Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26011; 20 Jan 92 0:40 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02710 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Jan 1992 22:53:40 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01626 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Jan 1992 22:53:18 -0600 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 22:53:18 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201200453.AA01626@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #51 TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 Jan 92 22:53:04 CST Volume 12 : Issue 51 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: PIC's From RBOC Payphones (Eric Florack) Re: PIC's From RBOC Payphones (Tim Gorman) Re: What Did the Operators Know? (John McHarry) Re: What Did the Operators Know? (Terry Kennedy) Re: SWBell vs. Squirrels (Jim Haynes) Re: MCI Card With Voice Features (S.E. Williams) Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (Bob Clements) Re: CCITT Standards and Recommendations (Stephen Friedl) Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (David Marks) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 06:09:49 PST From: Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com Subject: Re: PIC's From RBOC Payphones > [Moderator's Note: Whatever ... all the rules thus far say pay phones > should route long distance calls to AT&T which require coins to be > deposited. Your examples are a little bit silly since 'a call you > expected to cost $0' would still cost $0 since you would probably just > hang up the receiver rather than deposit the $4000. Private phones do > follow the 10xxx instructions given by the caller ... and so do > genuine telco payphones *except for calls requiring coins*. Eventually > that will be dealt with also, I suppose. PAT] Uh huh. And just how fast do you figure that will happen, given that AT&T (and therefore the BOC's) have a vested interest in keeping the current situation alive? I grant you; the solution is not going to be an easy one, in the long term. (The accounting of an equal access payphone would be a nightmare, I should think). But in the short term, at least, the local should be required to inform the user of the payphone, by means of a sign, or an intercept (and not just the AT&T audible logo) that non-AT&T service is unavailible at that pay station. This tangled web, I deem the direct result of allowing AT&T to hold interest in locals. Until that is changed, we have not broken the monopoly. [Moderator's Note: There is very little interest in the local telcos still held by AT&T, if any. There may still remain a few separations to be made, and obviously coin service is one of them. But if you think AT&T *actually wants* coin service, you are mistaken. They don't want that business, as it is the least profitable for them, but the trouble is MCI and Sprint don't want it either! See the next message for more details on this. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 92 09:51:49 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: PIC's From RBOC Payphone Several comments have been made about the RBOC's handling of 1+ coin calls being incorrect and against the intent of equal access. Our esteemed Moderator is correct. The RBOC's are doing exactly what Judge Greene has instructed them to do and are therefore meeting the letter and intent of equal access as defined by the Judge. 1+ coin calls are to be routed to AT&T, no if's, and's, or but's. The one big reason for this is that there ARE people out there who do not have credit cards or even telephones and whose sophistication in the use of the telephone is sadly lacking. All of their calls are made by paying for the call at a coin station. If 1+ were to be routed to a carrier that couldn't handle coin signaling either these people couldn't make any calls or someone would lose money when the coins were automatically returned at the end of a call. Routing the calls to reorder or announcement would also result in people wanting to make coin sent paid calls being unable to do so. It should also be pointed out that, in my company at least, we have offered the carriers the capability of ordering coin signaling since mid-1990. This would allow coin paid 0+ calling. Not one has taken advantage of it. It will soon be a year since we expected the Judge to rule on methods and procedures to eliminate this default routing of 1+ coin to AT&T. I was involved in several meetings with the carriers in late 1990 and they were fighting strenuously against having to handle these calls. I suspect that is one reason the Judge has postponed his ruling so long. It may actually turn out to be a permanent default. Is this against the intent of equal access as it was meant to be (as opposed to how the Judge defines it)? YOU BET IT IS, at least in my opinion. It is a prime example of an artificially allocated market. If 1+ calls were routed to reorder or otherwise blocked from non-AT&T PICed stations, there would certainly soon be a resolution in the market. Either the premise owners would choose another PIC because of customer complaints, the carriers would start providing the service, or nothing at all would happen. This was proposed back in 1990 as part of some of the RBOC plans for eliminating the 1+ coin default and the Justice Dept. would not accept it. Partly because of public service (as discussed above) but also partly because of the tumultuous outcry from the carriers who were scared it would diminish their 0+ revenues. Pat's statement about all calls requiring coins are to be routed to AT&T is not quite accurate. At the time the call is dialed, the payment method cannot be determined for certain. USUALLY 1+ is considered coin paid and 0+ is considered alternate billed. This is not a fixed rule, however. 0+ calls to AT&T or an RBOC can be coin paid. 1+ dialed calls can be alternate billed (especially if you run out of money and want to charge the remainder to a credit card). Tim Gorman - SWBT ------------------------------ From: m21198@mwunix.mitre.org (John McHarry) Subject: Re: What Did the Operators Know? Organization: The MITRE Corporation Date: 17 Jan 92 14:35:47 GMT Toll operators generally had access to a "no test trunk," a type of test trunk (the 'no' was originally "no." for number). This test trunk could bridge the line associated with the number dialed on the trunk and signal the operator if that was, indeed, the line actually connected. All that was necessary to verify the claimed number was to dial it up on the no test trunk. John McHarry (McHarry@MITRE.org) ------------------------------ From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" Subject: Re: What Did the Operators Know? Date: 17 Jan 92 14:52:11 GMT Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article , wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes: > What I'm wondering about is just how much DID the operators know about > the calling number when they asked for it. In general, they knew the exchange the call was coming from, but not the actual number. If they suspected fraud, they usually had some way to check things, although possibly just the ability to verify a busy on the given number. In the system I am most familiar with (Ringwood, NJ - 201-962) the switch was manual (ask the operator for Yorktown xxx - yup, three-digit numbers) through (I believe) 1927. At that point a "community dial" switch was installed (it is similar to a 700-series PBX in technology). Calls within the exchange were dialed as three-digit numbers, while calling "outside" was done via the operator. By the 1960's it had grown to 3000-line capacity (in the 4000, 6000, and 7000 groups). These were the only groups that could be provisioned on the switch, as the switch had been retrofitted many times to enable direct dial to the other local exchanges, which consumed the other digits (only groups that did not match the last digit of an adjacent exchange could be provisioned -- and yes, that does mean that the switch discarded the "96" in 962 and the first digit of adjacent exchanges, using the second digit to determine the trunk group to route on. At that point, you could dial 1 + 7D to make a toll call (yes, this was one of the "1 means toll" systems), or 1 + 10D for a long-distance call. The operator would come on and ask for your number and then release the call. By the time this system was in place, the operators were located in the 831/835/839 exchange and all the information they received was that the call originated from 962. By the mid-70's, fraud was a problem and the switch was modified to provide partial identification. As I recall, the 1000's digit was provided and the given number was (manually) verified to be an assigned number. However, there were still large avenues for fraud (some of the common ones were coin fraud, the dialing of "unusual" numbers (see below), and boxing. By the late 70's the switch could not keep up with the population growth in the area, as well as being a maintenance nighmare and it was replaced with an ESS. I don't know if it's a 3ESS or a 10A RSS, though. ["Unusual" numbers: The switch would accept any ten digits dialed (using a timeout to determine when to proceed). This meant that you could directly dial the TWX network (x10 area codes), as well as the exchanges that were used for incoming WATS redirection (which frequently used "impossible" exchange prefixes like 003), as well as various internal numbers]. As far as your Centrex goes, it was probably configured to require a four-digit "project code" so that calls could be billed to an appropriate customer. Another possibility would be so that people who frequently roamed around the building (such as supervisors) could get calls billed to the right extension rather than to the extension they called from. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA terry@spcvxa.spc.edu +1 201 915 9381 ------------------------------ From: Jim Haynes Subject: Re: SWBell vs. Squirrels Date: 17 Jan 92 19:52:37 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Squirrel damage to cable has been going on for as long as there have been cables, I guess. It used to be a big problem with lead-sheathed cable; and Bell Labs must have spent a lot of money researching squirrel deterrents. In Arkansas I saw plastic strips, inverted V shape, over aerial cables and was told it was an anti-squirrel measure. (Don't know if it was meant to make it hard for the bushy tails to get their teeth into the cable beneath the tent, or if it was to make it hard for them to run along the cables.) haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet ------------------------------ From: sew7490@ultb.rit.edu (S.E. Williams ) Subject: Re: MCI Card With Voice Features Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 20:10:09 GMT In article sew7490@ultb.rit.edu (S.E. Williams) (that's me) writes: > Earlier today I stupidly caused myself to be put under the suspicion > of MCI's Fraud Department, and they disconnected my card. When I And PAT inquired: > [Moderator's Note: What did you do to get them itchy? Were you hacking > at something? :) PAT] Actually, yes. As you may recall, I am working on a term paper about Network Security. I was trying to determine what MCI would consider 'fraudulent calling'. I discovered that if you call 13 foreign countries within a ten minute period, without having a single international call in your dialing history, you may very well be considered suspicious. Oh, well. I got the information I wanted, and an MCI rep agreed to be a source for my report, and I'm getting one of those new cards. I'd say that I made out very well this time. By the way, does anyone know if MCI customers with the 'old' cards will be receiving new ones in the mail, or will they have to call and ask? Sean E. Williams sew7490@ultb.isc.rit.edu Rochester Institute of Technology Telecommunications Technology (ITFT) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 11:31:27 -0500 From: clements@BBN.COM John Higdon writes: > But where is it written that a business or individual MUST provide an > anonymous way to reach it or him? Why can I NOT decide that the only > way to reach me is via a method that reveals the caller's number? The > caller still has a choice: he can call, or he can not call. No one has > a god-given right to call me anonymously. That the limitations of > technology has made this traditionally possible is irrelavent. Granted. I overstated my position. If the business doesn't want to take unidentified calls that is and should be its right, as long as it makes that clear to the potential callers. > Would you require that I answer the phone with, "I know your number > now"? By then it is too late. No, of course not. What a silly strawman. > Would you require a warning with the advertisement? I don't > advertise it. How about a warning if you DO advertise it? > [T]he burden of educating the public is not and should not be on the > shoulders of those paying good money for the services. How about a notification by the telcos and carriers in their phone books and/or bills? They're the ones doing the delivery and taking the money. It isn't that different from 900 numbers, whose operators are now required to make disclosures. The caller is giving something of some value to the callee. For some callers the perceived value of disclosing their phone numbers is negligible; for others it's not. They should be made aware of the actual situation so they can choose to call or not. My point is that the number delivery is a very well-kept secret. It's in the interest of businesses, telcos and carriers to keep it that way, and they don't disclose it. It's not in the interest of the public. Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US (Stephen Friedl) Subject: Re: CCITT Standards and Recommendations Date: 17 Jan 92 16:53:28 GMT Organization: Steve's Personal machine / Tustin, CA Will Wong writes: > I would like to get ahold of the CCITT standards and recommendations > (either through purchasing the books, borrowing, begging, etc.) Does > anyone have any idea where I can go? I dunno about borrowing or begging, but for buying a good source is: Global Engineering Documents 2805 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92714 (800) 854-7179 (714) 261-1455 They stock standards and Recommendations from just about anybody who is anybody (HUNDREDS of standards bodies), and their products and services catalog -- available upon request -- gives you an overview of their offerings. I get my CCITT Recommendations from them. Their phone order-taking people seem to be pretty good about helping locate a precise document even if you don't know the exact name, and they do take credit card orders. They have given me good service on quite a few occasions. Just a satisfied customer ... Stephen Friedl Software Consultant Tustin, CA +1 714 544 6561 uunet!mtndew!friedl ------------------------------ From: tijc02!djm408@uunet.uu.net (David Marks) Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! Organization: Siemens Industrial Automation, Johnson City TN Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 16:08:25 GMT In , by Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker): > In a message dated 10 Jan 92 17:46:00 GMT, john@zygot.ati.com (John > Higdon) writes: >> I am surprised that it has taken this long. Tone signaling is SO >> superior to rotary that it is nothing short of amazing that it has >> taken nearly twenty years to become the dominant dialing method. >> Consider that the CD has been around for about eight years and has all >> but decimated the LP, which was king for the previous thirty-five years. > The reason is VERY simple, John. In many areas of the country they > still charge extra for Touch Tone. In Michigan Bell territory, the > charge is $2.43 per month for a residence, and $2.50 per month for a > business. I refuse on principle to pay the phone company $2.43 per > month to obtain a service that costs them LESS money to provide. I have the same attitude concerning cost. Why pay the phone company for something you don't need? Additionally, you don't need any special equipment to access tone systems from a pulse line. I have an AT&T 5200 cordless phone. It can send either tones or pulses. I have it set to pulse for dialing. It has a TONE button on it that allows you switch to tone in the middle of a call without changing the dial configuration. So when I call a service that responds to tones, I press the TONE button and get what I need. My line responds to pulse dialing but transmits tones to the called party ok. Of course, if you need tones as part of the dialing sequence this won't work. However, I have never seen or called such a number yet. David J. Marks | UUCP: ...!uunet!tijc02!djm408 Siemens Industrial Automation, Inc. | Internet: djm408%tijc02@uunet.uu.net P.O. Drawer 1255 | Johnson City, TN 37605-1255 | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #51 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29738; 20 Jan 92 2:08 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12363 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 00:20:04 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29029 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 00:19:35 -0600 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 00:19:35 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201200619.AA29029@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #52 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Jan 92 00:19:22 CST Volume 12 : Issue 52 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Prices Go Up (Steve Forrette) Re: Cellular Prices Go Up (Bob Frankston) Re: Zip + 6? (Gary Morris) Re: ISDN Question (David E. Martin) Re: International ANI is Here? (Andrew Klossner) Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (Andrew Klossner) Re: Two Wires Become Four; and GTE Won't Explain (Marc Wiz) Re: Customer Account Security (Steve Forrette) Re: PICs From RBOC Payphones (Steve Forrette) Re: PICs From RBOC Payphones (Ken Abrams) Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Tony Harminc) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: Cellular Prices Go Up Date: Fri 17 Jan 1992 15:23 -0500 This is a good point. But the problem is, Lifeline customers are expected to use the phone in a normal manner these days, so the usage costs are important. Pacific Bell even has two types of lifeline, depending on how many calls you make! What started out as a good idea (giving a dialtone to folks who otherwise couldn't afford it so that they will be able to call the police, their doctor, etc.) has turned into much more than that. ------------------------------ From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.std.com Subject: Re: Cellular Prices Go Up Date: Fri 17 Jan 1992 15:37 -0500 I do understand the reality of lifeline services, that's why I added the comment about actually using the line negates my argument. But there was a serious point in that cellular need not be viewed purely as an expensive luxury but as a basic service in appropriate circumstances. The fact that we already have zillions of miles of copper buried in the ground means that zero-based analysis is not appropriate but we still must reexamine our assumptions periodically. ------------------------------ From: garym@telesoft.com (Gary Morris) Subject: Re: Zip + 6? Reply-To: garym@telesoft.com Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 21:18:53 GMT In Bob_Frankston@frankston.std.com writes: > As addresses creep up to 11 digits, has the Post Office heard about > checksums or other techniques to reduce errors? The modulo 10 check digit in the bar code has already been mentioned by several readers but no one mentioned that each digit in the barcode is 5 bits, essential 4 bits plus a check bit. So they can detect an error on each digit or on the whole zip code. They could even reconstruct an unreadable digit from the checksum. Gary Morris Internet: garym@telesoft.com KK6YB UUCP: ucsd!telesoft!garym TeleSoft, San Diego, CA Phone: +1 619-457-2700 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 16:30:19 -0600 From: "David E. Martin" Subject: Re: ISDN Question Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL, USA In article keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com writes: > I have only been following USENET for a short time and feel this is > probably the right place to post this. Please correct me if wrong. > I am responsible for designing a customer-contractor network for data > sharing. Our customer (government) has indicated that they are > getting a Basic Rate Interface (BRI) in the near future. I am > assuming this is thru FTS-2000. This customer would like us to use > this as our WAN transport, instead of MILNET whichhe considers to be > too slow (only 56K vs 2x64). > Questions: > Being a commercial entity, not part of FTS-2000, is this possible? > Can the FTS-2000 BRI interface off network? I'm not even sure that ISDN is available under FTS-2000 right now, but if it is: Yes, you can make calls to other ISDN sets (and switched 56/64) nodes across the public network. > I would like to use a bridge technology, if possible (vs protocol > routed). What would this type of connection look like to me? Basic Rate ISDN has three user-available channels, 2B+1D. You can use the B channel for circuit- or packet-switched data. The D channel can only be used for packet. Packet data is sent using X.25. With circuit switched, you get access to a raw bit pipe with HDLC framing. Assuming you would use CSD, your bridge would have to be able to handle synchronous communications over a 64Kbps B channel. Since I don't know of any that do this, you would need an ISDN terminal adapter (made by Hayes, AT&T, and others) to convert from the B channel to a synchronous V.35 interface running at 64Kbps. > What type of interconnect hardware is available for 802.3 -- ISDN? A company called Digiboard (612-943-9020) is developing an ethernet (802.3) to ISDN bridge. There are also some companies that make terminal servers that are working on ISDN connectivity. > Would I need a BRI to my site, or couldI just get a leased line to my > nearest central office (FTS or otherwise)? You would need to get a BRI line installed. If your serving central office is ISDN capable, and your service provider offers it, it should be simple to just order a line. If you can't get it out of your CO, you can investigate expensive solutions like running a T-1 line to an ISDN capable office or carrier. > With this type of service, can it be arranged for the computers to > force a call setup & connect vs 'dedicated' access. How is billing > handled? Billing is handled just like a regular call (although the prices may be much higher). If your software is smart enough it can make and break the connection as packets need to be sent. > Thanks alot for any information you can shed. Any good sources for me > to start boning up on? William Stallings has a good book on ISDN protocols ("ISDN and Broadband ISDN, 2nd Ed.", 1992, Macmillan). But for the wild and woolly world of telecom tariffs and availability, nothing beats experience. David E. Martin National HEPnet Management Phone: +1 708 840-8275 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory FAX: +1 708 840-2783 P.O. Box 500; MS 234; Batavia, IL 60510 USA E-Mail: DEM@FNAL.FNAL.Gov ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Subject: Re: International ANI is Here? Date: 18 Jan 92 00:34:56 GMT Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon > One problem I can see is people accidentally (or intentionally, for > that matter!) calling these DID circuits. The subscriber is going to > get a "call-back" and a US dial tone, even though THEY didn't place > the call. That could get pretty expensive pretty fast! Yes. Similarly with cellular phone numbers -- anybody can dial one and, when the subscriber answers, charge them a billable minute. (I'll bet there are dissocial phreaks out there who dial every number in a cellular exchange just to wreak havoc.) Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? Date: 18 Jan 92 00:43:57 GMT Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon > It may slightly increase the importance with which the called party, > if it's a business, deals with the call. I worked for a company where > person-to-person calls were announced on the intercom as "David Ash, > long distance, line 1." If you want this effect, you can get it without paying person-to-person rates by impersonating the operator. I once delighted a college buddy by dialing through the college switchboard to his dorm room, then impersonating the operator's "collect call from , will you accept?" For days he begged me to tell him how I pulled the "scam." Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 19:27:59 From: marc@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Marc Wiz) Subject: Re: Two Wires Become Four; and GTE Won't Explain edg@netcom.netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) wrote: > A techie like you should consider wiring three pair to each drop. You > might also consider wiring the house with another three pair for > eventual data, or even with a four pair for 10-Base-T ethernet. :-) > Seriously, if I were wiring a house, I'd wire two four pair circuits > to each room, down to a central point. I'd terminate them all with > RJ-45's on both ends. You can run RJ-11 phone circuits on them just > fine, but can also run RS-232 data, and other twisted pair wiring > schemes. Your house will (hopefully) stand for 100 years. Wanna bet > what they'll be using for appliances then? When I had my house built a year ago I had the electricians wire in four pair to every room in the house. RG-6 for cable TV to every room in the house. Two RS-232 runs to the rooms I thought I would need. And three runs of speaker wire for stereo to various parts of the house including volume controls in each room. And some plenum grade coax for ethernet (yes I know I shouldn't have spent the extra $$). Also I had five conduit runs from my study to the attic for antennas for ham radio. And most of this "originates" in the utility closet downstairs. When describing all this at an Austin user's group meeting I was asked: "What, no fiber optic?" Marc Wiz MaBell (512)838-4028 Yes that really is my last name. The views expressed are my own. marc@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 17:54:36 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Customer Account Security Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article John Higdon writes: > Some time back we brought up the topic of customer account security. > It seems that some (including I) were annoyed at the ease with which > unauthorized people were able to get information and even make changes > on telephone accounts. > That appears to be a thing of the past. I needed the balance on one of > my business accounts and was too lazy to go to the mailbox to get the > bill. (The mailbox is at the post office before you start in on that!) > I called the business office, gave my name and my company name and > asked for the balance on the number in question. "I'll have to call > you back with that information", was the response. This must have changed VERY recently. About four months ago, I called Pacific Bell to get my balance. I have a password on my account as well, with the hopes that it would proctect my account. However, I was mistaken. After confirming the name on the account (which is in the directory, and known by everyone who knows me), the rep gave me the balance without asking for the password. I mentioned that I had requested a password on my account, and had been told that a permanent note had been entered on the account screen which said "Give no information and take no orders without password XXXXXX". The rep's response to this? "Well, sir, if you call the account balance giving out information, then I guess I did!" Can you believe that? Some security. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 18:13:04 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: PICs From RBOC Payphones Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article it was written: > I beg to differ. While you are correct, tha they are obeying the > /letter/ of the law, they aer certainly not following the iNTENT of > the law. The whole idea of equal access was to allow you to go through > whatever LD company you choose. /REGARDLESS OF THE POINT OF ORIGIN/. > While AT&T can be accessed from ANY local's phone, by law, that same > law does not provide for any LD company being acessed from every > phone. (Before you start tuning up about 950-xxxx access, allow me to > remind you that the biggest part of the public does not know about > 950-xxxx access, and thinks the only way to cross-link to another > network is 1-0-xxx-0-.) The point of the original point was for 10xxx+1 calls, not 10xxx+0. The latter definately DOES work from BOC payphones. Also, I think that you misunderstand "the law." What it says is that the various long distance companies must be given "Equal Access" to the BOC's networks, and not that the carriers utilize this access in an equal manner. In the case of sent-paid calls from a BOC payphone, the BOCs have opened their doors to any carrier who wishes to service this market. But without exception, the only one that has done so is AT&T. The problem is that for technical reasons, the long distance carrier must have a point-of-presence directly with each switch that has coin phones attached in order to control the coin mechanism. No access tandems are allowed. Since Sprint, MCI, etc., don't nearly have a POP in each exchange, it would be probibitively expensive for them to put this in just to service sent-paid coin calls. This is definitely a declining market! The growth in payphone long distance is definitely in calling card or other alternative billing options, and this is where "the other guys" have decided to make their investment. And I don't blame them. But it is wrong to say that AT&T has an unfair advantage because the other guys choose not to make the investment. However, I know that Pacific Bell has been testing a scheme which would allow an IXC to give commands to the serving switch for coin mechanism control. Also, I would think it would be a lot easier to do this once SS7 connections between the LEC and IXC become a reality. It would be not difficult at all to have SS7 packets sent between the originating switch and the IXC host for coin control. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) Subject: Re: PICs From RBOC Payphones Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1992 16:26:12 GMT In article Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox. com writes: > With all due respect, Pat: >> [Moderator's Note: It does NOT violate Equal Access. The catch is your >> 1+ dialing ... at this time the only companies with the ability to >> collect or refund coins deposited in the phone are the local telco and >> AT&T. *All* long distance calls from payphones requiring coin deposit >> are sent to AT&T. Now had you zero-plussed your call, implying you > I beg to differ. While you are correct, that they are obeying the > /letter/ of the law, they aer certainly not following the iNTENT of > the law. The whole idea of equal access was to allow you to go through > whatever LD company you choose. /REGARDLESS OF THE POINT OF ORIGIN/. You can beg to differ all you want but Pat is absolutely correct. The LD carriers are not required by law to handle all types of originating traffic. Most have chosen not to make the investment in equipment and/or people to handle "sent paid" coin calls but they DO want a piece of the operator handled coin business. So there were two basic choices: 1) Assign PIC XYX to the coin phone and DISABLE 1+ dialing (where the user expects to put money in the phone) OR 2) Divert the 1+ calls to a carrier that can accept and process the coin signals. Nobody liked the first option. The second one was chosen by mutual agreement of the carriers involved and the RBOCs and our old friend Judge Green. Like it or not, differ or not, that IS the current law and it is not a sinister plot of the RBOCs or AT&T. Ken Abrams nstar!pallas!kabra437 Springfield, IL kabra437@athenanet.com (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 17:43:46 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony What bothers me about all this is that it sounds very much as though, whatever schemes are chosen in various countries, there will still be at least two completely incompatible systems around. Surely to goodness the world has enough incompatible stuff -- notably TV standards, but lots of others too. Is it not reasonable to expect that I should be able to buy a portable phone here and use it on any cellular system? Instead, I am stuck in islands of compatibility -- my Canadian phone will work in only the USA, Hong Kong, and a few other places. Meanwhile a British phone works almost nowhere else but Britain. Dual standard phones will come along, of course, but will I really be able to afford (or carry!) a phone that works with AMPS, North American Digital, GSM, existing British and European analogue standards, etc.? Sigh ... Tony H. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #52 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02944; 20 Jan 92 3:13 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19864 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 01:27:23 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26230 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 01:26:54 -0600 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 01:26:54 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201200726.AA26230@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #53 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Jan 92 01:26:51 CST Volume 12 : Issue 53 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Jim Hutchison) Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (Nigel Allen) Re: T1 on Fiber Revisited (Macy Hallock) Re: Need Phone Service (Michael J. Logsdon) Re: Cellular Rates Go Up (David Leibold) Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (Jack Decker) Re: Bell Canada Tests New Forwarding, Voice Caller ID Options (Andy Dunn) Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM (Jamie Hanrahan) Re: CCITT Standards and Recommendations (Peter M. Weiss) Re: CCITT Standards and Recommendations (Tom Wardle) Re: 800 and 900 ANI (Jim Gottlieb) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hutch@qualcomm.com (Jim Hutchison) Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony Organization: Qualcomm Incorporated Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1992 09:56:49 GMT In meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier): > In rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron > Dippold): >> Bottom line: We have an officially capacity tested (tests observed by >> the major companies in the industry) CDMA system in the field that >> gives a capacity improvement of 10 to 30 times (depending on >> conditions) over an AMPS system, with better voice quality, better >> handoffs, and less dropped calls. > [CDMA sales pitch deleted] > Readers should be made aware that Qualcomm's CDMA proposal is not > likely to become a national digital standard for cellular. It will be > a TDMA system as outlined in IS-54. Where were you when I bet on the Cubs? Oh well, it was only a dollar. :-) Seriously, predicting the future gets tricky here. The TIA is looking at inclusion "wideband" into it's structure. The NAMPS spec is having work done, although I believe this to be attached to another committee instead of having it's own. Various folks have suggested various delivery dates for these technologies. The future looks mighty interesting. > In my personal opinion, Qualcomm's claims are designed more to raise > the price of Qualcomm shares than actual capacity advantages over > TDMA. Irony? A recent false claim of a CDMA lock-out seemingly caused a dip in the market. It seems that there is a period after an IPO in which you must be careful in order to not tick-off the SEC. A reporter spoke to a Hughes Network Systems rep (seemingly) and thought he printed an unfavorable article. A later article seemed to balance the picture. Check SD newspaper archives, be amused. As we are both based in San Diego, is the irony doubled? Not being a spokesperson for Qualcomm, I hope you do not (and are not) insinuate such unkind statements regarding my conduct in this forum. Jim Hutchison {dcdwest,ucbvax}!ucsd!qualcomm!hutch or hutch@qualcomm.com Disclaimer: I am not an official spokesman for Qualcomm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 06:01:06 -0500 From: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Nigel Allen) Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash) writes: > 2. It may slightly increase the importance with which the called > party, if it's a business, deals with the call. I worked for a > company where person-to-person calls were announced on the intercom > as "David Ash, long distance, line 1". Whether the person paged in > this manner was more likely to actually take the call is debatable, > but it might have made a bit of difference. If you direct-dial a call, you can always tell the receptionist or secretary "long distance calling for so-and-so". There's no need to pay the telephone company a few dollars to say that for you! Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG [Moderator's Note: What you are paying for is not for the operator to make an announcement for you, buth rather, your gamble versus telco's that the called party will not be there or will not accept the call. Telco gambles he will respond, and in a prompt fashion. A free call to leave a message for him if you win ... a couple extra dollars in the cash register for telco if you lose. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 22:42 EST From: fmsys!macy@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber Revisited Organization: The Matrix In article is written: > Putting a single T1 on fiber is a very costly venture. Hmmmm ... this is not my experience. At least one company manufactures a T1 to Fiber "modem" just for this purpose. (Fibermux, I believe) We have used them for networking PBX's together with fiber links, and these are just used in place of the usual T1 CSU ... they even have the same connector. I have not yet been able to get these units in a -48vdc version, they are powered by a "brick" type power supply (something like 20vac) I have talked to at least two other vendors who will be making the same item shortly. Cost is about $1200 each and falling. Regards, Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 92 10:19:27 -0500 From: am339@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael J. Logsdon) Subject: Re: Need Phone Service Reply-To: am339@cleveland.Freenet.Edu Thanks to Moderator Pat Townson and to the nine telecom readers who responded when I thought Ohio Bell was not acting in good faith when our building manager was rejected in his request to get phone service after his roommate ran out on a $200 phone bill (in the roommate's name). We did call Ohio PUCO, as suggested by each reply, as everyone was convinced that Ohio Bell was out of line. The PUCO was very supportive, and even suggested that Ohio Bell was dead wrong. Ohio Bell has now recanted. Their new requirement is three forms of proof that scuzz roommate is not living there. Honestly, I'm not sure how to accomplis 'proof,' but it is clear that we are going to win the battle. This has been a very enlightening exercise; I manage our telecommunications and quietly read every submission to TELECOM Digest available to me, but I seldom post. I didn't know where to go with this personnel matter ... I just deal with switches, wire, and LD vendors. My thanks to everyone. You DID make the difference. Mike Logsdon / University School / Cleveland [Moderator's Note: You are more than welcome, Mike. The intent of this group, like many on the internet is to amuse, inform, educate and entertain. I'm glad you are satisfied, at least. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 92 00:10:18 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: Re: Cellular Rates Go Up The story regarding Canadian cellular services running their rates up made reference to a Bell Cellular "Lifeline" grade of service. This does not appear to be a "lifeline" service in the sense that it would be known in the U.S. (ie. as a cheaper phone service intended for the poor, unemployed, etc). In fact, the U.S. "lifeline" services are a generally unknown concept in Canada. Rather, this appears to be a brand name or trade name for the cheap class of cell service. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 92 10:39:35 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! Recently I sent a message to the Digest on this thread, and Pat (the Moderator) mentioned that part of my message was lost or damaged on its way there. Actually, it appears that it arrived mostly intact, and the only part that didn't get through was my concluding paragraph, which made the following observation: What surprises me is the number of otherwise intelligent people who simply do not realise that the tone/pulse switch can be moved in mid-call to change the dialing method. Most folks set it in one position and seem to think that if it's moved too many times, it will break. A *LOT* of folks never even change it from "pulse" to "tone" when they first acquire the phone, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE PAYING FOR TOUCH-TONE SERVICE! I hate to tell you how many phones I've discovered that were set to "pulse" on a tone-dial line ... I'd flip the switch and the Touch-Tones would break dial tone (which only happens here if you are paying for the service) and the phone owner would admit to not even knowing what that "T/P" switch was for, but when they ordered service the business office rep asked if they had a "pushbutton phone", so ... well, you can guess the rest. Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn) Subject: Re: Bell Canada Tests New Forwarding, Voice Caller ID Options Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1992 15:50:24 GMT In article peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA writes: >> * Caller Announce: a voice caller ID service; when a call is answered, >> the central office will send along a voice callout of the number >> calling. > This is cute, but it'll add an extra delay in answering the phone (and > increase the chance that the guy at the other end will hang up). Since > they save the last number anyway for call-blocking, why can't they > make something like this for after the fact (i.e., you dial *something > and it tells you who last called). No! The original appeal of all CLID features is twofold: (1) You can see who's calling, and ignore the call at your option. (2) You can find out who called if they said something you didn't like, or didn't find out who they were and needed to contact them, or... Having to get the number later defeats #1 entirely! > I wouldn't mind paying a per-call charge for *that*, either. It's not > like the charge for C-ID delivery, since you have to ask for the > number each time. But that's because you only subscribe to purpose (2) above! Andy Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.uucp) ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn) ------------------------------ From: jeh@cmkrnl.com Subject: Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM Date: 19 Jan 92 03:07:17 PST Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA In article , rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes: > In article , davidb@zeus.ce.washington. > edu (David W. Barts) writes: >> This is known as an ALIT (Automatic Line Insulation Test), performed >> by the phone company in the wee hours of the morning to detect faults >> in the twisted pair serving your home. ALIT involves placing a DC >> voltage of about 100v across the pair and measuring the leakage >> current. This subject has been discussed in this Digest extensively >> in the past. > Actually ALIT is an old system, not much used these days. Current > automated Line test systems typically do the testing at 10V or so. A friend who used to work for Bell Labs has a different explanation. He claims that the CO is probing your line to see how many ringer equivalents are on it, so that the CO will deliver enough current to ring them on. It sounds plausible. True or false? If false, where did this story originate? Perhaps the "adaptive ring current" was a feature that was proposed but not actually implemented? Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA Chair, VMS Programming and Internals Working Group, U.S. DECUS VAX Systems SIG Internet: jeh@cmkrnl.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh [Moderator's Note: In the olden days, when telco was 'probing your line to measure ringer current' it was to see how many extensions were on the line versus what you were paying for. Does anyone remember those days, when there was such a thing as an 'illegal extension'? PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 19 Jan 1992 09:14:01 EST From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Re: CCITT Standards and Recommendations In article , roscom!monty@uunet.UU.NET (Monty Solomon) says: > They are available online via anonymous FTP from bruno.cs.colorado.edu > and by E-Mail from infosrv@bruno.cs.colorado.edu. According to the mail and FTP Server at the above site: The CCITT standards documents are no longer available on this server, due to an ITU decision. Please send any comments to standards@digital.resource.org Pete Weiss (pmw1@psuvm.psu.edu) ------------------------------ From: wardle@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Tom Wardle) Subject: Re: CCITT Standards and Recommendations Date: Sun, 19 Jan 92 10:14:40 EST I went looking for the ccitt texts on Bruno.cs.colorado.edu and found the following message: TELEFAX International Telecommunication Union Office of the Secretary General Place des Nations 1211 Geneva 20 - Switzerland Date: 10-12-91 Fax No. 42455 Dear Mr. Malamud, Let me congratulate you on the success of the experimental project making ITU standards available over the Internet. The ITU Coordination Committee expresses its appreciation for your efforts in making the ITU standards widely available. This project has demonstrated the wide Internet accessibility of CCITT texts and the considerable interest that exists in the Internet community for access to ITU documents. This Committee, while considering further actions in this area, came to the conclusion that the experiment be terminated on 31 December 1991. We would appreciate if you would convey this information to all those who are operating info-servers with copies of the ITU standards that ITU's authorization for distribution of this material ceases after 31 December 1991. In line with your recommendation, measures are in progress for a similar service to be made available under ITU auspices, with access by Internet, PSTN, PSPDN, etc. As laid down in our fax dated 15 June 1991 (attached enclosure), we look forward to receiving a final report with statistics on usage, as well as magnetic tapes with the converted files and software, as agreed when the project was initiated. Thank you very much for the effort you and your colleagues at the University of Colorado have invested in this project. We look forward to continuous cooperation. Yours sincerely, Pekka TARJANNE Secretary-General --------------- I just thought this might be of interest. tom [Moderator's Note: I wonder what possible objection they had to leaving them in place on the Internet? PAT] ------------------------------ From: jimmy@tokyo07.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) Subject: Re: 800 and 900 ANI Date: 19 Jan 92 13:02:46 GMT Reply-To: jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan leichter@LRW.COM (Jerry Leichter) writes: > In the interest of careful reasoning: > The argument that the 900 provider has the right to know who its > callers are in order to do billing is only legitimate when it actually > DOES billing. That is, all this argument requires is that when the > telco flags a call as uncollectible, it pass along to the 900 provider > the identifying information it has. Even if this were true (any information the telco gives the provider comes months later and after much damage could be done), if we do not receive calling party information (i.e. ANI), then how would this help us? Say we receive notification from our billing agent that a certain subscriber does not feel our service is worth the cost and refuses to pay. OK, now we know that 311-555-2368 has refused to pay. But without ANI, we have no way to block future calls from that subscriber. And telcos cannot block a single 900 number; it's all or nothing. So I feel very strongly that we have a right to know who is calling before we accept the call. We may not actually mail out our own bills, but any fraud is deducted right from our bottom line. If we see that a certain number has made an excessive amount of calls in a short amount of time, we call them to make sure they plan on paying. > A law or regulation should not unduly inconvenience the good because > some might be bad. We must pay the transport charges on all calls, regardless of whether they ever pay us. So the few bad people can actually bankrupt us. We are the ones extending credit, not the telco. It is us, more than they, who needs the ANI delivery. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan Fax: +81 3 3865 9424 Voice Mail: +81 3 3865 3548 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #53 *****************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13531; 20 Jan 92 21:55 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14785 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 19:47:09 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14680 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 19:46:46 -0600 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 19:46:46 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201210146.AA14680@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #54 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Jan 92 19:46:38 CST Volume 12 : Issue 54 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Conference: Computer Technologies in Education (David Crookall) Followup on Phone Director (Brad Houser) Gotcha! Striking Back with Call Back (Andrew C. Green) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 19:12:03 CST From: CROOKALL@UA1VM.UA.EDU Organization: University of Alabama, USA (S+G, IDEALS) Subject: Conference: Computer Technologies in Education East-West Conference on Emerging Computer Technologies in Education April 6-9, 1992 (originally April 14-17, 1992) Moscow, USSR FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS AND CALL FOR POSTERS ========================================== The aims of the East-West Conference on Emerging Computer Techno- logies in Education are to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas between Eastern and Western scientists and to present to the Soviet educational community the current state-of-the-art on the theory and practice of using emerging computer-based technology in education. The Technical Programme will include paper presentations, invited talks, posters, tutorials and demonstrations. An exhibition of software products is also anticipated. The Conference is organised and sponsored by: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), International Centre for Scientific and Technical Information (ICSTI), and Soviet Association for Artificial Intelligence (SAAI). The Conference will take place in the ICSTI Building in Moscow. Topics of Interest ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The conference is designed to cover the following subfields of advanced research in the field of computers and education: - Artificial Intelligence and Education - Educational Multi-Media and Hyper-Media - Learning Environments, Microworlds and Simulation We invite submission of original research/development papers or review papers on topics in these subfields. We also invite tutorial papers on topics pertaining to the conference. Submission of Papers and Posters ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Submissions can be either research/development, review, or tutorial paper abstracts or research/development poster abstracts. Authors are requested to submit an extended English abstract (about 500 words) in electronic format (by E-mail or ordinary mail on DOS or UNIX "tar" diskette) to the Conference Secretary. Each submission should contain the type of submission, the title, the name(s) of the author(s), complete address(es), electronic address(es), keywords and one or more of the conference subjects fol- lowed by the "500 words" abstract. All submissions will be reviewed by the international program committee. Acceptance/rejection of paper submissions will be notified by January 15. Acceptance/rejection of poster submissions will be notified by February 10. Poster abstracts submitted before 10-th January, 1992 will be considered in preference to late proposals. The authors of accepted paper submissions will receive instruc- tions concerning the style of presentation of their text (about 5000 words) for publication in the proceedings. The proceedings as well as the abstracts of accepted posters will be distributed at the confer- ence. The best papers will be invited to be published in the Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education and the Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, pulished by AACE, and Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal, published by Sage Publications. Accepted papers are presented in a 20-60 minute lecture-style format. Poster presenters are provided with poster space and are required to be available at their poster during designed time (about 2 hours). The authors of the accepted submissions are welcome also to prepare a video or computer demonstration related with the topic of presentation. Important Dates ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paper Submissions Deadline: December 1, 1991 Poster Submissions Deadline: January 15, 1992 Paper Submissions Acceptance Notification: January 15, 1992 Poster Submissions Acceptance Notification: February 15, 1992 Receipt of Camera-Ready Papers: February 24, 1992 (originally March 1, 1992) Program Committee Chair ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dmitry Pospelov (SAAI, USSR) Organizing Committee Chair ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Alexander Butrimenko (ICSTI, USSR) Program Committee: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ KSR Anjaneyulu (India) David McArthur (USA) Philip Barker (England) Ehud Bar-On (Israel) Ben du Boulay (England) Peter Brusilovsky (Russia) Sergey Christochevsky (Russia) David Crookall (USA) Alexey Dovgyallo (Ukraine) Marc Eisenstadt (England) Monique Grandbastien (France) Jim Greer (Canada) Roger Hartley (England) Stephen Heppel (England) Marlene Jones (Canada) Greg Kearsley (USA) Riichiro Mizoguchi (Japan) Claus Moebus (Germany) Leonard Rastrigin (Latvia) Brian Reiser (USA) Luigi Sarti (Italy) Julita Vassileva (Bulgaria) Boris Velichkovsky (Russia) Radboud Winkels (The Netherlands) Beverly Woolf (USA) Conference Secretary ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peter Brusilovsky (Russia, USSR) Conference Secretary addresses: Dr. Peter Brusilovsky East-West Conference on Emerging Computer Technologies in Education International Centre for Scientific and Technical Information (ICSTI) Kuusinen str. 21b, Moscow 125252, USSR E-mail: eastwest@plb.icsti.su or eastwest%plb.icsti.su@ussr.eu.net Telex: 411925 MCNTI FAX: +7 095 943 0089 -------------------------------------------------- Feedback message. Please, fill in and return. I am interested in: (please check) Further information on East-West Conference ___ Attending ___ Submitting a paper ___ Submitting a poster ___ Organizing a demonstration ___ Exhibiting ___ My areas of interests are Artificial Intelligence and Education ___ Educational Multi-Media and Hyper-Media ___ Learning Environments, Microworlds and Simulation ___ David Crookall % Editor: Simulation & Gaming: An International MA-TESOL Prgrm % Journal (Sage); Dir: Project IDEALS (FIPSE, DoE) English/Morgan, Univ of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0244, USA. Phones: 205-348-9494 -9173 (w), 205-752-0690 (h); fax: 205-348-5298. crookall@ua1vm.bitnet or .ua.edu. For Project IDEALS, contact Asst Directors: Frannie Goubet fgoubet3@ua1vm, Chet Farmer cfarmer1@ua1vm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 08:13:08 -0800 From: bhouser@d2com.intel.com Subject: Followup on Phone Director I wrote previously: > I received the Heartland America Catalog last month, and they list a > product that intrigues me. It says you can add the power of a PBX and > Voice mail to your existing phone system. It's features include: > Add up to five inside extensions (on their own loops) to the outside line; > Works with standard one or two line phones, faxes, modems; > Needs an answering machine to simulate "voice mail"; > Routes calls (caller enters a number from 1-5); > Works as an intercom; > Adds "hold" to any phone. > Heartland Customer service couldn't help me with my questions, but > they gave me the name of the manufacturer: Areanex Technology Inc > (408-257-5880). They have the system (Model ACR105) on that line. > Areanex calls it the "Phone Director" as the answering machine OGM > plays the message: "Thank you for calling, press 1 for Joe, 2 for > Chris, ... or stay on the line to leave a message". If the call is > not redirected by the caller (or they don't have DTMF) the phone is > answered by Line 0, which is the answering machine line. Otherwise, > one of the other lines can be individually rung. (You can still use it > without the answering machine and telemarketers won't know how to > reach you, but then neither will your friends for a while.) > Hold is obtained by hitting #, (## if you made the call) and then an > extension can be dialed. It answers after one ring, and then the > caller hears a much different ring. > I have ordered the product with a 30-day money back guarantee, but I > will have to wait about another week or so. > I don't work for either company, but so I don't get asked to send the > address, here it is: > Heartland America > 6978 Shady Oak Rd. > Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3453 > 1-800-229-2901 Fax: (612)943-4096 > I will post a followup with my impressions after using the device. Here are my impressions: The unit is the size of an external modem. It has a DC power input, where and AC adapter connect, and seven RJ11 jacks. The first one attaches to the incoming line. The others are numbers line 0 through 5. Line 0 is for the answering machine (OGM = "Press 1 for x, 2 for ..."), and lines one through five are five seperate lines. It answers the phone after two rings, after which line 0 starts to ring for however many rings the answering machine is set for. (If there are no phones anywhere on line 0 you won't hear any ringing anywhere.) The caller hears sort of a rattle instead of a ring. My machine answers after two rings, so the caller hears two normal rings, and then two rattles. The caller can listen to the message, and learn the extensions, and at any time during the message the caller can press the number of the extension desired. (They need not wait to hear any part of the message, so if they know this, they can hit a number during the "rattles". If they don't hit a button (or if they have a rotary phone!) they can leave a message and will not otherwise get through. While the extension is ringing, the caller hears more rattles instead of rings. If the extension doesn't answer another extension acts as a backup (if anyone is interested I can forward the details), but the caller will eventually end up back on line 0 if they never get through to another line. (Another interesting feature, if you add 5 to the extension, you get a different ringing cadence, e.g. six rings line one for four seconds on one off. This often gets the callee's attention: "Why did the phone ring like that?") As an intercom, you pick up any of the phones, hit #, then you hear the "rattle" tone. You need to wait a second until the rattle stops, then you can hit any extension, and the ringing sounds like the same "rattle" an outside caller hears. What I like about the system: I can pick up the phone and call the kids upstairs without having to yell over loud stereos, etc. (Plus a ringing phone is more likely to get their extension, since it might be for them.) Even if they are on the phone (which they often are) I can pick it up and talk to them. If they had their own lines, they would have to order and pay for call waiting in order to do this. One can answer any extension from any other, even if it wasn't ringing. I don't have to play answering service for the kids, who get ten times as many calls as my wife (and 50 times as many as myself). The kids can have their own answering machines if they want. (The 15 year old must have had 50 messages when he was gone for ten days.) The installation requires careful planning, as you may not want one extension per phone, but you may want people to be able to call you from any phone (as an intercom). For example, each of the boys has their own extension. (1 and 2.) The rest of us are line three: (kitchen, Master BR, library.) If I want to call the kitchen from the library, I can't, since they are both on the same line. One way out is to wire some dummy extensions that you don't tell the outside world about (4 for Master BR, and 5 for library) and keep a line 3 phone in the BR and library so you can hear the rings. If there is a power outage, all phones ring as if they were hooked up to the telco (assuming the REN's aren't too high.) What I don't like about the system: The average person who calls is either confused, or frustrated with having to deal with the technology. I had the plumber call me at work and ask for my home phone number again as the number I gave must be a business. You have to remember to tell people who don't know you to dial the right extension when it answers. The 15 year old ordered a $30 pizza, and gave them the phone number. Making sure it wasn't a prank, they called back and didn't know what extension to dial. No pizza, until I called them and asked what's up. The rotary dial phone user is stuck. As has been pointed out in this newsgroup, a lot of people have refused to upgrade their phones for the principal of having to pay for the privilege of saving baby bell time and money. One of my parents called and left a message "Help! I don't have a touch tone phone!" You need to leave a long detailed message in order to explain all the options and possibilities: "Thank you for calling. If you know the extension you may dial it at any time, if you want to speak to ... hit 1, (etc.), if you stay on the line you may leave a message ..." You get the point. Most people don't want to hear all the options, I would need a five minute OGM. Eventually people get used to it. One curious thing, my 15 year old said he tried calling collect from out of town, and the operator told him she could not push 3 to get through to the "house" extension. I couldn't imagine PAC Bell not being able to send a DTMF 3, but I was curious, could he have pushed 3 on the pay phone and have it go through? "Just a minute operator, let me dial that for you!" He says he tried to call, and we aren't sure whether to believe him or not. Overall Impression: I prefer things over the way they were before. There are times when I think seperate lines would be in order, but then I am reminded of monthly charges, hookup fees, and the fact that I don't want one for every room/kid. The phone is used just as much, if not more. If I need to make a call though, my wife has a seperate business line. Convincing the people who call me that it is a good thing is sometimes a challenge. Most people have a hard time figuring out how to leave a message when there is no answer. Brad Houser | Deus Ex Intel California Technology Development, RN3-12 408-765-0494 | Machina! 