ From: allyn@netcom.com (Mark Allyn) Subject: 900 and 976 Billing Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 20:20:18 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) I had someone ask me recently and this got me curious: You call a 976 or 900 type service where you pay for the information. They bill you through your local BOC. Your BOC acts as a billing agent. The question is what happens if you simply refuse to pay the portion of your bill for those services? For example, say you get a bill for $100.00 and $20.00 is for 900/976 typ services. You pay eighty for the normal phone bill but you leave out the $20 and write a note that you don't want to pay for the 900/976 services. Does the BOC have the right and would they terminate your phone service? Is it reasonable to assume that as long as you write a note to them that the BOC will apply the $80.00 you send to them to the normal phone charges and would not / can not affect or terminate your phone service? What are the legal implications of this? What can the BOC or the 976/900 service do to you? After all, yoo have not signed an agreement that you would pay for the service. When I signed up for my phone service with the local BOC, I do not remember signing any agreement that I would have to pay for any 900/976 calls that I make. Mark Allyn [Moderator's Note: Most telcos will let you go without paying for 900/976 calls at least once, and some more often than that. But they will notify the informtion provider that you were uncollectible, and in many instances the information provider will then bill you directly and (depending on the amount at stake) place you with a collection agency and/or sue you to get their money. One such organization here in Chicago, the Nine Hundred Service Corporation, was notorious for getting their money through lawsuits if it came to that point. But they were selling phone sex, chat lines and other fairly high priced services, where the amount at stake could easily be a few hundred dollars if you stayed on the line for an hour or so a few times per month. If you are going to withhold part of your phone bill, you need to tell telco which part and why to avoid having the payment misapplied for something you don't want to pay for. And if you are like most people, you signed nothing at all where your phone service is concerned, but you are bound by the tariffs which apply, one of which in every jurisdiction says that you are to be held responsible for the use of your instrument. After all, you did not specifically agree to pay for long distance calls either, or Western Union telegrams that you place from your phone, at least not in writing. Years ago, businesses would place 'yellow pages' advertising orders to be billed on their phone bill thinking they could refuse to pay without having their phone cut off -- which was true, they could. But R. R. Donnelly Company also used collection agencies with vigorous tactics to collect what was due. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 16:43:27 EST From: monty@roscom.UUCP (Monty Solomon) Subject: NET Rate Changes New England Telephone has changed their rates effective 11/15 as part of a series of rate changes designed to gradually move their prices of services closer to their actual costs. They have eliminated message units. Measured service residence customers will be billed for local calls on a per message, per minute basis at 1 cent/call plus 1.6 cents/minute. Charges are for actual usage in seconds and are not rounded to the nearest minute. As part of this change, calls with be billed to three decimal digits and the total will be rounded. Direct dialed toll calls within 617/508 will be reduced by 1 cent/minute. The charge for changing your listing or upgrading your service will change from $11.60 to $7.60 for residence customers. Monty Solomon roscom!monty@bu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 23:49:47 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Phantom Ringing I've been having some wierd stuff going on with my phone lately, and I wonder if some of you wizards have any ideas. I have a Panasonic Easa- Phone KXT-4200H cordless phone with builtin answering machine. I bought it at the same time I moved into a new apartment, so I have no experience with this phone on another line, nor with my old phone on this new line. The line was hooked up remotely using an old jack left over from a previous tenant; i.e., no wiring had to be done. I have no special services on my line such as call waiting, etc. Just POTS. I do have a cheapo Zoom 2400 bps on the line. Both devices are attached at the same point, with a Y-splitter. What happens is, I get a lot of phantom ringing. Occasionally just a single ping, but usually two (not one, not three) normal rings. No one is there -- just regular dialtone. This has lately been increasing in frequency. It now happens almost every night at 8:30 pm! Not exactly at that time, just around then. I also get a lot of wrong numbers. Tonight, I had the very weird experience of having the phantom ring _while I was already on the line with the modem_. This was pretty damn surprising! My modem connection was uninterrupted (it's normally very unstable, and kicks me off every twenty minutes or so). I was so surprised I went over to the phone and just stared at it for a few minutes, then I picked up the handset and switched on -- dialtone, and a hung modem. I have tried the usual experiments: a) take the modem off the line: Still happens. b) replace cordless set with old desk phone: problem seems to go away. c) have friends call me: rings normally. have friends call me when the line is known to be busy: no phantom ring. So what's up? Is my phone screwed up? Should I call Repair? Should I learn to live with it? Should I just do without a phone entirely? Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / +1 617 495 3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 22:24 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Correction: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (ROA) john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > A client of an associate of mine switched from Sprint to MCI Ultra > WATS and 800 service on T1-delivered circuits. A self-correction: "Ultra WATS" is a Sprint service, not an MCI service. Sometimes the mind muddles all the stacks of literature and orders at 1:35 AM! 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 #966 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02108; 26 Nov 91 3:36 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07184 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 01:40:04 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18151 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 01:39:37 -0600 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 01:39:37 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111260739.AA18151@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #967 TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 Nov 91 01:39:06 CST Volume 11 : Issue 967 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Long Distance Calling Plans Script (Lawrence Beck) Canadian Radio Spectrum Management Proposals (Nigel Allen) Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong (Jim Thomas, CuD Moderator) Routing Intra-Lata around the LEC (Pac Bell) (Ed Greenberg) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 11:41:11 EST From: lb@moscom.com (Lawrence Beck) Subject: AT&T Long Distance Calling Plans Script To anybody interested in this: The following program will determine the best combination of AT&T long distance calling plans for you based on previous months' bills (you determine how many months). It was designed for Reach Out America/Reach Out New York combinations, but can be modified to support other AT&T intrastate plans. Let me know if I let any bugs slip through ... Larry Beck (lb@moscom.com) #ifndef lint static char sccs_ident[] = "@(#)longdist.c 1.1 91/11/25 11:33:55 "; #endif /****************************************************************************** ** ** Source File: longdist.c ** ** Author: Lawrence Beck (lb@moscom.com) ** ** Creation Date: 11/22/91 ** ** Description: This file contains a program that calculates the best ** combination of AT&T calling plans based on past phone ** bills. This program was designed to calculate the ** cost of all direct-dialed long distance calls using all ** combinations of Reach Out America and Reach Out New York ** plans. It prints a matrix of the total cost of all calls ** using all combinations, and then prints the best ** combination. ** ** To use this program, one or more files containing a subset ** of phone bill information must be specified on the ** command line. Each file should contain a month's worth of ** billing information. The information should be formatted ** on separate lines as follows: ** ** ** ** is the 2-letter uppercase state abbreviation. ** is the length of the call in minutes. ** is DN, DE, or DD for Direct-Night, Direct- ** Evening, and Direct-Day respectively. ** is the undiscounted cost of the call. ** ** The rates for Reach Out America and Reach Out New York ** are specified in two data structures. They may be ** modified to accomodate changes in the rate structure or ** to accomodate a different intrastate calling plan. If ** a New York is not the home state, change HOME_STATE to the ** appropriate 2-letter abbreviation for the desired state. ** ** ******************************************************************************/ #include #include #include #define TRUE 1 #define FALSE 0 #define DD 0 #define DE 1 #define DN 2 #define NONE 0 #define BASIC 1 #define EVENING 2 #define _24HOUR 3 #define HOME_STATE "NY" char *plan[] = { "none", "basic", "evening", "24 hour" }; struct rate_info { double initial_hour, additional_hours, evening_discount, day_discount, intrastate_discount; }; struct rate_info interstate_info[] = { { 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 }, { 7.15, 6.60, 1.00, 1.00, 0.95 }, { 7.80, 6.60, 0.85, 1.00, 0.95 }, { 8.70, 6.60, 0.75, 0.90, 0.95 } }; struct rate_info intrastate_info[] = { { 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 }, { 7.50, 7.20, 1.00, 1.00, 0.00 }, { 8.20, 7.20, 0.85, 1.00, 0.00 }, { 8.50, 7.20, 0.85, 0.95, 0.00 } }; double compute_rates(); main(argc, argv) int argc; char **argv; { int best_i, best_j, i, j; FILE *fp; double plan_totals[4][4], best_total=0.; /* initialize totals for all plan combinations */ for(i=NONE; i<=_24HOUR; i++) for(j=NONE; j<=_24HOUR; j++) plan_totals[i][j] = 0.; /* process all command line arguments */ while (argc > 1) { argc--; argv++; /* open the bill file */ fp = fopen(*argv, "r"); if (fp == NULL) continue; /* compute the total for all plan combinations */ for(i=NONE; i<=_24HOUR; i++) for(j=NONE; j<=_24HOUR; j++) { (void)fseek(fp, 0L, 0); plan_totals[i][j] += compute_rates(fp, i, j); } /* close the file */ (void)fclose(fp); } /* print the matrix of all plan combination totals (save the best one) */ (void)printf("%20s%-20s\n", "", "interstate plans"); (void)printf("%20s%-10s%-10s%-10s%-10s\n", "", plan[0], plan[1], plan[2], plan[3]); for(i=NONE; i<=_24HOUR; i++) { (void)printf("%-12s%-8s", "intrastate", plan[i]); for(j=NONE; j<=_24HOUR; j++) { if (best_total == 0 || plan_totals[i][j] < best_total) { best_total = plan_totals[i][j]; best_i = i; best_j = j; } (void)printf("%-10.2f", plan_totals[i][j]); } (void)printf("\n"); } /* print the best plan combination */ (void)printf("\nthe best plan combination for these bills is:\n"); (void)printf("intrastate plan: %s\n", plan[best_i]); (void)printf("interstate plan: %s\n", plan[best_j]); return(EXIT_SUCCESS); } double compute_rates(fp, intrastate_plan, interstate_plan) FILE *fp; int intrastate_plan; int interstate_plan; { int i, intrastate_duration[3], interstate_duration[3], period, duration; double intrastate_cost[3], interstate_cost[3], total_cost, cost; char input[80], state[3], calltype[3]; /* initialize the durations and costs for all call types */ for(i=0; i < 3; i++) { intrastate_duration[i] = 0; interstate_duration[i] = 0; intrastate_cost[i] = 0.; interstate_cost[i] = 0.; } /* read all lines from the bill file */ while (fgets(input, sizeof(input), fp) != NULL) { /* extract the billing information from the input line */ (void)sscanf(input, "%s %d %s %lf", state, &duration, calltype, &cost); /* determine the period */ if (strcmp(calltype, "DD") == 0) period = DD; else if (strcmp(calltype, "DE") == 0) period = DE; else if (strcmp(calltype, "DN") == 0) period = DN; else continue; /* if the call is intrastate ... */ if (strcmp(state, HOME_STATE) == 0) { intrastate_cost[period] += cost; intrastate_duration[period] += duration; } /* else if the call is interstate ... */ else { interstate_cost[period] += cost; interstate_duration[period] += duration; } } /* if using Reach Out America ... */ if (interstate_plan != NONE) { /* calculate the night period cost */ interstate_cost[DN] = interstate_info[interstate_plan].initial_hour; interstate_duration[DN] -= 60; if (interstate_duration[DN] > 0) interstate_cost[DN] += interstate_info[interstate_plan].additional_hours * (double)interstate_duration[DN]/60.; /* calculate the other period costs */ interstate_cost[DE] *= interstate_info[interstate_plan].evening_discount; interstate_cost[DD] *= interstate_info[interstate_plan].day_discount; /* apply intrastate discount, if no intrastate plan */ if (intrastate_plan == NONE) { intrastate_cost[DD] *= interstate_info[interstate_plan].intrastate_discount; intrastate_cost[DE] *= interstate_info[interstate_plan].intrastate_discount; intrastate_cost[DN] *= interstate_info[interstate_plan].intrastate_discount; } } /* if using Reach Out ... */ if (intrastate_plan != NONE) { /* calculate the night period cost */ intrastate_cost[DN] = intrastate_info[intrastate_plan].initial_hour; intrastate_duration[DN] -= 60; if (intrastate_duration[DN] > 0) intrastate_cost[DN] += intrastate_info[intrastate_plan].additional_hours * (double)intrastate_duration[DN]/60.; /* calculate the other period costs */ intrastate_cost[DE] *= intrastate_info[intrastate_plan].evening_discount; intrastate_cost[DD] *= intrastate_info[intrastate_plan].day_discount; } /* return the total cost */ total_cost = interstate_cost[DN] + interstate_cost[DE] + interstate_cost[DD] + intrastate_cost[DN] + intrastate_cost[DE] + intrastate_cost[DD]; return(total_cost); } ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 03:08:31 -0500 From: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) Subject: Canadian Radio Spectrum Management Proposals Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto Since radio spectrum management is a major concern for satellite, paging and mobile telephone service providers and users, I thought TELECOM Digest readers might be interested in the latest Canadian government spectrum management proposals. The Canadian Department of Communications sent me a press release, but not the actual discussion paper. If you would like a copy of the paper, see the address at the end of this message. (from a press release from the Department of Communications) The Canadian Department of Communications has released a discussion paper entitled Proposals for a Radio Spectrum Policy Framework. It makes policy proposals in areas related to spectrum allocation and utilization policies (for more effective and efficient spectrum utilization), radio system licensing (for more responsive licensing as well as dealing with competitive licensing approaches), standards (improved harmonization and reciprocity), research and development (level of commitments to R&D), revenues and fees (to ensure costs are recovered), planning (to ensure spectrum resources are available), public consultation (improved relations with users) and new, adaptable, approaches to spectrum policy. Copies of the Policy Proposals Paper may be obtained from: Information Services Department of Communications 300 Slater Street Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0C8 telephone (613) 990-4827 (no e-mail address given) For more detailed information: Max E. Melnyk Chief, Spectrum Policy telephone (613) 998-3902 fax (613) 952-0567 Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 01:20 CST From: TK0JUT1@NIU.BITNET Subject: Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong Criticism of Craig Neidorf's report of CPSR's investigation into Secret Service covert surveillance of net-media, use of informants, and other intrusive observations justifies law enforcement actions on several grounds, including: 1) Anything public is fair game for covert surveillance. 2) People with nothing to hide shouldn't worry about what they say in public. 3) Computer crime isn't cool, and the government has both the right and the responsibility to target evil-doers. Therefore, law enforcement need not have clear policies circumscribing the limits of covert intrusion. First, it is categorically false that *anything* done in public is fair game for covert surveillance. As anybody from the Chicago area should know, Judge Getzendammer (US District Court, Northern District) made it quite clear in several rulings against the Chicago police in political surveillance cases that lawful activity in public is not to be tolerated in a free society. Further, anybody with even a high school civics knowledge of covert surveillance in the US understands the distinction between legitimate participation in a public event and participating in that event for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and storing information on law-abiding citizens. Scrounging through Usenet traffic to compile dossiers on people not under investigation for wrongdoing is as reprehensible as targeting license plate numbers from cars in a parking lot at an anti-nukes rally as a way of creating a list of possible "subversives." Frank Donner's _Protectors of Privilege_ lays out the the historical consequences of and responses to covert law enforcement surveillance. Blanket intrusion by agents into Constitutionally protected realms that include freedom of speech, privacy, and assembly, are not only a demonstrable threat to democracy -- they are not generally tolerated by the courts. Second, while law enforcement agents have every right to read whatever public document they wish, this misses the point. It is not that agents subscribe to and/or read documents. The point is what they do with what they read. A 1977 class action suit against the Michigan State Police learned, through FOIA requests, that state and federal agents would peruse letters to the editor of newspapers and collect clippings of those whose politics they did not like. These news clippings became the basis of files on those persons that found there way into the hands of other agencies and employers. The preliminary CPSR information suggests that the Secret Service is conducting their investigation in an analogous manner. This has a chilling effect on free speech that is arguably (judging from court cases) not only illegal, but dangerous. As somebody wrote in CuD recently: The basis of a democratic society rests on the ability of citizens to openly discuss competing ideas, challenge political power and assemble freely with others. These fundamental First Amendment rights are subverted when, through neglect, the state fails to protect them. Covert collection of information, whether from TELECOM Digest, CuD, or newspaper editorials, and the subsequent compilation of secret dossiers moves us from a democracy to a police state. The issue isn't whether any specific person has something to hide, but rather whether somebody might, because of secret information gathering, wish they had hidden what they had previously said. We shouldn't have to worry about whether what we say pleases law enforcement lest we become entries in some database of undesireables. Finally, few people disagree with the claim that computer crime is wrong. But, because a given behavior is wrong hardly justifies carte blanche to investigate that behavior. The government should have clear policies about the scope of surveillance because it protects *all* citizens from the dangers of intrusion by law enforcement into Constitutionally protected behavior. Like gravity, specific limitations on covert intrusion by law enforcement into our lives isn't just a good idea, it's the law. Computer-mediated communication is relatively new, and the law has not caught up with changing technology. CPSR should be commended for its efforts to track what appear to be clear violations of existing laws and policies in investigation of "computer crime." There is nothing noble in acquiescing to the erosion of Constitutionally protected activity as those who defend the Secret Service actions seem willing to do. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 11:05 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Routing Intra-Lata around the LEC (Pac Bell) curtisg@sco.com writes about routing intra-lata calls around Pacific Bell. You're treading on a difficult area ... The tariffs and laws give the Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) a monopoly in the area of local (intra-LATA) service. Therefore, they have the right NOT to pass your call on to the carrier of your choice when the area code and prefix indicates a call that they have the "right" to carry. Many businesses use dedicated trunks (or a T1) to their Inter Exchange Carrier (IXC) for long distance. Some businesses "cheat" and send their intra-LATA traffic down those trunks, thus going around the LEC, and allowing the IXC to carry the traffic at lower cost. As a "normal person" you don't have this option, since your telephone plant, and long distance volume, don't warrant a dedicated connection to the IXC. What some small businesses and individuals do is sign up with an IXC that gives them access to the network via a 950 number. Now many carriers, including the major ones, treat calls dialed on the 950 port as credit card calls, and impose a surcharge on the call. Needless to say, this is not a money saving plan for you, the consumer. Some smaller IXC's may not charge the surcharge. They are hoping that you will honor them with your intra-LATA business, via the 950 port. My brother-in-law operated a small business, and contracted with a company called Call America, that actually put a dialer in his premises that would listen to every number dialed, and then redial it as a call through it's 950 number. It was a bit hokey, a bit slow, but accomplished the purpose intended. Calls from his city to other cities in the LATA were noticably cheaper. (Note that I do not say "significantly cheaper.") [Note that John Higdon will (rightly) say that using a dialer in this nature is a low quality form of telephone service. He's right, but it _does_ get the particular job done.] Now, one problem you will face is getting the carriers to honestly and knowlegably discuss this issue with you. If you follow TELECOM Digest, you've doubtless read of the various forms of doubletalk and outright ignorance to be found on the other end of the customer service lines. Many salespeople for the IXC's will be totally ignorant of these issues. Others will tell you anything that they think you want to hear. So, if the calling volume is significant, and you are prepared to run your traffic through a 950 number, or through a dialer, you might shop around in the second tier of long distance companies ... the next level down from the national players. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #967 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07557; 26 Nov 91 23:48 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18788 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 21:30:07 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27706 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 21:29:45 -0600 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 21:29:45 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111270329.AA27706@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #968 TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 Nov 91 21:29:37 CST Volume 11 : Issue 968 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Phantom Ringing (Michael Blackstock) Re: Phantom Ringing (Eric W. Douglas) Re: Phantom Ringing (Jacob R. Deglopper) Re: Phantom Ringing (Michael A. Covington) Re: Phantom Ringing (Tony Harminc) Re: Two Cellular Questions (John Higdon) Re: Two Cellular Questions (Marc T. Kaufman) Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (Fred E.J. Linton) Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (Steve Forrette) Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (Robert J. Woodhead) Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (Ken Levitt) Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (Ken Abrams) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mkb1@Isis.MsState.Edu (Michael Blackstock) Subject: Re: Phantom Ringing Date: 25 Nov 91 14:06:33 GMT NETWRK@HARVARDA.HARVARD.EDU (Steve Thornton) writes: > What happens is, I get a lot of phantom ringing. Occasionally just a > single ping, but usually two (not one, not three) normal rings. No one > is there -- just regular dialtone. This has lately been increasing in > frequency. It now happens almost every night at 8:30 pm! Not exactly > at that time, just around then. I also get a lot of wrong numbers. I used to get a ping on my phone every night around 10:30. It was like clockwork or should I say computer work. I suspected that it was a phone company computer checking the line. I called up the phone company. Asked if they had a computer check my line everyday. They said yes, and I asked them to stop doing it. To my surprise the person I was talking to said that she would take number out of the calling computer. I never heard the little ping again. Michael Blackstock mkb1@ra.msstate.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 08:08:54 PST From: ericd@caticsuf.CSUFresno.EDU (Eric W. Douglas) Subject: Re: Phantom Ringing NETWRK@HARVARDA.HARVARD.EDU (Steve Thornton) writes: > Tonight, I had the very weird experience of having the phantom ring > _while I was already on the line with the modem_. This was pretty damn > surprising! My modem connection was uninterrupted (it's normally very > unstable, and kicks me off every twenty minutes or so). I was so > surprised I went over to the phone and just stared at it for a few > minutes, then I picked up the handset and switched on -- dialtone, and > a hung modem. A friend of mine has had a Radio Shack telephone system ring because of high power radio equipment in the next room. I doubt that this type of behaviour would exhibit itself in old Western Electric mechanical ringers, but looking at piezo-element ringers, I can see where it would be vaguely possible. You say that the problem happens almost every night at 8.30? This may be when your neighbor fires up his HAM radio ... you might try just purchasing a different phone. Also, if there are no high-powered radio setups near by, it could be that someone fairly close to you has a cordless phone which operates on the same frequency, and sometimes produces a digital coding signal which rings you phone. I'd almost be willing to bet, in either case, that a non-cordless phone would not exhibit this behaviour. Good luck! Eric W. Douglas Internet: ericd@caticsuf.csufresno.edu AppleLink: STUDIO.D Compuserve: 76170,1472 ------------------------------ From: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) Subject: Re: Phantom Ringing Reply-To: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 16:35:34 GMT In a previous article, NETWRK@HARVARDA.HARVARD.EDU (Steve Thornton) says: > What happens is, I get a lot of phantom ringing. Occasionally just a > single ping, but usually two (not one, not three) normal rings. No one > is there -- just regular dialtone. This has lately been increasing in > frequency. It now happens almost every night at 8:30 pm! Not exactly > Still happens. b) replace cordless set with old desk phone: problem > seems to go away. c) have friends call me: rings normally. have If I understand you correctly, the problem _only_ happens when the cordless phone is online. Most cordless phones have the ringer in the handset. Therefore, the ringer is triggered by a radio signal from the base. Therefore, a stray radio signal could cause your cordless handset to ring, even if you were on the phone. You can try switching your cordless to another channel, if you have that feature (do any of your neighbors have similar cordless phones?). If you have a scanner, try listening to the cordless channels and see if you hear anything strange around 8:30 when your phone rings. Getting a new brand of phone might make a difference; staying with hardwired phones certainly would. _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad jrd5@po.cwru.edu -- Biomedical Engineering '95, Case Western Reserve Opinions my own... ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Re: Phantom Ringing Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 18:55:01 GMT Your cordless phone is picking up signals (through the air) from someone else's cordless phone. As you know, the cordless handset and base communicate by radio. One of the signals that the base can send is a ringing signal. Presumably somebody else's base is managing to send this signal to your cordless phone. Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | N4TMI Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 17:25:23 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Phantom Ringing Steve Thornton wrote: [Description of problem with Panasonic Easa-Phone KXT-4200H cordless phone with builtin answering machine.] I think you're thinking along the wrong lines. Try this experiment: unplug the phone line from the cordless phone but leave the phone powered up and ready. See if you get the usual number of phantom rings. In other words I think it probably has nothing to do with your phone line or its interaction with the phone, and everything to do with the phone itself. Possibly you have a neighbour with a similar phone with the same security code. This makes particular sense in light of the wrong numbers. Or possibly your phone is reacting to some other radio transmission that it believes indicates a ringing signal. Next time you get a wrong number try to get the number of the person the caller was trying to reach. Call that number and ask them if they have a cordless phone. Tony H. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 01:52 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM> writes: > Doesn't this kind of polling activity present a significant RFR risk > for someone using, for example, a Motorola flip-phone? Sounds as though you have been reading that sensationalistic crap, _Currents_of_Death_. A Motorola MicroTac would not present an RFR hazard if you made a call and then swallowed it whole. It has a whole 0.6 watt output. As someone who has worked around RF covering the spectrum from 500 KHz to 950 MHz from equipment capable of hundreds and sometimes many thousands of watts for decades, I can tell you that one of the last things you need worry about is the RF from a cellular phone. The truth of the matter is that no one anywhere on the planet has come up with any scientific evidence that power levels that low, even at that frequency, cause any detrimental effects to humans. So the answer to your question is "no, of course not". > It's bad enough to have a live transmitting antenna close to > one's internal organs when a call comes in (from another customer), > but regular transmissions would appear to be an unusually high > health risk. Oh? And what do you catch? Technophobia? Sorry for the sarcasm, but this whole fad of RFR jitters is just another nail in the coffin of "The New Nonsense" as far as I am concerned. Yes, I know about tissue heating, but 0.6 watts? Forget it. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA Date: 25 Nov 91 16:39:23 GMT 72446.461@CompuServe.COM (Alan Boritz) writes: > In a message , Michael Lyman writes: >> When the phone is just sitting there, it tends to transmit for about >> one or two seconds every hour or so. > Doesn't this kind of polling activity present a significant RFR risk > for someone using, for example, a Motorola flip-phone? It's bad > enough to have a live transmitting antenna close to one's internal > organs when a call comes in (from another customer), but regular > transmissions would appear to be an unusually high health risk. Please define "unusually high" ... insofar as the effects of a few milliwatts of RF near the body once per hour are entirely unknown, but likely less than the effect of wearing a several-watt radio and using it regularly (as do police, for example). I am getting concerned with the spreading attitude (in the US, at least) that anything you don't understand must be bad for you, and if you have absolutely no clue about how it works, it causes cancer. Now, while I am not ready to jump to the Indian or Mexican models of public health, I would have to say that the fears need to be placed in perspective. In my experience, anyone who wears a portable phone for long periods is probably a Type-A personality anyway, and stands more risk of heart failure due to clogged arteries or high blood pressure than from ventricular fibrillation induced by RF. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) Safety tip from c.d.t.: Don't strip phone wires with your teeth. ------------------------------ Date: 25-NOV-1991 21:54:42.74 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? In , motcid!ellis@uunet.uu.net (John T Ellis) writes of wishing to: > ... control the ability ... to place outgoing calls. and the Moderator notes: > Yes it is possible. ... He can also purchase an > inexpensive device from Hello Direct (1-800-HI-HELLO) which is > installed at his end to do the same thing. PAT] I have such a device (found at a local flea market for $1.00 (!)) that works very well. One can program all sorts of permissions/ refusals into it from the dialpad, but, having lost the list of codes and their effects, I content myself now with its default setting (which permits: up-to-7-digit other than 0<*>, 1<*> or 976<*>; 1-700-<7-digit>; and 1-800-<7-digit> only); this prevents outsiders from placing any calls (other than 911) that I could possibly have to pay for. I did manage somehow-or-other to remember the permit-anything- for-the-next-call-only code, so I'm not blocked myself. [Wish I could find that list of block/permit codes, though :-) .] Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06459 E-mail: ( or ) Tel.: + 1 203 776 2210 (home) or + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 17:37:00 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article John T. Ellis writes: >Ideally what he wants is this. > ALL incoming calls are accepted. > ALL outgoing 312, 0, 911 and 411 calls are accepted. > ALL OTHER outgoing calls are rejected. > Now, is this possible to do by just going through the telco (even > though Illinois Bell has said no)? If not, is (are) there any > pheripherals he can buy and add-on to achieve this? He can always use the "Brady Bunch" solution of installing a payphone. That way, the kids can decide how long they want to talk based on how much of their allowance they want to spend ... Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 02:37:07 GMT NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes: > There's a simple soulution and will possibly save money. LAY DOWN THE > LAW TO THE KIDS! Do it in no uncertain terms. It is the subscriber > who is responsible and make sure the kids know just who is paying the > bill. And if that doesn't work, either lock up the phone, or use the NYC approach, and lock up the kids! Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 17:38:28 EST From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? In Telecom 11-958 John T. Ellis writes: > Why would you want to control outgoing calls, you may ask? Well, it > seems his kids do not realize what kind of costs are involved in making > phone calls and refuse to stop using the phone. It seems a sad state of affairs when we need a phone company or fancy technical equipment to control mis-behaving children. How about some good old fashoned punishment every time the phone bill comes in? A cost free way to solve the problem would be to disconnect the tone pad or dial from every phone in the house but one, and to keep that one phone locked up. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu [Moderator's Note: Re 'good old fashioned punishment' ... obviously this is the best solution. He should slap the fire out of those kids every time they even look at the phone. That'll teach them! :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 14:46:48 GMT In article motcid!ellis@uunet.uu.net (John T Ellis) writes: > This buddy has RESIDENTIAL phone service through Illinois Bell here in > Chicago. He has enjoyed service with them for the last 20 odd years > but now finds himself in a most peculiar situation. He would like to > control the ability of his phone (here I refer to the number ie > 312-xxx-xxxx) to place outgoing calls. He has contacted Illinois Bell > on this, and they said they do not offer any such capability. > Now, is this possible to do by just going through the telco (even > though Illinois Bell has said no)? If not, is (are) there any > pheripherals he can buy and add-on to achieve this? > [Moderator's Note: Yes it is possible. He might want to include 708 in > the places to be dialed. He has to get some service rep at IBT who > knows what they are talking about. That may be the biggest part of the Although it is technically possible, Illinois Bell does NOT have a tariff for residential "toll diverting". There is, however, more than one way to skin this cat. Each line is assigned a long distance carrier via a CIC (Carrier Identification Code). One of the allowable CIC choices is NONE. While this would not completely block the calls, it forces the user to dial 10XXX to access a LD provider. Another option you might persue is contacting your LD provider to see if they will arrange your account to accept only 0+ calls. It is technically possible for them to do this but I don't know if any of the LD providers will. On a personal level, I don't have too much sympathy for a person who can't control his own kids. A young person who has no respect for the rules of the house he lives in will have no respect for any other rules either. The author's friend is not doing his kid any favors by allowing this situation to continue. Ken Abrams nstar!pallas!kabra437 Springfield, IL kabra437@athenanet.com (voice) 217-753-7965 [Moderator's Note: In my original response posting, I think I overlooked the fact that he is dealing with residential rather than business service. In fact, all the applications I've ever seen or heard about where esoteric forms of restrictions were on the line were invariably in business situations. Thanks for the correction. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #968 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08907; 27 Nov 91 0:38 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21519 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 22:19:34 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16938 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 22:19:12 -0600 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 22:19:12 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111270419.AA16938@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #969 TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 Nov 91 22:19:03 CST Volume 11 : Issue 969 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The March of Progress (Dave Niebuhr) Re: The March of Progress (David G. Lewis) Re: GEnie and the Internet (Robert J. Woodhead) Re: Sprint "QuickConference" Three-Way Call (Linc Madison) Re: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA? (John Higdon) Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions (Andy Sherman) Re: Shared Area Codes (Colin Plumb) Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Ed Greenberg) Re: Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong (David G. Lewis) Re: Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong (Monty Solomon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 9:00:56 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: The March of Progress john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: >> I have no idea if AT&T (or Alascom) or any OCC is required to provide >> a 2.0 second delay. I also have no idea how that delay is handled in >> AT&T ESS switches. I do know that Alascom does in fact use the >> default timing of 2.08 seconds. >> And I can tell you for a fact that Pac*Bell (and any carriers that I > hang up before billing would begin; not so anymore. ... text deleted ... > The fact that there was a delay then and none now indicates that this > particular telco is simply pushing the billing capability envelope. > But then, Pacific {Telephone|Bell} has always been exceptional at > that. Pac$Bell is not the only telco that charges immediately; add NYTel to the list. I had a lot of zero minutes calls on a recent bill and the number I called had an answering machine and I didn't leave any message other than "Call Dad at Home". $.08 adds up quickly. The going rate is $.102 for the first minute and it takes about 50 seconds for that little message. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: The March of Progress Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 16:28:31 GMT In article floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: > However, apparently in some places (perhaps all?) regulations require > at least 2.0 seconds of off hook supervision before billing begins. I > don't keep up with regulations, but the DMS-200 documentation states > that the parameter is set by default to be 2.08 seconds to comply with > any such 2.0 second regulation. (The parameter may be set from .16 > seconds to 40.8 seconds in .01 second increments on a DMS switch.) I hate when people ask questions that peak my interest, because then I feel obligated to go digging through references looking for answers ... Anyway. To quote "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks -- 1986" (I don't have the '91 version, sorry ...), Section 4.06, subheaded "Charge Delay": "When the called customer answers, an off-hook signal is transmitted toward the calling end to the office where automatic charging control takes place. For charging purposes, the answer off-hook signal is distinguished from off-hook signals of shorter duration by the requirement that it must be continuous for a minimum interval ranging from two to five seconds. The present value stated in the LSSGR for a minimum off-hook signal that should be recognized as an answer signal for charging and supervision purposes is two seconds." English translation: an off-hook signal must be two seconds long or longer to be recognized as an "answer" signal. The office doing the recording can not begin charging until the answer signal is recognized. At least, that's the requirement for BOC switches. Even though I work for Bell Labs, I don't know what the requirement for AT&T switches is ... David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: GEnie and the Internet Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 09:08:55 GMT mikel@aaahq05.aaa.com (Mikel Manitius) writes: > There have been several rumors recently about an Internet gateway for > email on GEnie. Last night I noticed a survey on GEnie which asks > questions such as how many messages one would send/receive, and how > much one would be willing to pay (in a flat monthly fee) for the > service. Coincidentally, I sent feedback to GEnie last night on this very topic (I hadn't noticed the survey). I told them that hordes of people would desert "another service" for GEnie's flat rate if they added Internet connectivity. I also said, in all honesty, that they ought to charge a fee per kilobyte with a per-letter minimum (I suggested 1c and 5c respectively), in order to discourage people from abusing the flat rate and having tons of newsgroups emailed to them. I also suggested that, if possible, they ought to gateway some newsgroups into their BBoard structure (would this really be anything different than what WELL or UUNET does?). We shall see what happens. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 01:27:36 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Sprint "QuickConference" Three-Way Call Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article I wrote about Sprint's "QuickConference" three-way call feature, accessible from any touchtone phone, as long as you use your FON-CARD. PAT adds: > [Moderator's Note: But if your phone has three-way calling, can't you > dial the first number, routing it over 10222, then flash and dial your > second number, routing it the same way, then flash and join all three > parties together? ... Perhaps this wasn't clear because I mentioned having previously used the campus phone with regular three-way calling, but my home phone does not have three-way calling. The advantage of the Sprint feature is that I can make a three-way call from any touchtone phone for only the cost of the calling card surcharges. If my phone had three-way calling, I could do it all 1+ with no surcharges, but I'd have to pay Pac*Bell's monthly charge for a feature I use about once a year. (The other great time to do this is Mother's/Father's Day -- get both kids on the line at the same time for a mini-reunion.) Linc Madison == linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 02:22 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA? Curtis Galloway writes: > So does anyone know of a way for a normal person to avoid using > PacBell for calls within the Northern California LATA? For example, I > tried using 10222 to call from Santa Cruz to San Francisco, but it > still ended up on my bill as a PacBell call. You cannot use this method to make intraLATA calls because Pac*Bell controls the local switch and will not allow you to use competition by dialing a company code. This is what the current action before the CPUC is all about: intraLATA competition. > With the rates PacBell charges, it would be cheaper for me to dial up > a timeshare system in Chicago than one in San Jose. Surely there's a > cheaper way to go. Absolutely. If you make a LOT of intraLATA calls there are several options open to you. One thing you might look into is any carrier that offers "950" access. To make a call, you dial a number that looks like 950-XXXX and when you hear a tone you dial your authorization code and the number. Since this call is being handled entirely by the carrier's switch, Pac*Bell cannot block your intraLATA call. There are several carriers that offer this type of access, two of which are Cable & Wireless and ComSystems. Although they are prohibited from telling you that their systems can be used to make intraLATA calls, they in fact can and the rates they charge are about half of the standard daytime Pac*Bell toastem rate. If you make a LOT of calls, then you need to simply order direct WATS lines (delivered via T1) and use them to make your calls, inside or outside the LATA. Rates on these lines are even lower than the 950 access. The reason for this is that you make the calls directly on the carrier's switch without even going through Pac*Bell's CO switch. This means that the carrier does not have to pay that particular access charge and can pass the savings on to you. The downside of this type of arrangement is that there is a monthly charge for the T1 of between $300 and $500. I doubt that you would make enough calls to justify that type of baseline charge. I advise virtually all of my clients to bypass and do it myself. I used to subscribe to the Pac*Bell line that in the interests of affordable service intraLATA toll would have to subsidize local rates -- that is until the company went clammoring to the CPUC to get permission to compete with the other carriers for this traffic. This action has made me feel much less like contributing to Pac*Bell's stockholders' pockets. You as a customer are violating no tariffs by bypassing Pac*Bell for intraLATA traffic. The applicable rules apply only to the carriers and allow for "incidental" traffic. In other words, the PUC does not expect that carriers will have to ability to block such calls and therefore effectively looks the other way. The tariffs do prohibit IECs from advertising or "holding out" the ability to make intraLATA calls and dictate that if the customer inquires about such service, the carrier must respond with "Such calls (1) may not lawfully be placed over their networks and (2) should be placed over the facilities of the local exchange carriers without any further advice being given." (D. 84-06-113, p.72a) So much for what the carriers can tell you. I, on the other hand, will be happy to give you full and complete details on how to bypass and save big money as a result! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 08:18:24 EST Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ In article you write: > Finally, if I start an answering machine message with the appropriate > three-tone sequence, can my number then be called long-distance with > no charge? If not, why not? Even if you put the intercept bongs at the beginning of your tape, it is a billable number, because the network doesn't give a damn about what transpires on your line after answer supervision. If your number is a valid number, answer supervision is passed back to the originating switch as soon as it goes off-hook. After that, the meter starts running. But you realize that if a brain-dead switch allowed this to work, what you propose is both dishonest and illegal. If somebody calls your answering machine long distance to leave a message, up to three phone companies are entitled to be paid for the service, unless it is a person to person call. (three companies = originating LEC, IXC, terminating LEC). It pains me to see a proposal to defraud my employer (and reduce *my* compensation, a piece of which depends on profits) coming from a military site. I can only imagine what your employer would say if my colleagues and I started publically speculating on ways to cheat on one's taxes. 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: colin@array.uucp (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: Shared Area Codes Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 10:03:15 -0500 Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA In article lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) writes: > The time has long since passed around here when dialing 1 + 10D meant > anything at all in terms of whether or not there would be a charge for > a call. Actually, some places are keeping 1+ = toll, and I rather like it. The recent dialling instructions for the 416/905 split that's underway direct one to dial: - In-area, local call: nxx-xxxx - Other area, local call: 416-nxx-xxxx/905-nxx-xxxx - Long distance: 1-416-nxx-xxxx/1-905-nxx-xxxx They aren't assigning the 905 or 416 prefixes, although as long as no 905 phone (in practice, exchange) has both (416) and (905) 416- in its local calling area, local calls would still be unambiguous. Unfortunately, both 416-nxx-xxxx and 905-nxx-xxxx to our modem line produce an intercept. (And it soulds like a tape player with low batteries- the speed wanders up and down the scale!) I agree with the desire for context-free phone numbers, at least withing as country. Ideally, 00-1-416-736-0900 from any phone in the world would reach our front desk. Colin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 09:16 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone wolfgang@lyxys.ka.sub.org (Wolfgang Zenker) writes: > As a side note: Here in Germany any unsolicited calls on phone, fax or > telex are considered unfair trade practice and illegal, unless the > caller and called party already have some business relations. > Telemarketing calls during night-time would break an additional law > that prohibits disturbing noise between 10 pm and 7 am. You know, we here in the states, who are all fired up looking for laws to regulate telemarketers, should consider this excellent example of the opposite extreme. You know, Germany is considered a "democracy" although they have very strict laws governing many areas of life that US residents take for granted. For instance, when naming your baby, the name you choose must be acceptable to the birth registrars, or they will not accept the registration. Do you really want to have your own life as restricted as German citizens seem to accept? ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 14:13:44 GMT In article TK0JUT1@NIU.BITNET writes: > ... As anybody from the Chicago area > should know, Judge Getzendammer (US District Court, Northern District) > made it quite clear in several rulings against the Chicago police in > political surveillance cases that lawful activity in public is not to > be tolerated in a free society. I think you meant to say that "_covert surveillance of_ lawful activity in public is not to be tolerated in a free society"... What is it with Chicago that leads to slips like this? I'm reminded of Mayor Daley's famous "The policeman isn't there to create disorder, the policeman is there to preserve disorder ..." David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning [Moderator's Note: I wish I knew 'what is it with Chicago ...' The city I grew up in and knew for twenty years has now been gone for almost that long. Out-of-towners simply have no idea how thin are the threads which still hold this town together ... barely. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 13:39:16 EST From: monty@roscom.UUCP (Monty Solomon) Subject: Re: Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong > First, it is categorically false that *anything* done in public is > fair game for covert surveillance. As anybody from the Chicago area > should know, Judge Getzendammer (US District Court, Northern District) > made it quite clear in several rulings against the Chicago police in > political surveillance cases that lawful activity in public is not to > be tolerated in a free society. What is wrong with tolerating lawful activity in public? Why don't you sign your name to your messages? Monty roscom!monty@bu.edu [Moderator's Note: The sentence in particular was mis-stated by the original writer. (I have double checked; it was not a typo created on this end in digest processing.) He meant to say that SPYING ON LAWFUL ACTIVITY is not to be tolerated. I would disagree with him on when or at what point observing becomes spying, but that's not the point. As far as names are concerned, in the Digest version of the message, the author's name "Jim Thomas, CuD Moderator" appeared in the index of articles. His e-address is quite common, there was no attempt to hide his identity. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #969 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11509; 27 Nov 91 2:21 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17756 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 23:31:25 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17208 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 26 Nov 1991 23:31:03 -0600 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 23:31:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111270531.AA17208@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #970 TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 Nov 91 23:30:43 CST Volume 11 : Issue 970 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to 2 Households (P. Turner) Re: Does Each Long Distance Carrier Have It's Own 800 Service? (M. Harriss) Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses (Peter Marshall) Re: What About Ring-Back Numbers Instead of ANI Numbers (Dave Niebuhr) Re: They're All the Same to Me (Henry Mensch) Re: What is IMTS? (Chris Arndt) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Chris McEwen) Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. (Ron Dippold) Re: Credit Card Number Wars [Steve Forrette] Re: Self-ID For 818-792? (Patton M. Turner) Re: Talk About Pushy! (Alan Boritz) Re: Government Phone Books (Graham Toal) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 09:04:01 CST From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to Two Households Barry Ornitz writes: > The repair service did > send a lineman by our house on Saturday to check our line. He told my > wife it was IMPOSSIBLE for two pairs to be assigned the same number. > I was told > that there are occasional legitimate reasons for having two pairs > assigned the same number, so the "processor" did not flag the problem. This is exactly what is done to create an OPX (off premise extension). This allows the service to be setup in software. At least a few years ago an unnamed REA sub'ed telco still used scotchloks to create OPX's even on SPC switches. REA = Ripoff Enhancement Artists Pat Turner pturner@eng.auburn.edu KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA ------------------------------ From: martin@bdsgate.com (Martin Harriss) Subject: Re: Does Each Long Distance Carrier Have It's Own 800 Service? Reply-To: bdsgate!martin@uunet.uu.net (Martin Harriss) Organization: Beechwood Data Systems Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 18:39:39 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > NO! 1-800-abc-defg is "Hooked on Phonics" Obviously, you do not listen > to network radio much! But I obviously do, because I've heard this ad. (For the uninitiated, "Hooked on Phonics" is a reading course.) What I can't understand is why they choose to advertise the number in this fashion for prospective customers who can't read? Martin Harriss uunet!bdsgate!martin ------------------------------ Subject: Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses From: peterm@halcyon.com (Peter Marshall) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 10:44:35 PST randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) writes: > ole!rwing!peterm@cs.washington.edu (Peter Marshall) writes: >> Sysop Wagner, says the article, "objected, saying he never had charged >> for access to his board, called 'First Choice Communications.' Extra >> lines are needed because he's regional ... coordinator for FidoNet ... >> One of additional lines was for TDD, Wagner said." > a - TW is not FidoNet RC. TW is the regional echo hub. > b - He does run commercial systems. He is the support system for a > commercial product, D'Bridge, from which he derives income. > c - He receives income from those systems for providing echomail. > d - The honest people in similar circumstances in the area pay > business rates for similar use. > e - As Portland has a very wide free calling area, and the telcos have > been very liberal with BBSs, TW's actions can only make things > worse, not better. > One person's greed can harm us all. Randy Bush's oft-repeated boilerplate comments in various forums about this situation miss the mark by deliberately ignoring the purported policy statements on BBSs re: res.-bus. classification made publically by two US West personnel. Thus not only does his assertion that the Oregon BBS in question is a "commercial system" lack relevance to the primary issues presented by US West, such an assertion further tends to set up Mr. Bush himself as the interpretor of the relevant Oregon tariff. To make matters worse, Mr. Bush again makes a number of other statements with little or nothing to back them up; e.g., his again-repeated assertion that this sysop's actions can only make things worse for Oregon BBSs. Luckily, some Washington sysops viewing these same US West statements do not seem to share Randy's perspective. Peter Marshall The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA PEP, V.32, V.42bis +++ A Waffle Iron, Model 1.64 +++ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 14:23:17 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL7.