Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12960; 7 Mar 92 21:02 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25827 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 18:38:50 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24084 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 18:38:41 -0600 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 18:38:41 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203080038.AA24084@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #201 TELECOM Digest Sat, 7 Mar 92 18:38:38 CST Volume 12 : Issue 201 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson MI Bell Bill Insert and Notice - 2/92 (Jack Decker) Need Advice on Microwave Link (Gordon Letwin) Northern Telecom PBX (Joe Bell) Need Help Dialing Phone From Computer Audio Jack (Jonathan Lieberman) Zoom Faxmodems (Henry Mensch) Portable Cell Phone Recommendations/Comments Wanted (Louis A. Mamakos) Physical Phone Security (Scott Coleman) Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (Kath Mullholand) FSK Demodulator/Converter Wanted (John Huffman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 16:25:57 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: MI Bell Bill Insert and Notice - 2/92 The February, 1992 Michigan Bell bill insert "News & Views" contains several items that may be of interest: * The first item touts new "Circle Calling" plans available from Michigan Bell. Circle Calling 20 "provides seven hours of zone and long-distance calling up to 20 miles away for just $20 per month. A 30-percent discount applies to additional calls." There are no time of day or day of week restrictions, but the plan "is available to every Michigan Bell residence customer" which I assume means "not available on business lines." However, the insert does not mention that for many customers, the Adjacent Exchange Toll Calling Plan (ordered by the Michigan Public Service Commission last year) may be a better value, because it offers unlimited calling to adjacent exchanges (to residential customers only) for only $15.00 per month. Depending on the geographic position of an exchange relative to nearby exchanges, the AETCP might actually offer greater coverage, no time limit, and this at a cost of $5.00 per month LESS than Circle Calling 20. As you might guess, Michigan Bell service representatives seem very reluctant to volunteer any information about the AETCP, and you could just about bet the mortgage money that if a customer calls the business office asking about Circle Calling 20, he or she will NOT be told about the AETCP even if it's a better value. Another variation is "Circle Calling 30" which costs $3.00 per month and "provides a 30-percent discount on zone and long distance calls up to 30 miles, and also includes 30 minutes of zone and toll calling each month. Like Circle Calling 20, it also has no time of day restrictions." This more or less replaces a previous Circle Calling service that cost $3.13 per month, and did not apply to calls placed between 8 AM and noon on weekdays. Nowhere in the bill insert does it mention that these plans apply to intra-LATA calls only! I would hope that customers are informed of any cross-LATA calling restrictions that may apply if they call to order the service, but the insert does not mention any such restrictions. [Side note ... as a personal opinion, I still think that it is wrong and even possibly illegal for the FCC, Justice Department or whatever to place restrictions on the local telephone company handling of intrastate calls, especially in states where intra-LATA competion by interexchange carriers is permitted. For one thing it walks all over the rights of states to regulate telephone service within their own boundaries, and for another, it denies the full use of various calling plans to those who make intrastate, interLATA calls. I'm really surprised that the local telcos haven't made a big issue out of this, since the average citizen doesn't give a fig about whether a telco can offer "information services", but could probably be made to understand that certain savings on intrastate calls are not being made available because of restrictions imposed by the mean old Justice Department. Just trying to think like a telco public relations type ... :-) ] * The availability of "Lifeline" discount telephone service to low-income households. * "Caller ID, the phone option that lets you know the number of the person calling -- before you answer the phone -- will make its Michigan debut on March 1." ..... "Initially, Caller ID will be available in parts of the greater metropolitan Detroit area. It should be available to about a third of Michigan Bell customers next year. "Because of this initial limited availability, and for technological reasons, there will be instances when no phone number will be displayed. Caller ID will show the numbers of calls coming from certain communities within the 313 area code. Currently, long distance calls from other area codes will not be displayed. "Also, some callers will opt to 'block' their phone number from being displayed. In that case, you'd simply see a 'P' for 'Private.'" "Caller ID costs $6.50 a month for the first 300 phone numbers displayed. Numbers beyond 300 a month cost two cents each. A one-time start-up charge of $7.50 also applies, but that fee will be waived for the first 30 days the service is available in a given area." "You may order Caller ID beginning Feb. 3, with service to take effect as early as March 1." I will just note that this service was offered following the implementation of the new Michigan Telecommunications Act, a terrible piece of legislation that prevents the Michigan Public Service Commission from regulating any aspect of telephone service for which regulatory authority is not specifically granted in the act. I believe that Caller-ID isn't mentioned in the act, thus Michigan Bell didn't have to get MPSC approval to offer Caller-ID. However, the act automatically "sunsets" on January 1, 1996, and I suspect the reason they decided to offer per-call blocking is because if they did not, there would almost certainly be an outcry such that Caller ID *WOULD* come under specific regulation in the 1996 revision of the Act. * An item noting that in areas where Caller ID is available, free per-call blocking is available by dialing *67 or 1167. * Price increases for "premium operator-assisted calls." "Effective Feb. 1, the charge for collect calls, operator-dialed calls, calls billed to a third number and request to the operator for the 'time and charges' on a call is $1.65. Calling card and operator-timed calls from coin phones cost 65 cents, and person-to-person calls cost $3. These prices are in addition to any applicable local or long-distance charges." Operator verification of a busy number now costs $1.40, and "if you ask the operator to interrupt a conversation on a busy line, the cost is $2.80." "For years, prices for operator services were artificially low because they were subsidized by other areas of our business -- particularly long distance call. But as we lower long-distance prices, these offsets will go away. Even with the increases, our operator services are still a great value. Our rates remain competitive and, in nearly every case, well below what other providers of these services are charging." The above paragraph is quoted verbatim for your amusement. Note that although these charges began on February 1, we received the bill containing the insert on March 4 (the bill was dated February 25). The bill itself contains a note stating that "effective February 16, 1992, customers with flat rate service will be charged 6.2 cents for each call they make beyond 400 calls per month. These charges will appear on your next bill. Since our average customer makes only 150 calls a month, most customers won't notice any change in their bills." (Why bother with the charge, then? And isn't it nice that they informed folks of this charge two and a half weeks AFTER it went into effect?) It then goes on to say that "Senior citizens (60 and older), physically impaired individuals and people who make extensive use of their home phone on behalf of certain charitable and veterans organizations are eligible for an exemption from the monthly 400-call allowance. Customers who qualify for exemptions will receive a credit if they are billed for calls that exceed the 400-call allowance. Watch your mail for special information on how you can qualify for these exemptions." However, the Michigan Telecommunications Act (Public Act 179 of 1991) does not restrict the exemption to "people who make EXTENSIVE USE of their home phone on behalf of certain charitable and veterans organizations." Instead, Section 304(7)(a) states in part that "A person who has reached the age of 60 years or more, who is handicapped, or who is voluntarily providing a service for an organization classified by the internal revenue service as a section 501(c)(3) or (19) organization, or a congressionally chartered veterans organization or their duly authorized foundations, is exempt from the 400 calls per month limitation and may receive a flat rate allowing unlimited calls per month. A person 60 years of age or more shall not be charged a rate greater than the flat rate charged other residential customers for 400 calls. The rates for persons who have reached the age of 60 years or more, shall not be increased during the period of January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1995." I think this is an important distinction, since the new state law makes it appear as though the exemption from the 400 call limitation is intended to be a benefit for those who volunteer their services to certain charitable organizations, whether those services involve the use of the telephone or not. But Michigan Bell apparently intends to restrict the exemption not only to those who use their phones in the volunteer efforts, but to those who make EXTENSIVE USE (whatever that is) of their phones for such purposes. Just thought you might find all this mildly interesting. Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon LETWIN) Subject: Need Advice on Microwave Link Date: 06 Mar 92 00:36:20 GMT Organization: Microsoft Corp. I'm about to close on a ranch outside of Tucson, AZ., and have discovered that the nearest phone service is about six miles away. I could use cellular service for casual phone calls but I am planning on doing a lot of computer networking and would like multiple lines, a high speed data circuit, etc. I'm getting an estimate from the phone company for running a land line to the property, but time is short and rumor has it that they might want $130,000 for the run so I'm looking for alternatives. What would the telecom gurus suggest? I have line of sight into the nearby small town of Green Valley, and about a 40 mile line of sight into Tucson. What about a point-to-point microwave link? Worst case I could buy a 10'x10' plot in town for my other endpoint and then have the individual land lines run to there. Is equipment for such kind of thing readily available? I'd think that equipment for a private T1 link would be pretty common; in any case I need to mux/demux my lines into the microwave. Perhaps I can eliminate modems and go digital all the way into town and the phone company hookup. Where do I start on this? Should I ask the phone company to bid this? I'm concerned that they'll just lay out some brute force max dollar approach and tell me that there isn't any other way. Should I be talking to "data/telecom" consultants? How do I find a good one, the yellow pages? Are there any buzzwords I should be saying to these guys? I'd appreciate any advice the that experts can give me. Thanks. gordon letwin ------------------------------ From: gasco!jlb@uunet.uu.net (Joe Bell) Subject: Northern Telecom PBX Organization: NorthWest Natural Gas Company, Portland Oregon. Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 00:51:33 GMT I am looking for roll-your-own software for a Northern Telecom PBX to develop a capacity planning system for internal and external call data. Please reply to jlb@gasco.uucp. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 14:35:20 -0600 From: j-lieberman@uchicago.edu Subject: Help Needed Dialing Phone From Computer Audio Jack What I want to do is to play sounds (including dialing) from my computer speaker out jack in to my phone. I have tried simply splicing a phone cord and an audio headphone jack together. The result is that the line goes dead when I connect this. I Also tried removing the microphone from a normal handset and playing the audio out through the phone and then into the line. This is not recognized by some equipment, (though it does work for local calls). I thought the tones might not be clear enough or loud enough. I have tried digitizing the tones with a microphone and a normal handset (this again works some equipment but not all). When I attempted to amplify these sounds using a sound editor on my computer they were recognized EVEN LESS well. I also tried using the editor to mix the tones myself, they sounded a little off to my ear but AGAIN they worked for local calls but not for some other equipment. Any ideas on improving the tonal quality or volume? What is the best way to play sounds from my computer in to the phone line (i.e. what do I need to build in between the out jack and the phone to avoid killing the line and to get clean sound). THANKS. Jonathan Lieberman j-lieberman@uchicago.edu No silly quote... ------------------------------ From: henry@ads.com (Henry Mensch) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 14:40:05 -0800 Subject: Zoom Faxmodems Reply-To: henry@ads.com Zoom 9624's are on sale at Egghead again ... I was thinking of one for home use. Are they any good? The price sure is right ... it didn't work with netfax (the freeware from MIT) when we last tried it out, but I would be using it on a PC (presumably with the software they provide). Any clues would be most welcome. # henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc. / ------------------------------ Reply-To: "Louis A. Mamakos" Subject: Portable Cell Phone Recommendations/Comments Wanted Date: Thu, 05 Mar 92 22:57:24 EST From: "Louis A. Mamakos" I've been toying the the idea of getting a portable cellular phone and have been looking at the OKI 900 and the NEC P300 and P200 phones. Anyone have any comments, positive or negative about any of these models? Suggested alternatives? Neat programming hacks? Thanks, Louie ------------------------------ From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) Subject: Physical Phone Security Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 13:33:01 GMT I'm interested in hearing suggestions for physically securing one or more residential telephone lines. As we know, those gray plastic network interfaces are great for troubleshooting -- just unplug the RJ-14 jack, plug in a test set, and away you go. Unfortunately, this also allows anyone with a modular phone to walk up to your house, unplug your phones, plug in his own, and make fraudulent phone calls. In addition, the wiring is highly vulnerable to vandalism, and many burglars will cut phone lines as a matter of course to defeat security system auto dialers. What sorts of measures can a homeowner take to protect his phone lines? Can the incoming lines be moved underground? Can the network interface be moved inside the building, say to a panel in the basement? Will the telco charge outrageous sums to perform this sort of thing? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 12:28:04 -0500 (EST) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) Subject: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire A flyer enclosed in each bill notifies NH customers of these tariff changes taking effect March 20, 1992: 1! No more separate charge for Touch-Tone (r). 2! No more outWATs services. 3! Directory assistance is now 40 cents, after five free calls a month. 4! In place of all other outgoing toll plans, a virtual rating plan will be instituted. Two cents per call, 26 per minute daytime, 15 cents per minute evenings, and 10 cents per minute nights. No minumum billing, and billing is PER SECOND. Volume discounts on daytime calling, apply to all customers, is 15 cents per minute after 960 minutes, 10.5 cents per minute after 4800 minutes. How many other LATAs have gone to this type of virtual charge plan, rather than a mileage based plan? Kath Mullholand University of NH Durham, NH [Moderator's Note: Many readers would be interested in finding out what real effect this has on your bottom line phone bill after a month or two of experience with it. Please follow up for us, perhaps sometime in May or June. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: enforcer@buhub.bradley.edu (John Huffman) Subject: FSK Demodulator/Convertor Wanted Organization: Bradley University Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 18:22:02 GMT Since my last post about International Micropower Corporation, I have received many requests for the phone number. I did not post it because it is for orders only, and they point out that you will not get a catalog by calling; who knows about by writing? Anyway, the number is 1 800 992 3511. Also, I have been looking for a XR-2211 FSK demodulator and the converter and have had no luck. Can anyone tell me where to get one?. enforcer@bucc1.bradley.edu enforcer@buhub.bradley.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #201 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17588; 7 Mar 92 23:10 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04248 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 20:48:49 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07039 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 20:48:40 -0600 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 20:48:40 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203080248.AA07039@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #202 TELECOM Digest Sat, 7 Mar 92 20:48:39 CST Volume 12 : Issue 202 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Daily Texan via Ron Dippold) Cellular One/Chicago Screws Roamers Again (Phydeaux) Frequencies For Air Phones (Dan Schein) The World's Best, eh? (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker) Natural Monopoly Dying (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker) AT&T Telemarketers Have Feelings, Too? (Andrew C. Green) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 00:37:06 GMT It's hard to imagine the gall of these people ... {The Daily Texan} Friday, March 6, 1992 Page 3 PHONE TAPPING PLAN PROPOSED Law Enforcement Agencies Would Have Easier Access --- Associated Press --- WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration wants you to pay a little more for telephone service to make it easier for the FBI or local police to listen in on the conversations of suspected criminals. The Justice Department is circulating a proposal in Congress that would force telephone companies to install state-of-the-art technology to accommodate official wiretaps. And it would authorize the Federal Communications Commission to grant telephone companies rate increases to defray the cost. A copy of the legislation was obtained by The Associated Press. Attorney General William Barr discussed the proposal last week with Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC according to congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity. Justice Department spokesman Paul McNulty refused to comment on the proposal. The bill was drafted by the FBI and the Justice Department in response to dramatic changes in telephone technology that make it difficult for traditional wiretapping methods to pick up conversations between two parties on a telephone line. The Justice Department's draft proposal states that the widespread use of digital transmission, fiber optics and other technologies "make it increasingly difficult for government agencies to implement lawful orders or authorizations to intercept communications in order to enforce the laws and protect the national security." The FBI has already asked Congress for $26.6 million in its 1993 fiscal year budget to help finance a five-year research effort to help keep pace with the changes in telephone technology. With the new technology that is being installed nationwide, police can no longer go to a telephone switching center and put wiretap equipment on designated lines. The advent of so-called digital transmission means that conversations are broken into bits of information and sent over phone lines and put back together at the end of the wire. The bill would give the FCC 180 days to devise rules and standards for telephone companies to give law enforcement agencies access to conversations for court-ordered wiretapping. The attorney general would be empowered to require that part of the rulemaking proceedings would be closed to the public, to protect the security of eavesdropping techniques used by law enforcement. Phone companies would have 180 days to make the necessary changes once the FCC issues the regulations. The bill would prohibit telephone companies and private exchanges from using equipment that doesn't comply with the new FCC technology standards. It would give the attorney general power to seek court injunctions against companies that violate the regulations and collect civil penalties of $10,000 a day. It also would give the FCC the power to raise telephone rates under its jurisdiction to reimburse carriers. The FCC sets interstate long distance rates and a monthly end-user charge -- currently $2.50 -- that subscribers pay to be connected to the nationwide telephone network. Telephone companies will want to examine the proposal to determine its impact on costs, security of phone lines and the 180-day deadline for implementing the changes, said James Sylvester, director of infrastructure and privacy for Bell Atlantic. Though no cost estimates were made available, Sylvester estimated it could cost companies millions of dollars to make the required changes. But rate hikes for individual customers would probably be quite small, he said. ------------- [Moderator's Note: Without commenting on the privacy issues involved, I must ask what has become so difficult about spying on someone else over the phone that this new effort has to be started? Yes, perhaps digital transmission and other factors have made it harder to intercept something in mid-stream between two places; but one can still quite easily listen to almost any phone they want, especially with access to the central office. The subscriber loop -- that is, the final link in the connection between the telephone user and his central office is still usually just a pair of wires; easy to splice into; very easy to monitor. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 14:04:25 PST From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) Subject: Cellular One/Chicago Screws Roamers Again These guys seem to be out for as much money as they can find. First they tack on a $2/month "roamer administration charge" and now it seems they have dropped their roaming agreements with all of the Pactel systems in California/Nevada. Of course, the Pactel systems had roamer rates that were a small fraction of those of their competitors, no daily charge, *and* they had better coverage. It took me three months to get Cell One/Chicago to admit that their agreements were gone. They insisted for the longest time that If I could not access the Pactel systems it was because of 'fraud prevention.' Of course they will not let you talk to anybody who *knows* anything, so you never get a straight answer about anything. I guess it is time to give Ameritech a call. Of course, they're probably just as bad. Is this happening in other parts of the country too? Are the 'B' band carriers dropping roaming agreements with the 'A' carriers and vice-versa? Are all carriers this difficult to deal with? -- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com or reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:828 South May Street Chicago, IL 60607 312-733-3090 w:reb Ingres 10255 West Higgins Road Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500 ------------------------------ From: heimat!rehab1!rehab2!dans@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Dan Schein) Subject: Frequencies For Air Phones Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 10:33:23 EST John Rice (rice@ttd.teradyne.com) writes: > Cellular phones operate in the 800-900mhz frequency range. Last > time I was close to air-ground telephone equipment, it was operating > in the 450-470mhz range. Pat the Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: I did not think 450-470 megs normally travelled > over such a wide area, despite the height. PAT] Re: AirPhone's (those you pay for w/credit cards) Two bands of frequencies are used: 849 to 851 Mhz and 894 to 896Mhz. These bands are divided into 310 6kHz channels, with from four to eight channels available for each airplane, depending on seating capacity. Communications from air to ground use channels in the higher frequency band, while responses from the called parties on the ground return over channels in the lower frequency band. Note these are AM and not FM communications. Re: Private aircraft mobile phones Aircraft mobile phones are allocated 454.675-454.975 base, +5 MHZ aircraft channel spacing is 25 KHZ. Reading Rehabilitation Hospital Dan Schein - Information Systems RD 1 Box 250 Reading, PA 19607 dans@rehab2.UUCP -or- ....{uunet,rutgers}!cbmvax!rehab1!rehab2!dans ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 16:33:26 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: The World's Best, eh? Here's another excerpt from the Fidonet FCC echo: Original From: Don Kimberlin Subject: "The World's Best," eh? Once upon a time, when the U.S. telephone industry was largely controled by AT&T, and local telephone companies had an electromechanical plant, an outage of only seven minutes of a telephone exchange was an incident reportable to New York Headquarters. It was a serious matter. The local Bell telephone companies, proud of their independence since 1984, are quick to maintain the old cry that, "This is the world's best telephone system." They claim that their rush to change out the old electromechanical plant has made them better than ever. However, news that you don't get told puts much of that to the lie. Here's a short summary from {Information Week} magazine that tells the story a bit differently, indicating yet another Big Lie and another way that America is losing its grip: "CALL FOR RELIABILITY" "The pressure isn't letting up on the Federal Communications Commission when it comes to network reliabilty. Members of Congress want the FCC to mandate phone service standards, following a House Subcommittee report that detailed the lack of universal performance, quality and reliability standards. "One indication: All told, the Baby Bells, GTE Corp. and United Telecommunications" (The Big Ones of local telephone business in the U.S.) "reported 1,057 network-based service disruptions" (for the half-year) "between April 1, and September 30, 1991. The FCC says it is requiring the phone companies to make more such information publicly available than ever before." Well, maybe if they can't be as good as they were, at least they may yet become honest and fess up to being far less than the perfect image they want to hold forth. WM v2.01/91-0073 * Origin: AET BBS - (704) 545-7076, 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16) ---------------- Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 16:33:49 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Natural Monopoly Dying The following message was seen in the Fidonet FCC echo: Original From: Don Kimberlin Subject: "Natural Monopoly" Dying An ongoing line that the U.S. telephone companies like to drum and drum on is the 1913 claim that the telephone business is a "natural monopoly." They have told themselves and their employees this for many decades. But what they aren't telling anybody these days is that they themselves don't feel that way when they leave the U.S. shores. For several years, England has permitted competition for not only long distance, but also local telephone service, with technology already developed there to use cable TV plant to connect local telephone service to the user premises. Just recently, the cable TV company owned by NYNEX in England was reported as selling telephone service in direct competition with British Telecom, the former British Post Office Telephones business. Americans ran to purchase shares in British Telecom, which is facing competition nationwide, because they could not comprehend that telephone monopolies would ever tumble. Now, there's news that U.S. West has even joined hands with the U.S. cable TV giant, TCI, that is headquartered in Denver, right in U.S. West territory back home. The following report, excerpted from {TR International}, a newsletter published in Washington, shows how far that competition to the "natural monopoly" and mergers between telephone and cable interests have already gone. It raises the question: How long can the false notion that monopoly telephone business is "natural" continue to be foisted off on a gullible American public? "U S WEST, TCI AGREE TO COMBINE U.K. CABLE TV/TELEPHONY UNITS "U S West Cable Communications and Tele-Communications, Inc., have agreed to combine their United Kingdom cable television and telephone operations, creating a partnership with interests in franchises including 2,900,000 homes." The president of U S West said, "The agreement underscores the long-term committment of both companies to their U.K. cable and telephone operations ..." ... "we can more efficiently bring together U.K. cable and telephony into a single business strategy, investment plan and customer offering." The TCI president said, "... the joint venture `puts into practice the real operating and commercial synergies between cable TV and telephony -- a joining of forces which ultimately best serves the consumer.'" "U S West's cable TV partnerships in the U.K have begun providing telephone service in seven franchise areas, and it plans to extend telephony to all its franchises. The company said early telephony sales results have been positive, with more than 13,000 residential and almost 1,000 business customers and nearly 20,000 lines in service." "The penetration rate for telephone lines sold is 22% for residential service and 18% for business service, it said." "The U S West/TCI venture will control and operate cable TV and telephone franchises for London South (Croydon, Kingston/Richmond. Merton/Sutton), Edinburgh, and Avon and Thames Estuary (north and south). "It will hold interests in and provide telephone consulting services to the Camden, Islington, Hackney, Haringey, Hounslow, and Birmingham franchises. It also will be negotiating ownership of the Tyneside franchise in which U S West has an interest with U S Cable." So much for the "natural monopoly" that phone companies like to tell you about. Interesting how they see it differently in other than their home market, isn't it? WM v2.01/91-0073 * Origin: AET BBS - (704) 545-7076, 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16) ------ Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1992 10:50:44 CST From: acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: AT&T Telemarketers Have Feelings, Too? I had a fascinating call last night from a telemarketing outfit hired by AT&T to pitch some sort of home monitoring program. It started like the routine irritation of typical telemarketers, then took a strange twist. The product involved some kind of autodialer linked to a central office that would call 9-1-1 for you in the event of burglary, fire and Help-I've-fallen-and-I-can't-get-up situations. A sweet young girl (maybe 18 to 20 at most) called at 8:55 p.m. and I'm paraphrasing what follows ... AT&T: Hello, is this ... [pause to refer to list] ... Andrew Green? Me: (sigh) Yes ... AT&T: Good evening, Mr. Green, this is [don't remember] from AT&T Home Security Services [or something like that]. How are you this evening? Me: (rolling eyes) Could we get on with it, please? AT&T: Mr. Green, I'm calling to tell you about a new service we are offering [blah, blah, blah ... incredibly long-winded, non-stop paragraph extolling the virtues of their system. Finally she came up for air.] Mr. Green, our representative has an opening at 1:00 p.m. tomorrow for a free home security evaluation, or would 3:00 p.m. be better for you? Me: That's quite a script they've given you, but I'm really not interested and I -- AT&T: Oh, what was it about the script that you didn't like? Me: Pardon? AT&T: (genuinely hurt) Well, people always chew me out or hang up on me, and I think you're the only who's let me read all the way through without cutting me off. I was just wondering what was wrong with the script that was making people so mad at me ... At this point, all efforts to sell me this stuff had gone right out of her head, and I found myself talking to a telemarketer of two weeks' experience, as it turned out, who was trying desperately to keep her head on straight. Oh, boy, I thought; what would Telecom readers want me to tell her? ("GET ANOTHER LINE OF WORK!") She wasn't getting mad at her customers' abuse, just feeling hurt, and she seemed grateful to find someone who wasn't yelling at her. I pointed out that her job of calling strangers to sell them stuff would have this risk, and that she shouldn't take it personally. I also mentioned that inquiring about the customer's health was both inane and risky -- what if the customer has cancer? -- and the non-stop paragraph following gave no one a chance to politely decline. Non-interested parties had no choice but to interrupt or hang up on her in midsentence. No wonder she was feeling miserable. I knew she couldn't rewrite the script, but I suggested that she relay my comments upstairs. We chatted for about five minutes, after which she said they were closing for the night. I wished her well; I should have suggested another career opportunity such as McDonald's, but I guess she'll figure that out for herself eventually. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #202 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21392; 8 Mar 92 1:00 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07232 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 22:39:18 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01264 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 22:39:09 -0600 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 22:39:09 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203080439.AA01264@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #203 TELECOM Digest Sat, 7 Mar 92 22:39:04 CST Volume 12 : Issue 203 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Help! SCO Can't Talk to NCR Tower (Jean-Pierre Morant) Caller ID Product Idea (Jim Harvey) Bizarre First Minute COCOT Charges (Andrew C. Green) EZ Phone Taps (Peter Wayner) Wierd Experiences With Bell Canada Calling Card (Louis Leclerc) Phone Phun (Steve DeLaney) Tug of WARC (Nick Szabo) CT2 Trial Fails in New Zealand (Thomas Farmer) Line Conditioners (Jesse W. Asher) Three Digit Information Numbers (Dow Jones News via Mathew Zank) Gardena, California Exchanges (Carl Moore) Roaming With No Home (Ken Levitt) Re: Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit (Jay Ashworth) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: olbela!news@relay.EU.net (USENET NEWS) Subject: Help! SCO Can't Talk to NCR Tower Date: 6 Mar 92 14:39:20 GMT Reply-To: olbela!news@relay.EU.net (USENET NEWS) Organization: Olivetti n.v./s.a., Belgium We're working with different brands of Unix machines (NCR, Nixdorf, AT&T, Olivetti ... ) on a public x25 network. It generally works but in one case: a SCO 3.2.2 machine with Software Forge's UUCP over x25 can't send big files to a NCR. In detail: the connection is well opened; at the x25 level all goes well during the complete dialog. At the UUCP level, the transfer is initiated but, after a few K, everything stops. After a few minutes, the line is released because of a time-out. By the way, we've noticed the same phenomenon with a 3b2 and an experimental software that speeds up the transmission between uucico and the x25 interface. Here again, we were able to talk with any machine but long transfers with NCR Tower finally failed. Has anyone meet this problem (and find a solution)? If yes, please mail me your idea as I'm not reading news currently ... Jean-Pierre Morant UUCP e-mail: ...!ub4b!olbela!jpr ------------------------------ From: jh203s806@sycom.mi.org (Jim Harvey) Subject: Caller ID Product Idea Date: 6 Mar 92 02:33:55 GMT Organization: Michigan Information eXchange I have an idea for someone to jump on. Make an answering machine with caller ID decode built in. The machine could offer the following features: 1. Incoming calls will have their caller ID tacked on to the end of the tape message by a voice synthesizer. 2. The Detour garbage option. Any call coming in with a blocked ID is instantly routed to the tape. Replay button will have a skip-to- next-beep option so you can quickly scroll past computer sales calls. Even better would be a machine with separate tapes for normal incoming calls and blocked calls. Jim Harvey WB8NBS Amiga Person jh203s806@sycom.mi.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1992 12:07:46 CST From: acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Bizarre First Minute COCOT Charges Our Moderator Notes: > [Moderator's Note: The COCOT owner places his instrument in the public > way for use by the public. He is entitled to program it as he sees > fit, and collect fees for the phone's use as he sees fit. As a matter > of fact, the COCOT in the coin-op laundry across the street from me > now charges -- get this! -- $3.85 for the first minute on 800 calls. I believe you. I once tried to call home from a COCOT at the corner 7-Eleven store. I dialed my number (simply 818-xxxx) and the flourescent display on the phone demanded $3.85 to complete the call! The kicker was that I could look around the corner of the building and SEE my home down the block. I was almost within shouting distance of it. This was, I assume, some sort of programming error. Perhaps the phone did not recognize 818 as a valid prefix in the local (708) Area Code? (Hmmm, no, it must have; it responded after the seventh digit was pressed.) (So how the heck could it possibly make ANY money that way?) Evidently it didn't. The COCOT has since been replaced with a real payphone. Too bad; I kind of miss the gee-whiz light-up display. Andrew C. Green Datalogics, Inc. Internet: acg@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ From: wayner@cs.cornell.edu (Peter Wayner) Subject: EZ Phone Taps Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853 Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 18:18:38 GMT {USA Today} in the March 6th edition reports that the Justice Department would like phone companies to include new circuits that would centralize phone tapping. The paper notes that this would increase phone bills. Peter Wayner Department of Computer Science Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY 14850 EMail: wayner@cs.cornell.edu Office: 607-255-9202 or 255-1008 Home: 116 Oak Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 Phone: 607-277-6678 [Moderator's Note: Please see the previous issue of the Digest today for more specifics on this. What they seem to be missing is that almost all phone tapping is EZ, yet they want more money to perfect their efforts? In an issue Saturday overnight/Sunday morning I'll run a message from Floyd Davidson on this ... he agrees it is a crock! PAT] ------------------------------ From: louis@cs.mcgill.ca (Louis LECLERC) Subject: Wierd Experiences With Bell Canada Calling Card Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 08:08:14 GMT Recently, when travelling on the West U.S. coast (mainly the San Francisco Bay Area), I ran into problems making certain types of long distance calls with my Bell Canada Calling Card. When making long distance calls (10288-phone number-calling card number) from Pac-Bell phones on AT&T (or MCI) I could complete long distance calls successfully. There was no human operator intervention to make these calls. However, sometimes I was not able to call this way (ie. on a private PBX) so I called 1-800-CALL-ATT to complete the call. After reading my calling card number to them, AT&T said they couldn't complete my call because the card was a Canadian one. I had the same problem with MCI with their 1-800 number (the calls would not complete). Why can I successfully make long distance calls with my Canadian calling card when doing regular 1+ dialing from pay phones, but calling the 800 access numbers for AT&T and MCI to make long distance calls fails? (even when I try to explain my predicament to a human operator) Are they using different databases than the 1+ database? louis ------------------------------ From: ampex!delanst@decwrl.dec.com (Steve DeLaney) Subject: Phone Phun Organization: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City CA Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 22:09:33 GMT An interesting episode with Pacific Bell. We live Ben Lomond, a small town just north of Santa Cruz in the San Lorenzo Valley. Besides being a heavily wooded area, due to some geographic quirk this area consistently receives torrential downpours when other communities are simply having a rainy day. Consequently there are frequent power outages because of downed trees, mudslides, and other miscellaneous Acts of God. Now that we've grown accustomed to these periodic PG&E outages, it has become standard operating procedure to break out the flashlights whenever we have a major storm. Supposedly our alarm clock has battery or capacitor backup but more often than not if the power goes out in the middle of the night so do the time and alarm settings on the clock. Generally we wake up early am with or without an alarm, so when we see that the power has gone out (mildly irritating 12:00 flashing display on the clock), rather than fumbling around to find a wristwatch, we call Pac Bell time to figure out if it's time to get out of bed or not. BTW -- I use a mnemonic "POP-CORN" to remember the number, which is 767-2676. Turns out that 767-whatever works, which means that this must be a reserved prefix. Anyhow, Thursday 3/5/92 was just such a morning, and when my wife called the electronic voice informed her that it was around 5 AM -- which for us is time to get going. We got up, went out into the living room, and noticed that our battery operated analog clocks showed one hour EARLIER. We called again, and again confirmed the time, which by Pac Bell standards was one hour LATER. After some discussion and minor confusion we figured that one way or the other we were already up so we started our day, by that time convinced that we were up an hour earlier than normal. When my wife called the operator to see what was going on we were informed that it "had already been reported". About an hour later our neighbor called to tell us in a somewhat excited voice that our six year old, who walks to school with the neighbor kids, was LATE for school! Turns out she did the same thing we did, called Pac Bell, but didn't think to double check the time. I wonder how many other people got the wrong time that morning. As it turned out being up an hour early was a minor inconvenience, but what if it had been an hour later instead? Interesting that the time was off, not by 25, or 38 minutes, but EXACTLY one hour. This has served to illustrate just how reliant one becomes on technology. Even when TWO of our battery clocks showed the time being one hour EARLIER it took a while for the realization to sink in, somehow refusing to accept the possibility that Pac Bell could be wrong. In fact, for the first few minutes we almost had ourselves convinced that both OUR clocks were wrong, or that we had missed a switch to daylight savings time, or that someone came into the house in the middle of the night to play a practical joke on us by turning back our clocks! ------------------------------ From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) Subject: Tug of WARC Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 00:35:48 GMT National Public Radio reports that the U.S. and space have beaten out Europe and the earth in the latest spectrum allocation for cellular phone. The World Administrative Radio Conference now meeting in Spain decided to allocate enough frequencies for two or three Iridium-type satellite systems, which have been proposed by various U.S. companies. Although one proposal, Loral's Globalstar, has major European participation, Europe was primarily promoting terrestrial cellular phone towers. It is now up to the U.S.'s Federal Communications Commission to decide which of the ten U.S. proposals get the spectrum. szabo@techbook.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) ------------------------------ From: tfarmer@cavebbs.gen.nz (Thomas Farmer) Subject: CT2 Trial Fails in New Zealand Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ Date: Sat, 07 Mar 92 08:23:59 GMT There has been some discussion of the new CT2 technology in this newsgroup. This is the poor man's cellular phone which can send calls while close to a base station but cannot (generally) receive them. New Zealand Telecom has been conducting a trial of the technology in Wellington which has now come to an end. The trial was designed to find out whether it was worth releasing CT2 to the general public. Approximately 400 people were given CT2 phones and 40 base stations were set up in the Wellington area. The trial has now come to an end and NZ Telecom has decided not to progress with CT2 in its current form. They did mention that they might try to market it as a portable phone for the office market. The main reasons for not going ahead with a general release was the cost of the technology and the poor phone usage rates by the triallists. tfarmer@cavebbs.gen.nz +64-4-499-3832 (home) tfarmer@datamark.co.nz +64-4-233-8186 (work) ------------------------------ From: jessea@homecare.com (Jesse W. Asher) Subject: Line Conditioners Reply-To: jessea@homecare.com (Jesse W. Asher) Organization: Health Sphere of America Inc. Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 15:09:17 GMT Our local Unix user group has a Unix system we are using for news and email. Unfortunately, the lines are often very noisy and it makes life frustrated for many of the members. We've got a regular phone line running to the system and I know that we can get a "dedicated" line to the machine. My questions are 1) Is the dedicated line really better? 2) Is there any way of improving the line noise by putting something like a line conditioner on the line? 3) Are most options here going to be cost prohibitive? 4) Does anyone know any other options? Jesse W. Asher NIC Handle: JA268 Phone: (901)386-5061 Health Sphere of America Inc. 5125 Elmore Rd., Suite 1, Memphis, TN 38134 Internet: jessea@homecare.COM UUCP: ...!banana!homecare!jessea ------------------------------ From: zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank) Subject: Three Digit Information Numbers Date: Fri, 06 Mar 92 07:04:53 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) News From {Dow Jones News Service}: Bellsouth plans to offer three digit numbers for information services provided by phone company competitors. Bellsouth will ask the FCC about public interest aspects, and will ask the FCC to allocate the numbers. Bellsouth say it will use the numbers 211, 311, 511, and 711 in it's local calling areas. Matthew Zank * Eau Claire, Wisconsin Internet zank@netcom.com -or MZANK@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 14:55:11 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Gardena, California Exchanges I went to a library and looked up a phone prefix list in the 1990-91 Greater Los Angeles directory, printed before the 213/310 split. Here are the prefixes I found for Gardena (no comment intended on prefixes which I did not find): Gardena -- 217,323,324,327,329,512,515,516,523,532,538,708,715, 719,767,768,769,899,918 Los Angeles 9 (Gardena FX) -- 321,770 Given the terminology used, I assume that 321 and 770 stay in 213, and that the other prefixes listed here go into 310. I used a PacBell directory for this research. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Mar 92 17:26:17 EST From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) Subject: Roaming With No Home I need a cell phone three or four times a year for two to four days at a stretch (max 12 days a year). I can justify the cost of a used phone for this purpose, but I can't justify the $25 per month service charge. My usage would most likely be in New England, but might go into other areas. I reside in Massachusetts in the 508 area code. Since the number of calls will be minimal, I would not mind paying roaming charges. Is there any way I can be a romer without having a home base monthly charge? Is there any other cost effective solution to this problem? Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: Jay.Ashworth@psycho.fidonet.org (Jay Ashworth) Subject: Re: Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit Date: Thu, 05 Mar 92 19:31:24 EDT Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida I have a simple suggestion: Two phones and a 12 volt car battery. Actually, a transformer power supply will work too, but you'll have to filter it into next _Tuesday_ to get an acceptable hum level. As for signaling? Hmmm ... how bout a button to bridge a 50VAC or so step down transformer across the line. You won't get a _proper_ ring, since the frequency is too high, but you'll get something. Just don't push it while the phones are off hook ... Cheers, Internet: Jay.Ashworth@psycho.fidonet.org UUCP: ...!uunet!ndcc!tct!psycho!Jay.Ashworth [Moderator's Note: A 13.8 VDC filtered power supply from Radio Shack such as is used to operate any communications equipment is fine. Take two old 500 style phones, and wire them in series to each other and the power supply using one pair. They should be in series to the power supply, not in parallel. Install a small buzzer in each phone wired in parallel with a micro momentary push-on switch you put in a hole you drilled on the front of the phone somewhere. This goes out on the second pair of wires in series with the same buzzer/switch on the other phone to the power supply. Push the button on either phone, both buzzers sound. Lift both receivers to complete the circuit for talking. To get fancy, use three pairs and the set of contacts on the phone network which are normally closed when the receiver is on hook. When either receiver goes off hook, the buzzer sounds on the other end continuously. When that side goes off hook, the buzzing stops. Put one of those things which make Christmas tree lights blink off and on in the line to make it an intermittant buzz, like a 'real' phone sounds. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #203 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26288; 8 Mar 92 2:45 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00849 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 00:32:32 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04098 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 00:32:20 -0600 Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 00:32:20 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203080632.AA04098@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #204 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Mar 92 00:32:19 CST Volume 12 : Issue 204 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (John Rice) Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Oscar Valdes) Panasonic Voice-Mail/Complete Communicator Info (Steve Pershing) Re: Voice Mail For Panasonic KX-T1232 (John Boteler) Re: Guantanamo Base (Tim Tyler) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Floyd Davidson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division Date: Sat, 07 Mar 92 17:26:40 GMT In article , gdelong@ctron.com (Gary Delong) writes: > An additional note, it used to be common for ham radio operators to > request and obtain permission from the captain to use two meter (144MHz) > handheld radios in flight. Even though these radios operated very > close to aircraft frequencies, they were FM so their IFs were in the > 10MHz range and quite safe to use. More recently, I think primarly > just to avoid the "why can he use his if I can use mine" problems, > almost no captain will give permission to operate. No, actually, the captains found that they could get in Big trouble in allowing the HAMs to use their radios. FAR 91.19 specifically prohibits this operation and specifically prohibits the Captain from giving permission. Also, it's not a function of the IF 'frequency' that's important, but the frequency of the local oscillator in the receiver. For a two meter hand-held radio operating at @146Mhz, the local oscillator could be operating (and radiating rf) at @135Mhz, which is the high end of the Air-Ground communications band. The following is from a recent post in alt.rec.aviation and will provide some historical perspective on the law as it partains to operating a Cellular Telephone in an Aircraft in flight. Surprisingly, this is not a particularly "new" issue and was specifically addressed by the FCC in 1984. In article <1992Mar6.154104.22438@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, olsen@ kailasa.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen) writes: > Last year, some of you may recall seeing a discussion here about the > legality of cellular phone use in aircraft. The legal situation was > murky then, but it has at last been clarified. > In new regulations effective March 9, 1992, the FCC has ruled that: > - Cellular phone use while airborne is illegal. This was the case > already, but the regulations now make it explicit, and allow > cellular phone companies to cut off service to violators. Hmm ... I know I'll want to get a copy of that circular so I can use it in place of the old one. In any case, the _old_ FCC information (which is weaker than the current one) was posted last April (strangely enough, by Jim Olson ... Wild ... :-). Recalling from the last discussion that some people might (or will) need to see something written, here is a couple of items from that previous discussion ... [Note, this is a 1984 document and therefore (by definition) out of date]. PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202/254-7674. Recorded listing of releases and texts 202/632-0002. COMMON CARRIER PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES INFORMATION CELLULAR UNITS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR AIRBORNE USE Report No. CL-142 October 11, 1984 The Mobile Services Division has received several inquiries regarding the use of cellular mobile and portable units in airplanes and helicopters. The public should be aware that such use on cellular units is _not_ permitted inder the Rules. Use of a cellular unit while airborne is likely to cause serious interference both within the cellular system and in other cellular systems, because an airborne unit will have a transmitting range much greater than the land-based unit for which cellular systems are engineered. Under the Commission's rules, airborne mobile units must be individually licensed for air-ground service and may only communicate through base stations licensed for the 450-MHz air-ground service and may only communicate through base stations frequencies listed in Section 22.521. See also Sections 22.9(c), 22.15(i)(3), and 22.509. There are no cellular frequencies available for air-ground service, and persons owning, installing, or operating airborne cellular units will be subject to enforcement action. For further information, Contact Michael Ferrente on 202 653-5560 or Claudia Borthwick on 202 632-6400. - FCC - _SEE_ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - CC Docket No. 88-411, FCC 88-278, Released September 2, 1988, 3 FCC Rcd 5265 (1988). And another comment from a Usenetter: Part 22 of the Combined Federal Regulations (CFR) covers common carrier radio allocations. This part lists all frequencies available for common carrier usage in airmobile operation. The cellular frequencies are NOT authorized for common carrier airmobile use, and thus usage of a cellular telephone in an airplane (of any shape or size) is NOT AUTHORIZED and is therefore ILLEGAL. There is a 900 MHz allocation for airmobile use, and this is what the AIRPHONE systems use. Because this prohibition was not included in the regs specific to cellular telephony, there was confusion as to the legality of airmobile use. The FCC released Public Notice CL-142 on Oct. 11, 1984 clarifying that Part 22 rules DO prohibit the usage of cellular telephones in airplanes while they are airborne. The reason for issuance of this PN was because people were using cellular phones in airplanes, and WERE causing interference. As a further clarification, and because of cellular and FAA requests, new regulation was proposed. This is Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) CC 88-411, issued Sep. 2, 1988, and published in the Federal Register Volume 53, page 35851, Sep. 15, 1988, and will continue to make use of a cellular telephone in an aircraft while airborne ILLEGAL. There was a concern about the usage of cellular phones while on the ground, and about the installation of cellular phones in aircraft. I don't know what the NPRM says on these two topics but I got the impression that both of these will also be prohibited, even though this is a gray area right now. The FAA is opposed to installation and use in any aircraft at any time, because of a fear that they will interfere with aircraft systems. The cellular industry, suprisingly(?), is in FAVOR of installation and use. Robert J. Granvin School of Statistics rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu University of Minnesota ------------- John Rice K9IJ | "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was rice@ttd.teradyne.com | MY oppinion only, no one elses...Especially (708)-940-9000 - (work) | Not my Employers.... (708)-438-7011 - (home) | ------------------------------ From: valdes@andy.bgsu.edu (oscar Valdes) Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground Date: 7 Mar 92 15:46:52 GMT Organization: Crusade to Eliminate Political Correctness In article ijk@violin.att.com (Ihor J Kinal) writes: > close :-) ]. Remember, any device receiving communications will also > typically be emitting radiation at some IF frequency. [other than the > primary frequency -- and that might EASILY be equal to someone else's > IF frequency] -- that's how radar-detector detectors work, by the way. Just a nitpick. The radar detector emits at the same frequency, not "some IF frequency other than the primary", as the radar that is designed to detect. Highway patrol reports on their use of radar-detector detectors suggest 40% of truck drivers use radar detectors. I've never known a trucker who doesn't use a radar detector during a trip and I suspect the police detectors are catching improperly shielded radar detectors. ------------------------------ Subject: Panasonic Voice-Mail/Complete Communicator Info From: sp@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Steve Pershing) Date: Thu, 05 Mar 92 13:12:38 PST Organization: Questor: Free Usenet News: Vancouver, BC: +1 604 681 0670 marcal!marc@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com (Marc Veeneman) writes: > I've seen two advertisements now for a new Panasonic product, the > KX-TVP150. Anybody know whether this thing will hook onto our > KX-T1232? And can it store a couple of dozen pieces of addressable > voice data so outside callers can get information from us without our > having to manually intervene? > We're really close to buying a product called the Complete Com- > municator to do a similar job, but would prefer the (known?) > reliability of a Panasonic product. Well, I have personally been using products from the Complete PC for some years. Recently, the old products were scrapped, and their latest "The Complete Communicator" was installed. It works flawlessly, allows for multiple mailboxes, does 9600bps FAX, and has a 2400bps MNP5 modem built in. In addition, it also has a scanner port. The hardware quality of the product is excellent; the software is very easy to install and use (all menu-driven). From my examination of the board, it is easy to upgrade the data modem and well as the FAX modem modules when newer technologies become available. In addition, recently released ROMS and software allow for a great convenience: The latest release can automatically distinguish between voice and FAX, routing the call to the appropriate service without any intervention on the caller's part. Previous versions (like mine) would have to be set to default to FAX or to voice. (Mine defaults to FAX.) When a call is received, a voice instructs the caller to touch "any touch-tone key". If this is done, he goes to the voice-mail system; if it is *not* done, the FAX turns on. The negative side is that callers with rotary dial phones always get the FAX. The NEW software/ROM combination allows for auto-sensing. It also works with Windows. For more info, contact the Complete PC Inc., at 408 434 0145, or write them at 1983 Concourse Drive, San Jose, CA. 95131 ... and not, I'm not affiliated with the company, just a *very* satisfied user of long standing. Steve Pershing, System Administrator Internet: sp@questor.uucp : POST: 1027 Davie Street, Box 486 Com: Voice/FAX: +1 604 682 6659 : Vancouver, British Columbia Data/BBS: +1 604 681 0670 : Canada V6E 4L2 ------------------------------ From: John Boteler Subject: Re: Voice Mail For Panasonic KX-T1232 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 92 4:47:59 EST marcal!marc@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com (Marc Veeneman): > I've seen two advertisements now for a new Panasonic product, the > KX-TVP150. Anybody know whether this thing will hook onto our > KX-T1232? And can it store a couple of dozen pieces of addressable > voice data so outside callers can get information from us without our > having to manually intervene? > We're really close to buying a product called the Complete Com- > municator to do a similar job, but would prefer the (known?) > reliability of a Panasonic product. Why not simply hook up a standard loop interface voice processing system to an unused station port? I do not believe the Complete Communicator will expand to meet your needs if you follow the usual course taken by many businesses once they are tempted by the possibilities. In other words, I believe you will outgrow it shortly after installing it. I've seen this happen to others, so it is not far-fetched. bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) NCN Skinny => 703.241.BARE Club updates, events, and info ------------------------------ From: tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler) Subject: Re: Guantanamo Base Date: Sat, 07 Mar 92 20:30:19 EST Organization: UMCC In article covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert) writes: >> And can military personnel at the base make any 'local' (but >> off-base) calls at all without having to double back through an >> international operator in the USA and have the call manually >> connected? > The base is quite unwelcome there. There isn't any reason for anyone > there to ever make a 'local' call. There is no way to get physically > onto or off of the base except by plane or ship. Tensions have been bad for years, but keep in mind that for decades, Gitmo used Cuban locals for menial labor tasks. Each morning, they marched in through a gate, and marched out each night. Due to security problems, and the fact that the Cubans working for the 'aggressive imperialists' were discriminated against by other Cubans and the government, I believe the gate was closed, and all laborers are now non-Cuban personnel. Saying there is no access to Gitmo except for via air or water is somewhat of an exaggeration. >> How does the base call out to *anywhere*? Is their sole >> telephone connection to the USA? PAT] > Probably. I would suspect they have the lines to AT&T for non- > military use, and AUTOVON lines for military use. As a shortwave radio listener, I can remember the good old days of the 1970s where Gitmo had HF (aka shortwave) circuits back to CONUS (perhaps operated by AT&T) for health, morale and welfare use by service people. I don't recall the specifics, as this was right when I first started monitoring HF, and the HF system was replaced by a commercial satellite circuit in the early 1980s. The HF circuits that I'm talking about were NOT part of the Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS). Of course the HF circuits were supposed to be for non-official, personal type phone patches, but if you monitored enough of the conversations often enough, you'd inevitably learn a little 'sensitive' information. At the time (I was about 13 years old), I had more fun just listening to the horny Marines talk to their girlfriends, etc! Tim Tyler Internet: tim@ais.org MCI Mail: 442-5735 C$erve: 72571,1005 P.O. Box 443 Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA Ypsilanti MI 48197-0443 PADI, USPA, AFCEA, INEOA, P226, VFR700, etc. ------------------------------ From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 03:21:05 GMT In article rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: > It's hard to imagine the gall of these people ... I certainly agree with you! > The bill was drafted by the FBI and the Justice Department in > response to dramatic changes in telephone technology that make it > difficult for traditional wiretapping methods to pick up conversations > between two parties on a telephone line. > [Moderator's Note: Without commenting on the privacy issues involved, > I must ask what has become so difficult about spying on someone else > over the phone that this new effort has to be started? ... PAT] The whole thing sounds like a scam to me. It may convince the "man in the street" that the new technology makes a tap more difficult, but that is only because the man in the street has no idea how it was done before, or how is done now, or how it will be done in the future. In other words, it sounds good. And it is a total crock. It may be harder to do without everyone in the CO knowing about it! And it may be harder to do without anyone knowing about it at all (including a judge to make it legal). Or, come to think of it, it may be harder to do using the same equipment purchased in 1965 for that purpose. It is *much* easier to do with digital facilities. But everyone in the CO is likely to know it is being done, and it is getting much harder to do illegal wire taps and not be found out. Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, Alaska [Moderator's Note: Of course theoretically, the taps are legal -- not illegal -- since a judge okayed them being there. That still does not prevent them from being seen and talked about. But there is nothing particularly mysterious or difficult about installing one. You need to keep the DC from getting past when the tapped phone is not off hook. You probably need to amplify the audio a little, once you 'safely' get it to your side of the tap. Tape record it at that point; send it all over the USA. Send it to the CIA ... wherever ... who cares. If it is digital, then you need to take care of that little problem by converting it to what human beans will understand before you ship it off down a wire pair to the Federal Bureau of Inquisition, the Secret Service, the Chicago Police Special Investigations Unit, the postal inspectors or the Infamous Revenue Stealers. Look at the ease with which Cincinatti Bell spied on those politicians a couple years ago. Like yourself, I think the FBI is just trying to get more money, using technical mumbo-jumbo the legislators won't be able to understand. Write your legislators if you agree. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #204 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28596; 8 Mar 92 3:31 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32065 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 01:19:22 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02005 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 01:19:13 -0600 Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 01:19:13 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203080719.AA02005@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #205 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Mar 92 01:19:00 CST Volume 12 : Issue 205 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (TELECOM Moderator) Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Steve Baumgarten) Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Richard McCombs) Re: Bizarre First Minute COCOT Charges (Paul Houle) Re: 911 and Politics (Phil Howard) Re: Caller*ID Project Update (Roy M. Silvernail) Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Dave Levenson) Re: New 540 Scam (Carl Moore) Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas (Carl Moore) Small Communications Program Sought (Michael B. Scher) Help Message For New Area Code (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 00:48:50 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees AT&T has about 18,000 employees working as operators. A recent news release said they will reduce this by at least one-third and perhaps one-half during the remainder of 1992 and 1993 as an automated system for handling collect, third number billing and person to person calls is implemented. The new voice/touch tone response system is already in use by some local telcos including Illinois Bell. AT&T said they hope to have it nationally implemented over the next 12-18 months. Callers will be asked to press certain buttons if they wish to have the call handled collect or billed to a third number. They will say their name on request, and their name will be played automatically to the person who answers the phone. A caller will still be able to reach a live operator by pressing the zero button again when requested to do so, but AT&T estimates the majority of callers will be able to, and want to use the automated response system instead. Rotary dial callers will receive operator assistance as in the past. AT&T has been reducing their work force -- once at about 325,000 employees -- at the rate of 1000 people per month on average for the past several months. The reduction in the operator force will take place the same way beginning later this year and continuing through most of 1993. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 92 23:39:40 EST From: sbb@panix.com (Steve Baumgarten) Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service Regarding the Sweepstakes 800 number scam, an AT&T customer service representative wrote: > AT&T must provide its services to all customers who request them. > AT&T is however, opposed to anything that would deceive consumers or > violate the trust they have placed in 800 Service. I wonder why, then, AT&T allows such deceptive behavior. It's all fine and well to be opposed to "anything that would deceive consumers or violate the trust they have placed in 800 Service", but such a statement is entirely meaningless in the face of AT&T's continuing and unwavering support of exactly this kind of 800 number ripoff. Since the inception of 800 Service, we've all been indoctrinated by long distance companies and local service providers alike that calls made to 800 numbers are free of charge to the caller. Most of the 800 numbers in existence provide us with information; whether or not we'll be charged for that information has never been in doubt -- until now. A company that cared about its customers wouldn't allow the ruination of one of the few aspects of our increasingly complicated telephone system with which the public is both familiar and comfortable. There are already far too many ways for unsuspecting or naive telephone callers to be charged for the "information" provided by the company at the other end of the line. Why does 800 Service have to be dragged into the act? Does AT&T seriously believe they are doing even one of their millions of customers a service by increasing the confusion, uncertainty and apprehension that many people already feel when it comes to using the telephone for anything other than ordinary local or long distance calls? Steve Baumgarten / New York, NY / sbb@panix.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service From: rick@ricksys.LoneStar.org (Richard McCombs) Date: Sat, 07 Mar 92 03:50:35 CST Organization: The Red Headed League; Lawton, OK Just one question, Do you have to DTMF to use one of these sleazy 800 numbers? If so then my grandparent's motel is safe unless a guest has a pocket DTMF dialer because the rooms have 500 sets. Internet(MX): rick@ricksys.lonestar.org UUCP: ...!rwsys!ricksys!rick, {backbones}!ricksys.lonestar.org!rick Fidonet: Richard McCombs @ 1:385/6 [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, not always. Some have a provision to 'stay on the line for operator assistance' and others have a default program they play such as the {USA Today} thing which gave you the sports news if you failed to press any keys at all. Sorry. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 92 22:24:02 MST From: houle@jupiter.nmt.edu (Paul Houle) Subject: Re: Bizarre First Minute COCOT Charges Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology In article is written: > I believe you. I once tried to call home from a COCOT at the corner > 7-Eleven store. I dialed my number (simply 818-xxxx) and the > flourescent display on the phone demanded $3.85 to complete the call! I might be the first person on telecom to ever have anything good to say about a COCOT. I was returning some videos and buying some generic mac & cheese at the supermarket today when I came upon a COCOT. Now, I thought it would be really interesting to have my fortune read, so I figured that I'd place a call to Mystic Marketing. Anyway, I pick up the phone and dial the 800-number. The phone generated no touch tones and didn't even interupt dial tone until I dialed about four digits. I then waited about ten seconds and heard a click and another dial tone. Naturally curious, I found that the tone dial now worked properly (like my phone at home :-) and then thinking that I'd gotten the COCOT to reset somehow, I dialed a local call and talked to a friend. For free. I thought that this might be a fluke, so I tried it again and it worked again. I did some experimenting. Once the phone reset, it was possible to dial local, long distance and even international calls. One could dial both 0+ and 1+ calls. (And even reach AT&T by dialing 10288+ :-) This phone even had a custom calling feature -- 900 number blocking from Mountain Bell! It didn't once talk to me in it's awful computer-sythesized ("Please insert Twenty Five dollars and seventeen cents") voice asking for money. Now, mind you, I wasn't interested in making free telephone calls, I was only being a good troubleshooter, testing the limits of the malfunction. Someone less scrupulous than I might have tried to call Cuba or something. In any case, this was the first time that I saw a COCOT that offered me a better deal than a genuine bell phone, or even than my home phone! I guess it proves that COCOTs aren't all bad. But I still have a question ... can I still call it a 'pay' phone? [Moderator's Note: Do you recall the type of COCOT it was, and the digits you dialed which caused the malfunction? Other readers will want to test the instruments at their local 7-11 so that this potential fraud problem can be stopped before it gets out of hand. Is it still a pay phone? Someone will pay for it alright! :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: 911 and Politics Date: Sat, 07 Mar 92 22:16:37 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) holmanj@uwwvax.uww.edu writes: > Question, when is 911 not 911? > Answer, when it is 9911! > I have always wondered why switches can not be programed to make 911 > dialing really universal. People that are familiar business and > University calling patterns have no problem with this but visitors do. > Does anyone have an explanation as to why switches do not have a 911 > programable feature? > [Moderator's Note: Are you suggesting the private switch should be > programmed so that dialing 9-11 with nothing following would get > translated into 9-911 and sent to the emergency agency? It might not > be a bad idea provided nothing in the phone network otherwise begins > with '11', which is probably correct. If anything starts out '11' then > the private switch would have to time out for lack of any further > digits before processing the call to 911. Might be interesting. PAT] If those who program the private switch determine that "9-11" cannot be programmed in, let them tell you what is programmed in there that begins with "9-11" or what is on the outside that they think begins with "11". I might suggest that they program "9-11" to go to a recording to say something like "You need to dial 9 9 1 1 to reach emergency dispatch". If they can do that, then of course they've been "caught". BTW I'm planning an amateur radio phone patch which I will be trying out at the university club station here. One reason I want to use it ON campus is because even though the controller can block any prefix I want (up to four digits, and up to four unique prefixes) it always bypasses "1-800" past all blocking no matter what. I cannot block "1-800". However I certainly CAN block "9-1" which will include "9-1-800". The controller also has some sort of speed dial. I can program certain numbers to be resent as other numbers. I am planning to program "911" to send "9-911". I hope having "9-1" block will not defeat using "911" as a macro number this way. I may end up having to design my own controller anyway, since there seem to be quite a number of complications and I am already having to add a VOX circuit, as well. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com [Moderator's Note: I have always wondered how amateur radio clubs with phone patches prevent non-members from using the patch. Do you add some sort of additional security digits in the dialing that only members of the club would know about? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Caller*ID Project Update From: cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Sat, 07 Mar 92 23:39:32 CST Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN 74007.303@CompuServe.COM (Rob Bailey, WM8S) writes: [about the MAX 232] > but the chip has on-board +12 and -12 VDC pumps and only requires > +5VDC -- the 1488/89 require +/- 12 (I think). The MAX-232 is also > wired exactly from the spec sheets (only a few 10uF caps were required > for the charge pumps). For even more simplicity, consider the MAX 233. It does all the 232 does, and needs _no_ external componants. Good stuff, Maynard! Sipex and Analog Devices list similar chips, though I've never seen the AD. (I've used the Maxim and Sipex) Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground Date: 8 Mar 92 04:46:36 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , gdelong@ctron.com (Gary Delong) writes: > OK, time for some facts to go with the guesses: > The original basis for the FAR is that any receiver (as well as > transmitter) emits RF. The most commmon frequency and strongest > emited RF is that of the IF osc. (which in most AM radios is 455kHz) > and its products. A few more facts follow: What radiates is not the IF but the local oscillator. For AM broadcast radios, the local oscillator is normally 455 kHz above the frequency to which the reciver is tuned -- in other words, it is not at a fixed frequency, but at a frequency that changes every time the user fiddles with the tuner. > Almost all of the aviation NAV/COM equipment was/is AM. It is > therefore quite probable that the aviation NAV gear could detect the > IF emissions and their products producing random results. The primary domestic NAV/COM equipment is AM but it operates at 108-136 MHz -- quite a ways from the AM broadcast band. While the harmonics from the AM radio's local oscillator may extend that far, it is un-likely. The FARs are normally written conservatively, so AM radios are forbidden anyway. (Note that a secondary domestic NAV system operates at 200-400 kHz.) The FM broadcast receiver, however, typically has its local oscillator at 10.7 MHz above the frequency of the station it is tuned to. Since the FM broadcast band is 88-108 MHz, the local oscillator in an FM receiver operates at 98.7-118.7 MHz. No need for harmonics here! The local oscillator's frequency is right in the midst of the NAV portion of the aircraft NAV/COM spectrum! > An additional note, it used to be common for ham radio operators to > request and obtain permission from the captain to use two meter (144MHz) > handheld radios in flight. Even though these radios operated very > close to aircraft frequecies, they were FM so their IFs were in the > 10MHz range and quite safe to use. No airline captain is allowed by the FAA to give such permission. Two-meter equipment is close enough to the NAV/COM spectrum that harmful interference is extremely likely, especially if the local oscillator operates below the tuned frequency, as it does in some handi-talkies. As a general aviation pilot, I have granted such permission to passengers who are hams. It is a whole lot less expensive to use a ham radio phone patch than it is to use the air/ground telephone at about $1.00/minute for `airtime'. It is a good idea, however, to uncouple the autopilot from the NAV receiver before such radio operation takes place. When the course deviation indicator takes a sudden swing full-scale-left, it's better if the aircraft doesn't try to follow it! 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: Sat, 7 Mar 92 23:49:32 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: New 540 Scam Is this 540-xxxx scam is being advertised just in 212, 718, 914, 516 areas? [Moderator's Note: I'd hope by now those scammers would realize it is not worth their effort to advertise elsewhere! :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 92 23:46:24 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas I wrote: > I called my brother in Houston, and they still have 7D dialing for > local within own area code. And sisklb@Texaco.COM (Linden B. Sisk) replied: > He won't for long. I forget what the exact date for the changeover > is, but the note for it was included in my last telephone bill, and I > think it is March 8th. I am sure it is this month, anyway. I said LOCAL within own area code. I was not commenting on LONG DISTANCE within own area code. I say again: local calls within own area code will still be just the 7D number, right? ------------------------------ From: strange@acpub.duke.edu (Michael B. Scher) Subject: Small Communications Program Sought Date: 8 Mar 92 01:18:34 GMT I am looking for a comm program that occupies little disk space for a laptop in the IBM PC family of computers. Necessary: VT-100/ANSI/VT320 emulation (any 1 will do) ZMODEM transferring SCROLL-BACK buffer (I have found this in NO small program) Currently, I am using Procomm +, which occupies about 330K of disk space, stripped down. If someone knows of a good alternative, I would be most appreciative. I have found some other programs that ALMOST fit the bill (Lync among them), but each has lacked one of the above items (in Lync's case the RAM scroll-back buffer). Thanks, Mike Scher strange@hercules.acpub.duke.edu Duke University -- Durham, NC: Law and Cultural Anthropology ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 18:42:26 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Help Message For New Area Code Because my office is currently part of a permissive dialing plan (i.e. 301 is still useable to reach places in 410), I have the following message on display: 301 is useable until Nov. 1, 1992, but please use 410 as soon as possible. If 410 doesn't work, try another carrier, and if it fails the same way there, please inquire about the equipment where your call originates. We appreciate your doing this, as there sometimes are problems in reaching new area codes and/or prefixes. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #205 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08969; 8 Mar 92 22:54 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28098 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 20:54:55 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00701 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 20:54:46 -0600 Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 20:54:46 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203090254.AA00701@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #206 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Mar 92 20:54:47 CST Volume 12 : Issue 206 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (John Higdon) Re: Gilbert Vernam (Jim Haynes) Re: Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Was Oregon PUC Hearing Summary) (Joshua Lee) Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines (Graham Toal) Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (John Stanley) Re: Metering Pulses (Jim Rees) Re: AT&T Telemarketers Have Feelings, Too? (Barry Parr) Re: 911 and Politics (L. W. Danz) Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service Date: 8 Mar 92 02:53:23 PST (Sun) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) sbb@panix.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: > Regarding the Sweepstakes 800 number scam, an AT&T customer service > representative wrote: >> AT&T must provide its services to all customers who request them. >> AT&T is however, opposed to anything that would deceive consumers or >> violate the trust they have placed in 800 Service. > I wonder why, then, AT&T allows such deceptive behavior. Allows? Did you say "allows"? Try "actively encourages". My clients in the IP industry report that the latest push from AT&T salespeople is the concept of using 800 numbers as a replacement for the more or less tainted 900 service. Notwithstanding a recent poster's great enlightenment from the {New York Times} which appeared to offer information to the contrary, the 900 business IS dying and everyone in the business knows it. (BTW, a tip: do NOT trust in the newspaper for information about the telecommunications industry -- seek it rather from industry players. This probably applies to other fields as well.) AT&T has been doing its part to alienate IPs in its totally arbitrary handling of billing and collections (not to mention arbitrary disconnections) and is now doing its part to initiate and perpetuate the 800 number scams that will eventually lead to the destruction of that service as well. It will not be long before COCOTs, hotel PBXes, and businesses start blocking 800 numbers to avoid the very thing that Mystic Marketing is doing (though not with AT&T in this case). > A company that cared about its customers wouldn't allow the ruination > of one of the few aspects of our increasingly complicated telephone > system with which the public is both familiar and comfortable. This is not about "caring", it is about money. ted@airplane.sharebase.com (Ted Marshall) writes: > My feeling is that there should never be an ANI based bill generated > from an 800 call. As others have written, they are billing the phone > line owner, not the caller. But long distance companies ALWAYS bill the line owner and they do it from ANI data. What really makes this any different? Where is it written that "only long distance charges may be billed from ANI data"? I am somewhat amused that the same people who have been so indignant about 900 services are starting up all over again on this "expanded sleaze". Did people think that if the IPs were driven out of their own sandbox (900 services) that they would just go away? IPs have gotten smart. They have smelled the money. They will not make the same mistakes twice. They WILL become "regulation savvy". If you do not want to pay for IP wares, your only defense will be to become informed. Government regulations will not be a cure-all on this anymore. Personally, I think that the idea of billing against ANI data on an 800 number is fraught with difficulty. Maybe that is why the charge is so high -- to compensate for the massive uncollectables. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 92 23:24:40 -0800 Subject: Re: Gilbert Vernam Perhaps I should have explained the Vernam cipher when I posted his short bio a while back. In paper tape Teletype operation a transmitter-distributor is a machine that reads the tape in parallel, one contact for each row of holes in the tape, and serializes it into start-stop code. The typical "faceplate" distributor is a disk of insulating material set with two concentric copper rings. The inner ring is solid and is connected to the line. The outer ring is divided into seven segments (for 5-level code). Five of these are connected to the reader contacts. One, the start segment is unconnected; and the other, the stop segment, is permanently wired to the other side of the line. A rotating brush assembly connects the two rings together. The tape reader is advanced while the brush is over the stop segment. A clutch allows the brush to stop rotating and remain on the stop segment when there is no tape to be sent. Vernam's machine is a two-headed transmitter distributor. ------------------------------ From: ukelele!jlee@uunet.UU.NET (Joshua Lee) Subject: Re: Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Was Oregon PUC Hearing Summary) Organization: GAU Technologies, Fairfax County, VA Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 07:21:19 GMT peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > I wrote that in my opinion charging to "share costs" in forwarding >> What impact will this have on FidoNet in Oregon, in your opinion? > business. I would hope that Fidonet can adjust to bear the costs > better: return to the older practice of calling the destination city That's fairly impossible, considering that echomail would be rather unafordable if carried point to point, like e-mail. Netmail is still direct, though informal routing schemes exist, so e-mail wouldn't be impacted. The real problem is that Fidonet is a hobbiest network, and the BBSs are mostly free. This is something that could change, and severely impact echomail (which people usually only "run into" not go shopping for) > forwarding service. You don't *have* to carry long-distance mail to > run a BBS ... I think it's a better solution than targeting free chat You do pretty much for a Fidonet BBS, unless you're only into it for the netmail, which is mostly only used for administrative purposes. > Like I said, Usenet (with a much higher volume) manages to operate in It does have a somewhat higher volume in messages, about 100 megs or so to FidoNet's 10 - 40, but consider that Fidonet has to carry all of this on dialup lines, and the ability of it to be offered for free as a service is highly suspect to phone rates. > this sort of environment. There are even companies making money > selling full feeds of Usenet for as little as $75/month (including "Only" $75 a month? It currently costs me $25 a year to help pay for the LD feed of my hub. Some smaller nets have to pay $10 per month. Considering that people have to stay online an hour or two at 2400, it'd end up being too expensive to offer as a free service. Perhaps we don't have the "right" to have conferences on free BBSs as a hobby, but it certainly doesn't appear fair for RBOCs to have joint ventures with Minitel, and simultaneously go around stomping on people offering a free service to people out of their own pockets to people who'd otherwise not have it, including the handicapped and schools. Perhaps it's time that the BBS community start having events, like the shortwave community does, to publicize what they do better, so the news media will have information about the volunteer work we do. Usually people outside of the BBS community only hear about it when some teenaged hacker gets busted, or when a "virus threat" is announced, and BBSs are said to be the easiest way to catch them. ArfaNet: Joshua.Lee@f542.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joshua Lee on 1:109/542) uucp: ...!{uunet,rutgers,ames}!mimsy!prometheus!ukelele!jlee ------------------------------ From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND. Date: Sun, 08 Mar 92 08:17:52 GMT In article SAMcinty@ua.ex.ac.uk (Scott McIntyre) writes: > Starting next month, the code of practice issued to 0898 chat line > numbers here in the UK will be revoked, essentially disallowing > Mercury Communications and British Telecom from providing telephone > service to these companies. > [Moderator's Note: Was any reason given for killing the services? PAT] Yes -- the chatline companies were supposed to pay a certain amount into a fund which is used to reimburse families where the children ran up massive bills unbeknownst to the parents. The chatline companies did not contribute enough to cover the gross misuse, so they were chopped. Cut down by their own greed. 0898 pseudo-job-adverts may be targetted next ... Graham ------------------------------ From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 09:47:13 GMT In article rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes: > No, actually, the captains found that they could get in Big > trouble in allowing the HAMs to use their radios. FAR 91.19 > specifically prohibits this operation and specifically prohibits the > Captain from giving permission. FAR 91.19 does NOT specifically prohibit the 'Captain' (pilot-in-command is a better term, since that is the term used in the regulations) from giving permission. It DOES say that the operator is responsible for authorizing usage, but DOES NOT say that the operator is prohibited from allowing its pic's the discretion to authorize usage. The only effect that 91.19 has is assigning the RESPONSIBILITY to the operator. Thus, a pic cannot authorize usage without also attaching liability to the operator. > And another comment from a Usenetter: I am so happy that people are quoting this unidentified Usenetter. Just to set the record straight, I believe it was me. This text was a summary of perusal of the CFR's, and a discussion with the FCC personnel mentioned in the CL. ------------------------------ From: rees@dabo.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Metering Pulses Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 17:56:48 GMT In article , atina!pccp!noli@uunet. UU.NET (Manuel J. Moguilevsky) writes: > In my country the telephone company sends noisy metering pulses over > the line in long distance calls (only domestic calls, not > international). I love the idea of metering pulses, and I wish we could get them here in the US. In most of the world you can go into any bar and make a phone call, then pay in cash at the end of the call. It greatly simplifies pay phones, too. > The problem is that the metering pulses are so high so it is almost > impossible to send faxes over the lines. The actual delivery of the pulses is a crock, though. They are supposed to be inaudibly high frequency (or is it low frequency?), but they are also high voltage, to drive mechanical meters. So any nonlinearity in the loop gives you audible artifacts. In most places, delivery of meter pulses is an extra-cost option, and you have to order it and pay a monthly charge for it. Do they get delivered by default in Argentina? [Moderator's Note: The reason we do not allow paying for phone calls at the end of the call in this country is because too many people would run off and not pay. When they were finished talking, they would just leave the receiver off-hook and walk away, particularly in the types of establishments you mentioned, bars and restaurants, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bparr@netcom.com (Barry Parr) Subject: Re: AT&T Telemarketers Have Feelings, Too? Date: Sun, 08 Mar 92 18:06:41 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM writes: > I had a fascinating call last night from a telemarketing outfit hired > by AT&T to pitch some sort of home monitoring program. It started like > the routine irritation of typical telemarketers, then took a strange > twist. > AT&T: (genuinely hurt) Well, people always chew me out or hang up on > me, and I think you're the only who's let me read all the way through > without cutting me off. I was just wondering what was wrong with the > script that was making people so mad at me ... > At this point, all efforts to sell me this stuff had gone right out of > her head, and I found myself talking to a telemarketer of two weeks' > experience, as it turned out, who was trying desperately to keep her > head on straight. I was intrigued by your experience with the poor AT&T home security telemarketer who felt she had been treated so badly by her prospects. I was also called by these folks a couple of weeks ago. After I politely told the fellow on the other end that I wasn't interested, he hung up on me without a word. Barry Parr San Lorenzo, CA bparr@netcom.com [Moderator's Note: Did anyone see the 'Dear Abby' (or was it Ann Landers) item in the Sunday papers from the woman who said she hung up rudely on a telemarketer only to be called back seconds later by the same telemarketer asking her why she couldn't be more polite in ending the conversation? PAT] ------------------------------ From: dan@quiensabe.az.stratus.com Subject: Re: 911 and Politics Date: 8 Mar 92 15:29:32 GMT Reply-To: dan@quiensabe.az.stratus.com In article pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) writes: > holmanj@uwwvax.uww.edu writes: >> Question, when is 911 not 911? >> Answer, when it is 9911! Not all switches are programmed that 9 is an outside line. And in foreign countries (Japan for example), 9 is a local (hotel) operator, and 0 is the outside line. So, its easy for visitors anywhere to be confused. > I might suggest that they program "9-11" to go to a recording to say > something like "You need to dial 9 9 1 1 to reach emergency dispatch". > If they can do that, then of course they've been "caught". It seems to me that if you have a local security office (most universities and large businesses do), then 911 ought to go to that office first. 9-911 could always force outside access. > [Moderator's Note: I have always wondered how amateur radio clubs with > phone patches prevent non-members from using the patch. Do you add > some sort of additional security digits in the dialing that only > members of the club would know about? PAT] If the patch is private, it generally takes some secret incantation of DTMF digits to get dial tone in the first place. L. W. "Dan" Danz WA5SKM VOS Mail: Dan_Danz@vos.stratus.com Sr Consulting Software SE NeXT Mail: dan@az.stratus.com Customer Assistance Center Voice Mail/Pager: (602) 852-3107 Telecommunications Division Customer Service: (800) 828-8513 Stratus Computer, Inc. 4455 E. Camelback #115-A, Phoenix AZ 85018 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 02:24 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? (was CLASS Services Interfering) lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) > In either case, Steve's remarks prompt me to ask if anyone has any > remarks about which switch we should ask to be served from, and > reasons/remarks/feelings thereon. I *do* remember a *lot* of #5 > bashing over the last year, at least wrt residential service ... (I > wouldn't know, we're on a #1A right now.) No problem. Keep the 1A. If that is not possible, then it is DMS-100, hands down. I base this on personal experience, conversations with switchmen, and others' experiences. Audio quality is superior on a DMS, particularly on three-way calls. DMS offers a "1AESS" emulation package in an effort to keep feature implementation standard. Also, the DMS has superior support for ISDN as applied to Centrex feature phones. My attitude on the 5ESS has not changed. No amount of futtzing around by Pac*Bell has improved the audio quality since the switch serving my lines was installed. It is still grainy and noisy. Since the rains, it has a new annoyance -- hum. Both the 1ESS and the 5ESS lines in my home now have hefty inter-digit hum. On the 1E, the hum goes away after dialing. On the 5E, the remains at all times even while talking. The DMS lines we have from Contel sound better and the features work more intuitively. If you have a choice, opt for the DMS. 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 #206 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12010; 9 Mar 92 0:15 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22288 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 22:14:09 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00768 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 22:13:54 -0600 Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 22:13:54 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203090413.AA00768@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #207 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Mar 92 22:13:55 CST Volume 12 : Issue 207 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines (Phil Howard) Re: Bizarre First Minute COCOT Charges (Paul Houle) Re: Physical Phone Security (Phil Howard) Re: Caller ID Product Idea (Phil Howard) Re: MI Bell Bill Insert and Notice - 2/92 (John Higdon) Re: Caller-ID Project Update (Rob Bailey) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (John Higdon) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Graham Toal) Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas (Linden B. Sisk) Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas (James Hartman) Unexpected Help From TELECOM Digest (Steve Kass) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 01:05:28 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) SAMcinty@ua.ex.ac.uk (Scott McIntyre) writes: > The decision by OFTEL (the UK telephone watchdog) does not cover the > disputed sex lines. These lines will continue to operate, yet the > kiddie chat lines and jokes and so on will cease to exist. > [Moderator's Note: Was any reason given for killing the services? PAT] These lines apparently are commonly used by pedophiles to first anonymously befriend children who don't know any better, and then later ... I think better solutions COULD have been arranged to allow this kind of service to continue WITH some security. It would have had to include a parental release and a private access code for each kid to use it. The process would require identification of the school the kid attends and this would have to be checked before the access code can be issued. Hopefully that would filter most of the pedophiles. I hope we can adopt something better here in the colonies. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com [Moderator's Note: Well in the last issue, blame was placed on the services for not putting enough money in reserves for uncollectibles. That made sense ... now you say the problem with is a category of users gaining the undeserved trust of the intended users of the service. So one vote for the deadbeats, and one vote for the poor pedophiles ... any other suggestions, anyone? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 18:06:28 MST From: houle@jupiter.nmt.edu (Paul Houle) Subject: Re: Bizarre First Minute COCOT Charges Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology In article I write: > it again and it worked again. I did some experimenting. Once the > phone reset, it was possible to dial local, long distance and even > international calls. One could dial both 0+ and 1+ calls. (And even > reach AT&T by dialing 10288+ :-) This phone even had a custom calling > feature -- 900 number blocking from Mountain Bell! It didn't once > talk to me in it's awful computer-sythesized ("Please insert Twenty > Five dollars and seventeen cents") voice asking for money. > [Moderator's Note: Do you recall the type of COCOT it was, and the > digits you dialed which caused the malfunction? Other readers will > want to test the instruments at their local 7-11 so that this > potential fraud problem can be stopped before it gets out of hand. > Is it still a pay phone? Someone will pay for it alright! :) PAT] No, I don't recall what kind of COCOT it was, but I can check it the next time I go by the supermarket. The malfunction seemed to occur whenever I attempted to dial ANY number. I didn't discover any kind of 'secret code' -- although that would have been really nice. Also, the phone was working perfectly today (dialing 1-800-555-1212 connected me to toll-free directory assistance, and it wanted money for local and long distance calls) so it seems as if the phone was either fixed or it reset itself. So, I think it was just a fluke. Readers who want to try this at home would probably do best to drop by the 7-11, the mall, the airport and the gas station as often as possible, relying on Poisson statistics and luck. [Moderator's Note: See the final message in this issue for an interesting spin on the topic ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Physical Phone Security Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 01:15:33 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) tmkk@uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) writes: > What sorts of measures can a homeowner take to protect his phone > lines? I saw just today on one of the "fix up your home" type shows (did not catch the name) when they were discussing the security system of a home being remodeled, they showed a radio transmitter that would reach the security control center 20 miles away. This was "because many burglars are cutting telephone wires". No mention of the frequency or band used. The antenna was long enough to be hi-band VHF, but could have been a colinear on a UHF band, as it was incased in something about 5-6 cm wide. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Caller ID Product Idea Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 01:32:17 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) jh203s806@sycom.mi.org (Jim Harvey) writes: > 1. Incoming calls will have their caller ID tacked on to the end of > the tape message by a voice synthesizer. I think it would be easier to implement it to record the number during the time the caller is hearing "... at the beep please leave your ...". I'd also want it to record the date and time and line number. > 2. The Detour garbage option. Any call coming in with a blocked ID > is instantly routed to the tape. Replay button will have a skip-to- > next-beep option so you can quickly scroll past computer sales calls. > Even better would be a machine with separate tapes for normal incoming > calls and blocked calls. It should simply let you program it to route the call to any place that it can route it (tape 1, tape 2, phone 1, phone 2, back out on line 2 dialing xxx-xxxx, etc.). Are we getting fancy enough. This should be done on a number basis, with "Private" (blocked) and "Unknown" treated as special cases. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: MI Bell Bill Insert and Notice - 2/92 Date: 8 Mar 92 02:06:12 PST (Sun) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) Jack Decker writes: > Instead, Section 304(7)(a) states in part that "A > person who has reached the age of 60 years or more, who is > handicapped, or who is voluntarily providing a service for an > organization classified by the internal revenue service as a section > 501(c)(3) or (19) organization, or a congressionally chartered > veterans organization or their duly authorized foundations, is exempt > from the 400 calls per month limitation and may receive a flat rate > allowing unlimited calls per month. Well, it looks as though Michigan does not subscribe to the Moderator's assertion that even though people may be doing non-profit endeavors, they must still pay business rates if the use is in any way unusual, or if it generates high volume, etc., etc. There it is in yellow and black: the only people who have to pay extra for extra local traffic are (apparently) your average people who may have found a recreational use for the telephone. What I do not understand is: if you run a BBS, you will pay through the nose. If you are blind (oops, sorry, visually challenged), deaf (oops, aurally disadvantaged), or whathaveyou, you get a whopping discount. What is the justification for this? Is the assumption that handicapped people are without means? But then, what about other people that are "without means"? And what does "60 years of age" have to do with anything? Most of the people I know who are over 60 have a hell of a lot more resources than I do. This is one of the most blantant examples of non-market-oriented rate diddling to come along in a long time. I know that we just assume the the government runs everything these days. Why do we not just turn the whole mess over to the Federal government and let the Post Office run all the phones and stop this charade of a "privately owned and operated network"? What a hoot! > But Michigan Bell apparently intends to restrict the exemption not > only to those who use their phones in the volunteer efforts, but to > those who make EXTENSIVE USE (whatever that is) of their phones for > such purposes. Maybe Michigan Bell will monitor the lines of people claiming the exemption. > Just thought you might find all this mildly interesting. And mildly depressing. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ Date: 08 Mar 92 15:59:23 EST From: "Rob Bailey, WM8S" <74007.303@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Caller*ID Project Update I got a lot of offers to convert a hard-copy to something machine readable, which I can do. I wasn't sure, though, that this would be of much use. Sometime this month (I've gotten very busy lately), I will make every effort to scribble the schematic down and scan it in, and put the resulting file on the lcs anon ftp site. I assure you, though, that it would be a lot easier (and less prone to my errors) to hunt up a copy of the specs for the 2211 and the 232 on your own. In response to the question about where to find the 2211: Have you really looked? I see an entry for them in every mail order catalog I own, including (but not to endorse) JDR, Digikey, and Jameco. Why didn't I use a MAX233 instead of a 232? Simple: I had 232's lying around! The project would be better built with the '233, but they are much more difficult to find mail-order. Finally thanks for the suggestions for software features. The ones that I got that I hadn't already thought of myself were support for multiple COMn: port access (simultaneously), and lots of suggestions for controlling other hardware (mainly speech cards) which I will probably not add due to the nature of the intended market. The software is meant to be run on the simplest XT with no additionaly hardware. Summary later -- thanks ... de Rob WM8S ------------------------------ Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Date: 8 Mar 92 02:31:16 PST (Sun) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: > The bill was drafted by the FBI and the Justice Department in > response to dramatic changes in telephone technology that make it > difficult for traditional wiretapping methods to pick up conversations > between two parties on a telephone line. Isn't is a shame that technological advancements in telephony are serving people rather than government bureaucrats? After all, what is more important: people or the government? > The FBI has already asked Congress for $26.6 million in its > 1993 fiscal year budget to help finance a five-year research effort to > help keep pace with the changes in telephone technology. Heaven forbid that the people of this nation should expect to be able to think for themselves without government looking over every shoulder. First we had encryption that had to be "breakable" by the FBI. Now we have to make sure that our telephones are still "tappable". Why, we would all wither and die if the FBI could not tap any phone it wanted to when it wanted to. I cannot tell you how safe I feel at night knowing that the FBI is on the job listening to all those evil-doers plotting those nasty deeds. > The subscriber loop -- that is, the final link in the connection > between the telephone user and his central office is still usually > just a pair of wires; easy to splice into; very easy to monitor. PAT] Yes, it may be a pair of wires, but it is not necessarily simple analog audio any more. It not so simple to do a nice, neat "drop and insert" on digital entrance facilities. A number of firms now have fiber entrance facilities which are even more difficult to "tap". The laughable thing here is that no matter what the government may do, encrypted data will be "impossible" to tap. And even if a law is passed (the solution to everything is to pass a law), how would it be enforced? If I have a T1 coming in, I can theoretically put any kind of (scrambled) data I choose on it. How will the FBI tell scrambled voice from data? Does anyone know when Hollings' term is up? John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND. Date: Sun, 08 Mar 92 14:07:36 GMT In article rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: > [Moderator's Note: Without commenting on the privacy issues involved, > I must ask what has become so difficult about spying on someone else > over the phone that this new effort has to be started? My guess is we're seeing internecine warfare between the FBI and the NSA. I suspect only the NSA have access to built-in remote tapping facilities at the central telco offices, and the FBI still have to rely on old fashioned crocodile clip taps ... Graham ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 21:30:15 CST From: sisklb@Texaco.COM (Linden B. Sisk) Subject: Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas Summary: Oops ... In relation to my note about the dialing changeover for calls in NPA 713, Patrick Humphrey, among others, was nice enough to point out that the changeover involves dialing 1 + 713 + 7D for TOLL calls within 713, rather than ALL calls. Locals calls within 713 will still be 7D. Sorry about the confusion. Which brings up the question in my mind as to how many places, if any, is it necessary to dial 1+NPA+7D for ALL calls, even local calls? Is this an inevitable feature of NPA's of the form NXX? It seems to me that it shouldn't be, that the switch should be smart enough to realize that if only seven digits are dialed, a local call is intended. Linden B. (Lindy) Sisk | Voice: +1-713-432-3294 Ham: AK5N Research Electrical Engineer | Fax: +1-713-432-6908 Bix: lbsisk Texaco, Inc. P.O. Box 425 | MCIMail: lbsisk CIS: 72047,2645 Bellaire, TX 77402-0425 | Internet: sisklb@texaco.com [Moderator's Note: Are you willing to sit there and wait for the switch to time out before it processes the seven digits? One option I've never seen discussed though is the use of # as a terminator when dialing local and long distance calls as is done with international calls and abbreviated calling card dialing. (When dialing the number to which a calling card is assigned, one need only dia the four digit PIN followed by the # to speed processing.) PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas From: unkaphaed!phaedrus@cs.utexas.edu (James Hartman, Sysop) Date: Sun, 08 Mar 92 03:11:43 GMT Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) writes: > I called my brother in Houston, and they still have 7D dialing for > local within own area code. Other people have to dial more than seven digits for local calls? Jeez, I *MUST* live in a cultural backwater. :-) We DID, however, recently get an insert in the monthly bill telling us that Real Soon Now (the exact date has escaped me), we'll have to dial 1+713+# to reach long distance but within the area code numbers. Looks like they're cranking up the N1N/N0N exchanges ... phaedrus@unkaphaed.UUCP (James Hartman, Sysop) Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 13:21 EST From: SKASS@drew.drew.edu Subject: Unexpected Help From TELECOM Digest Thanks to TELECOM Digest for helping me out in an unexpected way. Here I am at work checking up on a few things before heading out of town, and I see this: In Issue #205, Paul Houle (houle@jupiter.nmt.edu) writes: > good to say about a COCOT. I was returning some videos and buying ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, I forgot that I rented some videos yesterday, and this jogged my memory. I guess I'll have to swing by home on the way out. And there's a COCOT near my video store, too. Hmm ... so thanks, Pat, for saving me a few bucks in late charges! Steve Kass, Math&CS, Drew University, Madison, NJ 07940 skass@drew.drew.edu (201)-408-3614 [Moderator's Note: I thought maybe you were gonna thank me for saving you a few bucks having your fortune told. :) In case you lost the number and can't find your copy of the {Star} for last week, that number being advertised by Mystic Marketing is 1-800-736-7886. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #207 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15479; 9 Mar 92 1:47 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18877 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 23:48:02 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26490 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 23:47:49 -0600 Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 23:47:49 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203090547.AA26490@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #208 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Mar 92 23:47:49 CST Volume 12 : Issue 208 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (Mark Eklof) Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Phil Howard) Re: What About CID and ISDN? (Peter Desnoyers) Re: 911 and Politics (Ed Greenberg) Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.) Re: Physical Phone Security (Ken Kopin) Re: Phone Phun (Ken Kopin) Re: The World's Best, eh? (Terry Kennedy) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 17:51:16 EST Reply-To: me@stile.stonemarche.org Organization: Stonemarche Network Co-op From: me@stile.stonemarche.org (Mark Eklof) Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire > A flyer enclosed in each bill notifies NH customers of these tariff > changes taking effect March 20, 1992: I have yet to get this month's bill from New England Telephone, so haven't seen this flyer yet. I did get a letter from NETel about point 4, which I'll address then. I assume that the original poster is also an NETel customer, but am not certain. New Hampshire is very balkanised when it comes to LECs. I know of four LECs in this area, varying by town. There's also wierd local calling areas, which often put 'local' businesses in exchanges that are long distance 'phone calls away. There are many cases where the next town over, or even parts of the same town, are long distance calls. > 1! No more separate charge for Touch-Tone (r). ConTel (I think after GTE bought them, but before they changed the name) did this about a year ago. They had charged $1/month for Touch-Tone (r), but did away with it. In order to compensate for lost revenue, they raised everyone's rate by $.80/month at the same time -- Gee, (no, GTE!) thanks! I was surprised a few months ago when I moved to a town that had NETel as its LEC that they still charged ($1.48/month) for Touch-Tone (r). > 3! Directory assistance is now 40 cents, after five free calls a month. It was 23 cents, after 10 free calls per month. > 4! In place of all other outgoing toll plans, a virtual rating plan > will be instituted. Two cents per call, 26 per minute daytime, 15 > cents per minute evenings, and 10 cents per minute nights. No > minumum billing, and billing is PER SECOND. > Volume discounts on daytime calling, apply to all customers, is > 15 cents per minute after 960 minutes, 10.5 cents per minute > after 4800 minutes. I got a letter about this, since I subscribe to a discount calling plan that is going away. Granite State (sm) calling was $12.47/month, and included two hours of non-local in-state calls (billed by the minute). Additional minutes (or fractions thereof) were $.082. It wasn't valid from 9:00AM-12:00PM and 6:00PM-9:00PM (normal rates applied, then). This plan, and one other (Circle Calling Services) are being discontinued. In their place, NETel is offering the CallAround (sm) 603 Plan. This is $6/month, including one hour of non-local in-state calls billed by the second. Additional minutes (again, billed by the second) are $.095. It isn't valid from 8:00AM-5:00PM. Mark D. Eklof White Pine Grange Brookline, New Hampshire me@stile.stonemarche.org ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 04:31:09 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >> My feeling is that there should never be an ANI based bill generated >> from an 800 call. As others have written, they are billing the phone >> line owner, not the caller. > But long distance companies ALWAYS bill the line owner and they do it > from ANI data. What really makes this any different? Where is it > written that "only long distance charges may be billed from ANI data"? > IPs have gotten smart. They have smelled the money. They will not make > the same mistakes twice. They WILL become "regulation savvy". If you > do not want to pay for IP wares, your only defense will be to become > informed. Government regulations will not be a cure-all on this > anymore. New laws or regulations can also become "sleaze savvy" if we want them to be. Let's characterize the problem: We have TWO classes of costs being billed to line owners: 1. the service provided by the common carrier 2. the service provided by the connected party Better laws/regulations could define these different classes of billable costs, and specify restrictions on how and when the common carrier may provide this service to the customer. Recent laws/regulations specifically address "900 service" as opposed to a "connected party service billed through common carrier" catch all that it seems we now need. It's obvious that we need to go back to Congress and rewrite that law so that it is more generalized and cannot be circumvented by "creative sleaze". I want to be able to block billing (and hence delivery of service) of: 1. service provided by the common carrier not originating on my line (e.g. collect calls, etc.) 2. service provided by any connected company Either the defaults should be #1 not blocked and #2 BLOCKED, unless the order taking process specifically asks these questions at that time. Another possibility is "conditionally blocked". The cost billing will be blocked unless an access code is entered before the call being placed to specifically authorize unblocking on this call. > Personally, I think that the idea of billing against ANI data on an > 800 number is fraught with difficulty. Maybe that is why the charge is > so high -- to compensate for the massive uncollectables. Does anyone know of an 800 with a small cost? I want to see what my phone company does when I try to get them to bounce a cost from an 800 number. In the mean time, maybe I will go call AT&T about setting up a BBS system on an 800 number which does ANI billing for services rendered (at about $50 a minute). Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: peterd@merlin.dev.cdx.mot.com (Peter Desnoyers) Subject: Re: What About CID and ISDN? Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, Massachusetts Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 04:30:05 GMT brian@apt.bungi.com (Brian Litzinger) writes: > It is my understanding that CID information is basically available on > the D channel of an ISDN inbound call, so ... whats the deal with CID > and ISDN? The Calling Party ID information element is optional in a SETUP message -- my understanding is that you just omit it if you don't have the information. Remember that even though the call may be delivered to an ISDN line, it may have originated on a crossbar switch somewhere in the boonies. Peter Desnoyers ------------------------------ From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: 911 and Politics Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 04:48:26 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) > [Moderator's Note: I have always wondered how amateur radio clubs with > phone patches prevent non-members from using the patch. Do you add > some sort of additional security digits in the dialing that only > members of the club would know about? PAT] Several things are going on here. A group can just not tell the general (ham) public the code. The repeater typically mutes them on the output, so a person trying to capture the codes would have to be within direct receiving range of the calling ham. Another security feature is that the ham making the call must identify. If the control operator of the repeater doesn't recognize the caller, he may interrupt the call or just tell the fellow to go away. Then the codes can be changed. Some repeater codes are changed once a year, right after the deadline to re-up with the club. The bottom line is that the system runs mostly on trust, on good behavior, and on a control operator who can turn the repeater off via a back door in the event of emergency. In any group of people there will be bad apples, but in 16 years a ham, I've never heard an autopatch abused. Ed Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0184 | edg@netcom.com P. O. Box 28618 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95159 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) ------------------------------ From: hoyt@isus.org (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) Subject: Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line Organization: International Society of Unified Science Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 21:43:41 GMT In article davidb@zeus.ce.washington. edu (David W. Barts) writes: > Regarding the discussion about sending 440 Hz over a telephone for > piano tuning purposes, I seem to recall that a number of years ago > there was a telephone number in Vienna, Austria that one could dial to > get a pure 440 Hz tone. It was provided explicitly for the purpose of > tuning musical instruments. One can call the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (formerly NBS). Radio station WWV broadcasts 440 HZ accurate to 1 part in 10^12 or so (as accurate as its possible to be, using multiple cesium beam atomic clocks), and the audio is available by phone. The radio frequencies are 20KHZ, 60KHZ, 2.5, 5.0, 10, 15, 20, 25 MHZ. I don't have the phone number, but it is in AC 303, Fort Collins CO. Try calling the voice number 303 484 2372 (old info) and asking. Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| hoyt@isus.uucp 4131 E. Cannon Dr. | Phoenix, AZ. 85028 voice 602_996_1717 [Moderator's Note: I think it is 303-484-7111. PAT] ------------------------------ From: aa377@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ken Kopin) Subject: Re: Physical Phone Security Reply-To: aa377@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ken Kopin) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 03:16:17 GMT In a previous article, tmkk@uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) says: > I'm interested in hearing suggestions for physically securing one or > more residential telephone lines. As we know, those gray plastic > network interfaces are great for troubleshooting -- just unplug the > RJ-14 jack, plug in a test set, and away you go. Unfortunately, this > also allows anyone with a modular phone to walk up to your house, > unplug your phones, plug in his own, and make fraudulent phone calls. > In addition, the wiring is highly vulnerable to vandalism, and many > burglars will cut phone lines as a matter of course to defeat security > system auto dialers. > What sorts of measures can a homeowner take to protect his phone > lines? Can the incoming lines be moved underground? Can the network > interface be moved inside the building, say to a panel in the > basement? Will the telco charge outrageous sums to perform this sort > of thing? I don't have an answer to this but I DO have a story ... About two years ago, I noticed some new wires coming out of the bottom of my Gray Box (The Network Interface) So I calls up Ma Bell and said, "Gee, guys, could you come and look at this, it looks broke." The Ma-Bell guy comes out, and whips out what is basically a 3/8 nut driver, and opens the box. My jaw dropped. I had a LOCK on my half of that stupid thing, and any idiot with a Socket Set can open it? He finds that someone had opened THEIR half of the box, and wired into my line. As expected, I had a LOT of 1-900 calls on my bill the next month, which I screamed about. Their answer was, "Well, we DO have this program to waive the charges ... (for idiots who haven't got a clue about pay services, like you) (Bracketed Text Mine)" Since I wasn't going to have to pay, I agreed. Now I wonder if I am on some kind of Idiot List. And they STILL haven't replaced that stupid thing, (Although, they MIGHT have some trouble opening it on their end if they try to. :) The wires coming out of the bottom were only about two inches long. They had cut their "new" connection with a knife. Ken Kopin Internet: AA377@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu Bitnet: AA377%Cleveland.Freenet.Edu@cunyvm ------------------------------ From: aa377@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ken Kopin) Subject: Re: Phone Phun Reply-To: aa377@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ken Kopin) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 03:28:56 GMT In a previous article, ampex!delanst@decwrl.dec.com (Steve DeLaney) says: > This has served to illustrate just how reliant one becomes on > technology. Even when TWO of our battery clocks showed the time being > one hour EARLIER it took a while for the realization to sink in, > somehow refusing to accept the possibility that Pac Bell could be > wrong. In fact, for the first few minutes we almost had ourselves > convinced that both OUR clocks were wrong, or that we had missed a > switch to daylight savings time, or that someone came into the house > in the middle of the night to play a practical joke on us by turning > back our clocks! What's the matter? Don't you have Cable TV? We have at least four separate channels with independant clocks. Plus, you probably have a computer with a battery clock? I trust the computer first, then whatever time is colaborated by the most sources. Ken Kopin Internet: AA377@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu Bitnet: AA377%Cleveland.Freenet.Edu@cunyvm ------------------------------ From: terry@spcvxb.spc.edu (Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr.) Subject: Re: The World's Best, eh? Date: 9 Mar 92 00:13:51 GMT Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article , Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: [text about lots of outages and problems deleted] > Well, maybe if they can't be as good as they were, at least they may > yet become honest and fess up to being far less than the perfect image > they want to hold forth. Well, I use the phone a good deal in my job, and I have this to say about the quality of the phone system today compared to pre-divestiture: 1) The quality of station equipment has become much, much poorer. Pre-breakup instruments are treasures around my office. 2) Call routing speed and completion rates are much, much, better now. If I dial a number, either local or long distance, I get a klunk within a second of dialing the last digit and either an immediate ring or busy. In the old days, I would hear a few seconds of clicks (if I landed on a pulse trunk) or a string of MF, followed by four or five seconds of waiting, and then a ring (which might change to a busy in mid-ring if I was calling into a panel office). 3) In recent years (let's say the last five) I have _never_ received a "we're sorry, all trunks are busy" or fast busy unless there was congestion or trouble at the terminating office. In the old days, I would frequently get those even if my office and the terminating office had capacity. I suspect the improvement is due to both better routing from the electronic control equipment and more trunks. The latter (more trunks) is much easier to plan for with systems that have electronic control. Have you ever tried to do traffic measurement in a progressive control mechanical switch? I have, and it's _very_ hard. 4) In the "old days", if you didn't like AT&T, you could decide you didn't want to make long distance phone calls. Period. Now you have a wide variety of choices, from industry leaders to the scum of the earth, at a variety of price and performance points. Even the local monopoly shows signs of giving way to alternate providers over the next few years. 5) It's a lot harder for the average phone customer to deal with the phone company, both because of the "instrument/dial-tone" split and because the companies have reduced staffing (and in some cases, staff quality) in those service positions. I suspect that all of the above, both good and bad, would have happened sooner or later without divestiture, but (as long as I can keep my 2500 sets) I'm happier with the system now than I was then. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #208 ******************************  ISSUE 209 ARRIVED LATE AND FOLLOWS ISSUE 211.  Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22577; 10 Mar 92 2:19 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05654 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 00:17:17 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27278 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 00:17:03 -0600 Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 00:17:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203100617.AA27278@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #210 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Mar 92 00:16:54 CST Volume 12 : Issue 210 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 911 and Politics (Patton M. Turner) Re: 911 and Politics (Gordon Burditt) Re: 911 and Politics (Steve Forrette) Re: 911 and Politics (Tony Harminc) Re: 911 and Politics (Steve Howard) Re: 911 and Politics (Rich Greenberg) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Neil Katin ) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Oscar Valdes) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (disk!tony@uunet.uu.net) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Andy Sherman) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Toby Nixon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 00:53:37 CST From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: 911 and Politics > [Moderator's Note: I have always wondered how amateur radio clubs with > phone patches prevent non-members from using the patch. Do you add > some sort of additional security digits in the dialing that only > members of the club would know about? PAT] We (the college club, the local club, and two other clubs I belong to) have no restrictions on the autopatch. Anyone abusing it (the usual example is ordering pizza, which has actually happened here) is talked to, which has never failed to stop the problem. We welcome non-members to use the autopatch. Until about ten minutes ago, we allowed any calls that the campus PBX would pass, but now I've restricted it to seven digits (9 is automaticaly prepended) so no billed 800 numbers show up on the SMDR with our extension. > [Moderator's Note: Are you suggesting the private switch should be > programmed so that dialing 9-11 with nothing following would get > translated into 9-911 and sent to the emergency agency? It might not > be a bad idea provided nothing in the phone network otherwise begins > with '11', which is probably correct. If anything starts out '11' then > the private switch would have to time out for lack of any further > digits before processing the call to 911. Might be interesting. PAT] 911 and 9911 are both passed to the campus police dispatcher, who leaves a lot to be desired when compaired to the city E911 operators. Off campus dialing (9-NNX-XXXX) was real interesting for a few weeks after the city brought E911 online but before AU cut over from centrex to an SL-100. You would dial 9 then have to wait for a timeout befor getting a dial tone. I don't know if this affected all centrex custimers, or just AU. Anybody know what centrex does to route 911, if anything. Pat Turner pturner@eng.auburn.edu KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Re: 911 and Politics Organization: Gordon Burditt Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 07:22:33 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Are you suggesting the private switch should be > programmed so that dialing 9-11 with nothing following would get > translated into 9-911 and sent to the emergency agency? When I was in college in the early 70's, some of the guys got excited about discovering the "secret numbers" used by telephone installers. When my phone was installed, the installer used two numbers from the set 11[2-9]. I tried calling these numbers once, a human answered without any particular identification, and I apologized for the wrong number and hung up. I'm guessing it was a number for a test board or a dispatcher in the repair department. 11xx has the current use on many switches as being the way to dial *xx if you don't have a touch-tone phone, but it works if you dial it with touch-tone anyway. I presume such features as "cancel call waiting" shouldn't be needed on a PBX trunk, but what about "don't send Caller-ID", assuming the PBX doesn't have the ability to pass the extension to the central office? On my home line, 11[0-6,8-9] give a busy signal, but 1175 starts ringback (and nobody answers). Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 08:00:00 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: 911 and Politics Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA > [Moderator's Note: Are you suggesting the private switch should be > programmed so that dialing 9-11 with nothing following would get > translated into 9-911 and sent to the emergency agency? We used to have a Toshiba PBX that did exactly that. Our new Lexar apparently lacks this feature (or it is not enabled). Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 18:49:52 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: 911 and Politics holmanj@uwwvax.uww.edu wrote: > I have always wondered why switches can not be programed to make 911 > dialing really universal. People that are familiar business and > University calling patterns have no problem with this but visitors do. > Does anyone have an explanation as to why switches do not have a 911 > programable feature? I am aware of several companies here with NT SL/1 PBXs programmed exactly this way. I believe (but I'm not 100% sure) that we have Centrex-III in our Montreal office with the same feature. Of course 9 911 continues to work as well. Tony H. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 911 and Politics Date: 9 Mar 92 18:36:30 MST (Mon) From: steveh@breck1.breck.com (Steve Howard) I had the same problem here are the Breckenridge Ski Area with our AT&T System 75. We wanted our guests to be able to dial 911 from any of our "Emergency Phones" which are located at various strategic locations on our mountains. We also wanted the 911 calls to go to the closest, most appropriate dispatch point. We could have used "Hot Line" service for the phones on the mountains -- but then the phones couldn't call anywhere else :-(. We also wanted 911 available to people in the offices -- Hot Line to 911 wouldn't work from the office :-). I found two options: 1) Change the dial plan so that 911 would be its own extension and all calls would then go to that extension. 2) Use abbreviated dial lists. "9" to access the list and "11" for the abbreviated dial code. The problem with option #1 is that all 911 calls would go to the same point. Somebody reporting that their building was on fire might end up getting a Ski Patrol dispatcher three mountains away. This wouldn't work. I chose option #2. The System 75 lets you assign abbreviated dial lists on a "per-extension" basis. Using this feature, each extension was assigned a destination for abbreviated dial list #3 (with an access code of "9"). Member "11" of the abbreviated dial list then points to the correct destination. All On-Mountain Emergency Phones route to the closest Ski Patrol dispatch point which gives our guest the fastest possible service. Each office/building phone routes to the county 911. It works great!! The biggest problem we encountered was that I had to change our "outside line" code on our PBX from "9" to "8". Although this was a pain, almost everybody agreed that having 911 was very important -- Thanks to William Shatner :-) Steve Howard steveh@breck1.breck.com Breckenridge Ski Corporation Disclaimer=The opinions above do not necessarily represent those of my employer ------------------------------ From: richg@locus.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: 911 and Politics Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1992 18:18:06 GMT In article pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) writes: [Discussion of setting up a phone patch for a university radio club] > [Moderator's Note: I have always wondered how amateur radio clubs with > phone patches prevent non-members from using the patch. Do you add > some sort of additional security digits in the dialing that only > members of the club would know about? PAT] The proper term for what Phil is describing is an Autopatch. The several autopatches I have used thru various repeaters require an access code of one or (usually) more digits. Depending on the type of circutry in the repeater's controller (and there is a lot of CPU power on those mountain tops :-) ), you either get a dial tone and dial the rest of the call, or you just follow the access code with the phone number and it is dialed by the controller. Most such controllers have toll restriction capability. Whether or not the restrictions are enabled is up to the owner of the repeater (radio club or individual). Rich Greenberg, richg@locus.com TinselTown, USA 310-337-5904 Located in Inglewood, Ca, a small city completely contained within Los Angeles Opinions expressed are solely those of the writer. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 14:36:16 PST From: Neil.Katin@Eng.Sun.COM (Neil Katin ) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On > [Moderator's Note: Without commenting on the privacy issues involved, > I must ask what has become so difficult about spying on someone else > over the phone that this new effort has to be started?... I believe that a key piece of the proposal is to be able to trace cellular phones, which do *not* have easy-to-access pairs available. Neil Katin [Moderator's Note: Why don't they have easy access? You take your court order to the cell company and you say 'when Mr. Townson makes a call on his cellular phone, put the call through but send it by us for a look-see-listen also.' So the tower sees my ESN and phone number and it says 'aha, this call is to go out on trunk X which has that funny wiring on it ... and I am also supposed to tell them which tower I am and Mr. Townson's proximity to me as best I can tell.' There is bound to be -- almost certainly -- a piece of metal in the connection * somewhere* for those alligator clips and capacitors. PAT] ------------------------------ From: valdes@andy.bgsu.edu (oscar Valdes) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Date: 9 Mar 92 05:18:53 GMT I've been following the news and discussion on this topic with a high level of interest. An angle to the subject nobody has discussed is what the whole thing says about the competence of the FBI engineers who are in charge of developing new and improved wiretaps. I've seen several ads placed by the FBI announcing job openings for electronic engineers and technicians. I would presume part of their duties would be to do this type of work. However, it is probably cheaper to buy ready made devices instead of spending R&D money and I suspect they just trying slow down or stop new developments on the civilian side. Although they don't say it, probably because it would be too imitative of Iaccoca, the FBI just needs time to catch up with the new standards of quality. In sum, I don't think it is a scam or a renewed attack on civil liberties just a strong attack of chutzpah. ------------------------------ From: disk!tony@uunet.UU.NET (tony) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Organization: Digital Information Systems of KY Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1992 06:00:15 GMT Does the FBI monitor this newsgroup? If they didn't already have a file on a person, will they open one up just because a person didn't feel he should have to pay money out of his pocket to finance a scheme the FBI dreamed up? My opinion is that I already pay more than enough in taxes -- if the FBI wants to finance a new project they should get the money from the IRS, not additional money out of my pocket, ... isn't that what TAXES are for? Why should anyone have to give them more money too?!!! I'm against the idea too! [Moderator's Note: The Federal Bureau of Inquisition doesn't 'monitor' this Digest ... they subscribe to and read this Digest. I have three or four Bureau staffers on the mailing list. I hope you are not laboring under the assumption that any of the mostly insignificant messages on Usenet in general or this mailing list in particular are enough to warrant the time and clerical effort it would take to open a file on someone ... let's not have delusions of grandeur here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 07:17:04 EST On 7 Mar 92 00:37:06 GMT, our Moderator noted: > [Moderator's Note: Without commenting on the privacy issues involved, > I must ask what has become so difficult about spying on someone else > over the phone that this new effort has to be started? Yes, perhaps > digital transmission and other factors have made it harder to intercept > something in mid-stream between two places; but one can still quite > easily listen to almost any phone they want, especially with access to > the central office. The subscriber loop -- that is, the final link in > the connection between the telephone user and his central office is > still usually just a pair of wires; easy to splice into; very easy to > monitor. PAT] Ah, but what of all those PBXs out there, Pat? They are not necessarily connected to individual loops on the line side of the CO. They may be connected to digital trunks. Not only that, but with the advent of Subscriber Loop Carrier, even your little one-line home may wind up connected to the line side via a digital trunk rather than an analog loop. 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: Well, what about 'all those PBXs'? More than once I've heard of instances where (when calls were being traced or tapped) the trail led back to a PBX, or a cord switchboard, or similar. What you do then is you take your legal service, warrant or whatever and you go to see the proprietor of the PBX, or the chief operator or the phone room manager and you serve them (give them the search warrant or other legal papers) and then proceed to hook up your stuff to the desired extension right there on the distributing frames in the phone room. There will almost assuredly be a piece of metal somewhere in the loop for those alligator clips which is unique to the telephone instrument/user in question. Then you gather all the operators around and lay it out: "Young ladies, you *will* all keep your traps shut and just sit there plugging away with your calls ... or you'll go to the penitentiary too, for obstruction of justice!" They won't have to be told twice. Of course it helps to go in when the operators are not around, like late at night; hook things up and be gone before anyone sees it. Obviously, the fewer people who see, the better it is. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Date: 9 Mar 92 11:53:05 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , our esteemed Moderator noted on the ease of tapping phones: [See previous message for quoted text. PAT] If only interoffice trunks were digital, then what you're saying would be true. What they appear to be most concerned about are digital loop carrier systems, in which the fiber may go right to the subdivision or building. If they're going to tap into the metallic loop, they'll have to have a van sitting on the street in front of the alleged criminals' house -- not exactly discrete. And what if the alleged crime is being conducted from a facility which is served directly by a T1 trunk into a PBX? If the PBX is digital, there may not be any analog loop to tap into ANYWHERE in the system. I'm not defending what they're trying to do, but simply pointing out what they're up against. Personally, I think it's marvelous that the government is having a harder time tapping phones. It seems to me, though, that it really ought to be EASIER to tap in a digital switching environment; all they need to do is replicate the PCM-encoded bitstream to a file on disk or to a separate "tap trunk", along with information on calling/called number, time, etc., and have a high-quality digital recording of the entire conversation -- with NO POSSIBILITY that the tap could be detected by the party under surveillance (since the tap would be "output only"). Seems like just a little bit of programming in the switch would take care of it, no? 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 [Moderator's Note: Almost every modern PBX I've seen or read about has 'supervisory monitoring' built in. Either a supervisor can simply go on the line in question to listen silently, or there may be some access code which has to be dialed from extensions which have the proper class of service to allow it. So the person doing the tapping sets up an off-premises extension with the class of service required to go in on any desired line. Tapping phones really is easy! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #210 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24742; 10 Mar 92 2:59 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19051 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 01:10:39 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12720 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 01:10:29 -0600 Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 01:10:29 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203100710.AA12720@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #211 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Mar 92 01:10:30 CST Volume 12 : Issue 211 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines (John Rice) Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines (Graham Thomas) Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (David Singer) Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (Stephen Friedl) Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (Bob Clements) Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (Barton F. Bruce) Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (John Rice) Re: Encryption Help Needed (Robert L. McMillin) Re: Encryption Help Needed (Arthur L. Rubin) Re: What About CID and ISDN? (David G. Lewis) Re: What About CID and ISDN? (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Caller ID Product Idea (Peter Sleggs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com Subject: Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division Date: Sun, 08 Mar 92 20:56:55 GMT In article , SAMcinty@ua.ex.ac.uk (Scott McIntyre) writes: > The decision by OFTEL (the UK telephone watchdog) does not cover the > disputed sex lines. These lines will continue to operate, yet the > kiddie chat lines and jokes and so on will cease to exist. Sounds like they have their priorities somewhat out of order. John Rice K9IJ | "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was rice@ttd.teradyne.com | MY oppinion only, no one elses...Especially (708)-940-9000 - (work) | Not my Employers.... (708)-438-7011 - (home) | ------------------------------ From: grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Graham Thomas) Subject: Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines Organization: University of Sussex Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 16:53:38 GMT In article , TELECOM Moderator responded to pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard): > [Moderator's Note: Well in the last issue, blame was placed on the > services for not putting enough money in reserves for uncollectibles. > That made sense ... now you say the problem with is a category of > users gaining the undeserved trust of the intended users of the > service. So one vote for the deadbeats, and one vote for the poor > pedophiles ... any other suggestions, anyone? PAT] The official reason given by the regulators, Oftel, is certainly that some chatline companies were refusing to put money into the compensation fund. This fund (and a similar fund for one-to-one premium rate services) was set up in 1989, in the wake of public disquiet about chatlines and other PRS which culminated in an enquiry by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. (There were 'technical' reasons why the MMC got involved -- basically, it was the only way BT could cut off the chatline service providers if told to by Oftel and not get sued for breach of contract.) The fund is administered by ICSTIS (Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards for Telephone Information Services), who also draw up and enforce the Code of Practice for chatline and message services. I'm not sure if service providers all pay the same amount into the fund or if fees vary with revenue. What is true is that the sums are fairly hefty (25,000 pounds plus 5,000 a month was one figure I've seen) and ICSTIS can raise them to match the amount it pays out to complainants. ICSTIS has become better-known recently (via an insert in everyone's telephone bill) so I guess the number of claims has risen sharply. Nevertheless, some chatline companies are complying with the Code and are paying into the fund. The point about the pedophiles is a general accusation that's been made about chatlines (and may be well-founded -- I don't know). All chatlines are supposed to be continuously monitored by a human operator and continuously recorded. In addition, ICSTIS can ring in and check on any service at any time, and has a special piece of equipment (called 'Big Ears') which can ring and record multiple services automatically. Of course, they can't be everywhere, and some service providers seem to enjoy being on the edge of compliance with the Code. It's possible that some compromise will be reached before April 6th, or that chatlines will return later. They've been banned before (from February to -- I think -- December 1989). Chatlines seem to come in for much more flak than pornographic recorded message services. Graham Thomas ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line Reply-To: singer@almaden.ibm.com (David Singer) Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center Date: Sun, 08 Mar 92 21:57:37 -0800 From: "David Singer" The phone number for WWV is +1 303 499 7111. David Singer -- Internet: singer@almaden.ibm.com BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN Voice: (408) 927-2509 Fax: (408) 927-4073 [Moderator's Note: My apologies are due for getting the exchange wrong yesterday. The above is the correct number. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 92 09:01:28 PST (Sun) From: friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US (Stephen Friedl) Subject: Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line Organization: Steve's Personal machine / Tustin, CA David W. Barts writes: > I seem to recall that a number of years ago there was a telephone > number in Vienna, Austria that one could dial to get a pure 440 > Hz tone. It was provided explicitly for the purpose of tuning > musical instruments. I can see it now: 1-900-440-TUNE Stephen J Friedl | Software Consultant | Tustin, CA | +1 714 544 6561 3b2-kind-of-guy | I speak for me ONLY | * Hi Mom! * | uunet!mtndew!friedl ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 15:26:20 -0500 From: clements@BBN.COM In article hoyt@isus.org [which is a bogus domain name according to the domain name servers] writes: > Radio station WWV broadcasts 440 HZ accurate to 1 > part in 10^12 or so [...] And the Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: I think it is 303-XXX-7111. PAT] True, but the 440 Hz tone is only for 45 seconds during one minute in each hour, and is omitted one hour per day. Specifically, it is transmitted from xx:02:00 TO XX:02:45 for all xx from 01 through 23, but not xx = 00, UTC ("Greenwich") time. It is also transmitted from WWVH one minute earlier than from WWV. Sorry, I seem to have left the WWVH phone number at home. [My notes here at the office say WWV's number is 499-7111, not 484-7111, but that's from a 1973 publication so it may have changed.] Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com [Moderator's Note: To repeat, I got it wrong. It is 499-7111. Everything WWVH does is one minute or so earlier/later than its sister station in Boulder. They both play the tones at the same time, but when either one is talking about something, the other maintains silence and repeats the same message after the other one finishes. That's because there are areas in the west and midwestern United States where the two signals walk on each other; that is, both can be heard with equal ease. I can usually hear them both here. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 05:03 EST From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire Date: 9 Mar 92 05:03:42 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. > 1! No more separate charge for Touch-Tone (r). Interesting, the same NET&T recently got TT doubled here in MA. > 3! Directory assistance is now 40 cents, after five free calls a > month. MA gets ten free. > 4! In place of all other outgoing toll plans, a virtual rating plan > will be instituted. Two cents per call, 26 per minute daytime, 15 Well, it is cheaper than that by maybe 1/2 I think (without looking) in the Eastern MA lata. But if you get your service fron certain resellers (try First Phone), your Eastern MA minutes are maybe 6 1/2 cents. N.B. that First Phone still is paying NET&T for FG-D access and carries you through their switch and is still making money. Wonder who the PIG at the trough is ... Wonder if First Phone in in NH? If you have T1 into ATT/MCI/SPRINT, what do they charge for intra-lata service -- if they do it? Another NYNEX child is getting either 3.xx or 4.xx for TT in NY -- ouch. Curious what the same carrier says is the cost of the same service in different locations. Regulators from one state should sit in on hearings in other states served by the same LEC. Might prove interesting or embarassing depending on your point of view. ------------------------------ From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division Date: Sun, 08 Mar 92 21:17:02 GMT In article , K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) writes: > A flyer enclosed in each bill notifies NH customers of these tariff > changes taking effect March 20, 1992: > 2! No more outWATs services. Exactly what do they mean by this ? You can't call a 1-800 number ? John Rice K9IJ | "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was rice@ttd.teradyne.com | MY oppinion only, no one elses...Especially (708)-940-9000 - (work) | Not my Employers.... (708)-438-7011 - (home) | [Moderator's Note: 1-800 is considered 'In-Wats'. 'Out-Wats' are bulk rate long distance lines for outgoing calls. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 01:00:41 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Encryption Help Needed > edd586ysft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au wrote: >> I have a presentation to do on DATA ENCRPITION for the third year of my >> computing course. >> If anyone can give me any infomation, or even example programs ... I >> would probably think you're god! > Encryption software is considered an export-controlled technology by > the U.S. Commerce and State Departments and is restricted from being > distributed outside of the U.S. That's curious, since I recall an article in a back issue of {Computer Language} of about four or five years past discussing the DES encryption standard. While I don't have the magazine anymore, you might try looking in there for a starting place. 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: Re: Encryption Help Needed From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) Date: 9 Mar 92 17:12:19 GMT Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc. In Monty Solomon writes: > edd586ysft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au wrote: >> I have a presentation to do on DATA ENCRPITION for the third year of my >> computing course. >> If anyone can give me any infomation, or even example programs ... I >> would probably think you're god! > Encryption software is considered an export-controlled technology by > the U.S. Commerce and State Departments and is restricted from being > distributed outside of the U.S. Encryption SOFTWARE is may be restricted (see discussions on sci.crypt), but descriptions of encryption methods and software are not restricted. (And I don't know how the relevant US government offices distiguish software from descriptions of software.) 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. ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: What About CID and ISDN? Organization: AT&T Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 20:10:37 GMT In article peterd@merlin.dev.cdx. mot.com (Peter Desnoyers) writes: > brian@apt.bungi.com (Brian Litzinger) writes: >> It is my understanding that CID information is basically available on >> the D channel of an ISDN inbound call, so ... whats the deal with CID >> and ISDN? > The Calling Party ID information element is optional in a SETUP > message -- my understanding is that you just omit it if you don't have > the information. Remember that even though the call may be delivered > to an ISDN line, it may have originated on a crossbar switch somewhere > in the boonies. The Calling Party Number IE is indeed optional per T1.607, which is the American National Standard for ISDN basic call processing. That means the delivery of the calling party number is not included in American National Standard ISDN basic call setup; if any network provider decides to provide it as part of normal call setup, that's the network provider's option -- your statement that "CID information is basically available on the D channel of an ISDN inbound call ..." is not strictly correct in terms of the American National Standards. Delivery of calling line information to the terminating customer, and restrictions on the presentation of this information, is an ISDN supplementary service. The draft proposed American National Standard for the Calling Line Identification Presentation (CLIP) (Yet Another Acronym) supplementary service, which is the North American ISDN version of calling party number delivery, just happened to have landed on my desk today. Per the CLIP (draft proposed) standards, if the calling party number is unknown, the CPN IE is sent in the SETUP message with a presentation indicator of "unknown" and no digits. If the calling party number presentation is restricted by the originating party (e.g. by a *67 code, per-line restriction, or ISDN feature key operation), the CPN IE is sent with no digits and a presentation indicator of "presentation restricted". For user interface compatibility, presumably the ISDN CPE could translate these codings to displaying an "O" or "P" respectively. However, since this is still a draft proposed ANS, it is not necessarily implemented in that way by any vendors or network providers. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: What About CID and ISDN? Date: 9 Mar 92 23:04:32 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , brian@apt.bungi.com (Brian Litzinger) writes ... > In states that ban CID, is ISDN not going to carry this information to > the dmark? Wouldn't killing this information cause all sorts of havoc > with the functionality of ISDN at the subscriber's end? You got it. ISDN is simply a better way to deliver it. If it's LEC- provided ISDN, then if the state doesn't allow it, then it won't be present. That's especially annoying for data services which could use it for security. Interstate ISDN (PRI from AT&T et al) is not subject to the state rules, though, and can deliver ANI. 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. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Caller ID Product Idea From: peters@beltrix.guild.org (Peter Sleggs) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 08:12:15 -0500 Organization: Bellatrix Systems Corp., Mississauga, ONT Canada jh203s806@sycom.mi.org (Jim Harvey) writes: > I have an idea for someone to jump on. Make an answering machine with > caller ID decode built in. The machine could offer the following > features: > 2. The Detour garbage option. Any call coming in with a blocked ID > is instantly routed to the tape. Replay button will have a skip-to- > next-beep option so you can quickly scroll past computer sales calls. > Even better would be a machine with separate tapes for normal incoming > calls and blocked calls. Why stop there? I want one that when it sees 'private' switches to an alternate message and goes into announce only mode, with a message of 'we do not accept calls with blocking, If you wish to contact us please turn it off and call again, thank you.' and disconnect. Is there a voice mail card out currently that can handle Caller-ID with distinctive ringing detection as well? peters@beltrix.guild.org or torag!beltrix!peters ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #211 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24875; 10 Mar 92 3:00 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19223 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 9 Mar 1992 22:57:04 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28883 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 9 Mar 1992 22:56:22 -0600 Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 22:56:22 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203100456.AA28883@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #209 TELECOM Digest Mon, 9 Mar 92 22:56:00 CST Volume 12 : Issue 209 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Reach Out Commercials (Ole J. Jacobsen) Telesleaze Machine Advertised (John Slater) Test of Tropez 900 Digital Cordless (Woody Ligon) How Can I Translate "Touch-Tones" Into Numbers? (Jeff Haferman) Fallback Switches For Modems (Philip Green) McCaw's North American Cellular Network Has Problems (Michael S. Baldwin) No Response From RAM (Ken Jongsma) Touch One (??) Service in Texas? (Russ Latham) Caller-ID Availability? (Steven V. Christensen) Word as Part of Phone Number (Carl Moore) ESS#5 vs. DMS-100? What Choice? (John Boteler) Telemarketer Behavior (Bill Berbenich) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 11:12:28 PST From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: AT&T Reach Out Commercials Folks, These "we're constantly dreaming up new ways for our customers to save" commercials from AT&T are really wearing thin on me. If they really want to "put themselves in the customer's position" and let us save, why not just introduce volume discounts on all calls at all times, and not have to worry about all these various subscription calling plans? I suspect the anwers is simple greed as always: 1. With the Reach-Out- plan I'd pay $3.00 per month whether I use it or not. 2. If I subscribe, I'll use the phone more ("The More you Spend, the More you Save" (tm) ), and certainly enough to avoid the "penalty" of $3.00. Speaking for myself, I'll never sign up for such a plan since my calling patterns on long distance are entirely random. Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop Company, 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, Phone: (415) 962-2515 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 11:34:31 GMT From: John.Slater@UK.Sun.COM (John Slater - Sun UK - Gatwick SE) Subject: Telesleaze Machine Advertised I saw this ad in the "business ideas" section of the {Guardian} newspaper last week. I thought it might be of interest. The caps are verbatim, as are the grammatical and punctuation errors. Any typos are mine, but are probably an improvement on the original style ... It's a small display ad, with a blurred picture of the box itself. Headline: "People can let you down, this telesales machine won't." "The cost of your advertising, promotion and lead generation through direct mail, newspapers, radio and television has dramatically increased in recent years and your results have probably decreased. Business has been badly hit. The prospects could be bleak. Here is one solution: We are the sole distributors of the CBC9000 Lead Generating System. The system will: * Make all your cold calls for you. Working unattended, IT MAKES UP TO 2000 CALLS PER DAY to give your sales message/presentation and converts cold calls into HOT QUALIFIED LEADS! * The CBC9000 carries on actual two-way conversations and records your customer's answers. * The CBC9000 ONLY records customers answers, therefore the results from hours of dialing can be heard in minutes. * The CBC9000 can be used for surveys, market research and other such applications, PLUS, IT'S EXTREMELY EASY TO USE - JUST LIKE A TELEPHONE! * IF YOUR BUSINESS NEEDS LEADS - YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO BE WITHOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT BUSINESS MACHINE SINCE THE FAX ... For more details telephone 0602 480465. ------------------------------ From: Ligon@macgw1.crd.ge.com (Woody Ligon) Subject: Test of Tropez 900 Digital Cordless Date: 9 Mar 92 13:14:14 GMT Organization: GE Corp. Research and Devel. With the help of someone else on the net, I have been able to get a Tropez 900 digital cordless phone through B.A. Pargh, a large wholesaler. I purchased the phone for the extraordinary extended range which was advertized. However, it will not reach to the back of my garden directly across the road which is no more than 500 feet, line of sight with no obstructions. It is nice that rather than getting noisy at the limit of its range it just begins to intermittently cut out. It is also nice that the phone has a beeping out of range indicator. However the "cut outs" start to occur before the out-of-range indicator cuts in. The phone is very quiet and it can be used at the same time as conventional cordless phones on the same line with no interference. The phone uses the 900 MHz band. Unless you really, really want your conversations to be encrypted, this phone is no where near being worth the premium price being asked. For example, it doesn't have a separate recharging cradle so it is not practical to put the base unit in what might be the best possible location for maximum range -- for example the attic. Also my wife hates it, because the handset is so small that it cannot be held between the shoulder and chin for "no-hands" conversations. Woody Ligon Standard disclaimer applies ------------------------------ From: jlhaferman@t_ecn09.icaen.uiowa.edu (Jeff Haferman) Subject: How Can I Translate "Touch-Tones" Into Numbers? Date: 9 Mar 92 16:10:30 GMT Note that I'm a novice, so be easy with the parlance. What do I need in order to convert the tones from a touch-tone phone into the numbers that have been pushed? For example, if someone calls my phone, and enters a code, I would like to have a device that will tell me at my end the code that has been entered. I would like to do this as cheaply as possible. Thanks in advance. Also, is there a service (I guess sort of similar to ANI), that I could call, enter a number, and it will repeat to me the number I have pushed in? Jeff Haferman internet: jlhaferman@icaen.uiowa.edu Department of Mechanical Engineering DoD 0186 BMWMOA 44469 AMA 460140 The University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 11:42:20 MST From: pgreen@zia.AOC.NRAO.EDU (Philip Green) Subject: Fallback Switches For Modems Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM I am looking for a switch that will automatically fallback from a leased line modem to a dialup when there is a leased line failure. I have found several but the one feature we would like is a delay of at least 30 seconds before switching to the backup line. I'll summarize if anyone is interested. Phil Green pgreen@zia.aoc.nrao.edu NRAO 505.835.7254 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 13:34:52 EST From: mike@post.att.com (Michael Scott Baldwin) Subject: McCaw's North American Cellular Network Has Problems Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Well, I just got back from a week in Orlando, FL, taking along my cellular phone with a newly-minted Cellular One number from northern NJ (I used to have Bell Atlantic). Both of those areas are part of McCaw's new North American Cellular Network (NACN), which is supposed to be better than the B carrier's Follow Me Roaming (FMR). I found out that it's nice, but it still has some big problems. Here's my report: 1. With NACN, you don't have to dial anything to register. Just turn your phone on in the roaming area, and that's it. With FMR, you have to dial *18 every day (!), and even then it takes up to 30 minutes to register. This is true, and it is very fast at registering. It also automatically unregisters you if you have your phone off or out of range for a certain amount of time which seems to be about an hour. Anyway, I turned my phone on and *immediately* called my home number. Sure enough, it found me with little delay. 2. On NACN, all of your call features are preserved. I assume that this means call waiting, call forwarding, no-answer transfer, and voice mail. On FMR, none of them are preserved. This is not true, at least not in Orlando. Actually, I don't know about call waiting and forwarding, but my voice mail *never* picked up if I was registered in Orlando. I would get "Welcome to Cellular One. Your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please check the number and dial again." followed by a reorder (fast busy) signal. Talk about misleading! As soon as I unregistered in FL, voice mail would work, but that's not surprising. The automatic forwarding is buggy. Sometimes, if I dialed my cellular number, I would hear two rings in the handset and then silence. However, my cellular phone would continue ringing forever. No intercept message, no voice mail. At other times, after a few rings, I would immediately get a reorder signal, and my cellular phone would stop ringing. Also, the coverage of NACN is significantly less than that of FMR. While FMR is almost everywhere (*except* for northern NJ, strangely enough), NACN is *only* here, FL, CA, WA, OR, Pittsburgh, and a few other areas. They say that many areas will be added this year. We'll see. In areas that do not have NACN, you must use roamer access numbers. Even here in NJ, I can roam in places where I get home airtime rates (Tri-State Advantage area, I think it's called), but I can only be reached via roamer access numbers. Bleah! I'm interested in hearing about other people's experiences both with NACN and FMR. Does it work as advertised anywhere? Is the forwarding as buggy as I've found (FMR seemed better than NACN, but it also had bugs)? Michael.Scott.Baldwin@ATT.Com AT&T Bell Laboratories Tel: +1 201 539 7850 Murray Hill, NJ 07974 FAX: +1 908 582 1740 ------------------------------ From: jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: No Response From RAM Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 14:08:20 EST Some of you may recall seeing a notice posted here in the Digest some months back regarding a new service by RAM Mobile Data and Bell South. The announcement stated that RAM was offering a two-way wireless data service using a product called a Mobidem. This $1400 radio modem would allow users to send and receive messages and small files via RAM's nationwide paging network. I was very interested in this product from both a business and profesional standpoint, so I called the 800 number that appeared in {Forbes Magazine}, and left my name and address. Two weeks later, having received nothing from RAM, I called the local RAM office and asked for some information. The local (Detroit) people informed me that they offered no such service and suggested I call Radio Shack. After faxing them a copy of the ad, they called back and gave me a phone number in New York to call. The number I was given apparently ended up in a PR office. I explained that I wanted some technical information and was immediately connected with RAM's Marketing Manager. He listen for a minute and asked me if I would talk to the marketing rep for this area. I was connected with a third person and went through the whole story again. He promised to get the info out to me ASAP. It has now been about two months since I started this quest and have heard nothing from RAM other than a reprint of their {Forbes} ad. All I wanted to know was: 1) Coverage Areas 2) Pricing 3) Host End connection requirements. (Dialup or Leased Line) I would have thought this was pretty easy to answer, but if RAM has problems with this, I sure wouldn't trust my company's business with them. I think I'll go talk to the McCaw Cellular people. I hear they are working on a similar product. Ken Jongsma jongsma@benzie.si.com Smiths Industries ken@wybbs.mi.org Grand Rapids, Michigan 73115.1041@compuserve.com [Moderator's Note: Isn't it pathetic that a company can be that mixed up, advertising something they don't even offer, then not knowing what to do with inquiries for the product, etc? PAT] ------------------------------ From: rlatham@hpmail1.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Russ Latham) Subject: Touch One (??) Service in Texas? Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 15:15:03 CST Last week I received a call from a company called 'Touch One' or 'Touch Service' or something like that, and the person told me I could sign up at no cost for their long distance service. He then told me that with the service, when I made a long distance call it would be routed via the cheapest company, specifically stating either AT&T, Sprint, or MCI. He also said I would receive a calling card, and that there was not an $0.85 surcharge for making a call on the card. I asked him to send information about the service, and he said he would, but started asking why I wouldn't try it since the switchover would be free. I asked about a 10xxx access code to try the service first, and he said there was one but he would have to find out what it was. He then put me on hold, and when he came back, he said there was not an access code and promptly told me thank you and hung up. He said the billing would be with the monthly Southwestern Bell bill. Is it a requirement that a long distance company like this have a 10xxx access code? Is it something that a LD company doesn't like for an individual to use? Some of the sales pitch made me wonder if it was a scam, but since it is billed with the regular SWB bill, I'm assuming it wasn't. ------------------------------ From: schriste@pauling.che.uc.edu (Steven V. Christensen) Subject: Caller-ID Availability? Organization: University of Cincinnati Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 22:53:13 GMT I was wondering, is the Caller-ID information transmitted between the first and second rings to every phone subscriber, or is it something you have to request, and pay more for. I have a sample of a Motorola CID chip, and am wondering if it's worth the trouble to proto- type something. I'd hate to do it and find out I am not receiving the CID information. Steven Christensen Dept of Electrical Engineering schriste@pauling.che.uc.edu University of Cincinnati (for the adventurous: svc@elf0.uucp) [Modertator's Note: It is only transmitted to subscribers who have made specific arrangements to purchase the service. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 10:36:31 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Word as Part of Phone Number Recently, I wrote of having found 1 + 7D still in use at Denver and Adamstown, PA for long distance within 215. This gets into timeout scenario later if you need to call 1-N0/1X-XXXX. Has anyone anywhere advertised a phone number of the form N0/1-word, where "word" is more than five letters and you must either not dial the extra letters or depend on the equipment to "eat" them? ------------------------------ From: John Boteler Subject: ESS#5 vs. DMS-100? What Choice? Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 2:56:29 EST I must disagree with Mr. Higdon regarding the preferable digital switch. The ESS#5 is certainly closer in operation to the ESS#1A than that Brand X hunk o junk from north of the border. It certainly behaves more intuitively than Brand X, if you can call the operation of either 'intuitive'. I prefer to think of it somewhere between a trip to the dentist's office and paying taxes. And if you want to use Centrex, forget the DMS-100. Most technicians can't even figure out how to program it. Must use a different paradigm than WeCo. All in all, if you can't stick with a #1A, stay in the family and go with the #5. bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) NCN Skinny => 703.241.BARE Club updates, events, and info ------------------------------ Subject: Telemarketer Behavior Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 22:55:18 GMT From: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu (Bill Berbenich) Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu The recent thread about the AT&T home security telemarketing employee has brought to mind an annoying little trait that I have noticed from what are undoubtedly telemarketers. Who else has noticed that if you ask a telemarketer who they are, as in "Who's calling, please?", they will quite often just hang up on you? I was annoyed the first few times that happened to me, but then I realized that the volume and frequency of the calls were decreasing. Anyone else care to try my method to see if it cuts down on your junk calls, too? :-) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #209 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27456; 10 Mar 92 3:41 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05402 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 01:47:23 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19463 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 01:47:11 -0600 Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 01:47:11 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203100747.AA19463@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #212 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Mar 92 01:47:10 CST Volume 12 : Issue 212 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: USA Direct Becomes Automated (Curtis Sanford) Re: Phone Phun (Frederick G. M. Roeber) Re: Phone Phun (Steve Thornton) Re: Metering Pulses (Jim Gottlieb) Re: Metering Pulses (Julian Macassey) Small Communications Program Found (Michael B. Scher) Re: Small Communications Program Sought (Toby Nixon) Re: Need Advice on Microwave Link (Barton F. Bruce) Re: Zoom Faxmodems (Jim Langridge) Re: New 540 Scam (Steve Forrette) Re: Phone Service to Cuba (Joel M. Snyder) Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? (Rop Gonggrijp) Re: News Flash: Special Code Operators Use to Place Free Calls! (C. Moore) How To Disable Annoying Beep? (Christine K. Paustian) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sanford@ascend.com (Curtis Sanford) Subject: Re: USA Direct Becomes Automated Date: 9 Mar 92 22:26:11 GMT Organization: Ascend Communications, Alameda CA In article ole@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Ole J. Jacobsen) writes: > Yes, indeed, on my recent UK trip I was able to use USA Direct without > any operator intervention, since most hotel room and many private home > phones are now equipped with Touch Tone. The rollout of USA DIRECT's automated service appears to be gradual. Last week I used it in the UK. This week in France it hasn't been available ... until this afternoon. This morning I was getting the (variously bored, chatty, machanical) operators, and this afternoon things switched over to the automated system. I'll see about Germany next. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 08:40:35 GMT From: roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch Subject: Re: Phone Phun In article , aa377@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ken Kopin) writes: > What's the matter? Don't you have Cable TV? We have at least four > separate channels with independant clocks. Plus, you probably have a > computer with a battery clock? I trust the computer first, then > whatever time is colaborated by the most sources. Over in comp.protocols.time.ntp, there have been a couple messages from people who think the WWV time signal had the DST bit set wrong for awhile several days ago. They were feeding this time signal into their computer as a time reference. Also, at the turn of the year, at least one of the authoritative ntp machines messed up because somebody forgot to set the new year. Shortly after the beginning of the year, some people who installed or upgraded the software on their new VAX 9000s found that an installation bug set the year incorrectly. Last year, in the LEP/SPS (particle accelerators) control room, there was a day when all of the computers were *seriously* wrong about the time. The problem was that the antenna for the radio-clock fell down, and the confused, twisted way in which they all passed the timing information around really stirred up the mess. In short: don't trust the computers, either. I'd suggest trusting a sundial. And if the sun's not up yet, it's too early to get out of bed! Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research e-mail: roeber@cern.ch or roeber@caltech.edu | work: +41 22 767 31 80 r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 42 19 44 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 10:45:22 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: Phone Phun Ken Kopin says in reply to Steve DeLaney: >> This has served to illustrate just how reliant one becomes on >> technology. Even when TWO of our battery clocks showed the time being >> one hour EARLIER it took a while for the realization to sink in, > What's the matter? Don't you have Cable TV? We have at least four > separate channels with independant clocks. Plus, you probably have a > computer with a battery clock? I trust the computer first, then > whatever time is colaborated by the most sources. I have on my wrist at this very moment a sophisticated piece of technology that can reveal the time to me whenever I want. It is not dependent upon Cable TV, Pac Bell, computers, mains electrical power, or any other external source. It is almost perfectly accurate and reliable. It's called a "watch". I understand they've been around for quite a while. You should look into it. Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / +1 617 495 3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) Subject: Re: Metering Pulses Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 04:38:08 GMT Jim.Rees@umich.edu writes: > I love the idea of metering pulses, and I wish we could get them here > in the US. I agree. It's one of those simple ideas that just makes so much sense. With meter pulses there is never any question of how much a call will cost. In Japan, for instance, pay-per-call services just run the meter faster, and using a 00XX carrier code at a payphone makes the pulses come a little more slowly than if one were to use the default NTT. Only "problem" is that a system based on X number of pulses at a fixed cost can not easily implement $50 per call type numbers. Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: or V-Mail: +1 310 551 7702 Fax: 478-3060 Voice: 824-5454 ------------------------------ From: julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey) Subject: Re: Metering Pulses Date: 10 Mar 92 06:15:11 GMT Reply-To: julian@bongo.info.com (Julian Macassey) Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article atina!pccp!noli@uunet.UU.NET (Manuel J. Moguilevsky) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 200, Message 9 of 16 > In my country the telephone company sends noisy metering pulses over > the line in long distance calls (only domestic calls, not > international). > The problem is that the metering pulses are so high so it is almost > impossible to send faxes over the lines. You shouldn't be hearing the pulses. They are supposed to be common to tip and ring and referenced to ground. I suggest you contact your telco. Get them to fix the problem. Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ From: strange@acpub.duke.edu (Michael B. Scher) Subject: Small Communications Program Found Date: 9 Mar 92 16:52:43 GMT Well, thanks to everyone for their advice. I was about to go with the shareware Procomm v. 2.4.3, which I crammed into 170K or so of disk space, about a 50% savings over the Procomm + on my desktop machine. Other programs recommended included Telix and Telemate, both fine, but far too large for my space-saving purposes. Finally, someone recommended COMMO. Well I was leery at first -- it looked shoddy to say the least. After a while, however, I realized COMMO (v. 5.1) was the laptop user's dream program. Stripped down it occupies 50K, and the help file is configurable. That 50K even includes an internal editor. The whole keyboard is configurable, and the reprogramming only takes up as much space as the new instructions (as opposed to Procomm+'s 34K keyboard file!). In fact, that seems to be the design attitude behind COMMO -- only as much power as you program into it, and only as much space as you need for what you want it to do. My compliments to Ed Greenberg, who led me to this catch, and to Fred Brucker, its designer. If I find nothing better in the next couple weeks, I am going to register. Mike Scher strange@hercules.acpub.duke.edu Duke University -- Durham, NC: Law and Cultural Anthropology ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Small Communications Program Sought Date: 9 Mar 92 12:15:29 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , strange@acpub.duke.edu (Michael B. Scher) writes: > I am looking for a comm program that occupies little disk space > for a laptop in the IBM PC family of computers. > Currently, I am using Procomm +, which occupies about 330K of > disk space, stripped down. Have you tried running Procomm through LZEXE? LZEXE will compress EXE code files into a form that self-decompresses as it loads into memory. You can cut the amount of disk space required in half, but once the program is in memory it takes as much space as usual and executes identically to the uncompressed program. For example, the Crosstalk Mk.4 main program file shrinks from 160K to 115K, and TAPCIS shrinks from 269K to 123K. The programs load faster because the speed of the decompressor is faster than the transfer rate of a diskette drive, and of course you save a lot of space. If you really like Procomm, then you might try compressing it and see if it becomes small enough to suit your needs. Mk.4 is certainly powerful and SOUNDS small, but actually takes up more like 500K once all of the various support files are included (but that's good enough for me to use it on my laptop which has 720K diskettes). LZEXE is available on CompuServe, and probably on many BBSes and internet file servers around the country. 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: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: Need Advice on Microwave Link Date: 9 Mar 92 04:48:16 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon LETWIN) writes: > I'm about to close on a ranch outside of Tucson, AZ., and have > discovered that the nearest phone service is about six miles away. I There is regular licensed microwave, and now the unlicensed spread spectrum radios are to be looked at. Normally the latter are for close in iwith tons on multipath in a concrete and steel jungle, but ad a high gain directional antenna and your link ins in. The FCC may change some of the rules on these in a couple of yours and limit gain, etc, but I think you would be grandfathered and ok forever. Run a bigger licensed radio, run T2 or T3 and put in a slic-96 and sell phone service to others near you. No major roads in the way? One or 2 friendly ranchers own ALL the land? Check out plowing in fiber the WHOLE way. Probably costs way too much, but ask. Unlicensed T1 spread spectrun radio about $8k per end. Try Western Multiplex Corp. 415.592.8832 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 10:55:11 est From: jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil Subject: Re: Zoom Faxmodems In Digest V12 #201 Henry Mensch Writes/Asks: > Zoom 9624's are on sale at Egghead again ... I was thinking of one for > home use. Are they any good? The price sure is right ... it didn't > work with netfax (the freeware from MIT) when we last tried it out, I recently became the proud owner of a 9624 Zoom thru the DAMARK catalog ($85 including shipping). It works although I kinda wish I had saved up for a HAYES instead. So far the only way I've been able to use the MNP or V.42bis is with the software that came with the modem (it is called MTEZ by Magicsoft). The modem works fine in std 2400 mode with Procomm (tm) and Crosstalk(tm). Jim Langridge jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil Synetics Corp. (703) 663 2137 24 Danube Dr. (703) 663 3050 (FAX) King George, VA. 22485-5000 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 08:18:03 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: New 540 Scam Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article Stephen J Friedl writes: > The latest issue of {2600 Magazine} shows a new kind of scam for 540 > numbers in New York. It is a traditional "Apartment for Rent" sign > complete with handwritten "540-xxxx", and except for the "$3.50 per > call" note at the bottom, looks completely legitimate. This scam was being perpetrated in Berkeley, CA a couple of years ago, but with 976 numbers. $2 per call. The signs only lasted a month or so, and were not put up again, so I assume that it was not profitable enough to maintain the "service." Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: jms@jrvax.mis.arizona.edu Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba Date: 9 Mar 1992 10:39 MST Reply-To: jms@arizona.edu Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department In article , I write: > Their Usenet connection used to go through Costa Rica; now it passes > through Cuba, [Mod. Note: ?? Cuba ??] where they are able to make > connections quite nicely. Canada. Not Cuba. Canada. I hope to be able to tell the difference, perhaps in a future life, when my dissertation is finished. For now, simply excuse the ramblings of a confused mind. Joel M Snyder, 627 E Speedway, 85705 Phone: 602.626.8680 FAX: 602.882.4095 The Mosaic Group, Dep't of MIS, the University of Arizona, Tucson BITNET: jms@arizona Internet: jms@arizona.edu SPAN: 47541::telcom::jms ------------------------------ From: rop@hacktic.nl (Rop Gonggrijp) Subject: Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? Date: 9 Mar 92 12:11:21 GMT Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon @ Green Hills and Cows) once wrote: > The DMS lines we have from Contel sound better and the features work > more intuitively. If you have a choice, opt for the DMS. That's a load of crap. The DMS may be a nice switch on the analogue side, but the digital part of it gets very confused very often. DMS 100's are notorious (even out here where there is none) for switching you into other people's conversations. It also 'hangs' too often (your call ends up in the bitbucket). It has a lot of VERY nice security 'features' though (but PAT wouldn't let me tell you anyway). Rop Gonggrijp (rop@hacktic.nl), editor of | fax: +31 20 6900968 Hack-Tic Magazine (only on paper, only in Dutch) | VMB: +31 20 6001480 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 11:01:11 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: News Flash: Special Code Operators Use to Place Free Calls! Some of the calls I made from pay phones between Christmas and New Years didn't show up on my phone bill until February. Many of them were via AT&T. [Moderator's Note: Oh! You must have used that other special code people use to make long distance calls for free, by prepending 10288 at the start of the number. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: ckp@cup.portal.com Subject: How To Disable Annoying Beep? Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 04:38:31 PST I've purchased a Panasonic KXT1455 'Easaphone' answering machine with a two-way memo (two-way recording) feature. This was done to eliminate the need for *SIGNALS* Newsline callers to ring back in the event someone from the staff answers the phone. (The Newsline is used for on-air greetings, pirate loggings, etc.) This would work just fine -- EXCEPT -- that any conversation recorded with the Memo button is peppered with a tone every fifteen seconds (which indicates to the caller that he/she is being taped). I don't want the beep -- I can't use tape that has the beep. My question: is there a simple modification that can be applied to the answering machine to eliminate this 'feature' or should I just take it back and get another machine? And if the latter is the best option -- can someone recommend a machine that has this feature, is reliable and easy to use for about the same $$?? Thanks! Christine K. Paustian ckp@cup.portal.com The Radio Collection ...!apple!portal!cup.portal.com.ckp Box 149, Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510 914/923-1862 *SIGNALS* is a Signal You Don't Want to Miss! 11:35pm EST, Saturday via WWCR 7435 kHz ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #212 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28706; 10 Mar 92 4:07 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11559 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 02:21:09 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12961 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 02:20:58 -0600 Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 02:20:58 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203100820.AA12961@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #213 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Mar 92 02:20:42 CST Volume 12 : Issue 213 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (AT&T Today via Wm Sykes) Re: Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Jan Maaskant) Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (John Rice) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wts1@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (wts1) Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees Organization: AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies - Greensboro, NC Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 23:24:14 GMT Pat, I wish to make a small clarification to your posting about automated operator services. What's being implemented, at least as far as is being told to the troops, is a voice recognition/response system. It will pick out the words required to complete the transaction, such as "yes, no, collect, operator" without the need to press TouchTone buttons on the dial pad. See article from the {WSJ} and {Newark Star-Ledger} as reprinted from our internal AT&T TODAY at the end of this followup.. In article TELECOM Moderator writes: > AT&T has about 18,000 employees working as operators. A recent news > release said they will reduce this by at least one-third and perhaps > one-half during the remainder of 1992 and 1993 as an automated system > for handling collect, third number billing and person to person calls > is implemented. > The new voice/touch tone response system is already in use by some > local telcos including Illinois Bell. AT&T said they hope to have it > nationally implemented over the next 12-18 months. Callers will be > asked to press certain buttons if they wish to have the call handled > collect or billed to a third number. They will say their name on > request, and their name will be played automatically to the person who > answers the phone. > A caller will still be able to reach a live operator by pressing the > zero button again when requested to do so, but AT&T estimates the > majority of callers will be able to, and want to use the automated > response system instead. Rotary dial callers will receive operator > assistance as in the past. > AT&T has been reducing their work force -- once at about 325,000 > employees -- at the rate of 1000 people per month on average for the > past several months. The reduction in the operator force will take > place the same way beginning later this year and continuing through > most of 1993. AT&T TODAY Friday, March 6, 1992 -- 11:30 a.m. EST (All news sources are today's date unless otherwise noted.) AT&T IN THE NEWS *** MORE ON NEW TECHNOLOGY -- Up to 6,000 people will be replaced by a computer that can understand speech and relay phone calls almost as easily as a human. An AT&T video demonstration shows a person singing a nursery rhyme to the --> hearing computer: "Mary had a little lamb -- collect -- whose fleece is white as snow." The computer still recognized the word --> "collect" and processed the call. Computers that hear as well as speak already are replacing workers in dozens of tasks. Businesses aren't the only ones interested in voice recognition. Texas Instruments developed a voice system for the F-16 fighter jet so that pilots -- whose cockpits are already full of buttons, gauges and instruments -- can instantly activate systems by speaking. A 1991 survey shows that as phone companies continue to replace people with computers, service suffers. It has a "tremendous impact," says [Michael] Smith, professor at the University of Wisconsin. AT&T strongly disagrees. "We would never bring on line a system if there was any sense that the public would be confused or unhappy," says AT&T's Herb Linnen. [USA Today] *** Five years ago, AT&T had 27,000 operators at 270 offices around the country. "The trend has been to fewer offices and operators," AT&T spokesman Burke Stinson said, "and there's no reason to think the trend will stop. The question is, will the voice recognition technology speed up the trend? It's too early to make predictions." As for further consolidations in the number of offices, telecommunications analyst John Bain of Raymond James Co. said, "they could do it today, with the technology they have." A spokeswoman for the Communications Workers of America also acknowledged that further reductions were possible. "Ultimately, we could see no operators," said Louise Caddell of the CWA. "When technology benefits the customer, such as direct- distance dialing, and enhances service, people tend to use it," she said. "But I'm not sure that (talking computers) is it, she said. AT&T's Stinson, however, pointed out that young people are growing up with increasingly complex electronic home entertainment systems and are comfortable with them. [Newark Star-Ledger] ---------- William T. Sykes AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies Greensboro, NC UUCP: att!burl!wts att!cbnewsb!wts1 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 18:26:46 CST From: JMAASKANT@uthscsa.edu Subject: Re: Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Was Oregon PUC Hearing Summary) In TELECOM Digest, Vol. 12, Issue 198, Article 1, Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: >> What impact will this have on FidoNet in Oregon, in your opinion? >> What impact would this have on FidoNet throughout the US if all >> FidoNet HUBs being compensated for forwarding mail and files in the US >> were required to pay business rates on their BBS phone lines, in your >> opinion? > Personally, I think one effect it might have is to make folks think > twice about "volunteering" to be a large mail hub so that they can > receive somewhere around 500 echoes per day while being reimbursed for > their expenses by those whom they feed. I've said in the past that Our local NEC shells out an additional $50-$60 a month over the sporadic contributions for the echomail expenses provided by the net. Very rarely is a hub or star position going to see any kind of monetary advantage. > this is a dream situation for the echomail junkies, and while they Actually, second tier net hub (me) is the dream situation. No LD expenses involved, no accounting, and often their echomail 'donations' are waived. (My contributions are _truly_ voluntary.) There actually IS a lot of work involved in being any sort of major mail hub. > tend to do a lot of moaning about how much work it is and what a > thankless job it is to be an echomail hub, the fact remains that there It's not thankless. Just expensive and time consuming and tends to burn people out. > must be some compensating benefits or they wouldn't do it (if they're > at all sane!). The same applies equally to running a non-pay BBS in the first place. By your logic anyone who does so should be committed. While there may be some truth to this, it IS a hobby. Logic and sense need have nothing to do with enjoyment. Nor should there be a requirement for 'residential' rates. > The problem is that most sysops in Fidonet never asked for echomail > distribution to evolve in this way. Three or four years ago, getting > an echo was fairly simple, you found a BBS that carried an echo you > wanted and asked if you could get a feed there. Now you are only And the masses did dupe unto the net and great were the expenses incurred and the wrath of those that paid the freight. :-) > allowed to go to the "Echomail Coordinator" serving your net or region > (unless you can get a form of "special dispensation" that may require > permission from as many as FOUR different coordinators), and this is > all based on geography (apparently the feeble minds in the Fidonet > hierarchy can't cope with the concept of network topology unless they > can overlay it onto a map!). A fairly common bone of contention in the political arenas is the concept of geography based topology and more appropriate alternatives. Several of the other Fido Technology Networks (FTNs) have been founded for this very reason. Fidonet is not the whole FTN world. I suggest you check into some of the alternatives which are more relaxed. TheNet, FamilyNet, Rbbs-Net, Eggnet, EchoNet, SigNet, BBSNet, AlterNet, and EmergNet to name a few. > So you get situations where a node in one net might only pay $1 a > month for echoes while another sysop, who may live out in the boonies > and have to make a toll call to pick up echoes, is forced by policy to > make an expensive intrastate or intraLATA call to the Echomail hub Fidonet and the majority of the other FTN's are based on and very sensitive to cost considerations. If you are not a local call to your net you can petition to be given a unique net number and arrange an out-of-state feed. Just use the magic words FINANCIAL HARDSHIP in your request. Do not however expect a net to subsidize a long distance caller pulling in mail. > serving that geographic area, and the operator of that hub is pretty > much free to charge whatever he wants for echomail, so long as it > doesn't appear that he's making a profit (but there's no real > incentive for him to try and cut his phone costs, either). If it's not cheaper for you then you should certainly arrange your own feed. It may be necessary to point off someone to absolve the appropriate REC's and NEC's of the necessity to think, but that's one of the reason's the option is there. > The geographic monopoly leads to absurd situations, like a recent case > in which some nodes in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (a U.S. naval base) were > told they would have to be in Zone 4 (Latin America) rather than Zone > 1 Net 275. The latter serves the Norfolk Naval Base in Virginia, and > apparently there are direct phone lines between Norfolk and Guantanamo > Bay. In fact, according to the article in Fidonews that brought this Someone needs to zonegate the echos. It's inconvenient, but hardly a major undertaking. A petition for Zonegate status would likely be granted without much fuss in a case like this. If it wasn't then the eternal option of pointing the echos out and ignoring non-hobby minded people in a hobbiest network still exists. > So because of petty politics and coordinators who are so impressed > with their own importance that they stink to high heaven, these nodes I don't know the details of Guantanamo bay, so I can't comment on whether the people involved have washed recently or not :-) > I'm not a person who is normally given to using gratuitous profanity, > but I cannot use the language I'd like to use in describing these > echomail coordinators (especially the ones at the "Regional" level) > who either invented or are helping to perpetuate this system. But it > is my opinion that they ought to be paying business rates at the very > least. They like to make everyone think they are performing a public > service, but what they are really doing is getting a vast number of > echomail feeds either for free, or for a fraction of what it would > cost them if they were paying the expenses out-of-pocket. The regional stars could easily be local distribution sites only and, in fact, almost always originate from such. They also receive very little more inbound traffic than local hubs. What they do get is a lot more _outbound_ traffic. Their systems spend a much greater percentage (foreground or background) of their time processing and delivering large outbound mail bundles. > And lest you think they are a necessary evil, prior to the inception > of this system, there were in fact some informal echomail hubs that > provided feeds of echoes to BBS's all over the nation, many using > company WATS lines and the like to cut costs. Most of these hubs were > either told that they could no longer be echomail hubs, or that they'd > have to limit their activities to a particular net. Many of the > "free" hub operators simply refused to put up with the B.S. and > dropped out of Fidonet altogether. The current backbone traffic is 550 odd echos. Any fraction of that traffic (normally dependent on connect time considerations) costs only a few dollars a month in a decent sized net. There is however --==NO==-- requirement that you use the backbone mail distribution system. You are always welcome to start up an alternative distribution system. The reason so many people DO use it is that it is both fast and cost effective in comparison to a chaotic catch as catch can spiderwebbed distribution scheme. > If I were writing the tariff, my rule for charging residential vs. > business rates on a BBS would be that if you charge for ANYTHING, > including a "donation" that gets the donator something in exchange > (more access time, access to other "levels" of the system, conference > feeds, etc.) then you pay business rates. If you run a completely If I make a call, and you pay for it, is that enough to make my phone a business line? If someone else won't split the price of that call with you, is it a business now because I won't, by your request, tell them what I found out during the call you paid for? > Your opinions may vary, of course... :-) It happens. Cheers, Jan Maaskant - Jmaaskant@uthscsa.edu - 1:387/255 fidonet (My employer doesn't share my opinions, but I'm working on it) ------------------------------ From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 14:50:34 GMT In article , stanley@skyking.OCE. ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes: > In article rice@ttd.teradyne.com > writes: >> No, actually, the captains found that they could get in Big >> trouble in allowing the HAMs to use their radios. FAR 91.19 >> specifically prohibits this operation and specifically prohibits the >> Captain from giving permission. > FAR 91.19 does NOT specifically prohibit the 'Captain' (pilot-in-command > is a better term, since that is the term used in the regulations) from > giving permission. It DOES say that the operator is responsible for > authorizing usage, but DOES NOT say that the operator is prohibited > from allowing its pic's the discretion to authorize usage. > The only effect that 91.19 has is assigning the RESPONSIBILITY to the > operator. Thus, a pic cannot authorize usage without also attaching > liability to the operator. >> And another comment from a Usenetter: > I am so happy that people are quoting this unidentified Usenetter. > Just to set the record straight, I believe it was me. This text was a > summary of perusal of the CFR's, and a discussion with the FCC > personnel mentioned in the CL. Lets try this AGAIN (the comments quoted in the FIRST paragraph were mine). FAR 91.91 reads in part (a) "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation allow the operation of any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S. registered civil aircraft: (1) Aircraft operated by an air carrier or commercial operator; or (2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR. (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to: (1) Portable voice recorders; (2) Hearing aids; (3) Heart pacemakers; (4) Electric shavers; or (5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used. (c) In the case of an aircraft operated by an air carrier or commercial operator, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by the air carrier or commercial operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft." ----------- I think that paragraph (a) coupled with paragraph (c) makes it pretty clear that the Pilot in Command (Captain) does NOT have the authority to give permission, in the case of an air carrier. In the 70s (when hams started to commonly carry hand held radios) this was clarified again and again by the FCC and FAA. John Rice K9IJ | "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was rice@ttd.teradyne.com | MY oppinion only, no one elses...Especially (708)-940-9000 - (work) | Not my Employers.... (708)-438-7011 - (home) | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #213 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26323; 11 Mar 92 2:46 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25569 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 11 Mar 1992 00:44:51 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31639 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 11 Mar 1992 00:44:33 -0600 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 00:44:33 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203110644.AA31639@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #214 TELECOM Digest Wed, 11 Mar 92 00:44:32 CST Volume 12 : Issue 214 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 911 and Politics (Kath Mullholand) 11? (Was: 911 and Politics) (Robert L. McMillin) Re: Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit (Rich Greenberg) Re: Roaming With No Home (Rich Greenberg) Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas (Bob Goudreau) Re: Caller ID Product Idea (Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.) Re: Revised Listing of Class Codes; Other Recent Notes (John Gilbert) Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring (Mark Allyn) Re: Unexpected Help From TELECOM Digest (Robert J. Woodhead) Re: Origins of International Direct Dialing (Tony Harminc) Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service (Jim Gottlieb) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 10:11:19 -0500 (EST) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) Subject: Re: 911 and Politics holmanj@uwwvax.uww.edu asks: > Question, when is 911 not 911? > Answer, when it is 9911! Another acceptable answer: When it is * 9 1 1 ! The University of New Hampshire instituted 911 as *911, which allows the calls to be routed to our on-campus dispatch center with ANI. It also allowed us to "ride through" dialing changes as they occur: form four-digit to five-digit dialing, and to straight 911 when e911 ever becomes available. > I have always wondered why switches can not be programmed to make 911 > dialing really universal. People that are familiar business and > University calling patterns have no problem with this but visitors do. PATs answer explained why the switch can't recognize it (unless we change the off-campus access to 8+. We could do that, but there are other implications, some of them pretty costly. We try to protect our visitors by posting a bright orange sticker on every phone with * 9 1 1 on it, and with the star and every digit in a box that resembles a button on a touch-tone keypad. NOTE: Don't try this at home -- we can ensure that there are no rotary phones, back-up *911 with a dialable 5-digit extension number, as well as with operators at '0' and 9-0, in addition to supporting 9-911 and 9 + a seven-digit emergency number. > If those who program the private switch determine that "9-11" cannot > be programmed in, let them tell you what is programmed in there that > begins with "9-11" or what is on the outside that they think begins > with "11". In theory, 911 could be routed the same way as 9-00, which goes something like this: 9-go to Alternate Route Selection 0-wait for additional digits; if none are dialed route to LEC operator 0-wait for additional digits; if none are dialed route to IXC operator This screens on digit two for 1 or 0, and on digit three for 1 or 0. In reality, when the Definity G2 that we have sees the 9 1, it waits for a valid area code or NXX. There will be an upgrade available this summer that we think will allow 911 dialing without the 9. I'll keep you posted. Kath Mullholand University of New Hampshire Durham, NH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 00:23:28 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: 11? (Was: 911 and Politics) Gordon Burditt writes: > When I was in college in the early 70's, some of the guys got excited > about discovering the "secret numbers" used by telephone installers. > When my phone was installed, the installer used two numbers from the > set 11[2-9]. I tried calling these numbers once, a human answered > without any particular identification, and I apologized for the wrong > number and hung up. I'm guessing it was a number for a test board or > a dispatcher in the repair department. Here in GTE California land (the South Bay neighborhoods of Los Angeles), 114 gives you your number, and 112 gives you the Proctor Test Set, which is a whole battery of tests: touch tone, coin tests (if you're at a real GTE pay phone), ringback, etc. If you've got nothing better to do, it's quite fun. 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 ------------------------------ From: richg@locus.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1992 17:40:44 GMT Re: Providing an intercom in church between the pulpit and the sound (or was it the lighting) board..... The several suggestions that I have seen so far in the Digest all suggest using standard (i.e. 500 series or similar) telephones for the intercom. I think that is just an example of tunnel vision. The Digest readers are mostly telephone professionals, so the solution is a telephone. How about simply going to the local Rat Shack and getting a (ta-da) two station intercom system? An unwired type that uses carrier current transmission over the AC wiring. Take them out of the box, plug them in, push the button, and talk. If cost is a prime consideration, and running a wire is not a major problem, a wired intercom from the same source would cost even less. ---> Rich Greenberg, richg@locus.com TinselTown, USA 310-337-5904 Located in Inglewood, Ca, a small city completely contained within Los Angeles Opinions expressed are solely those of the writer. [Moderator's Note: You have to consider that maybe the people involved want the communications to be private, or at least not overheard by a large number of people, as would happen with an intercom like you describe. The wildest intercom set up I have ever seen was a number of years ago in the Chicago Temple Building auditorium. At four or five locations there were six-button, five line phones -- the type with the first button on the left being for 'hold' -- and these phones each had on the first line their own extension number from the building PBX; the second line was a common talk path, always alive, always battery on the line which connected all four or five of these sets; the third, fourth and fifth line buttons had been converted to push button signal use; along with a little auxilliary push button on the side of the phone, any station could signal any of the other four then talk over the common line. The lighting/sound booth was on the intercom, as was the WNIB radio booth; the lobby host's station; backstage; and next to the organist. All except the lobby host had a headset jack in the back of the phone, and the lighting/sound tech, radio station guy and the organist could sit on the intercom and talk whenever they wanted. I think this set up came from Illinois Bell. PAT] ------------------------------ From: richg@locus.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Roaming With No Home Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1992 18:56:43 GMT In article levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) writes: > I need a cell phone three or four times a year for two to four days at > a stretch (max 12 days a year). I can justify the cost of a used > phone for this purpose, but I can't justify the $25 per month service > charge. > Is there any other cost effective solution to this problem? How about just renting a cellphone by the day in what ever area you will be in? Seems to me that would be a much simpler solution for your purposes. Some car rental companies also will rent the car with a cell phone. ---> Rich Greenberg, richg@locus.com TinselTown, USA 310-337-5904 Located in Inglewood, Ca, a small city completely contained within Los Angeles Opinions expressed are solely those of the writer. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 16:28:58 est From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas In article sisklb@Texaco.COM (Linden B. Sisk) writes: > Summary: Oops ... > Which brings up the question in my mind as > to how many places, if any, is it necessary to dial 1+NPA+7D for ALL > calls, even local calls? Is this an inevitable feature of NPA's of > the form NXX? It seems to me that it shouldn't be, that the switch > should be smart enough to realize that if only seven digits are > dialed, a local call is intended. Why should that be an inevitable feature? When NXX area codes become standard in a few years, there should be only three remaining dialing methods: 1) NXX-XXXX -- calls within local area code (or possibly across a border to an immediately adjacent area code, in the case of a few sparsely-populated NPAs that can afford to set aside exchanges so that they won't bump into each other). Note that some NPAs allow seven-digit dialing for LD-within-NPA while others reserve 7D for local calls only. 2) 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX -- calls to another area code, or long distance calls within the same area code (if the 7D dialing method (1) described above isn't used for that purpose). This may also include local calls to another area code, unless method (3) (see below) is used for that purpose. 3) NXX-XXX-XXXX -- local calls to another area code. Only a few metro areas (Dallas, Washington?, etc.) appear to use this method. Note that such areas are usually set up to avoid using the other local NPAs as exchanges in the current NPA; this avoids ambiguity between local 7D calls and local 10D calls. Note that the current method used by many areas for LD-within-NPA calls (1-NNX-XXXX) will be ambiguous once NXX area codes appear, and thus must be abandoned. However, an NPA that doesn't currently have any exchanges of the form NN0 could postpone this cutover for awhile, because the first of the NXX area codes to be assigned are supposedly all going to be NN0 codes. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: hoyt@isus.org (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) Subject: Re: Caller ID Product Idea Organization: International Society of Unified Science Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 19:31:31 GMT In article jh203s806@sycom.mi.org (Jim Harvey) writes: > I have an idea for someone to jump on. Make an answering machine with > caller ID decode built in. The machine could offer the following > features: > 1. Incoming calls will have their caller ID tacked on to the end of > the tape message by a voice synthesizer. Good idea! I would also like to see it say "we don't accept CID blocked calls", and hang up. Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| hoyt@isus.uucp 4131 E. Cannon Dr. | Phoenix, AZ. 85028 | voice USA | 602_996_1717__ ------------------------------ From: johng.all_proj@mot.com (John) Subject: Re: Revised Listing of Class Codes; Other Recent Notes Organization: Motorola Inc. Land Mobile Products Sector Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 23:26:30 GMT In article brack@uoftcse.cse. utoledo.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: >> *68 Computer Access Restriction Toggle > Pardon my ignorance, but what does that code do? As I understand it Computer Access Restriction is available so that owners of analog PSTN modems can program which directory numbers are allowed to call into their modem pool. Up to 31 numbers can be programmed into the list of numbers that are approved to talk to the modems. If you call the modem pool, but are not on the list you can either be routed to an attendant (with caller id), a recording, or another telephone line. Numbers are user programmable, just as they are for Selective Call Acceptance. (The feature seems to be similar to Selective call acceptance, but designed to work with a larger allowed number list). John Gilbert KA4JMC Secure and Advanced Conventional Sys Div Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector Schaumburg, Illinois johng@ecs.comm.mot.com ------------------------------ From: sleepy!allyn@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Mark Allyn) Subject: Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring Date: 9 Mar 92 22:24:38 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle Do these traffic sensors pick up and distinguish bicycles from autos so they can tell what percentage of traffic is bicyclists and what percentage is cars? Mark Allyn ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Unexpected Help From TELECOM Digest Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 02:11:39 GMT Our esteemed (well, more often than not) Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: I thought maybe you were gonna thank me for saving > you a few bucks having your fortune told. :) In case you lost the > number and can't find your copy of the {Star} for last week, that > number being advertised by Mystic Marketing is 1-800-736-7886. PAT] Pat, I really have to take issue with your behavior in regards this 800 number. Agreed, the Mystic Marketers are slime. Agreed, they should not be able to do what they are doing. Agreed, something should be done. However, encouraging readers of the Digest to call the number from COCOTs is contemptable and may well be actionable. You got really steamed about people who bitched about the 800/900 mixup last month and now you are advocating that people go around putting charges on other peoples (COCOT owners) phone bills. Outraged COCOT owners may not have a case against the STAR because the STAR may well be able to claim they had no knowledge of any impropriety. You, on the other hand, do not have that defense. Not all COCOT owners are slime. And just because some people are slime, doesn't mean you have to lower yourself to their level. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 18:59:04 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Origins of International Direct Dialing Scott Fybush wrote: > We've all managed to get an idea by now of the origins of the American > area code system and the birth of direct dialed long distance within > the US. But ... does anyone know when international direct dialed > long distance was first available, and where? And how were country > codes initially assigned, by whom, and when? I think the question you've asked is probably not the one you meant to ask. The first international direct dialing in the world was between Canada and the US. This started in the late 1950s, and direct dialing between major cities in the two countries was common at a time when many smaller or more remote comunities in each country could not be direct dialed even from within the country. What I imagine you meant to ask about was direct dialing using country codes. This is incorrectly called IDDD in the US. In Canada it is referred to as Overseas Dialing, though Mexico and arguably South America are not overseas from Canada. This form of calling was available between some European countries around 1970, and between New York and London in the early 1970s. Most of western Europe had direct dialing to North America long before we had it to Europe. The simple reason is that while the designers of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) decided right from the beginning that numbers of other than seven digits would not be direct dialable, most European countries developed forms of DDD that would cope with numbers of variable length. In practice this means timeouts on some calls. Country codes are assigned by the CCITT, which is an agency (ultimately) of the United Nations. A number of multilateral agreements were struck outside the CCITT framework (e.g. the old 37 for the DDR (East Germany) was subject to all sorts of political wrangling because assigning a new country code might be seen as lending political support to the country). Tony H. ------------------------------ From: jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) Subject: Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 04:32:39 GMT >> BT's answer -- disable all tone dialing payphones. > What happens is that the phone switches from pulse to tone dialing > when then number 144, and a few others are dialed. I just can't believe all this I'm reading! A company like BT can't even get their payphones to work correctly? How could dialing extra digits after a number make the call free? Wouldn't this be more easily solved with a software patch to the C.O. switch than a hardware kludge to every payphone in the country? What am I missing? Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: or V-Mail: +1 310 551 7702 Fax: 478-3060 Voice: 824-5454 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #214 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27992; 11 Mar 92 3:18 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01874 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 11 Mar 1992 01:20:14 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10935 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 11 Mar 1992 01:20:01 -0600 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 01:20:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203110720.AA10935@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #215 TELECOM Digest Wed, 11 Mar 92 01:20:00 CST Volume 12 : Issue 215 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Physical Phone Security (Steve Forrette) Re: Three Digit Information Numbers (Alan L. Varney) Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines (Alan Barclay) Re: Encryption Help Needed (Michael Salmon) Re: New 900 Scam and an Alternative to 900 Numbers (Marty Brenneis) Re: Phone Phun (Steve Forrette) Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (David Niebuhr) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Kath Mullholand) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Lawrence V. Cipriani) Re: News Flash: Code Operators Use to Place Free Calls! (K. Mullholand) Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Kath Mullholand) Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Lawrence V. Cipriani) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 08:55:12 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Physical Phone Security Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article Phil Howard writes: > I saw just today on one of the "fix up your home" type shows (did not > catch the name) when they were discussing the security system of a > home being remodeled, they showed a radio transmitter that would reach > the security control center 20 miles away. This was "because many > burglars are cutting telephone wires". No mention of the frequency or > band used. The antenna was long enough to be hi-band VHF, but could > have been a colinear on a UHF band, as it was incased in something > about 5-6 cm wide. A couple of years ago, I was researching monitored alarm services in the SF Bay Area, and almost had one installed by Bay Alarm, which from what I'm able to determine is the premier monitored alarm company in that area. They had three methods to communicate with their central office: dialup, one-way radio, and two-way radio. My questions about the radio system quickly surpassed the sales person's knowledge, so they let me talk to the engineer in charge of the radio system. He was very informative, and invited me to their office for a tour of the radio and other facilities. I was quite impressed with their setup, and the integrity that the radio monitoring could bring to an alarm system. Their one-way radio system consisted of a transmitter connected at the customer site that would broadcast the alarm status every 60 seconds or so. In the event of an alarm condition, the radio would broadcast immediately with limited information (burglar, fire, holdup, etc.), and the conventional dialup would use the landline to modem in more detailed information, such as which zone the alarm was in, etc. Also, the radio module would monitor the phone line, and if the telco battery went away (such as would happen if someone cut the line or unplugged the modular at the demarc), it would signal this event to the dispatch center over the radio link. Also, if someone tampered with the radio module, the system would dial over the landline to tell the dispatch center that this happened. If both the landline and the radio were deactivated, then the central system would know after a minute or two anyway when it stopped receiving the "all okay" transmissions that happen every 60 seconds or so. The two-way system was similar, except that the local unit also received data from the central office. It would respond to status requests, etc. Also, Bay Alarm had several transmitter sites around the bay area, such that each customer was within range of two or three sites. Each site was on its own frequency, so that if one of their transmitters went out-of-service, your system could still communicate with their CO through one of the alternate transmitters that was within your range. All of the radio equipment, including the stuff in the central office, was made by Ademco, which should be a familiar name to people who know about alarms. I would imagine that since all of the radio stuff was made by Ademco, that there would be companies in any major area that had the equipment and could provide the monitoring service. If you can't find one yourself, I'm sure that Ademco would be pleased to provide you with a reference to one of their customers. I think that using some sort of radio backup to dialup for alarm monitoring is essential to providing a secure system. It may seem a bit paranoid to be worrying about someone cutting your phone lines, but you wouldn't be getting an alarm in the first place if you weren't paranoid, now would you? :-) Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 03:23:50 CST From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: Three Digit Information Numbers Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank) writes: > Bell South plans to offer three digit numbers for information services > provided by phone company competitors. Bellsouth will ask the FCC > about public interest aspects, and will ask the FCC to allocate the > numbers. Bellsouth say it will use the numbers 211, 311, 511, and 711 > in it's local calling areas. As I pointed out in a yet-to-be published article, the FCC is not the official administrator of numbers. Bellcore is the North American Numbering Plan Administrator, and they say (in their proposal on the "Future of Numbering" letter: "Spare N11 formatted codes (211,311, etc.) may be appropriate for this application [new NPAs for 800-like services], as NPA codes with full 10-digit dialing. The potential for assignment of the remaining, and potentially recoverable, N11 codes for an appropriate nationwide abbreviated 3-digit dialing application, is remote." Bell South would have an easier time using *XX codes for such applications, but Bellcore is trying to get those standardized also. And what will Bell South do if there are hundreds of information service providers? What's wrong with seven-digit numbers in each NPA?? Al Varney - AT&T, but the above aren't AT&T's words. I want my own nationwide three-digit number!!! [Moderator's Note: Would you settle for a nationwide 950 number like Domino's Pizza? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alan Barclay Subject: Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 10:08:01 gmt > [Moderator's Note: Well in the last issue, blame was placed on the > services for not putting enough money in reserves for uncollectibles. > That made sense ... now you say the problem with is a category of > users gaining the undeserved trust of the intended users of the > service. So one vote for the deadbeats, and one vote for the poor > pedophiles ... any other suggestions, anyone? PAT] According to Oracle*, the 'not enough money in the pot' is the correct answer. Also they said that strict new rules are to be introduced to try and elminate bogus job adverts, with an expected ban if the IP don't follow the guidelines, and also new rules about cost warnings at five minute intervals on interactive services. *= Oracle is an information service, broadcast using extra bandwidth on Independent TV transmitters. The BBC has an equivilant service, CEEFAX. Alan Barclay, iT, Barker Lane, CHESTERFIELD, S40 1DY, Derbys, England alan@ukpoit.uucp, ..!uknet!ukpoit!alan, FAX:+44 246214353, VOICE:+44 246214241 ------------------------------ From: etxmesa@eos.ericsson.se (Michael Salmon) Subject: Re: Encryption Help Needed Reply-To: etxmesa@eos.ericsson.se (Michael Salmon) Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 12:35:49 GMT In article , Robert L. McMillin writes: >> Encryption software is considered an export-controlled technology by >> the U.S. Commerce and State Departments and is restricted from being >> distributed outside of the U.S. > That's curious, since I recall an article in a back issue of {Computer > Language} of about four or five years past discussing the DES > encryption standard. While I don't have the magazine anymore, you > might try looking in there for a starting place. About three years ago there was an article in {Dr. Dobbs} describing the DES and providing en/decrypting code. I didn't check to see if {Dr. Dobbs} made it available on disk as they usually do but to me it demonstrates the ludicrous position that the U.S. government takes. My Sun doesn't have crypt because it is illegal but I can buy a copy of a magazine, type in the code and compile. If I had done so would I have broken any laws and would {Dr. Dobbs} been a conspiritor? Michael Salmon #include Ericsson Telecom AB Stockholm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 09:18:42 PST From: kerner!droid@pixar.com (Marty the Droid) Subject: Re: New 900 Scam and an Alternative to 900 Numbers Organization: The Kerner Company What Bob proposes is all well and good for people who know about numbers and can understand modern technology. You must remember that all these systems must be geared for the most common denominator. There are still many people who have no idea why they should care about who their LXC is and think that all phone service comes from "The Phone Company". A 900 number is the simplest way to make a pay-per-use call for the simple minded folks out there. This is a marketing decision. Marty 'The Droid' Brenneis (droid@kerner.com) Industrial Magician (415) 258-2105 KC6YYP ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 10:06:00 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Phone Phun Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article Frederick G. M. Roeber writes: > Over in comp.protocols.time.ntp, there have been a couple messages > from people who think the WWV time signal had the DST bit set wrong > for awhile several days ago. They were feeding this time signal into > their computer as a time reference. Would this not explain the Pacific Bell voice time reader being one hour off a few days ago? Perhaps Pacific Bell uses this signal to set their clock. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 12:36:16 -0500 From: niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr) Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire In bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: > Another NYNEX child is getting either 3.xx or 4.xx for TT in NY -- > ouch. In New York, NYTel charges $1.92 for Touchtone (tm) and NO free directory assistance allowance. > Curious what the same carrier says is the cost of the same service in > different locations. Regulators from one state should sit in on > hearings in other states served by the same LEC. Might prove > interesting or embarassing depending on your point of view. Actually, the costs could be different due to a lot of things, taxes and fees imposed by one state as opposed to another. Sales tax comes to mind, along with the various surcharges. Some are recouped through rates and others by direct assessment. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 10:40:53 -0500 (EST) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On > Like yourself, I think the FBI is just trying to > get more money, using technical mumbo-jumbo the legislators won't be > able to understand. Write your legislators if you agree. PAT] I'd like to write -- did anyone get the bill number? Kath Mullholand University of New Hampshire Durham, NH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 14:15:59 EST From: lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc. In article Neil.Katin@Eng.Sun.COM (Neil Katin ) writes: > I believe that a key piece of the proposal is to be able to trace > cellular phones, which do *not* have easy-to-access pairs available. This proposal has very little to do with cellular phones since software already has been developed to allow bugging at the switch of cellular phone calls. A trunk is assigned to the phone number in question, which means remote monitoring by the government. That's all I know about this ... Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 10:27:26 -0500 (EST) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) Subject: Re: News Flash: Special Code Operators Use to Place Free Calls! > From what I'm able to gather, the charges didn't appear until the > month after they should have. My guess is that someone had used the > 10999 access code, then got their bill with no charges, and assumed > that charges would never arrive, and then spread the good news. Another example of how the FCC and the US Congress knows what's best for people that are pretty ignorant about telephone services. No, I don't feel too sorry for people who thought they were getting free calls -- it is theft, after all -- but I think the opening up of 10xxx was undertaken hastily and without proper preparation. Shouldn't they first have required that carriers bill in a timely manner? That carriers resolve screening issues? That carriers must subscribe to credit card databases (databasi?)? Kath Mullholand University of New Hampshire Durham, NH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 11:17:35 -0500 (EST) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > It will not be long before COCOTs, hotel PBXes, > and businesses start blocking 800 numbers to avoid the very thing that > Mystic Marketing is doing (though not with AT&T in this case). But wait! The US Congress and the FCC, in their infinite wisdom, have made it illegal for COCOTs and Hotels (and Universities 8-)) to block 800-calls. The penalty is $10,000 a day. AND, in the same bill, it is illegal for us to charge for 800-access, so we have no way to cover for OUR uncollectables. I agree that regulation won't save us, but perhaps good and timely information from the net will help us hold the line until someone somewhere decides that standards can control greed, and that greed should be countered with fines, levies, and lawsuits. Kath Mullholand University of New Hampshire Durham, NH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 14:03:58 EST From: lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc. In article wts1@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (wts1) writes: > I wish to make a small clarification to your posting about automated > operator services. What's being implemented, at least as far as is > being told to the troops, is a voice recognition/response system. I work on part of this product; I'm not in the voice end of it however. The newspaper accounts are pretty accurate; I'll mention some things customers will see that the papers haven't printed yet. First of all, this service only comes into play when you make a 0+ call. At the present time when making a 0+ call the customer gets the bong-tone, and the spoken phrase "AT&T" so they know they're on AT&T. Then the customer can enter their calling card number, or wait a while and an operator will assist them. If you dial 10ATT0 you'll still get an AT&T operator. The new system will speak the phrase "AT&T. Say collect, third number, person, calling card, or operator now." Then it waits for a response. For a collect call we ask for their name, the call is completed, then the person [hopefully it's a person!] is told they have a collect call from "..." will they accept the charges ? Say yes to accept the charges or no. They may say yes/no at any point here as well. Anyway, you get the idea and I'm not going to write out all these scripts ... Instead of asking for the operator by voice you may press 0 or you may flash the phone hook. You may say your choice immediately without having to wait for the whole menu of choices. If the customer doesn't say anything or says something unintelligible they are prompted a second time. If that doesn't take then an operator will handle the call. I cannot reveal any performance statistics, so please don't ask. >> The new voice/touch tone response system is already in use by some >> local telcos including Illinois Bell. In fact, Ohio Bell Northern Telecom switches handle collect calls via an automated operator already. > A spokeswoman for the Communications Workers of America also > acknowledged that further reductions were possible. "Ultimately, we > could see no operators," said Louise Caddell of the CWA. I appreciate the CWA's concern; however, "no operators" is something I wouldn't bet money on. Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #215 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29688; 11 Mar 92 3:58 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25368 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 11 Mar 1992 02:02:13 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08119 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 11 Mar 1992 02:02:02 -0600 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 02:02:02 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203110802.AA08119@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #216 TELECOM Digest Wed, 11 Mar 92 02:02:01 CST Volume 12 : Issue 216 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson ANI Returns Mystery Number: What is it? (Michael Rosen) Mystic Marketing Oddity (Clive Feather) AT&T Public Phone 2000 (Tony Harminc) Need Help With Project: Nationwide Cellular Pricing (Allen Gwinn) Texas Instruments Switchboard (Michael Rosen) ICSTIS: Not What They Appear to Be (Nigel Roberts) Telemarketer Avoidance (Matt Simpson) Ham Phone Patches (Was: 911 and Politics) (Phil Howard) Georgia PSC and CLID (Bill Berbenich) Pac*Bell Calling Cards (Ole J. Jacobsen) Southern Exposure :-) (Dennis Blyth) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Rosen@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: ANI Returns Mystery Number: What is it? Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 05:33:51 GMT I lost the message from a little bit back, but someone mentioned something about the Mystic Marketing ANI reading back the wrong number I think? Anyway, if anyone recalls, I had posted an ANI number that I found in {2600 Magazine} (and why do we use these brackets anyway? what's wrong with underlining? :). This ANI number would read back the number 202/994-1000, our university operator phone number. My phone number is on the 994-xxxx exchange. However, dialing the Mystic Marketing phone number reads back to me the following number - 202/775-2040. Now, a friend of mine who has Caller*ID has told me before that when calling him, my number shows up as a certain 775 number, I'm sure this is it. He told me it's an imaginary number that doesn't work upon trying to call it. An imaginary trunk number, I believe. What exactly is this number? Which number doesn't exactly exist? Is the 775 number an internal phone number for our school's phone system or is it the local telco's number to manage our system? Thanks, Mike The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 ------------------------------ From: clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather) Subject: Mystic Marketing Oddity Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 7:33:19 GMT I had someone in area code 206 try the Mystic Marketing number. They got: "This is the ACI operator. Can you please tell me the 800 number you dialed." "Thank you" Two other 800 numbers (Delta Airlines and our own office) worked normally. Clive D.W. Feather | IXI Limited clive@x.co.uk | 62-74 Burleigh St. Phone: +44 223 462 131 | Cambridge CB1 1OJ (USA: 1 800 XDESK 57) | United Kingdom [Moderator's Note: I think its nice you have a friend, 'someone in area 206' to try those numbers for you. Without someone there to help you, you'd need to resort to dialing that number another telecom newsgroup has been publishing which I've refused to print. You know, 206-xxx-xxxx where it answers and returns dial tone. (innocent blink of eyes!). Summpin tells me the mess is gonna hit the fan soon on that one!. Glad I didn't print it here! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 23:52:36 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: AT&T Public Phone 2000 I recently came across an AT&T Public Phone 2000 in the lobby of the Hilton in Anaheim, California. This is a wall mounted phone with a colour screen and a small keyboard. As well as the usual types of voice calls, this phone allows data calls (using an internal modem or the user's own device plugged into an RJ11 underneath), and access to various services such as weather maps. I decided to try using the terminal, and chose that option. (Curiously, you select menu items using the dialing pad keys, but use an ENTER key mounted to the right of the screen. The alphameric keyboard is not active at this point). A second menu allowed configuring of the speed (300, 1200, or 2400), parity and start/stop bits, and VT100 (vs some other unspecified) mode. Half vs full duplex (local echo) apparently cannot be changed. Using the terminal costs USD 2.50 for the first ten minutes, and 1.00 for each additional ten. The phone call itself is charged as well at normal rates. The phone accepts AT&T and LEC calling cards and (I think) major credit cards. There is a warning that the card reader will probably be unable to read the magstripe on LEC cards, but that they *are* accepted and the number can be entered manually. I tried my Telecom Canada calling card (old format: ten digits plus four digit PIN) and it was read with no trouble and validated. This took a little over five seconds and then it said to go ahead and dial the data number. I dialed the local Tymnet 2400 number, heard the answer tone, and then the screen told me to hang up in order to proceed. I did, and got the Tymnet prompt on the screen, connected through to Datapac, and on into the McGill VM system. Well -- a couple of comments and questions: First -- it's a nice idea, and in my case it was genuinely useful. I didn't have a portable with me and I really did want to check my mail. The pricing seems not too unreasonable -- I can't think of any other way I could have read my mail from the hotel for even close to that price. The human factors aspects leave a few things to be desired however. The unit is mounted on the wall at the same height as the other phones in the row. The screen is easy to see when standing but then the keyboard is too low to reach. Sitting down, the keyboard is a little too high and the screen is way too high. The menu system seems unnecessarily complex and slow. It also forgets all the setup choices as soon as the call is over. Questions: why would there be a problem reading the magstripe on some LEC calling cards? Why would my Canadian card be readable? There is no similar warning on the other AT&T phones with card readers. I use my calling card routinely in AT&T and LEC (and even COCOT) phones in the US, and it works just fine. Validation is very fast (typically a second or two), so presumably there is a shared database somewhere. How will the use of this device show up on my phone bill? I am not aware of any mechanism for a US carrier to send arbitrary billing data to a Canadian telco (Bell Canada in my case). Will they perhaps show it as a cheap call from Anaheim to Toronto, or an expensive call from Amaheim to Anaheim? Obviously I'll find out when the bill arrives, but I'm curious if anyone knows how it might work. Tony H. ------------------------------ From: allen@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG (Allen Gwinn) Subject: Need Help With Project: Nationwide Cellular Pricing Organization: sulaco Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 12:30:49 GMT Greetings. I am part of a group that is examining nationwide cellular service pricing. We need pricing information on both A and B carriers in all parts of the country. We would like to see the following: - General "public" service plan pricing for both A and B carrier (including rates per minute, times of day that rates vary, and length of service committments) - Special "corporate" service plan pricing for both (with all of the above information) - Price of service features such as custom calling, voicemail, etc for both A and B carrier. - Other charges billed to the consumer (such as the new "roamer admin fee") [Note: we are also interested in the date that this "roamer admin fee" became effective in your area as well] for both A and B carrier. - Date of any noticable rate increase/decrease for both A and B carrier. Although this project deals mainly with pricing, we are interested in other similarities between the two carriers serving your area, and would gladly accept any other comments that anyone wants to provide. We will post the results of this project to the net at completion. Please mail responses to cellular@sulaco.lonestar.org or sulaco!cellular. All responses are greatly appreciated. ------------------------------ From: Michael.Rosen@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: Texas Instruments Switchboard Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 06:36:53 GMT Well, I received my information and PIN for the TI Switchboard today. I made my first call at around 11:00 EST or so tonight (Monday). I forgot who I spoke to (Pete? sorry, if I got your name wrong), but he is a reader of the TELECOM Digest and found the information for the switchboard here as did I. We were both curious as to whether TI advertised this anywhere else besides over the computer networks? As for the system itself ... I call in and choose to have a conversation (makes me think of the Monty Python sketch, to tell the truth :) and the system tells me the topic of conversation. It then goes to call another party for me to be connected with, giving me time to think about the topic a bit. Once someone has been found, we have the opportunity to get acquainted before the recording begins. When ready, I (being the one who called) hit "1" to begin recording. We speak for about five minutes until the system tells us to wrap it up. Our conversation tonight was on recycling. I recommend this to anyone who hasn't signed up, it's pretty cool and harmless. Who knows, maybe you can meet someone over the phone ... Mike The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 07:06:32 PST From: Nigel Roberts <"eddf13::roberts"@frocky.enet.dec.com> Subject: ICSTIS: Not What They Appear to Be Graham Thomas wrote: > The fund is administered by ICSTIS (Independent Committee for the > Supervision of Standards for Telephone Information Services), who also > draw up and enforce the Code of Practice for chatline and message My opinion, based on personal experience of talking with ICSTIS is that they are nothing more than apologists for the 0898 industry. I called them to complain about the fact that I was not able to block 0898 calls from my phone in the 0206 STD area and basically their response was "So what? If BT haven't provided the facility on your exchange, then tough. Why are you calling us?" Upon asking them whether or not they were really the "chatline watchdog" as they are described as in the press, he basically admitted they were funded by the chatline/recorded message providers and they just pay phone bills when people have been caught out by 0898 sleaze. (My words.) They were not interested in taking up the issue of 0898 blocking at all. Nice to know they are on the side of the consumer, isn't it? Nigel Roberts, European Engineer "G4IJF" +44 206 396610 / +49 6103 383489 FAX +44 206 393148 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 10:15:37 EST From: Matt Simpson Subject: Telemarketer Avoidance Someone posted previously about the effect of asking telemarketers "Who's calling, please?", which usually results in hang-ups. I've got an amusing twist on this. Recently, I've started answering my phone during telemarketing prime-time with a deep "Goood Eeeeevvening." This frequently results in a confused pause, followed by an unfamiliar voice timidly asking for Matt Simpson. The reply to this request is "May I tell the master who's calling?" in the same deep Addams Family voice. This usually gets rid of them, though I did have one young woman from AT&T who bravely identified herself, at which point she was told that "The master does not converse with sales creatures." ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Ham Phone Patches (Was: 911 and Politics) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 07:53:09 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) richg@locus.com (Rich Greenberg) writes: > The proper term for what Phil is describing is an Autopatch. The > several autopatches I have used thru various repeaters require an > access code of one or (usually) more digits. Depending on the type of > circutry in the repeater's controller (and there is a lot of CPU power > on those mountain tops :-) ), you either get a dial tone and dial the > rest of the call, or you just follow the access code with the phone > number and it is dialed by the controller. I believe the term does not apply for patches not a part of a repeater. I've posted a couple times on rec.radio.amateur.[misc|policy] of the type of phone patch I am planning, which has no repeater. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 11:02:06 MST From: bberbeni@isis.cs.du.edu (Bill Berbenich) Subject: Georgia PSC and CLID The Georgia Public Service Commission is having an administrative meeting this morning (Tuesday, March 10) which includes discussion of Southern Bell's "Caller ID" tariff. Many of you may recall that the GA PSC gave Southern Bell approval for a one-year trial period, beginning Feb. '91. More word here as I am made aware of the proceedings. I did not find out about this meeting until today -- but in all fairness I had not seriously been pursuing the issue as closely as all that. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 11:07:29 PST From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Pac*Bell Calling Cards Here is a copy of a letter I sent today in response to an elaborate flyer I received from Pac*Bell. It would appear that these people simply don't understand, and continue to push bogus products on their unsuspecting customers (so what else is new? I hear Higdon saying): Ole J. Jacobsen San Francisco, CA March 10, 1992 Mr. Keith Haydon Product Manager, Calling Cards Pacific*Bell Dear Mr. Haydon, I am writing in response to your information packet regarding Pacific*Bell Calling Cards which I received yesterday. While I understand your company's desire to offer "one card for all your calling needs," I wish to point out several problems with the kind of card you offer. As you must know, the original 415-xxx-yyyy+PIN scheme (which you are continuing to use) has been abandoned by AT&T for a very simple reason: Other long distance companies *do* accept this number and may bill you at their own rates rather than AT&T's. I've been hit by this myself several times, in particular when calling from hotels. In one case the rate charged was a whopping four times that of AT&T! However, AT&T's new number system for calling cards, while admittedly being less convenient to remember, offers "AT&T Guarantee" in the sense that other carriers cannot and will not honor these cards since they do not have the billing mechanism to do so. Your further claim that your cards are so wonderful since they are "...based on your home phone number" should also be examined carefully. With only a four digit PIN, it is not too difficult to imagine some enterprising individual "cracker" committing phone fraud by picking someone's phone number and attempting "PIN cracking." Your "helpful" practice of printing the PIN *on the card* also makes a lost or stolen card a real liability. In conclusion, I find your advertisement bordering on deception in light of all the problems associated with your calling cards. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Ole J. Jacobsen, Telecom Manager Editor and Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop Company, 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, Phone: (415) 962-2515 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu [Moderator's Note: Please share his answer with us if you receive one from him or someone else there. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 15:01:01 -0500 From: Dennis Blyth Subject: Southern Exposure :-) Previous story -- in another USENET newsgroup -- mentioned a Burdines advertisement in which there appeared to be a male with his pants unzipped and private parts showing. This was a response from another e-mail person, whom I quote in entirety: Quotation begins: Subject: Re: Southern Exposure One of the funniest examples of this I've ever seen in my professional life, was a phone-book cover printed some years ago, at a very large company I used to work at. You've seen those pictures that look like one thing when you look at them one way, and another when you change your perspective? Well, the graphic artist who produced the cover for this phone book managed to work an "invisible" penis into the cover. It was soon discovered by the male employees, amidst much chortling and guffawing. Word around the company was that the artist was terminated shortly thereafter. End of quote I wonder what telephone company published that phone book? Or is this an apocraphal story? Enquiring minds want to know !! "anonymous buckeye" [Moderator's Note: From reading the above, I get the impression it was a large company with an internal telephone book -- not a phone directory as such from a telco. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #216 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28088; 12 Mar 92 3:33 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11036 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 12 Mar 1992 01:23:16 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14190 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 12 Mar 1992 01:23:00 -0600 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 01:23:00 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203120723.AA14190@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #217 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Mar 92 01:22:56 CST Volume 12 : Issue 217 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 'Portable' 800 Numbers (Lars Poulsen) Phones, Lies and 800 Numbers (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker) Where to Get Parts For Obsolete Phone? (Dan Pearl) Cold Call Directory (Willie Smith) The First Phone Call (Robert L. McMillin) Israel: Electronic Notification of Disconnection of Service (W. Burstein) Does 706 Work Yet? (Michael A. Covington) How Do I Use 10288 and My Calling Card? (John V. Zambito) Ring Supression (Eric Jacksch) DBase For Telecom Equipment (jguerrer@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx) COCOT Question (Kamran Husain) Acronyms List Wanted (Michael Robinson) Fax Monitor Wanted (Rop Gonggrijp) Switched 56, Pipe Dream of USOC? (Ross Porter) Seeking Address of Telecom Association (Jim Bennet) What's a Baud? (Doug Barr) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: 'Portable' 800 Numbers Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 07:27:32 GMT In article eap@ora.com (Eric Pearce) writes: > I'm trying to get a feel of when/if 800 numbers are going to be > transferable from one long distance carrier to another. Several > people have told me March, 1993 is the magic date for this, but the > people at Sprint and MCI advise me that this date keeps on moving > forward. This week's {Network World} has an article about this. Judge Greene says that 800 numbers must be portable by 1993, but the LECs want to postpone the date. In order to make 800 numbers portable, the long distance tandems must be SS7-equipped. In some RBOC territories, most of them aren't and won't be in time for the change. US West is way behind -- only about 40 percent of its offices are up to date enough to do this. The RBOCs are suing the FCC, claiming that the FCC does not have the authority to force them to install this expensive new stuff, and they would like to be allowed to wait until 1996 to implement the changes. I wish they would get this settled soon, so they can start building the databases. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM [Moderator's Note: The next message in this issue, written by Donald Kimberlin and forwarded to us from FIDO discusses this in more detail. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 16:08:55 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Phones, Lies and 800 Numbers Original From: Don Kimberlin Forwarded from the Fido network. Some of the many "changes" that phonecos said they would be "offering" have proved by now to be items they don't really want to change. In the area of Inward Wide Area Telecommunications Service (INWATS), more commonly known as "800 numbers," considerable dependence on the ability of local phone companies (who charge the interstate companies dearly for INWATS number support, as well as sell intrastate INWATS themselves) has been a problem with "number transportability." What that means is that certain "central office codes" are assigned to each common carrier, and become an intrinsic part of routing calls to a given 800 number to its proper destination. Several years ago, at the behest of large buyers of 800 numbers, the regulators asked the local phone companies if they could accomodate "number transportability," meaning could the local phone companies all arrange to read all the digits of every 800 call and set up routing tables to send any call to any terminating exchange regardless of what its central office prefix was. In the attitude local phone companies have always had that they could accomplish anything in telecommunications because they see the public as a willing bottomless pit of money, the local phone companies told the regulators they could, by March of 1993. Now, it seems like reality is setting in, and the local phonecos are waffling about meeting that time frame. Here's a report from {Information Week} magazine for March 2, 1992: "USERS DIAL 1-800-STUCK" "Telcos are reneging on their promise to offer portability for 800 numbers by early 1993" "When it comes to 800 service, you still can't take it with you. "Almost since the birth of competition in the long-distance market, coporate users have been pressing for the day when their toll-free 800 numbers would be portable. Currently, to switch long-distance carriers, a firm must change its 800 numbers, sacrificing whatever dollars it has spent promoting those numbers (and often their wacky acronyms). "Toll-free 800 service is one of the last areas of business service where corporate users have little choice. Indeed lack of portability has enabled AT&T to maintain more than 80% of the market. "`Portability will unshackle a customer's tie to any one carrier.' says Frank Diaz, president of Kemper Service Co., which provides telecom to parent Kemper Financial Companies Inc. When Diaz recently switched several of his nearly two dozen 800 numbers fomr MCI Communications Corp. to AT&T, he had to spend $25,000 to reprint internal directories. "It looked like true 800 competition was nearing when regulators mandated a March 1993 deadline for the Bell companies to upgrade their networks to allow portability. Slowly but surely, however, the Bells have been reneging on their promise. "This week, five of the seven Bells will tell the Federal Communications Commission that they miscalculated the time and money needed to install the technology to route 800 calls to any long-distance carrier. One Bell has even gone to court to challenge the FCC's authority to mandate 800 portability. "The FCC set the March date based on the Bells' own estimates, so users have little patience with the telcos' request for extensions, says Diaz. "Jim Lewis, MCI VP of regulatory affairs, thinks the FCC will stick by the March `93 deadline." --Mary E. Thyfault So, we see just one more area in which the local phonecos can't really perform to their belief that they can be All Things To All People, thus justifying their claim to being a "natural monopoly." Some things are too much, even for the Baby Bells to take on. WM v2.01/91-0073 * Origin: AET BBS - (704) 545-7076, 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16) --------------- Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 16:14:33 EST From: pearl@iago.sw.stratus.com (Dan Pearl) Subject: Where to Get Parts For Obsolete Phone? I'd like to get a replacement touch-tone keypad for an old "1A Key" Western Electric phone. This is a multi-line phone with one red button, and five clear buttons on the bottom strip. There is one thick cable coming out of the back of the phone terminating in an Amphenol connector of some sort. The keypad has 11 leads. If necessary, I'll replace the phone. Does anyone have any idea where to get the part? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 16:30:14 EST From: wpns@roadrunner.pictel.com (Willie Smith) Subject: Cold Call Directory We've been getting more telemarketing calls lately, including the remains of some robot ones on our answering machine. My wife answered the phone the other night and asked them where they had gotten our number. The droid answered "from a cold call directory". Is this something new, or just a new way of describing a "phone book"? Willie Smith wpns@pictel.com [Moderator's Note: A Cold Call Directory could be just a phone book or a criss-cross (cross reference) type directory, or it might be a list of prospects prepared based on someone's idea of a group of people who might be interested in the product or service being offered even though there was no specific request for information from the party being called upon. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 15:03:23 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: The First Phone Call ... And today in history, Alexander Graham Bell made the first phone call, on March 10, 1876. It's been a long way to T1, hasn't it? 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: rlm's message did not reach me in time to be included in an issue of the Digest on March 10. PAT] ------------------------------ From: warren@itexjct.jct.ac.il (Warren Burstein) Subject: Israel: Electronic Notification of Disconnection of Service Date: 11 Mar 92 00:00:29 GMT Organization: ITEX, Jerusalem, Israel Translated from {Ma'ariv}, 2/28/92, notes in parenthesis are mine. Bezeq (the Israeli telco) is about to begin to use 'computerized voice warning' for customers who are behind on their telephone bills. A customer who has not paid his bill by the due date will receive a call to his home or office, and a computerized voice will suggest that he hurry up and pay in order to save himself the trouble involved in disconnecting the line. (What trouble? The trouble is reconnecting. I know, this happened to me when they sent my bill to the wrong address). The computer will also be glad to inform the customer of the amount of the bill. If the computer doesn't catch the customer on the first try, it will try again two hours later. This new service will use equipment manufactured by Digital, and it will be directly connected to Bezeq's central IBM computer, from which it will receive the details of those who owe money. Thirty thousand lucky customers will benifit from this improvement while Bezeq tests it during April. Aftwards, the service will be extended to the entire country. Incidently, Bezeq will continue to send out overdue notices by mail. warren@itex.jct.ac.il ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 19:52:48 EST From: Michael A. Covington Subject: Does 706 Work Yet? As you know, area code 404 (northern Georgia) is being split so that all counties outside the immediate Atlanta area will have the new area code 706. Today's newspaper says that dialing 706 is permitted beginning today. Care to tell us whether 706 is working from your part of the country, folks? A good number to try would be 706-542-8813, which is a BBS run by our College of Education, or 706-542-MEAL, which gives a recording of dining hall menus, or 706-54-TABLE, which gives the time of day. [Moderator's Note: As of early Thursday morning, 706 is not yet working from Chicago-Rogers Park. (312-262, 312-465, 312-764, etc). PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 13:49:51 EST From: jvz@cci632.cci.com (John V. Zambito) Subject: How do I Use 10288 and my Calling Card? Reply-To: jvz@cci632.cci.com (John V. Zambito) Organization: Computer Consoles Inc., Rochester, NY If I'm at a phone and I want to use my AT&T calling card, how do I use the 10288 sequence? If my number is (315) 597-1234 do I dial 10288-0-315-597-1234; wait for the bong then dial my four digit code? If I'm calling somebody other than my home would I dial my whole number and four digit code after the bong? My wife called home from her sister's house collect and I got a Sprint bill. Should I use this 10288 sequence from the COCOTs when I have to use them? I don't like them having my four digit code. [Moderator's Note: Your methods above are correct. 10288 will force the call to AT&T. If dialing the number assigned to the calling card, dial just the four digit PIN after the number, followed by #. For any other number, dial 10288-0-number called (wait for bong) then the entire card number including PIN. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Ring Supression From: jacksch@insom.pc.ocunix.on.ca (Eric Jacksch) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 17:49:39 -0500 Organization: Insomniacs' Guild, Kemptville, Ontario, Canada I'm using some weird switching equipment on my line and want to supress the first ring (i.e. stop the phone from ringing until the second ring comes down the line.) Does anyone happen to have any schematics? Thanks, Eric Jacksch, jacksch@insom.pc.ocunix.on.ca (UUCP: aficom!insom!jacksch) ------------------------------ From: jguerrer@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx Subject: DBase For Telecom Equipment Date: 11 Mar 92 06:35:27 GMT Reply-To: jguerrer@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx Does anyone know a good DBase program specialized in telecommunica- tions equipment with graphics environment if possible?. I need it for PC's. Cost doesn't matter. I'd appreciate any reference. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ From: khx@se44.wg2.waii.com (Kamran Husain) Subject: COCOT Question Date: 11 Mar 92 20:08:43 GMT Reply-To: khx@se44.wg2.waii.com Organization: Western Geophysical Exploration Products This came up when I didn't have my AT&T card and used lots (!) of quarters at a payphone for a long distance call. How does an operator (or repairman) at the central office know that we did put in a coin (or more) when asked ... (What's the signalling protocol)? Does it actually specify the dollar amount entered in back to the switch (and/or an operator)? ***OR*** Are the smarts to determine the cost of the call in the payphone itself (implying that rate hikes for long distance calls require downloading new tables)? Thanks in advance. kamran khx@se44.wg2.waii.com [Moderator's Note: Do not confuse COCOTS (privately owned payphones) with actual telco payphones. The former generally keep track of their own rates and coin collections, etc. The telco payphones signal their collections back to the operator (or the computerized operator). PAT] ------------------------------ From: robinson@odie.ee.wits.ac.za (Michael Robinson) Subject: Acronyms List Wanted Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Novell Users). Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 09:41:02 GMT I am doing research into cellular phone technology, as well as PABX, general switching technology and radio telephone systems. If you have a list of acronyms which are used in this field or even the broader field of telecommunications, could you please forward it to me via E-Mail. Thank you in anticipation. Michael Robinson robinson@odie.wits.ee.ac.za. [Moderator's Note: The Telecom Archives has three acronym files available by anonymous ftp at lcs.mit.edu. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rop@hacktic.nl (Rop Gonggrijp) Subject: Fax Monitor Wanted Date: 11 Mar 92 0:29:51 GMT Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine Does anybody know if there is a company that markets a faxline-monitor to see what other people are faxing? Rop Gonggrijp (rop@hacktic.nl), editor of | fax: +31 20 6900968 Hack-Tic Magazine (only on paper, only in Dutch) | VMB: +31 20 6001480 [Moderator's Note: Off hand, I don't know. But there are easy to build devices which could be used by folks who want to listen to what you talk about on the phone ... if you don't object to them listening, without a warrant or other formalities, that is. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 17:48:55 EST From: ross@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Ross Porter) Subject: Switched 56, Pipe Dream of USOC? I would very much appreciate answers to a few questions relating to a recent {PC Magazine} article: ..Amazingly, Switched 56 monthly service charges are often exactly the same as those for a regular voice telephone line. ..the termination equipment that links your PC or LAN ... to the Switched 56 circuit typically cost less than ... V.32bis modems PC Magazine, March 17, p.292 Our particular need is to link two SPARCs at fixed locations in metropolitan Philadelphia. -the local telephone company can't be of much help without the Univsersal Service Order Code (USOC) for Switched 56. Anybody know this part number? -is Switched 56 service/equipment really this cheap? -is Switched56 <-> ethernet/IP interfacing easy? Or is V.35 the only available interface? If interest warrants, I will post a summary. Many Thanks, Ross Porter ross@psych.upenn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 07:39 EST From: jimb@coplex.com (Jim Bennet) Subject: Seeking Address of Telecom Association I am looking for the address of the national telephone coop office located in Washington D.C. If you have it could I get it and its phone number? Thanks, Jim Bennett ------------------------------ From: barr@tramp.Colorado.EDU (BARR DOUG) Subject: What's a Baud? Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 23:31:25 GMT I have what is probably a fairly simple question. What is a baud? Also, does anyone know what it stands for or its derivation? This came up when we were comparing the bandwidth of ISN to ethernet. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #217 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28999; 12 Mar 92 3:53 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26626 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 12 Mar 1992 01:58:24 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03572 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 12 Mar 1992 01:58:07 -0600 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 01:58:07 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203120758.AA03572@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #218 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Mar 92 01:58:05 CST Volume 12 : Issue 218 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: How do Amateur Radio Operators Access Autopatch Lines (Ken Sprouse) Re: Phone Phun (Jeff Woolsey) Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? (Floyd Davidson) Re: No Response From RAM (David Lesher) Re: Texas Instruments Switchboard (Declan McCullagh) Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Phil Howard) Re: Vandals Strike Cellular One/Chicago - Disrupt Service (Wm R. Franklin) Re: Telemarketer Behavior (Graham Toal) Re: Help Needed Dialing Phone From Computer Audio Jack (Julian Macassey) Re: Help Needed Dialing Phone From Computer Audio Jack (Warren Burstein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: How do Amateur Radio Operators Access Autopatch Lines Date: 10 Mar 92 13:26:46 EDT (Tue) From: sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us (Ken Sprouse) > [Moderator's Note: I have always wondered how amateur radio clubs with > phone patches prevent non-members from using the patch. Do you add > some sort of additional security digits in the dialing that only > members of the club would know about? PAT] Most of the phone patch facilities in the Pittsburgh area are closed to club members. There is an access and a dump code that connects/disconnects the phone line from the repeater system. Many parts of the country have "open" autopatches. Dialing an * gets you dial tone and # disconnects you after you have completed your call. Most open patches restrict toll and long distance calls and as a matter of routine there is a control operator monitoring while the call is in progress. Some systems tape the audio of all calls to satisfy FCC requirements that you log third party traffic. (Persons who talk over the air but are not licensed amateurs.) Amateur radio phone patches (manual or automatic) are not permitted to carry business calls and there has been much (sometimes heated) debate in the ham community as to what calls are legal. Most repeater owners consider calling to order a pizza a business call and prohibit them. Clubs are very careful to inform users that they are not offering or selling phone service and the the money collected is used to support the operation of the entire repeater system of which the phone patch is just another feature. Many of the repeater controllers are now microprocessor based and offer bells and whistles like auto-dialing. The user enters the access code followed by a two or three digit code that calls a preprogrammed number. Some have various police and emergency numbers on speed dial so you only have to know the three digit code for your area to get help. There has been a lot of talk about allowing 911 to bring up the patch and dial either 0 for operator or 911 but so far no one has implemented it. There are the usual problems of "who should the 911 code call" and worries about it being abused. It wouldn't take very many occurrences of someone mashing the PTT button and pressing 911 then going away before the repeater owner would be receiving a call from the local telco and emergency agencies involved. Sad that it might happen but a fact of life. A friend of mine who has fallen in love with the 6502 processor and hex code built his own repeater controller. Among the other neat features he programmed into it he gives each user of the system her/his own access code to the autopatch and a common single digit dump code. Each time someone makes a call the controller logs the user number, date, time, duration, and number called on a printer. This is probably more that you wanted to know about autopatches. :-) Ken Sprouse / N3IGW sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us Oakmont, Pa. GEnie KSPROUSE - Compu$erve 70145,426 - Packet radio n3igw@w2xo.#wpa.usa.noam ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 13:26:35 PST From: woolsey@mri.com (Jeff Woolsey) Subject: Re: Phone Phun In article ampex!delanst@decwrl.dec.com (Steve DeLaney) writes: > Anyhow, Thursday 3/5/92 was just such a morning, and when my wife > called the electronic voice informed her that it was around 5 AM -- > which for us is time to get going. We got up, went out into the > living room, and noticed that our battery operated analog clocks > showed one hour EARLIER. We called again, and again confirmed the > time, which by Pac Bell standards was one hour LATER. After some ..... > I wonder how many other people got the wrong time that morning. As it > turned out being up an hour early was a minor inconvenience, but what > if it had been an hour later instead? Interesting that the time was > off, not by 25, or 38 minutes, but EXACTLY one hour. Bingo. What I found amusing was a report on the news that morning that several hundred people had called Pac*Bell to report the problem. There was speculation that it was caused by all the rain we were having that morning! In fact, it was no such thing. When I got home the evening before I looked at my Heathkit GC-1000 (WWV-slaved) clock and remember thinking that I thought I had gotten home earlier than the clock said, that I had not wasted any more time than usual, and my trip home had not taken an inordiate amount of time. Then why was it so late? All of the other clocks in the house read an hour earlier than the Heathkit clock. By this time I'd surmised what was going on. Someone at NIST had bumped the DST toggle switch. Disabling DST correction on the clock showed the correct time. (Flipping the clock over to get at the switches disconnected my antenna, and the clock had not reset before the unrelated PG&E power failure the next day, so I don't know how long it was before NIST flipped the switch back.) This happens once or twice per decade, I'm led to believe. (Sometimes they're just late or forget to flip the switch on time.) In any case, it should be obvious by now that Pac*Bell runs their time service slaved to WWV. Jeff Woolsey 800 950 5554 woolsey@mri.COM Microtec Research, Inc. +1 408 980 1300 woolsey@netcom.COM Nothing like a three-address mailer.... woolsey@folderol.UUCP ------------------------------ From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) Subject: Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 22:06:28 GMT In article rop@hacktic.nl (Rop Gonggrijp) writes: > john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon @ Green Hills and Cows) once wrote: >> The DMS lines we have from Contel sound better and the features work >> more intuitively. If you have a choice, opt for the DMS. > That's a load of crap. The DMS may be a nice switch on the analogue > side, but the digital part of it gets very confused very often. DMS > 100's are notorious (even out here where there is none) for switching > you into other people's conversations. It also 'hangs' too often (your > call ends up in the bitbucket). I've been either working on or next to DMS switches for ten years, and I've never heard of the above characteristics being a particular problem where the switch is properly maintained (ahem, and is NOT part of the autovohn switching network ...). I can't compare the quality of an ESS switch to a DMS because there are no ESS switches within a few thousand miles ... > It has a lot of VERY nice security 'features' though (but PAT wouldn't > let me tell you anyway). Try him. I haven't got the slightest idea what such 'features' are, but I'll bet that PAT would be delighted to have an article describing them. I would sure be interested in reading it. Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, Alaska [Moderator's Note: If the article can describe some of these features without getting too specific -- no actual phone numbers necessary -- then perhaps something can be done with it here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: No Response From RAM Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 22:31:19 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex > Some of you may recall seeing a notice posted here in the Digest some > months back regarding a new service by RAM Mobile Data and Bell South. {tale of woe deleted...} > [Moderator's Note: Isn't it pathetic that a company can be that mixed > up, advertising something they don't even offer, then not knowing what > to do with inquiries for the product, etc? PAT] Well they came in and gave us the spiel. The marketing droid came all the way from Orlando {to the District}. They did have a demo, but I had to be elsewhere at the time. But RAM just got bought by Bell South. Gee, us old-timers remember dealing with pre-divestiture Ma. Sounds about the same. (Stand by -- Moderator flames en-route ...) wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu [Moderator's Note: No flames this time. I quite agree with you. There were problems in the past and there are problems now. Just the names of the players have changed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Declan McCullagh Subject: Re: Texas Instruments Switchboard Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 11:46:48 EST Michael Rosen writes: > Well, I received my information and PIN for the TI Switchboard today. > I made my first call at around 11:00 EST or so tonight (Monday). > We were both curious as to whether TI advertised this anywhere > else besides over the computer networks? Ed Holliman of TI's Switchboard Project told me: > No, we have limited our publicity to Internet and a few bulletin > boards. Our response from our Internet posting has been very positive > and will, most likely, give us the number of callers needed to > complete our study. They're also trying to "limit all their callers to males for statistical reasons." However, female would-be participants can submit an application in case TI might need female voice samples. I just sent in my application a few days ago; I should have my PIN soon. All TELECOM Digest readers should request an application today! Send applications to your friends ... DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with TI in any way except as a voice sample contributor. Declan / declan@seas.gwu.edu ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 19:52:16 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand) writes: > john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >> It will not be long before COCOTs, hotel PBXes, >> and businesses start blocking 800 numbers to avoid the very thing that >> Mystic Marketing is doing (though not with AT&T in this case). > But wait! The US Congress and the FCC, in their infinite wisdom, have > made it illegal for COCOTs and Hotels (and Universities 8-)) to block > 800-calls. The penalty is $10,000 a day. AND, in the same bill, it > is illegal for us to charge for 800-access, so we have no way to cover > for OUR uncollectables. > I agree that regulation won't save us, but perhaps good and timely > information from the net will help us hold the line until someone > somewhere decides that standards can control greed, and that greed > should be countered with fines, levies, and lawsuits. I seems to me that a simple law could handle this: Telcos shall be able to block, and offer this service it all its customers, any call to a number which can bill back to the calling line any charges. Unless requested by the customer otherwise and in writing, this blocking shall be in effect for calls to numbers in "area code" 800. Calls allowed to be placed due to a failure by the telco to block properly shall not be billable. This blocking shall be distinct from blocking of collect and second number type billing. Of course it will have to be phrased with a lot more detail and specifics in the real law. This blocking does not mean the call cannot be placed, but it means that the callee cannot bill to the line, and of course can refuse to accept the call because it is blocked for billing, or can prompt for an alternative billing (e.g. credit card). There is an article in the {WSJ} today about a scam in which people were asked to call an 800 number for information on their "winnings". They are asked, at least for ONE of their billing options, to enter a number on their card (they got in the mail). The number identifies them and their address. I don't see this as being much different (except for the sweepstakes sleaze promotion aspect) than the 800 numbers I call up to order stuff using my credit cards (which I do frequently). Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) Subject: Re: Vandals Strike Cellular One/Chicago - Disrupt Service Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 00:52:51 GMT Nothing directly to do with Telecom, but an interesting story: In article on 5 Mar 92 22:10:58 GMT, pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard writes: > You don't want to be standing next to a tower at the time it falls; > I would guess even vandals would figure that out. Not all vandals. About ten years ago, a vandal tried to topple a giant Saguaro cactus near Tucson by towing it with his car. The cactus fell on the perp. He didn't survive the experience. (Natural justice.) Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: wrf@ecse.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: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: Telemarketer Behavior Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND. Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 23:21:21 GMT In article bill@eedsp.gatech.edu writes: > Who else has noticed that if you ask a telemarketer who they are, as > in "Who's calling, please?", they will quite often just hang up on > you? I was annoyed the first few times that happened to me, but then > I realized that the volume and frequency of the calls were decreasing. In Britain they are obliged to answer this question or they will be in deep trouble with BT and Oftel. The code of practise for telemarketers in the back of BT phonebooks is well worth reading. In fact, I've photocopied it and keep it next my phone. Unfortunately, if they *don't* identify themselves, we have no CLID to nab them with, to report them to BT. Graham ------------------------------ From: julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey) Subject: Re: Help Needed Dialing Phone From Computer Audio Jack Date: 11 Mar 92 03:23:05 GMT Reply-To: julian@bongo.info.com (Julian Macassey) Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article j-lieberman@uchicago.edu writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 201, Message 4 of 9 > Any ideas on improving the tonal quality or volume? What is the > best way to play sounds from my computer in to the phone line (i.e. > what do I need to build in between the out jack and the phone to avoid > killing the line and to get clean sound). THANKS. Very simple. You need a transformer. Something like 600 Ohm to 8 Ohm. Most electronics parts stores carry these. Radio Shack has something that will work for $1.69. It is part number 273-1380 - Audio output transformer, 1000:8 Ohms. Connect the high impedance end of the transformer to the telephone line and the low impedance end to the speaker output. You may need some connectors. Soldering skills are handy at times like these. 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: Wed, 11 Mar 92 01:34:30 +0200 From: warren@itexjct.jct.ac.il (Warren Burstein) Subject: Re: Help Needed Dialing Phone From Computer Audio Jack I'd try an audio transformer, something like 8 ohms on the speaker side and 1K on the phone line side. Don't worry if values are not exact or even very close. At least that's what they used in plans for a build-it-yourself answering machine in some electronics mag from before it was possible to buy one in a store and take it home. I never built it, but this sounds reasonable to me. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #218 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01640; 12 Mar 92 4:45 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18084 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 12 Mar 1992 02:50:31 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15955 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 12 Mar 1992 02:50:14 -0600 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 02:50:14 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203120850.AA15955@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #219 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Mar 92 02:49:36 CST Volume 12 : Issue 219 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service (Nigel Roberts) Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service (Mark Evans) Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Phil Howard) Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (Will Martin) Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) Re: Metering Pulses (Rolf Meier) Re: Unexpected Help From TELECOM Digest (Mark Phaedrus) Re: Small Communications Program Found (Ed Greenberg) Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring (Jim Dunne) Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring (Gary Segal) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 07:32:24 PST From: Nigel Roberts Subject: Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service Jim Gottlieb wrote: >> I just can't believe all this I'm reading! A company like BT can't >> even get their payphones to work correctly? How could dialing extra >> digits after a number make the call free? I don't know, but it did. Even today, because of this, you can't buy a DTMF tone pad on its own in a BT Phone Shop. (The last BT Business Catalogue I saw had them with the legend "Only sold with answering machines") This is no big deal, Tandy (Radio Shack) is quite happy to sell you a tone pad as are other companies. The phraud apparently worked on new digital exchanges which are the only ones to offer TouchTone dialing. I say apparently, because I never saw it in action. (We don't expect to see tone dial in my area for years to come ...) My guess is that it was probably a test patch or something which got forgotten. It COULD have been a bug in the hardware design, I suppose. I don't suppose we'll ever know unless someone who knows why reads this group and cares to enlighten us. >> Wouldn't this be more easily solved with a software patch to the >> C.O. switch than a hardware kludge to every payphone in the country? >> What am I missing? Don't know. There was a lot of publicity in the tabloids about it at the time, and BT didn't exactly go out of their way to explain the technical background. If you ask BT about it today, they will give the impression that the situation (of no tone dial from payphones) was all the fault of the phraudsters. However, last time I spoke to BT, someone did say they thought that tone dial should be re-instated some time soon. Sure it will. I know a way to get tone dial at payphones now. Use a Mercury payphone. TouchTone is a trademark of British Telecom in the UK. Nigel Roberts, European Engineer "G4IJF" +44 206 396610 / +49 6103 383489 FAX +44 206 393148 ------------------------------ From: mpevans@isis.cs.du.edu (Mark Evans) Subject: Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 20:26:36 GMT jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) writes: > I just can't believe all this I'm reading! A company like BT can't > even get their payphones to work correctly? How could dialing extra > digits after a number make the call free? Wouldn't this be more > easily solved with a software patch to the C.O. switch than a hardware > kludge to every payphone in the country? What am I missing? These are not free calls. The number is the access number, for a remote billing. Next you enter your ID code and the number you want to call. The cost of the call then winds up on your bill, the only way in which it is free is that you don't have to put cash into the payphone. ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA) Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 19:22:58 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes: > First of all, this service only comes into play when you make a 0+ > call. At the present time when making a 0+ call the customer gets the > bong-tone, and the spoken phrase "AT&T" so they know they're on AT&T. > Then the customer can enter their calling card number, or wait a while > and an operator will assist them. If you dial 10ATT0 you'll still get > an AT&T operator. So for those of us who have "NONE" as the LD carrier, who always dial 10288 [01] to go through AT&T, we will not get access to this valuable service? :-) Kinda makes you want to call AT&T to be signed up. > The new system will speak the phrase "AT&T. Say collect, third > number, person, calling card, or operator now." Then it waits for a > response. For a collect call we ask for their name, the call is > completed, then the person [hopefully it's a person!] is told they > have a collect call from "..." will they accept the charges ? Say yes > to accept the charges or no. They may say yes/no at any point here as > well. Anyway, you get the idea and I'm not going to write out all > these scripts ... So if some poor sucker has an answering machine that says "Believe it or not, yes, you got the answer machine again. I'm not at home so --- leave your name and number and I'll call you back when I return ... BEEP!" then I can call collect and leave messages at his cost? What if the called party in a collect call fails to say anything that the computer can figure out. Does it automatically switch to a real operator or does the caller have to hang up and place the call again and get a real operator to do it? Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 13:14:28 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call Hi! I was most interested to read your Telecom posting. (Sorry for the delay in responding; I was out sick for a while.) I wanted you to know that these "Integretel" scum have been pulling this same scam for improper collect charges from payphones when the callee hangs up for well over a year now; I append below a posting from Aug '90 in which I described the exact same thing happening to me. I see other notes in TELECOM Digest that this same firm is pulling an 800-billback scam, too. It appears that "Integretel" is an oppositely-named company -- their actions have absolutely nothing to do with "integrity". A hive of subhuman vermin, I would say. Here's my Telecom posting on my experience: Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 10:23:49 CDT From: Will Martin To: telecom%eecs.nwu.edu@ns1.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Bit by the COCOT collect call Just to add to the database of COCOT bad news. Back in June, I had a one-time, first-ever call from one of those COCOTs that does automated-voice collect calls. What I heard when I picked up the phone was a synthesized voice saying "You have a collect call from " and then, as it began to tell me to answer "yes" or press a number or whatever, I hung up the phone. The call had awakened me anyway, and the unidentifiability of the caller added to my annoyance, so I figured that if it was a for-real call, and not a wrong number, I'd get another call. Never did, so I figured it was a wrong number or random dialling by some idiot, and forgot about it. Well, on the phone bill from SW Bell that arrived yesterday was a tacked-on-the-back page from a company called "Integretel, Inc." for a 1-minute collect call from (314) 569-3643 at a rate of $2.25, plus 7 cents federal and 13 cents state/local tax, for a total of $2.45. The really insane thing was that it is listed as being from "Ladue, MO". I'm in St. Louis City, and Ladue is a suburb well within the local calling area. A 25-cent call. (It also has a reputation of being a hoity-toity area of rich people, and I don't know anybody who lives there, being a real person myself ... :-) Anyway, I called the SW Bell billing office this morning, and the helpful lady there had no hesitation about removing the improper charge from my bill. She, too, seemed surprised by the "Ladue" originating location. I wouldn't be surprised if bad billings from this "Integretel" company were common -- having a name somewhat like "integrity" is a real misnomer, I think; wonder if it would count as false advertising? :-) (She did try to sell me a second line as we concluded the business; I guess that's their current promotion. I didn't need one, and she wasn't pushy, so no problem there.) I think I'll include a letter to SW Bell with my bill, mentioning that she was helpful, and suggesting that it is not in SW Bell's best interest to act as the billing agent for sleazebags like this COCOT firm -- it reflects badly upon their own reputation and image to be associated in any way with AOS and COCOT firms who engage in this sort of underhanded business practice, and whatever small amount they make by doing this is far outweighed by the bad PR effect of SW Bell being identified with these actually-independent ripoff firms. I just called the (314) 569-3643 number, and it rang for about 6 - 8 times, and then answered, and a synthesized voice said "Thank you" (at least I *assume* it said "thank" :-) followed by some rapid tones -- I think DTMF. Then nothing until it disconnected. Anybody out there who feels like calling this and reprogramming that COCOT to burst into flames or allow free calls to anywhere, please feel free to do so... :-) Anyway, I'm posting this as a caution -- even if you hang up immediately on these collect-calling COCOTs, it looks like they will try to stick you with the bill. Maybe the best solution is to find such phones and use them to make collect calls to other such COCOTs, so that the companies bill themselves, and each other, for those calls. A few million such uncollectible billings will do wonders to their viability ... Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 11:39:06 -0800 From: wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) Subject: Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA Hi! Thanks for the note about Integretel. Somehow I'd suspected they'd pulled this trick before. ;-) I did chuckle about their name too. Ever notice that if a manufacturer has to go out of their way and say "longer lasting" etc, on the box, it's most likely not very long lasting. I figured Integretel fit that mold perfectly. I wonder which regulatory agency would be interested in hearing about this shady business practice? With AT&T getting into computer the generated collect call business, it would seem like now is the last chance to influence the the regulators. Wolfgang Rupprecht wolfgang@wsrcc.com (or) wsrcc!wolfgang Snail Mail: 39469 Gallaudet Drive, Fremont, CA 94538-4511 ------------------------------ From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) Subject: Re: Metering Pulses Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 13:08:30 -0500 Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article Jim.Rees@umich.edu writes: > The actual delivery of the pulses is a crock, though. They are > supposed to be inaudibly high frequency (or is it low frequency?), but > they are also high voltage, to drive mechanical meters. So any > nonlinearity in the loop gives you audible artifacts. Meter pulses are either 50 Hz longitudinal at about 30 VRMS or metallic 12 kHz or 16 kHz out-of-band signals at about 2-5 VRMS. The high level of these pulses means that usually some sort of filter is required to isolate the meter from the telephone. This should be part of the metering equipment. However, the 50-Hz type (old style) probably relied on line balance to prevent disturbance of the audio. For obvious reasons, the 12/16 kHz pulses are generated by the newer exchanges. Yes, the 50 Hz pulses could be confused with induced AC. The true meter pulses are applied with more power than the expected induction, however. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ From: phaedrus@cs.washington.edu (Mark Phaedrus) Subject: Re: Unexpected Help From TELECOM Digest Organization: University of Washington Computer Science Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 07:24:49 GMT In article trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > Our esteemed (well, more often than not) Moderator notes: >> [Moderator's Note: I thought maybe you were gonna thank me for saving >> you a few bucks having your fortune told. :) In case you lost the >> number and can't find your copy of the {Star} for last week, that >> number being advertised by Mystic Marketing is 1-800-736-7886. PAT] > Pat, I really have to take issue with your behavior in regards this > 800 number. Agreed, the Mystic Marketers are slime. Agreed, they > should not be able to do what they are doing. Agreed, something > should be done. > However, encouraging readers of the Digest to call the number from > COCOTs is contemptable and may well be actionable. Am I missing something, or is the word "COCOT" not even mentioned in the Moderator's Note you're quoting? This was indeed semi-suggested a couple of times in the past, but you could at least pick a Note to quote that demonstrates the point you're talking about. The only thing I can think of to complain about concerning this is mentioning the 1-800 number without mentioning the hefty charge that comes with it ... (I must confess I was sorely tempted to try this number out the other day, when I ran into a newly-installed COCOT that tried to charge me $4.85 for a call from one side of Seattle to the other ...) Mark Phaedrus, Computer Science Major, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA Work: phaedrus@cs.washington.edu Play: phaedrus@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: Small Communications Program Found Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 23:56:29 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Mike Scher writes about COMMO which I recommended. I've obtained permission to post COMMO on an FTP site, so if anybody would like to offer one, I will. One place I may put it is on irisa.irisa.fr, which is the HP95 spot, since there is a special HP95 mode. I would like a USA spot too. COMMO is really useful for laptops and palmtops, since it is small. It's also readily extensible, since it has a powerful macro mode. It's shareware at $30. Ed Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0184 | edg@netcom.com P. O. Box 28618 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95159 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 18:35:14 CST From: dunne@marble.rtsg.mot.com (Jim Dunne) Subject: Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring In article sleepy!allyn@bcstec.ca. boeing.com (Mark Allyn) writes: > Do these traffic sensors pick up and distinguish bicycles from autos > so they can tell what percentage of traffic is bicyclists and what > percentage is cars? The vast majority of the sensors are on interstate and major state highways, thus no bicycles allowed. Such sensors have a hard time detecting motorcycles, so bikes are right out. (Don't you hate it when your m'cycle won't trigger a stoplight?) Incidentally, the AM radio transmissions can be a little fuzzy, and the digitized voice tiresome; but it's a valuable service. I usually listen to the commercial stations myself. Jim Dunne Motorola Cellular dunne@rtsg.mot.com ...uunet!motcid!dunne ------------------------------ From: segal@rtsg.mot.com (Gary Segal) Subject: Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 00:29:25 GMT sleepy!allyn@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Mark Allyn) writes: > Do these traffic sensors pick up and distinguish bicycles from autos > so they can tell what percentage of traffic is bicyclists and what > percentage is cars? We don't need fancy sensors to determine the amount of bicycle traffic. It's zero. You'd have to have a death wish to ride anything smaller than a large motorcycle on the highways that are monitored in and around Chicago. Gary Segal Motorola Inc. segal@oscar.rtsg.mot.com Cellular Infrastructure Division ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #219 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01483; 13 Mar 92 3:26 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16055 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 13 Mar 1992 01:33:25 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02016 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 13 Mar 1992 01:33:06 -0600 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 01:33:06 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203130733.AA02016@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #220 TELECOM Digest Fri, 13 Mar 92 01:33:00 CST Volume 12 : Issue 220 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson CPSR Letter on FBI Proposal (Dave Banisar) Big Brother and The Phone (Jack Decker) Where Ma Stands (AT&T News Summary via Andy Sherman) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Mark Allyn) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Graham Toal) Attorney on Both Sides of the Litigation? (Bob Ackley) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: CPSR, Washington Office From: Dave Banisar Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 16:03:20 EDT Subject: CPSR Letter on FBI Proposal CPSR and several other organizations sent the following letter to Senator Patrick Leahy regarding the FBI's recent proposal to undertake wire surveillance in the digital network. If you also believe that the FBI's proposal requires further study at a public hearing, contact Senator Hollings at the Senate Committee on Commerce. The phone number is 202/224-9340. Dave Banisar, CPSR Washington Office ==================================================== March 9, 1992 Chairman Patrick Leahy Senate Subcommittee on Law and Technology Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Leahy, We are writing to you to express our continuing interest in communications privacy and cryptography policy. We are associated with leading computer and telecommunication firms, privacy, civil liberties, and public interest organizations, as well as research institutions and universities. We share a common concern that all policies regarding communications privacy and cryptography should be discussed at a public hearing where interested parties are provided an opportunity to comment or to submit testimony. Last year we wrote to you to express our opposition to a Justice Department sponsored provision in the Omnibus Crime Bill, S. 266, which would have encouraged telecommunications carriers to provide a decrypted version of privacy-enhanced communications. This provision would have encouraged the creation of "trap doors" in communication networks. It was our assessment that such a proposal would have undermined the security, reliability, and privacy of computer communications. At that time, you had also convened a Task Force on Privacy and Technology which looked at a number of communication privacy issues including S. 266. The Task Force determined that it was necessary to develop a full record on the need for the proposal before the Senate acted on the resolution. Thanks to your efforts, the proposal was withdrawn. We also wish to express our appreciation for your decision to raise the issue of cryptography policy with Attorney General Barr at his confirmation hearing last year. We are pleased that the Attorney General agreed that such matters should properly be brought before your Subcommittee for consideration. We write to you now to ask that you contact the Attorney General and seek assurance that no further action on that provision, or a similar proposal, will be undertaken until a public hearing is scheduled. We believe that it is important to notify the Attorney General at this point because of the current attempt by the administration to amend the Federal Communications Commission Reauthorization Act with provisions similar to those contained in S. 266. We will be pleased to provide assistance to you and your staff. Sincerely yours, Marc Rotenberg, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility David Peyton, ITAA Ira Rubenstein, Microsoft Jerry Berman, Electronic Frontier Foundation Michael Cavanaugh, Electronic Mail Association Martina Bradford, AT&T Evan Hendricks, US Privacy Council Professor Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University Professor Lance Hoffman, George Washington University Robert L. Park, American Physical Society Janlori Goldman, American Civil Liberties Union Whitfield Diffie, Sun Microsystems John Podesta, Podesta and Associates Kenneth Wasch, Software Publishers Association John Perry Barlow, Contributing Editor, Communications of the ACM David Johnson, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering cc: Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr Senator Hank Brown Senator Ernest F. Hollings Senator Arlen Specter Senator Strom Thurmond Representative Don Edwards Attorney General Barr Chairman Sikes, FCC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 16:07:56 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Big Brother and The Phone The following is a composite of two messages that appeared today in the Fidonet FCC conference. At least one had its origins in the Internet, so you may get additional copies of this message, though perhaps not with the added comments by the person who posted it to the FCC echo. The reason I say this is a composite message is because the comments came from one message, which partially quoted the text of the Associated Press article. The second message offered a more complete version of the AP article, but without the commentary: Original From: Don Kimberlin Subject: Big Brother and The Phone Don't bet on the Feds being your savior about things to do with the local phone. Here's some news about a "tax that's not a tax." The "Access Charge" now piled on your local phone bill; authorized by the FCC to supposedly "compensate the poor local phone companies" who rake in billions in per-minute charges from the interstate long distance companies anyway -- is about to ALSO become a tax to pay for equipment to help the local phoneco become a snoop arm of the government. After you read this one, you may decide it's time for yet another letter-writing campaign: [As mentioned, I'm inserting here a copy of the article as posted by jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) in several newsgroups, because it is more complete than the copy that appeared in Mr. Kimberlin's message:] The Daily Texan Friday, March 6, 1992 Page 3 PHONE TAPPING PLAN PROPOSED Law Enforcement Agencies Would Have Easier Access --- Associated Press --- WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration wants you to pay a little more for telephone service to make it easier for the FBI or local police to listen in on the conversations of suspected criminals. The Justice Department is circulating a proposal in Congress that would force telephone companies to install state-of-the-art technology to accommodate official wiretaps. And it would authorize the Federal Communications Commission to grant telephone companies rate increases to defray the cost. A copy of the legislation was obtained by The Associated Press. Attorney General William Barr discussed the proposal last week with Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC according to congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity. Justice Department spokesman Paul McNulty refused to comment on the proposal. The bill was drafted by the FBI and the Justice Department in response to dramatic changes in telephone technology that make it difficult for traditional wiretapping methods to pick up conversations between two parties on a telephone line. The Justice Department's draft proposal states that the widespread use of digital transmission, fiber optics and other technologies "make it increasingly difficult for government agencies to implement lawful orders or authorizations to intercept communications in order to enforce the laws and protect the national security." The FBI has already asked Congress for $26.6 million in its 1993 fiscal year budget to help finance a five-year research effort to help keep pace with the changes in telephone technology. With the new technology that is being installed nationwide, police can no longer go to a telephone switching center and put wiretap equipment on a designated lines. The advent of so-called digital transmission means that conversations are broken into bits of information and sent over phone lines and put back together at the end of the wire. The bill would give the FCC 180 days to devise rules and standards for telephone companies to give law enforcement agencies access to conversations for court-ordered wiretapping. The attorney general would be empowered to require that part of the rulemaking proceedings would be closed to the public, to protect the security of eavesdropping techniques used by law enforcement. Phone companies would have 180 days to make the necessary changes once the FCC issues the regulations. The bill would prohibit telephone companies and private exchanges from using equipment that doesn't comply with the new FCC technology standards. It would give the attorney general power to seek court injunctions against companies that violate the regulations and collect civil penalties of $10,000 a day. It also would give the FCC the power to raise telephone rates under its jurisdiction to reimburse carriers. The FCC sets interstate long distance rates and a monthly end-user charge -- currently $2.50 -- that subscribers pay to be connected to the nationwide telephone network. Telephone companies will want to examine the proposal to determine its impact on costs, security of phone lines and the 180-day deadline for implementing the changes, said James Sylvester, director of infrastructure and privacy for Bell Atlantic. Though no cost estimates were made available, Sylvester estimated it could cost companies millions of dollars to make the required changes. But rate hikes for individual customers would probably be quite small, he said. [Back to Mr. Kimberlin's message:] Obviously, there are at least two points here: 1.) Scary stuff about Big Brother, both national and local, having nice automated technology to park on anyone's line; 2.) Making what started out as a "reimbursement" to the local phonecos for long distance business operations into a tax that buys capital equipment for the government's use. And, of course, you friendly local phoneco will play Phoneco Hymn Number 19-B, "We're sorry to have to charge you for this, but The Law requires us to." (At the usual profits for handling the cash and charging the government for being its willing handmaiden in "operating and maintaining it." Well, folks, are we gonna roll over and play dead about this one, too? WM v2.01/91-0073 * Origin: AET BBS - (704) 545-7076, 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16) ------------- Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Where Ma Stands Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 22:57:08 EST Quoted from an AT&T news summary. SNOOP -- The FBI ... says the digital technology in new telephone networks is so complicated ... that agents can't capture conversations. So, the agency wants a law requiring phone companies to re-engineer their new phone networks so the taps work again. But the phone companies warn that the proposals could raise ratepayers' monthly bills. ... "We have grave concerns about these proposals," said AT&T spokesman Jim McGann. "They would have the effect of retarding introduction of new services and would raise prices. ... Washington Post, C1. ------------- Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ From: sleepy!allyn@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Mark Allyn) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Date: 11 Mar 92 18:45:04 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle In article , john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Does anyone know when Hollings' term is up? Does anyone out there have Hollings' office and home phone numbers? Especially the home phone numbers since he probably has secretaries and staff to screen his office calls. ------------------------------ From: gtoal@robobar.co.uk (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND. Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 23:26:39 GMT In article TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: The Federal Bureau of Inquisition doesn't 'monitor' > this Digest ... they subscribe to and read this Digest. I have three > or four Bureau staffers on the mailing list. I hope you are not > laboring under the assumption that any of the mostly insignificant > messages on Usenet in general or this mailing list in particular are > enough to warrant the time and clerical effort it would take to open a > file on someone ... let's not have delusions of grandeur here. PAT] I think you're far too trusting. It would be an interesting experiment for you to ask for your FBI file under the FOIA, just to see how much of it is blanked out, as in "we cannot release this information because it would reveal our top-secret intelligence-gathering techniques". I'd do it for myself except I'm not a citizen and I don't think they're obliged to ... Graham [Moderator's Note: You'd do what? Pull your file under the FOIA or pull mine? I don't know if they have a file on me, and I don't really care. What could I do about it in either case? Anyway, this Digest is available for public consumption, and the last I heard, FBI employees were members of the public. Unlike many of the privacy freaks all over Usenet, I don't discriminate or hold a grudge against people who happen to be involved in law enforcement. In fact I welcome them as readers here. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 08:23:15 CST From: Bob.Ackley@ivgate.omahug.org (Bob Ackley) Subject: Attorney on Both Sides of the Litigation? Reply-To: bob.ackley@ivgate.omahug.org In a message of <26 Feb 92 11:23:02>, Bob Ackley (11:30102/2) writes: > Note that the Justice Department person who decided that the 13 or > so year old antitrust suit against IBM 'had no merit' began his law > career on the team defending IBM against that same suit. > [Moderator's Note: I find this hard to believe. Attornies change from > one firm to another all the time, and from the public to the private > sector and vice-versa. But nearly always if their new employment or > affiliation places them on the opposite side of litigation they were > involved with previously, or in a position where a perception of > unfairness could exist, professional ethics require them to recuse or > disassociate themselves from the case. I can't imagine the Justice > Department letting a former IBM attorney work on the IBM case. PAT] Believe it, Pat. His name is William F. Baxter. "There is evidence in the record before the House Subcommittee that shortly after the case was filed, Baxter had been retained by IBM to review some part of it. Later, there were some communications between IBM's counsel and Baxter seeking to retain him for advice in some aspect of one or another of the private damage actions brought against IBM. Nonetheless, the House Subcommittee made no further inquiry about them." Richard Thomas DeLamarter, Big Blue, IBM's Use and Abuse of Power. 1986, Dodd Mead & Co. P.366. There's an interesting but short discussion of the intention of IBM to use delaying tactics ad infinitum in order to wear down the prosecution, same book, page 25. msged 1.99S ZTC Bob's Soapbox, Plattsmouth Ne (1:285/2.7) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #220 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02516; 13 Mar 92 4:03 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02859 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 13 Mar 1992 02:04:04 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03720 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 13 Mar 1992 02:03:57 -0600 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 02:03:57 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203130803.AA03720@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #221 TELECOM Digest Fri, 13 Mar 92 02:03:53 CST Volume 12 : Issue 221 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Protest Action (CWA News via Phillip Dampier) MCI Customer Service Problem (Kevin Houle) Gilbert Vernam and His Cipher (Jim Haynes) Book Excerpt: Gilbert Vernam, The Codebreakers (Bob Ackley) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 22:04:21 Subject: AT&T Protest Action AT&T OPERATORS FIGHT FOR THEIR JOBS; CWA NATIONWIDE JOB ACTION PROTESTS PLANNED LAYOFFS 12 March 1992 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "AT&T operators around the country took the fight for their jobs into their own hands today," said Communications Workers of America President James Irvine. "They took the extra steps necessary to provide quality customer service, and they thanked the customers for using a live operator." The operators are angry about AT&T's plans to layoff 6,000 telephone operators and replace them with "voice recognition call processing" technology. Thousands of operators in AT&T offices nationwide stood up at their stations for 15 minutes today at 11:00 am Eastern Time, coinciding with a meeting between AT&T and CWA on the operator layoffs. And the operators began a program of thanking customers for using AT&T and a live operator, a practice they will continue beyond today. As part of the protest, operators refused to use an automated process that requires them to divert calls to a computer, minimizing operator contact with customers. In so doing, operators were able to provide more customized, personal service to each customer. Operators in 27 offices that are slated to close were also supported in the action by operators in non-closing offices. CWA's early results this afternoon show excellent participation rates in the action. "Operators are furious with AT&T for initiating layoffs and office closings in the middle of the worst recession in decades to replace people with machines," Irvine stated. "There is plenty of good, productive work in AT&T that operators are qualified to do, but the company refuses to allow them access to those jobs. That means operators, many of them single parents or veteran employees with years of service, will be left without a means of supporting their families in these difficult times. It's just not right, and they're fighting back." CWA represents over 100,000 AT&T workers. There are 18,000 union operatiors nationwide at AT&T. CWA represents over 800,000 workers in telecommunications, printing, publishing, media, health care, and the public sector in the United States and Canada. ---> CWA News - 12 March 1992 Jeff Miller, Press Contact Gaye Williams Mack, Press Contact Communications Workers of America +1 202 434 1172 +1 202 434 1482 telefax -------- Phillip M. Dampier phil@rochgte.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Subject: MCI Customer Service Problem From: lunatix!iowegia!kevin@ms.uky.edu Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 00:06:07 CST Organization: Iowegia Waffle BBS, Clive IA USA, +1 515 226 2156 The company I work for purchases MCI 800 numbers, and then resells them to our customers. A part of this process, the part I see, is a monthly 800 service magnetic tape being sent from an Ohio MCI office to our office in Iowa. Well, yesterday I was told to find someone within MCI who could answer detailed questions about the contents of that tape, because we were having problems with the originating ANI number field. Fair enough. Our usual contact, person #1, within MCI told us to contact our customer service rep for that kind of help. The fun begins. My only lead was a transmittal letter which accompanied the tape. At the top of the letter, it said to call our customer service representative with any questions, or to call the MCI customer service 800 number. Well, since the letter gave us no more information than person #1 about who that customer service rep might be, I tried the 800 number. It was a customer service center in Chicago. I told person #2 I needed to speak with someone who could answer detailed questions about an 800 service tape. It wasn't him. I gave him our account number, from the transmittal letter, and he put me on hold. Now, during this holding period, I got a good sampling of MCI holding music. It was broken occationally by such helpful messages as, "All of our customer service representatives are busy. Please have your account number available for the first available representative. We WILL be right with you.". And a little free advice on the side. "All of our customer service representatives are busy. Please hold the line. Do not hang up and call again, as calls are processed in order and calling back will just delay your call being handled." Thanks for the tip. Ten minutes later, person #2 tells me it will take some digging to find the representative for our account. I give my name and number to be called back. At 3 PM the next afternoon, I have yet to hear back from person #2, so I call the 800 number again. Enter person #3. I give him the account number and here we go again. This guy first thinks I am talking about microfiche of a paper bill. No, a magnetic tape ... with 800 service information on it. Your number is on the transmittal letter! Ok, so now he understands I mean a magnetic tape. Then he thinks I am talking about my personal 800 line. I've just called someone who knows nothing about my problem, or our account. It took me ten minutes to convince him we resell 800 numbers purchased from MCI to our customers. Then something clicked in his mind, and he put me on hold, where the valuable tips heard the day before were reinforced. He comes back on the line with person #4. She tells me the name of person #5 who will contact me regarding the problem. She stresses that person #5 is local, as if that would help us determine what kind of information is on our tape. 30 minutes later, person #5 calls. I explain we are having a problem with the originating ANI numbers on a 800 service tape. She stops me and says she may not be the person to talk to, but she thinks she knows who can help. Someone in Chicago. Hm. That's were persons 1-4 were. Back on hold. She comes back on to say she will find the contact I need, and have them call me. *sigh*. An hour later, I get a call from Chicago. Person #6. I explain myself again, and am told I need to talk to (can you guess this one?) person #1 !! In a measly two days, I managed to make the complete cycle through MCI's customer service jungle and get back to where I started from. I suppose there is one good thing that can be said. I got to talk to humans the entire time. Kevin Houle : iowegia!kevin@ukma.uucp kh1461a@acad.drake.edu System/News Admin., Iowegia Waffle BBS, Clive IA USA ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) Subject: Gilbert Vernam and His Cipher Date: 11 Mar 92 19:37:19 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Perhaps I should have explained the Vernam cipher when I posted his bio earlier. In Teletype terminology a transmitter-distributor is a machine that reads paper tape with a contact for each row of holes (transmitter) and serializes the signal into start-stop for the line (distributor). A typical "faceplate type distributor" is a disk of insulating material set with two concentric copper rings. The inner ring is solid and connects to the line. The outer ring is divided into seven segments (for 5-level code). Five of these connect to the sensing contacts of the tape reader. One, the start segment, is unconnected; and the other, the stop segment is connected to the other side of the signal line. A rotating brush assembly connects the two rings together. The tape is advanced while the brushes are over the stop segment. A clutch allows the brushes to be held at the stop segment when sending is not desired. So as the brush rotates it opens the line for the start segment, sends the signals from the character in the tape one after the other, and then closes the line for the stop pulse. Vernam used a "two-headed" transmitter distributor; there were two tape reader mechanisms on the same shaft. For transmission one of these read the clear-text message tape; the other read a key tape of (hopefully) random bits. The contacts of the two readers were wired together so that the signal reaching the distributor was the exclusive-OR of the bits read from the two tapes. (Or maybe it was the inverse-exclusive-OR; doesn't matter.) At the receiving end the encrypted signal was punched into tape with a reperforator, a machine which receives a start-stop signal and punches the characters into a new paper tape. This encrypted message tape was put into a two-headed reader along with a key tape that was an exact copy of the one used for sending. The result was to undo the encryption applied at the transmitting end, producing a clear-text signal that could be printed on an ordinary printer. If the key tape is absolutely random and is never re-used then the cipher is absolutely unbreakable; it is equivalent to the "one-time pad" method of encryption. The Vernam cipher, when it could be used, was a great convenience. Otherwise the clear-text message would have to be enciphered by a code clerk using a cipher machine, and then a Teletype operator would have to punch an encrypted message tape trying not to make any errors in all the gibberish. Then at the receiving point the encrypted message would be printed and another code clerk would have to decrypt it in a separate process. One drawback to the Vernam system is the need to have as much key tape as there is traffic to be exchanged, and to get the two copies of the key tape to the two points where it is to be used. Key tape could be reused, at some risk to security since that makes it no longer a one-time system; enough re-use permits the code to be broken. Another problem is that the message and key tapes have to be exactly synchronized; if a few stray characters should be received in addition message characters the result would be gibberish from that point on. So the receiving operator might have to try repositioning the key tape from time to time to restore decryption. Stray characters are especially a problem in radio transmission where there are fading signals and static crashes. I have no idea how key tapes were produced and distributed; maybe some other reader can tell us that. One observation is that in a sense you don't want the key tape to be completely random, because a random tape could contain (with low probability) a long run of all-0s or all-1s characters that would let clear text through unchanged. haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 09:50:06 CST From: Bob.Ackley@ivgate.omahug.org (Bob Ackley) Subject: Book Excerpt: Gilbert Vernam, The Codebreakers Reply-To: bob.ackley@ivgate.omahug.org In a message of <26 Feb 92 10:13:41>, Bob Ackley (1:285/2.7) writes: > [Moderator's Note: If you read the book, will you please give us a > little more detail about Vernam, and others mentioned in the book? Okay (I not only read it, I *have* it - hard cover and 2.25 inches thick!). There are a *bunch* of people mentioned in the book, did you have any specific 'others' in mind? On to Gilbert Vernam: A native of Brooklyn, Vernam was gradrated from the Massachusetts college, where he had been president of the Wireless Association and had been elected to Tau Beta Pi, the engineering honorary society, in 1914, after having spent a year working. He immediately joined A. T. & T. and, a year later, married a Brooklyn girl, Alline L. Eno. They had one child. He had the rare type of mind that can visualize an electrical circuit and put it down on paper without having to try it out with wires. He did so well in the telegraph section that its head, Ralzemond D. Parker, assigned him to a special secrecy project. The project had begun during the summer [of 1917], a few months after war had been declared, when Parker directed some of the telegraph section members to investigate the security of the printing telegraph. Would its very newness, the fact that the enemy might not have developed such means, guard its messages? The secrecy group soon found that it did not. The fluctuations of the current could be recorded by an oscillograph and the messages read with ease. Even multiplexing offered no real security. The group discussed altering the connections inside the printing telegraph mechanism but the engineers realized that this offered no real secrecy and did not pursue the matter until Vernam bounded in with his idea [in December of 1917]. It was based upon the Baudot code, the Morse code of the teletypewriter. In this code, named for its French inventor, J. M. E. Baudot, each character is allotted five units, or pulses. Each unit consists of either an electrical current [mark] or its absence [space] at a given time. There are, consequently, 32 different combinations of marks and spaces. Vernam suggested punching a tape of key characters and electromechanically adding its pulses to those of the plaintext characters, the "sum" to consitute the ciphertext. The addition would have to be reversible so that the receiver could subtract the key pulses from the cipher pulses and get the plaintext. Vernam decided upon this rule: If the key and plaintext pulses are both markes or both spaces, the ciphertext pulse will be a space. If the key pulse is a space, and the plaintext a mark, or vice versa - if, in other words, the two are different - the ciphertext pulse will be a mark. Decipherment is unambiguous. No longer did men have to encipher or decipher a message in a separate step. Plaintext went in and plaintext came out, while anyone intercepting the message between the two endpoints would pick up nothing but a meaningless sequence of marks and spaces. Messages were enciphered, transmitted, received and deciphered in a single operation - exactly as fast as a message in plain English. The advantage was not the mechanical enciphering and printing of the message, rather it was the assimiliation of encipherment into the overall communication process. Vernam created what came to be called "on-line encipherment" to distinguish it from the old, separate, off-line encipherment. His great contribution was to bring to cryptography the automation that had benefited mankind so much in so many fields of endeavor. Vernam applied for a patent on Friday, Sep 13, 1918. Patent number 1,310,719 was granted on July 22, 1919. He continued developmental work at A. T. & T. for several years. He improved his own system, invented a device for enciphering handwriting during telautograph transmission, and came up with one of the earliest forms of binary digital encipherment of pictures - another precocious development. He was so good that he was grabbed off at a substantial raise by International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation's cryptographic subsidiary, International Communication Laboratories, where Parker Hitt was president. Four months later the stock market crashed. Vernam, with no seniority, was soon out. He went to Postal Telegraph Cable Company, which merged with Western Union. His inventive spark flared from time to time, and he was granted 65 patents in all, among them such important noncryptologic items as the semiautomatic torn-tape relay system, the push- button switching systems, and finally the fully automatic telegraph switching system, all for the Air Force's 200,000 mile domestic network. On Feb 7, 1960, after a long bout with Parkinson's disease, the man who had automated cryptography died in obscurity in his home in Hackensack, New Jersey. Excerpted from The Codebreakers, by David Kahn. 1967, MacMillan & Co. Typos are mine alone. msged 1.99S ZTC Bob's Soapbox, Plattsmouth Ne (1:285/2.7) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #221 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05693; 13 Mar 92 5:31 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14143 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 13 Mar 1992 02:58:46 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31455 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 13 Mar 1992 02:58:36 -0600 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 02:58:36 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203130858.AA31455@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #222 TELECOM Digest Fri, 13 Mar 92 02:58:36 CST Volume 12 : Issue 222 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Digital Cordless and CT2 (Vance Shipley) Message Express Appears On My Phone Bill (Carl Moore) Question About RS-422/RS-485 (Jim Miller) Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls (Michael Rosen) AOS, APCC and Other Slime (John Higdon) Telephone Pioneers (Tom Streeter) Caller-ID Approved in New York (David Niebuhr) Terminal Server Query (Martin Tanner) ATT Direct Automated From NZ Now (Lawrence Chiu) Routing International Collect Calls (Aninda Dasgupta) Terminal Server Vendors in Belgium (Herman Van Uytven) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Digital Cordless and CT2 Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 14:20:55 GMT In article Ligon@macgw1.crd.ge.com (Woody Ligon) writes: > With the help of someone else on the net, I have been able to get a > Tropez 900 digital cordless phone through B.A. Pargh, a large > wholesaler. > Unless you really, really want your conversations to be encrypted, > this phone is no where near being worth the premium price being asked. At a trade show in Taipei, Taiwan two weeks ago I saw two cordless phones that could be of interest to those seeking privacy better than standard cordless phones. The first was a Motorola analog cordless phone that inverted the signal to make eavesdropping very difficult indeed. This handset looked very much like the small cellular set they make. The second was also by Motorola, this was a personal CT2 system. The regular digital CT2 handset and a personal base station handling one line. The handset can access eight different base stations and the base station can access eight different handsets. While in Hong Kong last week I visited a retail outlet for Hutchison Telecom who are running a CT2 service there. The handsets were going for about 2600 Hong Kong dollars and the personal base station was about 2400. That works out to about $670 US. Also shown at the show was Northern Telecom's PCN product. It is based on the Norstar technology, it has the same wall mount plastic housing with the removable (upgradable) software cartridge. It also supports Norstar telephone sets wired to the KSU. The antennas are connected to the same TCM digital loops as the sets. The Motorola handsets were being used for the demonstration although I saw an Errickson handset used also. The guy said that a handset from a company called Shea in U.K. would also show the callers name (a standard Norstar feature). The computer interface card for the Norstar would also work in this product allowing third party software development. A Unix based "Mobility Manager" was described that would be used to tie many of these together. Vance Shipley vances@xenitec.on.ca vances@ltg.uucp ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 9:53:33 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Message Express Appears On My Phone Bill On December 10, I sent myself a test message via the Message Express (800-477-0334), which I believe I saw advertised on some pay phones in Baltimore. The test message was to my own office telephone number, and I goofed by using the old area code 301, which still works. The call has now appeared on my March phone bill; for place called from, it says "MSG XPR, GA [sic]" and shows telephone number 301-276-1234 (301-276 is in eastern Baltimore city and is moving to 410). The cost is 75 cents plus 2 cents federal tax. The Message Express service was billed via Telecom*USA, and is lumped into my bill from the local phone company. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 21:48:52 EST From: "Jim Miller" Subject: Question About RS-422/RS-485 Hello everyone, I recently acquired two dual-port serial cards for the IBM AT which have RS-422 outputs on them. My question is, will the RS-422 port work with RS-232 devices? I know that RS-422 uses a balanced pair for send and another pair for receive, in addition to ground line. Could I tie the negative of each of these pairs to ground, and attach the positive line of each to SD and RD of the 232 device? I am visualizing using these boards for directly attached terminals to an SCO UNIX system, so I am NOT looking for either high-speed (any greater than 19.2 KB/sec) or long distance cable runs, both of which I understand are the advantages of RS-422. I have managed to find a specification page for these boards, which says "Balanced RS-422 or RS-485 differential driver and receivers". What is RS-485? The pinout diagram of the connector lists "Auxillary Input+/- and Auxillary Output +/- lines". Is this analogous to the secondary data channel of RS-232? E-mail or digest responses are fine, I am one of those people who actually reads EVERY message in EVERY digest (Hi PAT! :-) Thank you very much, Jim Miller [Moderator's Note: Hello! And thanks for being a loyal reader. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael.Rosen@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 02:49:40 GMT Ok, I'm sure some of us here have made direct long distance calls from payphones once or twice. Now, when you hang up, almost all the time the phone rings back requesting that you deposit more money. Now, is this legal? I mean, it is after the fact, they should tell me what I owe while I am on the phone, not after I've hung up. When it tells me to deposit so much money every minute it should cover the time up until the next request. And if there is no request and I hang up, then I've paid for the allotted time. If you hang up, the phone will ring back with a live operator requesting payment. What's to stop me from walking away? What are they going to do to me, I'm at a payphone? I've heard that sometimes operators threaten to charge the called party; now, that is definitely illegal. Mike The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 [Moderator's Note: Don't be silly. What do you want the operator to do, interrupt your call every minute and ask for more money? When you eat in a restaurant do they come around to get the money after each item you have eaten or wait until you finish completely? Telco attempts to be courteous by allowing you to complete your conversation without barging in -- perhaps overhearing something private -- then they tally up the total you owe, less your initial deposit and ask you to pay. What's to stop you from walking away leaving the call unpaid? Nothing really; customers do it all the time, leaving telco holding the bag for an unpaid call. The operator will then *ask* the party at the other end if they are willing to pay since you 'forgot' to do so when you left ... if the other end says no, then that's that. The operator does have the authority to cut in at intervals and collect if she feels the customer is a slimeball who will run off afterward. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: AOS, APCC and Other Slime Date: 12 Mar 92 01:28:05 PST (Thu) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) I have really tried to sit on my hands but I cannot stand it anymore. The March, 1992 issue of {Telecom Gear} contains an article that slams AT&T's Card Issuer Identifier calling card and talks about how the American Public Communications Council (APCC) has filed with the FCC to stop further marketing and distribution of the card. Calling the CIID card "anti-competitive", the APCC explains that only by skimming off 0+ traffic from AT&T have its members been able to "grow and offer innovative features". The organization claims that the introduction of this card threatens to return us to pre-divestiture monopoly status. Now let me see if I have this right. The APCC claims the god-given right to skim off AT&T customers, charge four and five times the going rate for a call and pocket the money. AT&T apparently does not have the right to issue a calling card to its customers that gives them some assurance that they will only do business with their carrier of choice. The APCC also points out that with the CIID cards in the hands of the telephone public, dissatisfaction with payphones that will not accept them will cause the phones to be replaced by the old LEC payphones and will hurt APCC members (the public payphone owners). If that is true, then I say, "halleluja". And it may be, since I have observed that Pac*Bell payphones are returning in force. There has been a definite decline in COCOTs in the past year. All I have to say to the APCC (Bottom Feeding Scum Association) is: Go ahead and issue your own calling cards. You do not have the right to AT&T's customers for your inflated-rate 0+ calls. If anyone is stupid enough to obtain a ComSystems or Integratel calling card, then you certainly have the right to his money. On the other hand, if someone obtains a CIID AT&T calling card because he wants to use AT&T as his long distance carrier, he certainly has that right as well. But by all means do not go whining to the FCC as you did on February 10 and declare that the CIID card "threatens to reverse all the progress the independent payphone industry has made." What progress? And just what do I get for a call that costs five times as much as an AT&T call? If I could believe that AT&T's CIID card threatens the existence of AOS scum, the company can count on me to go door to door on my own time for free promoting it. The CIID card may be the greatest contribution to the art of telephony in the last ten years. I certainly have mine! John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: streeter@cs.unca.edu (Tom Streeter) Subject: Telephone Pioneers Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 20:37:53 GMT I'm trying to locate a Telephone Pioneer's chapter in the Asheville, NC area (if one exists). We've checked the area phone books with no success. Any North Carolina chapter information would be appreciated. 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: Thu, 12 Mar 92 12:48:59 -0500 From: niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr) Subject: Caller-ID Approved in New York Today's {Newsday 3/12/92} had an article that the New York Public Service Commission had approved Caller-ID for the state after a shake-down period in certain sections of the state. The article said that Caller-ID along with both types of blocking (per-line and per call) would be available. No mention was made of any of the other features such as Call Trace and Call Return. Blocking would be free during an introductory period and $5 for implementation thereafter, if wanted. Caller-Id boxes were mentioned and the article stated that they would run between $30 and $90. According to a representative of NYTel, there is a program called Smart Phone which does offer these options but no mention in her literature about Call Screening. The head of the State Consumer Protection Board has many reservations about this, including the ability of the police agencies to determine the location of calls. I'm assuming that blocking will be overriden for them as well as for various help agencies/shelters. Implementation will take place over the next two years and of ourse there is no target date for the local exchanges. Those are the sketchy details as of today. I feel that some of the impetus comes from the New Jersey Bell side of the Hudson where Caller-Id is available and there are ads on the local TV stations praising its virtues. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: tanm@seneca.bst.rochester.edu (Martin Tanner) Subject: Terminal Server Query Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 18:06:05 GMT We currently own a Datability VCP 1000 terminal server which we are very unhappy with -- the server crashes four or five times per week. We are interested in suggestions for a replacement for this terminal server. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 21:44:59 GMT From: lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz (Lawrence Chiu) Subject: ATT Direct Automated From NZ Now ATT USA Direct is now also automated from New Zealand. However interestingly I tried to call 800-366-6993 (in NYC) and kept on getting an automated message "We're sorry your call cannot be completed due to circuit congestion -- please try again later 20902)" or words to that effect. Eventually I dialled the ATT operator and asked what the problem was and was told that the 800 number was not an ATT one and therefore could not be dialled by myself or by her for that matter. She was puzzled why I didn't get a clearer message than the one I received. Perhaps someone with access to the 800 database can tell us who this number is supplied by. Laurence Chiu Principal Consultant GCS Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand Tel: +64 4 801 0176 Internet: lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz Compuserve: 71750.1527@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: aninda@bach.ecse.rpi.edu (Aninda Dasgupta) Subject: Routing International Collect Calls Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 21:06:24 GMT Here is something that has intrigued me for a while: Scenario: We have AT&T as our long distance carrier. My housemate uses 10xxx to use MCI for her long distance calls. My cousin calls me collect from India. I am assuming that all international circuits from India leave India at Bombay and "enter" the USA at some switching center someplace (say X) on the east coast. Questions: 1) How does the switching center at X know over which company's (AT&T or MCI) circuits the collect call is to be routed from X to my home in Troy NY? In short who gets my money? Do all such international switching centers keep a database of which long distance carrier I have or is this determined during call setup? If it is determined during call setup, then which circuits are used for this initial negotiation? 2) Do AT&T and MCI and Sprint all have their own lines to India (or other Asian countries)? Or do they share the cable/satellite links already laid out? In particular, since the collect calls from India have an Indian operator direct dialing from India, which company carries the call? 3) When my parents call me, they direct dial from their home in India. In that case, which company gets their business? I must mention, in India the telephone system is government controlled. As you can probably tell, I am a telecom novice. Any answers will be greatly appreciated. Aninda DasGupta (aninda@networks.ecse.rpi.edu) [Moderator's Note: On outgoing calls as you noted, you select the carrier. If the requested carrier does not have circuits to the country in question then they usually hand the call off to AT&T. This is all transparent; you see or hear nothing of it. On incoming calls, if the telephone administration in the other country has an agreement with other carriers here such as MCI to give them some of their business, then the calls are routed by whatever forumula they use. Some will come via AT&T, some will come on other carriers. If the telephone administration allows their customers to choose a carrier like we do here, then the carrier chosen would get the call. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Van Uytven Herman Organization: K.U.Leuven (Belgium) Date: Wednesday, 11 Mar 1992 11:51:49 +01 Subject: Terminal Server Vendors in Belgium We are looking at the possibility to install terminal servers. I would like a list of vendors who sell in Belgium. Also some experiences with terminal servers would be welcome (we will use them mainly to connect to the IBM mainframe with VM and MVS, and to connect to UNIX machines). The terminal servers must at least have the TN3270 option, and if it exists they should also be able to emulate a 3279 graphics screen. Thanks, Herman Van Uytven e-mail: SYSTHVU@BLEKUL11.BITNET Academic Computing Center SYSTHVU@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be K.U.Leuven Tel: (+32) (16) 286611 local 2225 Willem De Croylaan 52-a Fax: (+32) (16) 207168 B-3001 Heverlee (Leuven) Belgium postmaster for cc1.kuleuven.ac.be ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #222 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01824; 14 Mar 92 3:10 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02038 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 00:58:55 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03568 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 00:58:45 -0600 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 00:58:45 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203140658.AA03568@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #223 TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Mar 92 00:58:43 CST Volume 12 : Issue 223 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Phoneco Winds of Change (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker) 1A2 Help and Mitel SX-20 Buyer Wanted (Todd Inch) Matching LEC's to RBOC's (John R. Ruckstuhl, Jr) Looking For Articles on Telco Line Tests (Aydin Edguer) AT&T's USA Direct is Now Automated From France (Frederick G.M. Roeber) Device For Switching Ringing Line to Phones (Bryan Montgomery) Status Report: Telecommunications in Thuringia, Germany (Richard Budd) US Sprint Ads Target Computer Gamers (Gregg E. Woodcock) 410 Area Code Billboard Reminder (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 16:08:26 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Phoneco Winds of Change Here's another interesting message that I found in the Fidonet FCC echo. Perhaps Pat would care to comment on the accuracy of this report, since it's talking about his home turf: Original From: Don Kimberlin Subject: Phoneco Winds of Change There's quite a bit of news your local phoneco would rather you did NOT know. Not the least of these is that their monopoly over local telecommunications services is eroding in lots of ways in lots of places. One of those places is Chicago, where one might say "local fiber company" business began with Chicago Fiber Optic Company in the mid-1980's. Such local "alternative access vendors," one of their common names, are proliferating nationwide, but they are also multiplying in the major cities and, as the following story tells, are beginning a spread to suburbia: "LOCAL PHONE SERVICE WINDS OF CHANGE "A cable company's decision to stake out the Chicago suburbs for its rapidly growing local phone service has pushed the Windy City one giant-step closer to a competitive marketplace. "Englewood, Colorado-based Jones International Ltd., the parent of Jones Intercable, plans to offer local, private-line service within Chicago's suburban commercial meccas via Jones Chicago Lightwave, in which Jones holds a 50% interest. "`We're targeting the suburbs because we haven't wanted to compete head-on with other providers,' says Del Guynes, network design director for Jones' telecommunications operations. Indeed, Chicago is the third suburban market Jones has targeted. It turned up local service in Atlanta last week and will add Tampa, FL in two months. "The push into the suburbs comes on the heels of a flurry of pro-competitive activity in Chicago. Last week, Jones, Teleport Communications Group, Metropolitan Fiber Systems Inc., and other met to devise ways to strike down the biggest barrier to competition: Illinois Bell's monopoly on local switch-access services." Linda Perry For those who are interested, the "others" also already in operation in central Chicago include Diginet, which actually has a plant reaching from Chicago to Milwaukee and Digital Direct of Chicago, owned by Jones' major competitor in the nationwide cable TV ownership business, TCI Cablevision of Denver. As to "striking down" the Illinois Bell "barrier" of monopoly dial tone, the Illinois utility regulators have openly welcomed that, stating they want to see Chicago become a "free trade zone for telecommunications." In New York, Teleport has already been providing another source of dial tone for almost two years now, and the NY regulators would like to see it expand. When will you have a choice of suppliers of dial tone? Perhaps not all that soon, but one thing is certain. The local phonecos have persisted in methods and means that have now clearly brought the regulators around to letting their monopoly erode, opening the once-sacrosanct dial tone itself to free market economics. Permit me a bit of fortune-telling here, but I see it all washing out such that within about a decade, most of us will have a choice of who we buy a dial tone from ... and I expect at a lower price than today. The amount that present local phonecos _could_ reduce their prices is nothing short of amazing, once they find out what _real_ competition is. The only thing that could keep this from happening would be if the cablecos get entrenched as the major competitors, a move they clearly are now set to try. However, offsetting that is a large crop of individually-owned local Alternative Access companies that are cropping up nationwide, perhaps faster than the cablecos can contend with. All in all, the phonecos have a lot of hard thinking to do that they may already be too late in starting. It won't be monopoly business as usual for phonecos much longer. WM v2.01/91-0073 * Origin: AET BBS - (704) 545-7076, 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16) ------------- Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 [Moderator's Note: Yeah, those companies are operating here. I don't personally know anyone using their services. PAT] ------------------------------ From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) Subject: 1A2 Help and Mitel SX-20 Buyer Wanted Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 22:00:39 GMT I stumbled across a 1A2 KSU that GTE had just ripped off a wall in one of our business park's phone room, which they planned to throw away. I have about 15 of the appropriate 5-line 25XX sets that I picked up for about $5 each at a garage sale and have been using in my home as two-line totally-featureless sets for the last three years. I want to make these phones hold/blink/wink/buzz/intercom/etc. Critics: Yes, this is antique. Yes, I have salvaged 25-pair cable wiring laying around in my garage. If you've got a complete solution for a 2x14 key system or PBX for under $400 including sets, let's hear it! For the uninitiated: The 1A2 system uses those old-fashoned phones that look like standard desk units except they add a red HOLD button and five clear buttons that light up, blink, wink, etc. You know the ones. KSU = Key Service (System?) Unit -- the guts of a key telephone system. The KSU is usually hidden inside a huge beige box on the wall in a phone closet. Very mechanical -- lots of relays -- very reliable. This was the standard for business and government offices for years. The KSU chassis has a swing-out rack containing a "backplane" for the model 400-ish line circuit cards, which has three of the 25-pair (RJ21X?) cable connectors and an "interrupter" mechanical motorized lamp and bell flasher/winker attached. I figured out the following sequence for the cable connectors: CO Tip CO Ring Station Tip Station Ring A A1 (common) Lamp Ground (common) Lamp High-voltage ringer (common) Common Audiable Ringer out (I may have the A and Lamp mixed up a bit here -- they're "standard" and I've got them working correctly all over the kitchen table right now :) It took me a while to realize the ringing wasn't working because the detector is from Tip or Ring to ground [bridged?] and doesn't detect the ring voltage BETWEEN T and R [superimposed?]