2200 Mission College Blvd. bhouser@sc9.intel.com Santa Clara, CA 95052-8119 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 16:34:58 CST From: acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Gotcha! Striking Back with Call Back The following appeared in Richard Roeper's column in the {Chicago Sun-Times} on January 15, 1992: --quote-- 19-year-old John Windhorst of Justice [Illinois] pulled a boner that will be hard to top in the months to come. Our story begins in October, when Windhorst allegedly broke into Tiffany Sweeney's Nissan Sentra, which was parked outside her apartment complex in Justice, and took a cassette player and some tapes. On Jan. 7, Windhorst returned and allegedly broke into a Chevy Blazer owned by Tiffany's husband, Tom, this time grabbing a radar detector, a compact disc player, a Pink Floyd CD and some business cards that included the Sweeney's home number. A few hours later, the couple's phone rang and Tiffany Sweeney answered. "Thanks for the radio!" a voice chirped. Click. This is where telephone technology took over. The Sweeneys have the phone gimmick known as Automatic Callback, which doesn't reveal a number a la Caller ID but does dial back the most recent caller. So as soon as the taunting thief hung up, Tom punched in a code number and reached the Windhorst family's answering machine -- with a message that included a telephone number. Whoops. "Hey, thanks for the number," Tom said. At that point, Barney Fife could have tracked down the thief. Windhorst was arrested Wednesday [January 8th] and has confessed to the two burglaries, police said. No word yet on whether he's changed his answering machine message. --end of quote-- Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Datalogics, Inc. Internet: acg@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 [Moderator's Note: Gosh, just look at the way those folks violated the caller's privacy ... the Socially Responsible citizens among us will probably have a field day with this example of why modern telephone technology which allows the the called party (of all people, for gawd's sake!) to know who called is such an evil, bad thing. I mean, what if everyone started calling back the people who ripped them off ... what would become of our constitution and Bill of Rights? :) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #54 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15082; 20 Jan 92 22:44 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19618 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 20:21:47 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17988 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 20:21:19 -0600 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 20:21:19 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201210221.AA17988@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #55 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Jan 92 20:20:52 CST Volume 12 : Issue 55 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Computer Networking in Russia (Tom Benson via gerry@vm1.yorku.ca) Seeking Boston Symposium (David Lin) Offshore Communications (was Person-to-Person) (Steve McDowell) Newsletter For 900 Service (Free Sample Available) (Nigel Allen) Oil Rig Cellular (was Person-to-Person) (Craig Ibbotson) How Do You Calculate a 32-bit CRC? (Ed Rank via Bill Smith) Listening to the Called Phone Ringing (David Klur) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 21:39:47 EST Reply-To: XCUL List From: GERRY@VM1.YORKU.CA Subject: Computer Networking in Russia Here is an interesting item regarding developments in the electronic mail of Russia and the other CIS countries... ---------Original message--------- -- Email in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (Tom Benson) Date: 13 January 1991 From: Tom Benson Subject: Email in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States This report is forwarded to xlchc at Mike Cole's suggestion; it was prepared for another network (CRTNET) but may be of some interest here. I'd be happy to answer questions or accept corrections. There's a lot to tell, but I'll try to keep this fairly brief and invite questions and commentary. This is an account of a trip on December 13-20, 1991, to Moscow, Russia, at the request of IREX (the International Research and Exchanges Board), sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation, and through the good offices of Mike Cole, University of California at San Diego. Mike is an authority on Soviet psychology, has long been a leading figure in international discussions of computer use in the (former) Soviet Union, and in fact wrote a highly interesting account of "Computerization in Soviet Education" for CRTNET (CRTNET 16 [26 November 1985]). I traveled with Peter Olenick, a senior networking specialist from Princeton University. Our assignment was to assess the current state of computer communications among social scientists and humanists in Moscow, with special reference to the Soviet Academy of Sciences (which transformed itself into the Russian Academy of Sciences the week we were in Moscow). We were also invited to make recommendations about priorities for future development. Our host in Moscow was Dr. Alexandra (Sasha) Belyaeva, a senior research psychologist at the Institute of Psychology and a principal developer of electronic mail among academicians in Moscow (in addition to a long running experiment in international e-mail for schoolchildren). We were accompanied on most of our site visits, as well, by one of Alexandra Belyaeva's assistants, Dmitry Mozhaev (Jim). The research institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences operate under the authority of the ministry of science of the central government, and comprise by far the largest network of research scientists (outside of systems of higher education, which is the U.S. model) in the world, encompassing disciplines in the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Despite the years of work of Alexandra Belyaeva and others, general development of computer communications is still in an early phase, owing to technical, economic, political, and cultural considerations. The current arrangement for the institutes with which Alexandra Belyaeva is working is that the institute has a microcomputer and a modem; electronic mail is composed in local mode on the microcomputer, which then dials RELCOM, a telecommunications agency gradually evolving from a project based in another institute. The mail is transferred to RELCOM and any new incoming mail is then sent from RELCOM to the microcomputer; the connection is then broken. RELCOM periodically dials up a host computer in Europe and exchanges incoming and outgoing mail with worldwide networks such as BITNET and the Internet. RELCOM assesses a user fee for each transmission. At the Vega Laboratory at the Institute of Psychology, Alexandra Belyaeva has established a general address -- psy-pub@comlab.msk.su -- to which electronic mail may be sent to anyone in the Institute (the addressee's name is used on the "Subject:" line of the mail. Similar projects are underway, through Alexandra Belyaeva's initiatives, at a number of other institutes. Here is a short list of recently connected institutes compiled by Alexandra Belyaeva and Dmitry Mozhaev: Institute : The State Historical Public Library Address : Moscow, 101000, Starosadsky 9 Phone : +7 (095)-928-4341; +7 (095)-921-1707 Postmaster: Galina Zinina Email : postmaster@shpl.msk.su Connected : 09.03.91 Institute : Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology Address : Moscow, 117334, Leninsky pr, 32 A Phone : +7 (095)-938-1747 Postmaster: Irina Dakhnovskaya Email : postmaster@iea.msk.su Connected : 09.22.91 Institute : Institute of State and Law Address : Moscow, 121019, Znamenka st. 10 Phone : +7 (095)-219-1229 Postmaster: Marina Karelina Email : postmaster@isl.msk.su Connected : 11.19.91 Institute : Intstitute of History, Science and Technology Address : Moscow, 103012, Starobansky st, 1/5 Phone : +7 (095)-928-1029 Postmaster: Dmitry Bayuk Email : postmaster@ihst.msk.su Connected : 12.04.91 Institute : Institute of Latin America Address : Moscow, 113184, Bolshaya Ordynka st, 21 Phone : +7 (095)-231-1322; +7 (095)-231-5127 Postmaster: Igor Arteminkov Email : postmaster@ila.msk.su Connected : 12.12.91 Institute : Institute of Slavic and Balkan studies Address : Moscow, 117334, Leninsky prospect, 32-A Phone : +7 (095)-938-1780 Postmaster: Andrej Edemsky Email : postmaster@isb.msk.su Connected : 13 January 1992 Institute : Institute of Psychology Address : Moscow, 129366, Yaroslavskaya st, 13 Phone : +7 (095)-283-5140 Postmaster: Roman Tolochkov Email : psy-pub@comlab.vega.msk.su Connected : september 1991. Alexandra Belyaeva has been in contact with 39 Institutes of the former Soviet Academy of Sciences that operate in human sciences and humanities -- some changes in structure and number of these Institutes may be expected with the transfer from the Soviet Academy to the Russian Academy. Also in Vega's "zone of attention" are other institutions not directly connected with the Academy of Sciences -- such as libraries, archives, research programs of humanities complexes, and new educational organizations. We visited, for example, with Dean Yassen Zassoursky of the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow State University, and plans are underway to connect the Institute. The service connections through RELCOM are a tremendous breakthrough, as more and more institutes get connected and the international conversation begins. But there are considerable limitations, still. Using the e-mail-only dialup system now employed, Russian scholars are denied access to many online services that depend on synchronous, online, interactive messaging (or can use such services only by a comparatively cumbersome e-mail equivalent). The requirement of paying for each message has a potentially discouraging effect on the sort of exploration that is required to use e-mail for maximum effect. The use of a single, centralized microcomputer in a large institute as the sole machine in communication with the outside world takes advantage of the rapidity of transmission of e-mail but is very different from the experience of a scholar who has a microcomputer at home and office, both with direct and instant access to the international networks. Projects are underway to develop Bitnet-style online communications using mainframes connected by leased lines. Andrej Mendkovich, of the Institute of Organic Chemistry, Moscow, is director of SUEARN (the Soviet Union version of EARN -- European Academic Research Network). SUEARN does have a leased line into EARN, and plans to connect mainframes at scientific institutes throughout Russia, but problems with the Russian phone system and limited financial resources, among other things, have impeded rapid progress. In addition, there seems to be some tendency within the Soviet academic community to repeat the pattern familiar in the United States academic community some years ago: the scientists and engineers who owned the mainframes did not always see the point of including social scientists and humanists in their plans. Whatever the limitations of the current situation, the urgencies of social and political development make computer communication a potentially important tool for international conversation and cooperation. A new democracy is struggling to be born and many believe that Russian intellectuals, freed from the restraints of past times and in communication with each other and the West, can play an important role in the process. Under these circumstances, very rapid connection of institutes, universities, and similar agencies could have significant benefits for the peaceful evolution of Russian and Commonwealth societies. Tom Benson | INTERNET: t3b@psuvm.psu.edu Dept. of Speech Communication | BITNET: T3B@PSUVM Penn State University | 227 Sparks Building | FAX: 814-863-7986 University Park, PA 16802 USA 814-238-5277 (home); 814-865-4201 (office); 814-865-3461 (secretary) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 16:06:02 -0500 From: David Lin Subject: Boston Symposium I heard that there was a symposium in the Boston area from January 22 - 23, 1992. If anyone has any information regarding this, please contact me. Thanks, David ------------------------------ From: mcdowell@exloghou.exlog.com (Steve McDowell) Subject: Offshore Communications (was Re: Person-to-Person) Organization: Exploration Logging, Inc. In message bill@eedsp.gatech.edu writes: > Aside question: I'm guessing that oil rigs (at least in the Gulf of > Mexico) use cellular primarily. Is that so? If not, what do they use > -- radio telephone? > In any event, my connections have always been full duplex; that's why I > suspect cellular is the method used. For several years I provided support for computers running on oil tankers. The primary mode of communication (until about 1988) was a service called Marisat. They provide full duplex paths, which were usually good for 2400baud data connections. The echo usually made higher data rates unbearable. It sounded like a normal international call. In 1988, Exxon started using cellular technology for ships in the Gulf of Mexico (which is *very* well covered) and the upper East coast (which was fairly unreliable). As for the rest of the waterways, and pretty much anything more than 10 miles or so off the coast, marisat was the way to go -- and it cost about $10/minute. I never used person-to-person, but it was a direct dial call (Marisat has their own country code). If the ship (or rig) is out of cellular range and their marisat can't connect for whatever reason, there is a service called KHT that provides single sideband simplex paths...unusable for data, but okay for talking to someone. River boats (tugs), and I would imagine rig barges, strictly used cellular. Steve McDowell . . . . o o o o o Opinions are Exlog, Inc. _____ o mine, not my mcdowell@exlog.com _____==== ]OO|_n_n__][. employers.. [_________]_|__|________)< ooo ooo 'oo OOOOO oo\_ ------------------------------ From: nigel.allen@canrem.uucp (Nigel Allen) Date: 15 Jan 92 (16:42) Subject: Newsletter For 900 Service (Free Sample Available) Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Reply-to: nigel.allen@canrem.uucp Audiotex News advertises itself as "the newsletter for anyone who wants to get ahead or into the 900 industry." For a free sample issue, call 800-735-3398. It might even be of interest to people who disapprove of the 900 industry (the majority of TELECOM Digest readers, I suspect). The number was advertised in TeleProfessional, a trade magazine for telemarketers. Canada Remote Systems. Toronto, Ontario NorthAmeriNet Host ------------------------------ From: ibbotson@rtsg.mot.com (Craig Ibbotson) Subject: Oil Rig Cellular (Was What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person?) Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 18:28:22 GMT bill@eedsp.gatech.edu (Bill Berbenich) writes: > Aside question: I'm guessing that oil rigs (at least in the Gulf of > Mexico) use cellular primarily. Is that so? If not, what do they use > -- radio telephone? I think the switchboard tries radio first and if > that doesn't work they ring through on cellular. Sometimes the > switchboard puts me on hold for what seems like quite a while, > apparently while they make the connection (and the IXC operator stays > with me -- (s)he's nice like that :-). Do any Digest/c.d.t readers > call to rigs a lot? That might make for a nice submission here -- Oil > Rig Telecommunications. In any event, my connections have always been > full duplex; that's why I suspect cellular is the method used. Yes, the oil rigs use cellular communication via satellite. One of my first field trips as a Motorola software engineer was to New Orleans to oversee the software installation for Petrocomm. Petrocomm operates a cellular system in the Gulf of Mexico. I believe they had plans for 27 or so cell sites. They were the beta site for a new software release, so I was sent to verify it's operation on a live system. The cell sites communicate back with the switch via satellite. Motorola had never done a cellular installation like this before, and it was interesting to see how it was done. The base sites were built on land and bolted onto platforms which were predrilled for fitting on the oil rig. The cell sites themselves only had a few channels, but that was all they needed. Once all the cell sites were assembled and bolted to the platform, they were flown out by helicopter to the rigs and attached to the rigs. We weren't allowed to go out on the rigs (and being a software person, I had no reason to go on a rig) but I was always curious to see what the final installation looked like. It must have been well-planned, because after making some adjustments for the satellite delay in the cell site maintenance software (located in the exchange), they were up and running and processing calls. The exchange was located in a town on the outskirts of New Orleans - I can't recall the name. Glad to hear you're a happy customer! Craig Ibbotson, Motorola, Inc. ...uunet!motcid!ibbotsonc Cellular Infrastructure Division, Radio Telephone Systems Group ------------------------------ From: bsmith@buengf.bu.edu (Bill Smith) Subject: How Do You Calculate a 32-bit CRC? Date: 19 Jan 92 23:24:01 GMT Reply-To: bsmith@buengf.bu.edu (Bill Smith) Organization: College of Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA Please reply to erank@winky.ed.ray.com. If you cannot reach him, then you may send it to me at either bsmith@buengf.bu.edu or bsmith@bass.bu.edu. I'm writine test code for the AMD LANCE Ethernet chipset. I need to calculate the CRC in software so that I can check the hardware CRC circuitry. The CRC algorithm is the CRC-32 (IEEE 802) algorithm which uses the following polynomial. 32 26 23 22 16 12 11 10 8 7 5 4 2 X + X + X + X + X + X + X + X + X + X + X + X + X + X + 1 I was hoping to find a 'C' routine that worked like the following: calc_crc( bufp, bcnt ) char *bufp; /* pointer to data */ int bcnt; /* byte count of data */ { /* calculate crc */ return crc; } Any help would be appreciated. Ed Rank, erank@winky.ed.ray.com ------------------------------ From: dklur@attmail.com Subject: Listening to the Called Phone Ringing Date: Thu Jan 16 10:39:00 EST 1992 When I dial a phone number and hear the called party's phone "ring", I am really hearing tones generated by my local switch, right? If this is true, then why when I call an international phone number, do I hear a different kind of ringing than the ringing for a domestic call? David Klur dklur@attmail.com [Moderator's Note: No, you are not necessarily listening to your own switch. You might be listening to the distant switch. On international calls where you have heard 'different ringing sounds' you most likely are listening to the distant switch rather than your own. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #55 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16033; 20 Jan 92 23:17 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22598 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 21:05:46 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21468 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 21:05:08 -0600 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 21:05:08 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201210305.AA21468@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #56 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Jan 92 21:04:57 CST Volume 12 : Issue 56 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Determining System ID of Current Cellular System (John R. Covert) Equipment-Rental Rates in Tariffs (Will Martin) AT&T Advertisement Uses 12-Digit Phone Number (Andrew Klossner) USTA and USITA (Bud Couch) *611 and *711 Calls Are Free? (John Gilbert) Details Wanted on Call Progress Tones (Mike Weal) Speaker Phone Wanted For a Conference (J. Philip Miller) Voice/Modem Automatically Switched? (Does it Exist?) (James Barrett) Wireless LAN System Information Needed (Surgwon Sohn) Reverse Directory Information (Stewart I. Alpert) AT&T $20 Cash Offer (Dan Meyer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 11:52:26 PST From: John R. Covert 15-Jan-1992 1429 Subject: Determining System ID of Current Cellular System In an article I wrote yesterday entitled "Motorola Cellular Phone Test Mode Commands" I asked (among other things) about determining the system ID of the current cellular system while roaming. The Moderator added a note: > Moderator's Note: The way I always tell what system I have roamed > into is by dialing *711 or *611 and asking. Those calls are free. Patrick, that certainly never gets you the System ID, and it often doesn't tell you what system you are in. When dialing *611 or *711 on the "B" carrier in this area you get a recording telling you "Thank you for using the NYNEX Mobile Cellular System; your call cannot be completed as dialed." But that really doesn't tell you which of NYNEX Mobile's many systems you've just accessed, especially if you are on the top of a hill between two different systems. Dialing *711 on the "A" carrier results in a reorder tone. Dialing *611 reaches "Cellular One". That sure tells you a lot, doesn't it? There's Cellular One JHP Partnership, Cellular One McCaw, Cellular One Southwestern Bell, Cellular One GTE, Cellular One of Huntsville, etc. Oh, yes, and Cellular One (Southwestern Bell) in Boston told me today that they can't tell me what their system ID is. "That's Proprietary Information," they say. No matter that it is published in books such as the "Cellular Telephone Directory", assigned by the FCC, and a matter of public record. In any case, I think Patrick was suggesting that I call customer service from the phone. Customer Service is usually 611 on "B" systems and usually *611 on "A" systems. But it can be "0" in some systems (such as in the Cantel system throughout Canada or in the Boatphone systems in the Caribbean). But in many areas, [*]611 simply translates to a landline telephone number. For example, 611 on all BellSouth Mobility systems simply contacts Atlanta. They have no idea there what system you're using to make the call. Oh, and 611 isn't always free. I was travelling along I-91 in Vermont last October and noticed that there was service where there had been none before. I dialed 611, talked for a few minutes, was cut off, and then dialed 611 again. A month later, my bill showed a $3.00 daily fee, one $2.75 call, and a second $1.45 call. I had been billed the daily fee, plus 99 cents a minute, plus a long distance charge from Clairmont to Lebanon for calling customer service. Total charge: $7.20 plus tax. Needless to say, I had NYNEX remove the charges. In addition to the aforementioned problem that customer service often thinks that the system ID is proprietary, they often know nothing about what their own service area is and what the service area of their neighbors are. U.S. Cellular often doesn't even know whether they are an A or B carrier, since sometimes they are the "A" carrier in one county and the "B" carrier right in the adjacent county, both operating off the same switch! And, of course, many cellular systems have nothing but a recording on [*]611 outside of "normal business hours." So, what I'm looking for is a way to actually find out the real system ID, as oppossed to trusting some human who really has little or no idea what is going on to guess where I am and think they know what system ID is in use in that area. john [Moderator's Note: Ameritech in Chicago makes a point of advertising and announcing on the recording that cellular calls to *611 or the landline version (1-800-221-0994) are always free from cellular. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 9:34:20 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Equipment-Rental Rates in Tariffs I was just talking with one of our facilities-management and equipment-maintenance people here about data networks and equipment, and the subject of some items the government is renting from the telco came up. We agreed that any datacomm gear or link that has been in place and unchanged for more than a couple years is a source of "gravy" income to the vendor -- not only has the original cost of the items and the labor to install been completely recouped many times over, but the progress of the technology in the intervening years has so far outstripped that in-place equipment that its current fair-market value is essentially zero. It couldn't be sold today, yet it is still earning the vendor rental income as if it was something of current value. This started me wondering about how those rental rates are set, and if they are ever revised to reflect a more realistic value of the items rented. Here in St. Louis, SWBell is the telco, but I'm not sure just who owns this equipment now; I guess it is AT&T. I suppose the state PUC [or the FCC? -- see below] approves the initial tariffed rental rate, but then, over the succeeding years, does anyone ever look at those rates and revise them downward to reflect the fact that "Model XYZ" modems of 1978 vintage (for example) are constantly dwindling in value, and therefore the rates to rent them should be far lower in later years than the cost when they were new in 1978? [By now, the telco ought to pay the customer! :-)] Does the PUC have staff whose job it is to do this, or don't they have those resources? I get the impression that the PUC concentrates on the more "glamorous" or at least higher-public-interest subjects like the rates for individual residence service, or basic business serivce, and that these thousands of other rates, for specialized equipment few people recognize and fewer people care about, tend to be rubber-stamped as "approved" with no examination. Am I right? [I realize this varies from state to state, so I would expect responses to reflect netters' experiences in their own states. Or is the AT&T rental of equipment an FCC-tariffed subject standardized nationwide?] If watchdogging this equipment-rental rate area isn't being done by any governmental body, one would think that some consortium of equipment users or trade association would be interested in doing this, if they could get the funding. Or perhaps this is what some telephone-service consultants do? I know several of those are on the list; perhaps they could comment on the subject. Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Subject: AT&T Advertisement Uses 12-Digit Phone Number Date: 16 Jan 92 18:45:50 GMT Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon I just heard this radio ad: AT&T will give a business free installation when they sell the switch, the terminals, and the wiring. Call "1 800 222 HOOK UP" for more information. AT&T can't assign itself a seven-letter mnemonic, but has to add unused digits to a phone number to make it memorable? Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) ------------------------------ From: kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net Subject: USTA and USITA Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 21:20:33 GMT In article niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr) writes: > PAT asks: >> [Moderator's Note: Is the United States Telephone Association the same >> as (or what used to be called) the United States Independent Telephone >> Association? (Sometimes known as USITA). ^^^^^^^^^^^ PAT] > The sponsors were the RBOCs and the United States Telephone > Association, representing over 1,100 local telcos. I have no idea as > to whether or not USTA and USITA are the same. Anyone have ideas? In the beginning ... there was AT&T, owner of all of the various "Bell" operating companies, and the "independents", companies which were not owned by AT&T. To answer your question, yes, USTA (pronounced you-sta) use'ta be USITA (pronounced you-see-ta). When the baby Bells were cast into the outer darkness by Judge Greene, USITA decided that since they were no longer part of AT&T, they would allow them in, and changed the name to eliminate the "Independent" part. (There was no longer anything to be "independent" from ... or should that be "from which to be"? :-)) Anybody know whether the two separate "Telephone Pioneers" organizations merged? In the days of USITA, most of the bitchin was about Ma Bell, now at USTA meetings NATA fills the role of the "the people you love to hate". Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: johng.all_proj@mot.com (John) Subject: *611 and *711 Calls Are Free? Organization: Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Divsion Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 16:54:24 GMT Pat writes: > [Moderator's Note: The way I always tell what system I have roamed > into is by dialing *711 or *611 and asking. Those calls are free. PAT] -- Supposed to be free. I roamed into a system in South Florida and made one of those *611/*711 calls. I was charged for daily access and a couple of minutes airtime for talking to the cellular company's service rep. The number that appeared on my bill was the number that *611 translated to. Since I didn't make any toll calls from that city, I called and complained.They removed the charge. I wonder how much they make from charging roamers that call those numbers. Some models of Motorola phones will allow you to display the system number. My Dynatac 6800XL mobile will do it as a normal user feature. John Gilbert KA4JMC Secure and Advanced Conventional Sys Div Astro Systems Development Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector Schaumburg, Illinois johng@ecs.comm.mot.com ------------------------------ Subject: Details Wanted on Call Progress Tones From: mweal@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Mike Weal) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 17:01:37 PST Organization: Questor - Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC::+1 604 681 0670 I a looking for descriptions of telephone call progress tones (ie dial tone, busy tone, call waiting, etc). Could someone give these description and/or the document describing them. Also does anyone know of a description of similar tones for PBXs and KSUs. Thanks, Mike Weal (mweal@questor.wimsey.bc.ca) The QUESTOR Project: Free Public Access to Usenet & Internet in Vancouver, BC, Canada. BBS: +1 604 681 0670 FAX: +1 604 682 6659 ------------------------------ From: phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) Subject: Speaker Phone Wanted For a Conference Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 20:00:35 CST At the last minute some important members of a meeting will not be able to attend a small (20 person) meeting. We would like to be able to include them in the meeting with a phone hookup. Years ago we used to lease a nice speaker phone from the phone company (prior to breakup) that had a good quality speaker and microphones that worked pretty good for this type of setup, but I suspect that there are better alternatives now. The meeting will be held in a hotel conference room, probably with folks sitting around a table and most of the content of the meeting will be discussion, rather than formal presentations. Can anyone suggest good equipment for me to purchase (or rent) for this purpose? 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 ------------------------------ From: barrett@hendrix.gatech.edu (James Barrett) Subject: Voice/Modem Automatically Switched? (Does it Exist?) Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 05:18:03 GMT I know this isn't likely due to the nature of modem communications, but is there any way for one phone line to share both voice calls and a BBS? They make those switches for fax machines, but I don't think that'll work for modems since the calling modem expects to hear a modem answer before it'll "speak". Since I really can't afford a second phone line, is there any hope of me running a BBS (other than winning a lottery ...)? Thanks! James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu) Georgia Tech College of Computing ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 09:35:50 PST From: ned@kaerigw.kaeri.re.kr (ned) Subject: Wireless LAN System Information Needed I am looking for wireless LAN system. I am very appreciate it if you send me any info. Thanks in advance, Surgwon Sohn Senior Researcher Packet : HL3ANF@HL3ADI.KOR.AS Nuclear Electronics Department Internet : ned@kaerigw.kaeri.re.kr Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute Phone : 82-42-820-2931 P.O. Box 7, Taeduk Science Town FAX : 82-42-820-2702 305-606 S. KOREA ------------------------------ From: "Stewart I. Alpert" Subject: Reverse Directory Information Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 16:19:11 PST Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. Can anyone point me towards a source for reverse directory information? I'd like to find a way to trace a name/address given a phone number. Stewart I. Alpert sia@sco.com or Member of Technical Staff ...!uunet!sco!sia The Santa Cruz Operation 800-SCO-UNIX or 408-425-7222 400 Encinal Street, Box 1900 FAX: 408-458-4227 Santa Cruz, California 95061 TWX: 910-250-8801 NETOUT UG [Moderator's Note: In the municipal libraries of most communities, you will find a 'criss-cross' directory for the town. Many such libraries take inquiries of the directory through their telephone research lines. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 18:26:14 CST From: rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer) Subject: AT&T $20 Cash Offer I recieved a check from AT&T in the amount of $20 a little after Thanksgiving. I read all of the print on the front and the back, and it said something to the effect that I would be switched to AT&T if I deposited the check. No problem. I would get switched to AT&T and then I could contact US West (my local telephone provider) and get switched back to MCI pronto, getting charged $10 for my trouble, and coming out $10 ahead in the bank account. Well, I thought about my little plan for a month, and around New Year's figured what the heck, and deposited the check. A few weeks later, my long distance company was AT&T. Time to call US West and get things fixed up. Tuesday, January 14, the lady at the business office said that she would forward the problem to repair service and that I would be switched to MCI by 7 pm the 15th. No such luck. The morning of the 15, someone from US West called me at work, and stated that there was no way that they could accomadate me. I figured I was beating a dead horse talking to them, so rather than waste everyones time, I would do what the people at US West said I should do, and called MCI. The people at MCI seem to understand service better than the people at US West. They re-activated my MCI card (that got shut off also!) and gave me a $20 credit for switching back to them from AT&T (we'll have to wait and see if this appears on my MCI bill!). MCI also said that US West should have been able to take care of my request, but since US west would not, MCI would. Today, (Jan 15) my MCI card still does not work. When I complained to US West that I was still not defaulting to MCI as my 1 plus long distance carrier, they still maintained that I need to speak with MCI. I told them that I had, and that I didn't understand why they can't just do something at my central office. I felt like I was talking to a telcom illiterate when I tried to explain why they should be able to switch me back to MCI. At any rate, the lady at US WEST set up a conference call to MCI and explained the situation. The man at MCI took care of things, and explained how 10222 dialing works, and the 1-700-555-4141 number works, and said that in five business days I should be back to MCI. We'll see. Dan Meyer UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!rambler INET: rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org [Moderator's Note: I don't think you will be switched back. Let us know how it works out. I think AT&T and MCI now have an agreement with each other regarding this subject for their mutual benefit. I think you are stuck with AT&T for some minimum contract period. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #56 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17185; 21 Jan 92 0:00 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31151 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 22:11:38 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27798 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 22:11:06 -0600 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 22:11:06 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201210411.AA27798@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #57 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Jan 92 22:11:03 CST Volume 12 : Issue 57 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Southwestern Bell Files For ISDN Offering (Mark Earle) AT&T Long Distance Rates (Jack Dominey) CB RFI Prevents Datacomm (mission!randy@uunet.uu.net) FAX/Phone Auto-Switches for Modem/Phone Use? (Brent Chapman) ARA Script For Maya V.32 (Jim Kateley) New FidoNet Cellular Echo/Conference/Newsgroup (Mark Earle) Locating Unlisted Numbers (Tatsuya Kawasaki) I Couldn't Get AT&T From Payphone (Chuck Grandgent) SONET Question (Bruce Sonnenfeld) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 21:57:51 CST From: mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) Subject: Southwestern Bell Files For ISDN Offering Public Notice On October 4, 1991 Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Southwestern Bell) filed an application with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (Commission) that proposes a new optional service called DigiLine(sm) Service. the application was assigned Docket No. 10655. DigiLine Service uses a 144 Kbps facility, typically divided into two 65Kpbs B Channels and one 16 Kbps D channel to provide ac- ^ |--Not my typo -- although there probably are some in here! This is as it appears ... anyhow... cess to and from the public switched telephone network for circuit- switched voice communications. DigiLine Service also provides transmission of circuit-switched data and packet-switched data within the customers service office area only. this service allows the simultaneous transmission of voice and data over a single resi dence or business telephone line from a serving office equipped for DigiLine Service. The monthly recurring charges for DigiLine Service consist of three major rate elements: Basic Interface Facility ($19.00); Basic Interface Equipment ($12.00); and, an Integrates Services Network Component for each B Channel (rate varies from $1.90 to $7.25 per B Channel depending on the customers class of service and location.) Other charges may also be applicable depending on the options requested by the customer. DigiLine Service operates only with compatibly-equipped FCC Part 68 registered equipment. The service will be offered initially in the following exchanges and within the following serving offices: Exchange Serving Offices Dallas Fleetwood, Richardson, Riverside Austin Fireside San Antonio Capitol, Medical Center Houston Clay, Medical Center DigiLine Service may be furnished in other serving offices in any of the above exchanges in combination with foreign serving office charges. In addition, DigiLine Service may be available in other ex- changes upon a customer's bona fide request. A bona fide request is a written request for service. Upon receipt of the bona fide request, Southwestern Bell will conduct an economic analysis to determine the financial viability of offering the requested service. Southwestern Bell expects DigiLine Service to generate first-year revenues of approximately $236,000. Persons who wish to intervene or otherwise participate in this docketed proceeding should notify the Commission as soon as pos- sible, but not later than by February 10, 1992. A request to intervene, participate, or for further information should be mailed to the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suit 400N, Austin, Texas 78757. further information also may be obtained by calling the Public Utility Commission Public Information Office at 512-458-0256. the telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) number is 512-458-0221. Bell System Logo Southwestern Bell (heavy letters) Telephone ---------------- I thought the Digest might find this of interest ... mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 CI$ 73117,351 Packet: WA2MCT @ KA5LZG.TX.NA.USA ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Fri Jan 17 09:32:04 EST 1992 Subject: AT&T Long Distance Rates In Digest v12 #37, Steve Forrette (stevef@wrq.com) reported that someone at AT&T (presumably an operator) had quoted a rate of $.14/initial minute + $.15/ additional minute for calls between area codes 206 and 213. Someone goofed. Attached is part of page 56 from FCC Tariff #1, detailing AT&T's basic long distance rates. (Note that these rates are not determined by area code pairs, but by mileage. The mileage is determined by area code + exchange, so the distance from my office to AT&T HQ in New Jersey is determined by a measurement between 404-496 [Tucker, GA] and 908-221 [Basking Ridge, NJ].) AT&T COMMUNICATIONS TARIFF F.C.C. No. 1 Adm. Rates and Tariffs 38th Revised Page 56 Bridgewater, NJ 08807 Cancels 37th Revised Page 56 Issued: June 28, 1991 Effective: July 1, 1991 3.2.1. Intra-Mainland, Mainland-Alaska and Mainland-Hawaii Service - Schedule I; Hawaii-Alaska Service - Schedule IA (continued) L. Intra-Mainland, Mainland-Alaska and Mainland-Hawaii Service Rate Schedule I - The following rates apply to Dial Station, Customer Dialed Calling Card Station, Operator Station, Person-to-Person and Real Time Rated classes of service calls. The rates apply all days of the week as specified in the Rate Period Chart following. In addition, Service Charges apply, as indicated. 1. Dial Station DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND EACH EACH EACH RATE INITIAL ADD'L INITIAL ADD'L INITIAL ADD'L MILEAGE MINUTE MINUTE MINUTE MINUTE MINUTE MINUTE 1-10 0.1700 Rx 0.1700 0.1200 0.1100 0.1051 0.1051 11-22 0.1800 0.1800 0.1300 0.1300 0.1139 0.1139 23-55 0.1900 0.1900 0.1300 0.1300 0.1208 0.1208 56-124 0.2100 0.2100 0.1450 0.1450 0.1208 0.1208 125-292 0.2100 0.2100 0.1450 0.1450 0.1223 0.1223 293-430 0.2300 0.2300 0.1457 0.1457 0.1256 0.1256 431-925 0.2300 0.2300 0.1495 0.1495 0.1306 0.1306 926-1910 0.2440 Rx 0.2440 Rx 0.1496 0.1496 0.1331 0.1331 1911-3000 0.2459 Rx 0.2459 Rx 0.1496 0.1496 0.1357 0.1357 3001-4250 0.3000 0.2900 0.2077 0.2010 0.1650 0.1650 4251-5750 0.3300 0.3200 0.2211 0.2144 0.1750 0.1750 x Issued on not less than one day's notice under authority of Special Permission No. 91-545. Printed in U..S.A. ----------------------- Additional note: None of the AT&T optional calling plans I know about offer a lower first-minute rate, either. Some of them have a 30-second initial billing period, but this is almost always exactly five times the rate for each additional six seconds. Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA +1 404 496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey or !bsga05!jdominey ------------------------------ From: mission!randy@uunet.uu.net Subject: CB RFI Prevents Datacomm Date: Thu Jan 16 18:16:15 1992 I have a friend who lives in a two-apartment building. His upstairs neighbor has a CB with a linear which amplifies the wattage perhaps as high as 300 watts. His antenna is on the roof with a rotary. He seems to be *always* transmitting. Whever my friend tries to dial in to any computer, he gets so much garbage on the line that it is unusable, even at 300 baud (although the interference is less at 300 baud than at 1200). The CBer refuses to do anything, and my friend is concerned that pursuing an FCC complaint would make the living situation quite unpleasant. If anyone has any suggestions on how my friend can dial out to computers, please send me email or post to the Digest. Thanks for any and all help. [Moderator's Note: The use of a linear amp in the eleven meter (CB) band is quite illegal. But if the CB'er had any real knowledge of his rig he'd be able to use that power and clean it up to make the signal very strong yet *almost* unnoticeable to other non-CB'ers in the area. Tell your friend to *furtively* stick a pin in the coax cable run to the roof, or better still just cut the coax to the antenna sometime while the CB'er is asleep. :) The CB'er will probably assume one of his on-air enemies did it, assuming your friend has not yet voiced his complaints. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: brent@Telebit.COM (Brent Chapman) Subject: FAX/Phone Auto-Switches For Modem/Phone Use? Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 16:04:45 GMT How do those FAX/Phone auto-switches that decide how to route an incoming call work? I know that they answer the call, fake a continued ring, listen for a couple of seconds for a tone generated by the calling FAX, then route the call according to whether or not they hear the tone, but what is the tone? Is it a standard touch-tone digit? The reason I ask is that I have an application where I'd like to connect a modem to one of these boxes, rather than a FAX machine. The question is, how do I tell the box to switch to the modem when I call into it? Anybody know the details, or have any alternative suggestions? Ideally, people calling the line should have no idea that a modem is lurking, and should get the answering machine without major delay, while people calling from a modem should somehow be able to make the line switch to the modem. Brent ------------------------------ From: kateley@apple.com (Jim Kateley) Subject: ARA Script For Maya V.32 Date: 17 Jan 92 17:07:35 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Campbell Here's an AppleTalk Remote access script for the Maya External Super Modem V.32/V.42Bis Modem. Jim Kateley Apple Computer Disclaimer: Yep, I do. ---------cut here--------- ! "Maya External Super Modem V.32/V.42Bis Modem - 1/14/92" JFK ! Adapted from the 7/29/91 T1600 script that ships with ARA 1.0 ! 1/14/92 - JFK First cut ! 1/16/92 - JFK Figured out you have to use \N1 (direct mode) for ! the modem to connect at 2400 baud. ! @ORIGINATE @ANSWER ! ! Talk to the modem at 9600 bps. ! serreset 9600, 0, 8, 1 ! ! first recall the factory configuration ! settries 0 matchclr @LABEL 1 matchstr 1 3 "OK\13\10" write "AT&F0\13" matchread 20 inctries iftries 2 59 ! Modem is not responding, reset and send a break DTRClear pause 5 DTRSet SBreak jump 1 ! ! Next, Set up the configuration: Turn off command echo, no ! DTE flow control, drop connection after losing DTR, and issue ! extended result codes. ! I also turn the speaker down to low volume, since the middle ! volume is so loud! (at least on the modem I have :-) ! ! E0 - Turn command echo off. ! \Q0 - No DTE flow control ! &D3 - DTR on/off resets modem. ! X4 - Issue extended result codes. This will display busy, connect XXX, ! etc. X4 will say "CONNECT XXX" Where XXX is the line speed. We ! need this so we can tell ARA what speed we are communicating ! at (for the serial port speed). ! L1 - Turn Speaker volume down to Low Volume. ! @LABEL 3 matchclr matchstr 1 4 "OK\13\10" write "ATE0\\Q0&D3X4L1\13" matchread 30 jump 59 ! ! Next, disable MNP/error control, set for direct connect modem, and enable ! verbal responses ! ! \N1 - Turn off all error detection/correction (ARA does MNP and ! compression itself. It needs these turned off in the modem). ! Also sets direct mode, which means the DTE speed will match ! whatever the line speed is. ! V1 - Enable verbal responses. ! @LABEL 4 matchclr matchstr 1 5 "OK\13\10" write "AT\\N1V1\13" matchread 30 jump 59 ! ! If speaker on flag is true, jump to label 8. Else turn off the speaker ! @LABEL 5 ifstr 2 8 "1" matchstr 1 8 "OK\13\10" write "ATM0\13" matchread 30 jump 59 ! ! The modem is ready so enable answering, or originate a call ! @LABEL 8 ifANSWER 30 note "Dialing ^1" 3 write "ATS0=0DT^1\13" ! @LABEL 9 matchstr 1 11 "CONNECT 1200\13\10" matchstr 2 12 "CONNECT 2400\13\10" matchstr 3 13 "CONNECT 4800\13\10" matchstr 4 14 "CONNECT 9600T\13\10" matchstr 6 50 "NO CARRIER\13\10" matchstr 7 50 "ERROR\13\10" matchstr 8 52 "NO DIALTONE\13\10" matchstr 9 53 "BUSY\13\10" matchstr 10 54 "NO ANSWER\13\10" matchread 700 jump 59 ! @LABEL 11 note "Communicating at 1200 bps." 2 serreset 1200, 0, 8, 1 jump 16 ! @LABEL 12 note "Communicating at 2400 bps." 2 serreset 2400, 0, 8, 1 jump 16 ! @LABEL 13 note "Communicating at 4800 bps." 2 serreset 4800, 0, 8, 1 jump 16 ! @LABEL 14 note "Communicating at 9600 bps." 2 serreset 9600, 0, 8, 1 jump 16 ! @LABEL 16 ! ! Turn off hardware handshaking off in the Mac (just to be sure) ! HSReset 0 0 0 0 0 0 ifANSWER 17 pause 30 @LABEL 17 exit 0 ! ! @ANSWER ! Set up the modem to answer ! @LABEL 30 write "ATS0=1\13" matchstr 1 31 "OK\13\10" matchread 30 jump 59 ! @LABEL 31 matchstr 1 32 "RING\13\10" matchstr 2 11 "CONNECT 1200\13\10" matchstr 3 12 "CONNECT 2400\13\10" matchstr 4 13 "CONNECT 4800\13\10" matchstr 5 14 "CONNECT 9600T\13\10" matchstr 7 50 "NO CARRIER\13\10" matchstr 8 50 "ERROR\13\10" matchstr 9 52 "NO DIALTONE\13\10" matchstr 10 53 "BUSY\13\10" matchstr 11 54 "NO ANSWER\13\10" matchread 700 jump 31 ! @LABEL 32 userhook 1 note "Answering phone..." 2 jump 31 ! ! 50: error messages ! @LABEL 50 exit -6021 ! @LABEL 52 exit -6020 ! @LABEL 53 exit -6022 ! @LABEL 54 exit -6023 ! @LABEL 59 exit -6019 ! ! Hang up the modem ! @HANGUP @LABEL 60 settries 0 @LABEL 61 write "ATH\13" matchclr matchstr 1 63 "OK\13\10" matchstr 2 63 "NO CARRIER\13\10" matchstr 3 63 "ERROR\13\10" matchread 30 inctries iftries 3 63 ! no response, try escape sequence write "+++" matchclr matchstr 1 62 "OK\13\10" matchread 15 ! ! No response from modem, toggle DTR ! DTRClear pause 5 DTRSet jump 61 ! Pause 1 second before to ensure we meet the escape time delay @LABEL 62 pause 10 Flush write "ATH\13" matchstr 1 63 "OK\13\10" matchstr 2 63 "NO CARRIER\13\10" matchstr 3 63 "ERROR\13\10" matchread 30 jump 61 ! ! Recall factory settings ! @LABEL 63 matchclr matchstr 1 64 "OK\13\10" write "AT&F0\13" matchread 30 ! ! Turn off auto answer ! ! S0=0 - Don't answer the phone if it rings. ! @LABEL 64 matchclr matchstr 1 65 "OK\13\10" write "ATS0=0\13" matchread 30 ! @LABEL 65 exit 0 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 21:59:22 CST From: mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) Subject: New FidoNet Cellular Echo/Conference/Newsgroup I noticed the other day there is now a CELLULAR echo in the FidoNet system. I've just started subscribing, so no opinion yet. I thought other Digest folks might want to know, however. mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 CI$ 73117,351 Packet: WA2MCT @ KA5LZG.TX.NA.USA ------------------------------ From: tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu (T. Kawasaki) Subject: Locating Unlisted Numbers Organization: Brigham Young University Date: 15 Jan 92 19:24:21 Some months ago, there was 900 number suggested as a way to find out an unlisted number. I believe Pat tried, but no answered ... (after 5 o'clock or something.) Does anyone have that number or is there any way to find out unlisted numbers? Tatsuya tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu EMT:901006 Ham: N7UQJ [Moderator's Note: I suppose you could always subscribe to Caller-ID and then give the person a good, feasable sounding reason for calling you. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: chuck@roadrunner.pictel.com (Chuck Grandgent) Subject: I Couldn't Get AT&T From Payphone Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 13:43:36 EDT OK, this happens to me enough often enough I'm getting tired of it. In a hotel last night and get "IntegraTel" as the payphone service provider. I tried with all my might and couldn't get 1-0-ATT-0 to get me AT&T. I called my house three times, and the first two times my audio wasn't getting through ... I'm sure I'll get billed though. And this has happened before. Any pointers or tricks on coping with this besides crabbing to the people at the hotel front desk ? Anyone know anything about "IntegraTel"? The name sure inspires confidence ... Chuck Grandgent, K1OM chuck@pictel.com PictureTel Corporation Peabody, Massachusetts Voice: 508 977 8314 ------------------------------ From: sonnenfe@nosc.mil (Bruce Sonnenfeld) Subject: SONET Question Date: 17 Jan 92 19:25:48 GMT Organization: NRaD, San Diego I'm trying to find out about the SONET specifications. If you know anything relating to SONET (have information about standards or know where to get them, know of any upcoming conferences, etc.) please send me a note. You can reach me at: Bruce Sonnenfeld (sonnenfe@cod.nosc.mil) (619) 259-2750 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #57 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19480; 21 Jan 92 0:53 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03020 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 23:06:43 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04163 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 23:06:12 -0600 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 23:06:12 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201210506.AA04163@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #58 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Jan 92 23:06:10 CST Volume 12 : Issue 58 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Pac Bell Plans 56Kbps Digital Service Everywhere (Cliff Frost) The Spread of Telepoints (Colum Mylod) AT&T Video-Phone (Takashi Totsuka) ISDN For PC? (Ken Hodor) Germany Update: New City Codes For Former "East Germany" (Juergen Ziegler) Cellular "Lifeline" Service (David W. Barts) Motorola Cellular Phone Info Wanted (Michael H. Brand) Changes With Michigan Bell (Ken Jongsma) Ameritech Mobile Detailed Billing (Leonard Kleinow) ITFS Channels for Cities (Jack Powers) CLID on a PBX (Randall C. Gellens) Street Address Directory (Kevin Collins) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 09:51:08 -0800 From: cliff@garnet.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost) Subject: Pac Bell Plans 56Kbps Digital Service Everywhere Last Monday Evening I saw a presentation of Multimedia on a Mac which was ok. The real surprise (for me) was an announcement made by Pac Bell of plans for a 56 Kbps digital service. I've copied the Press Release below (typos my fault). I distinctly remember the PR person saying that the tariff would be very reasonable. ;-) I spoke with the contact person, Scott Smith, and he didn't have many technical details. His understanding (and the thrust of the release) is that this is still going to be a business tariff, and it is intended to help out those folks who can't get ISDN yet. I have not been able to get in touch with the Product Manager yet so I'm not sure just what it means that this service is "compatible" with ISDN ... still, I bet a 56K digital pipe to one's home is a service a lot of folks will like if the price ends up being "very reasonable". Cliff Frost UC Berkeley Press Release: Pacific Bell Contact: Scott E. Smith (415) 542-0597 San Francisco, January 13, 1992 Pacific Bell announced today plans for a cost-effective new switched 56-kilobit-per-second (Kbps) data service to satisfy demand created by such growing applications as videoconferencing, local-area-network (LAN) interconnection and high-quality facsimile. "There's been an explosion of applications requiring switched, high-speed data transmissions, not justin our large metropolitan areas, but throughout the state," said Steven Haggerty, director of switched-56 development, for Pacific Bell's Data Communications Group. "The new switched-56 Kbps service will provide a local dial-up alternative to expensive private lines or modems with low-speed analog lines. We plan to deploy the new services widely throughout California to meet the growing demand." The proposed service, called Switched Digital Service 56 (SDS56), is compatible with CENTRIX IS (integrated systems), the company's service based on ISDN technology, and Cenpath, a switched 56 Kbps service offerec with Centrex. The introduction of SDS56 will make some form of switched-56 Kbps service available to more than 80 percent of the company's data customers. Haggerty emphasized that SDS56 still needs the approval of the California Public Utilities Commission. Subject to that approval, the company plans to begin offering the service this spring. Haggerty said he expects the service to find the greatest demand among medium to large businesses for such applications as videoconferencing, Group IV facsimile, telecommuting where technical computer programs require high speeds, bulk file transfer, medical and other high-resolution imaging, high-quality digitized audio and LAN interconnection. Pacific Bell's Data Communications Group offers products, applications and services that provide customers a single source for complete network integration solutions. The company coordinates services that go beyond its service areas with long-distance carriers selected by the customer. Pacific Bell is a subsidiary of Pacific Telesis Group, a diversified worldwide telecommunications corporation based in San Francisco. ------------------------------ From: cmylod@oracle.nl (Colum Mylod) Subject: The Spread of Telepoints Date: 17 Jan 92 17:06:39 GMT Reply-To: cmylod@oracle.nl (Colum Mylod) Organization: Oracle Europe, De Meern, The Netherlands You might remember the novel idea of "telepoints" which started in Britain a few years ago. These were public places where one wandered near in order to use a cheapo-version of cellular telephones which were carried on your person. They combine the disadvantage of public phones (finding one) with the disadvantage of cellular phones (cost), but unlike payphones these were available and maybe more hygenic. The concept has crossed the North Sea as, according to a pamphlet from the Dutch PTT, "Greenpoints" -- yes, the name is in English, maybe imply- ing environmental friendliness -- are to spring up around Amsterdam from February 1992, to spread around the rest of The Netherlands as fast as they can. The sting is a charge of 40ct (US 20 cents) per unit, or 2.5 times the cost of a private phone, twice that of the payphone nearby, 10ct cheaper than the real cellular item but the latter can receive calls. The unit the user carries around is named after yours and mine favourite frog Kermit, has his legs only on the front and is yours for NLG 5/month (US $2.50). Unless you are a business and want to use it interally when you get six months free trial. One sentence caught my eye: "no-one can eavesdrop on your conversation" thanks to the "digital technique" used [trans]. Oh yeah? If memory serves, at least one British trader in these has folded due to massive disinterest from the great public. Are they anywhere else? Colum Mylod cmylod@nl.oracle.com My opinions all ------------------------------ From: totsuka@cs.stanford.edu (Takashi Totsuka) Subject: AT&T Video-Phone References Wanted Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford, USA Date: 17 Jan 92 12:24:55 I heard that AT&T has made a telephone system which can send 128x128 images at 10 frames/sec via ordinary phone line. Can anybody give me informations or pointers to articles about that system? Any suggestion is very much appreciated. Thanks. Takashi Totsuka totsuka@cs.stanford.edu Computer Science Department Stanford University ------------------------------ From: khodor@NeXT.COM (Ken Hodor) Subject: ISDN For PC? Date: 17 Jan 92 23:10:20 GMT Does anyone have any pointers to vendors / suppliers of ISDN plug-in boards or modules for the IBM PC? Ken Hodor ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 17:30 From: Juergen Ziegler Subject: Germany Update: New City Codes For Former "East Germany" Since the German unification there were TWO different country codes in Germany: 49 for the western portion (Federal Republic of Germany) 37 for the eastern portion (former German Democratic Republic) Calling from one part to the other required to dial the international prefix + country code + city-code + number. This situation will change within the next three months. The new states will get the area codes in the 03 range, which were not used until now (exception Berlin, which has 030). This change will only be effective for calls: - from "WEST" Germany to "EAST" Germany - from "EAST" German cities that are served by a digital local/toll-switch - from abroad (when calling the 49 country code) So it will also effect all callers from the US and elsewhere. IMPORTANT NOTE: The "old" city-codes in the 37 country-code will no longer be valid. Those codes will still work under the 37 country code, as long as the 37 is still needed for connections from some eastern countries. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 16:26:18 -0800 From: David W. Barts Subject: Cellular "Lifeline" Service stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > If people are so bad off that they qualify for government assistance, > do they really need to be driving on remote country roads? Do they > need to have the luxury of a car if they need assistance for basic > things like food and rent? I think not. Will we have a Lifeline rate > for cable TV next? ... It depends. Do they live in a remote country area? Is the person elderly or disabled and therefore incapable of walking to the nearest town or farmhouse for help? The problem I see with the concept is that it seems the people who deserve this service are probably limited in number (someone posted about a quadriplegic girlfriend who can drive a modified van; this sounds like a valid use for such a service). The number is certainly less than those entitled to traditional lifeline service. So establishing a new class of cellular service (with all the administrative and bureaucratic overhead this entails) may not be a cost-effective means of providing cellular service to these people. It may be cheaper to simply have Medicare pay their monthly cellular fee (or a fraction thereof). Also note that the service was being provided in Canada, which has many more people living in remote areas than the US, so it may make sense there but not in the US. Also, how many Canadians live in an area where cellular is the ONLY class of phone service available (i.e. no wires)? David Barts N5JRN UW Civil Engineering, FX-10 davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu Seattle, WA 98195 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 21:36:14 -0600 From: "Michael H. Brand" Subject: Motorola Cellular Phone Info Wanted I just recently purchased a Motorola Cellular Phone, America Series 822, from Sears. This phone is a transportable or bag phone as they are sometimes called. I want to install this baby in my car, and for a mere $84.74 Motorola will sell me a mobile install kit. I can come up with all the things in this kit, from the spares box in the closet. Does anyone out in TD land have, and would be willing to share, the pinout for the DB25 connector on the transceiver. In the installation guide that I have, the wires are color-coded and pinouts are not given. I was told by Motorola technical support the cellular phone is a NEW style phone, and I think they said it was a "Series or Type 3"? ------------------------------ From: jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: Changes With Michigan Bell Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 15:54:34 EST Well, the new Michigan Bell phone books are out and there are some interesting changes: Not mentioned in the phone book, because of the recent change in Michigan law, is that local unlimited flat rate residential service is now a phone company option. Michigan Bell is now billing per call for every call over 400 at 6.2 cents per call. I'm told that the average residential caller makes 250 calls per month. GTE (so far) is still offering unlimited service, but that may just be because they haven't updated their billing software or some of their older switches. Other changes: Local customer dialed credit card calls are now timed. In addition to the .24 surcharge, local calls cost .14 for the first minute and .08 for each additional minute. (And you thought mother was just trying to be helpful when she put up all those "Out of Change?" cards on all her coin phones.) For only $3.50 per month, you can have your residential listing in BOLD! (Gee, only $42.50 per year. A quick perusal shows that no one has fallen for this.) No mention of the new area codes in California or Maryland that went into effect last year. Not a change, but the first time I've noticed it: Part of the Ohio LATA sticks up into Michigan right below Detroit. The international section still shows East and West Germany. (Gee, it's only been a year.) Companies that monitor phone conversations can have a special symbol placed in the White Pages listing next to their number. Michigan Bell does this with their numbers. There is still a large boldface statement stating that the White Pages listings are copyrighted and all sorts of nasty things will be done to those that use them without permission. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries jongsma@esseye.si.com Grand Rapids, Michigan 73115.1041@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: kleinow@engin.umich.edu (Leonard Kleinow) Subject: Ameritech Mobile Detailed Billing Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 09:27:27 EST Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor After receiving my bill from Ameritech Mobile for my cellular phone, I noticed that they don't itemize the calls to and from your phone. They just expect you to accept their total figure as accurate. They regard this as a "detailed billing service" and want $5.00 a month for it. Obscene. Downright un-American, if you ask me. I'm supposed to pay $5/month to make sure that no one has "tumbled" a call on my phone or Ameritech hasn't made an error? Is this legal? I mean, I wouldn't pay my Visa bill if they said "Oh, you owe us $45 this month and we're not saying what for." [Moderator's Note: Ameritech gives billing detail free for two months on request when a new account is opened so the subscriber can see for himself whether or not continuing the details is worthwhile. Many or most of their subscribers use a package plan anyway, with X minutes for a certain dollar amount per month. In the event of a dispute over the bill, Ameritech will supply a copy of the bill on request at no charge a 'reasonable' number of times. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 22:44:22 PST From: powers@almaden.ibm.com Subject: ITFS Channels for Cities I am trying to find out if there are any provisions in the FCC rules for acquisition of Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) channels by municipalities. I don't even know where to start (other than to call the FCC's main number, which I will do Tuesday). Any of you gurus out there in Net-Land know a more direct route to this information? Jack Powers Cable TV Commissioner City of Morgan Hill (CA) Phone/FAX 408/779-7472 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 92 07:54 GMT From: Randall C Gellens <0005000102@mcimail.com> Subject: CLID on a PBX As I understand it, ANI has been around for some time, and delivers the calling (or billing) number to inter-exchange carriers for all calls, and end users for 911, 800, and 900 numbers, through out-of-band signalling, I think. Calling-Line ID (CLID), on the other hand, delivers the calling number to end subscribers between the first and second rings. So, my question is: can PBX systems get CLID, or ANI on normal (non-911, 800, 900) calls? Many Thanks, Randy ------------------------------ From: aspect!kevinc@uunet.uu.net (Kevin Collins) Subject: Street Address Directory Date: 17 Jan 92 21:00:45 GMT Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca I received an insert in my last Pac*Bell bill that included a form to request that my name by removed from the Street Address Directory. The insert went on to say that "these directories are used by businesses and emergency services (fire, police) that may want to contact you, but don't know your name." Now I certainly understand why businesses use Reverse Directories, but the part about emergency services seems a bit far-fetched. Other than cases I've read about in this Digest where the FD would call somebody and ask if their neighbor's house was on fire, why in the world would emergency services need a Reverse Directory? Are there any good reasons (other than an overwhelming desire to talk with telemarketers :>) for being listed in a Street Address Directory? Kevin Collins | My opinions are mine alone. USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc | GO BEARS! (That's Chicago, not Cal!) [Moderator's Note: Here are some examples for you: (1) The electric or gas utility needs to notify everyone in a certain area of an impending shutdown for maintainence or restoral of service. (2) A crime has taken place on your block and police wish to contact anyone who may have been a witness or have information. (3) An emergency evacuation of your block is required because of a gas leak, as we had here in Chicago last week. While police and emergency workers go door to door, others call on the phone. Some non-emergency, yet important reasons would include (4) a delivery service has sent someone out with a package. The name is incorrect. He calls his office and asks them to check the address for similar names. (5) A pizza was ordered or taxicab service called for. The dispatcher got your name and phone number wrong. The criss-cross may provide the correct answer. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #58 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23044; 21 Jan 92 2:32 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07802 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 23:59:01 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07935 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 20 Jan 1992 23:58:27 -0600 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 23:58:27 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201210558.AA07935@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #59 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Jan 92 23:55:30 CST Volume 12 : Issue 59 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson v.42/v.42bis (w/ or w/o Send/Receive FAX) Modems For Sale (John Lin) Experiences With Motorola MVME333-Board For X25 Wanted (Rob Hulsebos) ISDN Phone Service to Debut in Omaha (Infoworld via Jack Winslade) Caller ID ChipSet (Brian Cuthie) BellSouth to Install Micro-Cells (Bill Berbenich) Long Distance Overload (Los Angeles Times via Randall C. Gellens) Katie Haffner to be at Boston Computer Society 1-22-92 (Owen M. Hartnett) The Tropez, Digital Cordless Phone (Newsweek via Dan Boehlke) Operator-Assist Hand-Off (was Person-to-Person) (Ralph W. Hyre) Micom Micro4000 DataModem9600 Questions (Josh Brandt) I Was Charged 64 Cents For 10222-1-713-555-1221 (Richard McCombs) Incorrect Kabong? (was Multiple Calls on One Access) (Laird P. Broadfield) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John W Lin Subject: v.42/v.42bis (w/ or w/o Send/Receive FAX) Modems For Sale Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1992 18:54:09 GMT After the holidays I have extra high speed modems that I don't need -- o They all function over normal telephone lines - they do NOT require special cabling. o Maximum data throughput of 38,400 baud (transmit 1 meg of data in less than five minutes!!). o MNP level 5, v.32/v.32bis _and_ v.42/v.42bis compatible, meaning data throughput of up to 38,400 baud (16 times faster then a regular 2400 baud modem), roughly 19.2k baud on average. o Automatically detect and set their baud rate as low as 300 and as high as 300-38400 baud. o UNOPENED, FACTORY NEW with a manufacturer five year warranty o One has send/receive FAX capabilities, caller ID and automatic voice/FAX/modem switching, making it so powerful you'll probably never need a new modem again. Don't miss out on this incredible deal -- the modem will easily pay for itself in long distance phone bill savings plus the invaluable convenience of speed that rivals local area networks! v.42/v.42bis Send/Receive FAX modem ........... only $349 OBO v.42/v.42bis modem ............................ only $299 OBO Many consider a v.32/v.32bis modem running at $350 a good deal -- now get over DOUBLE the performance for less money! Grab hold of technology's frontier -- you're just not going to get much faster than 38.4k bps over telephone or leased lines. First come, first served. Limited quantity available, so act now! Send email to jwlin@athena.mit.edu if interested. Serious inquiries only. [Moderator's Note: In the past I have made exceptions and run 'for sale' ads here if the seller was a private party with a telecom specific item for sale. I've had complaints about this, and have to stop doing so. In fairness, since this was not announced previously, I present the one you see here which was in the queue waiting for a few days, but this has to be it. Sorry. Use the Usenet group for same. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hulsebos@ehviea.ine.philips.nl (rob hulsebos) Subject: Experiences With Motorola MVME333-Board For X25 Wanted Date: 17 Jan 92 15:53:07 GMT Organization: Philips I&E Eindhoven The subject says it all. Especially performance and ease-of-use interest me, but other experiences (either + or -) as well. Rob Hulsebos. (hulsebos@ine.philips.nl) Philips Industrial Electronics Pobox 218TQV3, 5600 MD Eindhoven Holland ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 92 01:01:38 cst From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: ISDN Phone Service to Debut in Omaha Reply-To: jsw@drbbs.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha According to {Infoworld}, US West's 'PC Phone' service will be initially deployed in Omaha - Council Bluffs, Nebraska [sic]. PC Phone will use ISDN technology will be available to residential and business customers, will come in analog and digital forms, and will be accessible to all, regardless of whether they have copper or fiber connections. PC Phone service will be marked primarily by value-added distributors who will bundle the service with the hardware and/or software to make it useful. Subscribers will pay $97 per month which includes two voice connec- tions and one data connection. According to Bruce Chatterly of US West, the ISDN term will be dropped. 'People do not know what ISDN is supposed to do, much less what it is.' PC Phone will offer an entry into ISDN for those who are unwilling or unable to spend the funds previously required to take advantage of ISDN. Good day. JSW ------------------------------ From: brian@umbc3.umbc.edu (Brian Cuthie) Subject: Caller ID ChipSet Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 22:37:21 GMT Ok. I know that this question has been beaten to death on this news group a thousand times, so I appologize for bring it up again. But, notwithstanding that, could someone please e-mail me the info on the chip (and it's manufacturer) that does the Caller-ID decoding. I know that it's simple Bell 202 FSK modem signalling and can be done with an XR2211 but I'd like to look at the complete one chip solutions. Thanks in advance, Brian brian@beerwolf.umbc.edu ------------------------------ Subject: BellSouth to Install Micro-Cells From: wabwrld!bill@uu.psi.com (Bill Berbenich) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 92 19:17:22 EST Organization: Wabworld Recent news reports and a P.R. release from BellSouth confirm that that organization will be installing cellular communications "micro-cells" in two downtown Atlanta structures. The two facilities named are the soon-to-be-opened Georgia Dome, which will host the 1994 Super Bowl and the Atlanta Falcons home games and which will also serve as a convention facility during the football off-season, and the Georgia World Congress Center. The GWCC hosts many large conventions and events year-round and is adjacent to the Georgia Dome. The planned micro-cells are being installed to increase cellular coverage in these two facilities which had previously been virtually inaccessible to cellular phones. Upon completion of the project, conventioneers will have clear access to cellular connections from throughout the respective facilities, which should serve as a positive promotional item to attract groups to the GWCC and Georgia Dome in the years to come. domain - bill@wabwrld.UUCP (Bill Berbenich) UUCP (on the maps) bangpath - wabwrld!bill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 03:17 GMT From: Randall C Gellens <0005000102@mcimail.com> Subject: Long Distance Overload From the {Los Angeles Times} Business Section, Sunday, January 19, 1992: "LONG-DISTANCE OVERLOAD:" In American advertising history, perhaps nothing else compares to the fiery marketing battles being waged today by the long-distance carriers. Marketing experts say the strategy has been elevated to extremely complex -- if not desparate -- levels never seen on Madison Avenue. "The game is no longer to reach out and touch someone," said Sam Craig, marketing department chairman at New York University. "It's to reach out and grab someone." [N]early $1 billion [was spend on advertising] by the three major carriers last year. At stake is each carrier's share in the $56-billion long-distance industry. Beyond all the industry's name-calling and fact-stretching are three distinct marketing campaigns that have evolved into something more akin to the dirtiest of political battles. "It's very much like a political campaign," said Thomas Messner, founding partner of MCI's Ney York agency, Messner Vetere Berger Carey Schmetterer. "Except this campaign never ends." There are thousands of targeted ways that AT&T, Sprint and MCI constantly try to cajole new customers ever day. They call consumers at home. They pester through the mail. They nag incessantly on TV, in the newspaper and on the sides of buses. And like Army recruiters searching for enlistees, they try to sign up consumers at shopping malls. [A]nalysts say that today all are so similiar in quality and price that the main thing left to sell is some advertising wizard's image of what phone companies should be. "AT&T is the yardstick against which almost everything we do is measured," said Gerald H. Taylor, president of consumer markets division at MCI. AT&T goes to great lengths to find out what makes consumers -- and its competition-- tick. Almost every major marketing research firm in America has -- at one time or another -- been retained to do consumer research for AT&T. AT&T will research such minute items as the color of the envelopes in which it stuffs its mail promotions and precisely how many seconds unsuspecting consumers will listen to its commercials. Some marketing experts content that the overriding purpose of AT&T's massive marketing campaign is [to] keep consumers guessing. When consumers are confused they rarely make changes. SO if AT&T can keep people scratching their heads, consumers might not be so fast to switch long-distance companies. Executives from Sprint's San Francisco ad agency, J. Walter Thompson, were brainstorming one day when a copywriter suddenly suggested the pin-drop idea. They placed a call to their New York office and asked one of the creative executives their to simply listen. One executive in San Francisco took a pin and dropped it on a table next to the receiver. The listener -- who heard it clearly -- couldn't believe it was a pin. So effective was that ad in bolstering Sprint's image that, from a reliability standpoint, many consumers began considering Sprint on a par with AT&T. To fight back, AT&T used every available weapon. By the late 1980's, AT&T had become the nation's largest telemarketer -- making something like six million phone calls a month to potential customers. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 92 22:45:32 -0500 From: omh@cs.brown.edu (Owen M. Hartnett) Subject: Katie Haffner to be at Boston Computer Society 1-22-92 Wednesday, January 22, 7:30 PM, New England Life Hall, 225 Clarendon St., Boston. Here is Ms. Hafner's latest communication to us: "In my speech to BCS, I plan to talk about Cyberpunk, the book I've written with my husband, John Markoff. The book details the stories of three computer hackers. Kevin Mitnick is a social outcast and expert phone phreak and hacker in LA who carried his hacking to the point of obsession and addiciton. Pengo is a Berliner who, with a group of friends, penetrated US military computers and sold whatever he could find to the Soviets. Robert Morris is the Harvard graduate and Cornell graduate student who released a virus that crippled thousands of computers on the nationwide Internet. In talking about the stories, I touch on issues concerning computer ethics and computer crime, computer viruses, and networking. The speech tends to spark a lot of questions and an interesting discussion." Owen Hartnett omh@cs.brown.edu ------------------------------ From: Dan Boehlke Subject: The Tropez, Digital Cordless Phone Date: 19 Jan 92 23:50:33 -0600 Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota Greetings, I was reading the Jan 20, 1992 issue of {Newsweek} tonight and came across a short article in the Periscope section titled "Talking Digital". The article talks about a cordless phone called "The Tropez 900DX" that was shown at the Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show. The Tropez 900DX digital cordless phone is makde by VTech Communications of Beaverton, Ore. It said in the article that is has a range up to 10 times farther than a standard cordless and a scrambler to keep eavesdroppers from listening in. I will to call directory assistance to locate a phone number for VTech Communications. Did anyone get to the Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show and see it? Has anyone heard of VTech Communications of Beaverton, Ore? A phone like this could be very handy in my work. Dan Boehlke Internet: dan@gac.edu Campus Network Manager BITNET: dan@gacvax1.bitnet Gustavus Adolphus College St. Peter, MN 56082 USA Phone: (507)933-7596 ------------------------------ From: rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Subject: Operator-Assist Hand-Off (was Person-to-Person) Date: 20 Jan 92 14:26:51 GMT Reply-To: rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article John Higdon writes: > Having rarely used Person-to-Person, I have a question. Just how long > will an operator wait for the requested party to come to the phone? > [Moderator: The rule a few years ago was ... not wait longer than > three minutes This may be a moot point, as it appears that the operator is not on the line for the entire duration of the call. On my last set of operator-asisted calls (collect from Boston to Cincinnati over AT&T), I noticed that the operator who collected my calling instructions was different from the operator who presented the 'collect from Ralph Hyre' message to my recipient. While this probably optimizes the usage of the operator's time, it startled me to have the operator change from a female to a male during the course of the call. This suggests that a new operator-assisted procedure is in place at AT&T. Can anyone verify this? Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. E-mail: rhyre@cinoss1.att.com Snail: Box 85, Milford OH 45150-0085 Phone: +1 513 629 7288 Radio: N3FGW ------------------------------ From: mute@wpi.WPI.EDU (Existentialist Man!) Subject: Micom Micro4000 DataModem9600 Questions Organization: Madman Omar's House of Environmental Variables Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 15:34:05 GMT I was recently given a Micom Micro4000 Datamodem9600. I have been told that it is a leased-line modem, and is not usable as a normal hook-it-up-to-your-computer-and-dial-out-type modem without another unit. I was also told that Micom has become another company, and is now known as "Best Computing," or something similar. Does anyone know what this unit is that is required to use the modem as a normal modem, and if they are still available? If anyone has one that is not currently in use, I would also be interested in buying it for a reasonable price. Thank you in advance, Josh Brandt mute@wpi.wpi.edu ------------------------------ Subject: I Was Charged 64 Cents For 10222-1-713-555-1221 From: rick@ricksys.lonestar.org (Richard McCombs) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 92 19:39:39 CST Organization: The Red Headed League My grandparents own a motel and I work for them and have a phone in my apartment connected to the motel PBX and I make mostly data calls and usually use 10222-1 ... to keep my calls separate. Our 1+ is ATT but on SDN (I thought that was for big companies, we are a 30 room motel). 0-0 gets an ATT operator, but 1-713-555-1221 says "Your call can not be completed as dialed FOUR oh FIVE TWO Tee." (405 is the area code here). After seeing 1-713-555-1221 posted here I called it and got the above recording and then tried it with 10228- 10222- 10333- and received the expected response. Well we received the bill for on one the MCI pages it has on 12-14 a call to DIR ASSISTDA 713 555 1221 D (day) 1 (min) .64, I think I had called it before but this is the first time I have seen it on the bill. I'm not too concerned about 64 cents but is this right? Rick Internet rick@ricksys.lonestar.org (Richard McCombs) UUCP ...!{site with a smart mailer}!ricksys.lonestar.org!rick also reachable as Richard McCombs on Fidonet 1:385/6 The Read Headed League Private Waffle Iron Version 1.64 Lawton, OK ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Incorrect Kabong? (was Multiple Calls on One Access) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 19:43:31 GMT In stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: >> Still waiting for my Metromedia/ITT calling card ... > I got mine last week. Pretty normal, except there's one thing I > noticed: The ka-bong prompt for your calling card number is only a > decaying dialtone sound -- there's no 50ms of the # tone. At first I > wondered how many people this would affect that have tone-to-pulse > converters on their lines that require the # to shut off. Then, I > realized that the ka-bong sounds only after you key in the desired > called number after a different prompt tone. Then I got to thinking: > This is the same procedure that Sprint uses for their FON-cards: the > first thing you hear is a non-standard tone to prompt you for the > called number. It's probably not much of an issue these days, but I'd > imagine that it was a problem with Sprint five or six years ago when > stuff like tone-to-pulse was still around somewhat. Wait a minute. Is this going to cause problems with the new "$" dial modifier on Hayes products? Toby? Can you tell us what the detection criteria are on that? (P.S. I thought the bong was a 50ms octothorpe :-) with one of the DTs decaying in amplitude to 0, not a "decaying dialtone". Isn't this called out somewhere?) Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #59 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25669; 21 Jan 92 3:34 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17516 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 01:36:06 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17585 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 01:35:40 -0600 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 01:35:40 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201210735.AA17585@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #60 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Jan 92 01:35:29 CST Volume 12 : Issue 60 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Teletype's Heaviest ASR Set (Jim Haynes) The Story You've Been Waiting For :-) (Middlesex News via Adam M. Gaffin) Info Services? Keep Them Banned! (Eric Florack) Modem and Fax in Japan? (Paul Gateley) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Haynes Subject: Teletype's Heaviest ASR Set Date: 21 Jan 92 04:00:20 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail." By the early 1960s the Bell System was well along the way to the goal of having customers nearly everywhere able to dial their own long distance calls. This involved both the provision of the necessary switching and message accounting equipment and the provision of enough intercity trunk bandwidth so that customers' dialing attempts usually succeeded. It was time to look for additional applications for the switched network. Among the results was Teletype's most monumentally complicated ASR set. An important business segment for both Bell and Western Union was private teletypewriter message switching systems. The customers were government agencies and large corporations. The airlines were big users of these services, since they have a need to get written messages around the system faster than airplanes fly. The airline business also involved a lot of inter-company traffic, since to get from Point A to Point B might require traveling on two or more different airlines, complicating the process of making reservations and selling tickets. In those pre-computer days messages would be received at a switching center on a reperforator, a machine that records the message in punched paper tape. The tape might be torn off at the end of the message and carried by an operator to a tape reader feeding a line to the destination, or to another switching center; or there might be automatic switching from a reader associated with the reperforator to a second reperforator associated with the reader feeding the outgoing line. Stations sending or receiving a lot of traffic would have their own line to the switching center. Other stations would share a multidrop line as a means of reducing the number of circuits to the switching center and the amount of equipment in the center. Multiple address messages were common. For example, a message concerning a certain airline flight might need to go to all the airports where that flight stops and to the central dispatch office and some other points. In some cases the communication company supplied only the private telegraph lines and the customer supplied the station and switching equipment. In other cases the communication company supplied the whole system. Either way these systems were expensive because all the circuits and switching equipment were dedicated full-time to the particular customer's use. AT&T decided to develop an airline communication system that would make use of the switched network, so as to eliminate the dedicated switches and lines. The station sets were made by Teletype and were called "Delta sets" because the customer was to be Delta Air Lines. As it turned out, Delta didn't buy the service and it was marketed to United Air Lines instead. The interface to the telephone network was Data Set 154A1, and consisted of a 75 baud duplex modem and a tone autodialer. I don't know whether the autodialer used Touch-Tone frequencies or the key pulsing frequencies used within the toll plant. The receiving set was a fairly ordinary Model 28 RO (receive-only) printer operating at 100 wpm using 5-level Baudot code. The transmitting set was something else again, a Model 28 ASR (automatic send-receive; i.e. punched paper tape) set with its lower compartment filled with 86 relays, five stepping switches, and a couple of electronic timers. It weighed about 450 pounds. Although transmission was by 5-level code the ASR set punched 8-level tape, the extra holes being used for control purposes. In fact there was a ninth code bit obtained by nicking the edge of the tape. Tapes were prepared blind (without printing); the printer of the ASR set printed messages at the time they were transmitted. To prepare a message the operator first pressed the SOM (start of message) key, which caused a stepping switch to generate the proper sequence of characters and control punches -- the 1920-1960 version of a ROM. Next the operator pressed the Local Area or Distant Area button, according to whether the destination was in the same area code area as the sender or was in a different area code area. Then the operator typed in the ten-digit telephone number and a seven-character mnemonic code for the addressee. Multiple addresses were added by again pressing Local Area or Distant Area and typing in the number and mnemonic code. After all addressed were entered the operator pressed the EOA (end of address) key, which punched another sequence of characters generated by a stepping switch. The operator would then type the message text and finally press the EOM (end of message) key which added a stepping-switch-generated end of message sequence to the tape. The operator would then feed out blank tape and start the tape reader. The reader would search for the SOM sequence, put the autodialer off-hook, and send the seven or ten digit number to the switching office, notching the edge of the tape to indicate a calling attempt. If the call was answered, indicated by a polarity reversal on the loop from the switching office, the reader would send the mnemonic code to the receiving set via the modems. The receiving set would recognize the last two characters of the mnemonic sequence and acknowledge by sending a pulse back to the sending set. The reader would then skip forward through any additional addresses and send the EOA sequence, the message text, and the EOM sequence. The receiving set would send a pulse back for each character received, so assure the sender that the circuit was still connected. After sending the EOM the sender would put the data set on-hook. Then the reader would zip the tape backward and look for another unused address. If it found one it would dial the next number and send the message again, and so on until all the addresses had been used up. At that point it would advance the tape past the EOM and shoot the tape out the far side of the reader so that it could not be pulled back to that message again. Dialed calls don't always go through, and sometimes they reach wrong numbers. The sending set would try each number three times, waiting a preset time for the polarity reversal indicating something had answered, and then for the pulse in response to the called station mnemonic, indicating that the thing that answered was a modem and most likely the intended station. An unsuccessful attempt could also consist of cessation of the character-by-character acknowledgment pulses from the receiver before EOM, indicating that the circuit had been disconnected prematurely. After three unsuccessful attempts the set would try dialing a number wired into another stepping switch, the number of an intercept facility which would receive the message and punch it out and call for an operator to attempt to resolve the problem. If it failed in six attempts to reach the intercept center it would give up on that message and sound an alarm locally. Having to look up and key in telephone numbers was a drag; the private wire switching systems required only a mnemonic code for each address. This was mitigated by an optional accessory, the Codomat. The Codomat was a rotary card file, somewhat similar to a Rolodex, holding up to 1800 cards. A tab on each card was printed with a mnemonic address. Further down the cards were perforated with the Baudot characters for the telephone number and mnemonic code, and with the appropriate control punches. After the set had punched the SOM characters the operator could rotate the file to the desired card, and swing that card into a slot. A crawling-head reader would read the punching in the card, copying it to the message tape, and then eject the card. The operator could then select another card or proceed with the message by pressing the EOA key. Manufacturing and distributing these cards was a non-trivial problem. They had to be durable. If a telephone number was added or changed new cards had to be produced and distributed to the field; and the cards were different for local-area and distant-area stations. Another optional accessory was a time-of-day clock located within the Codomat cabinet. This produced a four-digit Baudot coding of the time of day which was punched into the message tape as part of the EOA sequence. Addresses allowed for more complexity than I have mentioned so far. A destination might be a gateway into another airline's switching system; or it might be a line with several receiving printers attached, with a selection code to select which printer(s) was to print. Codomat cards could contain up to 22 characters of address. The above pretty well exhausts my knowledge of the Delta/United equipment and system. Perhaps someone can tell us when the system went into service and how long it lasted. I also have a vague memory of some big central-station adjunct, perhaps something to improve performance on multiple-address messages. By the late 1960s all this paper tape technology had been swept away by the oncoming tide of computer-based communication systems; and in the airline business by computer-based reservation systems which required vastly more bandwidth (and were worth it). Still, use of the switched network for non-voice traffic proved to be viable, first for Dial TWX, later with Bell modems for various applications, and finally (after Carterphone) with customer-provided modems and autodialers. haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Thanks for a really neat article to start this issue of the Digest! PAT] ------------------------------ From: adamg@world.std.com (Adam M. Gaffin) Subject: The Story You've Been Waiting For :-) Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 16:38:19 GMT Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass., 1/20/91, page 3A Wrong number? A 900 disguised as 800 pits computer users against AT&T. By Adam Gaffin NEWS STAFF WRITER NATICK - A game of numbers has pitted AT&T against several readers of an online telecommunications newsletter over an unusual question: When is a toll-free call not really toll free? In October, one reader of the "Telecom Digest" conference on the Usenet computer network posted a message about an interesting find: Dial a certain toll-free 800 number and you would be connected to a {USA Today} sports line that normally charges 95 cents a minute through a 900 number. A number of readers tried the number and found that it worked. Then the bills came in. Rob Boudrie of Natick was billed $1.90. He acknowledges calling the 800 number but says he is upset because the bill said "900." He says he could not actually call a 900 number because of a "block" he had earlier asked New England Telephone to put on his line. "There's the real ethical issue: (the number) was reported incorrectly on somebody's phone bill," Boudrie said. "AT&T has tampered with the phone bills -- reporting 800 calls as 900 calls," he said. "They're charging us for calls we didn't make," said John Levine of Cambridge, who was billed for about $20 worth of calls. Boudrie and Levine question why they should be billed for the AT&T software glitch that allowed the calls to go through in the first place. Boudrie added the company did give him a credit when he called to complain. Rick Brayall, an AT&T spokesman in Boston, acknowledged the glitch, but said Boudrie and others were part of a small group of computer hackers trying to stiff the company. "I hate to use the word `hackers,' but (they were) people who look for ways to get something for nothing and took advantage of it," he said. Neither AT&T nor {USA Today} ever announced or publicized the 800 number, he said. "Someone was doing it illicitly (and it spread) underground, through word of mouth," he said. He said he considered Usenet such an underground system, even though the network connects several hundred thousand people around the world, largely at universities, high-tech companies and government agencies -- but also at AT&T. Boudrie, who works for Encore Computer in Marlboro, said he is no hacker, and called the company's assertion of theft ridiculous. He said that when he saw the original message in the Digest, he could not believe it was for real, because the number it gave -- which started with 555 -- is normally reserved for directory-assistance calls. He said he called the number out of curiosity, heard a recording about the 95-cent-a-minute charge, listened for a couple of minutes -- and then hung up. "The universal consensus on Usenet at the time was: hey, it's an 800 call, 800 calls are free," he recalled. At the time, many speculated that it was a sort of free sample to try to entice people onto the pay service. "I figured it was a demo," Levine said. Not all Telecom Digest readers agreed. Patrick Townsend, its "moderator" said readers should have known the service was a mistake and not groused about being billed. Brayall said the company has not deliberately gone after anybody to recover the costs of the calls, but said Boudrie's and Levine's bills, along with those of a number of other Telecom Digest users, "may reflect the fact that one of our computers recognized there was no 800 number of that type and instantly converted it to 900." Adam Gaffin Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass. adamg@world.std.com Voice: (508) 626-3968. Fred the Middlesex News Computer: (508) 872-8461. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 09:18:32 PST From: Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com Subject: Info Services? Keep Them Banned! There's been much in the way of discussion over these last few weeks and months, about the RBHC's attempting to go to providing, raher than carrying, information services. I view any such move as dangerous, for one simple reason: 1: There can be no fairness in service, prices, and quality of service when the info carrier is also the info provider. Anyone seeking to provide informational services, when TELCO was doing that would be hit with price structures that would place the NON-telco info provider with non-competitive pricing, and therefore make such providing a non-viable option to business owners who want to get into that area. I've been seeing several reports of late, that indicate that even non-profit hobby type BBS's are being harrssed, by RBOC's, with unrealistic rates, selectively poor line conditions, poor service turn around, etc. SWBT in particular, has been pressing for anyone who wants to run data through their lines to be charged a business rate, and a metered call system, as opposed to a flat rate. I find it no chance happening that the companies that are pressing the hardest to be allowed to be info providers are also the ones making SysOps lives harder. It's obvious to this writer that the TELCO's are afraid that folks won`t want to pay for something that many thousands of BBS operators are doing for free ... I therefore suggest that the only way to save BBSing, and many business interests, is to retain the ban on Telco's providing info services. I know this newsgroup is beiong ported to FIDO someplace. Can we get a FIDO sysop or two to expound on this a bit? [Moderator's Note: TELECOM Digest is distributed to Fido sites in the 'echomail' (what they call newsgroups) group COMM. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pg0@engr.uark.edu (Paul Gateley) Subject: Modem and Fax in Japan? Organization: University of Arkansas Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 02:21:33 GMT I a posting this question to several different places because I don't know where to best find someone who can answer it. Please ignore it if you can't. I am moving to Japan and want to take my modem and my fax machine along. Will they work in Japan? I think the voltage is O.K. as most equipment will tolerate 100v and 50hz, however I seem to remember that the phone connectors are different. Is this true? Are there adaptors? Any help would be appreciated. The modem is connected to my Mac Classic, not that it matters. Thanks already! Paul Gateley ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #60 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27287; 21 Jan 92 4:14 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19132 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 02:13:07 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12546 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 02:12:33 -0600 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 02:12:33 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201210812.AA12546@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #61 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Jan 92 02:12:22 CST Volume 12 : Issue 61 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (David G. Lewis) Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (John Higdon) Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu) Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (David Mulford) Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! (Bill Berbenich) Re: Repeat Dialing Question (Giles D. Malet) Re: Repeat Dialing Question (Henry Mensch) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (John Rice) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (John Higdon) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Michael Salmon) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Tim Gorman) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Ken Abrams) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Vance Shipley) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 17:35:24 GMT In article strieterd@gtephx.UUCP (Dave Strieter) writes: > Several Digest readers have commented that it is cheaper for the telco > to provide DTMF than rotary pulse dialing, but I fail to understand > how they come to that conclusion. I can't speak for the 5ESS or > DMS-100, but on the GTD-5 dial pulses are counted by software which > monitors the output of an opto-coupler device connected to each line, > whereas DTMF tones must be decoded by a more-expensive circuit which > feeds the decoded digits to the software. How does "more expensive" = > "costs less"? If I recall correctly (and I don't work in 5E-land or 1A-land, so no guarantees), the digit receivers on 5Es and 1As are integrated units that collect either DTMF or DP digits. With DTMF, the address is typically sent in less than half the time taken to send the same address with DP. If the receiver holding time is half as long, (approximately) half as many receivers need to be provided in the office. Half as many receivers = less cost for the office. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 00:06 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! strieterd@gtephx.UUCP (Dave Strieter) writes: > Several Digest readers have commented that it is cheaper for the telco > to provide DTMF than rotary pulse dialing, but I fail to understand > how they come to that conclusion. I can't speak for the 5ESS or > DMS-100, but on the GTD-5 dial pulses are counted by software which > monitors the output of an opto-coupler device connected to each line, > whereas DTMF tones must be decoded by a more-expensive circuit which > feeds the decoded digits to the software. How does "more expensive" = > "costs less"? This is a very simplistic look at the situation. Shame on you! There is more to the "costs" factor than the comparison between an opto-isolator and a couple of ICs (which is all that comprises that fabulous "more expensive circuit"). You need to consider the length of time a register/sender is engaged with rotary vs DTMF. The GTD-5, as well as any other "common services switch" can only count digits on just so many lines at a time. Another consideration involves whether you can even buy the switch with the DTMF receiving circuitry absent. And even if you can, would you? Unless you are going to price DTMF service so high that you are guaranteed that no one will buy it, then you have to buy a DTMF- equipped switch. At that point using pulse dialing does cost more by tying up the number signaling phase of the call much longer than does tone signaling. I think if you weigh all the factors, giving particular consideration to the aspect of common equipment utilization efficiency, DTMF turns out to be cheaper for the telcos. The charges imposed by telcos for this are rooted in pre-divestiture hokum reminiscent of the "dollar-a-month" charge for extension telephones. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: The Unknown User Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! Date: 20 Jan 92 08:56:52 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing In article pasik@rtsg.mot.com (John Pasik) writes: > I refuse to pay Ma Bell extra per month for a "feature" > that is now standard on all CO switches (which speeds call routing, > simplifies call processing, and reduces un-billable call set-up time). > These are benefits to the phone company as well as I. Why should I Is the charge named something very strange or included in one of the other charges? Or perhaps did Pacific Bell just give up with charging for touch tone? I remember that some time ago (seven or eight years) we had no touch tone phones in our house. Everything was pulse (either actual rotary phones or pushbutton pulse phones). I believe it was on a modem that I dialed tone one time and it worked (I had been dialing pulse before that). Do you suppose we were just ripped off for the touch tone charge for many years and didn't know it? Is it a "negative option" type deal? (In the dorms this year is the first time I've ever had a phone in my name ... previously another housemate took care of it) Also one of the listings is "Rate Surcharge" with a 12 cent credit. Where does that come from? (God, I'm learning so much from this group!) One last question: Can I have a phone line where I can make local calls but not long distance ones, and not have to pay the $3.50/month network access for interstate calling? For a modem line, that would be unnecessary (at least for me). unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu [God's Note: Thanks for your kind note about the group, Matt. Yes, you can have a toll-restricted line but you will stll be charged the network access fee. There is no provision to work around it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Mulford Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! Date: 20 Jan 92 13:13:49 EDT Organization: Appalachian State University In article , Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: > What surprises me is the number of otherwise intelligent people who > simply do not realise that the tone/pulse switch can be moved in > mid-call to change the dialing method. Most folks set it in one > position and seem to think that if it's moved too many times, it will > break. A *LOT* of folks never even change it from "pulse" to "tone" > when they first acquire the phone, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE PAYING FOR > TOUCH-TONE SERVICE! I hate to tell you how many phones I've > discovered that were set to "pulse" on a tone-dial line ... I'd flip > the switch and the Touch-Tones would break dial tone (which only > happens here if you are paying for the service) and the phone owner > would admit to not even knowing what that "T/P" switch was for, but > when they ordered service the business office rep asked if they had a > "pushbutton phone", so ... well, you can guess the rest. I worked for a small IXC in Charlotte NC as a customer service rep, and you would not believe how many people (including business customers) did not know that their phones were switchable from tone to pulse, or from pulse to tone. Even worse, most of the complaints I recieved were from people trying to use their calling-cards from a rotary dial phone, while our DEX-400 switch could only recognize touch-tone! I was convinced by that two years of experience that most of the end-users of telephone equipment do not comprehend how the public network works, and some do not even understand how to effectively utilize their own telephone. I hope that the advances in switching technology and ISDN are transparent to the end-users, or else we are going to have a lot of confused people out there! <> ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Rotary Callers Go Home! Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 14:22:36 GMT From: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu (Bill Berbenich) Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes: > Does anyone still make a good, well-built 2500 set with a proper > handset, a real keypad, and a good, loud *MECHANICAL* ringer? You can BUY these phones from an AT&T Phone Center (at least _I_ did about six months ago). They lease all available colors and styles, but sell a commonly-used subset of phones in some of those colors. I got a wall mount 2500 set in touchtone. It's built like a brick outhouse. You have to ASK to buy one. They don't get advertised. My wall mount phone was about $50, as I recall. Bill Berbenich ------------------------------ From: shrdlu!gdm@uunet.uu.net (Giles D Malet) Subject: Re: Repeat Dialing Question Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 18:07:20 GMT Reply-To: Giles D Malet In article spencer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun) writes: > On a more or less unrelated subject, I have been told by someone who > generally knows what he's talking about that when you are auto-dialing > a number, you are required (by law? telco policy? I have no idea) to > wait 30 seconds between attempts, ostensibly because if everyone did > this it would cause great wear and tear. [...] Something like this is definitely alive and well in the UK. I have seen various references to a redial limit, but have been unable to pin much down. The manual for one of my old UK modems warns that `exceeding the value 4 in register S52 is against Telecom regulations'. This register hold the number of times that the modem will automagically redial a number after getting an engaged tone. Another fancier UK modem I have enforces this, and uses a backing off algorithm. Get a few engaged signals in a row, and it will suddenly refuse to dial that number for a couple of *hours*! However, one can disable the storing of `last numbers dialed', perhaps to stop others querying the modem to get them, which then disables the blocking (forgets which numbers it is blocking)! I have also seen blocking like this in comms software from the UK. However, in no case have I not been able to bypass the blocking in a pretty straight forward manner. This makes me think perhaps the blocking is required for BT approval of equipment, but manufacturers realise that the `real world' works differently. I have never heard of anyone getting in trouble for repeat dialing, and I often left above mentioned S52 set to 60 or so if I was trying to get onto a busy BBS. No one complained. Perhaps BT only has that clause so they have a leg to stand on if one does annoy them, but usually they don't care. Just a guess. Giles gdm@shrdlu.UUCP Waterloo, Canada +1 519 725 5720 ------------------------------ From: henry@ads.com (Henry Mensch) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 13:15:08 -0800 Subject: Re: Repeat Dialing Question Reply-To: henry@ads.com > [Moderator's Note: If such a rule were to be enforced, it would be > quite easy to simply deny dial tone to the caller for thirty seconds > at a time. That would solve the problem, no? PAT] No, it wouldn't, since it would deny service to *all* numbers. (Ideally, you want to deny service to retry attempts over that time period). # henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc. / ------------------------------ From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division Date: Sun, 19 Jan 92 18:36:52 GMT In article , dunnett@mala.bc.ca (Malcolm Dunnett) writes: > As a followup question: Answer supervision seems like a valuable > feature for a number of reasons. The impression I'm getting is that it > has been "designed out" of modern CO equipment. Is there a good reason > for this? Could be because in Western Electric DTMF phones, the keypad is polarity sensitive. If the polarity reversal answer supervision was used with these phones, the Keypad would quit working when the called party answered, making the phone unusable for "Touch Tone" entry of digits into follow on services like paging, etc. John Rice K9IJ rice@ttd.teradyne.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 92 22:17 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered Michael.Bender@Eng.Sun.COM (W7EGX) writes: > I don't think that there is a technical reason that I can't get > supervision on every call, and I don't understand why I would have to > be charged extra for what probably amounts to changing a configuration > parameter in the software on the switch. Are you serious? Would you like a full-page list of things you "pay extra" for that are nothing more than "changing a configuration parameter in the software on the switch"? In the age of electronic switches, nothing is hardwired anymore. Features are activated with a few strokes at a terminal connected to RCMAC. Why should anyone pay for custom calling? Hell, those features are turned on with a couple of keystrokes. What a rip! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: etxmesa@eos.ericsson.se (Michael Salmon) Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered Reply-To: etxmesa@eos.ericsson.se (Michael Salmon) Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 09:59:27 GMT In article , andys@ulysses.att.com writes: > Wouldn't reverse polarity make it impossible for me to talk to my home > answering machine and office voice mail from a line-powered phone? As > I recall, DTMF generators don't work under reverse polarity ... There isn't a problem if you use a diode bridge. Michael Salmon Ericsson Telecom AB Stockholm ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 92 10:23:25 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered Michael.Bender@Eng.Sun.COM (W7EGX) writes in TELECOM Digest V12 #49: > I'm in Pac*Bell land (415-863) and I seem to get answer supervision in > the form of battery reversal on my regular POTS lines for many but not > all calls. The only time I have heard of this being a feature is toll diverted lines. The battery reversal is used to indicate a toll call so the originating equipment can drop the call if wished. Should this battery reversal be done with a regular DTMF station set attached to the line, the dial would be disabled unless a polarity guard existed in the set. The last time I knew, including polarity guards in the sets was not standard practice for most set makers. Tim Gorman - SWBT * opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ From: kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 16:40:39 GMT In article andys@ulysses.att.com writes: >> The PBX isn't the problem here. In North America "modern" CO switches >> don't pass answer supervision back to the subscriber. (On older CO switches DO, however, pass answer supervision to PBX trunks (lines) IF they are properly arranged for PBX service. In my experience, this means that they are ground start and the answer signal is a line reversal. > Wouldn't reverse polarity make it impossible for me to talk to my home > answering machine and office voice mail from a line-powered phone? As > I recall, DTMF generators don't work under reverse polarity ... Most "modern" phone equipment is arranged (by various means) with a "polarity guard" for the tone dial so that it will work regardless of line polarity. Ken Abrams nstar!pallas!kabra437 Springfield, IL kabra437@athenanet.com (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 19:02:32 GMT If I remember correctly I ran into some X-bar offices that would provide a reversal when a call left the local office. This could be used for a crude form of toll restriction, the pbx would disconnect the call. Vance Shipley vances@xenitec.on.ca vances@ltg.uucp ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #61 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18957; 21 Jan 92 15:12 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12576 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 12:27:24 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10303 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 12:27:02 -0600 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 12:27:02 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201211827.AA10303@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #62 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Jan 92 12:27:00 CST Volume 12 : Issue 62 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phone For Quadriplegic (Craig Ibbotson) Re: What Did the Operators Know? (Dave Levenson) Re: Phone Number Verification (Michael Rosen) Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Ron Dippold) Re: Automatic Number Callback (Bruce Albrecht) Re: *67 Doesn't Work (John Anderson) Re: Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as the Second Digit? (David G. Lewis) Re: Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as the Second Digit? (David Singer) Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (Hans Mulder) Wiring Houses (was Two Wires Become Four; GTE Won't Explain) (P. da Silva) Re: Two Wires Become Four; and GTE Won't Explain (James Olsen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ibbotson@rtsg.mot.com (Craig Ibbotson) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone For Quadriplegic Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 18:54:55 GMT weave@chopin.