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: What About Ring-Back Numbers Instead of ANI Numbers simona@panix.com (Simona Nass) writes: > Years ago, I knew of two numbers: the ANI number, which here in New > York was and is 958, and also a ring-back number, which I think used > to be 611 and was taken over by NYTel's repair service some years ago. > The way it worked was that you'd dial this three-digit number, get a > special tone, dial in your phone number that you wanted rung back, and > hang up. After a few seconds, the phone would ring, and continue > ringing until picked up, at which point you'd get a dial tone. > What is that number in New York? 611 is Repair Service now. The number in area code 516 (Long Island) is 660-XXXX where XXXX is the last four digits of the phone you are calling from. Depress the hook switch for about one second, hear a different tone, hang up, wait for the ring and pick up the phone then hang up. The tone will be the same as after depressing the hook switch. The above courtesy of Larry Niebuhr, my 11 year-old son (as Art Linkletter used to say on the 'House Party' TV show: "Kids Say the Darndest Things") Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: henry@ads.com (Henry Mensch) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 11:32:26 -0800 Subject: Re: They're All the Same to Me Reply-To: henry@ads.com haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) wrote: > [Moderator's Note: You are confusing telemarketers with survey takers. > There is a difference. Don't paint them with the same brush. Survey > takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT (really, not!) > selling anything. And many of them do provide a valuable service. PAT] ... I'm inclined to agree with Jim Haynes; they're interrupting my life for their purpose, and unless the survey-taker is providing a service to me (highly unlikely) I'm not disposed to spend much time dealing with them. # henry mensch / advanced decision systems / ------------------------------ From: carndt@nike.calpoly.edu (Chris Arndt) Subject: Re: What is IMTS? Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 20:44:11 GMT IMTS is the original telco operated dial-in, dial out mobile telephone service. (The original mobile service was MTS for Mobile Telephone Servie. The 'I' is for Improved.) It started in the 60s, I believe, and was (and still is) a dial-pulse (not tone) service. The original control heads for the radios even had real bells in them to ring when you got a call. IMTS is operated by the wireline phone companies on 11 VHF (150 M) full duplex frequency pairs or 12 UHF (450 MHZ) freq pairs. One terminal serving one geographical area can have six or seven frequencies assigned to it. This can get congested real fast in an area like LA. Our local area has only one channel. The phones are large and powerful compared to a cellular. Mine puts out about 45 watts and has an RF package the size of a small brief case connected by cable to a control head about the size of a Trim Line phone. It takes more skill to operate an IMTS than a cellular, because, as you travel from area to area, you have to program your phone for the new channels. Also, here in Pac Bell areas, if you use the free Follow-Me-Roaming, you have to tell the switch everytime you change areas. For those of you that miss it on cellular, IMTS also lets you draw a dial tone after the ANI exchange. Any other questions? Chris carndt@pan.calpoly.edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 91 13:58:12 GMT Organization: The Graphics BBS (2D,3D,GIF,Animation) +1 908/469-0049 From: cmcewen@graphics.rent.com (Chris McEwen) Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood > [Moderator's Note: You are confusing telemarketers with survey takers. > There is a difference. Don't paint them with the same brush. Survey > takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT (really, not!) > selling anything. And many of them do provide a valuable service. PAT] PAT has a point. I worked for a subcontractor to Gallop when I was in college. I remember going house-to-house, many times in the toughest areas (either due to 'local conditions' or remoteness) to get the opinions of the residents. Though we were occassionally commissioned to do market research, I was usually assigned to political surveys and I can assure you the questions were not slanted in the slightest -- at least on the surveys I was assigned to. Point: these surveys gave people a chance to have their opinions heard and due to statistical sampling, actually amplified. And as PAT said, my biggest problem was convincing the folks I wouldn't sell them anything. I just wanted to hear what they had to say. Chris McEwen Internet: cmcewen@gnat.rent.com | The Computer Journal Editor, TCJ uucp: ..!att!nsscmail!gnat!cmcewen | PO Box 12 GEnie: c.mcewen -or- TCJ$ | S Plainfield NJ 07080 The Spirit of the Individual Made This Industry | (908) 755-6186 ------------------------------ From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 00:28:13 GMT motcid!mohr@uunet.uu.net (Wilson Mohr) writes: > AHHH, but if you look at the normal touch-tone(tm) phone, these last > four digits are the corners of the pad. Your local "dialing without a > cause" individual picks the number probably because of the pattern. > There are other numbers like this that are frequently (ab)used. i.e This reminds me of those in college who on some nights when they had nothing better to do would think up obscene or offensive words of seven characters and then dial the 1-800 number associated with this to see what they got. Now obviously, anyone with 1-800-EAT-S*** or 1-800-F***-YOU would figure out quickly what was going on (those are always the first numbers they tried), and I doubt that the phone company would give out a number with 7448 or 3825. However, the ingenuity of the bored is usually greater than the phone company imagined. You'd be surprised at what they managed to get numbers for (they would report to everyone on the floor ... sheesh). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 18:04:14 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Credit Card Number Wars Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article David Ofsevit writes: > Is this correct? Why would AT&T bother changing the number? > It seems clear that telephone credit card operations has become > independent of actual phone use accounts, so there is no logical > tie-in between card and phone numbers; but AT&T is going to lose > business over this because people like to have an easily-remembered > credit card number. Nobody is going to lose business because of the card number change. If you place an intra-LATA call, the local company is going to carry the call and receive the revenue, regardless of whether you use the NET number associated with your phone number, or the AT&T card. Similarly, an inter-LATA call is going to be carried by AT&T regardless of which card you use. And, unless you specifically request from AT&T to be direct-billed, your AT&T charges will still appear on your NET bill. But, most important, His Honor will be able to sleep well ... Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 20:33:09 CST From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: Self-ID For 818-792? Bob Denny asks about a line ID number for identifying office lines. When you have a legitimate reason such as this the operator will nearly always give you a line ID. Don't try to guess the "magic phrase", but instead give a clear, professional explanation of why you need the ID. This has almost always worked for me, although a few times they will call you back on a listed number to give you the information. If this fails after calling a few operators, ask for a repair person to call you back. They are more likely to understand your reasoning. Pat Turner pturner@eng.auburn.edu KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 91 21:38:24 EST From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Talk About Pushy! In a message john@zygot.ati.com writes: > He insisted that she would save a great deal over AT&T. She replied > that she was very happy with her current arrangement. "But wouldn't > you like to pay less money for your phone service?" Mom: "I'm happy > with what I have now." > This guy kept badgering. "Why don't you switch, and if you don't > like it you can switch back?" Good old Mom was finally moved to say, > "My son is in the telephone business and he set up what I have now." > The reply? "Do you always do whatever your son says?" Oh, this was a great story to read after a particularly terrible day. :-) Speaking of MCI, I came across an article about MCI in today's {Wall Street Journal} (of course I wouldn't have it handy right now:) about the MCI Family and Friends promotion. It seems that ANYONE could find who was on your Family and Friends list (name and phone number) and they didn't have to identify themselves when they called 1-800-FRIENDS. After MCI had their csreps ask for a street address and phone number, WSJ was still able to get the 'Friends list for several MCI officials. MCI explained that it was an operator that wasn't properly broken-in on the new procedures. After reading the article, I called to check what numbers were on my "list," and all the csrep asked for was my phone number and street address (I was calling from a friend's phone, so they didn't have my ANI). Looks like they still haven't learned their lesson. You wouldn't have Charlie Brown's street address and home phone number, would you? :-) Alan Boritz 72446.461@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: Government Phone Books Date: 26 Nov 91 03:28:59 GMT Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands In article nigel.allen@canrem.uucp (Nigel Allen) writes: > Journalists and others who often need to contact government offices > can save time by using a government telephone directory. I don't know > that much about government bookstores in the U.S., but anyone who > wants a Canadian federal government telephone directory can order one > by mail from the Canadian Government Publishing Centre (Ottawa, > Ontario K1A 0S9) or visit one of several privately- or university- > owned bookstores that stock government publications. Anyone who wants one in Britain is in danger of being locked up for breaking the Official Secrets Act :-( [Moderator's Note: Interestingly, although no laws are broken here by calling direct to a government official, often times they panic at receiving a phone call from a 'regular citizen' instead of another hack like themselves. "How did you get my number," they demand to know. "Who told you to call me," is their other chant. They get really hung up with the idea that a citizen got through to them rather than getting buffered or screened several layers earlier. When someone with an internal phone directory from the White House many years ago posted a message on the net with excerpts from said directory including one entry: Reagan, Ronald ..... 456-2591, the highly-placed flunkies who buzzed around him all day almost had apoplexy. What a pity! :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #970 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12208; 27 Nov 91 2:52 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06159 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 27 Nov 1991 00:21:48 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29650 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 27 Nov 1991 00:21:29 -0600 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 00:21:29 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111270621.AA29650@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #971 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Nov 91 00:21:23 CST Volume 11 : Issue 971 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Routing Intra-Lata Around the LEC (Pac Bell) (John Higdon) Re: The Future of Printed Books (Jack Decker) Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Local Telephone Company Assignes Same Number to 2 Households (Forrette) Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (Robert J. Woodhead) Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem (Ken MacLeod) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 02:21 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Routing Intra-Lata Around the LEC (Pac Bell) Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com writes: > [Note that John Higdon will (rightly) say > that using a dialer in this nature is a low quality form of telephone > service. He's right, but it _does_ get the particular job done.] Also note, however, that he will suspend his normal condemnation of FGB access when it is useful for intraLATA bypass. As a matter of fact, I have clients who use exactly this method to save on intraLATA. The trick is to find an IEC that puts no surcharge on 950 access. As far as I am concerned, dialers are out. Those clients using FGB to bypass use PBXes that are equipped with ARS. No one should put the routing of his calls in the hands of a device programmed by the carrier. > Now, one problem you will face is getting the carriers to honestly and > knowlegably discuss this issue with you. As with abortion and federally funded clinics, the carriers are gagged by tariff restraints. They literally are forbidden to offer to carry intraLATA traffic. Pac*Bell even tries to get customers to rat on their carriers if they suspect violations of these rules. I have some amusing letters from Pac*Bell to some clients "warning" them about the "illegality" of using anyone other than Pac*Bell for intraLATA traffic. Now what would make Pac*Bell think that anything was going on? Just because the Pac*Bell WATS lines were disconnected and there is no intraLATA DDD traffic anymore ... :-) > Many salespeople for the IXC's will be totally ignorant of these > issues. Others will tell you anything that they think you want to > hear. The knowledgeable ones will tell you that they cannot block intraLATA traffic carried on certain circuits and that it is YOUR responsibility as the customer to make sure that no intraLATA traffic is presented to the IEC. Yeah, yeah, yeah ... > So, if the calling volume is significant, and you are prepared to run > your traffic through a 950 number, or through a dialer, you might shop > around in the second tier of long distance companies ... the next > level down from the national players. With FGB access, this figure can be very low. Those companies that specialize (if you know what I mean) in 950 bypass have no minimums, surchares, or monthly fees. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 22:10:59 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books In a message dated 18 Nov 91 15:26:45 GMT, whs70@taichi.cc.bellcore. com (24411-sohl,william h) writes (in response to a message that I had written): > Two points need to be refuted here: > 1 - The Bells had long ceased charging for extension phones prior > to divestiture. WHERE did you get THAT idea? I can't speak for any other state, but in Michigan they were charging some piddly extra charge per extension (something around sixty cents per month) for CUSTOMER-SUPPLIED extension phones. That's right ... even after the order came down permitting customers to attach their own phones to the network (something the Bells fought very hard against -- remember Carterfone?), Michigan Bell still felt that for some reason they were entitled to charge an extra monthly charge for each extension that the customer supplied (assuming, of course, that you either called the business office to give them the "FCC registration number" or they detected more ringers than you were "supposed" to have on your phone line, although in the latter case you could avoid the charge if you said you had an extension RINGER on the line. Under the tariff then in effect, they couldn't charge extra for ringers, just phones!). I'm pretty sure this charge was still in effect around 1985 (I KNOW it was still in effect for a time after divestiture) and perhaps even for a couple of years after that; but I think that Michigan Bell finally dropped the charge as part of a rate increase request (in part because both they and the MPSC were getting a lot of flak from customers for charging for something when no additional service was being provided). And it goes without saying that even today, in areas where you can still lease phones from the phone company, you'll pay an additional amount for each extension, so the statement that the Bells "stopped charging for each extension" is incorrect ... they only stopped charging when they weren't allowed to offer CPE any more, and even THAT didn't stop them here in Michigan for a time! > 2 - There already was a competitive arena for long distance (MCI, > Sprint, et al) prior to divestiture. Yes, but you'll recall that these other carriers did not have "equal access" prior to divestiture. That means no "Dial 1" access and no positive answer supervision. How competitive do you think they could really have been under those circumstances? Pat (the Moderator) also noted, in part: > ..... But to allow MCI, Sprint et al to compete with > AT&T is not the same thing as smashing AT&T into pieces. The *only* > legitimate thing Judge Greene could have done was to order AT&T and > the Bell Companies to interconnect in an even-handed and arm's length > way with the new competitors. He should have ruled the competitors > were permitted to string wires, set up exchanges, solicit customers > and compete in every way -- both at the local and long distance level > -- with the Bell System, with the assurance their customers would be > able to connect with Bell System customers. PERIOD. END OF COURT ORDER. I'm not sure about that, Pat. While I agree that this sounds like the way to go, you have to remember that you were dealing with AT&T here, which IN MY OPINION has never failed to use any underhanded method they could possibly to keep monopoly control of the telephone system, and failing that, to make life as difficult for competitors as possible. Perhaps Judge Greene did have some sort of "grudge" against AT&T, but I can assure you that he wasn't the only one. It is like sitting at a sporting event and watching one team constantly pull unfair tricks that the referees aren't always able to catch ... pretty soon you start rooting AGAINST that team and hope that an underdog will come along and beat them. When I was in my late teens, it seemed like AT&T was the company that EVERYONE loved to hate (comedienne Lily Tomlin's career took off when she started doing Ernestine, and the reason that bit was so popular was because many folks thought that Ernestine's attitudes DID, to some extent, mirror the real-life attitude that the phone companies had toward their customers). I just don't think that the Judge really believed that, given the size of AT&T, they would have been inclined to "play fair" if placed on a "level" playing field, so it "tilted" it a bit in the competitor's favor. Whether he tilted it too much is a bit of a judgment call, but personally I think he had a lot more wisdom than a lot of people give him credit for. Whether there may have been another approach that would have fostered competition equally well (or better) is certainly open to debate, though, and in this case there is room for a diversity of opinions! Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 [Moderator's Note: I'll agree the Tomlin-like employees of the old Bell System did as much as anyone to contribute to the breakup. All one had to do was stand in a stinky, nasty urinal of a phone booth; lose a quarter due to the malfunctioning instrument and dial the operator to complain about it only to have it ring seventeen times before she came on the line long enough to sass back at you and then abruptly disconnect ... and you'd want to see them smashed also. The early success of the competition was due more to people wanting to 'get something over on Ma Bell' than it was any sort of superior service offered by the competitors. PAT] ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody Date: 26 Nov 91 20:27:56 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes ... > I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "almost no relation", but I > agree that price of local telephone service and cost of local > telephone service are rather weekly related. There is a reason for > this, however; it's referred to by the regulatory agencies as "the > public interest, need, and necessity." > Usage-based pricing is part of a general trend towards cost-based > pricing; It recovers costs based on the use of resources in way which > is generally deemed by regulators to be fair and equitable, and the > usage of those resources is relatively easy to measure. This is the telco party line, but it's buncombe. While it's true that some tiny teeny amount of the telco's cost is related to local USAGE, it probably costs them more to measure it than the usage itself costs. What the telcos have is a monopoly. They notice telephone usage per line rising, and they know you can't get it from anyone else. So they want to raise its price. The cost of hauling a LOCAL call usually ranges from about a penny a minute (in the highest-cost places) down to a small fraction of a mil per minute. So the proposed rates are literally ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE higher than the costs! Is this FAIR? Of course not. It's heavy usage subsidizing light usage. Does your property tax or rent get set on how many times you open the door of your house or apartment? Do you rent your refrigerator based on a price per each time you open the door? (Hey, dieters would benefit!) OF COURSE NOT. They aren't monopolies. Cost comes into the equation. They can't get away charging too much for what's almost free. The FCC's "access" (CALC) monthly charges are an attempt to move towards cost-based pricing, by charging a fixed price for fixed costs (previously paid by LD usage). Usage-sensitive local service is a move away from cost-based pricing, as further proof of the extreme monopoly power of the local telephone carriers. If they want to charge based on COST, let them. I'll pay a penny a call and a mil per minute, peak hour, half-price off-peak. Anywhere in the Metro area. They'd still be ahead of the game. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 18:02:56 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Local Telephone Company Assignes Same Number to Two Households Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article Sharon Crichton writes: > In my case, I'm mad at Ohio Bell. I don't how long the number sat > unused before they gave it to me, but the 1991/92 phonebooks still > have us listed at our old addresses. So I don't know if the number was > unused for a day, a week, a month, or longer. Here's what I know of about Pacific Bell's policy, followed by an amusing story: Old Pacific Bell way: Referral for old customer until new directory comes out, thus no re-assignment until there's a new directory. New Pacific Bell way: Three months of referral free, regardless of directory cycle, then $12.50/quarter for the referral. Numbers could be reassigned as soon as three months. Now what I don't know is if the computer is smart enough to assign the least-recently-used number for new service. This of course would vary depending on exchange, but I would imagine that there would be a new prefix added to an office well before this length of time got very short. Now, my story: Several months ago, our bankcard processing center's customer service center changed long distance carriers, and thus changed its 800 number. They had no referral put on it -- they just sent out a letter telling merchants about their new number. Of course, they are not listed in 800 Directory, so if you misplace the letter, there's no way to contact them. Having mislaid the letter, I was trying to locate their new number, and tried the old one just in case a referral had been added. A woman answered "hello", and I asked if this was the bankcard center. She said "No!", and that a lot of people had been calling. Apparently, this poor woman got this number assigned to her as her PERSONAL 800 number that rang through to her home. As such, she had no way to ignore the calls, lest she miss someone dialing her regular number. She had been told by her carrier that it had been "at least a year" since the number had been used. I informed her that that just wasn't correct, as I had spoken to the bank at that number not more than three months prior. So, the moral of the story is, never believe the telco when they tell you how long the number has been out of service. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com I do not speak for my employer. ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 02:47:21 GMT ijk@violin.att.com (Ihor J Kinal) writes: > There's another aspect that I haven't seen mentioned, but it came to > my attention when Northern New Jersey split its area code recently: > the cost of printing up NEW business cards, letterheads, etc. And > apparently these costs are fairly substantial. [ Think about it -- you > hardly want to send out correspondence with your old phone number on > it, even during the optional phase -- so fairly quickly, all of this > becomes obsolete]. Ah, but that twas a mere bag of shells compared to the bonanza for printers when, in order to allow for more phone numbers in Tokyo (1 area code), a "3" was added to the front of all the numbers that didn't start with 5 (which were already four digit prefixes). The phone company spent billions of yen reminding people (using, since it was to occur on January 1 of the Year of the Ram, a cute fluffy ramlet) of the change. Of course, the Japanese had faced a similar problem when Emperor Hirohito died; they had to redo all the calendars and official documents to handle the new year numbering system, since it all depends on the number of years in the reign of the current Emperor. Amusingly, my Sony Palmtop (a hand-held organizer that recognizes handwritten kanji input) not only can display the date in both Western and Japanese format, but has a provision for entering the starting date and name of the next Emperor's dating system. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 00:39:06 -0500 From: bitsko!ken@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem Organization: Bitsko's Bar & Grill, Public Access, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA In article , HOEQUIST@BNR.CA (C.A.) writes: >> It seems that whenever someone pauses the next couple of words >> are lost. > Every voicemail system I've come across has some algorithm for editing > out silences over a certain duration. To anyone building a better mousetrap, how about using a 1/4 second buffer so that by the time you've figured out that something is going on the important stuff is still there. Also, as feeping creatureism, let _me_ decide at what quality to record. I rarely have over two minutes out of the seven available and those two minutes sound worse than the average tape machine. Digital Tip: recording the announcement remotely sounds a lot better than the built-in microphone. Ken MacLeod ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #971 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14598; 27 Nov 91 4:09 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20765 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 27 Nov 1991 01:41:01 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05700 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 27 Nov 1991 01:40:20 -0600 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 01:40:20 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111270740.AA05700@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #972 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Nov 91 01:40:15 CST Volume 11 : Issue 972 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Chris McEwen) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) Telemarketer Gall (John Higdon) Why Can't I Hang Up On Them? (Norman Soley) Re: Telescum Targeting Families of Vietnam MIAs (Thomas Eric Brunner) Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Andy Sherman) How to Handle Unwanted Sales Calls - SNET Land 203 (Howard Pierpont) Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Peng H. Ang) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cmcewen@graphics.rent.com (Chris McEwen) Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood Date: 24 Nov 91 13:58:12 GMT Organization: The Graphics BBS (2D,3D,GIF,Animation) +1 908/469-0049 > [Moderator's Note: You are confusing telemarketers with survey takers. > There is a difference. Don't paint them with the same brush. Survey > takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT (really, not!) > selling anything. And many of them do provide a valuable service. PAT] PAT has a point. I worked for a subcontractor to Gallop when I was in college. I remember going house-to-house, many times in the toughest areas (either due to 'local conditions' or remoteness) to get the opinions of the residents. Though we were occassionally commissioned to do market research, I was usually assigned to political surveys and I can assure you the questions were not slanted in the slightest -- at least on the surveys I was assigned to. Point: these surveys gave people a chance to have their opinions heard and due to statistical sampling, actually amplified. And as PAT said, my biggest problem was convincing the folks I wouldn't sell them anything. I just wanted to hear what they had to say. Chris McEwen Internet: cmcewen@gnat.rent.com | The Computer Journal Editor, TCJ uucp: ..!att!nsscmail!gnat!cmcewen | PO Box 12 GEnie: c.mcewen -or- TCJ$ | S Plainfield NJ 07080 The Spirit of the Individual Made This Industry | (908) 755-6186 [Moderator's Note: The legitimate survey people have one hell of a hard time on phone calls as a result of the telesleaze. A very reputable firm here hires high-grade, intelligent people with backgrounds in psychology, etc to do personalized interviews for their clients with members of the public. The first phone call is merely to set up an appointment at the convenience of John Q. Public to establish a time when a *second phone call* -- a detailed interview -- can take place. And yet people misunderstand what it is all about and keep waiting for 'the pitch', which of course never comes. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 21:39 CST From: gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood Organization: Southwest Systems Development Labs, Houston, TX In article the Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: You are confusing telemarketers with survey takers. > There is a difference. Don't paint them with the same brush. Survey > takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT (really, not!) > selling anything. And many of them do provide a valuable service. PAT] Well, if the survey takers are providing me with a VALUABLE survice, then they should provide ME with some of the VALUE (for the time they wish to take up on the phone). Here's an example of a service I would GLADLY do. Basically, several people I know got letters from the A.C. Nielsen Company (yes, the ones who do the TV ratings). They offer to send you a device called a Scan Track, which is basically a portable computer with a bar-code scanner and built-in modem. They want you to scan the barcodes of everything you buy with this portable data acquisition device. Once a week, you call their 800 number and hold the device up to the phone and download the results. Their basic rule is that YOU don't have to pay for anything -- all you contribute is your time. With this, they guarantee that they will not sell your name and phone number to any other organization, and that they will pay for all the equipment and calls you will need. They provide incentive "prizes" for continuing to help with their market research. They send a monthly newsletter to show the basic results of some of their research (I'm sure not all of it, they sell that to other companies) and how market research works. They like you to stay-on for at least a year ... but when approached like this, by mail, I really think it's a class operation. I would rather have an intrusion like this than an intrusion on my phone while I'm napping or trying to eat my dinner (when I get up for the phone, my kitten will often try (sneak) to enjoy MY dinner ...). Gil Kloepfer, Jr. gil@limbic.ssdl.com ...!ames!limbic!gil Southwest Systems Development Labs (Div of ICUS) Houston, Texas ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 19:26 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Telemarketer Gall It really takes nerve for a telemarketer to preface a call with a mechanical, "Please hold; I have a call for this number." I got one of those tonight. As if I am going to be bothered by someone selling me something and actually hold the line waiting for the "valuable message"! I immediately hung up without waiting to see what sleazoid would have that kind of gall. Too bad! At least the {San Jose Mercury} in all of its glory had a live person on the line by the time I picked up the receiver. This business tonight tells me that the telemarketer in question values the time of his "agents" more than he does that of his victims. Well, come to think of it, that makes sense. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: soley@trooa.enet.dec.com (Norman Soley) Subject: Why Can't I Hang Up On Them Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Date: 26 NOV 91 12:10:45 I recently got a call from one of THOSE telemarketing machines ... "Hello this is Dial-a-Loan at 403-inaudiable calling to ... Call 1-(416)-976-XXXX" I was unable to hang up on this call until they finished their pitch. I'm taking this up with TPC and the CRTC and will report later what, if anything is accomplished by this. I'm kinda curious though, why is the calling party able to hold the line open like this, is there a technical or regulatory reason why this is the case? I would have though that my going on hook would have signalled the local CO to drop the call but I guess I'm wrong. Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District Digital Equipment of Canada soley@trooa.enet.dec.com Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Digital Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge. [Moderator's Note: If you keep going off hook every five or ten seconds to see if *they* are gone yet, they won't be. Stay off the line for 30-45 seconds so the central office can detect the disconnect and tear it down. PAT] ------------------------------ From: practic!brunner@uunet.uu.net (Thomas Eric Brunner) Subject: Re: Telescum Targeting Families of Vietnam MIAs Date: 26 Nov 91 23:12:32 GMT Reply-To: practic!brunner@uunet.uu.net (Thomas Eric Brunner) Organization: Practical Computing Inc., Sunnyvale In article NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr 516-282-3093) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 941, Message 2 of 12 A brief description of yet another way to target a group of people, omitted. > [Moderator's Note: Yes, by all means give us a bit more background on > these creeps ... and *anyone* who would dare to speak up to or solicit > the family of a missing vet with some kind of commercial nonsense *is* > a creep. You've got my word on it. PAT] Well Pat, "anyone who would dare to speak up to or solicit the family of a missing vet with some kind of commercial nonsense" covers a lot of ground. Let me recommend this month's {Atlantic Magazine} with an article which is germaine, and remark in passing that the telescum cited are hardly the largest exploiters of the families of servicemen reported MIA in south east Asia. #include Eric Brunner 4bsd/RT Project uucp: uunet!practic!brunner or brunner@practical.com [Moderator's Note: I'll look for the article, thanks. And yes, there are various and sundry strains of sleaze in the world, but the com- bination of *dishonest* telemarketer and military vet ranks near the top in my estimation. PAT] ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.homer.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Date: 25 Nov 91 21:09:51 GMT Reply-To: andys@ulysses.homer.att.com (Andy Sherman) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ In article , john@zygot (John Higdon) writes: > But here is where I believe we diverge in our attitudes. The security > of my system is MY responsibility, not the FBI's, not the Secret > Service's, not the Sheriff's Office's, nor that of the police. It is > up to me to make sure that all logins are adequately passworded and > that they are changed regularly. If I detect any hacking attempts, it > is up to me to take evasive action. But after I catch the #$%#@@ what do I do with him/her? Believe me, they'd be better off with the cops than the sleep-deprived sysadmins who tracked them down. > I do not feel that breaking down the doors of kids' homes, holding > them at gunpoint, confiscating everything they own, and theatening > them with thirty-year sentences helps in the slightest. "Hacker laws" > are a waste of time and resources. They protect no one and prevent > nothing and I think you know that. Actually, one reason why they are ineffectual is that judges still consider hacking a victimless crime. Certainly Robert Morris got off with a slap on the wrist. > And let us keep it all in perspective. Even if someone broke into my > system and simply looked around, what WAS the damage? No, I would not > like it and would be pissed as hell, but if no files were damaged and > none of my intellectual property was taken, so what? If somebody got into some systems I know of (none of them on the Internet, thankfully) and snooped around, I'd have to assume that the privacy of many AT&T customers was compromised. And I'd have to assume that unless I could *PROVE* that the records were *NOT* modified that they would have to be reloaded/rebuilt from backups. On other systems I would have to assume that all source code (for some product or another) was compromised and reload/rebuild from backups. My obligation to our customers is such that I would pretty much have to assume that the system was compromised and take everything back to the state on trusted backups. That is a real economic cost. All work done since the trusted backup is lost. Much time and effort is used, not just in tracking down the intruder, but in fallback and recovery. Believe my, I'd want a pound of flesh or ten in compensation. > No, "burglar" and "burglary" are inappropriate words to use. We are in > a new age and we need to expand our vocabulary. Breaking into a > computer system cannot be compared to the more traditional physical > "breaking and entering" because nothing is "broken". Anything fixed between a trusted backup and intrusion is broken. > And entering a > computer system is not the same as physically entering a home or > office. Therefore, using the ancient descriptions of common crimes is > inaccurate at the least and at most inflammatory. I think that snooping around my computer files is exactly the same as snooping around my file cabinet. Nobody who doesn't work here is welcome. > In some countries hacking is not a crime. Is it not peculiar that > there is no evidence that there exists a rampant computer security > problem in those countries? No, ironically, hackers in those countries > prefer to explore around in the US via phone line, probably because > computer owners here are so lax about security. Ah, I see you haven't had the Dutch hackers on your system. They tend to start by hopping through a few stolen accounts in their own country before they cross the pond. Yes security is lax on this side, although companies and universities seem to detect intrusions much quicker than the military. They tend to be surprised when they get called, too. However, I think that hacking at the U.S. Army may be intrinsically more interesting to some of these creeps than hacking at the Dutch Army. > I, for one, would much rather rely on technical means and normal > prudence to keep interlopers out of my system than on laws enforced by > Keystone Kops. But what will you do with the people you catch? While I don't think it is necessary to put children in jail, scaring them doesn't hurt, just as it didn't hurt kids of Pat's generation to have a beat cop put the fear of G-d in them for boosting a candy bar. Society *does* have to send kids the message that anti-social behavior will not be tolerated, preferably before it goes too far. However, a college or graduate student is no kid. They are old enough already to know what stealing is. Cliff Stoll's nemesis was old enough to know that he was committing espionage. (Ditto some of the Dutch boys who broke into the army during Desert Storm). They need to be held accountable, just as the system admins who do not zealously guard confidential or classified data need to be held accountable. 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: Mon, 25 Nov 91 15:49:16 PST From: Howard Pierpont, Digital Equipment Corp. Subject: How to Handle Unwanted Sales Calls - SNET Land 203 >From the 1990 copy of the SNET Telephone Directory covering 203-774/779 and a number of other locals in the wilds of Northwest CT: Consumer Safety and Protection How to Handle Unwanted Sales Calls 1. If you do not want to talk with a person selling a product or service by telephone, firmly say, "No thank you," and hang up. 2. If you do not want to get another call from the company, ask the caller to remove your name and number from their list. 3. If you want to reduce the number of at-home telephone sales calls from national companies, write to: Telephone Preference Service Direct Marketing Service 6 East 43rd Street New York, New York 10017 Request that your name be put on a list of people who do not want to receive unsolicited telephone sales calls. You must send your complete name, address and telephone number. -------- This is also included in the new 1991 directory that takes effect on 11/27. Howard Pierpont All standard disclaimers apply. [I do computers full time, telecomm the rest.] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 10:25 EST From: "Peng_H.Ang" <20017ANG@msu.edu> Subject: Copyrights on Phone Books Many thanks to Gary Russell and Charles McGuiness for their summaries on phone book copyrights. The ruling does seem to have implications beyond the phone books though. > While Rural has a valid copyright in the directory as a whole ... > there is nothing original in Rural's white pages. The raw data are > uncopyrightable facts, and the way in which Rural selected, > coordinated, and arranges these facts is not original in any way. Right away, it seems that bibliographies would not be protected. Neither would databases that merely reproduce such compilations. Nor would databases that reproduce articles be protected. Which means that one merely needs permission from the original publishers/writers, download the database, tweak things a little so the interface looks different and, voila, one is an information service provider. Something's wrong here. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #972 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04812; 28 Nov 91 8:19 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15040 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 06:44:30 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28484 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 06:44:17 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 06:44:17 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111281244.AA28484@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #973 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Nov 91 06:43:29 CST Volume 11 : Issue 973 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Tom Harpur on Telemarketing (Toronto Star via David Leibold) Bell Canada Microlink Service (David Leibold) List of Country Codes With Area Codes Underway (David Leibold) Rochester Telephone to Buy Computer Consoles (Dem & Chronicle via C. Reid) AT&T Model 4600 Cordless Phone Problem (Brett G. Person) Hacker Convicted (Newsday via Dave Niebuhr) Phone Outages Expected to be Tied to Typing Mistake (WSJ via T. Coradeschi) Library of Congress is Connected (was Network Info and Access) (S. Donelan) Some Additional Thoughts About ANI (Tim Gorman) Very Short Answer Supervision (Tim Gorman) AT&T Files With FCC to Carry Calls to Vietnam (VIET-NET via Herb Jellinek) AT&T Charges Big For Local Call (Steve Kass) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 19:38:15 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: Tom Harpur on Telemarketing, {Toronto Star} 24 Nov 91 Tom Harpur, a former Anglican priest turned newspaper columnist, wrote in the {Toronto Star} about his experience with telemarketers, including the ADADs (Automatic Dial Announcing Devices). He reports that the CRTC approves these as "an allowable and legal sales/soliciting strategy". He also reports that the ADADs won't go away after ten seconds of hanging up on them (as required by CRTC regulation). Reference was also made to the fact that while Sunday commerce is restricted, the telemarketers can go right in any day of the week (although the CRTC also restricts the times they can do this ... at least on paper). Harpur continues, "Bell says they will notify all the ADAD users to take my name off their lists. At the same time, I'm told they can't prevent my name from getting back on the same lists a few weeks later!" Another choice quote: "One (call) was from an outfit called Dial-a-Loan. (I wish they'd leave my dial alone!) The other wanted to tell me how I could make a fortune at home by using my own phone to make a similar sales pitch to other unsuspecting victims." Harpur concludes by suggesting that the public write to Bell Canada and the CRTC to complain about this. One flaw in the article was Harpur's statement that the public was not consulted about ADAD regulations. In fact, there was a process where the CRTC was developing ADAD guidelines some years earlier, and Bell included inserts describing the proceedings. Otherwise, this was something of a public trouncing of telemarketing practices. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 19:50:12 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: Bell Canada Microlink Service Bell Canada is introducing another ISDN service geared towards small and medium businesses, plus Centrex customers. There is the equivalent of two channels for voice or data available (2B+D?) on the new Microlink service. Cost is roughly double the Centrex voice rate. Otherwise, the ISDN link is designed to connect to all sorts of existing Bell services, voice and data. The previous ISDN offerings appeared to be quite expensive undertakings, things like 24B+D services. This appears to be another step towards ISDN in the home. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 20:09:59 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: List of Country Codes With Area Codes Underway cmoore@BRL.MIL and I have been compiling lists of country codes with their area codes for some time now. Some countries have been completed so far, while others have only the bits of information as contained in telephone directory descriptions of country STD/area codes. The intention is to have every area code represented (not necessarily every place name within a country) for each country code. At this point, full area/STD code lists for Germany (both West +49 and East +37 portions), Japan, Mexico and the UK are being sought. We already have partial lists for these (from phone book excerpts) but these are subsets of the full range of area/STD codes. Please mail submissions to cmoore@BRL.MIL and dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca, and not to the Digest or its Moderator. For those with information from other countries, please inquire first as we may already have complete lists of certain countries (for instance, we have a complete set for Switzerland). dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 19:09 EDT From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: Rochester Telephone to Buy Computer Consoles This was published in Rochester, NY's {Democrat_and_Chronicle} last Thursday in the Business Section: ROCHESTER TELEPHONE TO BUY COMPUTER CONSOLES SYSTEM Computer Consoles Inc., 97 Humboldt St., said Rochester Telephone Corp. has agreed to buy its trademarked Line Information For Enhanced 911 (LIFE 911) system to deliver emergency number services to a four-county area around Rochester. The contract calls for complete replacement of an earlier CCI emergency number system that Rochester Tel has been using since 1986. CCI, based in Rochester, has 1,000 employees and annual revenues in excess of $120 million. The company is part of Northern Telecom Europe, an operating unit of Notern Telecom Ltd. ----------- Curtis E. Reid CER2520@RITVAX.Bitnet (Bitnet) CER2520@RITVAX.isc.rit.edu (Internet) ------------------------------ From: plains!person@uunet.uu.net (Brett G Person) Subject: AT&T Model 4600 Cordless Phone Problem Date: 27 Nov 91 06:21:40 GMT Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo My parents have an AT&T 4600 cordless. Tonight, I picked it up and hit the "on" button only to have the thing beep, go on-ine for a split-second, beep twice, and then go off-line again. I couldn't find the manual, as usual. Any idea what's wrong with the thing? Brett G. Person North Dakota State University uunet!plains!person | person@plains.bitnet | person@plains.nodak.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 7:45:25 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Hacker Convicted I read an article in today's {Newsday} about a person convicted of computer crime. The entire article is: "Hacker Pleads Guilty" "A 24-year-old Denver hacker who admitted breaking into a sensitive NASA computer system pleaded guilty to a felony count of altering information. In exchange for the plea Monday, federal prosecutors dropped six similar counts against Richard G. Wittman Jr., who faced up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Authorities said the government will seek a much lighter penalty when Wittman is sentenced Jan. 13. Both sides have agreed on repayment of $1,100 in collect calls he placed to the computer system, but they differ on whether Wittman should be held responsible for the cost of new software. Wittman told U.S. District Judge Sherman Finesilver that it took him about two hours on a personal computer in his apartment to tap into the space agency's restricted files. It took NASA investigators nearly 300 hours to track Wittman and an additional 100 hours to rewrite the software to prevent a recurrance, prosecutors said." Well, I guess computer crime pays. Wittman will spend no more than $1,100; the government paid hourly salaries of the investigators and programmers working on the problem. A very, very conservative estimate of the final cost would be over $20,000 when one stops to consider that the word "investigators" was used which implies more than one person. They gave away the store. I oculd probably say more but I'm too disgusted. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: Yeah, isn't it disgusting how they are making him pay $1100 for his 'research'? Even being arrested and brought to trial has probably traumatized him and stunted his intellectual curiosity and growth. And to think they are harassing him further by telling him he has to pay for a portion of what he stole! :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 9:21:02 EST From: Tom Coradeschi Subject: Phone Outages Expected to be Tied to Typing Mistake Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ DSC Communications - Phone outages expected to be tied to typing mistake The Wall Street Journal, 25Nov91, p.B4. A final report that may be presented to the Federal Communications Commission this week is expected to conclude that a mistyped character in software from DSC Communications Corp. resulted in several local-telephone service outages last summer. The report, compiled by Bell Communications Research Corp., also will show that the software didn't cause the failures alone. Faulty data, failure of computer clocks and other triggers led to a chain of events that caused the outages, according to the {Dallas Morning News}, which said it obtained a copy of the report. The newspaper said the report will conclude that none of the "trigger" events were caused by computer hackers. The disclosure echoes testimony before Congress last July, in which DSC officials admitted that three bits of information in a huge computer program were incorrect, omitting computational procedures that would have stopped DSC's signaling system from becoming congested with messages. A spokesman for DSC, which makes the signal transfer point that carries signals to set up a call, but not the call itself, confirmed that a "6" in a line of computer code should actually have been a "D." That one error caused the equipment and software to fail under an avalanche of computer-generated messages. The error was in an April software modification for the signal transfer point systems. The spokesman said the company won't distribute final copies of the report until Bellcore, as the research consortium of the Baby Bells is known, presents a copy to the FCC and a congressional telecommunications committee, possibly this week. ------------------------------ From: SEAN@SDG.DRA.COM (Sean Donelan) Subject: Library of Congress is Connected (was Network Info and Access) Date: 25 Nov 91 00:16:27 CST Organization: Data Research Associates, St. Louis MO In article , jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob R. Deglopper) writes: > LoC itself is not currently on the Internet at all. The general telephone number for the Library of Congress is (202) 707-5000, or for the information office (202) 707-2905. The WHOIS record for the Library seems to be inaccessible on the new NIC (otherwise I would have said look it up there). The NSF was coordinating efforts of various government agencies to connect to the Internet at one time. So they may have a better idea than some of the agencies as to an agency's connected status. Now to correct a bit of misinformation. The Library of Congress does have an Internet connection, or rather some parts do. The Library is a big place, and like any bureaucracy one department may not be aware what other departments are doing. Most of the departments currently connected seem to have more to do with research and planning rather than with public service. Try POSTMASTER@LOC.GOV for more information. As far as I know there is currently no general public access to the Library's computers via the Internet (although I heard they were experimenting with some remote access). Also the Library does sell copies of its databases, and several vendors include the Library's records in their databases. For example in the for-profit world CompuServe, Dialog, and in the not-for-profit world OCLC, RLG are searchable for various fees. And of course, for no charge, researchers can telnet to dra.com (with vt100 emulation and some limitations on how you can search) to search a copy of what the Library calls their "Complete Service." Copies of the records can also be found in some form in hundreds of other library catalogs on the Internet. Maybe the AOS's should start providing operator services for the Internet? Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100 ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 91 09:23:18 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Some Additional Thoughts About ANI Pat, Several people have given several good explanations of the philosophical differences between ANI and Caller ID. Let me throw in some information that has not yet been covered. The statement that ANI is used for billing is correct. It is used for much more than that, however. Depending on the call classification (FG C, FG D, etc.) there are one or two information digits included which are used to classify either the ANI type or station class. For instance: 00 = VALID ANI 01 = Operator ID required 02 = ANI Failure 07 = Special Screening Station There are several more, some of which are valid only on FG D calls. A typical MF transmitted ANI string looks as follows: KPx + II + (3/7/10D)ANI + STx (II designates the info digits) Depending on the call type and ANI protocol in use the KP and ST signals are used to indicate things ranging from whether 1+ or 0+/0- was dialed, whether the station is coin or non-coin, whether the originating station is touchtone or rotary dial, and whether 10XXX + 0/1 or just 0/1 was dialed. The receiving office uses all of this information to correctly process the call as well as bill it. Tim Gorman - SWBT * opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 91 09:23:04 EST From: Tim Gorman <71336.1270@compuserve.com> Subject: Very Short Answer Supervision TELECOM Digest V11 #952: > The structure code on the CR's is 10002 and the call types are 34. > I've traced this through our switch documentation and found that > particular call type to translate to "Signaling Irregularities". This record should be made when answer supervision is received from the called end but the calling end hangs up before the minimum charge duration timing is satisfied (e.g. two seconds). Tim Gorman - SWBT * opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 09:37:07 PST From: herb@frox.com (Herb Jellinek) Subject: AT&T Files With FCC to Carry Calls to Vietnam [From the SEANET-L (SouthEast Asia Net) Bitnet mailing list] From: LYDIA FISH Subject: Long distance calls to Vietnam Forwarded from VIET-NET AT&T FILES WITH FCC TO CARRY CALLS TO VIETNAM WASHINGTON, Nov 22, Reuter - American Telephone & Telegraph Co said it filed with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to carry calls to and from Vietnam. The company said it would use 210 circuits on undersea cable, microwave, and international satellites, linking Vietnam and the U.S. via two separate communication pathways. AT&T said the filing is in anticipation of when and if the U.S. government lifts the current ban, under U.S. policy, on calls to and from Vietnam. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 18:29 EST From: SKASS@drew.drew.edu Subject: AT&T Charges Big For Local Call Not long ago, I carelessly hit # to make a followup call on my AT&T Calling Card for what I forgot was a local call. It went through, and here's what I got on my bill: NO. DATE TIME PLACE AREA-NUMBER RATE MIN AMOUNT 5. OCT 11 1018PM TO BROOKLYN NY 718 624-xxxx FR NEW YOR NY 212 674-9888 EC 10 1.99 NY STATE TAX .31 (The amount comes from 80c for setup, about 12c/minute, and 16% tax.) The call normally requires a quarter deposit, and if I had been out of change, I could have placed it through NYTel for about 65 cents. I don't remember where the payphone was, but the distance can't have been more than five miles. Needless to say, the cost was a big surprise (and since it was intrastate, my ROA discount didn't apply). Questions: Are Brooklyn and Manhattan in the same LATA? Can AT&T handle all intraLATA and intrastate calls? Who approves the tariffs for this kind of call? Could I have done this intentionally with 0+10288+ ? Steve Kass/ Math&CS/ Drew U/ MadisonNJ07940/ 2014083614/ skass@drew.