. I hooked up the ground on the power supply and voila! But -- I can't figure out where to hook in the music-on-hold (aka ASCAP/BMI revenue generator). These particular line cards (oops -- left the model number at home) say "music on hold" on their fronts under the model number, but don't appear to have any transformers and I couldn't find any likely-looking connections on the backplane/rack or pairs on the cable connector. The cards each have 8 punch-block-like clips to program ringing and blinking. All of it is made by GTE/AE except the Elgin Electric power supply. If anyone could tell me how/where to hook up MOH, or even the appropriate pins on the line cards, I'd appreciate it greatly, even if I have to connect my own external isolation transformers, since I'll only be using two or three CO trunks. I don't have the Intercom module, but am contemplating using a line card with talk battery connected (via resistor) to the CO inputs and either hacking it to buzz all station buzzers when hold is pushed or adding a tone detector for that purpose. I don't really need individual station signalling, just a common buzzer that can to "manual distinctive ringing" -- e.g. 1 buzz = wife, 2 = me, etc. Also, legally, does my ROC care if I connect this thing to the line? The SX-20 salesperson (below) seemed shocked that I might NOT need special "trunk" lines to connect the SX-20. Obviously I don't want to pay monthly charges for the unnecessary. Should I mention it at all? My defense would be "Gee -- I've tried to give them the FCC ID and REN for all my premise equipment in the past eight years and they've not cared and/or not known what I was talking about, so I stopped trying." (But, this 1A2 has no FCC ID or REN listed, it's just a few years too old.) MITEL STORY STARTS HERE: I made the mistake of buying a used SX-20 PBX which the salesjerk swore would do everything I could ever think of. I wanted to use it in my home with plain-old phones. It IS a nice system, except the generic is the "hotel/motel" package and not the business package, so some basic features like "hold" are missing. The killer for me was that you can only program each CO line to ring a single station and you must punch in a pickup code to pick up a ringing line, so it's not too practical for home use. (I figured we had to be able to at least phone home to the babysitter and expect him/her to figure out how to answer.) This salesperson is no longer being considered for the purchase of our company's new system -- BTW -- it was also a "buy it now or never" high pressure sales deal which I should have avoided. But -- it does seem to work and is configured for (I believe) about four lines and 24 extensions. The generic (firmware) is removable and upgradeable to the business generic. I paid $300 and would like to get about that much for it. Includes all manuals (programming, wiring, operation) except attendant console operator's guide and includes the attendant console, which, ironically, is a ten-button 1A2 desk set with reassigned key button definitions. It would be nice for a small business or even as an intercom and is upgradeable to something like eight lines and 96 extensions. Please send e-mail if interested. I may be willing to swap for other telecom or PC goodies, especially a Panasonic KSU or possibly an AT&T Partner KSU, which are what I really wanted but couldn't find. ------------------------------ From: ruck@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (John R Ruckstuhl Jr) Subject: Matching LEC's to RBOC's Organization: EE Dept at UF Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 05:51:56 GMT Will some kind person(s) send me a list of LEC's matched to RBOC's? If I remember correctly, there are 22 LEC's owned (if that is the right word) by seven RBOC's. Direct me to the archives if appropriate; I !can! ftp. Thank you, and best regards, John R Ruckstuhl, Jr ruck@alpha.ee.ufl.edu Dept of Electrical Engineering ruck@cis.ufl.edu, uflorida!ruck University of Florida ruck%sphere@cis.ufl.edu, sphere!ruck ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 20:28:27 -0500 From: Aydin Edguer Subject: Looking For Articles on Telco Line Tests Once, a couple of years ago, there was a document in the telecom archives on the different tests that the phone company could run to test a line, what the expected results should be, and how to ask for the tests. It no longer seems to be a separate document and I am unable to locate it in the index for vol.9-10-11. Do you know which issue this came from or where it can be found? Thank you, Aydin Edguer [Moderator's Note: Unfortunately I do not remember the articles. Perhaps a reader will recall them and point them out to you. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 09:00:32 GMT From: roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch Subject: AT&T's USA Direct is Now Automated From France AT&T's USA Direct is now automated from France. Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research e-mail: roeber@cern.ch or roeber@caltech.edu | work: +41 22 767 31 80 r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 42 19 44 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 11:22:14 GMT From: eb4/91/92 Subject: Device For Switching Ringing Line to Phones I believe (if my memory seres me well -- which I often doubt), that someone talked about a device similar to this requirement. The requirement: I currently have two lines, the primary one is connected to the dial out line and house phones. What I am after is a device that will switch the phones to the alternate phone line if a ringing signal is detected AND the primary line is on-hook (ie not being used). This relay(?) will remain switched as long as the alternate line is ringing or off-hook when answered. At the completion of the call, it will then revert to the primary line. Would such a device be able to be powered from the phone lines, or would I need an alternate power supply? Any help would be most gratefully received. Thanks. P.S. A friend in the US was asking me about a device that would detect the MF tones of the local fire dispatch centre and switch a speaker into the circuit/activate a recording system. Is such a system currently available? If not how can one find out the tones used and the specs (duration/delay etc)? Bryan Montgomery montgomery_br%uk.ac.port.ee@uknet.ac.uk or bmontgomery@ev.port.ac.uk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 08:15:12 EST From: "Richard Budd" Subject: Status Report: Telecommunications in Thuringia, Germany The {New York Times} had an article on 3/11 about Germany's TELEKOM and its effort to upgrade the telephone system in eastern Germany. Officials expect when the renovation is complete in three years that telecommunications in eastern Germany will be among the best in the world with greater opportunities for subscribers than either western Germany or France. The article mentioned the possibility of a service similar to Minitel being offered there. This tied in to an advertisement about a professional building complex under construction near Suhl in the state of Thuringia. Besides being within 100 kilometers of Frankfurt/Main, the article mentioned that the telephone company offered ISDN service and networked data center service. I regret I do not have the advertisement with me. It was in German and I did not have enough time to do a word for word translation. The Times article also mentioned that the Premier of Thuringia was able to convince Japanese businessmen to invest in his state by successfully contacting his home office on the first try over his portable phone. Richard Budd Internet: rcbudd@rhqvm19.vnet.ibm.com VM Systems Programmer Bitnet: klub@maristb.bitnet IBM - Sterling Forest, NY Phone: +1 914 759-3746 ------------------------------ From: Gregg E. Woodcock Subject: US Sprint Ads Target Computer Gamers Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 08:38:32 -0600 I was reading one of the computer magazines (Antic?) and ran across a somewhat unconventional add for SPRINT. The new incentive to switch over is two FREE computer games! The way it works (I called and switched over from MCI for fun/research) is you switch over and Sprint pays your switch fee. After there is billable activity on the acount (they wouln't want to give you something for nothing!) they send you a coupon book that you can use to select one free game. I could not get details on what computers the games would run on but the offer is co-sponsored by Sierra (King's Quest, etc) and will be only their games. If you stay with them for six months and have $30+/month for at least three months (it may be $20 ... I am fuzzy on the figure) you will get another coupon book to order a second game. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 9:45:52 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 410 Area Code Billboard Reminder Along U.S. 40 at Havre de Grace, Maryland, is a billboard saying "There are 410 men for every single woman in Maryland. (Just kidding)". It's a reminder about the 410 area code. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #223 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03490; 14 Mar 92 4:02 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10215 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 01:59:31 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01808 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 01:59:22 -0600 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 01:59:22 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203140759.AA01808@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #224 TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Mar 92 01:59:21 CST Volume 12 : Issue 224 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Heathkit Now Sells Phone Gear (Julian Macassey) Call for ISDN-Newsgroup (Michael Alexander) Call Progress Tones (Pete Holsberg) Alternate Automated Billing System (AABS) (John V. Zambito) Senate Committee on Commerce Wants Your Input (Matt Holdrege) MCI Offers Grace Period (Gregg E. Woodcock) Radio Contest Lines (Kath Mullholand) The Kansas Connection (Kath Mullholand) Myth Busting (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker) Re: Caller ID Product Idea (Eric J. Johnson) Re: Caller ID Product Idea (John Boteler) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey) Subject: Heathkit Now Sells Phone Gear Date: 14 Mar 92 04:35:04 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. I have just received my latest Heathkit catalogue. They don't sell build it yourself kits anymore. They now are in the "Home Automation" business. In English this means thermostats, remote control and burgler alarms. On page 31 of the catalogue the telephone stuff starts with a Call Screening device. The caller has to enter a code to alert the caller that a legit caller is calling. Just the job when the telemarketers get relentless. They also have amplified handsets, Caller ID boxes, 900 call blockers, selective ringing detectors. All the usual gadgets that get asked about here so often. They even have a phone that digitally masks your voice. Now all this stuff is made by various manufacturers, not Heath. Besides the phones, there are lots of neat gadgets for sale. If you want a catalogue call (800) 444-3284. Overseas try +1 616.925.4914. Fax (616) 925-4876. There is a Compuserve Heath On-line catalogue I beleive. Type GO HTH . Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ From: malexand@phakt.usc.edu (Michael Alexander) Subject: Call for ISDN-Newsgroup Date: 13 Mar 1992 21:55:27 -0800 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA ISDN is preparing for rapid growth due to the introduction of new products in Europe as well as in the U.S. There are a variety of issues ranging from protocolls to country-specific ISDN -- trends and products to be discussed in the future moderated newsgroup alt.isdn. Please send your votes with a short yes (other forms of agreement -- acknowledgements are welcome) to lalexand@chaph.usc.edu. Cheers, Michael F. Alexander University of Southern California Ma-Bel-Network: (213) 955-0171 MVS: malexan@mvsa.usc.edu VM-Bitnet: malexand@uscvm.bitnet UNIX: malexand@chaph.usc.edu ------------------------------ From: pjh@mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg) Subject: Call Progress Tones Organization: The College On The Other Side Of Route One Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 22:28:09 GMT I have before me a product spec sheet for a "call progress decoder." It mentions "dial, audible ringback, busy signal and reorder" tones. I know about dial and busy, but what are the others? Thanks, Prof. Peter J. Holsberg Mercer County Community College Voice: 609-586-4800 Engineering Technology, Computers and Math FAX: 609-586-6944 1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690 Internet: pjh@mccc.edu Trenton Computer Festival: April 11-12, 1992 ------------------------------ From: jvz@cci632.cci.com (John V. Zambito) Subject: Alternate Automated Billing System (AABS) Organization: Computer Consoles Inc., Rochester, NY Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 19:32:08 GMT lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes: > For a collect call we ask for their name, the call is completed, > then the person [hopefully it's a person!] is told they have a collect > call from "..." will they accept the charges? Say yes to accept the > charges or no. They may say yes/no at any point here as well ... We also have a product like this called "Automated Alternate Billing System". If you're at a touch tone phone you can also press 1 to accept the charges. The inmates at a prison where this is installed found out that if they held the 1 down when they were suppose to say their name, it would cause the charges to be accepted due to the side-tone. (Side-tone is the portion of the signal received from the phone which comes from the transmitted signal to the phone.) To eliminate this we look for the DTMF '1' tone while we record the name. If there is one present we tell the caller to repeat his name. If it is there again we put a 110dB tone out the earpiece :) (I wish we could. Actually, we pass the call to the operator.) If there is a bug or anomaly in these systems the prisoners will find them. What else do they have to do? We have AABS at Southern Bell, Southwestern Bell, Pacific Bell, and GTE and maybe others I don't know about. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 18:14 GMT From: Matthew Holdrege Subject: Senate Committee on Commerce Wants Your Input I called the Senate Committee on Commerce at the number provided in Telecom #220: 202-224-9430. A receptionist took my message and said I would get a call back. About a half-hour later a gentleman named John Windhausen called from the committee. He asked what my concerns were over the FBI proposal. I talked to him about the topics discussed here in the TELECOM Digest. He seemed to understand and agree with everything I said. The topic that he truly seemed interested in was how digital lines were tapped, and especially if it was easier for authorities to tap digital lines rather than analog. He said that everyone in his area was asking these questions. I replied that this was the main reason for a public hearing. He said that he needed some written information regarding digital tapping. He asked me to send him some information. I said that I would and that I would ask some of my more knowledgable collegues (you all) to write also. His address: John Windhausen 227 Hart Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC. 20510 I hope that some of you out there with a real handle on the technical concepts will write to him. He seems eager to present the facts to the committee. Matt Holdrege Internet: 5156065@mcimail.com Voice: 714-229-2518 ------------------------------ From: "Gregg E. Woodcock" Subject: MCI Offers Grace Period Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 12:01:19 -0600 After months and months of throwing out my MCI bills because I almost never made calls (monthly bills), my message has gotten through! I am not about to spend 25% of my bill just on postage to pay it (not to mention the cost/waste of the check). MCI, via a printed message on the bill, now offers a(n indefinite?) grace period that allows you to defer payment until your bill accrues to an amount over $5! This may not seem like a big deal but it is in these "little" perks/services that the big three will win their battles. I called Sprint and they won't "officially" allow this. Way to go MCI. [Moderator's Note: AT&T also allows this, at least on the direct billing they do for cellular phones from their Florida billing center. They do put a three month limit on the grace period, however. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 10:22:29 -0500 (EST) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand) Subject: Radio Contest Lines A few years ago, a DJ told me that when radio stations have those contests (you know, "Be the 17th caller and WIN!!!") that *some* radio stations had equipment that returned a busy signal, but still counted the call, so that only the 17th caller got a ringing tone and had to be answered. At his radio station, however, he had to pick up each call (he told the caller what number they were to keep track easier) and hang up so that more callers could get through. They were limited to five incoming lines at a time on what sounds to me like a call director of some sort. I can also visualize that some stations might let the "wrong" callers ring away and pick up only that line that is the correct number. So, the question is this. Is there equipment that returns a busy, as he described? How does it work? Does it return the busy and then disconnect, leaving the line free for additional calls? Or is there a CO arrangement that would allow the radio station to count 16 callers and only let the 17th through, so that they don't have to have 17 lines? I know some of you are into broadcast radio, and thought you might have some insight. This has puzzled me for a few years. kath mullholand university of new hamphshire durham, nh Inaccuracies should be attributed to my evil twin; not my employer. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 10:00:29 -0500 (EST) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) Subject: The Kansas Connection I just noticed on the reverse of one of our Sprint bills is this "Notice of Jurisdiction": "Pursuant to KSA 60-308 (b) (11), as a business customer, you may be subject to jurisdiction in Kansas for any dispute relating to your telephone service with Sprint. This is because you have arranged for or continued to receive phone service managed, operated or monitored in the state of Kansas." Since the latest scam uses "Entertain, KS" as a billing location, this led me to wonder about what kind of jurisdiction KS retains over these companies and customers. I'm assuming the Sprint notice isn't there because I may one day make calls to or from Kansas on my bill, but because Sprint has corporate offices in Kansas. Any thoughts? kath mullholand university of nh durham, nh Inaccuracies should be attributed to my evil twin; not my employer. [Moderator's Note: You might want to aquaint yourself with the applicable portions of the Uniform Commercial Code, to which both Kansas and your state are signatories. It allows for suit to be brought in the vendor's jurisdiction if desired, meaning you'd have to get a lawyer in Kansas to represent you rather than them getting a lawyer in New Hampshire to sue you over a delinquent bill. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 16:29:32 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Myth Busting Here's yet another message from the Fidonet FCC echo. Original From: Don Kimberlin Subject: Myth Busting Here's another bit of telephone myth-busting. One of the misconceptions many people carry is that Alexander Graham Bell was such a superhero that he developed the whole concept of the telephone, replete with jangling bell, switchboard and even the fabricated word "Hello" for a greeting. In fact, it was L.M.Ericcson in Sweden who added a bell to the telephone, while others developed the concept of a switchboard, and Thomas Edison seems to have been the true "inventor" of the word, "hello." Few people know that there was fierce competition in the early years of telephony; as well, that Edison was one of Bell's prime competitors. Edison's notion of the telephone did not include a switchboard at all, as he conceived it was merely to be a permanent "open line" between two places. The following article from the New York Times reveals that AT&T had an Edison letter in its archives about the origin of the word, "hello:" "AHOY! HERE'S HOW WE ENDED UP SAYING "HELLO" By William Grimes "Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. But Thomas Alva Edison coined the greeting. "The word `hello,' it appears, came straight from the fertile brain of the wizard of Menlo Park, N.J., who concocted the sonorous syllables to resolve one of the first crises of techno-etiquette: What do you say to start a telephone conversation? "Two contemporaries of Edison credited him with the word, but too vaguely for Allen Koenigsberg, a classics professor at Brooklyn College who has a passion for early phonographs and their history. "Resolved to sort out the `hello" mystery, Koenigsberg embarked on a tortuous seach five years ago that led him, finally and triumphantly to the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. archives in lower Manhattan, where he found an unpublished letter by Edison. "Dated August 15, 1877, it is addressed to T.B.A. David. President of the Central District and Printing Telegraph Co. in Pittsburgh, Pa. David was preparing to introduce the telephone to that city." (Note that Edison was promoting his own telephones in competition to Bell, which leads one to puzzle on how this letter wound up in the AT&T archives!) "At the time, Edison envisioned the telephone as a business device only, with a permanently open line to parties at either end. This setup raised a problem. How would anyone know the other party wanted to speak? Edison addressed the issue as follows: "`Friend David, "`I don't think we shall need a call bell as Hello! can be heard 10 to 20 feet away. What do you think? "`EDISON' "It was a word of destiny. Over at the laboratory of Edison's rival, Bell was insisting that `Ahoy!' as the correct way to answer the telephone. "It was trounced by `hello.' which became the standard as the first telephone exchanges, equipped by Edison, were set up across the United States and operating manuals adopted the word. "The first public telephone exchange, opened in New Haven on January 28, 1878, wavered between "hello" and the fusty "What is wanted?" in its manual. By 1880, "hello" had won out. "Like the telephone, the punchy "hello" was a liberator and a social leveler. "`The phone overnight cut right through the 19th-centry etiquette that you don't speak to anyone unless you've been introduced.' Koenigsberg said. And "hello" was the edge of the blade. "`If you think about it,' he said. "why didn't Stanley say hello to Livingston? The word didn't exist.'" So, now, as Paul Harvey says, you know the Rest Of The Story; just another one your friendly local phoneco doesn't think you need to know. After all, didn't Bell do everything that was worth doing? WM v2.01/91-0073 * Origin: AET BBS - (704) 545-7076, 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16) --------------- Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 [Moderator's Note: I thought the word used to open a telephone call was 'Hold'. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: null!eric@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM (Eric J. Johnson) Subject: Re: Caller ID Product Idea Organization: U S WEST Communications Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 21:09:55 GMT In peters@beltrix.guild.org (Peter Sleggs) writes: > jh203s806@sycom.mi.org (Jim Harvey) writes: >> Even better would be a machine with separate tapes for normal incoming >> calls and blocked calls. > I want one that when it sees 'private' switches to an alternate > message and goes into announce only mode, with a message of 'we do not > accept calls with blocking, If you wish to contact us please turn it > off and call again, thank you.' and disconnect. I use my Natural Microsystems Watson card with a MHE Caller*ID interface to do just this. People who call me wishing to enforce their version of privacy (*67) find themselves presented with a message that they have chosen not to reveal their number, I have have chosen not to take their message. They are then disconnected without a message being taken. Eric J. Johnson UUCP: eric@null.uucp The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and in no way reflect the will of Landru. (or U S WEST Communications) ------------------------------ From: John Boteler Subject: Re: Caller ID Product Idea Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 3:11:16 EST peters@beltrix.guild.org or torag!beltrix!peters wrote: > I want one that when it sees 'private' switches to an alternate > message and goes into announce only mode, with a message of 'we do not > accept calls with blocking, If you wish to contact us please turn it > off and call again, thank you.' and disconnect. > Is there a voice mail card out currently that can handle Caller-ID > with distinctive ringing detection as well? As I mentioned last month in this column, I already did this, without the distinctive ringing detection. I suppose a suitable application of Ring Leader or useable equivalent would make this a reality. In fact, I'm going to get one myself for exactly this use. I'll let ya know :) I sure hope somebody besides defunct MHE Systems makes a decent CLID->EIA232 decoder, or else the whole deal is off. data: bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) voice: 703.241.5692 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #224 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00411; 14 Mar 92 17:22 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20781 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 15:04:21 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03818 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 15:04:08 -0600 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 15:04:08 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203142104.AA03818@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #225 TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Mar 92 15:04:00 CST Volume 12 : Issue 225 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: New 900 Scam and an Alternative to 900 Numbers (Paul Schmidt) Re: New 900 Scam and an Alternative to 900 Numbers (Bob Frankston) Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (John Rice) Re: Portable Cell Phone Recommendations/Comments Wanted (Mark Lottor) Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines (Clive Feather) Re: Telemarketer Avoidance (Gerald A. Flotta) Re: McCaw's North American Cellular Network Has Problems (Steve Forrette) Re: Roaming With No Home (Ken Levitt) Re: Does 706 Work Yet? (John R. Covert) Re: Israel: Electronic Notification of Disconnection of Service (C. Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tijc02!pjs269@uunet.UU.NET (Paul Schmidt) Subject: Re: New 900 Scam and an Alternative to 900 Numbers Organization: Siemens Industrial Automation, Johnson City TN Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 13:41:48 GMT In article , kerner!droid@pixar.com (Marty the Droid) writes: > A 900 number is the simplest way to make a pay-per-use call for the > simple minded folks out there. This is a marketing decision. This may not be the best thing today on a network with alot of UUCP users. As a caller of UUNET'S 900 number to download some files, I could take this as an insult. ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: New 900 Scam and an Alternative to 900 Numbers Date: Wed 11 Mar 1992 09:21 -0500 I'm mainly arguing for uniformity. If people want to use 900 service, it could be provided as an option when they get their telco service. They can then be asked for a credit card number. If they don't have one and telco wants to act as their banker, they can issue them a separate credit card number of some sort. RBOCs as charge card issuers? But with 900 numbers they already are, at least make it act more like the charge card it is than just another phone call. ------------------------------ From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 14:07:45 GMT In article , rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes: > In article , K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU > (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) writes: >> 2! No more outWATs services. > Exactly what do they mean by this ? You can't call a 1-800 number ? > [Moderator's Note: 1-800 is considered 'In-Wats'. 'Out-Wats' are bulk > rate long distance lines for outgoing calls. PAT] I knew that. (Except for about 10min while I was reading the message). John Rice K9IJ | "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was rice@ttd.teradyne.com | MY oppinion only, no one elses...Especially (708)-940-9000 - (work) | Not my Employers.... (708)-438-7011 - (home) | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 16:30:31 PST From: "Mark Lottor" Subject: Re: Portable Cell Phone Recommendations/Comments Wanted louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) wrote: > I've been toying the the idea of getting a portable cellular phone and > have been looking at the OKI 900 and the NEC P300 and P200 phones. > Anyone have any comments, positive or negative about any of these > models? Suggested alternatives? Neat programming hacks? I wrote a review of some portable cellphones a year ago. I still feel the OKI 900 is the best one. It has more features than most other celphones. I've had mine for a year now. It is also resold by AT&T with a different front-panel layout, but the same software. The support from OKI is also excellent. I dropped my phone a few weeks ago from about four feet onto a hard tile floor. The battery pack popped off and broken the little tab that holds it in. I called OKI and ordered some spare tabs (about $2 each). They already had a redesigned version of the part that won't break as easily, and they sent me the new parts for free (of course your typical consumer won't repair his own phone, but they would fix it for free if I sent it to their repair center). The phone has a three year warranty. I've also spent a lot of time "working" on the phone lately. I have built an RS-232 interface to it that lets you control the phone from a PC or other system. It also lets you access the external audio in/out signals. I have some software that lets you maintain your 200 alphanumeric memories on the PC and download (or upload) them to the phone. It can also plop the phone into its ROM debugger mode and do some pretty interesting things. My company will probably start selling this as a product in a month or two. mkl ------------------------------ From: clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather) Subject: Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 16:24:19 GMT In 12.211.2 Graham Thomas writes: > ICSTIS has become better-known recently (via an insert in everyone's > telephone bill This was the first I'd heard of ICSTIS, and I thought I was telecom-savvy! The leaflet stated that "premium call barring" (i.e. barring of *all* premium rate lines, whether sex, chat, or weather) was provided free by BT. This was the first I'd heard of a free barring service. I promptly cancelled the (paid) selective call-barring service I had subscribed to in favour of free barring. Clive D.W. Feather | IXI Limited clive@x.co.uk | 62-74 Burleigh St. Phone: +44 223 462 131 | Cambridge CB1 1OJ (USA: 1 800 XDESK 57) | United Kingdom ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 10:33 EST From: gaf Subject: Re: Telemarketer Avoidance I myself do not currently have a problem with telemarketers but, given a chance here are my suggestions. :-) 1. After identifying the caller as a telemarketer, start in with your *own* sales pitch for raffle tickets, support for the school band by buying hoagies, ask for donations to the Pittsburgh Aviairy, invite them to your garage sale, bake sale, car wash, church bazzar etc. Just have a nice long list. 2. If you have an answering machine, try to get an outgoing recorded message of a call from a *pay phone* as your greeting. Telemarketer - Ring... Ring... Answer. Your message - "Please deposit fourteen dollars and ninety-five cents for the first one minute". While the above fooling around may be fun a more effective solution is to announce that you do not conduct business on the phone, or simply just hang up. Bitnet...gaf@pittvms 412-624-6407 University of Pittsburgh gaf@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Gerald A. Flotta) 600 Epsilon Drive My opinions are just that. Pittsburgh Pa. 15238-2887 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 09:43:02 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: McCaw's North American Cellular Network Has Problems Here's an account of my experiences with McCaw's "National Network" which connects their Cellular One cities. Right now, it covers the entire west coast (including British Columbia), as well as Pittsburgh, and Florida. They plan to eventually connect to other A carriers' switches. It is advertised as something that allows all of your calls and features to follow you to any of the cities on the network. They claim that it works quite well, with the exception of no-answer transfer to voicemail not being available when roaming in LA (this is from the perspective of a Seattle customer). Some of the advantages are uniform control codes for features, as well as automatic registration so that you don't have to do anything but turn on your phone in the roaming city for it to instantly recognize you. Unfortunately, every time I have used it, I have had problems of one sort or another. Some were minor, but others were serious limitations if you relied on your cellular number as a reliable way to reach you (I do - since Cellular One of Seattle offers call forwarding/no answer transfer/busy transfer at no per-minute charge, I just give out my cellular number as my only contact number. Then, I have it no-answer transfer by default to voicemail, or to a landline phone that I may be at. This can present problems if there's a Cellular One problem, as then nobody knows how to reach me). My first experience was a business trip to Pittsburgh. When I arrived at the airport, I took out my portable (still off), and proceeded to set up a calling card call to my Seattle cellular number from a payphone. Just prior to entering the last digit of my calling card PIN, I turned on the phone. In less than ten seconds, the cellular was ringing. Needless to say, I was quite impressed, having been on the other side of the country, and less than ten seconds of power-up and without dialing any codes, I was receiving my incoming calls to my regular number. All my experiences of the McCaw National Network have been great with respect to instant registration of location as well as custom calling feature changes being instant. The previous poster was correct in saying that once it knows where you are, the system will silent-page your phone every ten minutes or so. If you miss a few consecutive pages, it will clear out your entry such that it won't even try to find you when a call comes in (this happens even if you are in your home system). My first problem in Pittsburgh happened during the time between turning off the phone and the system resetting my number after several missed pages. During this time, incoming calls would be greeted with everlasting dead silence. No "out of range" message, no transfer to voicemail, nothing! Checking with Customer Care revealed that "the National Network still has some bugs in it." Of course they did not tell me this when they were hyping its wonders. But they told me that I could dial *35 to enable "Do not disturb" which effectively disconnects you from the National Network, causing voicemail, no-answer transfer, or an error recording to function normally. So, I had to dial *35 just before powering down each time, and *350 upon power-up to reconnect me. This problem wasn't resolved in the two days I was in Pittsburgh. Oh yeah, one nice thing about McCaw's voicemail is that if you unconfigure yourself by enabling no-answer transfer to some other number, you can re-enable voicemail by entering something like *52, so you can mix their voicemail with something else of your own without having to call them each time to reactivate voicemail as the poster from NY had to. One glaring hole with the voicemail is that if you are not in your home system, no-answer transfer to voicemail will not work during the period between power-down and your number being reset between missed pages. So, no voicemail for about an hour after each power-down, unless you enter the *35/*350 codes each time. Customer Care didn't see why this wasn't acceptable. :-( For one thing, it doesn't work "just like it does at home" as advertised. Then in February, me and a buddy took a trip down to Lake Tahoe and Sacramento. He had his phone that has service in Portland, and I had mine from Seattle. Our first problem was caused when Customer Care explained the *35/*350 codes using the wrong polarity, such that we disconnected ourselves when we intented to be on, and vice-versa. Of course this was not discovered for over a day, until we missed a connection with someone because they couldn't reach us. The real problems we had were from Sacramento. The Portland phone did not get its voicemail when its own number was dialed, and we didn't know the back door number. The other one was very strange: The Seattle phone could not reach the Portland phone by dialing its home number. The Portland phone could be reached from Portland, or from Sacramento by using a landline. The only combination that didn't work was calling from one cellular to the other. And the Seattle cellular phone could call any other number in Sac, Portland, or Seattle just fine. The error message was generated by the Portland switch. By placing the call using a calling card, the call would go through, since by the time the call arrived at the Portland switch, the information that the call originated from another roaming cellular was lost. Customer Care was unable to resolve this, partly because they could not understand our description. We explained it at least five times, then they told us that there was no problem because they had just called the number and it worked. Of course, since they weren't calling from a roaming phone in the same city as the destination roaming phone, they were not testing using the same conditions. One intriguing possibility is that the network was trying to complete the call without the use of a long distance trunk. When my Seattle phone called the Portland number, an SS7 message got sent to Portland. When the Portland switch gets the called number and realizes that it's roaming in the same place as the originating number, it could send this information back down to Sacramento, which could complete the call locally, as if I had used the roamer port. If this is indeed the way this works, this would be really nice, as it would save everyone the long distance charges. Of course, the cellular carriers would probably still charge each party for the long distance and pocket the excess profits themselves, but the customer would still benefit from faster call setup times. In any event, whatever it was trying to do was not working, and we were never able to get it resolved. A couple of weeks after I got back, I called back to Customer Care to try to explain the roamer-to-roamer problem. Since two weeks had passed, they were not interested in hearing of it. "Call back if it happens again." Since we had gotten the run-around when we did call in at the time, I guess we'll just have to be firm about requiring an immediate solution, since they are unwilling to look into it after the fact. To summarize, the National Network is great when it works, with auto-registration, full custom calling features (except for voicemail), and instant registration of custom calling changes. Just don't be surprised if you have occasional problems. Actually, as long as you don't use their voicemail, and just no-answer transfer to your own, it works quite well, as the no-answer transfer always works correctly. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 17:01:58 EST From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) Subject: Re: Roaming With No Home My last post asked if it was possible to pay roaming charges without having a home base where I paid monthly fees. The consensus seems to be that this is not possible. However, I have found information which appears helpful. 1. Some cell companies offer an emergency use service with a very low monthly rate and a very high per minute rate. 2. You don't have to reside in a company's service area to have service with them. 3. When roaming, you pay local roaming rates, not your home base rates. This leads me to believe that I can find a company somewhere in the country with very low monthly fees that I can use as my home base. I am interested in finding the names and phone numbers of any companies that offer service for $10 per month or less. If the information that I have is incorrect, please correct me. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 10:46:00 PST From: John R. Covert 12-Mar-1992 1345 Subject: Re: Does 706 Work Yet? > Today's newspaper says that dialing 706 is permitted beginning today. Although there may be some exchanges in the Atlanta area that have already programmed 706, the Bellcore date -- the one that matters for the rest of the country -- is not until 3 May 92. The permissive period extends from that date until 3 August 92. /john ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 10:03:44 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Israel: Electronic Notification of Disconnection of Service As for a bill going to the wrong address: If your bill customarily arrives by a certain date each month, you might want to give the phone company a call if it doesn't show up on time. For example, I always get my bill around the 10th of each month. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #225 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02423; 14 Mar 92 18:14 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19096 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 15:58:12 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10103 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 15:58:03 -0600 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 15:58:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203142158.AA10103@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #226 TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Mar 92 15:58:03 CST Volume 12 : Issue 226 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Bill England) Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (John Stanley) Re: What's a Baud? (John R. Levine) Re: What's a Baud? (Carl Moore) Re: What's a Baud? (Michael Salmon) Re: What's a Baud? (Dave Weitzel) Re: What's a Baud? (Fred Goldstein) Re: What's a Baud? (Ron Dippold) Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Jeff Hollingsworth) Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Lawrence V. Cipriani) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wengland@stephsf.com (Bill England) Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground Organization: Stephen Software Systems Inc., Tacoma/Seattle, +1 800 829 1684 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 00:32:34 GMT In article rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes: > Not to mention the fact that it's illegal to use a cell phone from > an aircraft in the air (be the aircraft commercial or private -- still > illegal). Actually I can't find it written in the FAR's that using a cellular phone in an aircraft is illegal. It does say that you may not use any device that interferes with navigation. I would like to know of any FCC regulations regarding using cell phones (if you could quote the article and section number it would help) in aircraft? Thanks, Bill England, wengland@stephsf.COM ------------------------------ From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 06:44:10 GMT In article rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes: > In article , stanley@skyking.OCE. > ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes: >> In article rice@ttd.teradyne.com >> writes: >>> No, actually, the captains found that they could get in Big >>> trouble in allowing the HAMs to use their radios. FAR 91.19 > Lets try this AGAIN (the comments quoted in the FIRST paragraph were mine). And the comments in the FIRST paragraph were attributed to you. > FAR 91.91 reads in part There is no FAR 91.91. FAR 91.19 (which you based your first posting on) has nothing to do with electronic equipment. It covers carriage of drugs. However, 91.21, does say, in part (after corrections to your post): > (a) "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person > may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft > allow the operation of any portable electronic > device on any of the following U.S. registered civil aircraft: > (c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air > carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the > determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be > made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device > is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be > made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft." > I think that paragraph (a) coupled with paragraph (c) makes it pretty > clear that the Pilot in Command (Captain) does NOT have the authority > to give permission, in the case of an air carrier. I think that paragraph (a), coupled with paragraph (c), pretty well rules out ANYONE allowing the use of electronic equipment. Paragraph (a) specifically prohibits the operator from making the decision that paragraph (c) specifically says the operator is allowed to make. (a) ... nor may any operator ... allow the operation ... (c) the determination ... shall be made by that operator ... Of course, this all ignores the very first qualifier to 91.21(a) -- "Except as provided in paragraph (b)...". And paragraph (b) does not specify WHO in the operator's organization is responsible for the determination of non-interference. Nothing in 91.21 says that it can't be the PIC, acting as a representative of the operator. The only effect of 91.21 is that the PIC cannot act on his own; his action must be on the behalf of the operator, and that attaches responsibility to the operator. [Moderator's Note: There, everyone! Is this now completely clear (as mud) to all of you? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What's a Baud? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 12 Mar 92 11:31:00 EST (Thu) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) In article is written: > What is a baud? It's a state change in a communication line. With simple schemes like DC or FSK signalling, it's the same as the bits per second, but at 1200 bps and up groups of bits are encoded together, e.g. the usual 2400 bps modems run at 600 baud because they encode four bits at a time. As an extreme example, Telebit PEP passes about 14000 bps at 88.26 baud by encoding up to 511 parallel groups of up to six bits per baud. > Also, does anyone know what it stands for or its derivation? It's from Emile Baudot, an early digital communication pioneer. In 1874 he introduced one of the first practical printing telegraphs using the five bit code which bears his name. The original version had a five key piano keyboard, on which the operator pressed the appropriate keys for the code for each letter. The system worked synchronously at 30 wpm so the operator had to key each letter at the correct time, clocked by a ticker. The machine sent the five bits serially so his scheme could be used in combination with many of the multiplexing schemes already in use for Morse telegraphy, an important practial advantage. (This info cribbed from my 1910 Encyclopaedia Britannica.) Even though 30 wpm is quite slow by later standards, it's still about three characters per second, so I imagine that the combination of having to memorize the letter combinations and operate in precise sync with the clock required highly skilled operators. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 10:09:21 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: What's a Baud? From Webster's New World Dictionary, 3rd college edition: baud -- after J. M. E. Baudot (1845-1903), French inventor 1. a unit of signaling speed in telegraphic code 2. the number of bits per second that can be transmitted in a given computer system ------------------------------ From: etxmesa@eos.ericsson.se (Michael Salmon) Subject: Re: What's a Baud? Reply-To: etxmesa@eos.ericsson.se (Michael Salmon) Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 08:07:34 GMT In article , barr@tramp.Colorado.EDU (BARR DOUG) writes: > I have what is probably a fairly simple question. What is a baud? > Also, does anyone know what it stands for or its derivation? This > came up when we were comparing the bandwidth of ISN to ethernet. One baud is a unit of data transmission corresponding to one possible change of state of the signalling system per second. Let me illustrate that with a couple of modem examples, I'm not so familiar with Bell modems so I will use the CCITT definitions. First the plan old 300 baud, 300 bit per second modem. It transmits a 1 with a tone and a 0 with another and hence if we transmit a continuous pattern of alternating 1's and 0's we have 300 changes in state (0 tone to 1 tone or vice versa). The V22 modem is however different in that it can transmit 600, 1200 or 2400 bits per second (if we include V22 bis) but it is always 600 baud. This is acheived by transmiting 1, 2 or 4 bits respectively at one time thus maintaining a maximum of 600 state changes per second. As a side effect the modems are always synchronous, when operated as pseudo-asynchronous they delete stop bits if the data comes too fast. That of course has nothing to do with baud. As to where it comes from, I vaguely recall hearing that it was someone's name but I don't recall many details. I believe that he was involved in the early days of telegraphy. Michael Salmon #include Ericsson Telecom AB Stockholm ------------------------------ From: M19249@mwvm.mitre.org Subject: Re: What's a Baud? Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 12:39:28 EST In article barr@tramp.Colorado.EDU (BARR DOUG) writes: > I have what is probably a fairly simple question. What is a baud? > Also, does anyone know what it stands for or its derivation? This > came up when we were comparing the bandwidth of ISN to ethernet. From Tanenbaum's 2ed "Computer Networks" p. 54: "The time T required to transmit the character depends on both the encoding method and the signaling speed [the number of times per second that the signal changes its value (e.g., its voltage)]. The number of changes per second is measured in *baud*. A B baud line does not necessarily transmit B bits/sec, since each signal might convey several bits. If the voltages 0 - 7 were used, each signal value could be used to convey three bits, so the bit rate would be three times the baud rate. ...." Any basic telecommunications book usually convers this in the first few chapters. As for the term itself, my bet is that it is named after Mr. Baudot of encoding fame and not an acronym. Can anyone interject some facts on this? Dave Weitzel 'standard disclaimer applies' [Moderator's Note: Re interjecting of facts. That's what we're doing in this issue, Dave. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: What's a Baud? Date: 13 Mar 92 19:50:46 GMT Reply-To: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com () Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Baud refers to the inverse of the minimum signaling interval. That is, if it takes 1/1200 of a second to send a signal, then the siganling rate is 1200 baud. That's NOT the same as the bit rate! A single signling interval may carry one or more bits. (It's one bit on RS-232, but modems often encode several bits into one complex waveform.) So a bog-standard 9600 bps "fax" modem (V.29) or its dial-up big brother (V.32) both run at only 2400 baud, across the phone line, but encode four bits in each signaling interval. The term is in homage to telegraph pioneer Louis Baudot, for whom Murray also named the five-row teleprinter code. fred (Instructor, Telecommunications Transmission Techniques, Northeastern University.) ------------------------------ From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: Re: What's a Baud? Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 20:32:30 GMT barr@tramp.Colorado.EDU (BARR DOUG) writes: > I have what is probably a fairly simple question. What is a baud? > Also, does anyone know what it stands for or its derivation? I waited a day to make sure that we weren't flooded by responses ... It's derived from the name of J.M.E. Baudot, who was a French pioneer in printing telegraphy. Basically, a baud is a transition of the waveform used to transmit the data. What a transition is depends on what you're interested in. Each transition can carry multiple bits of information. For example, in a V.32 modem, each baud carries four bits of information. Six for V.32bis. ------------------------------ From: hollings@cs.wisc.edu (Jeff Hollingsworth) Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 16:53:20 GMT In article , lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes: > The new system will speak the phrase "AT&T. Say collect, third > number, person, calling card, or operator now." Then it waits for a > response. For a collect call we ask for their name, the call is > completed, then the person [hopefully it's a person!] is told they > have a collect call from "..." will they accept the charges ? Say yes > to accept the charges or no. They may say yes/no at any point here as > well. Anyway, you get the idea and I'm not going to write out all > these scripts ... Does this mean that if my answering machine has the word yes before the word no on the out going message, it can be used for third party toll fraud? Will there be an option to block automated third party calls, but let operator assisted third party calls go through (maybe for a higher fee)? Jeff Hollingsworth Work: (608) 262-6617 Internet: hollings@cs.wisc.edu Home: (608) 256-4839 X.400: Home: hollings@warthog.madison.wi.us ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 09:25:10 EST From: lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc. In article pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) writes: > lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes: >> First of all, this service only comes into play when you make a 0+ >> call. At the present time when making a 0+ call the customer gets the >> bong-tone, and the spoken phrase "AT&T" so they know they're on AT&T. >> Then the customer can enter their calling card number, or wait a while >> and an operator will assist them. If you dial 10ATT0 you'll still get >> an AT&T operator. > So for those of us who have "NONE" as the LD carrier, who always dial > 10288 [01] to go through AT&T, we will not get access to this valuable > service? Sure you will; if you dial 10ATT0-ten_digit_phone_number you'll get the bong tone, and if you wait long enough you'll get our system, assuming you are in an area where this is installed of course. Presently it's only in the Dallas area. At first it was only in DFW airport, but we've expanded tremendously since then. > So if some poor sucker has an answering machine that says "Believe it > or not, yes, you got the answer machine again. I'm not at home so --- > leave your name and number and I'll call you back when I return ... > BEEP!" then I can call collect and leave messages at his cost? We ran into false yes's and no's on answering machine a few times but it was very uncommon. What we found is that the calling customer would almost always hang up when an answering machine was reached. One thing we found while testing is that some customers would abuse the system by speaking a message such as, "I'll be home at 7:00", instead of their name. We know who you are! :-) Some would even speak nonsense to confuse it. I guess they have nothing better to do :-) Some people, especially kids, seemed to like the system a lot. Some people spoke their PIN instead of using the touch-tone pad; the technology to accept digit strings as reliably as we want is still in the lab. Others immediately flashed or pressed 0 for the operator since they didn't want to deal with a machine. Others said things like, "I don't want an operator." And they are of course immediately connected to an operator! > What if the called party in a collect call fails to say anything that > the computer can figure out. Does it automatically switch to a real > operator ... Yes [in the first version of our system]. > or does the caller have to hang up and place the call again > and get a real operator to do it? No [in the first version of our system]. What I described in my previous note was the first version of the system and what was in the newspapers. Because of the difficulties in dealing with answering machines [how do you know a talkative person picked up or if you got an answering machine, or if it was a wrong number, or a digital pager, or who knows what] we abandonded using automation on that part of the call. If these problems can be overcome we'll go for it. The newspapers got that part wrong ... In the present version if you want to make a collect call, a person to person call, or a third number call an operator is immediately bridged on to handle billing acceptance. Here is an article from the {San Fransisco Chronicle} discussing the new system: HI-TECH -- AT&T offices in Tacoma, Wash., and Jacksonville, Fla., are slated to be the first to receive the new computer equipment, which recognizes and responds to human voice. AT&T officials said the new technology gives customers more choices and keeps costs down. However, Val Afanasiev [president of CWA's Mountain View, Calif.