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling) writes: > We went to a few local cellular phone stores, and didn't get very > encouraging information. All the phones have push buttons that take a > bit of effort to push, which is impossible for her to do. I seem to > remember reading about a "voice activated" phone, but no one around > here knows about them, and I wonder if it is more of a gimmick than it > is useful. (For instance, if you have to push a button to "activate" > the phone, she is out of luck.) Uniden America's CP1900 cellular phone has an optional feature of voice-activated dialing and answering. Standard features include one-touch dialing, hands-free operation, 30 number memory, call restriction, memory scan and full electronic lock. Sounds like you want the optional voice activated dialing and answering. No price was given in the write up I have. NEC America makes the M3800 phone which features hands-free answering (auto-answer after two rings) and has an optional automatic call processor and voice recognition unit. I think this is what you want. Again, no price given. Of course, I work for Motorola, and I would hope you would buy a Motorola phone. I called our sales department (I do not work in the Subscriber Group, which is responsible for the development and manufacturing of cellular phones) and the sales rep knew exactly what you wanted, the Motorola 6800DVC. It features auto-answer and voice-activated dialing. The price of this phone was lowered just before Christmas from $2495 to $1995. The sales department here at Motorola told me that a number of handicapped Motorolans use this phone and are delighted with its performance. It's made here in Arlington Heights, IL, and comes with a lifetime guarantee. I was also told that this mobile unit is one of the best ones made by Motorola. Regardless of which brand you choose, rest assured that you are absolutely correct in remembering voice activated phones. If you can't get any satisfaction with the dealers in your area, send me a note and I'll give you the number to Motorola's cellular sales office in Schaumburg, IL. Craig Ibbotson, Motorola, Inc. ...uunet!motcid!ibbotsonc Cellular Infrastructure Division, Radio Telephone Systems Group ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: What Did the Operators Know? Date: 19 Jan 92 13:50:48 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes: > What I'm wondering about is just how much DID the operators know about > the calling number when they asked for it. Was it possible to lie > about it... I remember reading an article in the Bell System Technical Journal from the late 1960's addressing this issue. A design was proposed for a special service circuit. As designed, this circuit appeared on the cord boards and on the early TSPS consoles. It allowed an operator to key in the number given by a caller. If it was, in fact, the number the caller was using, it presented an OKAY indication to the operator. If it was not, an oppoiste indication was posted. The circuit established a 'no-test' connection (i.e. one that bypassed the busy status of the called line) and then attempted an inaudible loop-around between itself and the operator's cord-circuit handling the original call. If the loopback signal test passed, it indicated that the operator had connected with the line the caller was calling from. It could not identify the line, it could only test a given identifi- cation for correctness. Does anybody else remember the article? Does anybody know if the circuit, as described, was ever deployed in the toll network? It would have been made obsolete by the introduction of ANI circuitry in most central office types by the mid to late 1970's, so it probably didn't have much of a 'market window'. 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: Michael.Rosen@samba.acs.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: Re: Phone Number Verification Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 20:19:26 GMT Well, here's something on the subject from the latest {2600 Magazine}, in the "tidbits" section on page 31: "Those of you still mourning the loss of the various 800 ANI numbers can take comfort in a brand new number that's making the rounds. It's not an 800 number but we're told it doesn't charge. However the number won't work from payphones. It's 10732-404-988-9664. (You might have to dial a 1 before the 404.) It will only work with the 10732 carrier access code which is owned by AT&T. And for some reason, the recording seems to always add the number eight to the end." I tried this from my phone here at school. We have some sort of PBX system where you dial 9 to get out and then your PSC after the phone number. This ANI number worked for me without the 10732 and with a 1 before it. It added more than an eight to the end though, a whole series of other numbers which I forget right now. Mike ------------------------------ From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 01:59:59 GMT mole-end!mat@uunet.uu.net writes: > Would someone like to explain how CDMA works? I understand that it > spreads the signal across a huge bandwidth in a way that allows the > receiver to select 1 of N signals ... but how? A CDMA primer, anyone? Okay, let me explain as much as I can without (a) giving away anything proprietary, and (b) getting too technical. First, think of a standard system with frequency multiplexing or time multiplexing. You know where to find the information by looking at a specific time or frequency. This is easy to implement, but if whatever you have allocated that frequency or time slot to doesn't use all of it, you have wasted capacity. And because you usually need a "guard" to make sure that slots don't bleed over into each other, you have built in inefficiency. (Note: CDMA has been implemented before in bulky and expensive military systems. However, anything here about CDMA will refer to Qualcomm's consumer CDMA technology). CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) is frequency multiplexed in the sense that one CDMA band takes up a 1.25 MHz frequency band, so that if you need more CDMA channels you allocate another 1.25 Mhz band. However, within that band, it's a free for all. All transmissions are spread and stuffed all across the band, seemingly beyond recovery. Each transmission is spread across the band by encoding it with a pseudorandom sequence of ones and zeros that can be calculated from the absolute system time. Different "channels" are obtained by using an offset from this sequence. Now here's the beautiful part. The recieved signal is demodulated using the same sequence. If you demodulate with one sequence of ones and zeros, _only_ those signals that have been encoded with that sequence will fall out. All other signals look just like background noise. So if you have seven cells near each other, they can all share the same frequency band. They just use a different offset. When the mobile powers up it attempts to find a cell at each of the possible offsets until it finds a transmitting cell. You can get channels within a cell by offsetting another small "distance" in the sequence. So the limit to your capacity is a "soft" one. Each new transmitter adds more "background noise" for other transmissions and makes them more error prone. You have reached your capacity when you have reached your limit of acceptable transmission errors. The cell has all the quality information and can determine when not to allow any more mobiles on the system. In emergency situations you can always allow a new mobile on, however, and allow it to transmit with higher power to ensure it gets through. This makes other calls worse, but in an emergency situation this should be worth it. We use some other techniques to channelize and to improve error correction, but the basic technique is fairly simple: spread the signal with a unique sequence so that only by demodulating with the same sequence produces a coherent signal. I realize I'm being vague. However, patents have been filed, and the CTIA will be reviewing our CAI (Common Air Interface) spec, which describes everything in detail (it's the CDMA equivalent of IS-54). As soon as they get through with it and it is released, everything will be available in _excruciating_ detail (it makes excellent reading to put you to sleep). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 12:31:51 CST From: bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht) Subject: Re: Automatic Number Callback I don't have it, and I suspect that I couldn't get it anyway, since my exchange "Can't provide call waiting disable because the equipment can't provide it", but it would have been useful yesterday. Some girl left a message on my answering machine to the effect of "You left your underwear here last night." I think it would have been rather amusing to freak her out by calling back and telling her I'd be over in a few minutes to pick it up! bruce@zuhause.mn.org ------------------------------ From: andrsonj@rtsg.mot.com (John Anderson) Subject: Re: *67 Doesn't Work Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 16:16:43 GMT kam@dlogics.dlogics.COM (Kevin A. Mitchell) writes: > Hmmm. I just tried *67 on my phone, and I got " We're sorry, your > call cannot be completed as dialed. > This is from the 708-452 exchange in the west 'burbs. FYI, Illinois Bell has an 800 number that they call the Quick Teach number (1-800-678-9868). It gives information about new services they offer. One of the services that there is information on is Caller ID. After listening to the pre-recorded Caller ID message, you can enter your phone number and find out if/when Caller ID service will be offered in your area. John D. Anderson, M.S. |Motorola Inc. andrsonj@motcid.rtsg.mot.com |1501 W. Shure Drive uunet!motcid!andrsonj |Arlington Heights, IL 60004 +1-708-632-2103 |Mail Stop: IL27-2243 ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as the Second Digit? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 17:45:00 GMT In article nelson@sgi.sgi.com writes: > Our esteemed Moderator writes: >> [Moderator's Note: ... By 1995 (maybe 1994) new area codes >> will look like prefixes used to look; that is, they will NOT have zero >> or one as the second digit. PAT] > Seems to me that when area codes and exchange numbers cannot be > distinguished by value (e.g. N0X vs NXX), then the switch must have > some way of distinguishing them. The only two ways that come to mind > are the "1 means area code follows" scheme now widely in use, and the > "timeout after seven digits are dialed" method, which seems fraught > with peril. I doubt if the timeout method is likely to be adopted. There's a third way, referred to (by Bellcore) as the "hybrid" method, which is: If no leading 1 is dialed, the first three digits are an office code; collect seven digits. If the dialed digits are 1+NXX, and NXX is an assigned office code in this NPA, then use timeout after seven digits; if NXX is not an assigned office code, then collect ten. > So, I conclude that if what PAT wrote is true, then it follows that > the whole nation must be converted to the "1 means area code follows" > scheme by "1995 (maybe 1994)". This (called the "prefix method" by Bellcore) is the recommended standard dialing procedure. Either the prefix method, the timing method, or the hybrid method must be implemented by all end offices before interchangeable NPA codes are implemented. > Does anyone know if indeed there exists a plan for such a conversion? > Will 408 (where leading 1 is never required) and 517 (where leading 1 > means toll call -- last time I checked) soon be converting? The schedule and conversion plans are, I would presume, BOC-specific. Which means they're presumably out there, but also probably proprietary ... David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ From: singer@almaden.ibm.com (David Singer) Subject: Re: Why do Area Codes Always Have 0/1 as the Second Digit? Reply-To: singer@almaden.ibm.com (David Singer) Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center Date: Sat, 18 Jan 92 20:50:34 -0800 GTE may actually be ahead of PacBell on this one ... in GTE's part of 408, we must dial 1 before an area code, and cannot dial 1 before a call within the 408 area code. David Singer -- Internet: singer@almaden.ibm.com BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN Voice: (408) 927-2509 Fax: (408) 927-4073 (If I needed a disclaimer, I'd put one here.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 15:38:16 +0100 From: hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands In clements@BBN.COM writes: > Maybe we need a regulation that requires disclosure of a POTS number, > with CLID blocking honored, along with every 800 number that is advertised. But then us Europeans would start calling that number. Obviously, a company advertising an 800 number wouldn't want to sell to overseas customers. :-} Hans Mulder hansm@cs.kun.nl ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Wiring Houses (was Two Wires Become Four; GTE Won't Explain) Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 15:13:11 GMT A while ago (if I'm not out to lunch) there were some queries from some fellow who was wiring his house and wanted to know what sort of wire he should pull. Responses ranged from code up to "UTP and thin wire for every room". Does anyone know what he actually ended up installing? Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480|1032 2400/n/8/1. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 10:53:31 EST From: olsen@masala.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen) Subject: Re: Two Wires Become Four; and GTE Won't Explain Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science All the suggestions for stringing {2,3,4}-pair telephone cable in a new house are quite reasonable, but if I ever build a new house (or extend an old one), I'm going to provide plastic conduit runs to every room, all interconnected to a central point. This will accommodate not only telephone wire, but TV cable, speaker cable, intercom, computer networks, etc. The most important point is that it will accomodate the kind of cable that will be in routine use 10 or 20 years from now, even though we don't yet know what it will be. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #62 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19945; 21 Jan 92 15:49 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14835 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 13:05:49 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14271 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 13:05:15 -0600 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 13:05:15 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201211905.AA14271@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #63 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Jan 92 13:05:09 CST Volume 12 : Issue 63 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (Andy Sherman) Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (Alan M. Gallatin) Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (Wm Randolph Franklin) Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (Douglas Hedges) Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI (Peter da Silva) Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low (Bob Frankston) Re: Two Wires Become Four; and GTE Won't Explain (Robert S. Helfman) Re: Customer Account Security (John Higdon) Re: Zip + 6? (Linc Madison) Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM (David Niebuhr) Re: Bell Canada Tests New Forwarding, Voice Caller ID Options (P. da Silva) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: andys@ulysses.att.com Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 12:09:49 EST Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ In article is written: > Of course, the other solution is to never accept the p-to-p call and > simply use it as a cue to call right back (making the call p-to-p > *AND* collect is a good way to ensure you never have to pay for the > call!!!) That, of course, is a fraudulent use of the service. It is certainly immoral and possibly illegal. Is there any reason why phone companies owe it to you to act as a free message service? Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! [Moderator's Note: Since whenever, the phone company has always been fair game, haven't they? :) PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 12:51:49 EST From: alan@acpub.duke.edu (Alan M. Gallatin) In a prior message, andys@ulysses.att.com wrote: >> Of course, the other solution is to never accept the p-to-p call and >> simply use it as a cue to call right back (making the call p-to-p >> *AND* collect is a good way to ensure you never have to pay for the >> call!!!) > That, of course, is a fraudulent use of the service. It is certainly > immoral and possibly illegal. Is there any reason why phone companies > owe it to you to act as a free message service? Operator: I have a person-to-person collect call for Joe. Joe: Yes, this is Joe. Operator: The call is from Bob Jones. Will you pay for the call? Joe: No, I refuse the charges. Joe, Bob and the Operator all now know that Bob wants to speak with Joe. Where is the fraud???? There is full disclosure of Bob's desire to speak with Joe, Bob's lack of willingness to pay for the call and Joe's lack of willingness to accept a collect call. Joe is fully within his rights to then call Bob back if he so choses. Fraudulent? Absolutely not, since nothing is being hidden from telco. Immoral? Again, no, since everything is out in the open. Illegal? Certainly not; Joe is under no obligation to accept collect calls and has every right to make any direct dial call he wants. As long as the phone company offers collect calls, they explicitly grant the called party the right to proceed as I just illustrated. Consider the following example: Jack (who lives in California) calls Jill (in New York) collect on a weekday afternoon at 4:30pm PST using AT&T. Jill knows that accepting the charges will cost *HER* a surcharge plus AT&T's daytime rates. Instead, she would prefer to pay the *NIGHTTIME RATES* that she can get from dialing direct via MCI PrimeTime (flat rate hours begin at 5pm). Rather than pay $.22+ per minute plus a surcharge, she only pays $.1083 to another LD company. Yes, a cynic can view this scenerio as taking advantage of the phone company; however, keep in mind "I refuse the charges" only menas that "I don't want to accept the collect call and the charges associated with it" -- It does not mean, nor does it imply, "I don't want to talk to the calling party." Finally, does the phone company (any of them) owe it to customers to act as a free message service? Of course not; but as long as customers have the legitimate option to refuse charges (which they should so they don't get stuck paying for calls they don't want), an announcement of a collect call will continue to serve as a "free message." The only potential fraudulent use of the service I can see is: Operator: "I have a person-to-person call for Joe." Joe: "I'm sorry but Joe is not here right now." *THAT* is obvious fraud due to the lie involved to elicit a free message. Your response is welcome ... ALAN M. GALLATIN Internet: alan@acpub.duke.edu Duke University School of Law Home: +1 919 493 8903 ------------------------------ From: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Date: 20 Jan 92 23:42:41 GMT In article on 14 Jan 92 04:06:39 GMT, stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > Another antiquated service is third-number billing, although this one > is still used quite a bit. There are a lot of people who just cannot > deal with a "newfangled" calling card, and will always place > occasional away-from-home calls in this manner. Telco will have to > continue to provide this service despite the fraud that results. Not in NY! Several years ago, NYNEX claimed that they were starting to verify all third number billings. So now the only way you can charge a call to your home number when you're away are 1) use a calling card, and 2) hope that the burglar at home answers and accepts the charge. Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu) Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261 Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 ------------------------------ From: hedges@pilot.njin.net (Douglas Hedges) Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? Date: 21 Jan 92 15:36:00 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. I never gave any thought to person-to-person until recently. I called long-distance to speak with our utility company (I'd moved) to arrange sending the final bill. I dialed direct and got caught in the web of, "All our customer service reps are busy. Please stay on the line." A few minutes of this at daytime rates was too expensive. I called an Operator and she suggested person-to-person as, "I wouldn't be charged until I was connected with a a customer service rep." She stayed on the line with me until this happened, 15 minutes later. She couldn't believe the delay. Plus we had an informative and friendly chat while waiting. I'm glad they still offer it. ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Please Explain the Difference Between CID and ANI Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 13:57:21 GMT In article clements@BBN.COM writes: > Maybe we need a regulation that requires disclosure of a POTS number, > with CLID blocking honored, along with every 800 number that is > advertised. Or, at least, disclosure of a POTS number so that people who can't call 800 (or have discovered that 800 calls can be retconned into 900 calls) can get through. It'd also be less likely to be busy. Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480|1032 2400/n/8/1. ------------------------------ From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.std.com Subject: Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low Date: Mon 20 Jan 1992 01:14 -0500 After listening to the 800-54-Privacy spiel, I can't help but wondering whether the newspapers will also want to make sure that the proposed privacy measures bar their own use of the information from their 900 number services for marketing purposes. Or maybe they should be banned from offering communications services? Or from targeting specific editions? There was some truth in the 800-54-Privacy message, but the aroma of self-interest is rather intense. The idea of controlling the use of the information rather than the business wasn't mentioned and there is no hint of monopolistic threats. Should newspapers be allowed to have cable franchises? [Moderator's Note: Let's face it, the newspapers are running scared and crying sour grapes. The numbers of Americans who read on a daily basis (anything -- let alone newspapers) has reached an all-time low. People much prefer looking at the Talking Heads on their television sets; the men with the fifty dollar hairdoos and the fifty cent brains. The era of printed news each day in a newspaper will be ending in a few years. The newspapers know it and will fight any newcomers encroaching into territory they (the papers) cannot control, TPC being one. PAT] ------------------------------ From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) Subject: Re: Two Wires Become Four; and GTE Won't Explain Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 07:34:27 GMT In article andrew@frip.wv.tek.com writes: > I'm building a new house and it's time for me to plan my signal > wiring. I'm served by GTE Northwest in Tigard Oregon, exchange > 503-620. I called them and was sent their booklet "Customer Installed > Premises Wiring Guide." There's a picture of how to wire the > "customer provided wire junction," where the four conductors in my > internal wiring attach to four screws. I'm no expert on telecom > wiring and I thought, once and for all, to find out why I'm supposed > to run four wires when the telco puts only two into my house. > The technical issue: the answer I got boils down to redundancy -- if > one of the two signal conductors breaks in my internal cable, I can > repair it by selecting one of the two spares. But, if this is the > case, why are all four connectors brought out to the RJ11 jack? I'd > be grateful for a technical answer. If you are bringing only four conductors to each phone jack location, you're being incredibly short-sighted. Even older homes typically have six pairs to each jack. What if you later decide to add a line or two? (Double RJ-11 jacks are easy to find.) Imagine that your kids grow up to become talky teen-agers. You decide to put in a line for your modem. You decide to put a fax in your in-home office. You install an alarm system and need a line for the digital communicator to call the monitoring service. The list goes on and on. The expense in doing the wiring is not the cable itself, it's the labor to bring it from jack to jack. Believe me, you won't regret putting more pairs in now. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 00:30 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Customer Account Security Steve Forrette writes: > This must have changed VERY recently. About four months ago, I called > Pacific Bell to get my balance. > The rep's response to this? "Well, sir, if you call the account > balance giving out information, then I guess I did!" Can you believe > that? Some security. In all fairness, I forgot to mention that when all this came down a couple of years ago, I raised a monumental stink. Someone had impersonated me and got my private line numbers. Someone else had made changes on my account. As a result, I was damn mad and highly motivated. Recently, someone alerted me that an "angry father" was looking to get his hands on "whoever is running that damn party line". Seems his daughter, in sultry voice, was giving her (family) phone number out to some sex-starved dennisons on my free "party line". Naturally, the calls coming into his house day and night were fault of the person running the party line (me). I called the business office to ask about the security of the info on that number. I asked, "Would you give someone the billing name on that number?" "Not on your life", was the answer. So far, I have received not one call from anyone regarding the "party line". But then, that account could have a special flag as a result of many such inquiries. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 01:10:21 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Zip + 6? Organization: University of California, Berkeley garym@telesoft.com (Gary Morris) in : >> As addresses creep up to 11 digits, has the Post Office heard about >> checksums or other techniques to reduce errors? > The modulo 10 check digit in the bar code has already been mentioned > by several readers but no one mentioned that each digit in the barcode > is 5 bits, essential 4 bits plus a check bit. So they can detect an > error on each digit or on the whole zip code. They could even > reconstruct an unreadable digit from the checksum. Yes and no. It's not actually four bits plus a checkbit, because it's not that kind of binary. If you look carefully, you will see that each digit consists of two tall bars and three short bars. To read a postal barcode, add the values of the two tall bars together, with the special caveat that 7+4=0. The values of the bars are, from left to right, 7-4-2-1-0. Thus, the digits 0-9 are ||::: :::|| ::|:| ::||: :|::| :|:|: :||::: |:::| |::|: and |:|::, where | is a tall and : short. Also tack a tall bar on each end of the barcode. Trivia: what does the acronym POSTNET mean? (POSTal Numeric Encoding Technique) Linc Madison = Linc@Tongue1.Berkeley.EDU = 94701-2811 or ||:|:::|::||:::|||::::::||::|:||::|::::||:::|||:::|| ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 08:28:18 -0500 From: niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr) Subject: Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM In jeh@cmkrnl writes: > In article , rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes: >> In article , davidb@zeus.ce.washington. >> edu (David W. Barts) writes: >>> This is known as an ALIT (Automatic Line Insulation Test), performed >>> by the phone company in the wee hours of the morning to detect faults >>> in the twisted pair serving your home. ALIT involves placing a DC >>> voltage of about 100v across the pair and measuring the leakage >>> current. This subject has been discussed in this Digest extensively >>> in the past. >> Actually ALIT is an old system, not much used these days. Current >> automated Line test systems typically do the testing at 10V or so. > A friend who used to work for Bell Labs has a different explanation. > He claims that the CO is probing your line to see how many ringer > equivalents are on it, so that the CO will deliver enough current to > ring them on. > [Moderator's Note: In the olden days, when telco was 'probing your > line to measure ringer current' it was to see how many extensions were > on the line versus what you were paying for. Does anyone remember > those days, when there was such a thing as an 'illegal extension'? PAT] I had what could be called an 'illegal extension' which was my modem. Sure enough, I received a phone call one day questioning me about it but as luck would have it I had disconnected it and taken it for repair. I explained that there were only two phones in my house and that they were more than welcome to make any test that they wanted right then and there and that if they found just the two then they could quit making a false claim. (No, I didn't use the "I'm not a crook" phrase :) The response was "Oh, sorry to bother you, goodbye." End of case. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Bell Canada Tests New Forwarding, Voice Caller ID Options Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 14:04:12 GMT In article amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn) writes: > In article peter@taronga.com (Peter da > Silva) writes: >> they save the last number anyway for call-blocking, why can't they >> make something like this for after the fact (i.e., you dial *something >> and it tells you who last called). > No! (sigh) This proposal is *in addition to* Caller-ID. An additional source of revenue for the phone company, and a lower up-front cost for folks who don't want to buy a special Caller-ID display unit. I don't think a per-call charge for C-ID delivery is fair, for example, but a per-call charge for a service like this definitely is. Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480|1032 2400/n/8/1. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #63 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21667; 21 Jan 92 16:43 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18085 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 14:14:17 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19948 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 14:13:47 -0600 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 14:13:47 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201212013.AA19948@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #64 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Jan 92 14:13:33 CST Volume 12 : Issue 64 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Caller-ID Area Code in Toronto (John Macdonald) Re: Caller-ID Area Code in Toronto (Mark Brader) Re: Caller ID Now Operational in Northern Illinois (Raymond C. Jender) Re: Cellular Rates Go Up (Norman Soley) Re: PIC's From RBOC Payphones (Eric Florack) Re: PIC's From RBOC Payphones (Tim Gorman) Re: CCITT Standards and Recommendations (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Jim Hutchison) Re: Reporter Seeks Information on 800 Billed as 900 (Steven M. Palm) Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM (John Rice) Re: How Do You Calculate a 32-bit CRC? (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Listening to the Called Phone Ringing (Tony Harminc) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: eci386!jmm@uunet.uu.net (John Macdonald) Subject: Re: Caller-ID Area Code in Toronto Organization: Elegant Communications Inc. Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 14:53:43 -0500 In article Bob Miller writes: > I noticed a change to how Caller-ID is displayed in Toronto 416.787 > exchange. Since the introduction of the service only local calls were > displayed and did not give an area code, long distance calls displayed > "LONG DISTANCE". I noticed a call last night that included the area > code '416-xxx-xxxx'. I have yet to receive a long distance call to > see how it is displayed. That may not mean that they are prepared (or even preparing) to offer display of Caller ID of long distance incoming calls. It just means that they are preparing now for the upcoming (early 1993?) split of the 416 area code -- there will be local calls that do not come from 416, but from the split off area code. 416 will be used strictly for Metropolitan Toronto, the new area code will be used for the rest of the current area; which will continue to include a large number of places that are in the local calling area for Toronto (like Pickering, Mississauga, Markham, Richmod Hill, ...). John Macdonald jmm@eci386 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 19:34:00 -0500 From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Caller-ID Area Code in Toronto Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada > I noticed a change to how Caller-ID is displayed in Toronto 416.787 > exchange. Since the introduction of the service only local calls were > displayed and did not give an area code, long distance calls displayed > "LONG DISTANCE". I noticed a call last night that included the area > code '416-xxx-xxxx'. I have yet to receive a long distance call to > see how it is displayed. Perhaps this is preparation for the split of area code 905 from 416 next year. Since 416 will include Metro Toronto, which is smaller than the local calling area for Metro Toronto, it follows that calls between some parts of 905 and any part of 416 will be local. I got Call Return last May, soon after it was offered in 416-488. The voice message informing you of the number that last called your line (which you get before returning a call) has always included the area code. I find it annoying; I think it should be given only if different ... especially as it currently couldn't *be* different. Is this the usual behavior? Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com [Moderator's Note: We get no announcement at all of the number we are returning the call to. That is deemed too close to Caller-ID here. We dial *69 and it rings ... ask the person answering if you wish to know what you reached and where. The trade off here is *67 will not block the number for the purpose of auto call-back as it will for Caller-ID. That seems to be a reasonable compromise. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 14:53:43 EST From: rcj1@ihlpf.att.com (Raymond C Jender) Subject: Re: Caller ID Now Operational in Northern Illinois Organization: AT&T In article wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) writes: >> Our system uses the standard *67 + number for blocking on a call by >> call basis as desired. In addition, the subscriber to caller-ID can >> turn off reception of numbers if desired with *85, and turn on the >> reception with *65, although I cannot imagine why the person paying to >> receive the information would want to turn off delivery. > Why? Because IBT is charging you PER CALL, for getting CNID. This is > in addition to the monthly charges. Actually, in my area the price is $6.50 for up to 299 incoming calls and two cents for each additional incoming call. [Moderator's Note: Same here. We get 300 calls in the package. PAT] ------------------------------ From: soley@trooa.enet.dec.com (Norman Soley) Subject: Re: Cellular Rates Go Up Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Date: 20 JAN 92 13:36:27 In article , DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA writes: > The story regarding Canadian cellular services running their rates up > made reference to a Bell Cellular "Lifeline" grade of service. This > does not appear to be a "lifeline" service in the sense that it would > be known in the U.S. (ie. as a cheaper phone service intended for the > poor, unemployed, etc). In fact, the U.S. "lifeline" services are a > generally unknown concept in Canada. Rather, this appears to be a > brand name or trade name for the cheap class of cell service. I think that "lifeline" may have been introduced by the original poster. Cantel calls this service "Occasional User Plan". Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District Digital Equipment of Canada soley@trooa.enet.dec.com Opinions expressed are mine alone and do not reflect those of Digital Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 07:19:17 PST From: Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com Subject: Re: PIC's From RBOC Payphones:TELECOM Digest V12 #51 > It will soon be a year since we expected the Judge to rule on methods > and procedures to eliminate this default routing of 1+ coin to AT&T. According to the paper, the opening arguments are supposed to be starting on the 22nd of this month. (Hey, that's this Wed!) A number of people, in private notes to me here and at home, have noted that part of the problem is that AT&T is supposedly the only company that's been willing to invest in inter-exhange signalling equipment, (Which as I gather it would also explain the lack of answer supervision in a lot of LATA's.) After doing some investigation, I find this is simply not the case. The fact of the matter is; that AT&T is currently taking positions against SWBT, and a few others being allowed to carry inter-LATA signalling, even inside of their service areas. Others, like US WEST, have been pressing to consolidate signal traffic to six signal transfer points. AT&T insists that an STP in every lata is required. Far be it from me to defend SWBT on ANYTHING, normally, but in this case, they're right, sort of. While I have a great deal of problems with the RBHC's dealing in LD services, a ruling here in AT&T's favor would seem to lay down a precedent in the area of signalling, against the IDLC's ability to deal with simple call supervision, let alone coin calls ... as well as cost effective signalling inside of RBHC's locals. If the ruling comes down here in AT&T's favor, here, it would seem to require also, that each of the ILDC's also must have an STP in each LATA. This would prove to be a vast cost advantage to AT&T, since their signalling is already up and running, and since they have been very effective at blocking other companies, be they ILDC's or locals,(RBHC or otherwise) from dealing with STP's in a cost-effective manner. > Is this against the intent of equal access as it was meant to be (as > opposed to how the Judge defines it)? YOU BET IT IS, at least in my > opinion. It is a prime example of an artificially allocated market. If > 1+ calls were routed to reorder or otherwise blocked from non-AT&T > PICed stations, there would certainly soon be a resolution in the > market. Either the premise owners would choose another PIC because of > customer complaints, the carriers would start providing the service, > or nothing at all would happen. Again, far be it from me to side with SWBT on much of /anything/, but I agree here, Tim. We seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place, on this one. Either we allow the signalling to be processed by the RBHC's they way they see fit, or we lose cost effective call signaling on the ILDC's. Tough choice, but between the two, you /know/ which way I'd go ... ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 92 10:23:43 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: PICs From RBOC Payphones Steve Forrette writes in TELECOM Digest V12 #52: > The problem is that for technical reasons, the long distance carrier must > have a point-of-presence directly with each switch that has coin > phones attached in order to control the coin mechanism. No access > tandems are allowed. Since Sprint, MCI, etc., don't nearly have a POP > in each exchange, it would be probibitively expensive for them to put > this in just to service sent-paid coin calls. This is definitely a > declining market! Not so! As of about 1991, all major networks could be made capable of sending this traffic to a carrier via an access tandem. This included the No. 1 ESS. Some switches that could not included the DMS10 and the No. 2B ESS (although the No. 2 may be fixed by now). This could be done using either OSS signaling or EAOSS signaling. So even this is not a reason for the carriers to not offer the service. As far as I know, there has never been an SS7 signaling standard set for operator services. BellCore was working on one in 1990, but to my knowledge it has never been published. It would probably be three to five years after publication before it could be implemented by the switch and STP vendors. Anyone have any newer information on this subject? Tim Gorman-SWBT *All opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 14:51:56 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: CCITT Standards and Recommendations Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > [Moderator's Note: I wonder what possible objection they had to > leaving them in place on the Internet? PAT] They might not want outdated standards out there or to pend the money to maintain them. Harold ------------------------------ From: hutch@qualcomm.com (Jim Hutchison) Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony Organization: Qualcomm Incorporated Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 21:24:43 GMT In article mole-end!mat@uunet.uu.net writes: > Would someone like to explain how CDMA works? I understand that it > spreads the signal across a huge bandwidth in a way that allows the > receiver to select 1 of N signals ... but how? A CDMA primer, anyone? CDMA uses spread spectrum, encoding, power control, and a few neat tricks I'm not sure have been disclosed yet. In a nutshell: The transmission is encoded in an identifying fashion The frames are transmitted The frames arrive as this big scrambled mush The received frames are sorted out of the mush by decoding For more detailed information, contact: Allen Salmasi Qualcomm 10555 Sorrento Valley Road San Diego, CA 92121-1617 USA phone: 619/587-1121 email: asalmasi@qualcomm.com He is a marketing wizard, instead of an engineer, but he has all the disclosed information within easy reach. Likewise there have been some IEEE journal articles, try a good library. Jim Hutchison {dcdwest,ucbvax}!ucsd!qualcomm!hutch or hutch@qualcomm.com Disclaimer: I am not an official spokesman for Qualcomm ------------------------------ From: "Steven M. Palm" Subject: Re: Reporter Seeks Information on 800 Billed as 900 Date: 19 Jan 92 22:19:47 GMT Organization: Currently Lacking Organization In Bob_Frankston@frankston.std.com writes: > Nak. > It's also worth finding out who did NOT get charged. I'm in Eastern > Mass and have not seen such charges and my default carrier is ATT. > (Yes, I did try the 800 number). I tried it one time, for one minute. I received a bill for that. I suppose I could fight it, since it was a one-time occurance, and I hung up right after hearing the $0.95/minute charge. But it's hardly worth it. smp@myamiga.mixcom.com Steven M. Palm Milwaukee, WI ------------------------------ From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com Subject: Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 23:56:13 GMT > [Moderator's Note: In the olden days, when telco was 'probing your > line to measure ringer current' it was to see how many extensions were > on the line versus what you were paying for. Does anyone remember > those days, when there was such a thing as an 'illegal extension'? PAT] I remember that Pat. Fortunately it didn't last long (relatively speaking). Then there was a period where you could add your own extension, but the RBOCs wanted specifically to know the FCC ID of the telephone device (to be sure it was a 'legal' phone). Life sure has changed. John Rice K9IJ rice@ttd.teradyne.com (708)-940-9000 - (work) (708)-438-7011 - (home) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 22:31:36 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: How Do You Calculate a 32-bit CRC? Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo See the January 1992 issue of Embedded Systems Programming for a great article on CRCs. There is a bunch of sample code (in Pascal). Embedded Systems Programming is published by Miller Freeman Publications, 600 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA 94107, phone 415 905 2200. Harold Hallikainen ap621@Cleveland.Freenet.edu Hallikainen & Friends, Inc. hhallika@pan.calpoly.edu 141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4 phone 805 541 0200 fax 544 6715 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590 telex 4932775 HFI UI ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 23:11:09 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Listening to the Called Phone Ringing dklur@attmail.com wrote: > When I dial a phone number and hear the called party's phone "ring", I > am really hearing tones generated by my local switch, right? > If this is true, then why when I call an international phone number, > do I hear a different kind of ringing than the ringing for a domestic > call? Generally the ringing tone you hear is generated by the distant CO and sent back to you on the same voice path that will be used when the called party answers. The SS7 signalling system does make provision for the local switch to generate tones, but there are two reasons this doesn't happen too often: 1) The chances of the entire connection being SS7 end-to-end are not yet very high. This is changing. 2) Even if the equipment is capable, it isn't clear what the advantages are of generating a local (caller's end) ringing tone. When the called party answers, the voice path has to be connected in a big hurry to avoid cutting off the first word or two. This means the "call has been answered" message has to make its way through the (separate) signalling network back to your CO, the local ringing cut off, and the voice path connected all in milliseconds. It's possible, but probably not reliable. Because the timing of the answer is unpredictable, there is little to be gained by not connecting the voice path until answer. The reason original suggested for generating all tones locally is that they can be of the form familiar to the caller, but I think this is pretty weak these days with most people being quite familiar with tones from other countries. Busy signals are another matter, however. It makes great sense to have the distant end send back a "busy" message without ever setting up the voice path. Then you can listen to the locally generated busy signal all day if you like, without occupying a valuable trunk across town or the world. I've noticed on calls from here (Toronto) to the UK that in the last year or so, busy signals are being generated locally. Curiously, at least part of the voice path seems to get set up (slight background noise), then there is a click, the noise goes away, and the normal Canadian busy signal comes on. If it does ring, it's always a UK ring. Tony H. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #64 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26002; 21 Jan 92 18:47 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26419 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 16:42:22 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25975 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 16:41:57 -0600 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 16:41:57 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201212241.AA25975@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #66 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Jan 92 16:41:54 CST Volume 12 : Issue 66 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Bob Denny) Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Don Newcomb) Re: ISDN For PC? (David E. Martin) Re: I Couldn't Get AT&T From Payphone (Steven A Rubin) Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low (Robert L. McMillin) Re: Germany Update: New City Codes For Former "East Germany" (Carl Moore) Re: The Spread of Telepoints (Duncan Rogerson) Re: CLID Chip Set (Don Froula) Re: Cellular "Lifeline" Service (Tony Harminc) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: denny@dakota.alisa.com (Bob Denny) Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 17:16:41 GMT Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc. In mole-end!mat@uunet.uu.net writes: > Would someone like to explain how CDMA works? I understand that it > spreads the signal across a huge bandwidth in a way that allows the > receiver to select 1 of N signals ... but how? A CDMA primer, anyone? I do not know the details of the specific system being proposed, but I am familiar with "spread spectrum" systems, of which the proposed cellular "CDMA" system appears to be one. So I'll take a stab at some basics in hopes someone else more knowlegable will expand on or correct ... First: the "MA" in CDMA stands for "multiple access". There are three common multiple access schemes: frequency division (FDMA), time division (TDMA) and code division (CDMA). Frequency division is what's used now. Each "circuit" gets a slice of bandwidth, a channel. TDMA uses the concept of chopping up each circuit in time, fast enough so that the users can't tell, and then interleaving (multiplexing) the circuits in time. The signals could be either analog or digital. I have no idea how the proposed TDMA cellular system works, so that's that. There are two common forms of CDMA systems: direct-sequence and frequency-hopping. I will describe the direct-sequence variation. I do not know which is used by Qualcomm. The principles are the same, though. CDMA works by first digitally encoding the audio signal, resulting in a stream of bits. Various tricks are used to compress the audio so as to minimize the bit rate at the expense of fidelity. Next the encoded audio signal is mixed with a pseudo-random bitstream. This produces a resulting wideband noise-like signal. The pseudo-noise (PN) sequence is generated with very specific characteristics.It is the PN sequence that is the "code" that CDMA is named after. Each circuit is assigned a unique code for generating the PN sequence. These codes are designed to (a) be very noiselike and (b) to have very low correlation between the codes. The signal is reconstructed at the receiving end by mixing the incoming spread-spectrum signal with an exact duplicate of the PN sequence used to generate the signal at the sending end. The PN sequence at the receiving end must be synchronized with that at the transmitting end (plus any propagation delay), and this is the hardest part of making a CDMA system work. Simplistically, the receiver's PN generator is slewed in time slowly across the repetition time of the PN sequence. At one point, there will be a sharp jump in correlation between the receiver's PN sequence and the incoming signal. Now you can see why it is vital that the PN codes be designed to have very low correlation between them. It is needed to prevent false locks on other codes. No code family is perfect in this regard. You might also have noticed that the codes must have low auto-correlation as well, so that there is only one main correlation peak between the incoming signal and the local PN generator. If you aren't confused at this point, great. Now here's why spread-spectrum is so great. First, the fact that the signal's energy is spread across a very wide range of frequencies makes it very resistant to multipath. I won't go into the explanation of why, but trust me, a properly engineered CDMA system will be virtually immune to flutter and fading, even in the worst urban high-rise areas. Secondly, the PN sequence can be generated with an encryption key and provide a reasonable level of security. I have no idea if the Qualcomm proposal includes security provisions, though. Spread-spectrum has been used very successfully (!!) by the military for field mobile communications, including satellite circuits, for over twenty years. And we all know how long it takes to convert an idea into a field ready system for the military. It is a total shame that cellular technology is soooo far behind. It'll be an an even greater shame if the second-generation system doesn't use the highly successful spread-spectrum systems that have been around for over twenty years. Robert B. Denny voice: (818) 792-9474 Alisa Systems, Inc. fax: (818) 792-4068 Pasadena, CA (denny@alisa.com, ..uunet!alisa.com!denny) ------------------------------ From: don@q-aais.navo.navy.mil (Don Newcomb) Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony Date: 21 Jan 92 19:08:03 GMT Reply-To: don@q-aais.navo.navy.mil (Don Newcomb) Organization: U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office In article rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 62, Message 4 of 11 > mole-end!mat@uunet.uu.net writes: >> Would someone like to explain how CDMA works? I understand that it >> spreads the signal across a huge bandwidth in a way that allows the >> receiver to select 1 of N signals ... but how? A CDMA primer, anyone? > Okay, let me explain as much as I can without (a) giving away anything > proprietary, and (b) getting too technical. [Stuff deleted] > Each transmission is spread across the band by encoding it with a > pseudorandom sequence of ones and zeros that can be calculated from > the absolute system time. Different "channels" are obtained by using > an offset from this sequence. > Now here's the beautiful part. The recieved signal is demodulated > using the same sequence. If you demodulate with one sequence of ones > and zeros, _only_ those signals that have been encoded with that > sequence will fall out. All other signals look just like background > noise. So if you have seven cells near each other, they can all share > the same frequency band. They just use a different offset. When the > mobile powers up it attempts to find a cell at each of the possible > offsets until it finds a transmitting cell. You can get channels > within a cell by offsetting another small "distance" in the sequence. OK. So they are probably using a Linear Maximal Pseudorandom Sequence to modulate and demodualte the signal. But, doesn't this imply some rather heavy duty signal processing? Is a matched filter adequate to demodulate the signal or do they require all sorts of bizarre transforms? Donald Newcomb newcomb@navo.navy.mil ------------------------------ From: dem%nhmpw2@ames.arc.nasa.gov (David E. Martin) Subject: Re: ISDN For PC? Date: 21 Jan 92 18:12:46 GMT Reply-To: dem@fnal.fnal.gov Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL, USA > Does anyone have any pointers to vendors / suppliers of ISDN plug-in > boards or modules for the IBM PC? Teleos Communications, Inc. Eatontown, NJ (201) 389-5700 AT&T Network Systems Morristown, NJ "contact your AT&T Sales Representative" Fujitsu Network Switching of America San Jose, CA (408) 954-1088 DGM&S Mt Laurel, NJ (609) 866-1212 Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc Atlanta, GA (404) 840-9200 I bought several of the Hayes PC Adapters and have been pleased with them and Hayes support. David E. Martin National HEPnet Management Phone: +1 708 840-8275 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory FAX: +1 708 840-2783 P.O. Box 500; MS 234; Batavia, IL 60510 USA E-Mail: DEM@FNAL.FNAL.Gov ------------------------------ From: sar1952@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Steven A Rubin) Subject: Re: I Couldn't Get AT&T From Payphone Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 21:14:32 GMT In article chuck@roadrunner.pictel.com (Chuck Grandgent) writes: > OK, this happens to me enough often enough I'm getting tired of it. > In a hotel last night and get "IntegraTel" as the payphone service > provider. I tried with all my might and couldn't get 1-0-ATT-0 to get > me AT&T. I called my house three times, and the first two times my > audio wasn't getting through ... I'm sure I'll get billed though. And > this has happened before. This would not happen to be from a hotel on Ft. Lauderdale, would it? I was in FL at the end of November, and had to make a few calls back to Pikesville, MD. I attempted to use AT&T as my carrier, but the phone would not let me! So I called Southern Bell and told the operator that the payphone I was calling from (Southeast Pay Telephone) was a noncompliant COCOT, to which she replied that she had no idea what I was talking about and that she could not do anything for me, not even connect me to AT&T!!! Anyway, I just received my phone bill and, lo and behold, Integretel was the carrier for these calls that cost a bloody forune. A seven minute call cost $5.57 and a three minute call cost me $4.28! I have absolutely no intention of paying this much for those calls. I am willing to pay a worst case scenario AT&T rate ($1.85 for operator assisstance and 21 cents per minute) as a fair, yet still high, price, but price gouging I will not put up with. I suggest you not pay these either. The more folks like us who stand up to these rip off artists, the more of an impact we will have to getting them to either reform their rates or go out of business. I pay less than this to call Israel! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 13:26:30 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Baby Bells Hit New Low > [Comments about the newspapers' self-serving remarks on 800-54-Privacy > line deleted] There was some truth in the 800-54-Privacy message, but > the aroma of self-interest is rather intense.... > [Moderator's Note: Let's face it, the newspapers are running scared > and crying sour grapes. The numbers of Americans who read on a daily > basis (anything -- let alone newspapers) has reached an all-time > low....] Well, let's not hope that things have gotten so bad that the readers of TELECOM Digest don't pay attention to it anymore. :-) It's an unfortunate truth, but those people who DO read will be increasingly the ones who will get the better jobs, who will vote, and who will determine the course this country takes. It may be sour grapes from the papers, but it's also a depressing note for our nation. Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com [Moderator's Note: Indeed it is a depressing note. The national trade group representing publishers and booksellers reported recently the number of American families purchasing *at least one book* in the past year had reached an all time low. And if you don't think the handwriting is on the wall for the newspapers, just consider how many we have lost in the past twenty years through mergers or cessation of publication. Do any of our older readers remember when (as one example and not meant to single them out) {The Christian Science Monitor} was a full-size paper (not tabloid); published six days per week (not five); had an average of 60-80 pages in each issue (not ten); was full of written material by world-renowned columnists (instead of pictures); was a mandatory 'must subscribe' publication in virtually every public library in the USA, every high school and college library, and numerous homes in America? Everyone loved and quoted from the CSM; other magazines and papers regularly reprinted from it; and world leaders ranging from Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Margaret Thatcher and others said they read it daily? Yes, Americans have quit reading ... and we are the worse for it, but little comfort that is to the newspaper industry. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 12:34:14 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Germany Update: New City Codes For Former "East Germany" Does "new states" mean the former East Germany? I take it that the city codes of country code 37 are being replaced by city codes (in the 03 range) in country code 49; and that the city codes of country code 37 are not to be used with country code 49 because of duplications. ------------------------------ From: duncan@transition.mhs-relay.ac.uk (Duncan Rogerson) Subject: Re: The Spread of Telepoints Reply-To: duncan@mhs.ac.uk (Duncan Rogerson) Organization: University of London Computer Centre, Networks Group Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 15:03:33 GMT In article cmylod@oracle.nl (Colum Mylod) writes: > If memory serves, at least one British trader in these has folded due > to massive disinterest from the great public. Are they anywhere else? I *think* there were about three service providers, each of which pulled out of the sector due to lack of interest. I think Telepoint, Zone Phone and Mercury Callpoint were the people involved. Last I heard, Telepoint were going for a re-launch, although with a modified system, so that, yes, you guessed it, the handsets used on the old service can't be used on the new one. I have one of the old system units at the office, so I can be reached when I'm not at my desk. It works well, especially considering the amount of electronically noisy kit I use it around. Ordinary cordless phones just don't work here. I doubt I'd have much use for it elsewhere, the battery life is only three hours, and not being able to receive calls, except from private base stations your handset is registered with, is a definite minus point. I notice they've also started installing points on tube platforms. Nice idea, I guess, but have you ever tried talking on a payphone on a tube platform? Trying to speak/hear above the noise of the trains is nigh on impossible. Dunc ------------------------------ From: froula@rtsg.mot.com (Don Froula) Subject: Re: CLID Chip Set Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, RTSG Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 16:31:57 GMT Motorola makes a nice one chip implementation with ring detector and power-down circuitry. It is the MC145447. Samples are shipping with the number XC145447 number, indicating the die is a pre-production version. I have the serial output circuit suggested in the application note in front of me here, and have been playing with it a few days. It seems to work very well. A nice feature is 'raw' data output (with the initial '555555...' sync sequence), or 'cooked' output, with only validated data persented. Also, the part will operate with a 3.59 or 3.6864 MHz crystal or a 455KHz resonator. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 12:42:41 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Cellular "Lifeline" Service David W. Barts wrote: > Also note that the service was being provided in Canada, which has > many more people living in remote areas than the US, so it may make > sense there but not in the US. Also, how many Canadians live in an > area where cellular is the ONLY class of phone service available (i.e. > no wires)? Sigh. The typical US idea of Canada creeps in again. Canada does not have many more people living in remote areas than the US. For a start, the population of Canada is about a tenth that of the US, so in absolute terms there are far more Americans in almost any situation than there are Canadians. More important though, is that Canada is a more urbanized society than is the US. Many people seem to confuse the low overall population density of the country with the living circumstances of the average Canadian. The average Canadian lives in a city. The average American lives in a medium sized town. Looked at another way, although there are ten times as many Americans as Canadians, there are not ten times as many cities. So the question gets answered the same way: the number of Canadians living in areas where cellular service is the only phone service is exceedingly small. The truly remote parts of the country have no phone service at all (or perhaps HF radio service). There is no point in setting up a cellular infrastructure where there are no towns, no roads, and no people. Tony H. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #66 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27292; 21 Jan 92 19:29 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20394 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 15:45:43 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26686 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 15:45:17 -0600 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 15:45:17 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201212145.AA26686@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #65 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Jan 92 15:45:14 CST Volume 12 : Issue 65 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Barton F. Bruce) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Tom Gray) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Tony Harminc) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Marc T. Kaufman) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Julian Macassey) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Tim Gorman) Re: Determining System ID of Current Cellular System (Monty Solomon) Re: Rotary Callers, Go Home! (Bud Couch) Re: Reverse Phone Numbers (David Niebuhr) Re: I Couldn't Get AT&T From Payphone (Barton F. Bruce) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered Date: 21 Jan 92 05:04:15 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > In most 'modern' CO switches in use in North America, answer > supervision is available as an extra-cost tariffed service. Most PBX > owners don't buy it. Could you provide some examples of typical offerings? USOC codes? Any for NET in Mass would be most interesting. I can find NO ONE in NET (and I mean WAY above the local business office types) that knows of such a service. The *head* of special assembly services allowed as how he probably ought to look at the subject yet again. ------------------------------ From: grayt@Software.Mitel.Com (Tom Gray) Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 09:50:44 -0500 Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article John Higdon writes: > Why should anyone pay for custom calling? Hell, those features are > turned on with a couple of keystrokes. What a rip! Custom features are turned on by a couple of key strokes. The couple of key strokes invokes the software which was written to provide the custom service. This software cost money to write, test and support. Someone has to pay the switch vendor so that it can pay for the development of software. Who better than the users of that software? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 18:48:34 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered andys@ulysses.att.com wrote: >> The PBX isn't the problem here. In North America "modern" CO switches >> don't pass answer supervision back to the subscriber. (On older >> switches it was sent back to the sub in the form >> of reversed polarity). This would solve lots of problems with COCOTS, >> long distance companies, modems, voice forwarding systems and even >> teleslime automatic calling machines, but alas ... > Wouldn't reverse polarity make it impossible for me to talk to my home > answering machine and office voice mail from a line-powered phone? As > I recall, DTMF generators don't work under reverse polarity ... True, but for many years now phones have had a diode bridge that makes polarity questions irrelevant. Phone jacks are often wired backwards without anyone noticing for years. Tony H. ------------------------------ From: kaufman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA Date: 21 Jan 92 16:47:45 GMT 71336.1270@CompuServe.COM (tim gorman) writes: > Should this battery reversal be done with a regular DTMF station set > attached to the line, the dial would be disabled unless a polarity > guard existed in the set. The last time I knew, including polarity > guards in the sets was not standard practice for most set makers. Only for sets being distributed by phone companies, so they can make an "incoming calls only" option by reversing tip and ring. EVERY third party set I have seen on the market has a diode bridge in it because a non-trivial number of extension cables (like some from Radio Shack) reverse tip and ring between the plug ends. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@CS.stanford.edu) [Moderator's Note: All the 'incoming calls only' lines I've ever seen were set up so no dial tone was extended to the line. If you went off hook on one of those lines, all you heard was battery. And the phones themselves usually have no dial on the front ... just a cover plate where the dial would go. PAT] ------------------------------ From: julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey) Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered Date: 20 Jan 92 14:55:50 GMT Reply-To: julian@bongo.info.com (Julian Macassey) Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article andys@ulysses.att.com writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 47, Message 13 of 14 > In article joe@mojave.ati.com (Joe > Talbot) wrote: >> The PBX isn't the problem here. In North America "modern" CO switches >> don't pass answer supervision back to the subscriber. (On older >> switches it was sent back to the sub in the form >> of reversed polarity). > Wouldn't reverse polarity make it impossible for me to talk to my home > answering machine and office voice mail from a line-powered phone? As > I recall, DTMF generators don't work under reverse polarity ... DTMF generators will work fine under reverse polarity if they are not polarity sensitive. Modern 2500 sets, and nearly all DTMF sets are not polarity sensitive. In "telco speak" (MOTM), this is called "Polarity Guard". Older 2500 sets that are polarity sensitive can be retrofitted with "Polarity Guard". What is "Polarity Guard"? It is a simple diode bridge, after the hookswitch and before the voltage feed to the DTMF chip or pc board. Back in the old days when secondry long distance carriers required access numbers and ID codes etc, the telco would come out and retrofit your 2500 sets with Polarity Guard if you complained that the Touch Tone pad went dead after you had dialed the first number. This was of course a problem with the polarity reversing after the switch received acknowledgement that the called party (The LD carrier's switch) had answered. In the late seventies and early eighties, many lines were still switching polarity. Some coin phones were exibiting this behaviour which made using your telco credit card impossible. But once the RBOCs twigged to this, things changed. Also some telcos, if they figured you were using bootlegged phones and using DTMF without paying for it would reverse the prime polarity so your DTMF pads would go dead. Flipping the wires at the protector soon fixed this dastardly deed perpetrated at the CO. And of course, this leads to what I suppose is an FAQ, "My Touch Tone phone won't dial". Meaning won't generate tones. Flip the Tip and Ring leads, either on terminals L1 L2 in the phone or at the jack flip the red and green wires. Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 92 15:16:38 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes in TELECOM Digest V12 #61: > CO switches DO, however, pass answer supervision to PBX trunks (lines) > IF they are properly arranged for PBX service. In my experience, this > means that they are ground start and the answer signal is a line > reversal. I'm sorry, but my description of ground-start service includes no indication of answer supervision. 1. Idle state: Ring=-48v, Tip=floating 2. Station grounds ring. Current flow in ring signals network. 3. Network applies Ground (positive side of battery) to the tip. 4. Station detects ground on the tip as a start dial and goes to loop supervision mode. 5. Further action is just like a loop start line (i.e. no indication of the network state at the station). Again, the only way I know of to get answer supervision is to be connected to the trunk side of the central office switch via a DOD-type service. I believe some No. 1A ESS trunks could be set up to simulate ground start service but I have never actually seen this done. Tim Gorman - SWBT * opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 01:19:12 EST From: roscom!monty@Think.COM (Monty Solomon) Subject: Re: Determining System ID of Current Cellular System John Covert wrote: > In an article I wrote yesterday entitled "Motorola Cellular Phone Test > Mode Commands" I asked (among other things) about determining the > system ID of the current cellular system while roaming. > Oh, yes, and Cellular One (Southwestern Bell) in Boston told me today > that they can't tell me what their system ID is. "That's Proprietary > Information," they say. No matter that it is published in books such > as the "Cellular Telephone Directory", assigned by the FCC, and a > matter of public record. The System ID for Cellular One Boston is 00007. I don't know why they think it is such a big secret. My phone has no problem telling me what it is. I haven't tried to determine the SID while roaming. Monty roscom!monty@bu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 14:27:20 PST From: kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) Subject: Re: Rotary Callers, Go Home! In article strieterd@gtephx.UUCP (Dave Strieter) writes: > Several Digest readers have commented that it is cheaper for the telco > to provide DTMF than rotary pulse dialing, but I fail to understand > how they come to that conclusion. I can't speak for the 5ESS or > DMS-100, but on the GTD-5 dial pulses are counted by software which > monitors the output of an opto-coupler device connected to each line, > whereas DTMF tones must be decoded by a more-expensive circuit which > feeds the decoded digits to the software. How does "more expensive" = > "costs less"? Simple enough. In the old days it was holding time on the registers; so that for a given level of service, you needed more registers for DP than for DTMF. On the GTD-5, it's scan time on the CPU that is saved. BTW, Dave, when did the -5 start using an opto-coupler for line current detection? The original design had a rather elegant technique (patented) that used a miniature relay coil and a Hall device to supply battery feed and detect current flow. (Sort of like an "A" relay. :-)) Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 06:38:30 -0500 From: niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr) Subject: Re: Reverse Phone Numbers In Stewarta@sco.COM (Stewart I. Alpert) writes: > Can anyone point me towards a source for reverse directory > information? I'd like to find a way to trace a name/address given a > phone number. > [Moderator's Note: In the municipal libraries of most communities, you > will find a 'criss-cross' directory for the town. Many such libraries > take inquiries of the directory through their telephone research > lines. PAT] This is known as the "Cole's Directory". The difficulty is that what you see in the regular phone book is what you will see in this one, just reversed. Unlisted numbers are not listed. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: There are various publishers represented in the libraries. Haines is quite common in several large cities. But as you point out, most 'criss-cross' directories simply list what the phone books lists but organized differently. If your phone is non-pub, it is unlikely the cross reference directories will have it either. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: I Couldn't Get AT&T From Payphone Date: 21 Jan 92 06:40:40 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , chuck@roadrunner.pictel.com (Chuck Grandgent) writes: > In a hotel last night and get "IntegraTel" as the payphone service > provider. I tried with all my might and couldn't get 1-0-ATT-0 to get > me AT&T. I called my house three times, and the first two times my > Any pointers or tricks on coping with this besides crabbing to the > people at the hotel front desk ? Ask who their carrier is and if 10xxx is available when you book the room! Then make it quite clear why you are NOT making the reservation. This is quoting from an AT&T publication for consultants: "The Commission chose not to order the LECs to offer blocking and screening features from their central offices. ... However, the FCC only encouraged the LECs to offer these features." "There were no guidelines found in the order pertaining to the enforcement of the unblocking. AT&T believes the FCC will probably become aware of blocked locations if Operator Service Providers (OSPs) or end users file complaints as well as through FCC random testing." "OSPs Must Establish an 800 or 950 Access Number" "The FCC ordered all OSPs to establish an 800 or 950 access number within six months. The Commission's action provides consumers with an alternative means of reaching a prefered carrier at locations where 10xxx access is temporarily unavailable during the 6-year transition to full unblocking. The commission concluded that effective (i.e. targeted) marketing of an 800 or 950 access number could minimize operating costs by discouraging unnecessary 800 usage where 10XXX is available." ------- AT&T has chosen to comply by providing an 800, not a 950 number. When using it, you will have to be patient, because AT&T will ask questions and WILL BE COLLECTING info on the site! When their database 'knows' about the site, there will be less delay. You can just BET AT&T makes sure the FCC is promptly notified! Six months is Feb 9. The Aug 9, 1991 FCC order required compliance within six months (Fe.b 9, 1992 -- almost here folks!) for equipment that can process 10xxx 0+ while blocking 10xxx 1+. The average modern PBX probably so qualifies. The switch owner and his vendor decide if they are exempt and then have another year unless the upgrade costs more than $15/station (ALL ports count, not just guest phones) to upgrade. If so they can delay until April 17, 1997 (5 years AFTER April 17, 1992 when all imported or manufactured equipment MUST support such call processing or lose certification -- the FCC assumes your non-complying equipment should be written off by then and MUST then be replaced). N.B. that if someone decides they are exempt for now, and the FCC comes in and knows a way *NO MATTER HOW THEY DO IT* that compliance could have been reached within the guidlines, then that site is in violation! Teleslimes WATCH-OUT! ------------ "AT&T has developed (at no cost to the LECs) a 1+ split "keyword central office feature" within 1A, 2B, and 5ESS(r) local central offices. This new feature option gives LECs the capability to offer an aggregator call restriction of 10XXX 1+ and 011+ while allowing 10XXX 0+, 01+, and 1+ calls. AT&T anticipates that this option will become tariffed and made available by the LECs at a low cost around March 1992." ------------ 'Aggragator' in that context is of course the hotel or university or prison or nursing home or whatever. Note also that this is all rush-rush, but still isn't quite in time for the Feb 9 date. So on one hand prepare for battle, but also realize that folks that are trying HARD to comply (like my customers!) may be busy waiting for a screening/blocking service that won't quite be ready in time! The AT&T 800 number to get to a LD operator I think has been published, but I don't have it at hand. In any case by Feb 9th it has to be available to you, and I am sure we will be hearing war stories about its uses and the ultimate effect right here in C.D.T. Now if only the FCC had forced making answer supervision available at a reasonable price ... ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #65 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27783; 21 Jan 92 19:43 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00498 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 17:43:40 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03224 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 17:43:06 -0600 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 17:43:06 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201212343.AA03224@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #67 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Jan 92 17:43:02 CST Volume 12 : Issue 67 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: CB RFI Prevents Datacomm (John A. Limpert) Re: CB RFI Prevents Datacomm (Bruce Perens) Re: CB RFI Prevents Datacomm (Jim Graham) Re: Details Wanted on Call Progress Tones (Eugene R. Schroeder) Re: AT&T Long Distance Rates (Steve Forrette) Re: v.42/v.42bis (w/ or w/o Send/Receive FAX) Modems For Sale (M. Kaufman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gronk!johnl@uunet.uu.net (John A. Limpert) Subject: Re: CB RFI Prevents Datacomm Organization: BFEC/GSFC Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 15:55:46 GMT mission!randy@uunet.uu.net writes: > The CBer refuses to do anything, and my friend is concerned that > pursuing an FCC complaint would make the living situation quite > unpleasant. The CBer may be operating at illegal power levels but the RFI on your friend's phone line is not caused (in a engineering sense) by the operation of the transmitter and linear amplifier. Your friend should talk to the telephone company's service department about adding the appropriate RFI filters to his phone line. > [Moderator's Note: The use of a linear amp in the eleven meter (CB) > band is quite illegal. But if the CB'er had any real knowledge of his > rig he'd be able to use that power and clean it up to make the signal > very strong yet *almost* unnoticeable to other non-CB'ers in the area. You _have_ to explain this, how is this CBer supposed to "clean up" his signal so that improperly designed and/or installed audio frequency electronics equipment no longer suffers from interference. Maybe the CB linear has a spur at 2200 Hz, right ... I've (legally) operated enough amateur radio equipment to be sick and tired of hams and CBers getting blamed for every design deficiency of the crappy consumer electronics equipment that is sold in this country. RFI problems that are caused by transmitter harmonics and spurs are relatively rare. I would advise your friend to inform the local FCC field office about the CBer using illegal power levels. People like that make it more difficult for legitimate CB operators to communicate. > Tell your friend to *furtively* stick a pin in the coax cable run to > the roof, or better still just cut the coax to the antenna sometime > while the CB'er is asleep. :) The CB'er will probably assume one of > his on-air enemies did it, assuming your friend has not yet voiced his > complaints. :) PAT] Gee PAT, maybe I should put some sugar in your car's gas tank the next time you park in the wrong place. John A. Limpert johnl@gronk.UUCP uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl Code 530.2 Goddard Space Flight Center [Moderator's Note: If I parked repeatedly in the wrong place after being warned, and defied the owner of the space to do anything about it, I'd be hard-pressed to complain about the retaliation I brought on myself. For information on how to 'clean up his signal', I was going to print a long dissertation, but then the next message arrived and I decided he said it as well or better than I ... read on. In my earlier message I should have also suggested the CB'er could be a good neighbor by helping the guy downstairs with filtering, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens) Subject: Re: CB RFI Prevents Datacomm Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 20:40:30 GMT > ...if the CB'er had any real knowledge of his > rig he'd be able to use that power and clean it up to make the signal > very strong yet *almost* unnoticeable to other non-CB'ers in the area. Pat, I think you are confusing two different kinds of interference, and you've missed a way to eliminate the interference at the receiving end. The CBer would be able to make his signal very strong yet unnoticeable to other radio receivers not tuned to the CB band if he eliminated "splatter" caused by non-linearity in his so-called "linear" amplifier. He might also try to attenuate harmonics and eliminate parasitic oscillation in the amplifier. This would have little effect on interference with telephones, since they are not very frequency- selective when it comes to RF :-) . He might have a harder time eliminating interference with non-radio-receiver equipment which picks up his AM signal in the manner of a crystal radio. He could make sure his station is well-grounded, could correct the SWR and radiation pattern of his antenna, and fix any feedline problems that make the interference worse (like pins in the coax that he hasn't noticed). All of this might not eliminate the strong RF field that is rectified in the telephone equipment. Most of this can be eliminated at the receiving end with an RF choke. I had a similar problem (except my CBer was nicer) and eliminated it entirely by winding 20 turns of the phone line around a ferrite toroid at the demarc. Now both of us can have our fun without bothering each other. EVERYBODY WITH INTERFERENCE PROBLEMS TO THEIR PHONE OR OTHER AUDIO EQUIPMENT: Go to the Radio Shack and buy a few "clamp on RF chokes". These are ferrite or iron cores that clamp over wires. They work on phone wires, the phonograph and speaker wires of your stereo, etc. Wind as many turns as you can of the phone or other wire around one or both sides of the choke, and clamp it shut. You don't have to break the wire, it works right through the insulation. It won't bother audio frequencies, but works well to eliminate radio frequencies. Try one near the equipment that is interfered with, and at the demarc. On your stereo, try the speaker wires (they work as antennas and feed RF back into the set), the cables between the amplifier and various other equipment, and the power cables. Remember: when your phone (or modem) picks up interference from a radio transmitter, it is not the transmitter's problem. A PHONE IS NOT A RADIO RECEIVER and should not pick up radio signals, no matter how strong they are. Generally when they do, it is the result the manufacturers leaving RF bypassing out of the equipment to save 25 cents per unit. Bruce Perens ------------------------------ From: jim@chi.amoco.com (Jim Graham) Subject: Re: CB RFI Prevents Datacomm Reply-To: grahj@gagme.chi.il.us Organization: Amoco Corporation, Telecommunications Network Design Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 20:03:56 GMT In article mission!randy@uunet.uu.net writes: > [Moderator's Note: The use of a linear amp in the eleven meter (CB) > band is quite illegal. Yes it is ... very illegal. If, on the other hand, the guy is not really a CBer, but is instead an Amateur Radio operator who may just act like one on the air (they're around ... they aren't the most popular animal with the rest of the world, but they do exist), not a CB type, then (depending on the license class) 300 W may be well within the legal limit. Now, if this person is in fact a Ham, and refuses to do anything to help, they deserve absolutely no pity ... and you can disregard most of what follows ... (any self-respecting Ham would offer assistance to fix RFI problems they're causing ... period.) I'm assuming, BTW, that your friend has ASKED for help. Asking the person to shut their station down isn't the way to do that, either. Both can co-exist happily with a little bit of effort to block the interference. > Tell your friend to *furtively* stick a pin in the coax cable run to > the roof, or better still just cut the coax to the antenna sometime > while the CB'er is asleep. :) Well, before doing that, tell your friend to try protecting the modem from the interference --- start with the following: 1) Make sure the case is well shielded and GROUNDED. Same goes for your computer. 2) Use only shielded cables to connect to the PC (ribbon cable is OUT ... IT VIRTUALLY INVITES RFI.) 3) Go to your local electronics store (or a Radio Shack, if you can't find better) and get some iron cores designed for eliminating RFI and (following the directions) wind the power cable for the modem around the core. Do this for both ends of the power cable (I'm assuming an external transformer here). 4) While you're at the store, get filters designed for the telephone line (may well be the same chokes). Install them as per the directions, too. 5) Make sure the person upstairs has their equipment well grounded, too. If they don't, that's a sure way to cause problems as well. All of the hardware for 3 and 4 above should probably cost in the neighborhood of $10 to $15 (US), and may well eliminate the problem completely. If, however, your friend does decide to stick a pin into the coax, warn him that if the person upstairs is transmitting at the time, he should wait --- trust me ... I've had RF burns before ... they are quite painful. They usually seem to produce a very small, very deep burn that will feel like the affected area is on fire for about a half-hour. 100 W is enough to do a nice job of it. BTW, I live in a high-rise apartment, run 100 W with indoor antennas, and my neighbors have (upon my asking them) told me that they never have any RFI problems at all. as part of my basic installation, I installed a low-pass filter (cost about $45) between my rig and the antenna system. this blocks most of the harmonics that interfere with other electronic devices, while not degrading my performance on the air. I still (sometimes) swamp some of the electronics in my apartment, but with the antenna sitting right next to them (literally!), that's to be expected at times. I have more of a problem with the reverse being true --- my computer interferes with my rig!!! Feel free to e-mail me at jim@n5ial.chi.il.us if you or your friend have questions. I'd be happy to try to help. Again, I'm assuming that your friend has already asked for help (not radio silence) upstairs, and been told where to go. If they haven't asked for help, that's the first place to start. I hope this helps. Standard disclaimer....Ever since my cat learned to type, there's no telling whose thoughts these really are... INTERNET: jim@n5ial.chi.il.us || grahj@gagme.chi.il.us || j.graham@ieee.org AMATEUR RADIO (packet): TCP/IP: jim@n5ial.ampr.org (44.72.47.193) AX.25: n5ial@wb9yae (Chicago.IL.US.Earth) [Moderator's Note: But whether the guy is a Ham or not, that sort of power in 11-meters is forbidden. And yes, you are correct that a lot of the guys who used to be in CB decided to start working the Amateur bands and make a mess of those. Around here, I've heard them go to 40 meters then sit there and tune up without a dummy load, etc. But when it comes to RF burns -- as much fun as they are! -- nothing beats the thrill of putting your golden screwdriver in the innards of a linear amp and poke around having forgotten first to discharge those caps! Yessiree! I had to get knocked on my keister one time to learn that lesson. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 16:18:33 EST From: ers@cblpe.att.com (Eugene R Schroeder) Subject: Re: Details Wanted on Call Progress Tones Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article mweal@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Mike Weal) writes: > I a looking for descriptions of telephone call progress tones (ie dial > tone, busy tone, call waiting, etc). Could someone give these > description and/or the document describing them. Also does anyone > know of a description of similar tones for PBXs and KSUs. The public network tones are described in the BCR publication "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks" TR-NPL-000275, Issue 1, April 1986. This document provides a lot of nitty-gritty info about the network, including about 15 pages on call progress tones. Be aware that, as this document states "There is no specific requirement for any tone." However, it appears that there is some commonality for tones among the newer switches. Gene ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 14:43:25 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Rates Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article Jack Dominey writes: > In Digest v12 #37, Steve Forrette (stevef@wrq.com) reported that > someone at AT&T (presumably an operator) had quoted a rate of > $.14/initial minute + $.15/ additional minute for calls between area > codes 206 and 213. Someone goofed. Attached is part of page 56 from > FCC Tariff #1, detailing AT&T's basic long distance rates. > (Note that these rates are not determined by area code pairs, but by > mileage. The mileage is determined by area code + exchange, so the > distance from my office to AT&T HQ in New Jersey is determined by a > measurement between 404-496 [Tucker, GA] and 908-221 [Basking Ridge, > NJ].) > Additional note: None of the AT&T optional calling plans I know about > offer a lower first-minute rate, either. Some of them have a > 30-second initial billing period, but this is almost always exactly > five times the rate for each additional six seconds. Well, I just double-checked with the AT&T operator. I got a quote from 206-324 to 818-988. The rates her computer gave were: First Minute Additional Minute Day 24 25 Evening 15 16 Night 13 14 "Plus the 3% federal tax of course" she was sure to inform me. Well, there you have it. With the exchange pairs given, I would assume that you could verify this with your local AT&T operator. I don't know how to explain the discrepency between the tariff and what the operator quoted. But I'd be inclined to say that I'd be charged what the computer thinks the rate is. A couple of interesting notes: The reason I gave a vague reference "from 206 to 213" in my original post was that I had originally called to get a quote for the surcharge for a "time and charges" call. She asked me where I'd be calling, and "LA" came off the top of my head. She picked an exchange in 213 at random, since all calls from here to 213 would be in the same mileage band anyway. But for the above quote, I specified a specific exchange so that you can verify it yourself. The line I was calling from has no special AT&T rate plan. In fact, it is pre-subsribed to MCI (not my choice, BTW!). She apparantly knew this was the case, as when I asked for a rate quote, she asked "Are you an AT&T customer?" I responded "No, but I'll use 10ATT to place the call." She was satisfied with this response and proceeded to quote me the rates. I don't know if she knew this because I had dialed with 10ATT, or if there was an ANI lookup in their database to determine the PIC (both would yield the same results in most cases of course). Jack, I'd be interested in your explanation between the operator-quoted rates and the tariff you posted. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: kaufman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: v.42/v.42bis (w/ or w/o Send/Receive FAX) Modems For Sale Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA Date: 21 Jan 92 16:38:18 GMT jwlin@athena.mit.edu (John W Lin) writes: > After the holidays I have extra high speed modems that I don't need -- > Grab hold of technology's frontier -- you're just not going to get > much faster than 38.4k bps over telephone or leased lines. > [Moderator's Note: In the past I have made exceptions and run 'for > sale' ads here if the seller was a private party with a telecom > specific item for sale. I've had complaints about this, and have to > stop doing so ... Well, yes, I can see why there are complaints. This ad is a blatant misrepresentation of the modem's capabilities. The 38KB rate is only for extremely compressable data -- we don't know (because he didn't tell us) how fast the modem really is. He says v.32/v.32bis compatible, but doesn't tell us if this really is a v.32bis (14Kb) modem. v.42 is an error correction and compression scheme on top of the modem, and I have seen it advertised as low as 2400 baud -- which, if data is really compressable, would give you *MAYBE* 9600 bps effective burst data rates. And the prices aren't that good, either -- whatever brands they are (why didn't he tell us -- so we can't compare against retail?). I agree you should reject this stuff in c.d.t and let it be posted to misc.forsale or whatever. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@cs.stanford.edu) [Moderator's Note: Well there have been instances of things being relatively technical and odd enough that the 'average' for-sale reader would not be interested ... and I was willing to help out with that stuff here; but the complaints were like yours, and also the fact that many sites reject the 'for-sale' group only to find it showing up anyway via this group. So, I guess I'll pass on it in the future. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #67 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04571; 21 Jan 92 22:46 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03537 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 19:32:40 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07610 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 19:31:57 -0600 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 19:31:57 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201220131.AA07610@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #68 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Jan 92 19:31:53 CST Volume 12 : Issue 68 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Detirmining if a Call Was Answered (Bud Couch) Help: Multi-line Telephone For The Disabled People (Chun-Sing Chan) MacNeil/Lehrer Report on Phone System Risks (Randall C. Gellens) Social Security Administration Phone System (David Niebuhr) Telecom and the Arts (Will Martin) Line Tie Devices (Chris Arndt) International Codes: Can We Compile List (childeja@udavxb.oca.udayton.edu) Extension to AT&T Card Number Switchover (Rick Wessman) Re: ISDN For PC? (Ken Hodor) 408 Area Code Question (Carl Moore) Re: 408 Area Code Question (David Singer) Switch Programming Errors (Doctor Math) I Want to Locate Surveillance Magazine (Patrick Fitzgibbons) 900 Number Advertisement (David Niebuhr) Verifying 800 Numbers For Trouble (Roy Smith) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net () Subject: Re: Detirmining if a Call Was Answered Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 21:25:43 GMT In article andys@ulysses.att.com writes: > Wouldn't reverse polarity make it impossible for me to talk to my home > answering machine and office voice mail from a line-powered phone? As > I recall, DTMF generators don't work under reverse polarity ... It depends on *whose* DTMF generators you are using. :-) AT&T saved a few cents and simply put a diode in series with the generator to prevent reverse battery from damaging the electronics. Other manufacturers (AE in particular) put a diode bridge around the generator so that the polarity of the office battery was irrelevant. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS appli ------------------------------ From: cchan@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Chun-Sing Chan) Subject: Help: Multi-Line Telephone For the Disabled People Organization: University of Engineering, College of Engineering Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 01:30:12 GMT I'm doing a student project to help the disabled people who are blind to answer a multi-line (four-lines) phone. I need to have a ringer which can be connected to the telephone and provide distinctive ringer for each lines. Does such a device exist? -OR- Could anybody tell me the difference between the four ringing signals such that I can design my own circuit? Thanks in advance. Internet: cchan@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 08:46 GMT From: Randall C Gellens <0005000102@mcimail.com> Subject: MacNeil/Lehrer Report on Phone System Risks The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour for Monday, January 20 contains a report (about twenty minutes or so in length) on the risks of the phone system ten years after the breakup. It includes the fire at the Chicago POP of all three carriers, the power failure in New York, the spate of software-induced outages, and lots more. Interviewed are executives from AT&T, MCI, and Sprint (the Sprint and MCI execs say how scared they were when the New York power failure hit, because if it could happen to AT&T it could happen to them), workers talking about staff cutbacks, FCC officials, Congressmen, phone users, and others. It includes footage of hearings, shots of a 4ESS, fiber trenching, and horrendous amounts of cable inside a switching center. If you missed it live, you can order a transcript or a videotape. I forget the address for transcripts ($4), but the videotape number is (800ed) 328-PBS-1 (no price mentioned). (I have no connection with PBS or MacNeil/Lehrer). Randy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 10:38:40 -0500 From: niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr) Subject: Social Security Administration Phone System 1) I recently had a need to contact the Social Security Administration and found that the 800 number listed in my phone book was 1 + 800-XXX-XXX. When I called the 800 directory information (forgot the number), I was told to call 800-XXX-XXXX. Why the discrepancy? BTW: My area code doesn't require 1+ dialing for anything yet and probably won't for quite some time or until the switchover to NXX. 2) The recording that I received when I called there was that one could either press a number for their automated system or stay on line for a human. The problem was that the system went right to music and about a minute later another recording came on and said to push 9 for automated information. Sounds like they are somewhat mixed up. Dave [Moderator's Note: Probably the discrepancy in the listing is due to the fact that the SSA, like most federal agencies is a 'national account' and someone prepares the listings which are sent out to all telecos and phone directory publishers. To have the listing indicate 1+ in some cases and not in others would be difficult, so they picked one way of listing it over another. I doubt most national account entries are even reviewed at local telco level at all. While you were waiting on line for a human, the computer which routes the calls must have come to the conclusion there would be a lengthy delay in answering your call, and the recorded message option was given to you so you could possibly get some information rather than receiving nothing at all. Finding the appropriate level of staffing for inbound call centers is a difficult project at best. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 8:53:19 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Telecom and the Arts Back when I was in college, I used to make little sculptures from the brightly-colored wire found in 25-pair cable fragments left by installers. Now, to prove there is nothing new under the sun, I refer Telecom readers to page 42 of the February 1992 issue of {Bon Appetit} magazine, at the bottom of the page, where there is a picture of some strikingly-patterned and strongly-hued baskets with this text: "We're bowled over by these hand-woven baskets. Made of scrap telephone wire by Zulu artisans in Natal, South Africa, they're study, washable, and suitable for serving everything from fruit to bread to nuts. Prices range from $50 to $300 [!!!!! -WM], depending on the design and size (they're 6 to 12 inches in diameter). To order, telephone Susan Irving at 212-239-9719." I suspect that these are actually sold by their makers for some prices that are the equivalent of a few cents, and the above outlet is an art gallery that has pushed the price up to market these as art objects instead of utilitarian kitchenware, but that's just a guess. Anyway, they are certainly attractive, and represent the highest form of recycling -- making something more impressive than the original from the scraps of the first object or process. I wonder if the wire these are made out of came originally from the US? The basket colors sure look familiar to anyone who has ever handled telco four-wire cable ... Regards, Will ------------------------------ From: carndt@nike.calpoly.edu (Chris Arndt) Subject: Line Tie Devices Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 7:20:23 PST Recently there was a post about modifying the Radio Shack call-forwarding device to allow remote access to the second line to dial any number. While I have no experience with this device, I do have a thought on it, and I know of a unit that will do just this. Make sure that any modification you do allows for some form of security. If your mechanism ring-trips and gives dialtone on the second line, you are leaving yourself open to abuse and large phone bills. It may not ever happen, but should information on a line tie like this get out, it will spread like wildfire, and a lot of $$ in calls can be run up in a short period of time. Melco makes an RA330 Remote Access Unit that is designed for just this application. It is used as a dial in access to company PBXs for employees access WATS lines, voice mailboxes, etc. (Some companies call it a WATS extender.) You plug the two lines into the RA330. On receiving a call on the incoming line, the 330 ring trips and presents dial tone. Punch in one of ten four digit security codes and you get three short acknowledgement beeps and dial tone on the second line. DTMF dial away. #* will reorder dial tone to place multiple calls without having to dial back in. ## disconnects for good. The RA330 even has an exclusion jack that other phones using the second line can plug into. If either the phones or the incoming line are using the outgoing line, the other is presented with busy signal if it tries to access the line. Cool device. I love mine. It costs $550-600, from a Melco distributor. (I'm in no way associated with Melco, except for owning an RA330.) [Moderator's Note: But only ten codes of four digits each is no security! All anyone would have to do is look at one of the units and note the limited number of combinations ... then call in to your line and try all ten looking for the one you selected. Now if if you could set your own four/five digit code with pinwheels on the unit you'd have a better system. PAT] ------------------------------ From: childeja@UDAVXB.OCA.UDAYTON.EDU Date: 21 January 1992 16:28 GMT Subject: International Codes: Can we Compile a List? Is there a way that one can get a list of international phone codes, including city codes (preferably just capitals, but if people are interested, other cities)? If not, can we create one? Also, has the Commonwealth of Independent States, Latvia, Estonia, Lithunania, and Georgia received separate codes yet? How were they sectioned (couldn't) find a better word) when they were back in the USSR? [Moderator's Note: We have just what you are looking for in the Telecom Archives. Carl Moore and David Leibold have compiled a very extensive list of country/city codes around the world. To get your copy, use anonymous ftp to log into the archives. ftp lcs.mit.edu login anonymous give your.name@your.site.domain as password cd telecom-archives (look over the main directory, and pull the indexes while there.) cd country.codes That should be a big enough list for you to start with! :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: rwessman@us.oracle.com (Rick Wessman) Subject: Extension to AT&T Card Number Switchover Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 15:44:08 GMT After not having received my new card number, I decided to call AT&T. I was told that the cutover date has been delayed. Unfortunately, I don't know what the new date is. I asked the service rep. why I wasn't notified directly about the switchover, but the rep wouldn't (couldn't) tell me. I can imagine what other people who did not have net access must think when they are told by their BOC that their AT&T card is going to become invalid, without having heard anything from AT&T. Rick Wessman rwessman@us.oracle.com ------------------------------ From: khodor@NeXT.COM (Ken Hodor) Subject: Re: ISDN For PC? Date: 21 Jan 92 23:43:26 GMT The November 18, 1991 issue of {Network World} has a feature article titled "ISDN equipment boom gives users more options." This article has a list of all different vendors of ISDN equipment. The plug in boards for the IBM PCs are: $499 AT&T Network Systems product (800) 222-7278 $1395 DigiBoard (612) 943-9020 $995 Hunmat Corp (612) 224-5634 $1495 ICL North America (203) 326-2700 $1695 OST, Inc (703) 817-0400 $1395 Teleos Communications, Inc. (908) 389-5700 There are several other Terminal Adapters available as seperate standalone units. Ken_Hodor@next.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 14:02:30 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 408 Area Code Question Which part of 408 comes under GTE? Does the San Jose area have 7D for local/toll within 408, NPA + 7D for local/toll going outside of 408? (This is what San Francisco and Oakland, then both in 415, had before 415 got N0X/N1X prefixes.) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 408 Area Code Question Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 11:10:06 -0800 From: "David Singer" GTE owns Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, and now Gilroy; they may have some other, smaller towns, but I'm not positive about that. I don't know how PacBell's 408 dials ... my only phone access there is behind a Rolm PBX, which makes its own rules! But the phone book (San Jose/Santa Clara, good through March 1992) says: 7D within area code, 1 + AC + 7D outside. David ------------------------------ From: drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 92 21:12:12 EST Subject: Switch Programming Errors DREUBEN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: > - Cable & Wireless has a nationwide 950 number (available in most > major markets nationwide, I believe it is 950-0223), yet in order to When I saw this, I considered what great fun it would be to listen to their carrier identification recording. After dialing 10223 + 1 + 700- 555-4141, I got a very interesting intercept: "The carrier access code you dialed must be preceded by the digits 9 5 0. Please hang up and try your call again." Okay, fine ... but dialing 950-0223 got me an intercept claiming that the number "is not in service". Say what? Once again, my RBOC isn't doing a very good job. [Moderator's Note: When I tried 10223-1-700-555-4141 from here in IBT territory, the response I got was a disembodied voice from the carrier's switch saying "I'm sorry, your call cannot be processed. Please dial 1-800-486-8686." PAT] ------------------------------ From: pat@sunyit.edu (Patrick Fitzgibbons) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 17:55:47 -0500 Organization: SUNY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Subject: I Want to Locate Surveillance Magazine I am interested in finding out if anyone knows who publishes "Surveillance" Magazine. I understand that they have some interesting Telecom related articles but I don't know where to find it. Any help would be appreciated. Patrick Fitzgibbons ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 08:18:31 -0500 From: niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr) Subject: 900 Number Advertisement In a local paper this weekend (a throwaway) there was an ad that said "Make Money!!!! Have your own 900 number!" The gotcha was that the number to call was 1-900-XXX-XXXX. Guess who made the money? Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: Its just a new variation on the old scheme which was around for years telling people how to make money through mail order by selling lists of names of people interested in mail order, etc. Nothing changes in these schemes except the technology used to pull them off. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 13:37:27 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: Verifying 800 Numbers For Trouble I've been trying to reach a business at their 800 number for several days and all I get is a busy signal. This morning, I finally got to wondering if something might be wrong so I asked the operator to check the number for trouble. I was surprised when she said that they cannot verify 800 numbers! Why not? [Moderator's Note: The usual method for verifying whether a number is working correctly or not is by calling 'inward' in the city where the number terminates and asking an operator there to use special circuits to verify the line is in service and has conversation on it. The operator would need to know *where* -- in what city -- the 800 number was located, and the 7-D number it translated to in that place or the circuit number there in order to have some basis for starting the verification process. There is no central 'inward operator' for 800 as there is for other area codes; no place to begin searching, at least from your local operator's position. And the only operators who have the ability to verify in any event are AT&T operators and local telco operators. Sprint and MCI cannot get into the AT&T network to call the various 'inwards' in any event, regardless of area code. On the other hand, AT&T has no interest in whether or not the 800 numbers of other carriers are working, and won't waste their time and money trying to find out ... why should they, since they're making nothing on the call, the charge for which goes to the original telco and the 800 carrier. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #68 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06057; 21 Jan 92 23:28 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12196 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 20:36:32 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09183 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Jan 1992 20:36:03 -0600 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 20:36:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201220236.AA09183@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #69 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Jan 92 20:35:53 CST Volume 12 : Issue 69 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson ISDN Uses Hayes Patent, IMHO (Russ Nelson) Looking For PC Voice/Modem Card (Gerald E. Riechert) I Know Who You Are, I Know What You Did (Ron Dippold) ATT and GTE Long Distance Anecdote (Chris Arndt) Question Regarding Celluar Phones in the Movie 'Hook' (David B. Whiteman) Insecure SWBT Billing Information Number (Bob Izenberg) Information Wanted on Touchtone Response Equipment (Paul N. Hilfinger) Newspaper Article on 800/900 Mixup (Rob Boudrie) Tracing Long Distance Calls (Ron Schnell) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 09:43:50 EST From: Russ Nelson Subject: ISDN Uses Hayes Patent, IMHO In my reading of U.S. Patent 4,549,302, and ANSI Standard T.601-1988, it seems as if the latter requires the use of the former. I have included the relevent sections below. Obviously, this only applies to the US market. I can think of only two reasons why ISDN might not require the Hayes patent. 1) Because Hayes may give everyone free license to use it for ISDN (ha!), or 2) Because a judge may decide that it doesn't apply. The judge might do this because the Hayes patent only claims a method for switching between two modes, command and data, whereas ISDN uses the identical method to switch between one test, another test, and data modes. The principle is the same, and I can't see a judge disallowing the patent simply because of the number of modes. That would trivially allow modem implementors to implement a third mode in their modems and escape paying Hayes' tribute. ANSI Standard T.601-1988, p. 27 follows. T.601-1991 is actually the current standard, but I didn't have a copy of it to type in. The details are the same, perhaps they changed the wording a little. 6.5 NT Maintenance Modes. The NT Quiet mode (QM) functionality within an NT (or customer equipment containing the NT functionality) will assure that an NT will not attempt a start-up or will not initiate transmission during metallic loop tests conducted by the network. The Insertion Loss Measurement Test (ILMT) will cause a known test signal to be generated by an NT. This test will be used in network measurements of DS transmission characteristics and may provide the ability to determine, from a single-ended test of the metallic loop, if the loop can support DSL transmission. 6.5.3 NT Quiet Mode and Insertion Loss Measurement Test Trigger Signal. The NT shall be capable of detecting the following two types of signals: The NT shall respond to either (1) dc signaling that begins with a steady current flow (start interval) followed by 6, 8, or 10 puses sent as breaks in the current and ends with steady dc current flow (stop interval), or (2) ac signaling that begins with no current flow (start interval, less than 200 uA dc) followed by 6, 8, or 10 half cycles of a 2 to 3 Hz sine wave, and ends with no current flow (stop interval). When receiving the ac signaling, the NT shall count each half cyce of the same wave as one pulse. A valid test trigger signal shall consist of a valid start interval folowed by either 6, 8, or 10 consecutive pulses followed by a valid stop interval. Unless an entire trigger sequence consisting of start interval, puses, and stop interval is received, the NT shall take no action. A stop interval may be followed by a start interval without any intervening breaks. Signals on the loop before the start interval or after the stop interval shall not affect the NT trigger detection function. The start and stop intervals shall be >= 500 ms. The NT shall be capable of detectinand validating the trigger signa and entering into the desired state required by the number of pulses transmitted. A request for the same or a new state shall occur no sooner than 1 second after the beginning of the preceding stop interval. On receipt of a valid signal the NT shall transition from one state to the requested state within 500 ms. U.S. Patent 4,549,302 Date of patent: Oct. 22, 1985 Filed: Oct. 11, 1983 Assignee: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. Starting at column 5, line 58: It should be understood that the program included in program ROM 112 of processor 55 includes instructions which are used to control the mode in which the modem of the preferred embodiment operates. In particular, two modes of operation of the preferred embodiment are defined: the command mode; and the transparent mode. The command mode for the present invention is one in which binary data coming into RS-232 port 50 is interpreted as instructions to the modem to perform certain functions. Thus, if a computer is attached to data port 50, instructions in a predetermined code provided as input to port 50 will cause the preferred embodiment, under control of the instructions in program ROM 112, to perform certain functions such as going off-hook, dialing a particular telephone number, answering a ringing signal and so forth. Once a predetermined instruction is provided to data port 50, the preferred embodiment will switch to the transparent mode in which all data coming into port 50 is treated as data to be modulated and sent out in coded form over telephone line 45. It will be apparent from the foregoing that some arrangement must be made in which another command may be issued by the device attached to data port 50 to return the preferred embodiment to the command mode. In the preferred embodiment, a predetermined sequence of data bits is the escape command accepted at port 50 to return the preferred embodiment to the command mode. Since, any predetermined sequence of bits which is defined as an escape command has a finite probability of occurring in any file of data being transmitted by the preferred embodiment, an additional requirement is placed on the signal sequence which is defined as the escape sequence. The preferred embodiment of the present invention must epreferred embodimentrience one full second of no data being provided as input to data port 50, follwoed by the predetermined escape command, followed by a second full second of no data in order to interpret that input as the escape sequence. Thus, even if the file being transmitted from the device attached to data port 50 out over telephone line 45 includes occurrences of the escape command string of bits, it is extremely unlikely that any random occurrence of the escape command would occur unintentionally in the environment of the entire escape sequence, that is, the escape command string surrounded by a second of no data on either side. [Moderator's Note: Very interesting analysis. Would anyone from Hayes care to comment? What about the folks who developed ISDN? PAT] ------------------------------ From: riechertg@gtephx.UUCP (Gerald E. Riechert) Subject: Looking For PC Voice/Modem Card Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 17:56:43 GMT I'm looking for an IBM PC compatable card with the following characteristics: - One telephone port that provides: - dialing - call progress detection (dial tone, busy, ringback, voice, etc.) - DTMF digit detection - ability to play prerecorded digitized speech - ability to record digitized speech locally - ability to control the card from from my application program Also desirable but not necessary is a second phone port that provides standard modem capabilities. So far I've gotten information on the Powerline II and BigmOuth Voice Mail systems. I'm interested in finding out about other available products. Also welcome is any comments/recommendations from those of you who have used such a product. To me, this sounds like the kind of card used in telemarketing systems. In fact, my application is very similar. However, my application is not telemarketing related so no flames please. Jerry Riechert AG Communication Systems, POB 52179, Phoenix, AZ 85072-2179 voice: (602) 582-7332 UUCP: {ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc}!gtephx!riechertg Internet: gtephx!riechertg@asuvax.eas.asu.edu ------------------------------ From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: I Know Who You Are, I Know What You Did Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 20:29:40 GMT Has anyone else seen the movie {I Know Who You Are, I Know What You Did}? The basic plot involves a group of teenagers who call numbers at random and say the above phrase to anyone who answers. Well, this being a movie, eventually one of the people they call is a stressed out killer, who freaks, assuming that they know about the murder. He tries to keep them talking to find out who they are and what they know about what he's done. I won't give away any more of the plot. Anyhow, last night, , , "Hello?" "I Know Who You Are, I Know What You Did!" It was a bunch of teenage girls calling around. Too bad we'll never know if they do hit a psycho killer. And another consideration: what if the killer had Caller-ID? Anyone remember that Saturday Night Live commercial? Time wounds all heels. [Moderator's Note: Aren't you glad Caller-ID and/or automatic callback is helping put an end to so much of the nonsense and torment people have to endure from strangers who call on the phone? I sure am. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 12:47:05 -0800 From: carndt@nike.calpoly.edu (Chris Arndt) Subject: ATT and GTE Long Distance Anecdote While we were visiting Hawaii in Octobeqr, I had an interesting problem with placing a call back to the mainland. Shortly before we left, my employer switched phone service from a Dimension PBX to Centrex. As a result, we were assigned a new or recently added prefix in 805 (781). I tried to call my work answering machine via ATT from Hawaii and got an intercept message (disconnected or no longer in service). I tried another work number with the same result. I tried other 805 prefixes and had no problem. I tried the main number for my employer and got an architect's office in >818 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 14:04:37 EST Subject: Newspaper Article on 800/900 Mixup There was an interesting article by Adam Gaffin in the 1/20/92 {Middlesex News} titled "Wrong number? A 900 disguised as 800 pits computer users against AT&T". (I REALLY liked the title). The article discussed the mixup; quoted myself; John Levine; and our esteemed Moderator. The report was fairly well balanced, however, it was replete with unflattering innuendo from Rick Brayall of AT&T. -------------------- From the article : Rick Brayall, an AT&T spokesman in Boston, acknowledged the glitch, but said Boudrie and others were part of a small group of computer hackers trying to stiff the company. "I hate to use the word 'hackers' but (they were) people who look for ways to get something for nothing and took advantage of it", he said. "Neither AT&T nor USA Today ever announced or publicized the 800 number, he said. "Someone was doing it illicitly (and it spread) underground, through word of mouth", he said. He said he considered Usenet such an underground system, even though the network connects several hundred thousand people around the world, largely at univerisities, high-tech companies and government agencies -- but also at AT&T. Boudrie ... said he is no hacker, and called the company's assertion of theft ridiculous. ----------------------- So, the official AT&T position appears to be: - Usenet is an underground organization - Calling an 800 number is "hacking" if the number was obtained word of mouth rather than by advertising - AT&T Does not owe anyone an apology for reporting phone calls incorrectly, or billing in a manner contrary to filed tariffs. I only wish I had rememberd to use terms like "billing in a manner contrary to their filed tariffs" when talking with Adam Gaffin. Rob "I'm no hacker" Boudrie rboudrie@wpi.wpi.edu [Moderator's Note: Adam's excellent story appeared in the Digest early Tuesday (issue 60). I hope everyone got a chance to read it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 92 20:06:44 -0500 From: Ron Schnell Subject: Tracing Long Distance Calls How do the authorities "trace" long distance calls (or can they)? Assuming, of course, that their incoming line is not an 800 number. Thanks, Ron (ronnie@eddie.mit.edu) [Moderator's Note: All calls can be traced. You are following a pair of wires from one end to the other. International calls and domestic long distance calls are the hardest to trace, but it has happened. Calls between central offices in the same LATA are a little easier to trace. I recall two international traces which led back to Chicago and a third trace which was strictly intra-CO here which turned out to be quite humorous if anyone wishes to hear the sordid details. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #69 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05330; 23 Jan 92 2:17 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23443 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 23 Jan 1992 00:20:25 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17467 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 23 Jan 1992 00:20:12 -0600 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 00:20:12 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201230620.AA17467@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #70 TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Jan 92 00:20:03 CST Volume 12 : Issue 70 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Coin-Paid Calls and Carriers (Dave Levenson) New York Times 01/19/92 "Air Space Subdivision" (Howard Pierpont) Information on US West BBS Reclassification Wanted (Michael Ho) Deliberate Delays by Payphone Companies? (Jonathan Bradshaw) Ideas Wanted For A Small Telephone System (John A. Weeks III) Re: Bell Canada Tests New Forwarding, Voice Caller ID Options (Mark Brader) Caller ID in the Golden State (was I Know Who You Are) (Robert L. McMillin) Telephony Neophyte Seeks Advice (Kevin L. McBride) MCI Card With Voice Features (Phillip Dampier) What is My 1+ Carrier? (Brian Oplinger) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Coin-Paid Calls and Carriers Date: 22 Jan 92 01:19:09 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA Coin-control signals are not available from some inter-exchange carriers, so AT&T gets all of the sent-paid coin traffic. But it seems that the local exchange carriers provide billing for a number of inter-exchange carriers. Why not do the same on coin calls? When a caller deposits coin to pay for an inter-LATA call, why not let the LEC collect the coins and pass the value along to the inter-exchange carrier (less a fee for collection and processing)? How does this differ from the LEC's who bill for inter-LATA calls dialed by non-coin subscribers, and then collect payments and forward them to the IEC? I can write a check to NJ Bell and pay for both my NJ Bell local service, and my MCI toll service. Somehow part of my payment gets sent to MCI by NJ Bell. Why can't they do the same with part of my coin deposit? 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: Tue, 21 Jan 92 15:13:16 PST From: Howard Pierpont Subject: New York Times 01/19/92 "Air Space Subdivision" The Federal Communications Commission took the first steps toward clearing the air for new generations of wireless telephones. The move may ultimately allow a caller to find individuals anywhere in the world, no matter how far off the beaten track. The F.C.C proposed allowing the new technology to use some frequencies now reserved for police dispatching and utility companies. It also suggested that new customers could buy out existing frequency owners and underwrite their costs of moving to new frequencies. ++++++ Sounds like a very robust plan to me. So much for my wireline service; I can put my office on the road. Who's going to pay for call-forwarding? 8^} Howard Pierpont DIGITAL Equipment Corp. Standard Disclaimer apply. ------------------------------ From: Michael Ho Subject: Information on US West BBS Reclassification Wanted Organization: A Figment of Your Imagination Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 05:33:31 GMT Some time ago, c.d.t received several messages from people regarding a proposed move by US West -- I believe it was in Washington state -- where the old "BBSes pay business rates" controversy brewed again. In the end, if I recall, a couple of boards (Fido and RIME hubs?) ended up paying business rates, and the rest stayed residential. Lincoln Telephone, our beloved independent telephone company in Lincoln, Nebraska, has informed at least three local sysops that their lines are to be reclassified as business lines. I'm looking for relevant information, including the US West case, to figure out where we stand on the matter. Though I know that what is binding in US West territory is not binding in Nebraska, a few anecdotes from here and there can't hurt. Also, in the course of defending their decision, LT&T mentioned the "your volume is too high to continue allowing you to pay residential rates" argument. This was hashed to death in c.d.t a couple of months ago, and I had it in my kill file. Can anyone give me issue numbers (via e-mail) so that I can fish the relevant arguments from the Telecom Archives? Finally, if anyone can tell me how to find the relevant tariffs for local phone service (i.e., with whom they're filed, and what I need to ask for), that information would also be appreciated via e-mail. Thanks. (The sysops are at a distinct disadvantage because the Public Service Commission was stripped of its power to regulate telephone service by the Nebraska Legislature in 1986, and they have refused to even comment or take arguments in the current dispute.) Michael Ho | UNTIL JAN. 20, sysmgrs willing: Internet:ho@hoss.unl.edu ------------------------------ From: jbradsha@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Jonathan Bradshaw) Subject: Deliberate Delays by Payphone Companies? Date: 21 Jan 92 23:52:40 GMT Organization: Purdue University Computing Center I was recently in Laguardia airport in New York. As it happens I made two calls back home to South Bend IN using my AT&T calling card. The first call was from a phone served by AT&T outside the airport. I dialed my 0+ CARD + NUMBER type routine and got through in seconds. On my return journey I used a phone inside the airport served by another company (I saw NYNEX but I think that was for local calls). I dialed 10ATT + 0 + CARD + NUMBER and listened. What I heard was interesting. I heard my call being re-keyed but it took ONE SECOND for each number to be transferred. It was like listening to someone dial a phone number and hold each key down for a second. I was determined to wait it out and finally heard the touchtones connect for a second time and went through at normal "AT&T" type speed and I got connected in seconds once in AT&T circuits. My question is this, was that a deliberate slowdown of the system to make people who use the 10 codes stop doing that? It nearly got me to hang up and go to another phone. I think it's a pretty low down trick if so. Jonathan Bradshaw | Whovian | jbradsha@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Primary) * PURDUE UNIVERSITY * | Trekker | pbradsha@darwin.cc.nd.edu | Prodigy XMSN02B U93 WNDU-FM South Bend |Red Dwarf| Forsythe Computers |Blakes 7| [Moderator's Note: I highly doubt your allegations are correct. It sounds to me like a dialing machine which was a little sluggish is all. Try a few other COCOTS with the same type of call and see if you spot it again ... I rather doubt it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) Subject: Ideas Wanted For A Small Telephone System Date: 22 Jan 92 02:30:58 GMT Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN My company recently scaled back the size of one of our field offices. What used to be a 15 person office now only has six people. I plan to take out their phone system to expand our main office phone system. What I need is ideas on a simple inexpensive phone system to serve six people and three or four phone lines with minimal features. It will need to support hold, and the receptionist will need to be able to answer all incoming calls. There will be no need for expandability. What do companies usually use for this size phone system? Especially companies that have _very_ limited ability to spend cash? My first idea is to put four seperate phones on the reception desk, then put a phone on the other five desks with a four to one selector switch. Intercom could be done using six cheapie wireless intercom units from Radio Shack. I will adimt that this is a bit tacky, especially the `manual hold' feature (put someone on hold by setting the phone on your desk). john ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 05:49:00 -0500 From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Bell Canada Tests New Forwarding, Voice Caller ID Options Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada > ... why can't they make something like this for after the fact > (i.e., you dial *something and it tells you who last called). Here, this is an unadvertised feature of Call Return. I dial *69 and it says, say, "The last number to call your line was 416-969-5551. To call this number, enter [sic] '1'. Otherwise, hang up now." In the ads, though, they don't tell you that you find out what the number is; they just say you can return the call. I conjecture that they hope to sell Caller ID hardware to people who would only get Call Return (which needs no special hardware) if they knew about this behavior. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com [Moderator's Note: We Chicagoans get no such advice. *69 just starts ringing back the other end. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 07:28:30 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Caller ID in the Golden State (was I Know Who You Are) Commenting on Ron Dippold's message about teenage prank callers, our Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Aren't you glad Caller-ID and/or automatic callback > is helping put an end to so much of the nonsense and torment people > have to endure from strangers who call on the phone? I sure am. PAT] Well, not in California, anyway. In the Wednesday, January 22, 1992 edition of the {Los Angeles Times} page 1 story, "Judge Opposes Plan to Provide Phone Caller ID", Administrative Law Judge John Lemke recommended against approval of caller ID. The state Public Utility Commission "could modify or reject Lemke's proposal, but an administrative judge's ruling usually has a major influence on the Commission's final decision. At the earliest", the article continues, "the PUC could vote on the matter at its Feb. 20 meeting." It looks like the Luddites won another round, the thick-brows in question being spearheaded by the so-called consumer group, "Toward Utility Rate Normalization," or TURN. A box on the side of this article had some interesting (mis?)information on Caller-ID, including a definition of Call Return that "Provides the subscriber with the number of the last caller along with the time and date and allows him or her to automatically return the call." That doesn't sound like the way it's worked for some contributors to TELECOM Digest ... is this just a case of the {Times} not checking their facts? Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com ------------------------------ Subject: Telephony Neophyte Seeks Advice Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 12:38:06 EST From: Kevin L. McBride First things first. I receive this as the comp.dcom.telecom Usenet newsgroup and there would be some propagation delay involved in receiving your replies if you answer my questions in this forum. Also, I suspect that quite a few of you already know this stuff (which is precisely why I'm asking here) and probably don't want the repetition cluttering up your mailing list. For these reasons, I ask that you please respond directly to me via e-mail. The address is "klm@gozer.mv.com" We are in the process of expanding our company and we maintain several "distributed offices" at the homes of company principals. I want to increase our datacomm capabilities in the near-term in the form of several new dial-up modem lines, keeping in mind that at some point we will most likely want 56kb leased lines between these offices. My home is located in an area with underground cabling and I am almost certain that there are currently only four wires coming in to the house. I presently have two phone lines here. One I use as a voice line shared between residence and business, the other I use for the modem on one of my in-home workstations to connect my LAN to Usenet. If it is, in fact, a reality that the phone company is going to have to do some excavation to run additional lines into the house, and they are going to charge me through the nose for this, how should I plan for my future expansion? I can see my needs increasing this year to upwards of eight dial-up lines and one or two 56kb leased lines. I really don't know much about this area of technology and "T1" is a complete mystery to me. I'm an ethernet weenie. Any suggestions that you can give me before I pull out my checkbook would be most appreciated. Are there books I can get that explain all of this in laymen's terms? Will the phone co. help me out with this? Will their help really be of help or are they interested only in selling me the most expensive options? Thanks in advance. Kevin L. McBride klm@gozer.mv.com ------------------------------ From: Phillip.Dampier@p0.f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Date: 22 Jan 92 12:22:29 Subject: Re: MCI Card With Voice Features In a message written by: sew7490@ultb.rit.edu (S.E. Williams): > By the way, does anyone know if MCI customers with the 'old' cards > will be receiving new ones in the mail, or will they have to call and > ask? When dealing with MCI customer service, you are bound to get a dozen different answers, but when I asked them the same question, the consensus view was that we were all going to get new calling cards. Then the operator wondered what nationality I was because they had my last name spelled Dampibr instead of Dampier, and what was this duplicate account I had on one number ... I always fear calling MCI customer service. :-) I've also noticed on the new system that when it is at capacity, with no more cute xylophone bong tones available, an operator will come on saying "Telecom USA." So, as stated earlier, this "all-new" service is really something from Telecom USA that MCI picked up. As a matter of fact, on one of my semi-monthly inquiries with the long distance companies about rate plans, I was talking with a Telecom USA operator when the announcement came down they were being sold, because I could hear the operator next to the my operator utter some interesting four letter words followed by something like "well, clean out your desks gang, there goes that job." I doubt they will all get the boot, but still ... In related MCI News, they started a new ad campaign for their Friends and Family program with Monopoly banker clones suggesting that if you aren't a F&F customer, you might as well throw your money into the fireplace. They try to grab you with $20.00 worth of MCI gift certificates. It turns out that is also intended to pay the telco for the long distance company switch. Phillip M. Dampier Rochester, New York phillip@rochgte.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 15:16:05 EST From: oplinger@ra.crd.ge.com (Brian Oplinger) Subject: What is my 1+ Carrier? Organization: General Electric Corporate R&D Center I have seen the number 1-700-555-4141 posted many times to this group as the 'magic number' that one can dial to determine who is the current (as of that moment) 1+ LD carrier. I have some questions: 1) Is this number 'magic' and as such something the typical person should not know about. 2) Should the people in customer service know about this number. 3) Why would 900 blocking interfere with being able to dial this number? I tried this number and got an intercept recording that the number could not be completed as dial and to hang up and try again. This is the same message I get when I call a 900 number (I do have blocking). What is odd is that the message sounds like it is played on a cassette that has many drop-outs; the volume and quality change drastically during this rather short message. So I called customer service. I was quizzed as to why I would call this number, and what does it do since the customer service person never heard of it. After checking for a moment or two I was told the 900 blocking didn't allow call to pre-recorded messages on 900, 976, or 700. I asked if it was possible to have blocking of only 900 prefix numbers, and after a longer delay was told no. brian oplinger@crd.ge.com <#include standard.disclaimer> [Moderator's Note: 700 does have some premium services on it operated by specific carriers, which is why it is frequently unreachable to people who have 900 blocking on their line. 700 works sort of like a very carrier-specific 900 service. 700-555-4141 is an exception to that rule. It is free, and frequently advertised by the carriers as a way to insure you have been one-plussed to the proper company. It is not a commonly known number, but it is perfectly 'legal' for use by any phone subscriber. Illinois Bell bills all premium stuff on a page entitled '700/900 Services'. I guess there is no way to exempt 555-4141 from the blocking process. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #70 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07220; 23 Jan 92 3:17 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18306 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 23 Jan 1992 01:11:32 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17321 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 23 Jan 1992 01:11:17 -0600 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 01:11:17 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201230711.AA17321@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #71 TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Jan 92 01:10:57 CST Volume 12 : Issue 71 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Mail "Enhancements" (Joe Jesson) Caller ID in California (Orange Country Register via Arthur L. Rubin) Technically Ignorant Judges (John Higdon) Stuff "For Sale" in Telecom (Will Martin) Santa Ana is Requiring Payphones to be COPT (David B. Whiteman) Information Needed on Hacking/Phreaking (Neil Kruse) Procomm Plus 2.0 ASPECT Scripting Language (Don A.B. Lindbergh) Newspaper Readership (John L. Shelton) Bellcore Basic Researchers Out of Work (Science Magazine via Jim Haynes) "Slick 96" Information Wanted (Michael H. Brand) U of Delaware Changes its Numbers (Carl Moore) Fishers Island, NY (Carl Moore) International Local Calling (John R. Levine) Propaganda (Jon Cereghino) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jessonj@nic.cerf.net (Joe Jesson) Subject: AT&T Mail "Enhancements" Date: 23 Jan 92 04:27:33 GMT Organization: CERFnet The other day I was asked what AT&T Easylink meant by their "enhancement" statement on some of the AT&T propaganda. After asking my AT&T account manager, he said he would "look into it" since he had no idea what the "enhancements" to AT&T Mail really meant. It seems as if "enhancements" meant pricing changes! Can this be true? Joseph E. Jesson Address1: mhs!amoco!joseph_e_jesson@attmail.com 21414 W. Honey Lane Address2: jessonj@cerf.net Lake Villa, IL, 60046 Address3: jej@chinet.chi.il.us Telephone: (day) 312-856-3645 (eve) 708-356-6817 ------------------------------ From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com Subject: Caller ID in California Date: 22 Jan 92 15:28:46 GMT Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc. Summarized from this morning's (1/22) {Orange County Register}: Administrative law Judge John Lemke recommeded the PUC reject Caller ID in California, citing privacy reasons. Services recommended for approval were: Call blocking (from specified numbers) Call return Call tracing Priority ringing [I thought we had that in some areas in California] Repeat dialing (camp-on?) Select call forwarding (only forwarding calls from certain numbers) Special call waiting (allows only certain calls to interrupt a conversation) (proposed by GTE only) Special call acceptance (reverse of call blocking) (proposed by GTE only) Arthur L. Rubin 216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer. [Moderator's Note: John Hidgon responds in the next message. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 21:57 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Technically Ignorant Judges Administrative Law Judge John Lemke's pronouncement that Californians should not be permitted to have CNID is just another example of the hazards of putting technical decisions in the hands of people who have no understanding of the matters upon which they utter decrees. For reasons only clear to himself, this ignoramus has declared that the people of California are not worthy of being offered a service that is in common use in twenty other states. It can only be hoped that the baboons that sit on the four occupied PUC seats will surprise us all and vote contrary to the Judge's drivel. The other recent example of Judicial Incompetency was displayed during the rate increase hearings in Victorville. After I had said my piece, the judge felt moved to "clarify" my remarks concerning the mandatory entry of a carrier code when selecting an intraLATA carrier other than Pac*Bell. He carefully pointed out that my criticism of the lack of "default carriers" was unfounded since anyone could buy a telephone that could have the desired carrier's code in memory and dial it automatically. For someone to use this as an example of a level playing field demonstrates an abysmal lack of understanding of the issues at hand. Heaven save us from the bureaucrats. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 15:41:37 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Stuff "For Sale" in Telecom In TELECOM Digest V12 #59, our esteemed Moderator writes, surprisingly: > [Moderator's Note: In the past I have made exceptions and run 'for > sale' ads here if the seller was a private party with a telecom > specific item for sale. I've had complaints about this, and have to > stop doing so. In fairness, since this was not announced previously, I > present the one you see here which was in the queue waiting for a few > days, but this has to be it. Sorry. Use the Usenet group for same. PAT] I say this is surprsing because of several reasons: 1) Pat has struck me as not being the type to easily roll over and do what others tell him to. I would have expected him to say "get stuffed" to any presuming to "instruct" him in what to allow or not allow in Telecom ... so I wonder about the "have to stop" note above. Is someone applying some sort of pressure upon you, Pat? 2) "Complaints" from some can be easily countered by praise from others. Allow me to count this message as one _in_favor_ of continuing to include "for sale" telecom-related items from individuals in the TELECOM Digest. Thus this cancels out one of these fabled "complaints". I encourage others who feel as I do to tell Pat; I bet all the "complaints" he has so far received will be crossed out by "aye" votes from others in the readership. 3) I am taken aback by and dislike the reference to using some Usenet newsgroup in place of putting these items in Telecom. First off, Telecom was originally and is now primarily a MAILING LIST, digestified in format. The fact that it is also accessible on a Usenet newsgroup is a side benefit to those in that community, but it is NOT the primary or traditional "home" of Telecom. There are many of us who participate in Telecom who do not have access to these other Usenet newsgroups, and who resent pointers to them being bandied about as if they were universally-available resources. There are those of us who do have some form of Usenet newsgroup access, but who have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through hundreds of for-sale postings for an enormous variety of things, yet we would like to see telecom-related items noted here in Telecom, where they are appropriate and reach the audience which will appreciate them. In short, speaking as a charter reader/participant in Telecom, let me say that I have NO objection to seeing individuals' "for sale" notices of telecom-related items herein. Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil [Moderator's Note: For quite some time a few years ago, TELECOM Digest was *not* distributed to Usenet. The reasons are not worth going into right now. Suffice to say there will be some changes before long in the Digest and comp.dcom.telecom ... there have to be, based on the huge increase in volume in recent weeks which will apparently be here to stay. I sorted through over 900 messages last week alone, as should have been evident by the 200+ messages sent out earlier this week. Don't bother writing me asking for more details; I don't know the answer right now, but am meditating in ernest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dbw@crash.cts.com (David B. Whiteman) Subject: Santa Ana is Requiring Payphones to be COPT Date: Wed Jan 22 13:08:33 1992 I just heard on the radio that the City of Santa Ana, California, (about 10 miles south of Disneyland) is considering forcing businesses to have COPT instead of Pacific Bell payphones. This is an attempt to discourage pager use by prostitutes and drug dealers. The police have been trying to have certain payphones changed to rotary or outgoing calls only, and they believe the best way to do it is make all outside payphones COPT. The radio station said that the City of Long Beach has already done this in the downtown area. I have heard this on both KNX-AM and KFI-AM. Also I just was in the downtown area of Long Beach, and sure enough almost all of the phones were COPT's with little signs showing a pager and the circle -- slash symbol over it, which I guess is the new international symbol for no pagers. There were a few GTE payphones outside, without the blue sign, but they were in a fenced area, and I think the gate is locked at night. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 92 13:03:00 -0800 From: KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com Subject: Information Needed on Hacking/Phreaking I'm a graduate student in Telecommunications Management and I want to write a term paper about hacking and phreaking of public telephone networks. I am interested in the use of social engineering as well as technological methods used by the "hackers" of the '80s and '90s. What I need is references; books, archived info, special distribution lists, newsgroups, personal contacts, whatever. Any ideas for where and how to obtain info would be greatly appreciated. Please reply to me directly. Neil Kruse or KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com 10501 N. Tantau Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 ------------------------------ From: dabl2@nlm.nih.gov (Don A.B. Lindbergh) Subject: Procomm Plus 2.0 ASPECT Scripting Language Organization: National Library of Medicine Date: Thu, 23 Jan 92 01:22:35 GMT I'm using Procomm Plus v 2.0 and want to load a METAKEY file (setup some character strings in Alt key combinations) in an ASPECT file, so when I dial an entry with a script attached it will log me on and set up the Alt key(s) with the strings loaded. I've tried MLOAD filename.key KLOAD filename.key etc within my autologon script, but no dice, won't compile. I've even tried these commands by themselves in their own little script, but nooooooooo ... What do the XLOAD statements DO anyway and how can I do what I want? Thanks tons. Don ------------------------------ From: jshelton@ads.com (John L. Shelton) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 17:54:27 -0800 Subject: Newspaper Readership I suspect one reason why local papers are failing (and perhaps why CSM is winding down) is that there are now several successful national papers. Twenty years ago, the NYT was available only in limited locations within trucking distance of NYC. Or, if you were wealthy, you could get it next day by air. Now the NYT is available in metro areas around the country. The WSJ is now a lot more accessible as well. Of course, USA Today is taking a toll as well. John [Moderator's Note: I maintain the news of the future will come to you largely from the device you are staring at right now ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Haynes Subject: Bellcore Basic Researchers Out of Work Date: 22 Jan 92 23:47:03 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz This is quoted from the 10 January 1992 issue of {Science Magazine}, copyright American Association for the Advancement of Science: "In another sign that industrial laboratores are retrenching, Bellcore has begun phasing out its basic research effort and closing some facilities in New Jersey. According to company spokeswoman Rose Cofone, Bellcore took steps in December to "restructure" its 8600-member workforce so as to focus more intently on applied projects of immediate value to regional telephone companies, the "baby Bells" that fund Bellcore's operations. The change at Bellcore have not been publicly announced, although the Newark _Star-Ledger_ has reported on the shakeup. "The news fell especially hard on Bellcore's researchers in high-temperature superconductivity, who saw their own jobs eliminated just as other physicists were reporting that they had hurdled a major barrier to practical uses of these superconduc- tors ... The 20 to 25 researchers and assistants in Bellcore's superconductivity laboratory have been told they should look for work elsewhere in the company - a transition that for many would mean shifting from basic to applied research. For example, Jean Marie Tarascon, a French physical chemist and a major superconductivity researcher in the Bellcore lab, will now be doing research on batteries, according to the _Star-Ledger_. "'The superconductor lab is no longer where the emphasis should be,' Cofone explains. Restructuring is strictly a business decision, she says -- the lab owners simply weren't convinced that superconductivity research would help the bottom line." haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 19:47:30 -0600 From: "Michael H. Brand" Subject: "Slick 96" Information Wanted "Slick 96" -- what is it? I am under the impression it is some sort of local PBX or PBX extender intended for rural customers. This device can support up to 100 pairs, uses a T1 or part of a T1, eliminating alot of copper back to the local CO. Can anyone shed some light on this? [Moderator's Note: We've had numerous messages on SLC here in the past. Perhaps someone will send a batch of them to our writer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 17:52:54 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: U of Delaware Changes Its Numbers The University of Delaware has changed its phone equipment and also its phone prefixes. Area code is 302. The new 831 prefix picks up offices (also the computer dial-in lines) and can be remembered as UD1. Student residences move to 837 and can be remembered as UDS. I believe that makes the library's recorded-information line (i.e. hours of operation) UD1-BOOK (302-831-2665). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 10:06:48 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Fishers Island, NY Does anyone know what the dialing instructions are for 516-788 exchange on Fishers Island, NY? Despite being in 516, it showed up with an "operator routing" of 203, and I did figure from other sources that this island is easier to reach from Connecticut than it is from Long Island, NY. On Long Island in 516 (notice that Brooklyn and Queens are on Long Island but are in NYC, area 718) the dialing instructions are 7D within 516 NPA + 7D to outside of 516. ------------------------------ Subject: International Local Calling Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 23:09:37 EST From: John R. Levine I was wandering around northern Vermont earlier this week and took a look at the local phone book while waiting for an operator to answer on a pay phone. (It's pretty rural up there.) I noticed that subscribers in Derby Line VT have an unusual feature in their phone service -- it is a free local call to Rock Island, Quebec. Derby Line and Rock Island are one town with the border running through the middle, e.g. in the local opera house the stage is in Canada and the seats are in the U.S. Apparently there was a misunderstanding about the location of the border when the town was built. Is anyone aware of other cases where it is a local call from one country to another? I'm pretty sure that happens nowhere else in the northeast U.S. How about the town in Washington on a peninsula accessible only from British Columbia? For that matter, there are places along the Dutch-Belgian border where there are little bits of one country surrounded by the other. What do they do about phones there? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl [Moderator's Note: I think some areas of Detroit are within the local calling area of Windsor, Ontario. I also think Calexico, CA has local calling to Mexicali across the border. The little peninsula you noted in Washington state can be dialed with either area code, and directory is provided by BC Tel. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 01:41:21 PST From: cereghin@netcom.netcom.com (Jon Cereghino) Subject: Propaganda I heard one of those USTA adverisements on a local radio station yesterday. It brought to mind a file I found on a local BBS titled, "How to Detect Propaganda." It goes on to detail propaganda techniques like "glittering generalities" (we NEED to provide information services for the virtuous purpose of saving ill children) and "transfer" (the PRESTIGE of the medical profession is the PRESTIGE of your RBOC carrying information services). I thought ethics had left the business world and these guys have proven I was wrong . My elected representatives are going to get tired of hearing from me on this issue. Jon Cereghino Internet: cereghin@netcom.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #71 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08609; 23 Jan 92 4:06 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17281 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 23 Jan 1992 02:12:18 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19345 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 23 Jan 1992 02:11:35 -0600 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 02:11:35 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201230811.AA19345@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #72 TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Jan 92 02:11:25 CST Volume 12 : Issue 72 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Ron Dippold) Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Robert Denny) Re: Digital Cellular Telephony (Phil Karn) Re: The Spread of Telepoints (Mark Fulk) Re: The Spread of Telepoints (Brendan Jones) Re: I Couldn't Get AT&T From Payphone (Peter da Silva) Re: I Couldn't Get AT&T From Payphone (Dick Rawson) Re: Reverse Directory Information (David E. Sheafer) Re: MCI Card With Voice Features (Bill Huttig) Re: Listening to the Called Phone Ringing (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 00:08:18 GMT don@q-aais.navo.navy.mil (Don Newcomb) writes: > OK. So they are probably using a Linear Maximal Pseudorandom Sequence > to modulate and demodualte the signal. But, doesn't this imply some > rather heavy duty signal processing? Is a matched filter adequate to We did the prototype system with a whole bunch of DSPs, and the code is enough to give you nightmares. The current system uses a custom CDMA ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) to do the modulation and demodulation. This allows us to do whatever is necessary to get the best possible signal even with fading, multipath, and a whole host of other nasty things that happen when you're driving at 65 MPH through a canyon. A simple filter just would not have been adequate. ------------------------------ From: denny@dakota.alisa.com (Bob Denny) Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 17:28:32 GMT Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc. In don@q-aais.navo.navy.mil (Don Newcomb) writes: > In article rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com > (Ron Dippold) writes: > X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 62, Message 4 of 11 >> mole-end!mat@uunet.uu.net writes: > OK. So they are probably using a Linear Maximal Pseudorandom Sequence > to modulate and demodualte the signal. But, doesn't this imply some > rather heavy duty signal processing? Is a matched filter adequate to > demodulate the signal or do they require all sorts of bizarre transforms? I have seen surface acoustic wave (SAW) filters used that do the modulation and demodulation directly. Very low cost and integrated. As I stated in my previous article, this stuff is not new. It's 25 years old. Robert B. Denny voice: (818) 792-9474 Alisa Systems, Inc. fax: (818) 792-4068 Pasadena, CA (denny@alisa.com, ..uunet!alisa.com!denny) ------------------------------ From: karn@Qualcomm.COM (Phil Karn) Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Telephony Reply-To: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com Organization: Qualcomm, Inc Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 20:51:42 GMT In article , denny@dakota.alisa.com (Bob Denny) writes: >> Would someone like to explain how CDMA works? I understand that it >> spreads the signal across a huge bandwidth in a way that allows the >> receiver to select 1 of N signals ... but how? A CDMA primer, anyone? > I do not know the details of the specific system being proposed, but I > am familiar with "spread spectrum" systems, of which the proposed > cellular "CDMA" system appears to be one. So I'll take a stab at some > basics in hopes someone else more knowlegable will expand on or > correct ... Since I work on the project, I *do* know the details. :-) Many have already been published; probably the best reference is "On the System Design Aspects of Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) Applied To Digital Cellular and Personal Communications Networks" by Allen Salmasi and Klein S. Gilhousen, Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, St Louis MO May 19-22, 1991. Several other papers on CDMA appeared in the May 1991 issue of IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology (Special Issue on Digital Cellular Technologies). One is an overview of the generic concepts, another is an analysis of the CDMA system capacity. All of the info I'm about to give is described in these papers or in other public forums, so there's nothing proprietary here. > There are two common forms of CDMA systems: direct-sequence and > frequency-hopping. I will describe the direct-sequence variation. I do > not know which is used by Qualcomm. The principles are the same, > though. We use direct-sequence PN spreading at 1.2288 megachips/sec. The spreading bandwidth is 1.23 MHz at 3dB, and that's also our channel spacing. For a data rate of 9600 bps, this yields a processing gain of about 21 dB. There are actually two spreading functions: a "short code" that is 32768 chips long, and a "long code" 2^42-1 chips long. Both use the same chip rate. The signal transmitted by the cell site includes a "pilot" consisting of a carrier spread only by the short code; this allows the mobile to rapidly acquire it and use it for system timing. Actual traffic is spread by both the short and long sequences. > CDMA works by first digitally encoding the audio signal, resulting in > a stream of bits. Various tricks are used to compress the audio so as > to minimize the bit rate at the expense of fidelity. Actually, I dare say our vocoder sounds pretty good. It runs at a variable rate (fast when you talk, slow when you stop), and transmitted power is proportional to this rate. Since power is capacity in CDMA, this gives us a nice boost in capacity; whenever a given user isn't talking (about 60-65% of the time, on average), his capacity share can be taken by some other user who *is* talking. [reasonably accurate description of spread spectrum omitted] > If you aren't confused at this point, great. Now here's why > spread-spectrum is so great. First, the fact that the signal's energy > is spread across a very wide range of frequencies makes it very > resistant to multipath. I won't go into the explanation of why, but > trust me, a properly engineered CDMA system will be virtually immune > to flutter and fading, even in the worst urban high-rise areas. Instead of being a nuisance, multipath can actually be a major asset in a CDMA system. Our receivers actually consist of three independent spread spectrum receivers in parallel, and these receiver "fingers" can be independently assigned to different multipath components which are then combined before detection. This is an extremely effective technique. There's a special case of "multipath" in our system called "soft handoff". If you're in the region midway between two or more cells on the same frequency, the system sets up a path through them. The additional cells' signals appear to the mobile just as though they were additional multipath components from the first cell (actually, this isn't quite true -- the signals are deliberately offset in time to avoid possible cross-correlation, but the basic idea is that you combine the signals from multiple cells just as you would combine multiple signals from a single cell). We also use some pretty strong forward error correction (FEC) coding: rate 1/2 K=9 convolutional coding with Viterbi decoding on the forward link and rate 1/3 K=9 on the reverse link. This helps us tolerate errors and lets us operate with a very low average signal-to-noise ratio (about 7dB). Again, since power is capacity in CDMA, this boosts our overall capacity. Another really nice thing about CDMA is that due to the selectivity provided by the processing gain of spread spectrum, frequencies can be reused in every cell site. Current FM cellular systems typically are able to use only 1/7 of the total number of channels in each cell because of the need to protect their immediate neighboring cells from interference. > Secondly, the PN sequence can be generated with an encryption key and > provide a reasonable level of security. I have no idea if the Qualcomm > proposal includes security provisions, though. The PN sequences are generated with linear feedback shift registers. In article , stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: >> What it works out to is that while an analog phone transmits at three >> watts, and the cell-site power requirements are truly horrible, CDMA >> phones transmit in the milliwatt range, and the entire cell site >> transmits with only as much power as a couple of the radios in the >> analog cell. > Again, not always. The remote AMPS transmits only at the necessary > level. In fact, my handheld is always operating in the "milliwatt > range." Changing the transmitter power of a mobile in AMPS requires a "blank and burst" data trasmission from the cell. This is plainly audible to the user, so you don't want to do it too often. In CDMA, however, power control is continuous, fast and completely inaudible to the user. In article , nagle@netcom.netcom.com (John Nagle) writes: >> In the long term, digital phones should be cheaper and lighter, >> however, as VLSI components are employed. > In the Motorola MicroTAC, the battery is over half the weight. > Further VLSI integration won't shrink the package that much. > Actually, the coils and filters probably weigh more than the > semiconductors already. Look at the Philips/Signetics chip set, for > example. It's down to 12 shrink surface-mount packages. > Progress will have to come from reducing power consumption. This is truer than you may realize, John. One of CDMA's biggest advantages is its very low RF power levels. As Ron Dippold mentioned earlier, we typically see the mobile RF transmitter operating at the milliwatt (0dBm) level or lower; -10 dBm is quite typical, and I've seen it as low as -50 dBm (10 nanowatts) when very close to a cell site. All this translates directly into longer talk time and/or a smaller battery for a CDMA portable phone. Phil ------------------------------ From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) Subject: Re: The Spread of Telepoints Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 14:17:05 GMT In article duncan@mhs.ac.uk (Duncan Rogerson) writes: > I doubt I'd have much use for it elsewhere, the battery life is only > three hours, and not being able to receive calls, except from private > base stations your handset is registered with, is a definite minus > point. Wouldn't a telepoint/pager combination address this problem nicely? Especially if there was a button to dial the number on the pager's display. It strikes me that the combination could achieve most of the convenience of cellular phones without a lot of the costs. Mark A. Fulk Computer Science Department fulk@cs.rochester.edu University of Rochester Don't quote needless words -- Strunk Rochester, NY 14627 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Spread of Telepoints Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 13:11:26 +1000 From: brendan@otc.research.otca.oz.au cmylod@oracle.nl (Colum Mylod) wrote: > [re CT2] One sentence caught my eye: "no-one can eavesdrop on your > conversation" thanks to the "digital technique" used [trans]. Oh yeah? Well, it would be very difficult to do. You'd have to build yourself a frequency agile FSK/TDD decoder with CAI protocol recognition. It took GPT (UK) about five years to develop one, so good luck to you. Put it this way, a scanner ain't going to help you eavesdrop on a CT2 call. All you'd hear is FSK noise. > If memory serves, at least one British trader in these has folded due > to massive disinterest from the great public. Are they anywhere else? Yes, a very large system is going in Hong Kong right as we speak, with three operators. It will be the first *real* test of CT2 due to the adherence to the Common Air Interface and the very high population density in Hong Kong. The world is waiting to see what will happen there. CT2 folded in the UK due to a number of reasons, including premature technology launching, proprietary air-interface standards (one handset wouldn't work on all systems), and poorly targeted marketing (who do you sell it to?) (The above are my opinions and not that of my employer) Brendan Jones ACSnet: brendan@otc.otca.oz.au R&D Contractor UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan Services R&D Phone: (02)2873128 Fax: (02)2873299 |||| OTC || Snail: GPO Box 7000, Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: I Couldn't Get AT&T From Payphone Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 03:59:02 GMT In article Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: > AT&T has chosen to comply by providing an 800, not a 950 number. YEAH! Does this apply to normal businesses or to service industries only? Does a business that only provides phone service to employees count as an aggregator? Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480|1032 2400/n/8/1. ------------------------------ From: drawson@hobbes.Tymnet.COM (Dick Rawson) Subject: Re: I Couldn't Get AT&T From Payphone Date: 22 Jan 92 14:37:34 GMT Organization: BT North America (Tymnet) > AT&T has chosen to comply by providing an 800, not a 950 number. When > using it, you will have to be patient, because AT&T will ask questions > and WILL BE COLLECTING info on the site! When their database 'knows' > about the site, there will be less delay. I hope so. It sure took minutes, including music on hold and the questioning. (The front desk told me I could reach AT&T by 8-00, where 8 is the long-distance access prefix here; maybe there is one such outgoing trunk, but all I got was fast busy. The PBX and the COCOTs don't understand 10288; the COCOTs deliver 00 to an AOS. This is an ITT Sheraton. Do you suppose the AOS is Metromedia/ITT?) Funny how T1S1 (ISDN Standards) end up with AOS services and COCOTs. I guess Motel 6 doesn't have conference facilities ... Dick Rawson ------------------------------ From: David E. Sheafer Reply-To: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu Subject: Re: Reverse Directory Information Date: 21 Jan 92 19:24:01 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA In article , stewarta@sco.COM (Stewart I. Alpert) writes: > Can anyone point me towards a source for reverse directory > information? I'd like to find a way to trace a name/address given a > phone number. There is a 900 number that offers this service. Dial 1-900 884-1212 and enter phone number, and it will return the name and address that owns the phone number. Charges are 1.50 first minute, .75 each aditional minute. I have never used this service myself. David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 ------------------------------ From: wah@zach.fit.edu ( Bill Huttig) Subject: Re: MCI Card With Voice Features Date: 22 Jan 92 02:43:03 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article sew7490@ultb.rit.edu (S.E. Williams) writes: > a source for my report, and I'm getting one of those new cards. I'd While your at it ask for the promo offer of trading in cards from other IEC's ... trad in up to four old calling card numbers for four hours of LD on MCI. > By the way, does anyone know if MCI customers with the 'old' cards > will be receiving new ones in the mail, or will they have to call and > ask? Not sure but this is one of the steps in merging the old TELECOM*USA and OLD MCI into the 'new' MCI system. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 17:13 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Listening to the Called Phone Ringing Tony Harminc writes: > 2) Even if the equipment is capable, it isn't clear what the > advantages are of generating a local (caller's end) ringing tone. There is another problem: advisory recordings. Unless the called office can signal back to the originating office that the number is somehow special by being out of service, or changed, or whatever, the caller would never hear, "The number you have reached ...". These recordings do not supervise. 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 V12 #72 *****************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28190; 24 Jan 92 3:18 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00217 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 24 Jan 1992 01:07:33 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10271 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 24 Jan 1992 01:07:19 -0600 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1992 01:07:19 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201240707.AA10271@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #73 TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 Jan 92 01:07:12 CST Volume 12 : Issue 73 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Economics of Special Call Features? (Anthony E. Siegman) Status of the Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN) (Don W. Bacon) Insert in GTE Bill (David Gast) Hayes ISDN Adaptor For NeXT: $200 (Bruce Perens) DTMF Pads and Polarity Reversal (John Gilbert) Receiver Jamming (John Gilbert) Michigan Public Service Commission Notice (Jack Decker) Billing Delay at Start of Call? (Thomas Brown) New St. Louis White Pages (Will Martin) Bureaucrats (John W. Shaver) Re: 408 Area Code Question (John Higdon) Re: Telecom and the Arts (Howard Gayle) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anthony E. Siegman Subject: Economics of Special Call Features? Organization: Stanford University Date: Thu, 23 Jan 92 19:48:15 GMT Others have already noted that a staff report from the California PUC has recommended against installing Caller ID on privacy grounds, but recommends in favor of a list of other features (Call Trace, Call Block, etc.). This is a staff recommendation; the Commissioners will make the final decision later. The story in the {San Jose Mercury} also says, "But without Caller ID, telephone companies question whether there will be enough demand for the other features to make them economical." I'd appreciate hearing informed opinions as to whether this last assertion is factual or reasonable, or just telco propaganda because the telcos really want Caller ID. My (admittedly uninformed) impression is that all these features are more or less "there", within the capabilities of the electronic switches and even probably already programmed, so that providing them mostly amounts to "turning them on". And, once turned on they cost almost nothing to operate (and presumably generate revenue for the telco). Is this reasonably true? Or does it cost a fair amount, in real terms, to provide these special features? And does the presence or absence of Caller ID really affect the cost of the other features? (P.S. I'm only asking about the economics not the politics of Caller ID here; and I might suggest responses not quote my entire message, just the last paragraph above.) ------------------------------ From: dwb@pti.UUCP (Don W. Bacon) Subject: Status of the Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN) Date: 23 Jan 92 14:46:34 GMT Organization: Phoenix Telecom, Inc., Rochester, NY I am researching the capabilities, current status, and opportunities presented by the Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN). For this research, I have relied heavily on the recent Bellcore TAs, SRs, and FAs on the subject. I have also read recent articals in TE&M and Telephony. I have not, however, had discussions with the industry (RBOCs or vendors) on the subject. I am looking for additional information and/or discussions on the AIN. For example -- what capabilities can be expected, what is being trialed where, when is AIN/0.1, AIN/1 likely to be deployed, how the AIN will affect current/new OSSs, what the service creation environment will be, and similar subjects. Considering the recent lively discussions on Caller-ID and ANI, I would imagine that the AIN would also generate a lot of interest. Thanks for your help. Don Bacon Phoenix Telecom Rochester, NY (716)224-2210 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 92 15:17:40 -0800 From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) Subject: Insert in GTE Bill GTE, which has recently proposed increasing basic rates by 50% (as well as other changes) has included a color insert on the GTE West (Golf) Classic. Tickets cost up to $75.00. Sarcasm mode on, I sure am glad to see GTE sponsoring golf games. I wonder how much of my telephone bill goes to sponsor this activity? At the very least, I wonder about the postage required to send this advertisement out. Who paid? David ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens) Subject: Hayes ISDN Adaptor For NeXT: $200 Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 20:27:29 GMT At NeXTWorld, Hayes was showing an ISDN connector for the NeXT computer. The tiny box made use of the Motorola 56000 DSP that is part of the NeXT computer, thus the low price. It was on "show special" for $200. The Hayes ISDN terminal unit for non-NeXT equipment cost $1995. Bruce Perens ------------------------------ From: johng.all_proj@mot.com (John) Subject: DTMF Pads and Polarity Reversal Organization: Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 00:54:32 GMT In article kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net writes: > It depends on *whose* DTMF generators you are using. :-) AT&T saved a > few cents and simply put a diode in series with the generator to > prevent reverse battery from damaging the electronics. Other > manufacturers (AE in particular) put a diode bridge around the > generator so that the polarity of the office battery was irrelevant. This is another case where this "savings" was a "FEATURE." Having the pad only work with the correct phone line polarity allowed a neat trick to be done with 1A2 key systems. An individual pair to a multiline key system phone could be wired with reversed tip and ring. This would allow dialing restriction to be done on a per-line basis. This was sometimes used where a station might only be allowed to answer calls on the outside lines, but still needed to dial out on an intercom line. John Gilbert KA4JMC Secure and Advanced Conventional Sys Div Astro Systems Development Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products SectorSchaumburg, Illinois johng@ecs.comm.mot.com ------------------------------ From: johng.all_proj@mot.com (John) Subject: Receiver Jamming Organization: Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 00:43:58 GMT This reminds me of a similar solution to a problem my brother had while in college. The guy in the dorm room next door would often leave his stereo turned up very loud and then leave the room for hours on end. When my brother decided that he wanted a little quiet time, he would tune up his grid-dip oscillator (actually a low power transmitter) on the radio station that the neighbor had left blasting. The grid-dip oscillator would capture the frequency with an unmodulated carrier, and would silence the noise from next door. John Gilbert KA4JMC Secure and Advanced Conventional Sys Div Astro Systems Development Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector Schaumburg, Illinois johng@ecs.comm.mot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 17:20:58 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Michigan Public Service Commission notice Well, I think I've just seen one of the more unusual notices to come out of our state's Public Service Commission. First, I'll share the notice with you, and then add a few comments and a request. Here's the notice: STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the matter, on the Commission's Own Motion, ) to determine whether coin operated telephones ) direct-inward dialing, and touch-tone service ) Case No. U-10049 are essential to the public health, safety, or ) general welfare and should be regulated under ) the Michigan Telecommunications Act. ) NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT -------------------------------- Under the provisions of the Michigan Telecommunications Act, 1991 PA 179 (Act 179), the Michigan Public Service Commission is initiating a proceeding to determine whether coin-operated telephones, direct-inward dialing, and touch-tone service are essential to the public health, safety, or general welfare and should be regulated under Act 179. Act 179 gives the Commission 90 days from January 1, 1992 to determine the appropriate regulation, if any, of these services. Interested parties may submit comments in writing to the Michigan Public Service Commission, P.O. Box 30221, Lansing, Michigan 48909. Initial comments must be received by February 24, 1992. Peplies to initial comments must be received by March 4, 1992. All comments should refer to Case No. U-10049 and should address whether, and how, coin-operated telephones, direct-inward dialing, and touch-tone service should be regulated. [End of notice.] I suspect that this is worded this way because if the mentioned items are deemed "essential to the public health, safety, or general welfare", then the MPSC can exercise greater regulation under the law. It's obvious that the three areas of inquiry have little to do with each other (other than being telephone-related), but I can understand why they'd be asking for comment on coin-operated telephones and touch-tone service. What puzzles me is the part about direct-inward dialing ... what is so special about that feature that it would be the object of specific inquiry? As for touch-tone service, I suspect that if the comments received are as expected, this may be a prelude toward the provision of free Touch-Tone service in Michigan. I would ask Telecom Digest readers if any of you can state concisely any reasons why Touch-Tone service might be considered an "essential" service (I can think of one or two, but would like to see if Telecom Digest readers can come up with anything original). Also, I would appreciate if if those of you who live in a state where Touch-Tone service is provided free of charge would mail me a short note stating that fact (and giving me the name of the state you live in). Or, if anyone has a list of states that now require telephone companies to offer free Touch-Tone, I would very much appreciate it if you could mail me a copy of that. I just think it would be helpful to be able to show that a number of states already require telephone companies to offer free Touch-Tone. Of course, those of you who receive telephone service in Michigan may wish to take advantage of your opportunity to comment on this matter. Thank you in advance for any comments you may offer on this matter. Jack Decker Internet address: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com Fidonet address: 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: tbrown@lehi3b15.csee.lehigh.edu (Thomas Brown [901015]) Subject: Billing Delay at Start of Call? Date: 23 Jan 92 16:20:27 GMT Organization: CSEE Dept. Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA AT&T and New Jersey Bell (which may mean that the local switch is the controlling factor here) used to allow a short period of time at the beginning of a long-distance call before beginning the billing. This was to prevent charging customers who were in the process of hanging up their phone when the called party answered. You could call a number and not be billed for it if you hung up in the first five seconds or so after the called party answered. I found this especially useful when calling numbers answered by a modem -- I could hang up immediately and not be billed. However, all calls are billed now -- even if you hang up within a half second of the called party answering. Any ideas on this one? Regards, Thomas Brown, KA2UGQ BITNET: twb0@lehigh.bitnet Lehigh University UC Box 855 ARPA: tbrown@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU Bethlehem, PA 18015 UUCP: ..!uunet!lehigh.bitnet!twb0 (215) 758-0083 AX.25: ka2ugq@ka2ugq.nj.usa.na ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 92 13:35:18 CST From: Will Martin Subject: New St. Louis White Pages The Feb '92 SW Bell St. Louis White Pages are being distributed now, and I noticed something on my new copy that I thought I'd mention to the group. The "blue pages" of government listings, which oiginally were all blue, are now white paper with blue edging. Much easier to read -- I bet the telco had had complaints from the elderly or people with marginal vision about the difficulty of reading black print on blue paper in the previous versions. I also note that the previous year's bound-in cardboard divider, separating the residential and government listings from the business listings, is gone. I wonder if that was just a cost factor, or if people complained about it -- the way it projected from the book would make it harder to shelve in some cases. I know there are some SWBT people reading Telecom, and I have a question for you: can you provide me a number to call to make a suggestion about the contents of the "blue pages" listings? I realize that the listings in the residential and business sections are dependent on what people pay for, or pay to avoid, but I am under the impression that the telco provides the "blue pages" listings as a customer service to people using the phone book, and that the listing of a government agency therein is up to the telco, not the agency itself. What I would like to suggest is that the "State" section in the blue pages include all the various 800 numbers for state agencies and services. It now does not include the 800 number for the Department of Natural Resources, for example, and I believe that there are others left out, too. It would be a good public service to get them all in there. Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 92 14:57:04 MST From: SMTP@HUACHUCA-EMH7.ARMY.MIL Subject: Bureaucrats As a bureaucrat I take offense at John Higdon calling uneducated and un-informed judges bureaucrats. Some of us Federal Civil Servants are educated and informed, but it is often the laws which the #$%&@@ in Congress passed to "protect us" which prevent bureaucrats from being effective and efficient. Sorry, but we have a bad enough reputation already. John W. Shaver 602 538 7622 // DSN 879 7622 // FTS 658 7622 FAX 538 0656 // DSN 879 0656_// FTS 658 0656 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 23:35 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: 408 Area Code Question Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: > Which part of 408 comes under GTE? The communities of Los Gatos and Morgan Hill are served by GTE. Gilroy is served by Contel and all the rest (in the San Francisco LATA) is served by Pac*Bell. > Does the San Jose area have 7D for local/toll within 408, NPA + 7D for > local/toll going outside of 408? (This is what San Francisco and > Oakland, then both in 415, had before 415 got N0X/N1X prefixes.) All Pac*Bell telephones in the Greater San Jose area use 7D or NPA + 7D for long distance. This includes the communities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Campbell, Cupertino, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas. In essence, anything that is a local call within 408 from downtown San Jose dials long distance without a '1' if it is served by Pac*Bell. But then "David Singer" writes: > But the phone book (San Jose/Santa Clara, good through March 1992) says: 7D within area code, 1 + AC + 7D outside. This is true. But the phone book lies. A '1' is not required from ANY Pac*Bell phone in the San Jose area. And it never has been required. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 07:27:09 PST From: howard@hal.com (Howard Gayle) Subject: Re: Telecom and the Arts Reply-To: howard@hal.com (Howard Gayle) Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc., Campbell, California In article , wmartin@STL-06SIMA (Will Martin) writes: > "We're bowled over by these hand-woven baskets. Made of scrap > telephone wire by Zulu artisans in Natal, South Africa, they're study, > washable, and suitable for serving everything from fruit to bread to > nuts. When I was with Ericsson Telecom, one of my coworkers told me about working for Ericsson in South America in the 1950s. One common problem was for a meter or two of cable to disappear overnight from the middle of a run. It would usually show up, in recycled form, in the local market. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #73 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03497; 24 Jan 92 21:19 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12535 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 24 Jan 1992 18:58:12 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01512 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 24 Jan 1992 18:57:48 -0600 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1992 18:57:48 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201250057.AA01512@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #74 TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 Jan 92 18:56:50 CST Volume 12 : Issue 74 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Joe Talbot) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Jack Decker) Re: Detirmining if a Call Was Answered (Gordon D. Woods) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Andrew M. Dunn) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Nancy J. Airey) Re: Detirmining if a Call Was Answered (Tim Gorman) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Steve Forrette) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (Patton M. Turner) Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: joe@mojave.ati.com (Joe Talbot) Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered Date: 22 Jan 92 09:53:30 GMT Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca In article , kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: > In article andys@ulysses.att.com > writes: >> The PBX isn't the problem here. In North America "modern" CO switches >> don't pass answer supervision back to the subscriber. (On older > CO switches DO, however, pass answer supervision to PBX trunks (lines) > IF they are properly arranged for PBX service. In my experience, this > means that they are ground start and the answer signal is a line > reversal. SORRY. That isn't available. I wish it was. Ground start has NOTHING to do with answer supervision, and a trunk is simply a "designed" circuit, with special attention paid to transmission levels. Now, there's something the RBOCs could sell, but that just want to get into the info business (and be the ONLY ones in the business). Why is it that the services ONLY the phone company can provide, aren't interesting enough, or aren't profitable enough for them to want to provide? Maybe they should sell out to a company that wants to sell phone service, rather than everything else. joe@mojave.ati.com Slow mail: P.O. box 1750, Helendale California 92342 Phone: (619) 243-5500 Fax (619) 952-1030 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 16:49:32 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered In message dated 16 Jan 92 15:14:42 GMT, andys@ulysses.att.com writes: > In article joe@mojave.ati.com (Joe > Talbot) wrote: >> The PBX isn't the problem here. In North America "modern" CO switches >> don't pass answer supervision back to the subscriber. (On older >> switches it was sent back to the sub in the form >> of reversed polarity). This would solve lots of problems with COCOTS, >> long distance companies, modems, voice forwarding systems and even >> teleslime automatic calling machines, but alas ... > Wouldn't reverse polarity make it impossible for me to talk to my home > answering machine and office voice mail from a line-powered phone? As > I recall, DTMF generators don't work under reverse polarity ... Only the older model touch-tone pads are polarity sensitive. Newer models will work with either polarity. By the way, this caused a bit of a problem for Michigan Bell. Seems that some telephone exchanges would reverse the polarity on coin phone circuits (I have no idea why) when certain types of calls were made ... unfortunately, that included zero-plus calls to carriers other than AT&T, and 950 calls! There was one phone that I came across (at a Target store in Holland, Michigan if I recall correctly) that was PRESUBSCRIBED to MCI, but when you dialed a zero-plus call and got the "boing" tone from MCI, you could not enter your calling card number! I reported this to repair on several occasions (of course, the repair service clerk usually acted as though s/he hadn't the foggiest notion of what I was talking about ... after all, customers aren't supposed to have any technical knowledge of how the phone system works!) and finally, after the problem had dragged on for months, I made a list of about six phones thus affected (in various cities around the state) and sent it in a letter to the Michigan Public Service Commission, asking if they could perhaps look into this. Well! Next thing I know I get in the mail a copy of a Michigan Bell document detailing a plan to convert coin phones all over the state to be non-polarity-sensitive, on something like an eight-month timetable! Evidently this was a non-trivial task for them, affecting far more than just the few phones I had run into. Of course, this was only Michigan Bell, so I imagine there's still phones in Michigan (on independent telco exchanges) where you might run into this problem. One proposed solution: Let the telcos offer reverse-polarity calling party control (CPC) on a customer-request basis ... it should be possible to program a modern digital switch to do it only when necessary, since it would require some additional programming to offer the feature in the first place. You could even make it customer programmable (dial a prefix to turn it off if you are going to need to use your old 2500 style Touch-Tone phone on the next call, in much the same way that you can disable call waiting for one call), though obviously you would NOT want to automatically offer that particular option on a COCOT line (though even there, I could see where it might be useful ... if the phone had enough smarts to block CUSTOMER dialing of the prefix, it could use the "disable for this call" provision when placing certain "free" calls, such as to the company's coin refund center). In summary ... the "ideal" reverse-polarity CPC offering would be: 1) Optional ... placed on a line only at the customer's request, and 2) Optionally blockable on a per-call basis, by dialing a prefix code prior to dialing the number. If this code were dialed, the polarity would never reverse, whether the call were completed or not. I have a feeling that if folks really want this, they should badger their PSC's for it, since the phone companies probably WON'T offer this one voluntarily ... it would make COCOT's more reliable and thus cut into the telco coin phone business. Of course, as the original message pointed out, CPC has lots of useful applications beyond that of just COCOT's ... I'd think that just about every telecom manager could find a way to put it to good use! Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 [Moderator's Note: The thing you have to do when you get a dunce repair clerk is insist on getting the serial number of the trouble ticket being opened for the occassion. Get a time commitment when the problem will be corrected, then call at that time, refer to the ticket and inquire again, preferably from the line on which the work was requested. If it is not finished, ask 'how much longer will be required' and date your copy of the trouble ticket ahead ... then just keep calling each time the ticket expires; keep challenging, asking for supervisory assistance, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 10:11:55 EST From: gdw@gummo.att.com (Gordon D Woods) Subject: Re: Detirmining if a Call Was Answered Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article , by kentrox!bud@uunet. uu.net: > It depends on *whose* DTMF generators you are using. :-) AT&T saved a > few cents and simply put a diode in series with the generator to > prevent reverse battery from damaging the electronics. Other > manufacturers (AE in particular) put a diode bridge around the > generator so that the polarity of the office battery was irrelevant. I'd like to know the model number of an ATT DTMF phone that has a single diode in series. I've seen a lot of them (I have a station set manual.) and have never seen a single diode in series: It's either a bridge or nothing: the electronics is self protected in 2500 sets and all more modern sets have bridges. ------------------------------ From: amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn) Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 05:26:00 GMT In article rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes: > Could be because in Western Electric DTMF phones, the keypad is > polarity sensitive. If the polarity reversal answer supervision was > used with these phones, the Keypad would quit working when the called > party answered, making the phone unusable for "Touch Tone" entry of > digits into follow on services like paging, etc. All because Western Electric couldn't add a full-wave bridge rectifier (a commonly-available part worth around $0.90) before the keypad power feed. They should have -- polarity reversals have been the norm for many years as a method of controlling phones ... especially coin phones. In article grayt@Software.Mitel.Com (Tom Gray) writes: > In article John Higdon com> writes: >> Why should anyone pay for custom calling? Hell, those features are >> turned on with a couple of keystrokes. What a rip! > Custom features are turned on by a couple of key strokes. The couple > of key strokes invokes the software which was written to provide the > custom service. This software cost money to write, test and support. > Someone has to pay the switch vendor so that it can pay for the > development of software. > Who better than the users of that software? Agreed. But this should be via a monthly charge for the feature, based on the cost of the software. Often, it's a charge that the telco marketing folks dream up because the market "will bear it". And my major complaint is with the mandatory "installation charge". For features which take a "couple of keystrokes" to turn on, a $30 or $40 installation charge seems a bit excessive. They don't even have to _visit_ the site. Which is what they claim the installation fee is for. Oh well. Andy Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.uucp) ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 09:25:01 EST From: jean@hrcca.att.com (Nancy J Airey) Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article grayt@Software.Mitel.Com (Tom Gray) writes: > In article John Higdon com> writes: >> Why should anyone pay for custom calling? Hell, those features are >> turned on with a couple of keystrokes. What a rip! > This software cost money to write, test and support. > Someone has to pay the switch vendor so that it can pay for the > development of software. Exactly right. Additionally, many features require additional resources on the local switch. Automatic callback and automatic recall require additional memory blocks for *each* customer who subscribes to the service. Calling "lists" for call acceptance, denial, or other special treatment require additional memory and announcement circuits. You also impact real time usage on the processor involved whenever the listing feature is used. Even good old call waiting means that a network resource is tied up until the call is disconnected. True, not all features have major impacts, but most have some impact. A heavy load of custom calling features can also impact the job of the switch administrator who has to monitor the office to be sure that everything is balanced (ie: did the traffic and equipment engineer allow for the real-world load?) And if things are not in balance, then the maintenance engineer has to "fix" it. att!hrcca!jean ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 92 14:13:48 EST From: 71336.1270@CompuServe.COM Subject: Re: Detirmining if a Call Was Answered In article andys@ulysses.att.com writes: >> Wouldn't reverse polarity make it impossible for me to talk to my home >> answering machine and office voice mail from a line-powered phone? As >> I recall, DTMF generators don't work under reverse polarity ... > It depends on *whose* DTMF generators you are using. :-) AT&T saved a > few cents and simply put a diode in series with the generator to > prevent reverse battery from damaging the electronics. Other > manufacturers (AE in particular) put a diode bridge around the > generator so that the polarity of the office battery was irrelevant. Mr. Couch, I just picked your message out to reply to, I hope you don't mind. I think AT&T may have had another reason than cost for not putting in a polarity guard. If I remember correctly, original operator system specs (TSPS vintage, say early 1970s) required being able to disable tone dials when connected to an operator. This eventually changed to being able to disable only tone dials on coin stations but by then the station manufacturing specs had probably changed. I don't know what AT&T does now on sets they manufacture themselves. Tim Gorman - SWBT *opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 19:36:55 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article Tim Gorman writes: > Again, the only way I know of to get answer supervision is to be > connected to the trunk side of the central office switch via a > DOD-type service. I believe some No. 1A ESS trunks could be set up to > simulate ground start service but I have never actually seen this > done. Pacific Bell has an option that provides for battery reversal on loop-start analog lines. It is available only on the DMS-100, and requires a special line card designed for this purpose. At least this was the story I heard from my Pacific Bell engineer friend as of a year or so ago. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 13:33:16 CST From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered Tony Harminc writes: > True, but for many years now phones have had a diode bridge that makes > polarity questions irrelevant. Phone jacks are often wired backwards > without anyone noticing for years. If the polarity LED on my test set is right probally 20% of subscriber loops in Alabama are reversed at one point, this includes my apartment and at least two campus phone lines. Marc T. Kaufman writes: > because a non-trivial number of extension cables (like some from Radio > Shack) reverse tip and ring between the plug ends. All telcom RJ-11/14/25 cables are supposed to be cross-pinned (pin 1 to pin 6, 2 to 5, 3 to 4). Any couplers, unigender T's , etc are also cross-pinned. Data cables are, on the other hand, straight pinned (ie pin 1 to pin 1). If the two ever mix you have a problem. Luckly most CPE equipiment is not polarity sensititive. Pat Turner pturner@eng.auburn.edu KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 17:28 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Determining if a Call Was Answered grayt@Software.Mitel.Com (Tom Gray) writes: > In article John Higdon com> writes: >> Why should anyone pay for custom calling? Hell, those features are >> turned on with a couple of keystrokes. What a rip! > This software cost money to write, test and support. > Someone has to pay the switch vendor so that it can pay for the > development of software. I would have thought that the sarcasm in my post about "keystroke-activated features" would have dripped out of anyone's terminal. But a number of email correspondents and this reader apparently missed my irony. I was incredulous that someone would actually believe that the cost of a feature (originally the ability to detect answer supervision) should somehow be based on the ease of which it is turned on or off. Please, I write software for a living. I do not need to be lectured on how much effort goes into "writing features". Obviously, an implied smiley is insufficient. Last time I was to the point and straight- forward in a post refuting someone, I was taken apart as being too sarcastic and insensitive. Now when I am unabashedly sarcastic, I am accused of being stupid :-) :-) :-) 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 V12 #74 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04511; 24 Jan 92 21:47 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07948 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 24 Jan 1992 19:35:22 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09757 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 24 Jan 1992 19:34:56 -0600 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1992 19:34:56 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201250134.AA09757@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #75 TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 Jan 92 19:34:51 CST Volume 12 : Issue 75 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Listening to the Called Phone Ringing (John Higdon) Re: Listening to the Called Phone Ringing (Peter da Silva) Re: Listening to the Called Phone Ringing (Bob Miller) Re: Listening to the Called Phone Ringing (Dave Levenson) Re: Listening to the Called Phone Ringing (Alan L. Varney) Re: Rotary Callers, Go Home! (Gordon D. Woods) Re: Rotary Callers, Go Home! (Alan L. Varney) Re: MCI Card With Voice Features (Bill Huttig) Re: AT&T Video-Phone References Wanted (Peter da Silva) Re: Reverse Directory Information (David E. Sheafer) Re: Zip + 6? (Bob Frankston) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 17:13 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Listening to the Called Phone Ringing Tony Harminc writes: > 2) Even if the equipment is capable, it isn't clear what the > advantages are of generating a local (caller's end) ringing tone. There is another problem: advisory recordings. Unless the called office can signal back to the originating office that the number is somehow special by being out of service, or changed, or whatever, the caller would never hear, "The number you have reached ...". These recordings do not supervise. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Listening to the Called Phone Ringing Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 12:48:51 GMT If this was the case (that the ring signal was generated by the remote CO) then you would expect the rings to be in sync (I heard three rings would imply they heard three rings). This hasn't been the case in my experience. Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480|1032 2400/n/8/1. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 07:03:44 PST From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: Listening to the Called Phone Ringing TONY@MCGILL1.BITNET (Tony Harminc) wrote: > When the called party answers, the voice path has to be connected in a > big hurry to avoid cutting off the first word or two. Is this not an opportunity for a technology solution: If the voice (what do you mean FAX or MODEM?) is digitized, could it not be stored and forwareded when the circuit is established? The few seconds delay could easily be caught up removing the natural silent pauses in a voice call, as is currently done in the fast replay mode of most voice-mail systems. Bob Miller - Digital Equipment of Canada Ltd. ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Listening to the Called Phone Ringing Date: 23 Jan 92 00:11:07 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , TONY@MCGILL1.BITNET (Tony Harminc) writes: > The SS7 signalling system does make provision for the local switch to > generate tones, but there are two reasons this doesn't happen too > often: > 2) Even if the equipment is capable, it isn't clear what the > advantages are of generating a local (caller's end) ringing tone. > When the called party answers, the voice path has to be connected in a > big hurry to avoid cutting off the first word or two. This... There may, in fact, be an advantage to using a local call-progress tone even for ringing calls. If there are a large number of calls being set up, only a fraction of them will ever be answered. I don't know the statistics here, but I'm sure someone at the telco does. If right now we are setting up 100 call attempts between this CO and that one, and if we know that about half of them will be answered, then we don't need to allocate 100 voice trunks. We need to allocate 50 voice trunks, or perhaps 75 of them, to allow for a statistical aberration. We provide a locally-generated audible ring signal, and we ring the far end. When someone at the far end answers, we physically connect one of the 75 allocated trunks. How does this help? It means that a trunk group may be sized a little smaller for a given traffic load. There is a cost savings here. How does it hurt? It means that the signalling channel and the switches at both ends need to be fast, or that a speech channel may not exist at the moment the called end goes off-hook. But there is already a delay at that point -- perhaps a half-second or so -- while ring-trip is detected and the ringing generator is disconnected, and the ringback tone is disconnected, and the talkers are connected ... The only thing that changes is where this activity takes place. Does anybody know if the telcos do this today? 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: Thu, 23 Jan 92 10:46:39 CST From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: Listening to the Called Phone Ringing Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article TONY@MCGILL1.BITNET (Tony Harminc) writes: > dklur@attmail.com wrote: >> When I dial a phone number and hear the called party's phone "ring", >> I am really hearing tones generated by my local switch, right? > Generally the ringing tone you hear is generated by the distant CO and > sent back to you on the same voice path that will be used when the > called party answers. > The SS7 signalling system does make provision for the local switch to > generate tones, The SS7 protocol for trunk signaling doesn't have a means of telling the originating (or an intermediate) switch to provide Audible Ring. An exception is ISDN-to-ISDN connections (SS7 does provide transport of the end-to-end message indicating call progress), where audible tones are avoided where possible. SS7 typically generates tones or announcements at the local originating CO (or an intermediate Tandem) only at the END of a call, simultaneously releasing the outgoing trunk. Note that there are weird exceptions, but they all involve cases where the terminating station is no longer capable of answering the call. > but there are two reasons this doesn't happen too often: > 1) The chances of the entire connection being SS7 end-to-end are not > yet very high. This is changing. Depends on where you are -- as examples that aren't revealing anything new, New Jersey Bell is about 100% SS7 for normal intra-LATA calls, the Atlanta LATA (or is it the Atlanta free calling area?:-) ) is mostly SS7. Except for Illinois Bell, most places that are offering CLASS over the whole LATA are primarily SS7. (IBT has pockets of old offices they feel are un-economical to upgrade). The difference is noticeable when you go to an MF-only area after using SS7 for a while. Canada and elsewhere have their own reasons for deploying SS7 with different schedules. > 2) Even if the equipment is capable, it isn't clear what the > advantages are of generating a local (caller's end) ringing tone. I agree with the (deleted) reason for ALWAYS providing audible at the distant CO (or PBX, etc): cut-through requirements. Also, there is a matter of engineering audible tone circuits in the originating office separately from engineering power ringing circuits. How do you anticipate the number of originating calls needing "local" audible vs. those receiving "far-end" audible?? John Higdon (john@zygot.ati.com) also wrote (in a later article): > There is another problem: advisory recordings. Unless the called > office can signal back to the originating office that the number is > somehow special by being out of service, or changed, or whatever, the > caller would never hear, "The number you have reached ...". These > recordings do not supervise. Even if the originating office DID provide "local" audible, it would only do so if the distant office told it to do so. SS7 does provide several cases where the distant office can indicate call failure conditions to the originating office, and those release the trunk connections. "No Circuit", "No Route to Destination" and others are typically handled this way. INTERCEPT is still treated locally because (in most cases) only the INTERCEPT system (AIS, etc.) knows the correct announcement (reason) for the condition. But lack of supervision on such recordings/tones, or on operator access for that matter, is NOT preventing audible ringing from being done "locally" -- there are just other reasons for not doing it. > Busy signals are another matter, however. It makes great sense to > have the distant end send back a "busy" message without ever setting > up the voice path. Then you can listen to the locally generated busy > signal all day if you like, without occupying a valuable trunk across > town or the world. (There are some who think this isn't entirely a GOOD THING.) > I've noticed on calls from here (Toronto) to the UK that in the last > year or so, busy signals are being generated locally. Curiously, at > least part of the voice path seems to get set up (slight background > noise), then there is a click, the noise goes away, and the normal > Canadian busy signal comes on. The voice path is partially set up at the same time the SS7 signaling message is sent to the next office in the call path. The indication to release the connection and provide "busy" tone may reach the originating CO several tenths of a second later. If you get clicks on local calls, they will probably be there for the "distant busy" case also. Al Varney -- NOT speaking officially or unofficially for AT&T ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 09:56:50 EST From: gdw@gummo.att.com (Gordon D Woods) Subject: Re: Rotary Callers, Go Home! Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , by kentrox!bud@uunet.uu. net (Bud Couch) writes: > In article strieterd@gtephx.UUCP (Dave > Strieter) writes: >> Several Digest readers have commented that it is cheaper for the telco >> to provide DTMF than rotary pulse dialing, but I fail to understand >> how they come to that conclusion. I can't speak for the 5ESS or >> DMS-100, but on the GTD-5 dial pulses are counted by software which >> monitors the output of an opto-coupler device connected to each line, >> whereas DTMF tones must be decoded by a more-expensive circuit which >> feeds the decoded digits to the software. How does "more expensive" = >> "costs less"? As a digital loop carrier (DLC) designer, I can say that extra circuitry must be added to individual line channel units just to support pulse dialing. Some of the items include: more sophisticated loop current detectors to avoid pulse distortion (Plain off hook is relatively easy.), pulse correction circuits, and fast response signaling bits in the PCM bitstream (The effective bandwidth of the signalling channel could be reduced if we didn't have pulse dialing). Modern DLCs will do digit collection in the remote terminal under Bellcore's new TR303 and adding digit collection registers at a remote site is very expensive so holding time is important. In the exchange plant, much of the same circuitry must be added to, admittedly ancient, analog trunk interfaces. The complex DX signalling arrangement was invented just to handle dial pulse distortion over long copper pairs. There's pulse loop repeating (PLR) signalling to transfer dial pulses to PBXs for rotary dial into a PBX. What a nightmare! They should charge for rotary NOT tone dialing. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 17:17:14 CST From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: Rotary Callers, Go Home! Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) writes: > In article strieterd@gtephx.UUCP (Dave > Strieter) writes: >> ... whereas DTMF tones must be decoded by a more-expensive circuit >> which feeds the decoded digits to the software. How does "more >> expensive" = "costs less"? > Simple enough. In the old days it was holding time on the registers; > so that for a given level of service, you needed more registers for DP > than for DTMF. On the GTD-5, it's scan time on the CPU that is saved. You're correct, but don't forget that while the switch is scanning for the DTMF tones, it must ALSO be scanning for dial pulse. (At least until the first digit is received). Every DTMF receiver must also be equipped with all the dial pulse circuits, scan points, etc. So the DTMF receiver is at least as expensive as dial pulse, and until the first digit is received, the CPU must expend MORE cycles for DTMF than for dial pulse. And as for other features being "free" to the TELCo ("because they're already in a Modern Switch"), note that most features cost CPU cycles, memory, memory backup, as well as the "extra cost" from the switch vendor. A feature that consumes 100 bytes/line on 80K lines takes up 8M bytes; multiply that by 5-10 features and we're talking a lot of memory. And in some switches, feature "penetration" beyond some percentage of anticipated lines/numbers would reduce the number of customers capable of existing on the switch. This could cause 80K-line COs to be split into two 40K-line COs, at increased trunking, administrative and maintenance costs. Someone has to pay for all this, no? Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems (AT&T is not responsible for any opinions expressed above.) ------------------------------ From: wah@zach.fit.edu ( Bill Huttig) Subject: Re: MCI Card With Voice Features Date: 22 Jan 92 02:43:03 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article sew7490@ultb.rit.edu (S.E. Williams) writes: > a source for my report, and I'm getting one of those new cards. I'd While your at it ask for the promo offer of trading in cards from other IEC's ... trade in up to four old calling card numbers for four hours of LD on MCI. > By the way, does anyone know if MCI customers with the 'old' cards > will be receiving new ones in the mail, or will they have to call and > ask? Not sure but this is one of the steps in merging the old TELECOM*USA and OLD MCI into the 'new' MCI system. Bill ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: AT&T Video-Phone References Wanted Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 04:03:05 GMT In article totsuka@cs.stanford.edu (Takashi Totsuka) writes: > I heard that AT&T has made a telephone system which can send 128x128 > images at 10 frames/sec via ordinary phone line. 128 * 128 * 10 163840 Kbps That's some compression scheme, since it's about five times the maximum data rate of a shannon modem, and nearly ten times the data rate of the best real modem I know of. Even at 1 bit per pixel. If it's greyscale that's even worse. I hate to think of the quality of the received image. Yeh, what he said. Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480|1032 2400/n/8/1. ------------------------------ From: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu (David E. Sheafer) Subject: Re: Reverse Directory Information Date: 21 Jan 92 19:24:01 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA In article , stewarta@sco.COM (Stewart I. Alpert) writes: > Can anyone point me towards a source for reverse directory > information? I'd like to find a way to trace a name/address given a > phone number. There is a 900 number which offers this service. Dial 1-900 884-1212 and enter phone number, and it will return the name and address that owns the phone number. Charges are 1.50 1st minute, .75 each additional minute. I have never used this service myself. David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: Zip + 6? Date: Tue 21 Jan 1992 12:14 -0500 I've resisted the urge to respond, but I feel I must point at that the check digit in the barcode is utterly irrelevent. It is no more significant to me, as a user, than the fact that the computers they use (might) have ECC (Error Correcting Codes). It means is that if I transpose two digits in the PO Box number, then the letter will wind up in the wrong place, just more reliably. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #75 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05510; 24 Jan 92 22:24 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11117 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 24 Jan 1992 20:13:52 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12747 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 24 Jan 1992 20:13:35 -0600 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1992 20:13:35 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201250213.AA12747@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #76 TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 Jan 92 20:13:23 CST Volume 12 : Issue 76 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Prices Go Up (David E. A. Wilson) Re: PIC's From RBOC Payphones (David G. Lewis) Re: PIC's From RBOC Payphones (Tim Gorman) Re: I Couldn't Get AT&T From Payphone (Randal L. Schwartz) Re: Changes With Michigan Bell (Marc Unangst) Re: Line Tie Devices (Chris Arndt) Re: Info Services? Keep Them Banned! (Jim Gottlieb) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: Cellular Prices Go Up Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 01:02:23 GMT stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > The concept of a "low volume" user is something I'd definately agree > with. In fact, I think it would be in the cellular companies' best > interest to provide this. Since maintaining the account in the > computer costs virtually nothing to provide, even a $5 or $10 a month > charge is almost all profit. And I think they would get a lot of > people to sign up for this if they offered it. Here in Australia we have such a Cellular Plan/Tariff. If you make no calls and only answer the mobile phone during off peak hours you can have a mobile phone for only $155/annum ($200 for the first year). It appears that if you have plan 20 or 10 it is possible for both parties to be charged for a call to the mobile phone. 1) Common Charges: Connection: $45 Dept of Transport & Communications Licence Fee: $35/annum Reconnection after non-payment of bill: $30 Temporary disconnection at customer request: $20 Charges involving customer option changes: $15 Itemised statement of call charges: No charge Statement of itemised IDD or diversion: No charge 2) Charges for calls from a mobile phone: (first 30 seconds/additional 30 seconds) Plan Name Access Peak Off Peak <=165km >165km <=165km >165km Standard $40/month 29c/19c 40c/30c 14.5c/9.5c 20c/15c 130 $130/month 250min/mon 158min/mon 500min/mon 316min/mon free free free free or any combination of above. Additional minutes charged at Standard rate. 80 $80/month 150min/mon 95 min/mon 300min/mon 190min/mon @ 10c/min @ 15.8c/min @ 5c/min @7.9c/min or any combination of above. Additional minutes charged at Standard rate. 20 $20/month 58c/38c 80c/60c 29c/19c 40c/30c Calls to the mobile phone are charged to the mobile phone at Standard Rate. 10 $10/month 87c/57c 120c/90c 14.5c/9.5c 20c/15c Calls to the mobile phone are charged to the mobile phone at TWICE Standard Rate during peak hours, no charge during off peak hours. 3) Charges for calls to a mobile phone (from non-mobile phone): Distance Peak charge Off peak <=165km 24c/37sec (~39c/min) std STD discounts >165km 24c/23.6sec (~61c/min) std STD discounts 4) IDD, 008, 0055 & Operator assisted calls These are charged at public network rates plus a MobileNet surcharge of 20c for the first 30 sec and 10c for each additional 30 sec (off peak half this rate). David Wilson (042) 21 3802 voice, (042) 21 3262 fax Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: PIC's From RBOC Payphones Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 01:25:20 GMT In article Eric_Florack.Wbst311@ xerox.com writes: > A number of people, in private notes to me here and at home, have > noted that part of the problem is that AT&T is supposedly the only > company that's been willing to invest in inter-exhange signalling > equipment (ahem) Feature Group D trunks incorporate interexchange signaling equipment; the original reference was to LATA access to provide coin-sent-paid call handling, which is a very specialized subset of interexchange signaling. > The fact of the matter is; that AT&T is currently taking positions > against SWBT, and a few others being allowed to carry inter-LATA > signalling, even inside of their service areas. Others, like US WEST, > have been pressing to consolidate signal traffic to six signal > transfer points. AT&T insists that an STP in every LATA is required. The issue you're referring to here, if I read what you've said right, consists of one or more rulings of one or more bodies regarding SS7 signaling interconnection -- which is another, currently very specialized subset of interexchange signaling. Let's try to not confuse the two issues. Fact 1: The current ruling is that interexchange carriers which wish to interconnect with LECs in a given LATA must have a signaling point of presence in that LATA connected to a LEC signaling point in that LATA. I don't recall offhand just *who's* ruling that is; I've misplaced the scorecard I use to keep track of all the regulatory players. I do recall it directly affects SWBT, and don't recall the effect on other LECs. This, to my tired memory, implies it may be a Texas or Missouri PSC ruling, but I wouldn't come close to swearing to it. Fact 2: In at least some states, LECs are permitted to carry signaling traffic across LATA boundaries, *provided the bearer facilities that are being signaled do not cross LATA boundaries.* Concrete example: NJBell has an STP in Freehold. Freehold is in the North New Jersey LATA. The Freehold STP is permitted to carry signaling traffic between two COs in the South New Jersey LATA (I don't know if that's the name; whatever LATA is down around Cape May). There *are* no NJB facilities between South and North Jersey LATAs, so signaling is moot; since South to North Jersey would be an Inter-LATA call, the call must be carried via an IXC, and any facilities crossing LATA boundaries would be owned by the IXC and therefore signaled by the IXC. The accepted interpretation of Fact 1 is that, if the method of SS7 interconnection is quad D-links between STP pairs, then yes, two STPs would be required by every LEC and every IXC in every LATA where SS7 interconnection is offered/purchased. If the method of SS7 interconnection is dual A-links from the EAEO or AT to the IXC STP, than the IXC would be required to have two STPs in every LATA. Similarly, if it's dual A-links to the LEC STP, the LEC would be required to have two STPs in every LATA. I am not in a position (either professionally, personally, morally, ethically, legally, or otherwise) to represent, state, comment on, or otherwise make any reference to AT&T's position before various regulatory agencies and courts; however, I would like to see us at least argue about the same question ... > If the ruling comes down here in AT&T's favor, here, it would > seem to require also, that each of the ILDC's also must have an STP in > each LATA. As I said above, the current ruling implies that every IXC and LEC, including AT&T, would have to have an STP pair in every LATA to get SS7 signaling interconnection via quad D-links. > This would prove to be a vast cost advantage to AT&T, since > their signalling is already up and running "Up and running" is a very vague term; MCI, US Sprint, and NJ Bell also have SS7 "up and running". Yes, AT&T has SS7 on line; Yes, AT&T has STPs deployed; no, AT&T does not have STP pairs in each and every LATA in the US. How many STP pairs we have and where they are is probably proprietary information; suffice to say it's more than one and less than 237 or however many LATAs there are ... > and since they have been very effective at blocking other companies, > be they ILDC's or locals,(RBHC or otherwise) from dealing with STP's > in a cost-effective manner. I don't understand this comment at all. You're obviously not referring to the price of the No.2STP, since I don't think anyone but us buys it. What control does AT&T have over the deployment of MCI's, US Sprint's, or LEC X's STPs? Anyway, this thread originally dealt with 1 + CSP calls, and SS7 interconnection (as Tim Gorman noted) is pretty much totally unrelated to 1 + CSP signaling. If we're discussing the willingness of IXCs other than AT&T to handle 1 + CSP calls, let's not get tied up into a discussion of the legal and regulatory ramifications of various rulings on SS7 interconnection. If we want to discuss the legal and regulatory aspects of SS7 interconnection, I'll politely bow out because I've probably already said enough to get myself a nastygram from the AT&T regulatory folks ... Denying I know anything about regulatory aspects of all the stuff I come in contact with, I remain ... David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 92 14:13:33 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: PIC's From RBOC Payphone Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com writes in TELECOM Digest V12 #64: > The fact of the matter is; that AT&T is currently taking positions > against SWBT, and a few others being allowed to carry inter-LATA > signalling, even inside of their service areas. Others, like US WEST, > have been pressing to consolidate signal traffic to six signal > transfer points. AT&T insists that an STP in every lata is required. I'm not sure, but we may be talking about two different subjects here. Most of the 1+ coin arguments were made in late 1990/early 1991. Extending coin signaling capabilities to the carriers doesn't involve carrying signaling information across LATA boundaries. I suspect what is being addressed in Mr. Florack's message is SS7 network interconnect arrangements between the carriers and the RBOCs. Since operator services are not yet SS7 compatible (if operator functionality is to be maintained end-to-end anyway), they would not be impacted. On the matter of SS7, the requirement for the RBOC's to have an STP in every LATA would not require the carriers to have one per LATA. They would merely have to have a signaling point of presence in each LATA. From the "SPOP" (is that a valid acronym?) they could haul the interconnecting B or D links to a single STP located some distance away. I am sure there is a distance limitation due to phase jitter, delay, and other impairments, but I don't know what it is. This would be a network limitation anyway, not an implementation limitation. Other than this I am not informed enough yet to address the various issues concerning signal interfaces per LATA versus signal interfaces per network. tim ------------------------------ From: merlyn@iWarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Subject: Re: I Couldn't Get AT&T From Payphone Reply-To: merlyn@iWarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 01:58:44 GMT In article , Barton.Bruce@camb (Barton F. Bruce) writes: > AT&T has chosen to comply by providing an 800, not a 950 number. > When using it, you will have to be patient, because AT&T will ask > questions and WILL BE COLLECTING info on the site! When their database > 'knows' about the site, there will be less delay. You can just BET > AT&T makes sure the FCC is promptly notified! Six months is Feb 9. Hmm. Even if the "site" is "any customer served by GTE-northwest?". That's a pretty big site. For those of you not aware of it, GTE in this area *still* does not offer 10XXX access from *home* phones. Maybe in 2051, or something like that. :-) But, it's nice to know that I soon will be able to select AT&T from my home phone, even if it is at calling card rates (ugh). "Not all access is equal access". Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn ------------------------------ From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) Subject: Re: Changes With Michigan Bell Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 04:49:38 GMT In article jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma) writes: > now a phone company option. Michigan Bell is now billing per call for > every call over 400 at 6.2 cents per call. I'm told that the average This is, as far as I know, not true -- yet. I called Michigan Bell just a couple days ago (their "Home Service" number) and asked what the procedure was for obtaining a non-profit exemption. The Michigan Bell representative replied that the bill had been recalled by the PSC for review, and would not be going into effect for at least another couple months -- and when it did, information would be enclosed with the bill regarding how to obtain exemptions. Now, this sounded a bit fishy to me, so I called back 15 minutes later and got a different person, who gave the same information. So, for the moment, I'm willing to believe it ... I guess I'll find out for sure when my bill comes for this month, since mudos makes over 2000 calls per month. Marc Unangst mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us ...!sharkey!mudos!mju ------------------------------ From: carndt@nike.calpoly.edu (Chris Arndt) Subject: Re: Line Tie Devices Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 21:07:09 PST Well, shoot. I said ... ... good stuff by me deleted ... > You plug the two lines into the RA330. On receiving a call on the > incoming line, the 330 ring trips and presents dial tone. Punch in one > of ten four digit security codes and you get three short > acknowledgement beeps and dial tone on the second line. DTMF dial > away. #* will reorder dial tone to place multiple calls without having > to dial back in. ## disconnects for good. ... and then after some more deleted stuff, Pat said ... > [Moderator's Note: But only ten codes of four digits each is no > security! All anyone would have to do is look at one of the units and > note the limited number of combinations ... then call in to your line > and try all ten looking for the one you selected. Now if if you could > set your own four/five digit code with pinwheels on the unit you'd > have a better system. PAT] I skipped a lot of features of the Melco RA330 in my attempt at brevity. To clarify, the RA330 also has a programming jack that accepts a standard DTMF phone. Thru that jack, you can program the ten security codes, and ten programmers codes. This allows a certain amount of flexibility and convenience. In the event one of the users quits, or is fired, or the code gets out, you only have to change one number , and not inconvenience the other users. Some quick math will show that there is a total of 10,000 possible security codes. It has 45 minutes of memory backup for power fail, and a reset and default button to restore factory settings if no one knows the current codes. Along with the disconnect (##) and reorder (#*) codes, #0 does a hook flash on the accessed line. There is also a service observation jack if this is used in that type of setting. There are six LED indicators to show line and unit status, and a build- out circuit for the rare instance of 'singing' or feedback between lines. Sorry I didn't say all this before. Chris [Moderator's Note: In other words, there can be up to ten active security codes of four digits each at any given time ... that is a bit different than I thought ... and better security. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 14:40 JST From: jimmy@tokyo07.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) Subject: Re: Info Services? Keep Them Banned! Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan Eric Florack writes: > 1: There can be no fairness in service, prices, and quality of service > when the info carrier is also the info provider. Anyone seeking to > provide informational services, when TELCO was doing that would be hit > with price structures that would place the NON-telco info provider > with non-competitive pricing, and therefore make such providing a > non-viable option to business owners who want to get into that area. A friend who runs a voice-mail service has similar problems now that Pac*Bell runs their own voice mail. P*B has even now assigned all voice mail companies to a special business office division, and then announced that they were removing most of the staff from that office because they "predict falling demand". That business office is now so understaffed that it can take quite a while just to get a callback from a representative to take an order. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan Fax: +81 3 3865 9424 Voice Mail: +81 3 3865 3548 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #76 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07792; 24 Jan 92 23:44 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17955 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 24 Jan 1992 21:37:13 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19340 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 24 Jan 1992 21:36:38 -0600 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1992 21:36:38 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201250336.AA19340@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #77 TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 Jan 92 21:36:34 CST Volume 12 : Issue 77 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: *611 and *711 Calls Are Free (Doctor Math) Re: AT&T $20 Cash Offer (Dan Meyer) Re: AT&T $20 Cash Offer (John A. Weeks III) Re: AT&T Long Distance Rates (Jack Dominey) Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM (Paul Selig, Jr.) Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM (Jack Decker) Re: MacNeil/Lehrer Report on Phone System Risks (Dennis Blyth) Re: MacNeil/Lehrer Report on Phone System Risks (Phillip Dampier) Re: MacNeil/Lehrer Report on Phone System Risks (Tom Streeter) ATT and GTE Long Distance Anecdote (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 01:11:16 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department Subject: Re: *611 and *711 Calls Are Free? johng.all_proj@mot.com (John) writes: > Some models of Motorola phones will allow you to display the system > number. My Dynatac 6800XL mobile will do it as a normal user feature. Does the phone have to be activated for this to work? It seems like if someone wants to program their own phone and they need the SID, they would have to get it without the phone being activated. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 18:42:25 CST From: rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer) Subject: Re: AT&T $20 Cash Offer Hello again, Today, I recieved my current MCI bill. This prompted me to check and see who my LD carrier was. It is (as of 1/21/92) MCI. I also used my MCI card over the weekend, so that is fine now also. The question, however, remains -- why is it that US West cannot process my personal request to change LD carriers? I also got a note from AT&T today telling me how nice it was of me to take them up on their offer. Dan Meyer UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!rambler INET: rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org [Moderator's Note: See the next message. I think the reason they WOULD NOT (rather than could not) change you is because of your signed agreement with AT&T -- the valid contract you entered. PAT] ------------------------------ From: plains!umn-cs!kksys!wd0gol!newave!john (John A. Weeks III) Subject: Re: AT&T $20 Cash Offer Date: 22 Jan 92 03:09:59 GMT Reply-To: plains!umn-cs!wd0gol!newave!john (John A. Weeks III) Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN In article rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer) writes: > Well, I thought about my little plan for a month, and around New > Year's figured what the heck, and deposited the check. A few weeks > later, my long distance company was AT&T. Time to call US West and > get things fixed up. Tuesday, January 14, the lady at the business > office said that she would forward the problem to repair service and > that I would be switched to MCI by 7 pm the 15th. No such luck. > The morning of the 15, someone from US West called me at work, and > stated that there was no way that they could accomadate me. I had nearly the same thing happen with the same parties involved. I had the MCI Northwest Airlines calling plan where you get frequent flyer points for each long distance call. I was slammed in by ATT in March. I called MCI, and was connected back to MCI. I was then slammed again in April by ATT. After calling both MCI and USWest for about three months, MCI gave up and issued me a $30 "gift" credit for my trouble and said that there was probably no way that I could have my MCI service restored because USWest was unable to honor MCI's or my request to have my MCI service restored. At one point, USWest said I was listed as an MCI customer, yet I was still getting billed by ATT, and 1-700-555-1212 still reported me as being connected to ATT. I was getting eight to ten calls per week over the course of four months from ATT asking me to switch before I was slammed. I have not received a single call from ATT since I was slammed, in fact, I have not recevied _any_ calls from long distance companies since I was last slammed by ATT. One thoery that I have heard is that USWest refuses to honor long distance service changes for six months if you have changed "too many times" in too short a period of time. (Just a rumor ...) John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications, Ltd. ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john [Moderator's Note: The way I heard the rumor was that the local telcos and the long distance carriers have gotten their act together a little better and are somewhat coordinated now to avoid the problems with slamming by carriers and fraud by potential customers which had been so prevalent in the past. I do know AT&T and MCI had a summit on this very topic the last time they resolved out of court one of their numerous suits against each other. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Wed Jan 22 09:27:13 EST 1992 Subject: Correction - Re: AT&T Long Distance Rates The tariff page I sent to the Digest a few days ago, quoting AT&T's standard long distance rates, is OUT OF DATE. The revisions that have gone through since then are not large, but the rates now in effect are not exactly what I posted. My thanks to Steve Forrette, whose response led me to investigate further and discover my error. His posting of rates quoted by AT&T operators IS correct, and I believe I can explain why. For example, Steve pointed out in Digest #67 that the AT&T operator quoted the following rates for a call from Seattle (206-324) to Van Nuys CA (818-988) First minute additional minutes Day $.24 $.25 Eve $.15 $.16 N/W $.13 $.14 In an earlier message, I had posted a page from AT&T's FCC Tariff #1, showing different numbers (particularly $.1496/$.1496 for the evening segment). After confirming with an operator the rates Steve was quoted, I began investigating further. Item #1. The tariff page I posted, dated July 1, 1991, is out of date. The current date is either December, 1991 or January, 1992. Item #2. Checking a different, more up-to-date system produced the following rates for the call Steve and I inquired about: First minute additional minutes Day $.2460 $.2460 Eve $.1520 $.1520 N/W $.1331 $.1331 Item #3. I confirmed with an operator that the system their system provides only the two-digit numbers that Steve and I got. My speculation: The rate-quote system is deliberately programmed to round *down* the first minute and round *up* additional minutes. The one-minute rounding may be per tariff; I haven't been able to locate it. Rounding up for additional minutes is probably a "safety" measure. It ensures that the customer will never be billed *more* than the expected amount, and will often be billed less. (I am trying to find someone who can confirm this. No luck just yet.) I will submit the most recent tariffed rates as soon as I can grab an electronic copy. Thanks again to Steve Forrette, for prodding me to set this matter straight, and also to Pat and the Digest audience for your patience. Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA +1 404 496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey or !bsga05!jdominey ------------------------------ From: selig@gwm.serenity.org Subject: Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM Organization: Serenity, Inc., Dayton, Ohio Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 03:59:09 GMT > [Moderator's Note: In the olden days, when telco was 'probing your > line to measure ringer current' it was to see how many extensions were > on the line versus what you were paying for. Does anyone remember > those days, when there was such a thing as an 'illegal extension'? PAT] This reminds me of a funny story of my youth. I grew up in Cleveland, OH, in an Ohio Bell exchange, and my father had a rotary set "illegally connected" to our line. It was well hidden in our basement, behind the furnace, and was usually disconnected at night. Somehow, the telco found out about it and paid a visit to our house demanding to know about the "illegal telephone device". Of course, my father denied having anything connected to the line. When the telco representative demanded to know where the set was, I chimed in "But Daddy, you have the extra phone hidden in the basement behind the furnace!!!" I got this "shut up, kid" look from my dad, and a smile from the telco representative. I don't know what charges or penalties were incurred because of this incident. I think this was around 1971, when I was about four years old. Paul Selig, Jr. selig@gwm.serenity.org Serenity, Inc. ...!uunet!dayvb!udcps3!gwm!selig ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 17:20:35 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM I also recall that it was fairly common knowledge even among the non-technically-minded that if you disconnected the ringer in an extension phone, the phone company couldn't tell it was there. When I was a teenager (around 1970) the word got around somehow that I knew how to hook up and/or fix phones, and I was actually surprised to find how many people in our neighborhood had "illegal" extensions connected to their lines. For some reason older Automatic Electric phones seemed to be the instrument of choice, which was fortunate because at the time A-E would send free technical notes (including schematics) on their phones to anyone who knew where to write, provided you knew the document number to ask for. Of course, the technically-minded upon us would buy surplus phones from places like Olsen Electronics (now defunct) or Surplus Center (out of Lincoln, Nebraska). I discovered a good source, Bohnsack Equipment Company in Germantown, New York. I don't know if any of these places are still in business, though I suspect the latter two may be. The surplus phones were of various makes and conditions ... a friend of mine got one from Olsen and complained that it must have come out of someone's barn because the mouthpiece smelled like horse manure! Anyway, I can't think of a single friend from high school that did NOT have an extension phone (that the phone company didn't know about) in either their room or their basement, or both (no, I didn't hook them up for them, most managed to figure it out on their own. Of course, I ran with a pretty technically-literate crowd!). One trick that some of the techie types used to use was to disconnect the bell in the phone, but then hang a NE-2H neon lamp (with suitable resistor) across the line, and rig it up so that the neon light triggered a photocell/relay combination, which would in turn provide power to a bell, buzzer, chime or whatever. Of course, the neon lamp/resistor combination drew so little current (in comparison to a phone ringer) that it was virtually undetectable to phone company testing equipment (it would have been like trying to detect a drop of water added to a swimming pool). I think that at some point even the phone company must have realized that charging for extensions was a losing battle ... if the phone company actually managed to discover such an extension, folks would deny it (and maybe disconnect it for a week or two), or just outright refuse to pay. Of course the company COULD legally disconnect the phone service of those with "illegal" extensions, and often threatened to, but in actual practice rarely did (in the case of residential users, anyway). Anyway, your comment brought a touch of nostalgia ... those were the days! :-) Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: Dennis Blyth Subject: Re: MacNeil/Lehrer Report on Phone System Risks Date: 22 Jan 92 14:34:42 GMT Reply-To: Dennis Blyth Organization: Europe Group Dayton [Previous post provided description of the tv news report on phone system risks on MacNeil/Lehrer Report on PBS.] Observation: the MacNeil/Lehrer Report on PBS is funded in part (large part, IMHO) by AT&T. Dennis.Blyth@daytonoh.ncr.com Warning: I do have an some interest in AT&T! (1) AT&T owns NCR (2) My daughter's 'college fund' has some AT&T stock (3) It is an 'American' company, and all of us USA citizens have an interest in seeing our firms successfully compete in the world market! ------------------------------ From: Phillip.Dampier@p0.f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Date: 22 Jan 92 13:10:23 Subject: Re: MacNeil/Lehrer Report on Phone System Risks In a message written by 0005000102@mcimail.com (Randall C Gellens): > If you missed it live, you can order a transcript or a videotape. I > forget the address for transcripts ($4), but the videotape number is > (800) 328-PBS-1 (no price mentioned). (I have no connection with > PBS or MacNeil/Lehrer). Prices for video transcripts are $29.95, quite steep in my opinion. Apparently most of these transcripts on video end up being sold to these "think tanks" and other interest groups, and I'm sure PBS gains some financial benefits from the arrangement to help pay for the programming. Written transcripts are available from Strictly Business, P.O. Box 12803, Overland Park, KS 66212 (913) 649-6381. Prices are $23.00 for fax transcripts sent within ten minutes of your call, $7.00 for the first mailed transcript, $4.00 each additional. They take phone orders with all the major credit cards. Of course, beyond the pledges I sent PBS, I have no affiliation with them or Strictly Business. Phillip M. Dampier Rochester, New York phillip@rochgte.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: streeter@cs.unca.edu (Tom Streeter) Subject: Re: MacNeil/Lehrer Report on Phone System Risks Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 20:36:12 GMT In article 0005000102@mcimail.com (Randall C Gellens) writes: > The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour for Monday, January 20 contains a report > (about twenty minutes or so in length) on the risks of the phone > system ten years after the breakup. It includes the fire at the > Chicago POP of all three carriers, the power failure in New York, the > spate of software-induced outages, and lots more. Interviewed are > executives from AT&T, MCI, and Sprint (the Sprint and MCI execs say > how scared they were when the New York power failure hit, because if > it could happen to AT&T it could happen to them), workers talking > about staff cutbacks, FCC officials, Congressmen, phone users, and > others. It includes footage of hearings, shots of a 4ESS, fiber > trenching, and horrendous amounts of cable inside a switching center. What I found interesting in this report was the ommission of the fact that the power failure in the New York CO was not unexpected. The report implied that the power failure was of the garden variety and that an improbable series of events caused the system breakdown. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the CO asked to switch to internal power by Con Edison? If I'm remembering the chain of events correctly, it gives the story a different flavor: AT&T knows a power failure is going to occur, but procedures and equipment don't work as they should. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to suggest that the story should try to make AT&T look particularly bad or anything, but it seems that if they're going to tell the story, they should tell the whole story. This is one of those things that make you wonder ... (Gee, AT&T is a *huge* underwriter of MacNeil/Lehrer) ... nah, the world doesn't work that way ... does it? Tom Streeter | streeter@cs.unca.edu Dept. of Mass Communication | 704-251-6227 University of North Carolina at Asheville | Opinions expressed here are Asheville, NC 28804 | mine alone. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 10:37:40 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: ATT and GTE Long Distance Anecdote The Moderator notes sometime problems in reaching a new area code. Is that why 301/410 permissive dialing is so long (one year)? (In 301/410 split, Baltimore, which is big enough to make the distinction between city and suburban exchange, is getting the new area code because the DC area takes precedence w/r to keeping the old one.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #77 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08536; 25 Jan 92 0:10 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21719 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 24 Jan 1992 22:10:44 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04079 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 24 Jan 1992 22:10:18 -0600 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1992 22:10:18 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201250410.AA04079@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #78 TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 Jan 92 22:10:00 CST Volume 12 : Issue 78 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ISDN Uses Hayes Patent, IMHO (Toby Nixon) Re: ISDN Uses Hayes Patent, IMHO (Marvin Sirbu via Andy Sherman) Re: ISDN Uses Hayes Patent, IMHO (Dave Platt) Re: Hayes Announces ISDN Extender for NeXT Computers (Toby Nixon) Re: CCITT Standards and Recommendations (Toby Nixon) Re: Mu-law, A-law (Charles Hoequist) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: ISDN Uses Hayes Patent, IMHO Date: 22 Jan 92 18:11:46 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , nelson@cheetah.ece.clarkson. edu (Russ Nelson) writes: > In my reading of U.S. Patent 4,549,302, and ANSI Standard T.601-1988, > it seems as if the latter requires the use of the former. > [Moderator's Note: Very interesting analysis. Would anyone from Hayes > care to comment? What about the folks who developed ISDN? PAT] I'm from Hayes, but I wouldn't care to comment, since matters pertaining to the Heatherington patent are in litigation. I have sent a copy of this message to Hayes' legal department, and will pass along any public response that they offer. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | BBS +1-404-446-6336 AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15 USA | Internet tnixon@hayes.com ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: ISDN Uses Hayes Patent, IMHO Date: Thu, 23 Jan 92 10:41:47 EST A colleague of mine dug this off of the tcp-isdn mailing list in response to the Telecom posting about ISDN and the Hayes patent. I've deleted his characterization of the original post ... 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, 22 Jan 1992 12:12:39 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu To: tcp-isdn@list.prime.com Subject: Re: ISDN Uses Hayes Patent, IMHO. The signalling scheme used by ISDN NT equipment to change modes -- a break in the DC current -- is similar to how rotary dial telephones signal a switch that they are dialing a number. This technique is thus more than 70 years old, and is certainly not covered by the Hayes patent. The key feature of the Hayes patent is not that modes are changed -- signals have been doing that for years (e.g. off-hook vs on-hook); rather it is the encoding of the signal and the method for distinguishing the escape sequence from data. ANSI 601 does not use anything like the Hayes method for recognizing an escape sequence. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jan 92 11:09:04 PST From: dplatt@ntg.com (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: ISDN Uses Hayes Patent, IMHO Organization: New Technologies Group, Inc. Palo Alto CA In article is written: > In my reading of U.S. Patent 4,549,302, and ANSI Standard T.601-1988, > it seems as if the latter requires the use of the former. I have > included the relevent sections below. Obviously, this only applies to > the US market. > I can think of only two reasons why ISDN might not require the Hayes > patent. 1) Because Hayes may give everyone free license to use it for > ISDN (ha!), or 2) Because a judge may decide that it doesn't apply. > The judge might do this because the Hayes patent only claims a method > for switching between two modes, command and data, whereas ISDN uses > the identical method to switch between one test, another test, and > data modes. The principle is the same, and I can't see a judge > disallowing the patent simply because of the number of modes. That > would trivially allow modem implementors to implement a third mode in > their modems and escape paying Hayes' tribute. Here's my hunch, based on my admittedly-limited knowledge of patent law, and doubtless somewhat oversimplified. It's semi-informed speculation on my part, but is based on conversations I've had with patent lawyers over the past few years. The claims in a patent can be read in either of two ways: broadly or narrowly. A narrow reading covers only those very specific applications that are claimed. A broad reading covers the specific applications that are claimed, as well as others which fall under the same "umbrella". In general, you will find broad readings used when a truly-novel technology is introduced, and narrow readings used when an established technology is applied to a different sort of problem than had been covered by previous patents (or by public-domain use of the technology or technique). It isn't always easy to tell, just by looking at a patent's wording, whether a broad or narrow reading of its claims is what's appropriate. One must also look at related patents, and the acknowledged "state of the art" at the time that the patent research was performed. A patent claim may be approved on a narrow-reading basis, if the examiner finds that related patents or public-domain technique prevents a broader reading of the claim. Here's the crucial issue: both the validity of a patent claim, and its coverage, _must_ flow from the same reading of the claim. That is: if you must read a claim narrowly in order to avoid infringing on other patents, or in order to avoid having the claim invalidated by prior public art, then you must read the claim narrowly when you try to see whether new inventions or techniques infringe upon it. People have reported (in this Digest and elsewhere) that the use of a pause/escape/pause sequence to change modes was in use in telecom applications well before the Heathrington patent was awarded. I believe that the specific report I've heard involved an ARPANET TIP or some similar terminal-server -- perhaps someone else can cite the specific systems which used the technique. This may be the way in which ISDN avoids use of the Hayes patent. If the pause/escape-sequence/pause technique was in use before Heathrington, then the claims in the Heathrington patent would have to be read narrowly ... they would be read as applying _specifically_ to a modem. This specific application of the technique could very well have been novel at the time it was applied. [Whether it is "nonobvious" is subject to debate ... the patent examiner apparently felt that it was.] If the claims were to be read more broadly ... as applying to any form of telecom equipment or interface ... then they would be rendered invalid by the existence of prior art. Hence, in order to survive, they must be read narrowly, and they must be applied on that basis. Since an ISDN interface isn't a modem in the usual sense of the word, the Heathrington patent would not apply. Modem manufacturers could not escape the Heathrington patent by adding a third mode, because the patent would probably still apply ... it involves switching modes on modems, and could be read broadly enough to apply to a three-mode modem as well as a two-mode modem. Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 813-8917 Domain: dplatt@ntg.com UUCP: ...apple!ntg!dplatt USNAIL: New Technologies Group Inc. 2468 Embarcardero Way, Palo Alto CA 94303 ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Hayes announces ISDN Extender for NeXT Computers Date: 24 Jan 92 17:44:24 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA The following is a news release concerning a product which allows NeXT computers to be connected to ISDN networks and also provides a digitized interface to analog telephone networks for voice, data, and fax applications. It is posted for information only and should not be construed as an advertisement or offer to sell. I apologize in advance to those who dislike the tone of the typical high-tech company press release! Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | BBS +1-404-446-6336 AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15 USA | Internet tnixon@hayes.com HAYES MICROCOMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC. P.O. Box 105203 Atlanta, Georgia 30348 404/840-9200 Fax 404/441-1238 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Angie Ciarloni/Peggy Ballard H-0392+++AT HAYES ANNOUNCES HAYES ISDN EXTENDER - - - - - - Hayes - NeXT Strategic Relationship results in Low-cost ISDN Connectivity for NeXT Computer ATLANTA, GA, 22 January 1992 -- Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. today announced Hayes ISDN Extender, the first telecommunications network interface module that provides ISDN Basic Rate Access as well as analog telephone line connectivity to NeXT computers. This product is the result of the Hayes and NeXT strategic relationship committed to the promotion of ISDN and to providing low-cost, powerful connectivity to NeXT users worldwide. Hayes has also expanded its ISDN Developer Program to include support for the ISDN Extender for NeXT computers. Hayes ISDN Extender provides an 8-pin modular connector to an ISDN Basic Rate line and a 6-pin modular RJ11 connector to an analog telephone line. When used in conjunction with NeXTstep Release 3.0 and application software, the Extender can be used for remote LAN connections, as well as high-speed, digitized voice, data, fax modem, and multimedia applications. Hayes ISDN Extender takes advantage of the NeXTstep object-oriented application development environment, powerful CPU, and DSP port to provide analog telephone network and ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) connectivity. "We see customer applications, such as remote LAN connectivity and evolving multimedia applications, driving the need for the higher speed transmission of ISDN," said Hayes President Dennis C. Hayes. "Therefore, Hayes ISDN Extender for NeXT computers with Release 3.0 is a logical and powerful combination. This is the first tangible result from our strategic relationship with NeXT and when Steve and I get together we have no shortage of good ideas. We are very pleased to be working with a company that shares our vision of global connectivity and ISDN." "Dennis and I have worked together over the years to bring technology that has changed the way people work," said NeXT Chairman and CEO Steve Jobs. "And, with this announcement, we are continuing our tradition. This hardware/software solution gives our customers a low-cost, yet very flexible, solution for ISDN connectivity." Hayes ISDN Developer Program is designed to provide qualified third party developers with the support and information they need to develop high-quality applications for ISDN, and to complement the NeXT developer support program for the PhoneKit API. The program includes special product purchase programs as well as access to Hayes Developer Verification and Test Lab, located at Hayes ISDN Technologies in San Francisco, CA. Developers can also use the ISDN applications development laboratory, located in Beeston, Nottingham, England, that was established as a joint effort by Hayes and GPT, Britain's leading telecommunications systems supplier. Hayes ISDN Extender will be available throughout the United States and Canada in April 1992 for an estimated retail price of US$349 and CN$499. The product will be distributed through Value-added Resellers and Dealers who sell NeXT computers as well as Hayes Customer Service. In addition, Hayes anticipates availability of Hayes ISDN Extender in the global marketplace, including France, Germany and Japan as country approvals are obtained and NeXT system software is prepared for support. Hayes ISDN Extender carries a two year limited performance warranty and is backed by the same level of quality support as Hayes modems. Applications consultants and technical support engineers are available through Hayes Customer Service in the U.S. at 404/441-1617 and in Canada at 416/283-2672. Unlimited, free technical assistance is available electronically through "Online with Hayes," an electronic Bulletin Board System, at 404/HI MODEM or 800/US HAYES, as well as Hayes Forums on CompuServe and GEnie information services. NeXT Computer, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets professional workstations based on the pioneering NeXTstep object-oriented system software. NeXT computers are used to develop mission-critical custom applications and to run these applications alongside breaktrough productivity applications. NeXT is headquartered at 900 Chesapeake Drive, Redwood City, California, 94063. For further information, customers and potential customers are encouraged to call 800-TRY-NeXT. Best known as the leader in microcomputer modems, Hayes develops, supplies and supports computer communications equipment and software for personal computer and computer communications networks. The company distributes its products through an international network of authorized distributors, dealers, mass merchants and original equipment manufacturers. ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: CCITT Standards and Recommendations Date: 22 Jan 92 18:02:24 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , wardle@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Tom Wardle) writes: > I went looking for the ccitt texts on Bruno.cs.colorado.edu and found > the following message: > This Committee, while considering further actions in this area, > came to the conclusion that the experiment be terminated on 31 > December 1991. > [Moderator's Note: I wonder what possible objection they had to > leaving them in place on the Internet? PAT] I would have thought that was obvious. The ITU makes a considerable portion of its annual revenue from sales of documents. If people can ftp the documents free of charge, it leaves a large hole in the ITU budget. I expect that if they do go back online somehow, it will be with some kind of charging system in place. There was a significant faction within the ITU opposed to this project in the first place, for just this reason; I suspect that revenue figures proved them right, resulting in the termination of the experiment. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | BBS +1-404-446-6336 AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15 USA | Internet tnixon@hayes.com ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 92 10:12:00 EST From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist Subject: Re: Mu-law, A-law Cliff Koch writes: [ Good point about why having compression at all ... ] > So the A/D conversion on a linear scale is a 13 bit number (12 bits > plus sign). Nah, that would be too easy. The CCITT coding standard (fascicle III.4, Recommendation G.711, from the 1988 session, published Geneva 1989, for the librarians among us :) say that mu-law uses a 14-bit value (13+sign) and A-law uses a 13-bit value (12+sign). When I first saw that, I thought I was misunderstanding someone's bureaucratic English, but no: there are tables in the CCITT book, and by heaven A-law allows linear input in the range +- 4096, while mu-law allows it in the range +- 8159! Anyone who can explain why this is so, please do. Another point needing explanation: the same document states in regard to A-law, "The character signals [the coded 8-bit values] are obtained by inverting the even bits of the signals of column 6 [where the coded values corresponding to linear values are given]. Now what is the point of inverting bits 0,2,4 and 6?? And things of the sort Bud Couch reports are not part of the past. There still seem to be different ideas of just how to run up codecs: I'm currently juggling mu-law/linear schemes from three sources, and there are at least two different mappings at work here. Charles Hoequist |Internet: hoequist@bnr.ca BNR Inc. | 919-991-8642 PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #78 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09764; 25 Jan 92 1:04 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12091 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 24 Jan 1992 23:05:22 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23734 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 24 Jan 1992 23:05:01 -0600 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1992 23:05:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201250505.AA23734@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #79 TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 Jan 92 23:04:56 CST Volume 12 : Issue 79 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Info Services? Keep Them Banned! (Leonard Erickson) Re: Info Services? Keep Them Banned! (Joshua Lee) Re: Info services? Keep Them Banned! (Eric Florack) Re: Economics of Special Call Features? (David G. Lewis) Re: Economics of Special Call Features? (Alan L. Varney) Re: Economics of Special Call Features? (Tim Gorman) Re: Economics of Special Call Features? (Andy Sherman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Jan 92 11:40:40 EST From: Leonard Erickson <70524.2603@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Info Services? Keep Them Banned! I'm one of the Fido Sysops that Eric Florack would like to hear from. I also happen to live in one of the areas where an RBOC is trying to get BBS equated to "business". So far it doesn't look good. We started out with a poor test case (the BBS in question did have some business like aspects). I've got a summary of the hearing on file. I'll upload it if anyone is interested. There *is* one "bright spot". We have US West *on record* as stating that it costs more to provide measured service than it does to provide "flat rate" service! That may come back to haunt the RBOCs in other areas ... ------------------------------ From: ukelele!jlee@uunet.uu.net (Joshua Lee) Subject: Re: Info Services? Keep Them Banned! Organization: GAU Technologies, Fairfax County, VA Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 12:52:29 GMT Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com writes: > I've been seeing several reports of late, that indicate that even > non-profit hobby type BBS's are being harrssed, by RBOC's, with The C&P RBOC tried imposing business rates on all BBSs inside of Virginia Beach, Virginia all of which were free BBSs. When they had a meeting though, 200 sysops and users from the VA Tidewater area showed up. They slammed the wrong people, since they were all networked togeather mostly. :-) > SWBT in particular, has been pressing for anyone who wants to run data SWB appears more rabid about imposing extra rates, primarily because of their existing investment strategies aimed towards information terminal services. Bell Atlantic (C&P) backed down rather quickly, primarily because they had tried some ventures in ITS, and failed. The move to charge measured business rates to free BBSs was essentially a copycat measure. > I find it no chance happening that the companies that are pressing the > hardest to be allowed to be info providers are also the ones making > SysOps lives harder. It's exactly those companies that are investing in info provision that are doing this. (RBOCs are *already* allowed to provide data due to recent court decisions, and pending non-passage of HR 3515, will be able to charge additional terminal information service rates above the usual business tarrif, stipulated as "at cost". (Whatever the phoneco would have to pay to do the same services theoretically, of course, the reality is a new rate above the business tariff for BBSs.) > won`t want to pay for something that many thousands of BBS operators > are doing for free ... SWB has publically stated their feelings about "unfair free competition". > business interests, is to retain the ban on Telco's providing info > services. Which may occur if HR 3515 gains passage in a slighly modified form (to remove yet another loophole which would legislate utility regulation (!) for ITS.) > I know this newsgroup is beiong ported to FIDO someplace. Can we get a > FIDO sysop or two to expound on this a bit? Got one here, sysop of f542.n109.z1.fidonet.org (1:109/542) > [Moderator's Note: TELECOM Digest is distributed to Fido sites in the > 'echomail' (what they call newsgroups) group COMM. PAT] COMM is an entirely different thing Pat, and doesn't have any relationship to TELECOM Digest, which is not formally distributed by the FidoNet backbone. c.d.t of course is available via gateways either through the mailing list or as a newsgroup translated to FTS-0004/FTS-0001 format. FCC is an echo where many of the readers of TELECOM Digest would feel at home. As well as the PHONE echo, also gated through the RIME BBS network, the latter is usually heavily phone company engineer shop talk. COMM more fills the role of comp.dcom.modems, most of what we're discussing here isn't on topic there, since it's more focused on computer and BBS communications. ArfaNet: Joshua.Lee@f542.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joshua Lee on 1:109/542) uucp: ...!{uunet,rutgers,ames}!mimsy!prometheus!ukelele!jlee [Moderator's Note: Another Fido reader mentioned the same thing and I stand corrected. When the Digest first started going to Fido a couple years ago, *some* -- not all -- messages were distributed in COMM. I am told the entire Digest now goes there in UUCP-TEL. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 07:52:20 PST From: Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com Subject: Re: Info Services? Keep Them Banned! Bob_Frankston@frankston.std.com in v12#63: > ... whether the newspapers will also want to make sure that the > proposed privacy measures bar their own use of the information from > their 900 number services for marketing purposes. Or maybe they > should be banned from offering communications services? Or from > targeting specific editions? There was some truth in the > 800-54-Privacy message, but the aroma of self-interest is rather > intense. The idea of controlling the use of the information rather > than the business wasn't mentioned and there is no hint of > monopolistic threats. Should newspapers be allowed to have cable > franchises? One major difference: While in many cases they may be a monoploy in the market, they are not so because of some governmental regulation. *Whereas the local telco is*. Therefore, any comparison between them and the newspapers as far as info systems falls to the ground at that point. [Moderator's Note: Neither is AT&T a monopoly due to government regulation any longer. So here is the question back to you: Should AT&T be allowed to operate an information or cable system? I say they should be allowed to do so since the government took away their special status several years ago. PAT] ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Economics of Special Call Features? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1992 17:44:02 GMT In article siegman@sierra.stanford.edu (Anthony E. Siegman) writes: > My (admittedly uninformed) impression is that all these features > are more or less "there", within the capabilities of the electronic > switches and even probably already programmed, so that providing them > mostly amounts to "turning them on". And, once turned on they cost > almost nothing to operate (and presumably generate revenue for the > telco). > Is this reasonably true? Or does it cost a fair amount, in real > terms, to provide these special features? And does the presence > absence of Caller ID really affect the cost of the other features? "Turning on" a feature in a CO switch is not exactly flipping a switch. From the technical side, it involves deploying the necessary operations support systems to support the service, training the technicians who maintain the switches, building the necessary translations for the subscribers, and so on. Perhaps more importantly from the economic side, it involves paying a software right-to-use fee to the manufacturer. This is basically the software object code license that permits the operator of the switch to use the particular feature software. If the telco expects that the lion's share of revenue for the various CLASS(SM) features will come from one individual service (e.g. Caller ID), and the operational, OSS, and RTU cost of deployment is reduced only slightly by not deploying this particular service (because the service support mechanisms for all the other features must still be deployed and the RTU for the feature package must be paid, if it's "bundled", or the RTUs for the various features are roughly equivalent), then the revenue expectation of the telco might not be high enough to cover the expected cost of deployment. Round up the usual disclaimers: This message is not meant to imply any specifics with regard to the cost of deployment of any features or the RTU charged by any manufacturers for particular features. In other words, this is merely conjecture about how the statement by the telco in question could, theoretically, be derived ... David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jan 92 13:58:43 CST From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: Economics of Special Call Features? Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article siegman@sierra.stanford.edu (Anthony E. Siegman) writes: > The story in the {San Jose Mercury} also says, "But without Caller > ID, telephone companies question whether there will be enough demand > for the other features to make them economical." > My (admittedly uninformed) impression is that all these features > are more or less "there", within the capabilities of the electronic > switches and even probably already programmed, so that providing them > mostly amounts to "turning them on". And, once turned on they cost > almost nothing to operate (and presumably generate revenue for the > telco). One could argue that Lotus (some version) is already programmed and just needs a disk or two to "turn it on" in my PC -- which should cost almost nothing. But see below ... > Is this reasonably true? Or does it cost a fair amount, in real > terms, to provide these special features? And does the presence or > absence of Caller ID really affect the cost of the other features? Switch features are not usually cheap, and there are certainly ongoing costs associated with operating and maintaining CLASS and SS7 networks. The vendors (I work for one) charge real money for each feature's software, and also for the ongoing, high-quality support they offer -- but I think you miss the real argument here. In general terms, it's a problem in estimating customer demand at various price levels, vs. the cost of installing AND MAINTAINING the hardware/ software for the new features (and cost of capital, alternative investments, etc.). As a TOTALLY MADE-UP example, let's assume the Telco marketing folks say we have the following options (at a given feature price): 1000s of lines CLASS feature Total Costs that subscribe revenue for features -------------- -------------- ----------- No CID 20K $1B $1.5B With CID 40K $2B $1.8B THESE NUMBERS ARE TOTAL FICTION -- THEY ARE TO HELP EXPLAIN THE STATEMENT IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. So the real question is, does Caller ID make enough money together with the other features to help fund the large, up-front costs associated with deploying CLASS. In my example above, CLASS without CID looses money. Of course, I could change the feature prices to overcome the loss, but then I get fewer lines using the features (and less revenue). Without seeing the marketing study(s), one cannot tell where the real break-points are in various feature/price offerings. But it is certainly POSSIBLE that CLASS without CID loses money, and adding CID makes money. Many of the CLASS features share the use of an SS7 "infra-structure", which is expensive to provide AND has some costs to operate and maintain. I feel it is unlikely that any one CLASS feature can justify the entire expense of SS7. Al Varney -- above is not necessarily the opinion of AT&T ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jan 92 10:28:53 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Economics of Special Call Features Anthony E. Siegman writes in TELECOM Digest V12 #73: > Is this reasonably true? Or does it cost a fair amount, in real > terms, to provide these special features? And does the presence or > absence of Caller ID really affect the cost of the other features? With the exception of Recall, I am not sure I see where any dependencies might exist. With Recall, it might be nice to have the originating number to know if you really want to call back, but if you have the number why bother paying for Recall? You could just dial it yourself and save the money. So you might even say that CLID would have a supressing impact on Callback. For Selective Call Rejection/Distinctive Ringing/Callback (callback is redialing a busy nbr vs recall which is returning an incoming call) I just don't see the tie-in to CLID. These features are not included in any switch type I know of as part of a switch vendors "standard" software package. These features are added to a switch by installing a separate, usually costly, software feature package. This many times also requires adding additional memory and perhaps common equipment to the switch to handle the features. So it may cost quite a bit to add the features. Now, having said that, I must also say I am not a "rate-shop" person :->, so I really don't feel prepared to get into an argument as to whether the rates being charged are compensatory or not. I can state that there is a growing philosophical difference about whether rates for vertical services should be set to maximize telephone company profits or should be set to maximize social benefits. Which side you come down on of this difference probably depends on your position in the market (e.g. informed-consumer, uninformed-consumer, telephone company, regulator, etc.). Tim Gorman - SWBT *opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Date: Fri, 24 Jan 92 08:54:10 EST Subject: Re: Economics of Special Call Features? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ In article Anthony E. Siegman writes: > My (admittedly uninformed) impression is that all these features > are more or less "there", within the capabilities of the electronic > switches and even probably already programmed, so that providing them > mostly amounts to "turning them on". And, once turned on they cost > almost nothing to operate (and presumably generate revenue for the > telco). > Is this reasonably true? Or does it cost a fair amount, in real > terms, to provide these special features? And does the presence or > absence of Caller ID really affect the cost of the other features? The exact packaging of features for switching software will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, but a general rule is "there is no free lunch". The software to enable CLASS features has cost the manufacturerers money to develop, and will continue to cost them money for enhancement and maintenance. If a manufacturer includes CLASS by default in a new generic (release) of the switch software, it must recover that and other costs in what gets charged for the update (and uses the presence of new features as a selling point for the update). If CLASS features are sold as a separate package, then those costs are recovered from the selling price of the package. In either case, the operating company must pay real money to make the switch capable of providing CLASS services. Note that while SS7 is necessary to support CLASS, it is not necessary to have CLASS services in a fully functioning SS7 office. Therefore CLASS features do not come "free" if you put an office on an SS7 signaling network. I don't have any facts on the argument that CLASS features without CNID is a losing proposition. However I am sure it will be a whole lot less profitable, which may be enough disincentive to offering such a program. The services that are charged per call are probably very low volume; the ability to sell a bulk per-line service that carries a monthly charge can act as an insurance policy against per-call service volumes that are low enough to make the software purchase a loser. This is nothing like the current situation for DTMF. 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! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #79 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12789; 25 Jan 92 20:47 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20539 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 25 Jan 1992 19:01:09 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18834 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 25 Jan 1992 19:00:55 -0600 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1992 19:00:55 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199201260100.AA18834@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #80 TELECOM Digest Sat, 25 Jan 92 19:00:57 CST Volume 12 : Issue 80 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Help: Multi-Line Telephone For the Disabled People (Martin McCormick) Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? (Steve Forrette) Re: 800 and 900 ANI (David Ptasnik) Re: Equipment-Rental Rates in Tariffs (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: CID/ANI Blocking (David Ptasnik) Verifying 800 Numbers For Trouble (Tim Gorman) Determining SID (was *611 and *711 Calls Are Free?) (Craig R. Watkins) Egg On My Face (Richard McCombs) REN = 0.0 (was Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM) (Craig R. Watkins) Price Rounding (was AT&T Long Distance Rates) (John R. Levine) Sample Motorola CLID Chip Wanted (David Nyarko) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Help: Multi-Line Telephone For the Disabled People Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 21:50:29 -0600 From: martin@datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu In a recent posting, the topic of making it possible for blind people to use multiline telephones was discussed. Fortunately, there has been a family of devices called light probes around since the late 50's which pretty well solves this problem. A light probe is a simple RC-timed audio oscillator in which the resistive component is a photo cell. A light probe consists of the photo cell, a sounder like a small speaker or portable radio earphone, the oscillator circuit and a battery. The photo cell can be one of many types, but the lead sulphide type is a really good choice since it varies from Megohms in darkness to a few hundred ohms in moderate light. The oscillator circuit can be as simple as one unijunction transistor or can be a timer IC such as the NE555 configured as an astable multivibrator. The idea is that changes in light intensity are heard as changes in pitch. The brighter the light, the higher the tone. A user holds the photo cell over the LED's or lighted buttons on the telephone and listens to the sound. A steady buzz indicates a line in use. A buzz with momentary drops in pitch indicate a line on hold, and a pulsating buzz indicates a ringing line. So much for the old days. Modern business phone systems like the Ericsson MD110 here at Oklahoma State present a whole new range of challenges. The MD110 is a primarily digital PBX with many of the features of ISDN such as caller ID and a multiplexed data channel. While it is possible for a blind person to make and receive calls from one of these phones in a fairly normal way, all of the display information is presently not accessible. One solution I have thought of, but have not yet tried is to build an inductive coupler which could receive enough signal leakage from the telephone base or its cord to decode the data frames, thereby making it possible to receive and decode any part of the signal. While there are technical problems to overcome such as knowing the total data rate on an Ericcson pair, the inductive coupler, while complicating things should make it possible to honestly claim that the interface does not pose any threat to the integrity of the phone system. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group Stillwater, OK ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 20:05:29 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Person-to-Person? Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article Wm. Randolph Franklin writes: > In article on 14 Jan 92 04:06:39 GMT, > stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: >> Another antiquated service is third-number billing, although this one >> is still used quite a bit. There are a lot of people who just cannot >> deal with a "newfangled" calling card, and will always place >> occasional away-from-home calls in this manner. Telco will have to >> continue to provide this service despite the fraud that results. > Not in NY! Several years ago, NYNEX claimed that they were starting > to verify all third number billings. So now the only way you can > charge a call to your home number when you're away are 1) use a > calling card, and 2) hope that the burglar at home answers and accepts > the charge. I think this happens only if you are calling from a payphone (LEC or COCOT). Otherwise, they can always go back and bill the calling line for the charge if it is ever disputed by the third number. And of course, the calling number will be responsible for the bill, even if a phriend, guest of the business, or whatever, placed the call, as we all know that the subscriber is responsible for all calls placed from their line, now don't we? :-) Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Re: 800 and 900 ANI Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 20:12:24 PDT jimmy@tokyo07.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) wrote: > Say we receive notification from our billing agent that a certain > subscriber does not feel our service is worth the cost and refuses to > pay. OK, now we know that 311-555-2368 has refused to pay. But > without ANI, we have no way to block future calls from that > subscriber. And telcos cannot block a single 900 number; it's all or > nothing. If you receive a call from a person who has "BLOCKED" ANI you have the option of rejecting that call without answering or paying for it. If you choose to answer and pay for the call, you could then give the caller the option of using a credit card to pay for your services. Include the price of the call in the bill. > So I feel very strongly that we have a right to know who is calling > before we accept the call. We may not actually mail out our own > bills, but any fraud is deducted right from our bottom line. You should have the option of choosing whether or not to answer the call if the caller is exercising his "right" to privacy. Do not force me to send my unlisted number, and I won't force you to answer the call. Both sides protect their "rights". Dave davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Equipment-Rental Rates in Tariffs Date: 23 Jan 92 04:10:13 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes ... (about how equipment rentals are set or tariffed) As of 1983, NO terminal gear may be tariffed. NO state may regulate it in any US state. AT&T may charge whatever they want. No recourse. Period. Pay up or shut up or give it back, that's the law! Thus spake the FCC. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274 Standard Disclaimer: Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. [Moderator's Note: Fred, wasn't there (isn't there) an exception to this in the case of customers who had certain types of specialized service prior to divestiture which became grandfathered on D-day? For example, an apartment building wanting 'front door security phone' service now has to get it from a private vendor; but if you got this service in the very early eighties from Illinois Bell, it involved both 'terminal gear' (i.e. the door phone, door latching mechanism and relays on the customer's premises) as well as equipment in the central office to send the signals to the individual phones in the building. The various components could not be separated, but were leased as a package. I think IBT still maintains it for the few customers who were grandfathered, and I think a tariff spells out the costs, etc. I'll grant you what exceptions there are, if any, are few. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Re: CID/ANI Blocking Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 20:25:43 PDT andrew@herald.USask.ca (Derek Andrew) writes: >> They should have the option of refusing the call if you chose not to >> identify yourself. They might want to take the call, and give the >> caller the option of billing to a credit card, but they could know in >> advance whether the ANI was being blocked from the calling party. > The do have the option of accepting your call if you do not want to be > identified. If you go to a pay phone, your call will be rejected! If > they want to accept your call anyway, they could provide an 800 > number. The funny thing here is if you are going to provide a credit > card number, then you are identifying yourself all over again. I may wish to provide my name, but not the number from which I am calling. The 900 service provider may not want to have an 800 and a 900 number, and may be willing to let me bill the service to a credit card as a customer service. Not sending the ANI data to a 900 provider is no big deal, as long as they have the option of rejecting the call. David G. Lewis correctly pointed out that I cannot block ANI from my home, it is my desire to block it's transmission to the party I am calling. I think that allays most of the technical objection. Dave davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 92 12:50:55 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Verifying 800 Numbers For Trouble In TELECOM Digest V12 #68 the Moderator writes in response to Roy Smith : > verification process. There is no central 'inward' operator for 800 as > there is for other area codes; no place to begin searching, at least > from your local operator's position. And the only operators who have > the ability to verify in any event are AT&T operators and local telco > operators. Sprint and MCI cannot get into the AT&T network to call > the various inwards in any event, regardless of area code. On the I was interested in this topic so I requested some clarification on verification processes from my brother who has worked in operator services for a number of years. Following is his reply: ========================== In Southwestern Bell territory AT&T no longer has DIRECT access to the RBOC's verification network. The only way to verify or interrupt a line is to have the RBOC operator perform the task. This is to insure security and was done to meet legal requirements. Verifications and interrupts are done by contacting the RBOC operator via 'inward'. This is usually done by sending the designated RBOC LATA Tandem switch the "univeral inward code" of 121 which then connects the call to an RBOC operator serving that LATA. This can be done by any carrier that has purchased and installed trunks to that LATA switch. The AT&T network DOES NOT HAVE TO BE USED to obtain access to an RBOC's inward operator. The carrier must develop and install the necessary routing in their network to allow their operators access to the LATA tandems everywhere in the US. The carrier's operators must also have the information needed to route the call through their network to the RBOC's LATA tandems. This has been done in the past by AT&T by using a dialing pattern of NPA-TTC-121, where TTC is the Terminating Toll Center code. The TTC codes are administered by Bellcore along with NPA and NXX assignments. However, other carriers do not have to use this method as long as they can deliver the digits '121' to the correct LATA Tandem. Most carriers and Alternate Operator Service Providers have not deployed this capability. This is their choice and not the fault of AT&T or the RBOC's. The RBOC's verification network has been developed to work only with lines in local central offices. It will not work with trunk side circuits to PBX's, ACD's, etc. Also many 800 numbers are terminated with direct circuits from a carrier to the customer's premise, bypassing the RBOC's network. The RBOC has no way to verify these circuits. The carriers will have to develop a method to do this. Lastly, with the enhanced routing capabilites being deployed where calls to the same 800 number can be routed to different answering locations depending on the point of origin, time of day, etc. there is no way for an RBOC operator to determine where any given 800 call may have been sent. I hope this clears up the situation a little. Jim Gorman ======================== Tim Gorman - SWBT *opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Determining SID (was *611 and *711 Calls Are Free?) Date: 25 Jan 92 10:22:35 EST Organization: HRB Systems, Inc. In article , drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) writes: > johng.all_proj@mot.com (John) writes: >> Some models of Motorola phones will allow you to display the system >> number. My Dynatac 6800XL mobile will do it as a normal user feature. > Does the phone have to be activated for this to work? No, it shouldn't. > It seems like if someone wants to program their own phone and they > need the SID, they would have to get it without the phone being > activated. You should be able to program in any old SID. Turn on the phone and check your received SID. You should make sure you have an odd SID if you are using the A side and an even SID if you are using B. Of course, you also have to assume that you are indeed receiving the correct system. Craig R. Watkins Internet: crw@icf.hrb.com HRB Systems, Inc. +1 814 238-4311 ------------------------------ Subject: Egg On My Face From: rick@ricksys.lonestar.org (Richard McCombs) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 92 05:39:16 CST Organization: The Red Headed League After further thought I remember calling Directory Assistance for Houston (713). One thing that's kind of strange is the number on the bill is 713 555 1221 instead of 713 555 1212. By the way, if anyone responded to my earlier message and wondered why I didn't reply, for some reason I've been getting very little news for the last week, and it's still eratic, so if anyone has anything to say to me you should Email me as I may not see your replies in c.d.t. Internet: rick@ricksys.lonestar.org Fidonet: Richard McCombs on 1:385/6 ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: REN = 0.0 (was Phone Belltap Every Morning at 12:02 AM) Date: 25 Jan 92 10:51:44 EST Organization: HRB Systems, Inc. In article , Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: > One trick that some of the techie types used to use was to disconnect > the bell in the phone, but then hang a NE-2H neon lamp (with suitable > resistor) across the line, and rig it up so that the neon light > triggered a photocell/relay combination, which would in turn provide > power to a bell, buzzer, chime or whatever. That "suitable resistor" of course is a very key point. Once in my very young years I hooked up a neon which lit a CdS cell which turned on a simple audio oscillator (an "electronic ringer" was quite the novelty in those years). However, in wiring, I forgot the resistor. What would happen, of course, is the neon lamp would "answer" and "hang up" the phone each time a call came in before my beeper would start or any of the mechanical ringers would sound. After I figured out what was going on, I was just hoping that I wasn't dropping cards at the CO making it look like I had a Black Box on the line! (I had remembered what happened when one speeds up their rotary dials to 20 pps and the telco comes to "fix the phone.") > Of course, the neon lamp/resistor combination drew so little current > (in comparison to a phone ringer) that it was virtually undetectable > to phone company testing equipment (it would have been like trying to > detect a drop of water added to a swimming pool). Another method was to change the capacitor across the A & F network terminals for one half the value. The phone might not ring as loud, but you could put two on for "the price of one." Craig R. Watkins Internet: crw@icf.hrb.com HRB Systems, Inc. +1 814 238-4311 ------------------------------ Subject: Price Rounding (was AT&T Long Distance Rates) Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 25 Jan 92 11:57:49 EST (Sat) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) In