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #973 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06757; 28 Nov 91 9:57 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03798 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 08:18:18 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19370 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 08:18:06 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 08:18:06 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111281418.AA19370@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #974 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Nov 91 08:18:01 CST Volume 11 : Issue 974 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Rolm Devises Phone Answering System for Deaf in Offices (Curtis E. Reid) Sprint Voice-Activated Calling Cards (John L. Shelton) Newest FAX Machine? (malcolm@apple.com) Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Nigel Allen) Capacity Limits of Digital CO Switches (John Nagle) Control Tone Frequencies (Joseph Chiu) ITT 3100 B2.3C PBX For Sale (Jason Scott) Help Me Wire an Aviation Headset to a Cellular Phone (Howard Page) Digital Mobile Radio (Peter Decker) Poster on Telephones - Old and New (Jim Haynes) Call Counter and Automatic Router Wanted (tamil@qucdn.queensu.ca) Coinless Public Phone Class of Service (Ed Greenberg) Alabama Gets CNID (Scott Hinckley) Strange Chat Line Number (Jack Decker) Preparing for ISDN ... How? (Steve Rezsutek) Information Wanted on Qualcom Terminals (Chris Arndt) Dial Tones on Answering Machine (Christopher Walton) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 19:14 EDT From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: Rolm Devises Phone Answering System for Deaf in Offices This was published in Rochester, NY's {Democrat_and_Chronicle} last Friday in the Business Section: ROLM DEVISES PHONE ANSWERING SYSTEM FOR DEAF IN OFFICES Phone equipment maker Rolm Co. has announced what it calls the first phone answering system for offices that can be used by the deaf, hard of hearing or speech-impaired people. The system allows these people to communicate with phone message-recording systems through TDD terminals, the typewriterlike devices that are a a commom means of phone communication for the deaf. TDD terminals translate typed words into tones, which can be sent over the phone. The system requires a companion TDD terminal at the receiving end to translate the tones back into printed words. Rolm said it has devised a phone system that can record these tones in a recipient's voice "mailbox," used by some phone systems to record messages when the recipient is not in. --------- Curtis E. Reid CER2520@RITVAX.Bitnet (Bitnet) CER2520@RITVAX.isc.rit.edu (Internet) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 20:30:10 -0800 From: jshelton@ads.com (John L. Shelton) Subject: Sprint Voice-Activated Calling Cards I've been playing around with one of these for the last few weeks, and find it seems to work reasonably well, though I've only placed a handfull of calls with it. The system works as follows: Sprint has assigned a bank of 800 numbers for use with the voice card. You don't use the 800-877-8000 number (which means that for now, those hotels that charge you $0.75 for calls into Sprint don't know about it.) You dial your 800 number. Sprint answers and prompts for your ID number, which is a specified digit followed by your SSN. The first time in, they ask you to speak it several times to get your voice-print figured out. Subsequent calls have only required me to speak the number once. After identifying, you are prompted to dial a number. At this point you can say "call office" or "call home", and the system will dial a pre-registered number for you. Or, you can use the tone-pad to enter a number in the normal manner. I had a friend try my number, and Sprint challenged him, so the voice-print ID isn't totally hokey. I haven't tested it thoroughly. Plusses: * Bypass the sprint main number, saving money in some hotels. * No need for tone phone to call two pre-registered numbers. * Fun to show off. Drawbacks: * Instead of remembering your 14 digit number, you have to learn a new 800 number and a check digit. * I bet it's going to have trouble when you have a cold. * It's slower than dialing the normal way. Oh, by the way, they include, in the test plan I'm enrolled in, voice messaging. If the number you call doesn't answer in N rings, Sprint offers to take a message for later delivery. I haven't tried that option yet. =John= ------------------------------ Subject: Newest FAX Machine? Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 23:07:27 -0800 From: malcolm@apple.com And I thought I had seen everything. From the Hammacher Schlemmer Christmas catalog: FAX-SENDING ELECTRONIC ADDRESS BOOK [with a picture of one of those handhelp, pocket sized electronic organizer, with a QWERTY keyboard.] ...is the most complete telephone convenience tool we've found for the business person or traveler -- a compact mini-computer [SIC] ... lets you send clear, message faxes from anywhere. Type in your message onto the unit's liquid crystal, dot-matrix display (10 lines x 44 characters) -- then, simply press the "send fax" button. Two methods of fax transmittal are available: a built-in acoustic coupler (sends message by simply holding the unit up to the mouth- piece of almost any Touch-Tone telephone.) ... I'm not sure why it has to be a touch tone phone for it to acoustically couple ... now the drug dealers can get their touch-tone boxes from Radio Shack, a pocket FAX machine, their pager and be all set :-). What next???? Malcolm [Moderator's Note: What is the other method for transmittal? You only mentioned one (acoustic) above. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 03:32:24 -0500 From: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) Subject: Pseudo-Area Code 311 Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto I saw a message on Fidonet's FCC echo from Roger Stark (1:125/28) saying: > The AT&T Phone Home card (whereby college kids can phone home free > and ask for money) uses 311 as an access code. It's 311 + A/C + local > phone + four-digit passcode. Is this true? The only time I've seen 311 is in movies and advertisements when a fake area code was needed for a phone. I thought Call-Me card calls were dialed in the same way as regular calling card calls. Roger Stark continues: > The 211 so far seems to be a COPT/COCOT number for coin credits and > such, but this is probably simply an internal number which doesn't > actually get dialed on a real phone line. As other TELECOM Digest readers have noted, the 211 code is used for different purposes by different telephone companies. Bell Canada doesn't seem to use it at all. Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG [Moderator's Note: Many years ago, the old Bell System always had the number 311-555-2368 shown on the dial of phones in advertisements and display windows, etc. I think this would have been 1960-ish. I think his information on Call-Me cards is wrong. To dial one of those calls, one merely dials 0 + AC + number, wait for bong, four digit PIN, #. When dialing the number to which a card is assigned -- at least under the old ATT/local Bell combine card system -- one needs merely to zero plus the number and add the PIN when requested. Appending the pound sign (#) to the end speeds the processing since this indicates your dialing has been completed. A bit set in a database somewhere said if the PIN did not match to that specific phone number, to deny the call. Is the new system (separate AT&T cards) different? PAT] ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Capacity Limits of Digital CO Switches Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 17:50:28 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) A question arises, are current-generation switches (5ESS, DMS100, etc.) non-blocking? Does the TDMA bus that is the main switching mechanism in a 5ESS actually have one time slot per line? Are 5ESS switches configured differently for use in mostly- business line installations, to reduce blocking? Are there standard configuration recommendations in this area? References to documents would be appreciated. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: josephc@cco.caltech.edu (Joseph Chiu) Subject: Control Tone Frequencies Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 14:59:03 GMT Can anyone tell me the frequency/timing specifications for the intercept three-tone sequence? I'm putting together a project (a self-contained exchange :-) and would like to emulate the look-and-feel (or is that sound-and-feel?) of The Real Thing. Actually, if you can provide the information for other not-so-common tones, I'd appreciate it, too. (I seem to remember a very fast hi-lo-hi-lo-hi-lo once ... and I'd like to know the stutter-dial tone timing, while we're at it.) It's amusing what a little bit of code and an ADC can do ... I just simulated a complete dial-up and connect of a Bell 103 modem last night ... (What next? A revival of the Cat's Meow program? Naaah, too much trouble with the Feds ... ;-) Thanks. Joseph Chiu, Dept. of Computer Science, P-NP non-equivalence project, Caltech. 1-57 California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91126 ------------------------------ From: jscott@student.business.uwo.ca (Jason Scott) Subject: ITT 3100 B2.3C PBX For Sale Date: 26 Nov 91 13:50:55 GMT Organization: University of Western Ontario I have an ITT3100 Compact for sale. It has 44 ports and is equipped for numerous station/trunk configurations. Comes complete with all documantation. Includes 10 MET sets (2x20 and 8x10) plus spares in various condition. Asking $5000 CDN or best offer. Thanks ... jscott@student.business.uwo.ca (Jason Scott) The Western Business School BBS -- London, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 09:49:10 EST From: hgp@lzsc.att.com (Howard Page) Subject: Help Me Wire an Aviation Headset to a Cellular Phone Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Would anyone know how to wire a David Clark 10/40 headset to a cellular phone? I don't have any specs on the microphone, but the earphones have a 600 ohm impediance. Thanks! Howard G. Page hgp@lzsc.att.com ------------------------------ From: dec@dfv.rwth-aachen.de (Peter Decker) Subject: Digital Mobile Radio Mailing List Being Started Organization: RBI - RWTH Aachen Date: 26 Nov 91 15:29:11 GMT This is an announcement for a new mailing list about Digital Mobile Radio. The contents should be about e.g. - mobile communication - digital cellular and future phone systems e.g. GSM, PCN, DECT, UMTS, ... :-) - radio channel models - channel coding, FEC, ARQ protocols - speech-codec - modulation technics - media access protocols - higher level protocols and internetworking - short message exchange applications If you want write an article, mail to: cellular@dfv.rwth-aachen.de If you would like to be considered, please send your address to: cellular-request@dfv.rwth-aachen.de I hope there will be a hot discussion. Peter Decker - Lehrstuhl Kommunikationsnetze, RWTH Aachen, Kopernikusstr. 16, D-5100 Aachen,Telefon: 0241/807916 e-mail - dec@dfv.rwth-aachen.de ------------------------------ From: Jim Haynes Subject: Poster on Telephones - Old and New Date: 26 Nov 91 19:08:51 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz This was in the AT&T shareholders quarterly, and is submitted not as a commercial solicitation but because somebody might be interested. "A colorful 22-by-28-inch poster that traces the development of the telephone from Bell's first model to the latest high-technology feature phone can be purchased for $12. To order, send a check to Poster, AT&T Archives, WV A102, 5 Reinman Road, Warren, NJ 07059-0647. (Telephone 908-756-1590.)" haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet ------------------------------ From: TAMIL@QUCDN.QueensU.CA Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Date: Tuesday, 26 Nov 1991 16:54:56 EST Subject: Call Counter and Automatic Router Wanted Is there any device that can keep a log of all the incoming calls. Allso looking for automatic router. The function is simple: A custormer will place a call to a 800 or a reguler number and the call will be routed to the next avilabel rep. The problem is the rep's will be siting in there own homes miles a part. Thanks in advance. jay ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 09:19 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Coinless Public Phone Class of Service Seems to me that this class of service is severely underutilized. For instance, this would be the perfect COS to give a hotel guest user that wants to dial 0+. The telco and all the IXC's are smart enough to realize that they can't charge the call to the calling phone. 10xxx works; so does 950, 911, 0 alone, etc. You could allow access from the hotel room via dial-7+ (assuming 9+ for [hopefully free] local calls, and 8+ for charge-to-room long distance) or, using least cost routing tables, route all 0+ or 10xxx+ calls to those lines. Perhaps the fellow who wants the telco to control his kids could use this class of service too. ------------------------------ From: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com (Scott Hinckley) Subject: Alabama Gets CNID Date: 27 Nov 91 18:41:48 GMT Reply-To: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com I just recieved a call from my South Central Bell rep saying SCB had decided to take the AL PUC up on its go-ahead for CNID. Touchstar services which will be available are: Call Return, Call Trace, Repeat Dial. The rep was not clear on whether CNID boxes would be offered. The rep was likewise unclear on the rulings for Per Call Block, Line Block, and (Block Block?). scott ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 20:20:08 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Strange Chat Line Number I just saw an ad on a Canadian TV station (I live about five city blocks from the river that forms the border up here) for a chat line on 1-809-544-CHAT. The fine print said that charges would vary according to time of day and province of origin. I gather this number is in the Carribean somewhere, but wonder how they are making anything off the number and why they are specifically targeting their ads to Canadians. Just thought you might find this interesting. Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 [Moderator's Note: The proprietor(s) of those (always) international chat/horoscope/tarot/hot phone sex lines make their profit from kickbacks they get from the big $$ made by the telco carrying the traffic. I suspect its the same outfit in each case. There is one in the Netherland Antilles aimed at gays in the USA, one in New Jersey aimed at people in Spain who practice Tarot ... and many more. PAT] ------------------------------ From: steve@endgame.gsfc.nasa.gov (Steve Rezsutek) Subject: Preparing for ISDN ... How? Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 20:06:03 GMT A friend of mine recently purchased a "fix-me-up" house, and will be pulling wires (phone, CATV, etc.) throughout. Assuming that it is even feasable at this time, what sort of wiring [number of conductors, connectors, etc] would be needed for him to be "ISDN ready" (in the sense that he could take full advantage of all that it promises to offer)? Is there a document somewhere that specifies all this? Thanks. Steven Rezsutek [Moderator's Shameless Advertising: In about three to four weeks, Digest reader Fred Goldstein's new book, "ISDN In Perspective", will be out of the printers. It's published by Addison-Wesley, is paperback with a price of (I think) $25 or so, and is about 270 pages long. I think some Digest readers will like it. I'll tell you more about it once I've read my copy. PAT] ------------------------------ From: carndt@zeus.calpoly.edu (Chris Arndt) Subject: Information Wanted on Qualcomm Terminals Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 20:52:27 GMT An article on Steve Roberts of Bikelab fame (he's the one with the BEHEMOTH, the bike and trailer he has multi-computers and radios on) said that he has Internet access on the road through a satellite terminal on the bike. I emailed Steve about this. He says its a Qualcomm (?) terminal and a Cellblazer modem. How do I get more info on the Qualcomm terminal? I've never heard of them. ------------------------------ From: cmw1725@tamsun.tamu.edu (Christopher Walton) Subject: Dial Tones on Answering Machine Date: 27 Nov 91 19:45:40 GMT Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station I have had a wierd occurence happen lately, several times. I would get home and check my answering machine only to hear a click, and then a dialtone. The dialtone plays for a while until I get the tone that happens when you have the phone off the hook for too long. (Fast-reorder???) Then the phone hangs up and the answering machine continues. Does anyone have any idea what this may be??? It has happened several times. cmw1725@tamsun.tamu.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #974 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16098; 28 Nov 91 17:18 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30446 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 15:41:17 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14098 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 15:41:07 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 15:41:07 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111282141.AA14098@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #975 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Nov 91 15:41:04 CST Volume 11 : Issue 975 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Handicapped Telemarketers (Gordon Burditt) History of Area Splits (Carl Moore) Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (Mark Terribile) Long Range Cordless Phones Question (Miroslaw Tadeusz Sochanski) Help Needed With Satellite Dish (yscs5027@yorkvm1.bitnet) CTG/Vodavi Key Telephone System For Sale (Steve Pozgaj) Congress Restricts Autodialers (Arun Baheti) Touch Tones on Videotapes? (Yanek Martinson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Handicapped Telemarketers Organization: Gordon Burditt Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1991 06:48:31 GMT > [Moderator's Note: There are a large number of people who for whatever > reason, by virtue of a physical impairment or otherwise are unable to > do other types of work. If not for telemarketing, they'd be unemployed > and receiving public assistance. Having a job like this, as undesirable > as it may seem, provides dignity, a legitimate income and sense of self- > worth. A local TV news station here (Dallas/Fort Worth) had a news item called "Selling Sympathy". It described the tactics of some "handicapped sales firms". They are not charitable organizations but they try to imply that they are. The sales firms hire only handicapped individuals, however, as one reporter found out when she applied for a job, the definition of handicapped varies a lot. The reporter had no obvious handicap, but eventually qualified with "urinary tract infection". Other handicaps included being on parole from prison (I guess that's a "moral handicap"), poverty, and some complicated term that sounded like it meant "being of mixed racial origin", or maybe it meant "being of non-white racial origin". Former employees described the way they were supposed to mention their specific handicap, and use a hard-sell approach, even on people who were worse off than they were (e.g. a widow barely living on Social Insecurity). Some ex-employees and other handicapped people felt that the approach used was insulting to handicapped people everywhere. Different firms being described used different tactics. For example, the reporter was not told to specifically mention her urinary tract infection. These are not necessarily the tactics used by all "handicapped sales firms". For those who don't like the term "handicapped", that's the term the news item used. I think that such tactics are disgusting and borderline illegal, due to misrepresentation. These firms are on the really scummy end of the spectrum of live telemarketers. Most live telemarketers that call and try to sell me something (as opposed to ask for a charitable contribution, which can get sneakier) may use misleading tactics to prevent me from easily screening them out, but once they get through, I don't think they lie about the firm they are working for or about the service or product they are selling. Most of them are selling something like carpet cleaning, newspaper subscriptions, air conditioning servicing, Time-Life Books, or credit cards. Chances are if I ordered something, I'd get it. Maybe the credit card would have a 190% interest rate, but if I didn't ask, that's my fault. Many of them don't even use a hard sell. Sure, there are the occasional vacation scams and ones that want you to call a 900 number. I get those by mail, too. (Sure they are annoying and interrupt what you are doing. Right now, that isn't a crime. And it's not the only bad thing they can do.) I believe there are firms that employ primarily handicapped people that don't use tactics like this. As usual, there seem to be a few rotten apples in almost every barrel. > original. Long-time telemarketers have seen them all, and believe it > or not, some of them wouldn't want any other type of work. PAT] Is that a mental handicap? Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon [Moderator's Note: As you point out, there are rotten apples in every barrel, and more than a few in telemarketing. But my earlier reference was to reputable firms (i.e. your example of Time-Life); I'll also include Signature (Montgomery Ward's telemarketing operation; ie auto club, credit card promotions) which routinely hire handicapped people for phone work without making any announcement of it. One in that category hires visually handicapped people (but not exclusively) ... who are *forbidden* to mention it on the phone for the reasons you cite: they are not selling or trading on sympathy; they're selling educational home-study programs to adults who did not finish high school. In fact it is an arms-length operation of a major university; but you aren't supposed to know that! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 10:47:11 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: History Of Area Splits [Moderator's Note: This is a revised version of an earlier article which appeared in the Digest under the same name. This article will also be a file in the Telecom Archives. PAT] --------- These areas have N0X/N1X prefixes, which are put in service as an alternative to splitting an area which has had only NNX up to this point. As a result, long distance from these areas is dialed like this: 7D or 1+NPA+7D within area (can no longer use 1+7D) 1+NPA+7D to other areas (can no longer use NPA+7D) For all 0+ calls from these areas, try 0+NPA+7D. I believe these requirements will become universal when area codes must generalize from N0X/N1X to NXX; deadline for this is July 1995. But since the first batch of NNX area codes will be of NN0 form, some areas might be able to keep 1+7D for intra-NPA long distance by disallowing prefixes of NN0 form; I do not know if this will be affected by use of 52x codes -- x not necessarily 0 -- for Mexico. It is unclear how generalizing area codes to NXX would affect the policy of not using N0X/N1X prefixes until NNX starts running short. 213, California, July 1973 (7D on all calls within it) (later 213/818, now 213/310/818) (this area continued to publish 0+7D instruction for within-NPA 0+ calls) 212, New York, some days after 24 Nov 1980 (7D on all calls within it) (now 212/718, to become 212/917/718) 312, Illinois, Oct 1982 -- but got 1st N0X/N1X spring 1983? (7D on all calls within it) (now 312/708) 201, New Jersey (7D on all calls within it; also applies to 609) (now 201/908) 214, Texas, 1986 or 1987 (by July 1987) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 817, at least in Fort Worth area) (now 214/903) 301/202/703, Maryland/DC/Virginia, 1987, due to DC area growth (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (301 now 301/410) 415, California, Feb 1989? (7D on all calls within it) (now 415/510) 404, Georgia, Oct 1989? (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; optional in 912) (to become 404/706) 919, North Carolina, 2 Mar 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 704) 416, Ontario, 3 Mar 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (to become 416/905) 602, Arizona, 1 July 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 313, Michigan, 1990? (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 512, Texas, 9 Sept 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (to become 512/210) 205, Alabama, Dec 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 215, Pennsylvania, 20 May 1991 (7D on all calls within it) 206, Washington, 12 Jan 1992 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 713, Texas, 8 Mar 1992 (permissive dialing 8 Dec 1991) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) Areacode splits: Early splits for which no date appears may not have been announced publicly due to lack of direct-dial facility at the time, and can only be guessed at with the following guidelines: If an areacode is of form N1X, it is in a state or province with more than 1 areacode. (The reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.) If an areacode is in a state or province with only 1 areacode, it is of form N0X. (The reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.) what?/209 California what?/707 California what?/805 California 305/813 Florida 404/912 Georgia what?/309 Illinois 502/606 Kentucky 504/318 Louisiana 616/906 Michigan, sometime before Nov(?) 1960 612/507 Minnesota 402/308 Nebraska what?/607 New York 704/919 North Carolina 405/918 Oklahoma 901/615 Tennessee what?/806 Texas 206/509 Washington what?/608 Wisconsin what?/705 Ontario what?/807 Ontario 201/609 New Jersey, late 1950s 415/408 California, 1960 305/904 Florida, July 1965 703/804 Virginia, 24 June 1973 at 2:01 AM 714/619 California, Nov 1982 713/409 Texas, Mar 1983 (full cutover 90 days later) 213/818 California, Jan 1984 212/718 New York, 2 Sept 1984 (full cutover 31 Dec 1984) Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island became 718; Manhattan & Bronx stayed in 212; Bronx to switch from 212 to 718 by July 1992 303/719 Colorado, 5 Mar 1988 305/407 Florida, 16 Apr 1988 617/508 Massachusetts, 16 July 1988 312/708 Illinois, Nov 1989 (full cutover 9 Feb 1990) 202 District of Columbia & vicinity, 1 Oct 1990 This behaved somewhat like a split despite no new area code. 202 area code, previously useable for all but the outermost Maryland and Virginia suburbs, was restricted to DC proper. (Use 301 or 703, as the case may be, to reach the suburbs.) As a result, government offices (now including the Pentagon) using zipcodes starting with 200,202,203,204,205 and located in Md. or Va. can no longer be listed in area 202. Prefixes in the Pentagon, which is in Virginia, were previously in area 202 (not 703), and in 1990 were moved to area 703. (Local calls across area code border changed from 7D to NPA+7D.) 214/903 Texas, 4 Nov 1990 (full cutover 4 May 1991) 201/908 New Jersey, 1 Jan 1991 (full cutover 8 June 1991) 415/510 California, 2 Sept 1991 (full cutover 27 Jan 1992) 301/410 Maryland, 1 Nov 1991 (full cutover 1 Nov 1992) 213/310 California, 2 Nov 1991 (full cutover 3 May 1992) (all GTE plus some PacBell goes into 310) 404/706 Georgia, 3 May 1992 (full cutover 2 Aug 1992) 512/210 Texas, 1 Nov 1992 (full cutover 1 May 1993) 212/917 New York, 1992 or 1993? (details not yet available) 714/909 California, Nov 1992 (Riverside and San Bernardino counties go into 909; Orange County remains in 714) 416/905 Ontario, 4 Oct 1993 (full cutover Jan 1994, no exact date yet) On Feb 1, 1991, area codes 706 and 905, which had been used in the U.S. for calling parts of Mexico, were discontinued and thus became available for use elsewhere. Country code 52 is to be used for calls to Mexico. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 01:12:09 -0500 From: mole-end!mat@uunet.uu.net Subject: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! > Out of all the suggestions made here in the past few days for > ways to annoy and harass telemarketers, none of them -- not one! -- > is original. PAT] I don't recall anyone asking this, so here goes: It's illegal to make a telephone call and harass with silence, heavy breathing, sexual suggestions, etc. What about ANSWERING an unsolicited call in that way? If I were to switch to heavy breathing when I discovered that I had been called by a stockbroker, or ask about the individual's intimate life, would I be breaking any laws? Or, for that matter, if I just cut loose with a scream, which is what I'm more likely to do? What if I were to impersonate an employee of the U.S. Government: ``Oh, Bogosity Brokerage! Hey, did you know we're investigating twenty-four complaints against you? You'll hear from us at the SEC sometime next week. Or maybe from the Department of Justice.'' What if I asked what he thought about the disembowelling in the latest slasher movie, or a sex scene from some sleazy flick? I know I'd get a bad reputation with SOMEBODY, but with whom? Would it matter? (This man's opinions are his own.) Mark Terribile uunet!mole-end, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ [Moderator's Note: I'd recommend only two things: one being you should NEVER claim to be employed by the government or 'the telephone company' if you are not so employed; and two, insure that the caller is in fact a 'junk-caller' and not a person -- even if his identity is not immediatly known to you -- who has a legitimate business reason for calling, i.e. payments on your accounts; a legal matter, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 23:38:25 CST From: miroslaw tadeusz sochanski Subject: Long Range Cordless Phones Question Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations I need to buy for use in Poland a cordless, *not* cellular phone that has an effective range of about two miles. I was able to find a gray market store in Chicago that sells phones like that made by MCE or TAMAGAWA. I am not sure about spelling of that last company name. Price range was from $250 to $700 for the phone with a range 40km. Anyone familiar with those phones, brands?? Any advice where and what to buy?? Thanks, Mirek ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 25 Nov 1991 17:08:20 EST From: D P Subject: Help Needed With Satellite Dish Organization: York University I am trying to figure out how to change the RF modulation from the output of the dish to transmit on a channel other than 3 or 4. Also, I wish to be able to view different channels on each of my TV sets at home using one dish. Is it possible? Any help is muchly appreciated ... e-mail if possible. tx ------------------------------ From: steve@dmntor.UUCP (Steve Pozgaj) Subject: CTG/Vodavi Key Telephone System For Sale Organization: Digital Media Networks, Toronto, Canada Date: Thu 28 Nov 1991 15:00 CST Due to rapid corporate expansion, our current telephone key system is for sale. The system is a CTG VC50103/1648 key system, made by Vodavi. It has a capacity of 16 phone lines and 48 extensions. Some of the salient features include: -23 regular sets and 8 sets with display option -circuit cards to handle 32 extensions and 16 lines -battery backup unit for power outage operation of ~2hrs -a single-line interface (DTMF) card -full-featured operator's console The approximate cabinet measurements (hxwxl) and weight are 38cm x 80cm x 30cm (15in x 31in x 12in), 34kg (16 lbs), and the attendant power supply/backup unit is 28cm x 31cm x 20cm (11in x 12in x 8in), 18kg (8 lbs). Service contracts are readily available ($800-1,200/yr), but the high reliability caused us to drop service after the first year. Since purchase, we have had absolutely no problems with this system. Although it has many features, they are very intuitive to learn and use. In the three years we've had it, some of the more obviously useful ones are: -extremely simple conferencing, allowing any internal/external mix of up to 9 parties -programmable night-line operation, by set -programmable zoned paging -speed dialing, both system wide and per set -full handsfree operation -line queuing (which we use on low-rate US dial lines, particularly) We paid $17,000 for the system in October, 1988. We will entertain all serious bids. Of course, we have user manuals and overall system manuals as well. Please reply via email to the author. Phone inquiries can be made to (416) 362-0788, or FAXes to (416) 362-0439. Steve Pozgaj ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 13:19 CDT From: Arun Baheti Subject: Congress Restricts Autodialers Congress yesterday acted to ban autodialing sales attacks and auto- mated messaging for sales. Excerpts from today's (New York Times) ... "Riding a wave of popular annoyance over telephone sales calls, Congress today approved and sent to President Bush a bill that would ban the use of automated dialing devices that deliver prerecorder messages to the home. The measure would also allow consumers to block calls from human salespepople by placing their names on a "do not call" list. ...the measure would instruct the FCC to either oversee the creation of a national "do not call" list or issues rules ordering companies to maintain their own lists. "Finally, the bill would ban unsolicited "junk fax" messages ... "During hearings on the issue earlier this year, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii, noted irritably that he had been summoned to the telephone only to hear a recorded sales message about winning a trip to Hawaii." Rep. Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, was the principle sponsor. ------------------------------ From: Yanek Martinson Subject: Touch Tones on Videotapes? Date: 28 Nov 91 15:43:25 GMT Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science When I rent videotapes, in the beginning and end of tape, when I turn up the volume I can hear somethign that sounds like rapid touch-tone dialing. What is it? yanek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu safe0%yanek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #975 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17617; 28 Nov 91 18:31 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02027 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 16:55:11 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30076 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 16:55:01 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 16:55:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111282255.AA30076@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #976 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Nov 91 16:54:57 CST Volume 11 : Issue 976 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson SWB Seeks Coin Call Blocking by Time of Day (William Degnan) Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Nigel Allen) Yet Another High Speed Modems Posting (Brendan G. Hoar) Answering Machines For Hearing Impaired (was Rolm devises...) (L Weinstein) MCI Friends and Family: How Bad Does it Get? (Andrew Klossner) Pac Bell Voicemail - This is Progress? (Syd Weinstein) Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem (Alan L. Varney) Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem (Lazlo Nibble) Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (John Higdon) Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? (Joe Stein) Re: Calling Card Wars (Christopher Walton) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William.Degnan@p0.f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org (William Degnan) Date: 28 Nov 91 13:16:03 Subject: SWB Seeks Coin Call Blocking by Time of Day Southwestern Bell Telephone has file a waiver with the Texas PUC seeking permission to perform time-of-day (most probably from 2300 to 0500) blocking of originating calls from SWBT owned payphones located in high crime areas. At the request of site owners or law enforcement agencies (and subject to the approval of the waiver) SWB would perform blocking during specified time periods. Calls to 911 will be permitted. SWB states that blocking would be a last resort prior to removal of a public telephone. This would modify Sub Rule 23.55(g) requiring access to operators and 911 on a 24-hour basis. Also 23.55(i) requiring that access to ICs by various dialing codes not be blocked. In its filing, SWB indicates the requested waiver is in response to a request from its customer, National Convenience Stores, Inc. to disconnect certain of its phones located in high crime areas. Apparently they seek to discourage undesirable individuals from congregating. 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 [Moderator's Note: So the very people who must use payphones outside convenience stores in bad neighborhoods get shafted again. Illinois Bell is trying a variation on this where certain coin phones won't accept money during overnight hours. Who thinks up these incredible schemes? What you do about 'undesirable individuals congregating' is you ask the police to disperse them in a constitutionally acceptable manner. You don't shut off the telephone service! PAT] ------------------------------ From: nigel.allen@canrem.uucp (Nigel Allen) Date: 28 Nov 91 (02:10) Subject: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Bell Canada says it "intends to file, before the end of the year, a tariff for the provision of an alternate number option (i.e. where the calling number is replaced by a fictitious number assigned to the calling party). The Company will also propose that this option be made available at a reduced rate to customers who subscribe at a reduced rate and to customers who subscribe to non-published number service." This comes from a Bell Canada letter to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission dated November 26 about its proposal to offer Caller-ID to Centrex customers. If you would like to receive a copy of Bell's application to offer the "alternate number" option when it is filed, contact: Mr. Peter J. Knowlton General Counsel, Ottawa-Hull Bell Canada 105 Hotel-de-Ville Street, 6th Floor Hull, Quebec Canada J8X 4H7 telephone (819) 773-5805 fax (819) 778-3437 You can write to the same address if you would like more information about any other Bell Canada regulatory initiative. Canada Remote Systems. Toronto, Ontario NorthAmeriNet Host ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 15:23:28 -0500 (EST) From: Brendan Gallagher Hoar Subject: Yet Another High Speed Modems Posting I'm in the market for a high speed EC/DC 9600 baud modem ... I've found an Okidata 9600 v.32/v.42bis modem for $269.99 plus shipping, but the source is the Damark catalog of all places and I feel odd ordering technology items from them. Its got the AT command set (this is good!) :) Its factory new and has a manufacturer's warranty. Is this a good price? Can I get a similar modem for about the same or less from other outfits? And what's this I hear about v.32bis? Can I get a modem equipped with that, (whatever it is!) for a comparable price? I guess I kind of need info on this. BTW, I can't afford an HST Dual Standard. I wish I could though. Please reply via email as I do not read this group. Thanks. Brendan G. Hoar Until purged: bh1e+@andrew.cmu.edu 1641 Mt. Eagle Pl. Ferrets Unite!: badbunny@gnh-starport.cts.com Alexandria, VA 22302 (703) 998-5687 (8657/8032 if needed) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 11:36:46 PST From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Answering Machines For Hearing Impaired (was "Rolm devises...") Greetings. I couldn't help but chuckle over the item where Rolm makes a big deal about their "new" system to use voicemail for recording TDD devices (keyboard/display units for the hearing impaired). Just in case Rolm tries to file a patent on this topic, let me get it on the record that there is plenty of prior art in this area. I've built simple interfaces for ordinary answering machines for hearing impaired friends with TDDs -- and they work just fine. Since TDDs operate at quite low speeds using simple modulation techniques, most modern answering machines are quite capable of recording their tones accurately. All that is needed is a simple audio interface (even acoustic coupling will work in many cases). You can even put a TDD outgoing message on the machine (usually after a voice message if the line is also used for voice calls) if you wish. Whether or not a standard voicemail system will work for this depends largely on the quality of the digitized messages, but in practice most should work just fine. You should be able to just place the handset into the TDD and recover messages directly in most cases. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Subject: MCI Friends and Family: How Bad Does it Get? Date: 27 Nov 91 20:41:45 GMT Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon Aw heck. My mother, without asking me first, gave my unlisted home phone number to MCI as part of a Friends and Family solicitation, and I got my first dinner-time junk phone call since I went unlisted. The solicitor was unusually rude. Is MCI now going to distribute my number on marketing lists? What do I have to look forward to -- is it time to get a new unlisted number (and not give it to my mother)? Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) ------------------------------ From: syd@dsinc.dsi.com (Syd Weinstein) Subject: Pacbell Voicemail - This is Progress? Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 16:30:23 EST Reply-To: syd@DSI.COM Ok, I just called someone's home number in PacBell land, and after several rings, it hit the 'Pacific Bell Voice Messaging System' ... It said: "Please enter the phone number of the person you are calling, followed by the pound key"... Great, an answering machine that makes you type the phone number over again? This is progress? After I entered the phone number, I then got the 'answering machine message' for the people I called and left a message. Something's not working right here, it sound like ... Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator - Current 2.3PL11 Datacomp Systems, Inc. Projected 2.4 Release: Early 1992 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd Voice: (215) 947-9900, FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 08:48:40 CST From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article bitsko!ken@uunet.uu.net writes: > In article , HOEQUIST@BNR.CA (C.A.) > writes: >>> It seems that whenever someone pauses the next couple of words >>> are lost. >> Every voicemail system I've come across has some algorithm for editing >> out silences over a certain duration. > To anyone building a better mousetrap, how about using a 1/4 second > buffer so that by the time you've figured out that something is going > on the important stuff is still there. If PAT will permit a borderline commercial message ... AT&T offers the AUDIX system (I can't find a Trademark on my Quick Guide!) off of both PBXs and COs -- lots of features, etc., but most importantly, the recording quality is very good, with any DETECTABLE cut-off of words. I don't know if it has the additional capabilities a LEC might need to convert it to a PUBLIC Voice Mail System, but it is excellent as a PRIVATE one. I ran a few brief tests from my office ISDN set (background noise is just the early-morning low-level office noise -- I shielded the microphone as much as possible). Speaking quietly and quickly, I spoke single numbers spaced at 8 - 12 seconds apart. The "eight" seemed to be the worst quality, but obviously an "eight" if I was expecting a number. By using a couple of other capabilities, even the 8 was unambiguous. Using the "4" button a couple of times raised the volume to the point where the "breathlessness" of the 8 sound was not a problem. Then I used the "8" button a couple of times to digitally "slow down" the playback -- I think it just changes the D/A conversion timebase. With these two controls, the 8 sound was not a problem to understand. Again, there was no DETECTABLE cut-off of these sounds. Since this isn't an ad, I won't put down any contact numbers. But I am a very satisfied AUDIX user, who reluctantly gave up a private answering machine two years ago. AUDIX is much better, although it is not as convenient as a private secretary. Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL ------------------------------ From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) Subject: Re: USWest Voice Mail Problems Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 22:00:52 GMT Organization: Gizmonic Institute -- Cleaning-Up-After-Frank Division asuvax!anasaz!bobm@handies.UCAR.EDU (Bob Maccione) writes: [About his voice mailbox clipping words from incoming messages.] Just so nobody thinks that this is a problem with *all* USWest voice messaging, I'm subscribed to the service in Albuquerque, NM (884 exchange) and don't have this problem. About one out of every dozen messages I get has compressed "silence" in it and I've never noticed any clipping. I agree with the other folks who say that your CO's voicemail system is just poorly tuned or poorly designed. I used to have a "real" answering machine, but they don't do much good when you spend as much time on the modem as I do; I like the service because it shunts calls off to the voicemail system instead of giving a busy signal. It's definitely cheaper than the alternative -- paying for another line to go to my apartment. Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 22:18 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? On Nov 26 at 21:29, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Re 'good old fashioned punishment' ... obviously > this is the best solution. He should slap the fire out of those kids > every time they even look at the phone. That'll teach them! :) PAT] My parents used a slightly different approach. I was educated early on that phone calls cost money. At the tender age of four I had been instructed on the use of the phone. When my "learn by doing kicked in" and I passed the time calling all the numbers in my mother's address book, the foot came down. This was fine until I was about twelve years of age, when a new problem surfaced: my insatiable desire to connect gadgets and goodies to the telephone line. My parents' solution was, shall we say, unusual. I was forbidden to touch the family telephone, its lines, instruments, or any thing associated with it. I was, however, given the opportunity to order my own service. This I did. My parents cosigned, but I was 100% responsible for paying the bill. I could then use the phone all I liked, but with the knowledge that the bill would show up with my name on it. I could attach any and all devices to the line, but if there was any trouble with "the phone company", the family telephone would be saved from disconnection. This "special status" (not being able to use the family telephone) did not apply to my siblings; only to me. But then, they were much more conventional in their relationship with the telephone. And an advantage was that when it became time for me to get my own service at my own address, I had ABSOLUTELY no problem getting Pacific Telephone to give me all the service I wanted without any deposit. I am of the firm opinion that giving someone the responsibilty for something is the best incentive for growth. If kids make expensive calls, let them pay. Sure, my parents were legally responsible for my phone line, but it was never looked at that way. They made sure that *I* was responsible. Until I had a checking account, I even had to take the bill and the cash to the Pacific Telephone payment office. So rather than putting blocking devices on the phone, make the phone freely available. Get another phone and make it available. And then show them what a bill is. The sooner people understand how life works, the better. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: joes@techbook.com (Joe Stein) Subject: Re: Can You Block Outgoing Calls? Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 06:18:06 GMT > [Moderator's Note: In my original response posting, I think I > overlooked the fact that he is dealing with residential rather than > business service. In fact, all the applications I've ever seen or > heard about where esoteric forms of restrictions were on the line were > invariably in business situations. Thanks for the correction. PAT] When I originally had my telephone line installed, I had "Total Toll Restriction". This cost me $3.50 per month (I live in Beaverton Oregon and have General Telephone Enemies Northwest for carriers). It blocked all 1+ and 0+ calls. They also offered several other "Toll Restriction" blocks for the same $3.50 per month. Joseph W. Stein - Just another Beavertonian strutting his stuff. +1 503 643 0545 joes@techbook.com -or- joe@m2xenix.psg.com My opinion is that I have no opinion but my own ... So there! ------------------------------ From: cmw1725@tamsun.tamu.edu (Christopher Walton) Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars Date: 27 Nov 91 19:04:25 GMT Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station In article simona@panix.com (Simona Nass) writes: > At least here in New York it is. I just got a notice from NYTel that > AT&T would no longer be able to use customers' home phone number as > part of their calling card. NYTel offered to allow customers ("How > many plastic cards would you like?") to keep the same number (home > phone) and PIN from their AT&T card, but with it under NYTel's > jurisdiction. Yes, this is quite funny. I recently got a card, that I did NOT ask for from the local GTE folks, and it just so happened that the number on it was the EXACT same number as my AT&T card. I gave no one permission to solicit my AT&T information to GTE, and I did not order any GTE card. One can see a risk in this, since someone could have stolen it from my mail, and I would not even have known it, since I was not expecting it, and in using it, it would have most likely been billed to AT&T. My question is, is this common practice? I never have liked GTE, for the cheap service they offer. (Cheap not meaning not-expensive!) For a further example of garbage for service, when you order call waiting as a "custom calling feature" you also have to order cancel call waiting if you want to be able to turn it off. You are being charged TWICE, for something I think goes hand in hand. cmw1725@tamsun.tamu.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #976 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18830; 28 Nov 91 19:28 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13322 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 17:53:29 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03802 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 17:53:19 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 17:53:19 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111282353.AA03802@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #977 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Nov 91 17:53:16 CST Volume 11 : Issue 977 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Anthony E. Siegman) Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Tom Olin) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood; News From Congress (Ron Greenberg) Re: Telemarketer Gall (Mikel Manitius) Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. (Guy R. Berentsen) Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. (Ed Hopper) Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions (Dennis G. Rears) Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions (Andy Sherman) Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, OR (Peter Marshall) Re: US West Customers Can Start Service Themselves (Peter Marshall) Re: Sprint "QuickConference" Three-Way Call (Dave Levenson) Multiway Calling (Mikel Manitius) Re: Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One (Tim Gorman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 09:13:08 PST From: Anthony E. Siegman From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone Organization: Stanford University Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 17:13:06 GMT >> As a side note: Here in Germany any unsolicited calls on phone, fax >> or telex are considered unfair trade practice and illegal, unless the >> caller and called party already have some business relations. > Do you really want to have your own life as restricted as German > citizens seem to accept? Yes, in this particular instance I very much DO; and I hope the majority of my fellow citizens will agree with me, and democratically impose suitable (and fairly stringent) restrictions on telemarketing. Junk mail is fine -- serves a socially useful purpose AND doesn't do me personal damage. Junk phone also serves a socially useful purpose -- I assume; otherwise it wouldn't continue -- BUT it does me significant damage also, AND the socially useful purposes could be ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 11:27:48 EST From: adiron!tro@uunet.UU.NET (Tom Olin) Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone In article Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com implies that German laws regulating telemarketers should be discounted because Germany has many laws that most Americans would consider restrictive. He concludes by asking: Do you really want to have your own life as restricted as German citizens seem to accept? Mr. Greenberg, I presume Germany has laws against murder, too. Would you argue that we should oppose similar laws here in the US? Argue the merits of any particular law, if you want to, but don't assign guilt by association, be it of laws or of people. Tom Olin tro@partech.com uunet!adiron!tro (315) 738-0600 Ext 638 PAR Technology Corporation * 220 Seneca Turnpike * New Hartford NY 13413-1191 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 16:05:18 -0500 From: rig@eng.umd.edu (Ronald Greenberg) Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood; News From Congress Organization: University of Maryland, College Park, College of Engineering >> [Moderator's Note: You are confusing telemarketers with survey takers. >> There is a difference. Don't paint them with the same brush. Survey >> takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT (really, not!) >> selling anything. And many of them do provide a valuable service. PAT] > PAT has a point. I worked for a subcontractor to Gallop when I was in > college. I remember going house-to-house, many times in the toughest > areas (either due to 'local conditions' or remoteness) to get the > opinions of the residents. Though we were occassionally commissioned > to do market research, I was usually assigned to political surveys and > I can assure you the questions were not slanted in the slightest -- at > least on the surveys I was assigned to. > Point: these surveys gave people a chance to have their opinions heard > and due to statistical sampling, actually amplified. And as PAT said, > my biggest problem was convincing the folks I wouldn't sell them > anything. I just wanted to hear what they had to say. Well, *sometimes* the survey takers can be doing something useful, but often they are as much of a nuisance as telemarketers. If they are doing market research, it is usually benefits their company much more than me. What is really annoying is when you get suckered into saying ok, you'll do the survey and then it's long and the person doing the survey is incompetent. I once got somebody who couldn't read all the words in her script and who read me things that were instructions to her instead of just the questions she was supposed to ask me. > From the Nightline program a couple weeks ago, it sounded like Congress was supposed to act soon on a few bills relating to telemarketing. I didn't have time to call congressmen to find out what was going on, and I haven't heard what happened. Does anybody have any news? Hopefully, after Congress goes back in session, I'll have a chance to make some phone calls. Ronald I. Greenberg (Ron) rig@eng.umd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 11:31:52 EST From: mikel@aaahq05.aaa.com (Mikel Manitius) Subject: Re: Telemarketer Gall Organization: American Automobile Association, Heathrow, FL Ha! The best part is when they don't even know you're already their customer! I received a call from the "Orlando Slantinel" that went like this: TM: Hello? Mr. Man?@#%??s? ME: (great, a telemarketer) sigh, yes? TM: This is (jane) from the Orlando Sentinel, we would like to know if you are currently subscribing to the Sentinel. ME: What? You mean you don't know? TM: Well, uh, no. ME: You mean I've been paying for a subscription for over two years, and you don't even know I'm a customer of yours? TM: Well ... no. ME: I think I'm going to cancel my subscription! ... Mikel Manitius mikel@aaa.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 17:35:30 EST From: guy@ihlpw.att.com (Guy R Berentsen) Subject: Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > Now obviously, anyone with 1-800-EAT-S*** or ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ At one time dialing this number connected to a recording soliciting calls for 1-900-EAT-S*** . (I had dialed the 800 number on the assumption that it couldn't possibly be in service, and a friend had just handed me that bumper sticker line, "If you don't like my driving dial ...." ) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. From: ED.HOPPER@ehbbs.hou.tx.us (ED HOPPER) Date: 28 Nov 91 10:01:26 GMT Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575 In article, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: > Now obviously, anyone with 1-800-EAT-S*** or 1-800-F***-YOU would > figure out quickly what was going on (those are always the first > numbers they tried), and I doubt that the phone company would give out > a number with 7448 or 3825. Ah ... not so. Some years ago, while working for the late Mountain Bell, I received a phone call from a local radio station. They wanted a new "info" number. It would go to answering machine with concert information, etc. Did they want a number like XXX-[call letters]?, I asked. No, a regular old number would be fine. Now since I was in marketing and not the business office, I did not have a list of phone numbers from which to assign new connects. So, I called Dial Assignment and asked for a number. They gave me XXX-3825. I called the station and told them the number. They called back a few minutes later and said "We can't take that number, do you know what it spells?" I stared at the phone touch pad for a moment and figured it out. "Ohmigod, I understand. I'll change it" was my reply. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 08:43:37 EST From: drears@pilot.njin.net (Dennis G. Rears) Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions andys@ulysses.att.com writes: > It pains me to see a proposal to defraud my employer (and reduce *my* > compensation, a piece of which depends on profits) coming from a > military site. I did not contribute to this subject at all and agree with your viewpoint. I do object to the phrase "coming from a military site." It is common knowledge that the default is posters do not represent the views of their employers. Why should folks posting from a .mil or .gov site be treated any differently? I have accounts on and can post from a military, educational, or commercial site. Do I have to limit my posting because of the site I post from? > I can only imagine what your employer would say if my > colleagues and I started publically speculating on ways to cheat on > one taxes. I really don't think they give a damn, unless some form of the media were to sensationalize it. Personally, with the way Congress and the President have mismanaged the federal government's fiscal resources, I don't think there is morally anything wrong with cheating on one's taxes. Disclaimer: I can't cheat on my taxes as I have never itemized. Dennis ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings: Comments and Questions Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 11:36:51 EST In a discussion of whether intercept tones on answering machines could defeat answer supervision, I wrote: >> It pains me to see a proposal to defraud my employer (and reduce *my* >> compensation, a piece of which depends on profits) coming from a >> military site. To which Dennis G. Rears (a/k/a TelecomPriv Moderator) replied in part: > I did not contribute to this subject at all and agree with your > viewpoint. I do object to the phrase "coming from a military site." > It is common knowledge that the default is posters do not represent the > views of their employers. Why should folks posting from a .mil or .gov > site be treated any differently? I have accounts on and can post from > a military, educational, or commercial site. Do I have to limit my > posting because of the site I post from? Mea Culpa. You are correct. In my defense I will say that, not being a civil servant basher, that I would hope that people who work for the government have high standards of probity. Alas, as in the private sector, it takes all kinds and you find all kinds represented. Incidentally, the original poster claims to have been misunderstood. 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: Tue, 26 Nov 91 11:11:53 PDT From: rocque@lorbit.UUCP (peter marshall) Subject: Re: Pending "Modem Tax" in Portland, OR Tad Cook's 10/20 reply post on this topic in issue 850 is correct in pointing out some inaccuracies about this situation in an earlier post by Andrew Klossner; however, Tad's reply is no shining example of accuracy itself. Given US West statements that BBSs are businesses, period, and thus subject to business rate classification, notwith- standing the absence of OR tariff language that can reasonably be so construed; this is not, as Mr. Cook tries to suggest, "one particular incident in Portland." In fact, the sysop PUC complaint in question here asks the PUC to clarify the applicability of residential rates re: OR telcos for all BBSs located in residences that do not charge users. Notwithstanding the possibility that this sysop is, as Tad suggests, "spreading a lot of misinformation," that is not all that counts here, even as Mr. Cook seems to indulge in some "misinformation" himself. One example of same might be Mr. Cook's less than relevant attempt to haul out that tired old chestnut as to residential service priced below cost and "subsidized" by the higher business rates. Peter Marshall (rocque@lorbit.uucp) "Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly Casino: 206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 10:57:14 PDT From: rocque@lorbit.UUCP (peter marshall) Subject: Re: US West Customers Can Start Service Themselves Re: a 10/24 query on this topic in issue 848; Randy's information seems correct. Automated service ordering is being tested, if not now actually in place, in Bellingham, WA, via US West's so-called "Bellingham Project," headed by an Executive Director of "Technology Assessment." So much for customer service representatives, it would seem. Of course, this is apparently not all this project is up to. Peter Marshall (rocque@lorbit.uucp) "Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly Casino: 206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington. ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.WESTMARK.COM (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Sprint "QuickConference" Three-Way Call Date: 27 Nov 91 13:04:15 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) writes: > My parents (in Texas), my brother (in New York), and I (in > California) have been trying to coordinate holiday travel plans. > Rather than make a near-infinite chain of calls between us, I decided > to set up a three-way. > ... Sprint now offers "QuickConference" (sm) ... > This is one (all too rare!) example of an OCC offering a useful > service that AT&T doesn't. (AT&T charges person-to-person rates for > three-way calls, resulting in over four times the surcharge.) > [Moderator's Note: But if your phone has three-way calling... Your phone almost certainly doesn't have three-way calling, unless you pay for it -- every month. The nice thing about Sprint QuickConference is that you don't have to pay every month for three-way calling if you only use it now and then. A pay-per-call rate for a seldom-used feature would seem like an excellent idea. Way-to-go, Sprint! (Just watch out, on normal two-party calls via Sprint, for end-to-end DTMF signals. It sounds as though a long * on the conversation could be interpreted by their switching systems as a flash request.) Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 18:23:36 EST From: mikel@aaahq05.aaa.com (Mikel Manitius) Subject: Multiway Calling In response to recent postings regarding three way calling: A little known service is AT&T's Alliance Teleconferencing. The number is 0 + 700 456-1000. It's all touch-tone so you don't have to talk to anyone, and you can get up to 20 or so people together without having to schedule a conference call and wait. I don't know the exact rates, but I've used it on a few occasions and found that it wasn't much more expensive than the sum of the calls. Mikel Manitius mikel@aaa.com ------------------------------ Date: 27 Nov 91 12:26:12 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #971: > While it's true that some tiny teeny amount of the telco's cost is > related to local USAGE, it probably costs them more to measure it than > the usage itself costs. > The cost of hauling a LOCAL call usually ranges from about a penny a > minute (in the highest-cost places) down to a small fraction of a mil > per minute. So the proposed rates are literally ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE > higher than the costs! Exactly the same equipment, facilities, etc. are used on toll calls, both intraLATA and interLATA. Technically, there is no difference between the costs for an interLATA carrier and an LEC to provide their network switches. Facility milage, of course, has a much wider range but many interLATA toll calls are no longer than intraLATA toll calls. Would you thus apply the same logic to toll calls? Is it a ripoff that they are priced based on usage? Tim Gorman - SWBT * opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #977 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21050; 28 Nov 91 21:19 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21043 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 19:44:21 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14707 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 19:44:12 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 19:44:12 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111290144.AA14707@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #978 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Nov 91 19:44:10 CST Volume 11 : Issue 978 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Gregory G. Woodbury) Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service (Randal L. Schwartz) Re: Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong (Eric Florack) Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Nigel Allen) Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Charles McGuinness) Re: The March of Progress (Chris Arndt) Re: The March of Progress (Jack Decker) Re: Dial Tone After Hangup (Dave Levenson) Re: Cost of Area Code Split (Stan Krieger) Re: Why Can't I Hang Up On Them (David G. Lewis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wolves!ggw@duke.cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 20:19:40 EST Organization: Wolves Den UNIX In article is written: >> Another possibility is that this may have been a bulletin board set >> up by the Secret Service for a sting operation. Such a bulletin board >> was established for an undercover investigation involving pedophiles. > I think that's an admirable goal ... investigating pedophiles. Just wait until they accuse you of running a pedophile organization with the Digest simply being a "front" to cover up the addresses and databases you have to keep track of your "stable" of little kids that you share with some of the folk via the "digest" mails. It is true enough that Usenet news is a "public forum" and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy to anyone who thinks about how news works. Unfortunately, we all know how little the "average" person knows about how anything is delivered to their consumption. The first paragraph is *intended* to be somewhat humorous, but unfort- unatly it could end up being real! Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...duke!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@duke.cs.duke.edu [Moderator's Note: Well ... (pained look on face) ... somehow I don't think your scenario is realistic. I guess we could paraphrase Martin Neimoeller here: first they came for the Usenet people, and I didn't complain because a lot of them were nuts anyway ... :) then they came for the sysadmins, and since I don't have root privileges anywhere, I wasn't too concerned. And then .... and then you would probably add, they came for the Moderators ... maybe you're right. I guess that would be a real test of my intellectual honesty, eh? PAT] ------------------------------ From: merlyn@iWarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service Reply-To: merlyn@iWarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 18:23:12 GMT In article , telecom (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > Since the Internet is a government-owned and managed resource in > cooperation with numerous publicly funded institutions and others, it > is fair game for anyone who wishes to 'monitor' its traffic, provided > that traffic is intended for public consumption and display, as are > the various e-journals and newsgroups. Please stop equating "the Internet" with "the NSFNET backbone". There are other major players in the US, not to mention the international Internet. My packets out of this machine travel along the Alternet, which is a member of CIX, a consortium of US IP-traffic providers that receive *no* support from the government bodies. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 05:59:07 PST From: Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com Subject: Re: Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong Reply-To: Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com > 1) Anything public is fair game for covert surveillance. Huh? Come again? How can ANYTHING that is already publicly observed be also covertly observed? Somehow this doesn't compute. Seems to me you are bending the definition structure when you come up with statements such as this. > Further, anybody with even a high school civics knowledge of covert > surveillance in the US understands the distinction between legitimate > participation in a public event and participating in that event for > the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and storing information on > law-abiding citizens. Insulting, to say the least. I certainly have such education, and think the ruling to which you refer was issued from below the belt. (I'll give you a second to think about that one. Hint: Think Chili) > The basis of a democratic society rests on the ability of citizens > to openly discuss competing ideas, challenge political power and > assemble freely with others. These fundamental First Amendment rights > are subverted when, through neglect, the state fails to protect > them. How is monitoring someone, stopping their activity in ANY way? Logic dictates that if it DID stop someone from pursuit of their political goals, and that if, as you surmise, such monitoring was to catch people engaging in such activity, that such monitoring would be counter-productive, from the point of view of the people doing the monitoring ... they'd NEVER get any information, because nobody would be able to DO anything. > We shouldn't have to worry about whether what we say pleases law > enforcement lest we become entries in some database of undesireables. I don't flatter myself with the illusion that the government could be worried about ANYTHING I might say. And, God knows, writing a computer column, running a couple BBS's which contain 'slam dance' debates, and being in broadcasting for 15 years before starting at Xerox I've said enough to get my buns in the cooker by now. You'll notice, however, if you check out the address line this is not being sent from any jail ... > Finally, few people disagree with the claim that computer crime is > wrong. But, because a given behavior is wrong hardly justifies carte > blanche to investigate that behavior. I stand on the street corner, and publicly brag that I've killed several people. The cops would investigate this, no? Why should they NOT investigate statements of criminal activity or indications thereof, when such statements are made in a public electronic forum? Sorry, I don't see the difference between these. I find it intreresting, as an aside, that those who are so convinced that the rule of law should prevail, are also so interested in castrating the agencies entrusted to enforce that law. Standard disclaimers about my employer's opinions perhaps not matching my own apply, of course. [Moderator's Note: The thread is digressing too far from telecom to continue here, but thanks to everyone who has written. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 03:37:32 -0500 From: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto Gary L. Russel quotes {The Wall Street Journal}, 11/20/1990 > Amid the plains of Nevada, Iowa, Dun & Bradstreet Corp. workers sit > copying telephone listings into a computer. It may not be the world's > most glamorous work, but it's the foundation of a $200 million > business that sells lists of consumers to marketing companies. A list prepared from printed phone books will be out of date by a few months, and will also be missing apartment numbers, so that many of the addresses in downtown areas will be incomplete. Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc., Bell Canada's directory subsidiary, will happily rent you lists taken directly from the directory database. Several BOCs in the U.S., or their directory affiliates, also rent out their name lists to direct mail companies. For more details on the types of mailing lists direct marketing companies can rent, you can look through the monthly directory of mailing lists (its exact name escapes me) published by Standard Rate & Data Service. A local library may have a copy. Direct mail companies might be particularly interested in people who have subscribed for telephone service within the past month or two, because that usually indicates that someone has just moved, and may be interested in buying new household goods. I get a lot of direct mail, and I can often identify which mailing list a particular company is using. {Telephony} magazine rents out its mailing list more often than {Telecommunications} magazine, for example. And it seems that the only direct mail I receive that I can trace to Tele-Direct comes from American Express, which tries to persuade me that I need one of their cards. Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: Charles McGuinness Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 13:40:37 EST In TELECOM Digest V11 #972, Peng H.Ang comments about the Supreme Court ruling that phone books cannot be copyrighted: > Right away, it seems that bibliographies would not be protected. > Neither would databases that merely reproduce such compilations. Nor > would databases that reproduce articles be protected. Perhaps more of the Supreme court opinion would be useful: "Factual compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite originality. The compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers." "This protection is subject to an important limitation. The mere fact that a work is copyrighted does not mean every element of the work may be protected. ... accordingly, copyright protection may extend only to those components of a work that are original to the author." I would guess that bibliographies would be protected, as the author has had to exert some creativity in choosing what books to include in the list. I would guess that databases of articles could not claim any rights to the articles within. I would also guess that I am not a lawyer. ;-) ------------------------------ From: carndt@nike.calpoly.edu (Chris Arndt) Subject: Re: The March of Progress Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 6:51:10 PST In the 1991 American Radio Relay League Handbook, in a section on telephone interfacing, it indicates the following (paraphrased): FCC Rules Part 68 cover Customer Provided Telephone Equipment. One of the technical parameters is 'billing protection'. Billing protection is a two second delay after the answering device seizes the line, before the phone company begins to bill the call. NO SIGNAL greater than -55 dbm may be sent during that two second period. If someone has access to part 68, this is in subpart D. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 20:23:02 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: The March of Progress In a message dated 19 Nov 91 08:06:00 GMT, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes (regarding the past practice of delaying the start of billing for two to five seconds after the actual start of a call): > This was a technical limitation in the old mechanical (including > crossbar) switches. It took up to several seconds for such equipment > to recognize supervision from the far end and as such would take that > long to start the billing record. This was not done as a courtesy or > to provide a "grace period". It was merely a technical limitation. Not always. I met my wife when we were both working for General Telephone of Michigan (in my case it was a brief and very unsatisfactory term of employment, but that's another story) and she was a toll operator. This was in 1975 and they still had the old-style corded toll boards (long after the surrounding Bell areas had gone to TSPS) and still used the old style mechanical clocks with a handle on each side and (supposedly) computer-readable cards to manually time calls (the OPERATOR had to do the calculations and then fill in the proper spaces on the card with dark pencil) ... but I digress. Point is, they had to knock off a certain amount of time from each call, which varied depending on whether the call was interstate or intrastate. If I recall correctly, the delay was five seconds for interstate and fifteen seconds for intrastate, so if you placed an operator-assisted call within the state that lasted for two minutes and fifteen seconds, the operator would fill in the box(es) on the card indicating that your call lasted two minutes rather than three minutes. This certainly wasn't a "technical limitation" since it was all done manually! Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.WESTMARK.COM (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Dial Tone After Hangup Date: 27 Nov 91 12:57:04 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , monty@roscom.UUCP (Monty Solomon) writes: > I have recently moved to Framingham, MA and the central office serving > my new location exhibits behavior which I have never experienced > before. > If someone calls me and then hangs up (or gets disconnected) my line > doesn't immediately get a dial tone. The line stays quiet for a while Most modern central office switches do not immediately provide dial tone to the "sole-surviving-conferee" when the other party disconnects. Doing that almost guarantees that a dial tone needs to be provided twice on every call: once at the beginning, before dialing, and once again at the end, as it is unlikely that both parties will disconnect at _exactly_ the same time. This nearly doubles the number of dialed-digit registers required for the switch. Most common-control switches provide silence for 20 - 40 seconds and then dial tone when the far end has hung up. I don't recognize the pattern described here: silence followed by the ROH recording. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 09:00:49 EST From: stank@cbnewsl.att.com Subject: Re: Cost of Area Code Split Organization: Summit NJ > There's another aspect that I haven't seen mentioned, but it came to > my attention when Northern New Jersey split its area code recently: > the cost of printing up NEW business cards, letterheads, etc. And > apparently these costs are fairly substantial. [ Think about it -- you > hardly want to send out correspondence with your old phone number on > it, even during the optional phase -- so fairly quickly, all of this > becomes obsolete]. I wonder if the telcos would be so quick to split area codes if they had to pay the real cost of doing so (and that means buying up unused stationery and repainting business signs and trucks, etc). In addition to all the great new gimmicks the telcos have to create more phone numbers (like "distinctive ringing", where one line can have up to four numbers), NJ Bell is now going on an advertising blitz encouraging businesses to order additional voice and FAX lines. It took them about 80 years to need two area codes for NJ, and another 27 years to split off 908; how long before the next split? Five years, at the rate they're encouraging the creation of new phone numbers? 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: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Why Can't I Hang Up On Them Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 14:28:17 GMT In article Our Beloved Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: If you keep going off hook every five or ten > seconds to see if *they* are gone yet, they won't be. Stay off the > line for 30-45 seconds so the central office can detect the disconnect > and tear it down. PAT] Actually, it's not to allow the CO to detect the disconnect, it's to allow the disconnect timer to timeout. The CO detects the disconnect when it happens, but it doesn't release until 10 seconds (usually) after disconnect. (All together now: "That's not a bug, that's a feature!") David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #978 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22432; 28 Nov 91 22:29 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25998 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 20:54:46 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16842 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 20:54:32 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 20:54:32 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111290254.AA16842@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #979 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Nov 91 20:54:32 CST Volume 11 : Issue 979 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA? (Ethan Miller) Re: Two Cellular Questions (Donald Yett) Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switch (Jay Ashworth) Re: Government Phone Books (Jim Gottlieb) Re: Discount International Calls (Heard on BBC Mediawatch) (Jack Decker) Re: Newest FAX Machine? (Mart Molle) Re: Shared Area Codes (Norman Soley) Re: Capacity Limits of Digit (Tim Gorman) Re: Preparing for ISDN ... How? (Jeff Sicherman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: elm@cs.berkeley.edu (ethan miller) Subject: Re: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA? Date: 27 Nov 91 03:39:19 john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: [Curtis Galloway wants to use 10222 (MCI) to make an intra-LATA call.] > One thing you might look into is any carrier that > offers "950" access. To make a call, you dial a number that looks like > 950-XXXX and when you hear a tone you dial your authorization code and > the number. Since this call is being handled entirely by the carrier's > switch, Pac*Bell cannot block your intraLATA call. There are several > carriers that offer this type of access, two of which are Cable & > Wireless and ComSystems. MCI also offers this type of access. In most cities, the number is 950-1022. If this is unavailable, you can use 1-800-950-1022. You still get hit with high charges for the first minute, though (at least on MCI). If your calls lasts for several minutes, you'll make up that high charge by lower per-minute rates. ethan miller--cs grad student elm@cs.berkeley.edu #include ------------------------------ From: dyett@phad.hsc.usc.edu (Donald Yett) Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions Date: 27 Nov 91 04:34:07 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA In article kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: > 72446.461@CompuServe.COM (Alan Boritz) writes: >> In a message , Michael Lyman writes: >>> When the phone is just sitting there, it tends to transmit for about >>> one or two seconds every hour or so. >> Doesn't this kind of polling activity present a significant RFR risk >> for someone using, for example, a Motorola flip-phone? It's bad >> enough to have a live transmitting antenna close to one's internal >> organs when a call comes in (from another customer), but regular >> transmissions would appear to be an unusually high health risk. > Please define "unusually high" ... insofar as the effects of a few > milliwatts of RF near the body once per hour are entirely unknown, but > likely less than the effect of wearing a several-watt radio and using > it regularly (as do police, for example). Long microwaves are the most damaging frequencies, the necessary wattage for tissue damage is much less in the 800-2400 MHz range than in most any other ... Police HTs normally operate under 200 MHz. Low level emissions from microvave ovens (usually around 2400 MHz) have been linked to psychological problems, birth-defects, and cancer. You ought to see the information about people who live in proximity to military bases, where you have usually a large concentration of long- microwave low-level emissions! Check a good university for books on the subject (few and far between). Most of the above info came from newpapers, magazines, etc in bits and pieces. dyett@phad.hsc.usc.edu Just my opinions! ------------------------------ From: jra@psycho.fidonet.org (Jay Ashworth) Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 11:27:00 PDT Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida > [Moderator's Note: I suspect I would have outlasted that incident at > the least when I explained that my intent was only in one thing: to > stop the theft of telco resources, and that since the subscriber would > not agree to curtail his theft of resources he would need to be placed > in an environment (ie on a prefix) where such theft could be > controlled by the company. PAT] At this point, I feel the need to drop in my two cents. I'm curious, Pat, why it is that -- being a professional in this field, and, therefore, aware that tone dialing _saves_ resources and money for the LEC _at this point in the game_ (regardless of how things were when the service was introduced) -- you take this outlook. Granted, given your phrasing of the question: "...theft of resources ...", things are kind of fuzzy. 1) Is the customer _actually_ stealing resources? Nowadays, not really. The days of tone-call registers existing, much less being a scarce resource, are, likely, mostly over. Yeah, some exchanges still need them. Many? I doubt it. 2) Is the customer depriving the LEC of revenue? Yup. 3) Should the LEC _be_ expecting (i.e.: billing for) this revenue? And here, we get to the heart of the matter. It has always been my personal opinion that the charge by LEC's for tone-calling service has been unconscionable for some time now. Of course, with the advent of digital switches, _a lot_ of the things for which LEC's used to be able to justify charging lots of money no longer justify these charges. At least, not by my lights ... Anybody have any comment (enlightened or otherwise) on this aspect of the subject? Cheers, BABBLE v1.0: I'm not a telecom engineer, but I play one on the nets. Jay R. Ashworth jra@pro-scat.cts.com Ashworth & Associates Jay_Ashworth@{psycho.fidonet.org, An Interdisciplinary Consultancy f160.n3603.z1.fidonet.org, in Advanced Technology petexch.relay.net} Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write root. [Modertor's Note: Since 'resources' includes money, then it might be said to deprive telco of money it is by tariff entitled to is theft of resources. And the tariff is all that counts ... not my personal opinion or yours. The changing of tariffs is how we redefine what telco is or is not entitled to. Neither is the effeciency of one method of passing the number over another method the criteria here. If speed in dialing (that is, lessening of the amount of time telco must wait for instructions) is the way we will judge this, then telco should give speed dialing away for free ... indeed, perhaps offer some rebate to subscribers who use it. The time required to punch two digits and the additional millisecond or so required for telco to access its database, interpret our abbreviation and act on it is substantially less than that required to punch eleven digits, is it not? Just because something is mutually convenient to both telco and subscriber does not mean telco's advantage cancels out subscriber's advantage. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) Subject: Re: Government Phone Books Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 09:00:25 GMT > Survey takers have a hard time convincing people they are NOT > (really, not!) selling anything. And to make matters worse, some telesleaze pretend to be taking a survey. The last time I received such a call, it went like this: Sleaze: "Hello, could you spare a few moments to answer a survey concerning water quality in your neighborhood?" Me: "Sure, as long as it's really a survey and you're not trying to sell me anything." Sleaze: "Then, never mind ." Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: or V-Mail: +1 310 551 7702 Fax: 478-3060 Voice: 824-5454 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 20:19:33 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Discount International Calls (Heard on BBC Mediawatch Program) In a message dated 21 Nov 91 14:42:14 GMT, david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) wrote: > Last night on the BBC World service program Mediawatch there was an > item on a company which is offering discounts of between 50% & 80% on > the cost of a call from various countries to the USA. The system works > as follows. The subscriber (who pays a couple of hundred dollars a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > month for the service) rings a number (I think in the USA), lets it ^^^^^ > ring once and hangs up. About 20 seconds later his phone rings and > when he picks it up he has an American dial-tone provided by the > carrier of his choice. This can be used to make multiple calls (using > the # key [pronounced pound by the person describing the service] to > terminate a call and get a fresh dial tone). I have no idea how this > could be made to work -- ANI would not be available internationally > would it? Not likely, BUT at $200 a month they could easily afford to obtain a unique incoming line for each subscriber, couldn't they? Actually, I'd suspect that they might have DID trunks coming into their equipment, and then key the return call based on the last three or four digits of the incoming number dialed. Of course, this would open them up to the possibility of making return calls when someone dials a wrong number, but maybe they have their system set to to NOT make the return call if the line rings MORE than once or twice, which would definitely minimize the number of return calls. If I were running such a system, I'd use DID and try to set it up so that after three rings, it would cut to a very generic and unimaginative "The number you have reached is not in service" recording. If the number was allowed to ring only once or twice, the call back would be made, otherwise the recording would come on (without supervising the line, so the caller would not be charged). This type of scheme would minimize the number of false callbacks. Disclaimer: I have no idea how LEGAL the above scheme might be. I suspect it may be a bit borderline, but on the other hand, it's not much different (from a tariff standpoint) than getting a number of individual lines (rather than DID trunks) from the phone company, listening for one or two rings, and then calling back the subscriber associated with that number. You wouldn't be able to deliver the "out of service" recording with that system, but you wouldn't really need to anyway, that would just be icing on the cake to discourage wrong number calls. I think that the biggest problem that would be encountered by such a service would be collections. If a customer in a foreign country ran up a huge bill and then refused to pay, I suspect it would be pretty difficult to collect, at least not without considerable expense and effort. You'd almost have to make customers put some money in an account and then only allows call to be made up to the amount deposited in the account, unless you could arrange billing to a major credit card (and even credit card billings can be reversed by the customer, so that's somewhat less secure). It sounds like an interesting business idea, though, and I'd love to know how they're actually doing it. Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: mart@csri.toronto.edu (Mart Molle) Subject: Re: Newest FAX Machine? Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 10:03:31 -0500 malcolm@apple.com writes: > And I thought I had seen everything. From the Hammacher Schlemmer > Christmas catalog: >FAX-SENDING ELECTRONIC ADDRESS BOOK [...] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That implies a stored list of names, addresses and >phone numbers<, right? > Type in your message onto the unit's liquid crystal, dot-matrix > display (10 lines x 44 characters) -- then, simply press the "send > fax" button. [... and it does the work using ...] a built-in acoustic > coupler (sends message by simply holding the unit up to the mouth- > piece of almost any Touch-Tone telephone.) ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I'm not sure why it has to be a touch tone phone for it to > acoustically couple ... Isn't it obvious? It's >dialing the phone for you< based on its stored phone numbers, which it can do by sending tones into the mouthpiece of a phone with Touch-Tone service, but you can't get a POTS phone to dial by sending a stream of "click" sounds into the mouthpiece. I bet it would work fine on a non Touch-Tone line if you had good timing: dial the call manually, but just before you dialed the last digit (or two) push the "send fax" button and hope it finishes dialing by the time you do ... Mart L. Molle, University of Toronto ------------------------------ From: soley@trooa.enet.dec.com (Norman Soley) Subject: Re: Shared Area Codes Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Date: 28 NOV 91 10:44:47 In article , colin@array.uucp (Colin Plumb) writes: > Actually, some places are keeping 1+ = toll, and I rather like it. > The recent dialling instructions for the 416/905 split that's underway > direct one to dial: > - In-area, local call: nxx-xxxx > - Other area, local call: 416-nxx-xxxx/905-nxx-xxxx > - Long distance: 1-416-nxx-xxxx/1-905-nxx-xxxx > Unfortunately, both 416-nxx-xxxx and 905-nxx-xxxx to our modem line > produce an intercept. (And it soulds like a tape player with low > batteries -- the speed wanders up and down the scale!) I agree with the > desire for context-free phone numbers ... > Ideally, 00-1-416-736-0900 from any phone in the world would reach our > front desk. To be expected as the 416/905 split is still some time away. There is one situation that 'breaks' the 1+ = toll rule to reach 800 numbers you must prefix with a 1 even though it's a toll free call. Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District Digital Equipment of Canada soley@trooa.enet.dec.com Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Digital Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 91 11:27:29 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Capacity Limits of Digital Switch nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #974: > A question arises, are current-generation switches (5ESS, DMS100, > etc.) non-blocking? Does the TDMA bus that is the main switching > mechanism in a 5ESS actually have one time slot per line? I can't tell you about the TDMA bus, but I can state, based on some research done back in 1989 or so, that under heavy load the 5ESS can block. It is based more on the processing capacity (e.g. lots of call originations and disconnects, lots of short holding time calls) of the peripheral modules than on the switching fabric itself. AT&T may have increased some of these capacities is the ensuing years, so I can't give you any specific figures right now. The DMS100F series of switches, when installed with the junctor-type of switch interconnections, can also block just like any analog switch. Their new type of network is configured differently and I haven't had time to study it. It is supposedly non-blocking. I have not studied their peripheral modules in any detail but I will bet they also have maximum call processing limitation. I have not been in the switch ordering business for quite some time but the 5ESS line modules used to be configurable with different number of "time slot sets" (i.e. paths to the network) based on the concentration ratios needed to handle the traffic. Thus installations in high-density traffic areas would, of course, be configured differently. Perhaps someone else on here has current access to the 5ESS documentation and can give you specific references. Tim Gorman - SWBT * opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 10:36:50 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Preparing for ISDN ... How? Organization: Cal State Long Beach > [Moderator's Shameless Advertising: In about three to four weeks, > Digest reader Fred Goldstein's new book, "ISDN In Perspective", will > be out of the printers. It's published by Addison-Wesley, is > paperback with a price of (I think) $25 or so, and is about 270 pages > long. I think some Digest readers will like it. I'll tell you more > about it once I've read my copy. PAT] Yes, but have you negotiated the TELECOM Digest readers' discount yet? :-) [Moderator's Note: No, I have not, but that sounds like a neat idea. Fred, would you be willing to raise this point with the publisher? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #979 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23653; 28 Nov 91 23:30 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25327 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 21:56:26 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15816 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 21:56:16 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 21:56:16 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111290356.AA15816@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #980 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Nov 91 21:56:14 CST Volume 11 : Issue 980 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Belated, But Sincere: Happy Thanksgiving! (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine (Lauren Weinstein) Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine (Ole J. Jacobsen) Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine (Michael A. Covington) Re: Sprint Voice-Activated Calling Cards (Lauren Weinstein) Re: Long Range Cordless Phones Question (Michael A. Covington) Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses (Randy Bush) Re: What is IMTS? (was Cellular Antennas) (John A. Weeks III) Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! (John Higdon) Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Stephen Friedl) Re: Shared Area Codes (Steven Leikeim) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Belated, But Sincere: Happy Thanksgiving! Date: Thu 28 Nov 1991 21:45:00 CST I probably should have mentioned it six or eight issues ago: Best of wishes to all the TELECOM Digest family on this Thanksgiving Day, 1991. I hope your holiday (if you get four days off like me this time!) is safe and pleasant. Patrick Townson TELECOM Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 11:58:22 PST From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine Greetings. This is almost certainly caused by calls that rang long enough to trigger the machine, but then were abandoned by the caller just before the machine grabbed the line. The result is that the machine ends up with dial tone, and continues its sequence until timeout, CO loop voltage drop (often part of the dial tone timeout sequence on modern switches), or other call termination trigger. With older answering machines and older COs (DMS-10s configured without CPC controls were particularly notorious if used with some answering machines), this sort of thing could be a real problem. You might come home to find a whole message tape filled with fast busy signals or various other tones. Luckily, newer equipment is much less likely to have this sort of problem. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 14:03:35 PST From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine My answering machine also often records dial tone, reorder, etc. I'm afraid that this is "normal" for a fairly simple-minded machine. This happens when a caller hangs up (without leaving a message). If the timing is right, the machine will go off hook, wait for a message, and then start recording dial tone. In fact, my crufty old PhoneMate records dialtone even after a message is left, but is smart enough in that case to recognize the tone, hang up and place the time stamp on the tape. I'm about ready to ditch it and get an ADAM (All Digital Answering Machine), complete with out-call notification, CPC and the works. Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, Phone: (415) 962-2515 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Re: Dial Tones on Answering Machine Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 16:39:01 GMT In article cmw1725@tamsun.tamu.edu (Christopher Walton) writes: > I have had a wierd occurence happen lately, several times. I would > get home and check my answering machine only to hear a click, and then > a dial tone. The dialtone plays for a while until I get the tone that > happens when you have the phone off the hook for too long. > (Fast-reorder ???) Then the phone hangs up and the answering machine > continues. > Does anyone have any idea what this may be??? It has happened several > times. It's what normally happens here when someone calls the answering machine and then hangs up. Maybe the behavior of the switching equipment at your telephone exchange has changed recently. Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | N4TMI Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 11:43:10 PST From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Re: Sprint Voice-Activated Calling Cards Greetings. Oh dandy, just what we need: voice calling cards that are using people's social security numbers as the main part of the number! As if people looking over your shoulder at payphones wasn't bad enough, now you have to worry about people overhearing you while you speak your number. Sprint of course says that won't matter, since "only your voice" will activate the system (I suppose time will tell how accurate that claim is ...) But as usual, there's no addressing of the fact that just having people able to overhear your SS# is a problem, since that number can be subject to largescale abuse due to its constant misuse as an ID or passcode by banks, credit agencies, and other entities. But Sprint has shown a sorry lack of concern over customer privacy in the past, so this isn't very surprising. I'm still arguing with them regarding their system that allows interrogation of account balances using nothing but the ten digit phone number -- no passcodes, no protection, and no way for customers to "opt-out" of the system. To be fair, I've spoken to various Sprint personnel who have been very responsive about discussing this issue, but so far no action (I'll obviously report back here if this changes). I only hope that Sprint doesn't plan to insist on use of SS numbers for their voice calling cards once they pass beyond the experimental stage ... --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Re: Long Range Cordless Phones Question Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 22:09:29 GMT In article a57m@midway.uchicago.edu (miroslaw tadeusz sochanski) writes: > I need to buy for use in Poland a cordless, *not* cellular phone that > has an effective range of about two miles. I was able to find a gray > market store in Chicago that sells phones like that made by MCE or > TAMAGAWA. I am not sure about spelling of that last company name. > Price range was from $250 to $700 for the phone with a range 40km. > Anyone familiar with those phones, brands?? Any advice where and what > to buy?? How are you going to guarantee that nobody within 40 km of you is using another "telephone" on the same frequency? Or, indeed, that the frequency isn't used by police, the military, aircraft, ships, or something else in Poland? Cordless phones are radio transmitters. International treaties require radio transmitters to be licensed. There are exceptions for very low power transmitters, but you can be sure that anything with 40 km range will attract the attention of the authorities not only in Poland, but also in neighboring countries. You _must_ use something properly licensed by the government of your country. Anyhow, for good technical reasons, long-range unlicensed transmitters are not practical. There is simply no way to keep the frequency clear for your own use unless the frequencies are government-assigned. Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | N4TMI Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 ------------------------------ From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) Subject: Re: US West: BBSs are Businesses Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon, US Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 18:45:50 GMT > Randy Bush's oft-repeated boilerplate comments in various forums about > this situation miss the mark by deliberately ignoring the purported > policy statements on BBSs re: res.-bus. classification made publically > by two US West personnel. And Peter's endless repition of the usual "Telco Attacks BBSs" paranoia continues to miss the fact that US West said this AFTER Wagner and Morgel tried their ripoff and failed. > To make matters worse, Mr. Bush again makes a number of other > statements with little or nothing to back them up; e.g., his > again-repeated assertion that this sysop's actions can only make > things worse for Oregon BBSs. Seeing that everything was friendly and hunky-dory BEFORE Wagner and Morgel were caught, and that US West is trying a harder position afterward, your petty ad homina may be cute but they go against the facts. And now, thanks to Wagner's and Morgel's greed, and confrontive inflation of the situation by sensationalists, US West is now forced to try to make a strong stand to define business BBSs, etc. Great. Thanks folk. One can only hope that the hearing (forced by Wagner, Morgel, and the sensationalists) is calm, truthful, and non-confrontational, so we all don't get screwed by a few sensationalist paranoids. randy randy@psg.com ...!uunet!m2xenix!randy ------------------------------ From: newave!john@uunet.uu.net (John A. Weeks III) Subject: Re: What is IMTS? (was Cellular Antennas) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 11:33:46 -0600 Reply-To: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Eden Prairie, MN In article denny@dakota.alisa.com (Bob Denny): > What _is_ IMTS? How does it work (freq's, modulation, multiple access > method, etc.)? IMTS is the mobile car telephone service in use before cell phones were invented. They used something like 13 radio channels in the VHF band. In order to talk and listen at the same time, each channel used a split channel pair, ie, talk on something like 152.xxx megahertz, and listen on 157.xxx megahertz. The big players in this market were Motorola and GE. Both used essentially standard mobile two-way police radio chassis, with the addition of a logic board and a control "head" that included a telephone handset rather than a mike. The actual protocols were kind of fun. The telco end of this used very large base radio stations located at fairly substantial towers. I recall that they were something like 250 watts of power max (where as the mobile units were 25 watts max). An available telco channel would transmit all the time and emit a continious tone. The IMTS user would hear this as a dial tone. The IMTS telephone would scan all channels with this tone listening for its phone number to be dialed. If it heard the right series of pulses, it would "ring" (or beep the vehicle horn). I recall these mobile phones selling for about $1500-$2500 used back in 1980 -- and in some areas, someone literally had to die before a mobile phone number would become available. I bet the bottom dropped out when cell phone became popular, but IMTS has a much greater range than cellular, which is an advantage if you venture outside of a metro area or off of an interstate that is wired for cell phones. John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications, Ltd. ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 15:57 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Making Annoying Calls *To* Telemarketers! mole-end!mat@uunet.uu.net writes: > What about ANSWERING an unsolicited call in that way? If I were to > switch to heavy breathing when I discovered that I had been called by > a stockbroker, or ask about the individual's intimate life, would I be > breaking any laws? My old 800 number used to receive wrong numbers for both a local boat tour company and the Hilton Hotel chain. When I was feeling particularly mean I would answer with either "Thank you for calling Hilton", or with the name of the boat company. More often than not, I would score and some unsuspecting person would book a tour or a room, which of course would be non-existent upon arrival. Somehow, Hilton found out about this and I got a call on my listed POTS from someone proporting to be from the hotel chain. He admonished me to cease and desist on pain of legal action. I told him that I would be happy to stop when he would do something about his customers bothering me and running up my 800 bill. I also told him that he had a lot of nerve telling me what to do with my own telephone number. I ended up by telling him that future callers would be told that Hilton was no longer in business and would be given Sheraton's number. Then I hung up on him. Oddly enough, the calls drastically slowed down after that. However between the tour company and Hilton, I finally had the number changed to protect my peace of mind and things have been quiet ever since. For those few "obscene" calls on any line, I use another approach which seems to work quite well. A couple of weeks ago I got a call from a whisperer who said, "I wanna _____ your _____." To which I replied, "You wanna _____ my _____? Great! When can we get together?" I don't think I ever heard anyone hang up the phone as fast as this caller did! A couple of years ago, my mother had a similar call. To the whispered, "I wanna _____ you," she replied, "Sounds like fun. Where shall we meet?" The caller, no longer whispering, declared, "Lady, you're sick!", and hung up the phone. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: It is not clear to me why you felt Hilton was in some way responsible for the wrong numbers you were getting. Were *they* distributing your number in advertising, etc? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of Date: 27 Nov 91 11:47:29 PST (Wed) From: friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US (Stephen Friedl) > In GTE Los Angeles, either 114 or 1223. > In PACBell San Diego 211-2111. In Pacific*Bell territory in Orange County (the cities of Santa Ana and Tustin, at least) the ANI code is 211-2222. Stephen Friedl | Software Consultant | Tustin, CA | +1 714 544 6561 3b2-kind-of-guy | uunet!mtndew!friedl ------------------------------ From: steven@enel.ucalgary.ca (Steven Leikeim) Subject: Re: Shared Area Codes Organization: ECE Department, U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 20:37:57 GMT In article tedh@cylink.COM (Ted Hadley) writes: > Simple trivia question: > What cities (towns, etc) in the US and Canada are split by differing > area codes? By cities, I mean only that, not metropolitan areas. The > only example I know of is Sunnyvale, CA, which has 415 on the NW edge > and 408 elsewhere. Are there any others? And why would the Bell > Companies do that (i.e., not cut at city boundries)? One simple trivia answer: Lloydminister, Alberta (Saskatchewan) has phones in both area code 403 and 306. In that area it is possible to dial across the provincial border with only seven digits if the phone you are calling in is your local calling area. Outside your local calling area it appears that the area code is required. Dialing into Lloydminister (long distance), it appears that it may be possible to use either area code but I haven't tried this out. Why did they do this? I don't know. I, however, would conjecture that Lloydminister existed as a city on the border before DDD was widely available. As the city is politically divided (provincially) it would appear the the area codes were allocated based on the provincial boundaries. Steven Leikeim University of Calgary Department of Electrical Engineering Internet: steven@enel.ucalgary.ca [Moderator's Note: For years and years we had 'convenience community dialing' throughout the USA in cities which sat on state borders. To accomodate this in the early days of DDD, the Bell System never would assign the same prefixes in two contiguous area codes. Of course, that is a luxury we can no longer afford. Until about 1975, we in northern Illinois had no exchanges overlapping those in the northwest corner of Indiana. Nor did we have 396 since that served North Antioch, WI (414-396), a local call to Antioch, IL (312-395). Oddly, when we got 312-396 in Blue Island, IL, the people in Antioch dialing 396 still got North Antioch, WI. They dialed 1+ for anything else in 312 (including 1+396) outside their town! Likewise, northwestern Indiana dialed Chicago with seven digits, and dialed *the very same prefixes* located in South Bend and Michigan City, IN (also 219) with 1+7D. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #980 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24848; 29 Nov 91 0:25 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12405 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 22:47:06 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07584 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 Nov 1991 22:46:56 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 22:46:56 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111290446.AA07584@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #981 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Nov 91 22:46:56 CST Volume 11 : Issue 981 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman (Donald Yett) Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Jack Decker) Re: Hacker Convicted (John Higdon) Re: Touchtones on Video Tapes? (Michael J. Graven) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dyett@phad.hsc.usc.edu (Donald Yett) Subject: Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman Date: 26 Nov 91 02:31:13 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA In article djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: > John Higdon quoted the Pacific Telesis spot, which ended: >> This advertisement is brought to you by the people of Pacific Telesis >> and is not paid for by telephone customers. > What this means, of course, is that it's being paid for by the > salaries of the people they're laying off. I was in the Dallas/FtWorth area recently, and SW Bell is running an identical radio ad (where they are bashing Rep. Bryant from Dallas) with an identical disclaimer at the end ... The commercial was a load of crap, they want people to believe that they are the only ones capable of providing online information services!!!! I am currently transcribing the bill the ads refer to (H.R.3515, The Telecommunications Act of 1991) to set the record straight as to what the bill says and to ask people to contact their congressman and senators with support for the passage of this bill. Here are the first few pages ... I'll post the rest IN IT'S ENTIREITY later this week when I finish transcribing it ... it will also be available from eff.org for FTP transfer. ----- The following quote is from the SW Bell brochure on the subject: "IT SOUNDS EXCITING The exciting news is that we already have the technology to put these services to work for us through the seven regional holding companies -- Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX, Pacific Telesis Group, Southwestern Bell Corporation, and U.S. West. Some larger businesses in urban areas already use a variety of information services. But, they are not an option for most small businesses and the general public. That's because making the services available to everyone depends on the regional holding companies ..." ------ Information services depend on cables and switching facilities owned and operated by the RBOCs. Having them in the industry is a massive conflict of interest. They want their monopoly back! H.R. 3515 102nd Congress, 1st Session [Page 01 of 35] H.R. 3515 To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to encourage competition in the provision of electronic information services, to foster the continued diversity of information sources and services, to preserve the universal availability of basic telecommunications services, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES October 8, 1991 Mr. Cooper (for himself, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Synar, Mr. Schaefer, and Mr. Bryant) introduced the following bill, which was referred jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and the Judiciary. A BILL To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to encourage competition in the provision of electronic information services, to foster the continued diversity of information sources and services, to preserve the universal availability of basic telecommunications services, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE 4 This Act may be cited as the "Telecommunications 5 Act of 1991". H.R