-based Local 9409] claims that the system doesn't always work. CWA officials in the state of Washington say operators there have begun pointedly thanking customers for using a "live" operator, and are asking them to continue demanding a human instead of a computer to complete calls. An AT&T spokeswoman said the company "cannot condone" any action by employees that impedes service. MCI plans to make the "human factor" a selling point against its larger rival. "We feel our customers enjoy hearing a human voice," an MCI spokeswoman said. "We're staying with live operators. {San Fransisco Chronicle} Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #226 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04137; 14 Mar 92 18:53 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13480 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 16:59:19 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11847 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 16:59:09 -0600 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 16:59:09 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203142259.AA11847@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #227 TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Mar 92 16:59:11 CST Volume 12 : Issue 227 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service (Alan Barclay) Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? (Vance Shipley) Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (Kath Mullholand) Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring (Andrew C. Green) Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring (Jacob DeGlopper) Re: 'Portable' 800 Numbers (David G. Lewis) Re: ISDN - Ethernet Gateway Information Wanted (Ken Burgess) Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (John Higdon) Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (Jeffrey J. Carpenter) Re: Ring Supression (Robert S. Helfman) Re: Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit (Andrew C. Green) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Barclay Subject: Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 16:01:54 gmt Jim Gottlieb said: > I just can't believe all this I'm reading! A company like BT can't > even get their payphones to work correctly? How could dialing extra > digits after a number make the call free? Wouldn't this be more > easily solved with a software patch to the C.O. switch than a hardware > kludge to every payphone in the country? What am I missing? BT has a mixture of different switches, include electomechanical, analog and digital switches. To change all the different switches would require quite a lot of work. To change the payphone just requires one change, repeated several thousand times. In another post someone else asks how the tone dialing created a security problem? The answer is poor design. The phone used the keys pressed to identify how much to charge for the call. If you used an external DTMF dialer then the phone didn't realize that you had made a call, and consequently it didn't charge. If BT had designed a DTMF decoder into the phone then there wouldn't have been a problem. Alan Barclay, iT, Barker Lane, CHESTERFIELD, S40 1DY, Derbys, England alan@ukpoit.uucp, ..!uknet!ukpoit!alan, FAX:+44 246214353, VOICE:+44 246214241 ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 15:03:35 GMT In article rop@hacktic.nl (Rop Gonggrijp) writes: > john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon @ Green Hills and Cows) once wrote: >> The DMS lines we have from Contel sound better and the features work >> more intuitively. If you have a choice, opt for the DMS. > That's a load of crap. The DMS may be a nice switch on the analogue > side, but the digital part of it gets very confused very often. DMS > 100's are notorious (even out here where there is none) for switching > you into other people's conversations. It also 'hangs' too often (your > call ends up in the bitbucket). Mr. Higdon says "sounds better and the features work more intuitively" and you claim that statement is "a load of crap" and offer as proof a claim of digital switching glitches. Thats what I like -- good constructive criticism :). In article John Boteler writes: > I must disagree with Mr. Higdon regarding the preferable digital > switch. > The ESS#5 is certainly closer in operation to the ESS#1A than that > Brand X hunk o junk from north of the border. It certainly behaves > more intuitively than Brand X, if you can call the operation of either > 'intuitive'. One should not be suprised that AT&T's digital switch emulates their #1A more accurately than Northern Telecom's. > And if you want to use Centrex, forget the DMS-100. Most technicians > can't even figure out how to program it. Must use a different paradigm > than WeCo. And what concern is it of yours? You order it and THEY provision it. In my humble opinion, the DMS is a wonderful switch. Vance Shipley vances@xenitec.on.ca vances@ltg.uucp ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 9:07:07 -0500 (EST) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire In bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: > Curious what the same carrier says is the cost of the same service in > different locations. Regulators from one state should sit in on > hearings in other states served by the same LEC. Might prove > interesting or embarassing depending on your point of view. and Dave Niebuhr adds: > Actually, the costs could be different due to a lot of things, taxes > and fees imposed by one state as opposed to another. Sales tax comes > to mind, along with the various surcharges. Some are recouped through > rates and others by direct assessment. Another thing that makes a (big) difference is the number of digital switches (lower personnel costs), and New Hampshire will be 100% digital by year-end '93, according to the NET spokesman on the radio. Kath Mullholand University of New Hampshire Durham, NH ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 11:35:01 CST From: acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring sleepy!allyn@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Mark Allyn) writes: > Do these traffic sensors pick up and distinguish bicycles from autos > so they can tell what percentage of traffic is bicyclists and what > percentage is cars? (Apologies in advance; I know we are veering from the land of Telecom ...) I assume you're not serious here, but I can think of a test which might tell if bicycles are detected at all. Find a traffic-light intersection with a left-turn lane. You will probably see two or three detector loops embedded in the pavement (three or four feet in diameter, circle or rounded square shape, tar-covered slits with leads running off in the direction of the controller box nearby). If no car is present, the left turn arrow is not activated. Ride your bicycle over a loop when the light is red and see if you get the turn arrow if no cars join you in line. This is all based on my assumption that the left-turn loops are the same design as the traffic speed sensor loops, of course. There's a mighty good chance that I'm completely wrong. :-) Andrew C. Green Datalogics, Inc. Internet: acg@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ From: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob DeGlopper) Subject: Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring Reply-To: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob DeGlopper) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 19:54:15 GMT sleepy!allyn@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Mark Allyn) writes: > Do these traffic sensors pick up and distinguish bicycles from autos > so they can tell what percentage of traffic is bicyclists and what > percentage is cars? There was quite a bit of discussion on this topic on rec.bicycles a few months back. We're getting a bit off telecom, but many streets in the Maryland suburbs of DC have signal loops to trigger lights or activate left-turn phases. If they're properly adjusted, they should pick up a bicycle's presence, since a bike is a legitimate vehicle. Some of the sensors in California are actually marked to show where a bike should stop to trigger the system! Since the method of operation is inductive rather than weight-based, unless your bike is all aluminum, it should work. _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad, Wheaton, Maryland -- jrd5@po.cwru.edu -- ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: 'Portable' 800 Numbers Organization: AT&T Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 16:42:28 GMT In article lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) writes: > In article eap@ora.com (Eric Pearce) > writes: >> I'm trying to get a feel of when/if 800 numbers are going to be >> transferable from one long distance carrier to another... > In order to make 800 numbers portable, the long distance tandems must > be SS7-equipped. In some RBOC territories, most of them aren't and > won't be in time for the change. If memory serves correctly, it's not solely the access tandems that must be SS7-equipped, it's down to the end office level. As I recall it, the story is something like this. For 800 number portability, the originating LEC must query a Service Control Point with the ten-digit dialed 800 number to determine the proper routing (IXC for IXC-provided 800 service, or network routing for intra-LATA 800 service provided by the originating LEC). If it's IXC-provided 800 service, the IXC must then also query its database to determine the proper routing. These two queries both take a certain amount of time. The total response time, including the time taken for signaling information to be passed from the originating EO to the Service Switching Point (access tandem, usually), and the time taken for the signaling to be passed to the IXC, is unacceptably long (but don't ask me for numbers; I don't remember them) if the EO-SSP signaling and the SSP-IXC signaling are inband MF. The solution to this which is at the control of the LEC is to deploy SS7 to the end office level. Recognizing that SS7 to the EO level will take a very long time to reach 100% deployment, the court used some threshold (in the 75-85% ballpark), and said essentially that when SS7 deployment reaches x% of EOs, number portability would be mandated. Disclaimer: This is all based on recollections from various conversations over the past two years. Corrections of inaccuracies gratiously accepted. ------------------------------ From: Ken Burgess Subject: Re: ISDN - Ethernet Gateway Information Wanted Date: 6 Mar 92 16:14:30 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA Hewlett-Packard sells one, it comes from a division in France. It is a PC with up to three ISDN cards and an ethernet connection. It acts as a gateway, try calling an HP sales guy ... ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call Date: 12 Mar 92 11:24:00 PST (Thu) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) Will Martin writes: > It appears that "Integretel" is an oppositely-named company -- their > actions have absolutely nothing to do with "integrity". A hive of > subhuman vermin, I would say. Integretel is just one of many AOS companies that COCOT-owning slime use to extract money from your pocket by any means possible. The APCC ( (A)ssociation of (P)ocket-picking (C)OCOT (C)rud ) is currently foaming at the mouth before the FCC complaining that AT&T (the leader in 0+ traffic) has had the nerve to move away from LEC-based calling cards in favor of private in-house ones (known as CIID). Note that Sprint, MCI and others have always had private calling cards, but it is the AT&T traffic (and its high volume) that the COCOT slime have been used to skimming. By the APCC's own admission, it is the stealing of this traffic that has been the backbone of the AOS industry. Since the phone-number-imbedded LEC-based cards are the only ones that the AOSes can verify and collect from, you can imagine that they are up in arms about AT&T's very wise move. Of course, the COCOT owners and AOS companies could issue and promote their own cards, or even participate in the promotion of LEC cards, but riding on the back of AT&T is much cheaper and easier. Can you imagine the promotion for such a card? "Now you can pay truly exhorbitant sums for bad connections. Get your SlimeBucket card now. Good only where you see crummy Brand-X phones." John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 16:32:36 -0500 (EST) From: "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" Subject: Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line > [My notes here at the office say WWV's number is 499-7111, not > 484-7111, but that's from a 1973 publication so it may have changed.] WWVH is 808 335 4363. Jeff ------------------------------ From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) Subject: Re: Ring Supression Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 17:17:09 GMT In article jacksch@insom.pc.ocunix. on.ca (Eric Jacksch) writes: > I'm using some weird switching equipment on my line and want to > supress the first ring (i.e. stop the phone from ringing until the > second ring comes down the line.) Does anyone happen to have any > schematics? Back in the late 1970's, I built a 'tweedler' to produce a high/low warble instead of the standard phone bell -- this was in the days before deregulation, cheap phones, and electronic ringers. Included in my design were four panel toggle switches, into which you could set the number of rings which were to be silent. I am still using the device, as a ringer for both my lines (different warble tones for each) and as a doorbell (it 'rings' both lines when the doorbell button is pushed - a truly horrific combination through which even Rip van Winkle could not sleep.) The output of the 'tweedler' is speaker-level 400 mw audio and 12vdc. The 12vdc is used to operate relays which disconnect all stereo speakers in the house and put them across the tweedler output. So, no matter how loud I'm playing the stereo, I can't miss the phone or the doorbell -- unless I want to! The design: The individual phone lines are ring-detected using NE-2 glowtubes and photoresistors, packed into heat-shrink tubing. (This is a cheap way to ring detect with no bridge, no unpolarized capacitor, no opto- isolator.) Schmidt triggers followed by half-monostables condition the ring-detect into a short pulse used to down-count a preset counter (which is preset with the value in the four panel switches). When the counter counts down to zero, it enables a set/reset flipflop which enables the tone generators (they're 555's). A missing-pulse detector is used to recognize that leading edges of rings have stopped coming in, and this commands a system reset (reloads the counter with the switch values) and resets the flipflop. I'll send you a Xerox of the schematic if you want. You could use a similar circuit to load-down the phone line so that the regular phone ringers wouldn't see enough voltage to ring, then remove the loading-down resistance once enough ringing signals had been seen. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 11:32:47 CST From: acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Re: Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit richg@locus.com (Rich Greenberg) writes: > How about simply going to the local Rat Shack and getting a (ta-da) > two station intercom system? An unwired type that uses carrier > current transmission over the AC wiring. Take them out of the box, > plug them in, push the button, and talk. > If cost is a prime consideration, and running a wire is not a major > problem, a wired intercom from the same source would cost even less. I had bad experiences with the cordless R.S. intercoms either picking up tons of interference or not hearing each other at all; the squelch adjustments could not set a happy medium. (This is not a slap at R.S. in general; it's just that my environment was too noisy.) On the other hand, a wired intercom was a major pain because of the distance and architecture involved (I wanted the wire in the wall, not on it). POTS to the rescue! The house only used one pair of internal phone wires; the other were dead. After checking to ensure that the second pair had no connections to the outside or to any installed phones, I just hooked up the wired intercoms to the unused pair at the wall jacks, and they worked like a charm. I forget whether this enables you to hang more than two wired intercoms on the system or if their plug polarities are reversed (e.g. one listens when the other talks; I know that one was designated "master", the other was "remote"), but I believe the wiring diagrams came with the units, and they're dead simple to mess around with as required. Cheap, too, and often on sale for even less. My 1989 catalog lists them as Part 43-222, $14.95/pair. Andrew C. Green Datalogics, Inc. Internet: acg@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #227 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06022; 14 Mar 92 19:45 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21027 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 17:45:16 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22147 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 17:45:01 -0600 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 17:45:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203142345.AA22147@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #228 TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Mar 92 17:44:58 CST Volume 12 : Issue 228 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Lawrence V. Cipriani) Re: Texas Instruments Switchboard (Toby Nixon) Re: Does 706 Work Yet? (Carl Moore) Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Wallace Colyer) Re: Physical Phone Security (Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.) Re: Where to Get Parts For Obsolete Phone? (Dave Strieter) Re: The Codebreakers (David Ofsevit) Re: Seeking Address of Telecom Association (Toby Nixon) Re: ICSTIS: Not What They Appear to Be (Graham Thomas) Re: Texas Instruments Switchboard (Kath Mullholand) Re: ANI Returns Mystery Number: What is it? (Mike Koziol) Re: 800 Sweepstakes Scam (Wall Street Journal via Andy Sherman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 10:29:51 EST From: lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc. In article , lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes: > First of all, this service only comes into play when you make a 0+ > call. At the present time when making a 0+ call the customer gets the > bong-tone, and ... > The new system will speak the phrase "AT&T. Say collect, third > number, person, calling card, or operator now." ... Oops, the bong tone is still played by the switch; we only start talking if the customer times out by doing nothing after so many seconds. If our system starts talking you can still enter your card number and the call will go through as before. Sorry about any misunderstandings. Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Texas Instruments Switchboard Date: 12 Mar 92 17:49:55 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , Michael.Rosen@lambada.oit. unc.edu (Michael Rosen) writes: > Well, I received my information and PIN for the TI Switchboard today. > I made my first call at around 11:00 EST or so tonight (Monday). I > forgot who I spoke to (Pete? sorry, if I got your name wrong), but he > is a reader of the TELECOM Digest and found the information for the > switchboard here as did I. We were both curious as to whether TI > advertised this anywhere else besides over the computer networks? I've participated in about seven conversations on the system so far. Roughly half of them were people who found out about it on the Internet (one who recognized me from c.d.t.), and the others found out about it through local organizations in the Dallas area (volunteer groups). I got the impression that some groups were having their members participate with the payments going to the group rather than the individual. I agree that the system is pretty slick -- works well, good user interface, etc. Should be a successful project for them. Interestingly, most of the people I've spoken with so far have agreed with my libertarian views! 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: Thu, 12 Mar 92 16:07:49 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Does 706 Work Yet? I have gone to an Aberdeen, Md. pay phone (C&P on 410-272, with 301 still displayed) and failed to connect to the 706-542-MEAL (6325) number, with me using 0+: AT&T, the default carrier, gave a fast busy. 10222 (MCI) said "your international call cannot be completed as dialed" (does it STILL think 706 is in Mexico?) 10333 (Sprint) gave an error message (something like "cannot be completed...") and gave number 44-220 if I remember properly. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 18:56:47 -0500 (EST) From: Wallace Colyer Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service I would make the law a little more absolute. Under no circumstances shall use the information derived from the phone number originating a call, whether received from CallerID, ANI, or any other service, be used for billing purposes for services other than the cost of the phone call except on exchanges or special numbers designated for service billling (ie, 900, 976, 555-1212). Wallace ------------------------------ From: hoyt@isus.org (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) Subject: Re: Physical Phone Security Organization: International Society of Unified Science Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 17:48:21 GMT In article stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > Their one-way radio system consisted of a transmitter connected at the > customer site that would broadcast the alarm status every 60 seconds > or so. In the event of an alarm condition, the radio would broadcast > immediately with limited information (burglar, fire, holdup, etc.), A simple tone broadcast on 121.5 MHz should bring helicopters scrambling to your home, as this is the downed aircraft emergency beacon frequency, which rings bells at all control towers, however the powers that be may frown on this :-) :-). (However, in a REAL emergency, this could be useful anyway). Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| hoyt@isus.uucp 4131 E. Cannon Dr. | Phoenix, AZ. 85028 voice 602 996 1717 ------------------------------ From: strieterd@gtephx.UUCP (Dave Strieter) Subject: Re: Where to Get Parts For Obsolete Phone? Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 16:22:40 GMT In article , pearl@iago.sw.stratus.com (Dan Pearl) writes: > I'd like to get a replacement touch-tone keypad for an old "1A Key" > Western Electric phone. This is a multi-line phone with one red > button, and five clear buttons on the bottom strip. There is one > thick cable coming out of the back of the phone terminating in an > Amphenol connector of some sort. > The keypad has 11 leads. > If necessary, I'll replace the phone. Does anyone have any idea where > to get the part? I don't know if they list a source for *parts* but there's an outfit called {Telecom Gear} ("The National Marketplace to Buy and Sell Telecommunications Equipment") that publishes a 100+ page catalog that's really a collection of advertisements for telecom-gear refurbishers/brokers. Perhaps somewhere in there is an ad for a parts supplier. Their address is 15400 Knoll Trail, Dallas, TX 75248. Phones are 214-233-5131, 800-967-4327. I have never used this source so there's no recommendation implied; just a tip. Dave Strieter, AG Communication Systems, POB 52179, Phoenix AZ 85072-2179 *** These are not my employer's opinions. They're my opinions, not my advice. UUCP:..!{ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!samsung!romed!asuvax | att}!gtephx!strieterd Internet: gtephx!strieterd@asuvax.eas.asu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 06:17:50 PST From: 13-Mar-1992 0918 Subject: Re: The Codebreakers Several years after this tome was published, David Kahn put out an abridged paperback version. He kept most of the historical and biographical information and cut down on technical details. I have a copy at home; I have no idea whether it's still in print. David Ofsevit Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton, MA (Affiliation given for identification only) ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Seeking Address of Telecom Association Date: 13 Mar 92 11:55:01 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , jimb@coplex.com (Jim Bennet) writes: > I am looking for the address of the national telephone coop office > located in Washington D.C. > If you have it could I get it and its phone number? Are you thinking of the Telecommunications Industry Association? They can be reached at: Telecommunications Industry Association 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington DC 20006 202-457-4912 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: grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Graham Thomas) Subject: Re: ICSTIS: Not What They Appear to Be Organization: University of Sussex Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 15:01:41 GMT In article , by eddf13::roberts@frocky. enet.dec.com (Nigel Roberts): > My opinion, based on personal experience of talking with ICSTIS is > that they are nothing more than apologists for the 0898 industry. This is the sort of argument that can be levelled against any industry-funded regulatory association. In the case of ICSTIS, I think it's a bit harsh. See below. > I called them to complain about the fact that I was not able to block > 0898 calls from my phone in the 0206 STD area and basically their > response was "So what? If BT haven't provided the facility on your > exchange, then tough. Why are you calling us?" BT is obliged to provide free call barring of premium-rate service calls wherever it can be done easily, i.e. wherever there are digital local exchanges. Over half the exchanges now are digital; the rest should be by 1995, if BT are to be believed (and I think they're if anything ahead of schedule). Only Oftel, not ICSTIS, could force them to provide call barring on analogue exchanges. > Upon asking them whether or not they were really the "chatline > watchdog" as they are described as in the press, he basically admitted > they were funded by the chatline/recorded message providers and they > just pay phone bills when people have been caught out by 0898 sleaze. All funding for the running of ICSTIS comes from the network operators (currently only BT, Mercury and Racal-Vodafone offer PRS), and not the premium rate service providers. (As the operators and the service providers share the revenue, you could argue about how much difference this makes.) Chatline operators should pay into the compensation fund, which has separate accounts and a separate administrator. There are no service providers on the ICSTIS Board (there used to be one member who was, but this was changed to increase the organisation's independence). I don't think there are any operator representatives on the Board now, either (though this is from memory - I could be wrong); most members are lawyers or reps of consumer organisations or unions. There have been several occasions when ICSTIS has recommended that service providers be cut off, and BT has complied. Maybe ICSTIS could be more energetic, but I don't think they should just be branded as apologists. Their real problem is that growth in services and complaints has happened so fast that they're swamped with work. (I should maybe add that I'm not connected with ICSTIS, BT or any service provider: I'm just studying the area right now.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 15:30:18 -0500 (EST) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) Subject: Re: Texas Instruments Switchboard declan@seas.gwu.edu (Declan McCullagh) writes Ed Holliman of TI's Switchboard Project told him: > They're also trying to "limit all their callers to males for > statistical reasons." However, female would-be participants can > submit an application in case TI might need female voice samples. This is interesting -- I passed on the posting to all the eligible males I could find ;-) and one of them has participated in seven conversations already. He was surprised that one of the conversations was with a woman named Jackie. An error because of her androgynous name, perhaps? kath mullholand university of new hampshire durham, nh Inaccuracies should be attributed to my evil twin; not my employer. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 06:45:18 EST From: Mike Koziol Subject: Re: ANI Returns Mystery Number: What is it? When you dial 9 for an outside line on our sysytem, the switch picks one of our outgoing trunks and "send" the call out. The trunk line number is not related in any way to the on campus extention that are using. If you dial one of these trunk numbers, it rings and never answers. It's a bit confusing to folks who use calling cards because the number that you called from showing on your bill is one that you won't recognize. The DEA called our Campus Safety office not too long ago and us to tell them where a phone number was located on campus. They only had the outgoing trunk number and we couldn't help them out. When someone on campus dials 9-911 it goes to the area 911 center. On their ANI display it shows the RIT campus, Accounting Office and gives the outgoing trunk number as the originating phone number. If the caller hangs up (no talk call) the 911 operator tries the call back number on their display. Since it will continue to ring with no one answering, a couple of sheriff's cars are dispatched. Then they notify the Campus Safety Department to respond as well. When they call we try to explain that we are unable to tell where on campus the call is originating from. Most of the operators understand this as they have dealt with this before (the headquarters and manufacturing facilities for Kodak in the area are the same way) and cancel the patrol cars. The newer operators keep the cars coming. When they arrive the deputies want to go see our accounting office (billing address for the trunk lines, the address appearing in Rochester Telephones database). Of course nothing is found. I had the occasion to escort four deputies and two state troopers (it was a quiet afternoon) to the office one day for a no talk call. The office staff was a bit surprised to see all of these law enforcement types walk into their office. There have been some very preliminary discussions about routing 9-911 calls to the Campus Safety office first. I would like to know if anyone has done this (or decided not to) recently. E-mail please. ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: 800 Sweepstakes Scam Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 11:12:21 EST This is a summary of a {Wall Street Journal} article which appeared in an internal news summary: Attorneys general in three states are attempting to stop a marketing company from billing sweepstakes winners who make what they think are toll-free phone calls to find out what they've won. Sweepstakes Clearinghouse, run by Allied Marketing Group Inc. operates by sending postcards promising recipients prizes ranging from $10,000 in cash to $200 savings certificates. Winners are instructed to dial a toll-free 800 number to claim their prize. A recording gives them two choices -- either mailing in the postcard or punching in a 13-digit code for an immediate response. Consumers who choose to wait for an answer will then be billed [$3.90 a minute] by Audio Telecom Inc. for the call. Mike Twomey, an assistant attorney general in Florida, says that the Audio Telecom bill "is made up to look like a regular phone bill." And Audio Telecom inserts an AT&T sales catalog for consumer phones into the billing envelope. AT&T spokesman Monty Hoyt said his company has demanded that Allied Marketing stop sending the catalog and that the company has agreed to comply. "I think it is disturbing that what has been built up over 25 years in terms of public trust of 800 service is being eroded," Hoyt said. [WSJ] 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 #228 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12820; 14 Mar 92 22:40 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05074 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 18:45:17 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17433 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 18:45:07 -0600 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 18:45:07 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203150045.AA17433@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #229 TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Mar 92 18:45:06 CST Volume 12 : Issue 229 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Radio Contest Lines (Jacob DeGlopper) Re: Device For Switching Ringing Line to Phones (Jacob DeGlopper) Re: MCI Customer Service Problem (Phillip Dampier) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Jim Thomas) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (David Lesher) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Dave Levenson) Re: Message Express Appears On My Phone Bill (Phil Howard) Re: Telephone Pioneers (Nigel Allen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob DeGlopper) Subject: Re: Radio Contest Lines Reply-To: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob DeGlopper) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 17:34:19 GMT In a previous article, K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand) says: > A few years ago, a DJ told me that when radio stations have those > contests (you know, "Be the 17th caller and WIN!!!") that *some* > radio stations had equipment that returned a busy signal, but still > counted the call, so that only the 17th caller got a ringing tone and > had to be answered. At his radio station, however, he had to pick up > each call (he told the caller what number they were to keep track > easier) and hang up so that more callers could get through. WRUW-FM, where I work, is a 1000-watt, very eclectic, college/community radio station, so this isn't exactly experience from the top-40 world of call-in contests. Our programming tends to go from, say, polka to heavy metal to folk to jazz in one day. We do run the occasional giveaway for tickets to local music events, but we usually take about the third caller, as not to take all night with the contest. Right now, we have three lines coming in arranged in a rotary through the university centrex. The programmer on the air will answer each call, and maybe even talk with the person if no one else is calling yet. There are times when it's the same person all three calls! BTW, anyone in Cleveland who's familar with installation and diagnosis of 1A2 systems and has some time on their hands? We could use a little help adding another KSU box for our next phone line ... _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad, Wheaton, Maryland -- jrd5@po.cwru.edu -- ------------------------------ From: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob DeGlopper) Subject: Re: Device For Switching Ringing Line to Phones Reply-To: jrd5@po.CWRU.Edu (Jacob DeGlopper) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 17:22:01 GMT In a previous article, montgomery_br@ee.port.ac.uk (eb4/91/92) says: > A friend in the US was asking me about a device that would detect > the MF tones of the local fire dispatch centre and switch a speaker > into the circuit/activate a recording system. Is such a system > currently available? If not how can one find out the tones used and > the specs (duration/delay etc)? I presume the tones are being sent over the radio. The signaling system is probably a Motorola two-tone pager format, or perhaps a five-tone format, which I've seen used in MODAT systems. Information on the standard tones could probably be gotten from Motorola. There is an off-the-shelf solution; Motorola, as well as a few other companies, makes tone/voice pagers which will decode an appropriate pair of tones and activate the speaker as well as beeping while the last tone is sounding. In the two-tone format, the Minitor II will also allow you to monitor the channel without the pager having been activated i.e. it includes a squelch circuit. Pagers like the Dimension IV, Pageboy III, and so forth will activate, and switch over to static once the transmission is completed. The Minitor II runs about $375 new from Motorola. _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad, Wheaton, Maryland -- jrd5@po.cwru.edu -- ------------------------------ From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 23:18:36 Subject: Re: MCI Customer Service Problem lunatix!iowegia!kevin@ms.uky.edu writes: > I explain myself again, and am told I need to talk to (can you guess > this one?) person #1 !! In a measly two days, I managed to make the > complete cycle through MCI's customer service jungle and get back to > where I started from. The biggest fault I have with MCI is that EVERY SINGLE plan, service, option, or concept they come up with has its own 800 number with customer service agents that don't have a clue about anything outside of their respective service area. I noticed an advertisement for MCI Fax, so I called the 800 number and asked about several of the features they offered, such as telex to fax, speed dialing, Broadcast Fax, etc. "Marge" on the other end told me to get a pad and then gave me different 800 numbers for every one of those options. The frightening part about it was that when I went to the Broadcast Fax Department, I talked with "Trish" for over ten minutes about their FAX SERVICE, how I would like to have information FAXED to me, and she, after ten minutes of talking about this, actually asked me if I had a fax machine! Pretty soon we'll have "Friends & Family/Florida" or something and if you are male, between the ages of 25-30, have an even numbered zip code and are bald, you'll get your own MCI Customer Service 800 number. Another confusing example: MCI Preferred apparently is not MCI's plan but belongs to one of the companies they merged with. So while MCI Commercial at 1-800-444-2222 gets you "David" with a country accent, it's only a few minutes before you are told to call a different 800 number, 1-800-727-5555, which turns out to be in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, except after hours when the call is forwarded to who knows where. When asking about MCI Preferred on MCI's Commercial customer service number, I made the mistake of asking for information on MCI Preferred to be sent to me. My fax machine cranked out six copies of the same material from different offices and personnel. Then I called the local MCI office and got a local service rep to cut through the nonsense. This was the best thing I've done. Phillip M. Dampier phil@rochgte.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 23:20:16 -0600 From: jim thomas Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Organization: Northern Illinois University In article sleepy!allyn@bcstec.ca. boeing.com (Mark Allyn) writes: > In article , john@mojave.ati.com (John > Higdon) writes: >> Does anyone know when Hollings' term is up? > Does anyone out there have Hollings' office and home phone numbers? > Especially the home phone numbers since he probably has secretaries > and staff to screen his office calls. Try: Hon. Ernest F. Hollings 125 Rayburn House Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510 Voice (main office): (202) 224-6121 Fax: (202) 224-0000 The Moderator notes: > Moderator's Note: You'd do what? Pull your file under the FOIA or > pull mine? I don't know if they have a file on me, and I don't really > care. What could I do about it in either case? Anyway, this Digest is > available for public consumption, and the last I heard, FBI employees > were members of the public. Unlike many of the privacy freaks all over > Usenet, I don't discriminate or hold a grudge against people who > happen to be involved in law enforcement. In fact I welcome them as > readers here. PAT] It is a substantial error to assume that those concerned with routine monitoring and information gathering have a grudge against law enforcement. There are several reasons to be concerned about whether law enforcement collects files on private citizens who are neither under investigation nor involved criminal activity. One of the most compelling reasons is simply that there is overwhelming historical evidence of abuse. Red Squad files, political surveillance, COINTELPRO and the FBI's "Black Bag" tactics (that forced the removal of a former FBI director) are but a few examples that reflect abuse of covert monitoring. There is a fundamental difference between observing public action and monitoring/dossier-collecting. The issue isn't whether law enforcement reads a given Digest, but what is done with the information once read. Consider this example: A group meets to discuss the legalization of marijuana. LE agents scour the parking lot taking down license numbers of identify owners. The owners then have files begun on them as "potential drug users." We have seen from past experience that such information is shared with both public and private sector. LE agents have every right to be in the parking lot, but there is concern when they begin police-state tactics that subvert constitutional rights of speech and assembly. Although the drug-use example here is merely illustrative, there is considerable evidence that LE has used this (among other) strategies in targetting political dissent and other legal actions of which they disapproved. To paraphrase Camus, "It is not that I like law enforcement less, but I respect the constitution more." Jim Thomas [Moderator's Note: To paraphrase Townson, "It is not that I don't like the constitution, but I like peace and quiet and a community of law- abiding citizens better." And to paraphrase James Russell Lowell, if new occassions teach new duties and time makes ancient good uncouth, then don't be reluctant to amend that constitution if that's what it takes to bring a charming 18th century document in line with 21st century truth. And from Townson again, "We've already amended it a couple dozen times; I can suggest a few more good amendments." PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 20:11:01 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex > Does anyone out there have Hollings' office and home phone numbers? > Especially the home phone numbers since he probably has secretaries > and staff to screen his office calls. I'm sure the FBI does. Why not ask them ;-? wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Date: 13 Mar 92 13:25:55 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , Neil.Katin@Eng.Sun.COM (Neil Katin ) writes: > I believe that a key piece of the proposal is to be able to trace > cellular phones, which do *not* have easy-to-access pairs available. > [Moderator's Note: Why don't they have easy access? You take your > court order to the cell company and you say 'when Mr. Townson makes a > call on his cellular phone, put the call through but send it by us for > a look-see-listen also.' So the tower sees my ESN and phone number and > it says 'aha, this call is to go out on trunk X which has that funny > wiring on it ... and I am also supposed to tell them which tower I am > and Mr. Townson's proximity to me as best I can tell.' There is bound > to be -- almost certainly -- a piece of metal in the connection > * somewhere* for those alligator clips and capacitors. PAT] I think our Moderator has answered his own question. He explains how with some _special_ software feature, a _special_ field in the per subscriber translations database, and a _special_ metallic trunk, it should be trivial for a cellular service provider to comply with a court-ordered trace of a specific cellular phone! What the rest of us are discussing here is how much should all of the subscribers pay for all of that _special_ stuff the cellular provider must add to the local MTSO? Note, also, that in this day and age, the only piece of metal between the RBOC and the cellular provider's MTSO is probably the metalic conductors in a T1 circuit. It's probably a timeslot, rather than a twisted pair, that conveys the call from the LEC to the cellular switch, and another timeslot that conveys it from the cellular switch to the cell site currently handling the call. In the not-too-distant future, it will be a timeslot rather than a dedicated radio frequency that conveys it to the subscriber set. Not impossible to trace, but something a bit more costly than allegator clips might be needed to sort it all out! The FBI merely wants the rest of the telephone users to pay for this overhead in the network. I suppose they'll want us to buy our own telescreens, next! 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: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Message Express Appears On My Phone Bill Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 03:31:27 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) writes: > On December 10, I sent myself a test message via the Message Express > (800-477-0334), which I believe I saw advertised on some pay phones in > Baltimore. The test message was to my own office telephone number, > and I goofed by using the old area code 301, which still works. The > call has now appeared on my March phone bill; for place called from, > it says "MSG XPR, GA [sic]" and shows telephone number 301-276-1234 > (301-276 is in eastern Baltimore city and is moving to 410). The cost > is 75 cents plus 2 cents federal tax. > The Message Express service was billed via Telecom*USA, and is lumped > into my bill from the local phone company. Does this work from a pay phone? Back to amateur radio phone patches ... this really means we need to block 800 numbers. COCOTS and other phone service providers need to do so accordingly. One catch is that apparently most of the phone patch controllers on the market have firmware that passes "1800" numbers even if "1" is a blocked prefix. One company tested their unit for me, by explicitly setting up "1", "18", "180", and "1800" as blocked prefixes (maximum number of digits was 4) but the calls went through anyway. I gave them the number for Mystic Marketing :-) Now for Message Express. Maybe I need to set myself up as a COCOT to operate a phone patch for amateur radio access? Actually, Message Express seems like a very useful service, and there is no smell of slime yet. But it should have been set up in two different ways: as a 900 number for billing back to the calling number, and as an 800 number (maybe they could get the same seven digits in both number spaces) for billing to credit cards. From TV ads I see AT&T offers something similar with "*123". I assume I can get this with "10288*123". I probably will try it out tonight. Will these services wait through an A/M announcement to get the message recorded? I guess I will find out :-) Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com [Moderator's Note: Thus far, 10288*123 does nothing here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 19:00:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Telephone Pioneers Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Tom Streeter (streeter@cs.unca.edu) was trying to get in touch with the local chapter of the Telephone Pioneers of America, but couldn't find the group listed in his telephone directory. If you are trying to get in touch with the Telephone Pioneers and cannot find a listing for the group in the phone book, call the main number for your local telephone company and ask for the Telephone Pioneers office. Usually, a Telephone Pioneers group will receive free office space from its sponsoring telephone company, and will receive telephone service through the company's PBX. Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #229 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10503; 14 Mar 92 21:47 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21598 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 19:36:14 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06766 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 19:36:02 -0600 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 19:36:02 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203150136.AA06766@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #230 TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Mar 92 19:35:51 CST Volume 12 : Issue 230 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas (Alan L. Varney) Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls (Michael Rosen) Re: Phones, Lies and 800 Numbers (Jeff Sicherman) Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Giles D. Malet) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 09:38:43 CST From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L. Varney) Subject: Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article sisklb@Texaco.COM (Linden B. Sisk) writes: > ... changeover involves dialing 1 + 713 + 7D for TOLL calls within > 713, rather than ALL calls. Locals calls within 713 will still be 7D. > Sorry about the confusion. Which brings up the question in my mind as > to how many places, if any, is it necessary to dial 1+NPA+7D for ALL > calls, even local calls? Is this an inevitable feature of NPA's of > the form NXX? It seems to me that it shouldn't be, that the switch > should be smart enough to realize that if only seven digits are > dialed, a local call is intended. Our Moderator noted: > [ Are you willing to sit there and wait for the switch to time out > before it processes the seven digits? One option I've never seen > discussed though is the use of # as a terminator when dialing local > and long distance calls as is done with international calls and > abbreviated calling card dialing. (When dialing the number to which a > calling card is assigned, one need only dia the four digit PIN > followed by the # to speed processing.) PAT] This is a good place to recommend that anyone REALLY interested in the LONG-TERM dialing plan for the USA (actually World Zone 1) should read and comment on the following: "North American Numbering Plan Administrator's Proposal On The Future of Numbering In World Zone 1", Jan. 6, 1992, published as an Information Letter from Bellcore. Since the document was "... widely distributed with the telecommunications sector (industry entities, associations, affiliated agencies, regulatory bodies/committees, forums throughout WA1) for review and comment.", I'm sure everyone has already seen it. :-) Comment cycle ends April 30, 1992. The timeframe examined in the document is year 1995 through 2025. [IL-92/01-013, comments should be forwarded to Fred Gaechter at: NANP Administration Bellcore - Room 1B234 290 West Mr. Pleasant Avenue Livingston, NJ 07039 Since the document may be freely copied and distributed, you should check if your organization's Bellcore interface has received a copy before writing Bellcore for a copy.] Anyway, on the #-to-end-dialing and seven-digit-intra-NPA issues, the letter contains some proposals. Since there are other issues of interest as well, I'll quote several fragments from the letter (assuming this falls under the "freely distributed" guidelines). I'd type it all in, but it's 41 dense pages! -- Review of "... Future of Numbering ..." Proposal follows -- Major headings: Introduction - A history and perspective on telephone numbers Development of the Proposal - Assumptions/Principles/Scope Proposed Allocation of Resources after Interchangeable NPAs Long-Term Goals and Predictions - Eventual NPA exhaust, etc. Proposal Effectiveness - Capacity, Compatibility, etc. Evolution of Numbering in WZ1 - Universal 10-digit dialing Capacity Perspectives, NANP Advisory Council, Action Plan Appendices A through J Introduction has a short history of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP), beginning with DDD introduction in Englewood, NJ on Nov. 10, 1951. Featured a ten digit number, with seven digits for intra-NPA calls. In 1960, 0+ dialing was introduced. Between 1952 and 1971, non-SXS offices could allow NNX-XXXX for TOLL intra-NPA calls, but many areas (particularly those with lots of SXS) used 1 + NNX-XXXX for all TOLL calls. Areas that allowed NNX-XXXX for TOLL could also allow N0/1X-NNX-XXXX calls (1+ optional). Year 1970 saw 011 and 01+ international dialing introduced. Year 1972 introduced Interchangeable Office Codes, and the use of 1 + NPA-NXX-XXXX for intra-NPA TOLL calls. Interchangeable NPAs (NXX format) begins in 1995, but will not stop/alter the "Toll Alert" use of 1+. NANP is does not apply to geographical North America, but rather to what CCITT Recommendation E.164 calls the World Zone 1 area. Mexico is not in NANP (but had/has access via what looked to me like NPAs ...). Example areas in NANP are Canada, Grenada, Saint Lucia, etc. ----- Development ... indicates that 1995 will see the addition of 640 new NPA codes. The short term goal is the appropriate allocation of these codes. Long term goals include the eventual evolution to more digits (beyond 2025). ... No segment of the industry or public should be intentionally advantaged or disadvantaged by the NANP. The seven-digit format for intra-NPA dialing should continue. ... If a dialing distinction is to reveal the "toll/local" status of a call, it has been traditional (due to SXS switching) to associate seven-digit dialing with "local". 1 + HomeNPA-NXX-XXXX is available for intra-NPA "toll" calls. Failure to place a call in the appropriate format is now seen as a cause for call rejection in areas using toll alerting. It follows that seven-digit dialing will be encountered both with and without toll alerting. Numbering planners have long considered it good practice for switches to accept and attempt to complete any call originated with a valid ten digit address, INCLUDING HOME NPA CALLS FOR WHICH SEVEN-DIGIT DIALING COULD SUFFICE. [Caps are mine -- ALV] Non-decimal digits will not be used in WZ1 or CCITT. ... The NANP will allow coexistence of Geographic and Non-geographic numbers. ... NANP resources (NPAs, etc.) will be administered for the overall public good, and will not be "owned" by entities or users. ... No portion of the ten-digit NANP number will be assigned for the primary purpose of identifying telecommunications entities OR CARRIER NETWORKS. [I think the document suggests the use of prefix codes to identify special call requirements, such as #56 for Switched 56Kb services. -- ALV] Forecasts suggest a 79% NPA code usage by 2025, and the need to consider eventual expansion. --- Proposed Allocation of Resources after Interchangeable NPAs ... looks at the pre-allocation of blocks of the 640 new NPAs to various purposes: 300 reserved for geographic NPA codes (each NPA could split twice on average), 80 reserved for Personal Communications applications, 10 reserved for Service Access Codes (ala 700, 800, 900), 80 reserved for expansion/transition beyond ten digits, 170 reserved for unanticipated uses. "Seven-digit national numbers" -- DDD assumed seven-digit numbers had ten-digit equivalents. There is no loss of numbering capacity with this assumption. FG-B (with 950-WXXX access) changed the assumption, as an interim means of evolving to "equal access". The intent was that supplementary dialing would be needed to reach the called party. There were only 1,000 XXX codes. With the current requirement to expand to 950-XXXX, there are 10,000 possible 950- assignments available within the U.S. However, each such dedicated NXX assignment removes seven million numbers from the 640 NPA numbering plan, and is not considered an efficient use of NANP resources. Short (seven-digit) numbers have long been considered attractive for purposes not consistent wiht DDD planning. Such numbers with national (or WZ1) significance would have clear commercial advantages. However, means for providing such numbers in an even-handed manner to all applicants, given the 10,000 possible subscribers nationwide, have yet to be found. ... There must be compelling reasons to assign a seven-digit number to serve one nationally-oriented subscriber when the same resource could label hundreds of subscribers. As custodians of a shared resource, the NANP Administrator must not confer advantages on a few while burdening the many. Thus SEVEN-DIGIT NATIONAL NUMBERS ARE NOT ENDORSED. [Their boldface] ... The "950" usage remains an exception, and is not a precedent. ... the ten-digit assignment view is technically realistic and fair to all users. --- Long-Term Goals and Predictions ... examines the eventual NPA exhaust, and other issues. ... By time "T" (about 1997), CCITT Recommendation E.165 allows international numbers to expand to 15 digits, and suggests up to six digits may be used in routing international calls. ... The industry should study the feasibility of integrating the numbering plan and the various dialing plans of WZ1. [A "dialing plan" is separate from the numbering plan and covers such things as carrier selection (10XXX or 101XXXX), *XX{X} services, 011 access, 0 or 00 for operator assistance.] The lack of standards in this area results in complexity in the network and confusion to the user public. Overlay NPAs should be studied. First application is 917 in New York City, 1/1/92. ... Telecommunications industry should evolve to ten-digit dialing for all station-to-station calls, including local. Such a uniform dialing plan would reduce the user confusion encountered with non-standard plans. The traveling public is particularly subject to confusion by such plans. ... This would also eliminate the need for the 1+ prefix on 10-digit calls. Use of 1+ as a toll indicator is at best a concession to a concern better met by the advance knowledge of the approximante cost per minute of a call. ... alternatives for providing call charge information outside the dialing/ numbering plans should be studied (tone warning?). Call rejection should not include local calls dialed with 1+NPA. --- NANP Advisory Council ... suggests a council to advise the current NANP Administrator on issues. Several numbering issues have remained unresolved. This is a result of the lack of a forum willing to discuss ALL aspects of a numbering issue. This standing council could be situated between the industry and the FCC (US) and DOC (Canada) agencies. ... first issue should be the method of funding the ongoing administration of the NANP. --- From Appendix D, " ...until the last rotary dial is retired, basic services ... will remind us that the old yields to the new, but not easily nor quickly nor completely." This appendix is the only place I saw a mention of # as an end-of-dialing indicator, which prompted the quote above. There was no discussion of time-out (good or bad) as an option in such cases. The possibility of CPE to CO protocols other than DP and DTMF is mentioned, with one advantage being the possibility of "en-bloc" transmission of the entire number string. While this sounds a lot like the method used by cellular phones (dial, then SEND), I don't see why # with DTMF is any different (from the dialer's viewpoint). Al Varney - AT&T, but the above are not AT&T's words. ------------------------------ From: Michael.Rosen@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 06:57:50 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Don't be silly. What do you want the operator to > do, interrupt your call every minute and ask for more money? When you > eat in a restaurant do they come around to get the money after each > item you have eaten or wait until you finish completely? Telco > attempts to be courteous by allowing you to complete your conversation > without barging in -- perhaps overhearing something private -- then > they tally up the total you owe, less your initial deposit and ask you > to pay. I guess you haven't made many direct calls from payphones? Of course they cut in and ask for money every minute. Not a live operator, an automated operator, asking for so many cents for the next minute. I haven't timed it exactly, so I don't know if this occurs after exactly one minute or not. Since this is the case, they should not call back and ask for more money as they have already requested money for the time I have been on the phone. Mike The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 [Moderator's Note: I note you are in a university town, and it may be the local telco has gotten burned so often on students stealing phone service from pay stations that telco chooses to collect every minute. I can assure you in many (most?) places that is not the case. IBT collects the deposit for three minutes and interuppts at three minutes to announce the initial time period has expired ... 'please flash when your call is finished ...'. After about five or six minutes they may ask for additional money. Hanging up or flashing brings the automated operator back to the line, followed by a live operator if there is no response, ie. coins being deposited. If you don't have the right change and overpay, they give credit for overtime. I can't count the number of times I have walked past a ringing pay station, answered it and had an operator ask for more money for the call just completed. I've also seen many pay stations left off hook. When I hang them up, they ring almost immediatly with an operator on the line asking for money. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 23:37:58 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Phones, Lies and 800 Numbers Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: > Original From: Don Kimberlin > Several years ago, at the behest of large buyers of 800 numbers, the > regulators asked the local phone companies if they could accomodate > "number transportability," meaning could the local phone companies all > arrange to read all the digits of every 800 call and set up routing > tables to send any call to any terminating exchange regardless of what > its central office prefix was. One question is: why does it have to be routed directly to the assigned IXC at the LEC level? It would seem to be logistically simpler and less expensive for the 800 service providers to establish the database and hand off the calls which were no longer assigned to them to the proper carrier. The FTC and FCC could waive any antitrust problems which might arise out of this interconnection and arrangement. Financial considerations might be another matter: I doubt the IXC's want to carry calls, even if only for setup purposes, that they don't get any compensation for. A small (per call) surcharge on the 800 service by the new provider (with the non-assigned prefix) could be used to reimburse the original carrier (the owner of the prefix) for the extra routing activity. It would also act as a small incentive for the customer to switch the 800 number to the new carrier's prefixes. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: shrdlu!gdm@uunet.UU.NET (Giles D Malet) Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 22:25:53 -0500 Reply-To: Giles D Malet In article lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes: > The new system will speak the phrase "AT&T. Say collect, third > number, person, calling card, or operator now." Then it waits for a > response. For a collect call we ask for their name, the call is > completed, then the person [hopefully it's a person!] is told they > have a collect call from "..." will they accept the charges ? Say yes > to accept the charges or no. They may say yes/no at any point here as > well. And now for the obvious question -- what if it is not a person that answers, but an answering machine? Especially one with a message that contains something that sounds like `yes'? Does the caller then get connected to said answering machine, to be greeted by silence if the msg has rolled past? All of course paid for by the unfortunate callee (?) who might find a few `hello ?`s on their machine, and a confusing bill at the end of the month. Sounds like fun. Giles D Malet gdm@shrdlu.uucp Waterloo, Ont, Canada +1 519 725 5726 [Moderator's Note: See an earlier issue of the Digest today for an explanation by the original author of how these situations are handled by the new equipment, although I agree there is a potential for trouble here. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #230 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12736; 14 Mar 92 22:37 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31633 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 20:23:17 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31936 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 20:23:05 -0600 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 20:23:05 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203150223.AA31936@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #231 TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Mar 92 20:22:59 CST Volume 12 : Issue 231 Index To This Issue: