Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24940; 22 Mar 92 2:53 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02791 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 01:04:36 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07314 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 01:04:28 -0600 Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 01:04:28 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203220704.AA07314@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #251 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Mar 92 01:04:30 CST Volume 12 : Issue 251 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: FCC Mandates "No Privacy" (Gordon Burditt) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (John W. Lydic, Jr.) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Gordon Burditt) Re: A Reason NOT to Charge Customers For Spy Features (John Higdon) Re: Integretel (was Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call) (Carl Moore) Re: Integretel (was Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call) (Phil Howard) Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls (Ken Weaverling) Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls (Macy Hallock) Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls (Mark Phaedrus) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Re: FCC Mandates "No Privacy" Organization: Gordon Burditt Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 03:36:28 GMT > In recent years there has been much discussion about the extent to > which telephone records are private or public. The ECPA specifically > states that transactional information may be disclosed to non-government > agencies. > The FCC has gone further. It actually mandates the disclosure. (Why > could not any of the readers of the IXCs tell us this information?) > As one might expect, their reasoning is fallacious. Is there any difference between this and putting a "pen register" (is that the right term for a device which records all numbers called by a particular line?) on every phone in the country and publishing the results? (OK, it probably doesn't include intra-lata calls). The next few IXC's I expect to see are the marketing list divisions of TRW, Trans-Union, and Equifax, plus the FBI, CIA, KGB, British Secret Service, DEA, and an organization of 900-number information providers, all so they can get access to the information. Warrants? Why bother? How much do you have to do legally to become an IXC, anyway? Provide access to your own customer service lines? I will probably be able to dial up Compuserve in a few years, and search their database for all phone numbers that called mine (or any other number I choose) last October, and find out in a few minutes. It's much slower than Caller-ID, but it's unblockable, and you can get the info on any line you want ... Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon [Moderator's Note: Pen Registers record every digit dialed. Period. Inter- or Intra-LATA of no concern ... even calls to 411, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lydic@ka8lvz.uucp (lydic) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Organization: organization Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 03:35:31 GMT In article disk!tony@uunet.UU.NET (tony) writes: > Does the FBI monitor this newsgroup? If they didn't already have a It has been rumored (unsubstantiated) that UUNET sends a tape of all Usenet transactions to the FBI every month. I think they (UUNET) are in McClean, Virginia (real close to various government agencies). John W. Lydic Jr lydic@ka8lvz OR osu-cis!n8emr!ka8lvz!lydic jwl@ka8lvz OR osu-cis!n8emr!ka8lvz!jwl [Moderator's Note: Try to think this out: A tape of ALL Usenet 'trans- actions' every month? How many giga-gazillion bytes would that be, even if the Bureau only grepped for a couple dozen keywords or phrases of interest? Usenetters are, after all, very -- uh -- prolific, to say the least ... much ado about nothing, to paraphrase Bill Shakespeare. And what possible difference could it make if they were in Virgina or the Virgin Islands? I telnet around the net daily in seconds. Do you really think the Federal Bureau of Inquisition sits there eagerly day after day reading the ravings of a bunch of angry piss-ants on the warpath whenever someone knocks over their hive? Delusions of grandeur ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Organization: Gordon Burditt Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 12:38:59 GMT > 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. I'd like to suggest that if the FBI wants us to pay more for wiretaps, then they should do it right. Require the insertion of a valid warrant before the tap can take place. Monitor the validity of the warrant so the tap gets yanked if the judge revokes it, dies, the judge's term expires, the judge is impeached, or is declared mentally incompetent, or if the agent executing the tap dies, is suspended, retires, or quits his law enforcement job, or the time limit on the warrant expires. Taps should be yanked promptly if they are no longer authorized for any of the given reasons. Five minutes is probably soon enough. If contact between the judge's tap authorization system and the tapped system is broken, or contact between the judge's tap authorization system and his heart monitor is broken, taps should not be permitted until contact is re-established. Taps should not be permitted unless they can be logged (who authorized it, who executed it, the warrant number, etc., not the contents of the call) at law enforcement monitoring stations in every state. This prevents one law enforcement group from making unauthorized taps without evidence in the hands of other law enforcement groups. Sanitized information, such as the total number of currently-active taps in a given state, updated hourly, should be available to the public. (Somebody want to make it available on a 900 number?) If this starts to sound like the "fail-safe" system for the control of launching nuclear missiles, then you're getting the idea, although it doesn't have to be quite that elaborate. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 10:40 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: A Reason NOT to Charge Customers For Spy Features pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) writes: > Such equipment is doomed to be obsolete very soon. We are reaching > the point where it is practical to utilize encryption technology on an > end to end basis (and eventually thereafter I am sure even from pay > phones). First digital, then voice and fax. Indeed, work on a widely and freely available, backdoorless real-time encryption has been going on in Europe. In Germany and The Netherlands such a system is almost in place. Unless our government is going to come right out and declare that citizens do not actually have a right to privacy and somehow makes it illegal to obtain and use secure encryption technology, intercepting digital data flowing between two parties will become an exercise in futility. And even if the use of encryption is proscribed, how would it be enforced? As other repressive governments, past and present, have discovered: you cannot ban ideas. This has some interesting ramifications for ISDN. It is precisely this technology that will put secure communications into the hands of the public. Five will get you ten that somewhere in the dank halls of gummit law enforcement this matter has been considered. And while I am anything but a conspiracy buff ("JFK" WAS just a movie :-), one wonders if perhaps at least some of the foot-dragging in the matter of implementation might be from law enforcement influence. > Of course the drug dealers and terrorists will join the privacy buffs > in using this technology. And this will be the government's excuse for wanting to curb the technology. We will be told that in order to protect us from all of those evil terrorists and drug dealers, we must give up yet another right. Repressive governments do not like citizens communicating privately. The FBI has really tipped its hand on this one and I hope some people wake up while we can still do something about it. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 8:52:19 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Integretel (was Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call) I do remember Integretel name appearing on some calls on my phone bills (yes, through the local company); sometimes, I have made a string of calls along a route I am driving, and some of these get billed through the alternate operator services. I also had a case where a call was billed and paid by me, and the same call turned up on my bill about a year later. I was able to have that second charge removed. Did your PacBell bill ever have any of those collect calls and/or any calls billed via Integretel? ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA) Subject: Re: Integretel (was Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 05:17:54 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) infmx!dboyd@uunet.UU.NET (Diana Boyd) writes: > Yesterday I got a bill in the mail from VRS Billing Systems, under > that it says "on behalf of INTEGRETEL, Inc.". > It is for eight collect calls made in April, 1991! Yes, almost a year > ago. > Now, I *did* get some computer generated collect calls last year, I > thought it was one or two I accepted, not eight, I know I refused > some, too. > I also thought these were paid through my PacBell Bill. > Even if I got the records from a year ago, I'd never remember which > calls I accepted and which I refused or how many. > Any suggestions, the total bill is only $25.01 but I am very angry; > how can they do this? They printed it up and mailed it to you, that's how. This is an interesting tactic. By waiting long enough, you might forget (as you did) which calls you accepted and which you did not. Refuse to pay until they can document which of the calls were billed due to saying "yes" and which of the calls were billed due to hanging up. Of course since the problem is poor equipment, they won't be able to. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: weave@bach.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling) Subject: Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls Date: 20 Mar 92 19:57:29 GMT Organization: University of Delaware About ten years ago, I had a girl friend in England. The monthly phone bill could be quite a shock, so I started using pay phones to "pay as I go" since the extra minutes over the three minute initial fee were the same as the direct-dial rate. The initial three minutes cost $5.85 from 13:00 to 18:00. Apparently, the phones could not hold more than $2.50 before the coins had to be collected. The sequence went like this. A call was placed direct, the operator asked for an initial deposit of $2.50, then attempted to place the call. If the party did not answer, my $2.50 was returned, else it was collected, and the operator informed the called party to "hold on, you have a call from the United States." I was then instructed to insert another $2.50, then it was collected, and finally the remaining 85 cents. If more than 85 cents was deposited, it was credited towards my next time period. I could talk for six minutes before being interrupted. At this point, I owed them for three minutes, and I would have to deposit $3.15, first $2.50, then 65 cents. This continued every three minutes. At the end of the call, the operator would call back and ask for the money still owed (additional payments only bought me up to even, then I was talking on credit again until another three minutes passed). If I hung up at the end of the call, the phone would ring and the operator would request the remaining money be deposited. I got in the habit of just holding onto the line and waiting for the operator to come on the line. Calling from England to the U.S. from a payphone is much more civilized. You just deposit the amount you want and it is displayed on an LCD display. When the call connects, the amount is decremented as your talk. You can deposit more money as you talk to bump the figure back up. If it gets within 10 or 20 seconds of running out, rapid "pip" noises are heard, reminding you to deposit more coins. If you do not, you are disconnected as soon as the amount reaches zero. It is actually possible to call from England to the U.S. for 10p (less than 20 cents), but your connection will only last for a second or two! I have seen these BT pay phones in the U.S. as well, one in the Grand Canyon and another at White Sands National Park. I tried to deposit a few bucks in it, which was credited to the display, and then made a long distance call, but the money was immediately returned and an operator prompted me to deposit money for the first three minutes. Ken Weaverling weave@brahms.udel.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 23:52 EST From: fmsys!macy@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) Subject: Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls Organization: The Matrix In article our Moderator responded to this posting: >> 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. > 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] In Ohio, several telco paystation tariffs are now in place that hold the subscriber to a semi-public paystation liable for "walk-away" charges. Note that semi-public subscribers are paid a commission for local calls once a certain number are placed. No commission is paid for sent-paid or credit call toll calls. The cost of a semi-public paystation is about $50/month (before commissions, etc) in Alltel territory. It is my understanding Ohio Bell is considering adopting a similar tariff. Public paystations do not incur either the liability or commission. Of course, you must meet the definition of a "public" location in the tariff to qualify. There is no charge to the property owner/subscriber for a public paystation. There are no chargebacks for "walk-aways", either, on a public paystation. So ... the telco's are finding a way to get paid for those paystation calls no matter what ... Regards, Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you] [Moderator's Note: It is the other way around here. PUBLIC coin phones pay commissions to the business hosting them. SEMI-PUBLIC phones also require coins but the business can list the number as their own and have an extension back of the counter for the clerk to answer, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: phaedrus@cs.washington.edu (Mark Phaedrus) Subject: Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls Organization: University of Washington Computer Science Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 06:34:28 GMT In article stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > It has been my experience that when the initial interval expires (used > to be three minutes), that you hear the initial deposit dump into the > coin box. So, if the coins don't dump until you go on-hook, then the > call is completely paid for. If you hear them dump while you're still > talking, then expect the operator to ring back when you go on-hook. It's been my experience that this is also a pretty reliable way of knowing whether you're going to be charged in advance for extra time. On pay phones that interrupt and ask for more money (like the local Seattle pay phones), the coins usually dump into the box within a few seconds after the connection is established; on phones that ring back after the completion of the call, the initial collection is delayed for the first three minutes, as Steve described. So if you hear the coins dump five seconds into the call, have that extra money ready. (Or just use your calling card and avoid the whole mess.) Mark Phaedrus, Computer Science Major, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA Work: phaedrus@cs.washington.edu Play: phaedrus@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #251 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27178; 22 Mar 92 3:37 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09501 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 01:52:45 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07659 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 01:52:38 -0600 Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 01:52:38 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203220752.AA07659@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #252 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Mar 92 01:52:39 CST Volume 12 : Issue 252 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem (Kath Mullholand) Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem (Phil Howard) Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem (Vance Shipley) Re: Congestion Control (was Rock Concert) (Alan L. Varney) Re: MCI Customer Service Problem (John Higdon) Re: "Feature Phone" Question (Dave Levenson) Re: Ring Back Number Wanted For NJ (Armando P. Stettner) Re: Maximum Rates Chargable by California COCOTs (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 17:05:02 -0500 (EST) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand) Subject: Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem ST901316@PIP.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (Scott Fybush) asks: > So now I turn to you all for help. Can anyone cite me the SPECIFIC > piece of law that could make them unblock that number? (or tell me > what agency I need to talk to to take action?) It's not that I really > want to spend $120 to have my fortune told, but if they can get away > with blocking this number, what's to stop them from blocking 800-950-1022 > or 800-CALL-ATT next? I really hate to respond, as I am in complete sympathy with Brandeis. However, the reference you are looking got is the Telephone Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act of 1990, Public Law No. 101-435, 104 Stat. 986 (1990) (to be codified at 47 U.S.C. 226). Effective May 23, 1991, no aggregator may block 800 or 950 access. A cautionary note: The Operator Services Act does not apply to you if you are an employee using staff phones provided at Brandeis' expense. Also, this may not mean that EVERY 800- number must be unblocked. The FCC has been supportive in the past of assisting aggregators in reducing fraud, and since this problem is before them, they may allow this. You would contact the FCC enforcement division whose address should be available "on or near" your phone if you are, indeed, a qualifying user of the aggregator equipment. kath mullholand university of new hampshire durham, nh Inaccuracies should be attributed to my evil twin; not to my employer. [Moderator's Note: If his university telecom people are smart, they'll agree to immediatly make it available to him upon receipt of his deposit for $120 ... or perhaps $240 if they think he might use the service twice. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 05:24:05 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) ST901316@PIP.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (Scott Fybush) writes: > So now I turn to you all for help. Can anyone cite me the SPECIFIC > piece of law that could make them unblock that number? (or tell me > what agency I need to talk to to take action?) It's not that I really > want to spend $120 to have my fortune told, but if they can get away > with blocking this number, what's to stop them from blocking 800-950-1022 > or 800-CALL-ATT next? > [Moderator's Note: Don't push your luck on this. They have to unblock > the number, and they are allowed to charge a deposit for service to be > rendered. Maybe the deposit should be at least $120 from now on, eh? > If they can demonstrate that a call can cost at least that much -- and > of course the evidence is plainly in their favor -- then they can ask > for a deposit in that amount or more ... and they would be perfectly > within their rights doing so, and shutting your phone off entirely or > severely limiting your service until you came up with the deposit. PAT] If they did decide to impose a $120 deposit (which of course would only cover just ONE such call), wouldn't they have to impose this deposit requirement for everyone fairly? Under what circumstances could they determine some people do have to deposit and some do not? How much they complain about 800 numbers? Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com | "The problem with | [Moderator's Note: Of course ... impose it on all students. When there is a complaint, they can refer to Scott *by name* saying he is the one who tipped them off to how much such a call might cost. Then they could offer to waive the $120+ deposit requirement if the student agrees to waive his/her rights to fully unblocked 800 service. PAT] ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 22:13:54 GMT In article ST901316@PIP.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (Scott Fybush) writes: > Last night I tried calling that wonderful number (just to see if it > was still working, mind you!) only to find it blocked. After the last > So now I turn to you all for help. Can anyone cite me the SPECIFIC > piece of law that could make them unblock that number? (or tell me > what agency I need to talk to to take action?) It's not that I really > want to spend $120 to have my fortune told, but if they can get away > with blocking this number, what's to stop them from blocking 800-950-1022 > or 800-CALL-ATT next? > [Moderator's Note: Don't push your luck on this. They have to unblock NO! Please DO push this! Cause as much grief as you can to everyone involved especially the regulators, etc. Let's not let this slowly creep into reality. Stop it now! Vance Shipley vances@xenitec.on.ca vances@ltg.uucp ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances [Moderator's Note: In a way, I sort of agree with you, but I can't see it helping Scott's individual situation any. He and other students will have to pay a hefty deposit. If he wants to be a martyr to this cause, that's fine, I guess. How about you doing it, Vance? :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 14:11:23 CST From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: Congestion Control (was Rock Concert) Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes: > In article pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) > writes: >> barry@coyote.datalog.com (Barry Mishkind) writes: >> To start out with, I don't know how the switches work so I don't know >> what can be done, or what excuses programmers of them might use, but >> the following concept seems simple enough: EXCUSE ME! Those aren't excuses you hear -- it's reality ... >> Simply set a maximum number of calls that can be placed to a single >> number over a given trunk, as a percentage of that trunk capacity Per David Lewis, ^^^^^ is a "trunk group" >> regardless of the ultimate capacity for the phone number. A >> reasonable percentage might be 25%. Thus for a trunk with a capacity >> of 80 calls to the exchange where the number is going, the 21st call >> will get either a busy signal or be delayed if the switch can deal >> with delaying it. Then it would take more than one such number to >> overload the trunk just from the mass calls. Percentages might differ >> for different exchanges. While such a technique is "feasible", congestion isn't always at the originating switch. To be effective, every tandem switch (and InterLATA carrier's switch) would require a list of all in-progress call destinations, searched on every outgoing/tandem call. If a large tandem supports around 50K simultaneous calls, either the search is expensive in real-time or huge hardware support would be required. Some switches use on the order of CPU 7000 cycles to completely handle a call (total of setup, billing and disconnect). Such a search for such rare problems is not cost effective. And it still doesn't solve the much harsher problem of dealing with events that generate large call volumes to many numbers (earthquakes, etc.). > Call gapping on NPA-NXX can be more valuable that gapping on an > individual DN, because it then allows for overload controls during > natural disasters and other events causing a large number of call > attempts to a given area, as opposed to just a given DN. For a slight > loss of precision, the capability is more generally useful and, not > incidentally, probably costs considerably less. > [Disclaimer - this does not necessarily represent the implementation > of call gap controls in AT&T's network or products or those of any > other vendor ...] Ditto. But I should point out that LEC switches typically can deal with NPA-NXX-XXXX call gaps (manually placed) as well as the NPA-NXX versions. And SS7 will probably evolve to support some form of automatic notification of the need for "up-stream" gaps. The proposed implementation of "portable" 800 numbers supports a notification (manually or automatically initiated) to switches to gap calls to specific 800 numbers, for example. >> Is it possible for the target exchange to signal the source exchange >> that the line is busy, so the busy signal sound is generated from the >> callers own exchange and free up the trunk line immediately? > This is done with SS7. When the terminating exchange determines that > the terminating DN is busy, it sends a RELease message in the backward > direction with cause = user busy. This releases the reserved trunk > and indicates to the originating switch to apply busy tone inband. (Or display "BUSY" on ISDN sets.:-) ) Yes, this works well for both cases of "user busy" and for "no circuit available" from intermediate switches. While efficient on a per-call basis, it also has the side effect of allowing even MORE unsuccessful attempts per hour over the same number of circuits. So, by itself, this capability of SS7 doesn't reduce the impact of either form of call congestion. Al Varney -- my opinions; AT&T hasn't approved them. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 11:01 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: MCI Customer Service Problem pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) writes: > And why would AT&T not use this in their advertising? My guess is that since advertising is aimed at the lowest common denominator, it would be a waste of money. It would be presumed that telecom knowledgeables and professionals do not make decisions (pro or con) based on advertising. Advertising is designed to produce an emotional response that will result in sales; it not meant as a source of information. I would venture to say that only a minority of even this non-represen- tative group would be involved with the industrial services that I had originally mentioned. The people who buy and uses these offerings probably will make final decisions based on clear-cut technical and finacial considerations. There are two types of advertising: hard-sell and institutional. Before divestiture, AT&T ran institutional advertising much as companies such as IBM and TRW used to do. The current wave of long distance promotion, however, is entirely hard-sell. The long distance companies, including AT&T, are out there to get the maximum share of the consumer's phone dollar. The ads are not designed to inform, they are designed to SELL. Interesting note: In light of the above, one wonders what Pac*Bell is attempting to accomplish with its Centrex advertising. The commercials are full of emotionalism and distortions that would be blatant to even the most naive of telecom administrators. Example: "In the past year we grew from 30 stations to over 100 stations which would have required the buying of two more switches without Centrex." Two switches to serve sixty lines? What kind of crap is that? Who is it aimed at? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: "Feature Phone" Question Date: 21 Mar 92 13:40:48 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , khx@se44.wg2.waii.com (Kamran Husain) writes: > I hooked up a feature-rich Panasonic phone (w/ LED display, full > memory, alpha keypad, etc.) to the phone jack of my internal modem and > my computer's power supply sputtered twice and blew a cap!! It's > smoking now ... and has to be replaced. > Do these phones draw that much power through the phone line? ... I > cannot think of anything else that could have caused it since I cannot > find any shorts on the motherboard. The phone draws loop current from the telephone line, through passive circuits on the internal modem board. It does not draw power from the computer's power supply. If your internal modem board was adjacent to another board, and if it moved slightly as a result of your inserting the phone plug, and if it shorted against the adjacent board, that might have shorted a power supply line. Otherwise, the occurrence of the power supply failure in the computer after you plugged in your phone was probabably coincidence. Electrolytic capacitors sometimes fail in a manner that causes the cap to develop an internal short, draw lots of current, and then ignite or melt down. This failure happens most often in equipment which has been powered down for very long periods of time, but can happen at any time. Capacitors are usually used in parallel with the power supply, where they are not stressed by loads. 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: aps@world.std.com (Armando P. Stettner) Subject: Re: Ring Back Number Wanted For NJ Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 05:48:09 GMT Making wakeup calls is an unusual use of ring back. However, there is and I have used 976-WAKE in Boston once. It works. A recording steps you through the necessaries (phone number to call and time). The recording goes on to say that there is (or will soon be?) a 900 number offering the same service. aps. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 20:19 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Maximum Rates Chargable by California COCOTs Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article dbw@crash.cts.com (David B. Whiteman) writes: > I found these rates from a newspaper article about COCOTs. These are > the maximum rates allowed to be charged by COCOTs in California by the > California Public Utilities Commission -- these rates only apply to > calls within California: And I have found literally two COCOTs from Hell (not Michigan) that live outside my favorite supermarket. In addition to all of the defects described below, it was almost impossible to talk due to the extremely poor audio quality. > Free access to 411, 611, 911, all 800 numbers, local operators, 950 > numbers of long distance companies (except in areas where the local > phone company does not have 950 services) These phones wanted $0.10 for an 800 call, $0.95 for a 950 call, did not allow 611 at all, and the telco operator was inaudible. > For local calls there is a maximum of 20 cents per 15 minutes. How about $0.80 for a local call? > Non local calls paid by coin may not be charged more than ten cents > above the AT&T or local carrier rate. The phones wanted double the going rate. > All intra-LATA calls must use the local carrier. All calls were scooped up by the AOS (ComSystems). > Inter-Lata calls not paid for with coins may not be charged more than > 10 percent more than the approved AT&T rate. Double the rate. > A toll free number must be available to obtain the rates of any call. There were no indications of any kind on the phones indicating ownership or even the serving phone number. In essence, you took what these phones dished out or did without -- without the opportunity to complain. One can only hope that AT&T's CIID card will hasten the demise of these abominations. 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 #252 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29442; 22 Mar 92 5:05 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17947 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 03:10:24 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16212 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 03:10:14 -0600 Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 03:10:14 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203220910.AA16212@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #253 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Mar 92 03:10:15 CST Volume 12 : Issue 253 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Len Rose Released From Prison (TELECOM Moderator) Metro Mobile Uses *28/*29, NY Too (Douglas Scott Reuben) A Positive COCOT Experience (Steve Howard) Emergency Interrupt of Cellular Phones (David Leslie) Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel (David E. Martin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 02:35:38 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Len Rose Released From Prison Mr. Rose has now paid his debt to society. There may or may not be some additional time to serve on federal probation; I've not been informed. In any event, the criminal actions of which he was convicted and sent to prison have been avenged by the government; he is free to begin his life anew with a clean slate. I hope people will leave him alone and not unnecessarily remind him of what is past. His life as a free person will not be easy at first; I am told he intends to come to the Chicago area to seek employment since his family and several friends are in this region. Jobs are scarce here right now, and the baggage he carries with him will not make his job search any easier. For the past three years his situation has been discussed in great detail at one time or another here in TELECOM Digest. At this point as the saga winds down, I simply wish him the best in whatever direction the events of the future may lead him. He'll come back to Chicago in the midst of the worst winter storm we've had in a couple years: technically now in the spring season, we had almost a foot of snow dumped on us Saturday. I suspect though for Len, the city couldn't have looked nicer. PAT ------------------------------ Date: 19-MAR-1992 19:13:41.01 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Metro Mobile Uses *28/*29, NY Too For those of you blessed enough to be served by Metro Mobile, here's another rate increase (err ... "service enhancement" in Metro-babble) for you. As has been reported in the Digest previously, Bell Atlantic, the "B" (landline) carrier serving the Mid-Atlantic states, recently purchased Metro Mobile for something like $300 per customer. (I think that's potential customers, not actual ones.) Metro Mobile was $800,000,000 in the red (Gee! I wonder why??? ;) ), so they took the offer immediately. Normally, most readers would probably yawn at this point and say "so what?", and with Metro, very little anyone does to the company has any appreciable difference in their sloppy performance. (Again, they CAN be technically quite proficient, but otherwise, quite lazy and close- minded.) However, since they are now owned by a "B"/landline system, they are obligated to follow the holdings and stipulations regarding Divestiture, the MFJ, interconnect, and "stuff" like that. This means that they can no longer pass off calls outside of the CT/Springfield area without charging TOLL rates (along with the standard airtime rates) to customers outside this area. Thus, if you are in the Franklin County, MA area (north of Springfield, touching the Vermont/MA line), and you receive a call there, you will pay whatever your airtime charges will be, PLUS a TOLL charge for every minute you talk. To most people with systems which use FMR or Nationlink (Roam America?) this is nothing new, yet Metro customers NEVER had to pay these charges before. Metro Mobile calls this new "feature" Equal Access, and allows you to select what carrier will handle your toll calls, both outgoing and now incoming. I wondered why they would be offering something new without charging for it; well, I guess I spoke too soon! In all fairness, though, this is mandated by the Feds and Green's pals down on the DC judicial circuit or wherever, and I don't think Metro would have done this on it's own. (Although it sounds like one of their "soak the customer" schemes.) Note that this new TOLL/incoming call charging scheme will also hold for RI customers, Pittsfield customers and Southeastern Mass (508) customers. They have a chart available which describes which customers will pay a toll charge in which area they are roaming in. Take a look at it -- they make it too complicated, but it is correct. If you do NOT wish to pay toll charges to receive calls, you can supress call delivery by hitting (guess what?) *29. To turn it on again, hit *28. Some readers (and CA based mobile users) may recognize this as the SAME system which the California B side has been using for a while. The CA B systems are also EMX (Motorola) based (for the most part), and thus Metro seems to have started using the same software/hardware to allow them to do what the CA "B" systems do. You can use *28/*29 in any system where your calls will be delivered to. That is: CT, RI, Southeastern Mass, Franklin County Mass, Pittsfield Mass, and New York Metro. Metro Mobile SAYS that you won't be able to use the roam ports any more to reach Metro Mobile or "automatic roaming" customers (from RI, or NY). However, this can't be unless they re-arrange their ports. Presently, when you dial ANY Metro Mobile roam port from a landline, you will get their Rhode Island port. They started this about eight months ago, after NY went to Ericsson (reasons ommitted). So, let's say you have a Cell One/NY 212 number. You go to RI (which is not connected to NY as of yet), and you want to get calls. If they blocked the CT ports (which is really the RI port) for all 212 NY-based numbers, then there would be no way to get calls while in Rhode Island and Southestern Mass. (Well, there is -- use the Boston port, but that's cheating! :) ). So unless they re-arrange the way their ports work, you should still be able to use the ports to call customers out of their home system, and not have the mobile subscribers incur a toll charge. I'll have to do some more testing on this. What was that "Mystic" 800 number again? Maybe I can dial it from Metro's system and give them some REAL $100-per-shot toll charges to worry about! :) Metro also says that this new *28/*29 system will "allow" thew to interconnect to more systems in the future. (Boston is a good bet). I'd like to see all the EMX systems, including Vermont connected, but they don't seem in much of a rush to do this, compared to McCaw which seems to be racing to set up interconnection schemes. Other Notes: - I posted recently on Cell One/VT's whining about having to use AT&T 0+ services due to the new AT&T card. Well, just went there yesterday, and it is already in place. Looks like they even allow 01+ (international calling card) calls now. - Above I mentioned that you can use *28/*29 in Cell One's NY system to turn on/off call delivery from CT. This more broadly indicates that the new "Protocol Converter" is in place (for the most part), and that CT-based and other Northeast EMX-based customers can use all of their call-forwarding features in NY. I tried out *71 (No Answer Transfer), *72 (Unconditional forward), *74 (busy transfer) and *70 (cancel tranfer, not *73 as eslewhwere). It all works fine, and sends the instructions immediately to my home EMX for proper processing. Hence, my post from a few weeks ago dealing with the oddities of how the PC Converter worked is no longer correct, as the full implementation of the converter has eliminated such oddities. New York and Ericsson has done a great job at getting these services restored in the past few months (although it was a mess over the summer). Maybe if you don't mind having a NY number, you can dump your CT service with Metro and get an account with Cell One/NY. At least there won't be toll charges for call-delivery to nearby systems, and you will get competant people to serve you. (SNET is also not bound by FTC rules, and does not charge toll for call delivery to NY, but that means ypu have to use NYNEX, which is OK if you don't mind lots of dropped calls, busy circuits, and high roam charges! ;) ) I'll post more about the Protocol Converter in NY and its interface with the rest of the Northeast once I get a better handle on how it works. Anyone still awake? :) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: steveh@breck1.breck.com (Steve Howard) Subject: A Positive COCOT Experience Organization: Breckenridge Ski Corp., Breckenridge, CO Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 01:25:14 GMT [ No, there is not a typo in the Subject: line :-) ] I have had a positive experience with a local COCOT company, and I thought that I would share it with the rest of the telecom community. At the Breckenridge Ski Area we have had US West payphones for many, many, years. Early in the ski season I called US West and asked about getting additional payphones installed for our guests. US West is happy to install additional payphones (at my cost) and will charge me monthly for them :-( . They do not want to install phones at their cost due to the seasonal nature of our business (i.e. they want to make money all year long). I also wanted to find a way for our international guests to make calls. (Try to make a *reasonably priced* international call without a card issued by a US or Canadian long distance company). I get calls every few weeks from COCOT companies wishing to install their phones at my locations. After realizing that US West wouldn't help me, I was forced to talk to them :-(. Sure enough, within a few weeks I got a call from a company based in Denver. I agreed to test one of their local phones, and if it passed my tests they would here from me. They failed miserably (typical scum -- what a suprise :-) ). They misrouted 10222, 10333, cut off intercept too soon, etc. A month later I got a call from another payphone company, I told them the same thing. They passed the test almost completely! (They couldn't recognize failed supervision on numbers that didn't have SIT tones :-)). We met to discuss their phones and what they could do. I insisted on several things: 1) Service to our guests is the highest priority -- they must not be overcharged -- rates must not be higher than AT&T or US West -- If one guest gets overcharged and doesn't come back to Breckenridge, it isn't worth installing a single COCOT. 2) The phones must be connected to our PBX. Calls within the PBX must be free. (Our extensions all begin with "7". No local exchanges begin with "7" -- I want any number dialed that begins with "7" to be passed to the PBX). 3) The phones must accept AT&T non-subscriber cards. 4) They must accept VISA/Mastercard and American Express for any type of call. 5) Call cost will appear on LCD display while the call is in progress. 6) They must allow free calls to 950-XXXX, 10XXX numbers, and 800 numbers. 7) They must set up SNOW or some other code to allow guests to get a free snow report. I figured that they would walk out -- especially since they would have to charge AT&T rates :-) . Much to my suprise, they said that most of the items would be no problem! They would charge AT&T rates; connect the phones to the PBX (due to technical limitations -- they would have to set up *1 followed by extension number for free PBX calls); they would handle the AT&T proprietary cards (!!), RBOC, and major credit cards; they couldn't do call cost on the display -- however, *0 would give the guests a rate quote, and they would allow the 950, 800, and 10XXX calls. And they would pay 20%-50% commission! I really didn't believe it. They offered to loan me a "test" phone. We played with the test phone for several weeks. There were a few bugs initially, but everything got worked out. I was still skeptical. (Side note: If you put an AT&T non-subscriber, i.e. proprietary, card into the phone, it dials 10288-0-dialed-number, waits for the "bong" and then outpulses the calling card number read from the magnetic stripe. The guest inserts his/her card, dials the number, then hears "Thank You for using AT&T", without any dialing hassles -- Very Impressive). The next step was to talk with US West. Placing COCOTs on a PBX was really unheard of. US West decided that it was permitted -- provided that all local calls are routed via PAL lines (Public Access Lines, i.e. no flat rate - only measured or messaged. Take your pick!). I thought that this was an expensive, but reasonable compromise. I also talked to several other locations in town that used this COCOT service. They all spoke highly of them. (A COCOT Service? -- unbelievable!). We spent the next several weeks testing the phone and writing the contract. After some minor changes in the contract, everything was worked out. The initial installation went fairly well. They initially installed nine phones, followed by two more later. Initially, there was some misprogramming in the rates. They charged $1.50 for local calls charged to a credit card. US West charges $.85 -- when this was brought to the COCOT company's attention they changed the rates in all phones, corrected all previously placed credit card calls, and sent me a printout of all calls for my verification. (Of course I compared this list to the SMDR from the PBX to be sure that no calls were "forgotten" :-) ). All of the long distance rates that I tested were correct. (Actually, most international rates were *less* than AT&T!!). The phones used are manufactured by Intellicall. I have been very impressed. It would appear that these phones can be very user friendly, if the owner desires to program them this way (Too bad that most owners don't :-( ). If anybody would like the name/number of the COCOT company, feel free to send e-mail, and I'll be happy to send it to you. Side Note #2: The SMDR from my PBX for these phones has been very interesting. A very large number of people manually dial 10288-0-xxx ... A much smaller percentage uses 950-XXXX, 10XYZ ... This leads me to believe that either: 1) AT&T's marketing efforts with re: to dialing 10288 are *very* effective; or 2) A large percentage of the population has been "burnt" by COCOT's in the past and has learned the hard way to use 10XXX dialing :-(. At the end of the ski season I will calculate the percentage of calls dialed using 10XXX, 950, etc. -- if there is any interest, I'll post it. Steve Howard steveh@breck1.breck.com Breckenridge Ski Corporation The opinions above do not necessarily represent those of my employer. [Moderator's Note: Yes, please! An actual breakdown of AT&T, Sprint, MCI and other OCC calls would be quite interesting. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dleslie@phakt.usc.edu (David Leslie) Subject: Emergency Interrupt of Cellular Phones Date: 19 Mar 1992 17:50:42 -0800 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA I just saw a screening of a soon to be released film. I guess I won't say which one, so as not to spoil anything. Anyway, there is a crucial moment in the film where a guy is trying to call his wife (cellular) as she is driving home, but she is talking to her office. After getting a busy signal, he calls the operator, and asks for an emergency interrupt. The operator asks if it is a mobile phone, then says an Emergency Interrupt is impossible. I was just wondering if that was accurate. Also, what about cellular call waiting? David Leslie dleslie@girtab.usc.edu [Moderator's Note: Cellular call waiting is available. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dem@nhmpw2.fnal.gov (David E. Martin) Subject: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel Date: 20 Mar 92 08:41:05 GMT Reply-To: dem@fnal.fnal.gov Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL, USA I discovered a new way that hotels are rippping off business travelers. At the hotel I am currently staying at (Bahia Hotel, San Diego), they charge $4.50 plus tax for every incoming FAX. I found this out after having my secretary send me four FAXes. I will be writing an angry letter to the management, but I don't expect a whole lot of results. Anyone else been bit? David E. Martin National HEPnet Management Phone: +1 708 840-8275 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory FAX: +1 708 840-2783 P.O. Box 500; MS 234; Batavia, IL 60510 USA E-Mail: DEM@FNAL.FNAL.Gov ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #253 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00347; 22 Mar 92 5:36 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24245 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 03:51:10 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24423 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 03:51:01 -0600 Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 03:51:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203220951.AA24423@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #254 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Mar 92 03:51:00 CST Volume 12 : Issue 254 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Local Database Services Control Access to 900 Numbers (FIDO via J. Decker) Virginia Car Theft Hot Line (Virginia Atty General via Nigel Allen) Sprint Management Ethics to Be Reviewed (CWA News via Phillip Dampier) Silly Telco Customer Service Quote of the Week (Steve Forrette) Hosed by MCI (John Higdon) Call USA/USA Direct (Bryan Montgomery) Ignorance is Bliss? (Bryan Montgomery) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 16:21:57 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Local Database Services Control Access to 900 Numbers [The following message is from the Fidonet MDF echomail conference:] Original From: Dan J. Rudiak Subject: Local Database Services Control Access to 900 Numbers Orlando, January 28 | Northern Telecom today announced the introduction of Local Data Base Services (LDBS) on its DMS-10 central office switching system. The services will enable subscribers to better manage outgoing toll calls from their telephones. The services will be demonstrated for the first time at the National Telephone Cooperative Association Annual Meeting and EXPO this week. "The easy-to-use Local Data Base Services offer subscribers protection against unauthorized 900 and other toll calls placed from their telephones, and allows name-based dialing without the need for additional customer premises equipment," said John Beagley, vice president, Marketing Operations, Northern Telecom Inc. "Since subscribers can now control outgoing toll calls with their own authorization code, they will no longer need to go through their telephone company to place restrictions on outgoing calls." Subscribers use the same authorization code to control all three LDBS features. The code allows subscribers to establish a list of 900 numbers to be blocked or allowed access from their telephones, and allows subscribers to turn access to all 900 numbers on or off from their keypad. For one-plus restriction, the authorization code must be dialed before any one-plus toll call will be completed. Third, the authorization code is used to program a speed-call list using a four-letter dialable name or word to dial numbers up to 14 digits. "Local Data Base Services are ideal for businesses and households that want to control their outgoing toll calls," Beagley said. At the NTCA EXPO, Northern Telecom will demonstrate LDBS features on telephones connected to a DMS-10 switching system, all housed in the company's show trailer. Inside the trailer, visitors can test the 900 and one-plus blocking features on the telephones and program the telephones for speed calling by entering a name on the keypad. To add LDBS features, a telephone company installs an LDBS-2000 system in its DMS-10 system equipped with Custom Channel Signaling No. 7 (CCS7) hardware and software. The Signaling Relay Point (SRP) and Service Switching Point/Enhanced 800 Services (SSP/E800) software packages are also required to support LDBS. A PC XT-compatible computer with a ten-megabyte hard drive is needed to support software updates and subscriber data backup. LDBS software is available via patch in DMS-10 generic 404.40 now and in 405.10 in June, 1992. LDBS software will be integrated into the DMS-10 405.20 generic software release in November, 1992. An additional feature, one-plus bulk restriction which allows the subscriber to turn all one-plus dialing on or off from his or her telephone, will be added with the 405.20 generic. Local Data Base Services are undergoing trials at Mid-Missouri Telephone in Pilot Grove, Mo., and Mollala Telephone Cooperative in Molalla, Ore. Blue Wave/RA v2.05 [NR] * Origin: The Computer Connection BBS, HST/DS, 1-403-246-4669/74(1:134/68.0) ------- Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 19:00:00 -0500 Subject: Virginia Car Theft Hot Line Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Here is a press release I saw from the Virgina Attorney General's Department and the Virgina State Police. Attorney General Terry, State Police Announce Car Theft Hotline To: City and State desks Contact: Deborah Love-Bryant of the Office of the Attorney General, 804-786-2435, or R.H. Perry III of the Virginia State Police, 804-323-2333 RICHMOND, Va., March 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Attorney General Mary Sue Terry and Col. W.F. Corvello, superintendent of the Virginia State Police, announced today that a statewide, toll-free "hotline" is now operational for citizens to provide law enforcement with tips on car thieves and "chop-shops" (garages that illegally take apart stolen vehicles and distribute the parts). Persons who have information may call 1-800-947-HEAT. Staff at the Virginia Criminal Intelligence Center (VCIC) in Richmond will answer calls 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Rewards of up to $10,000 will be made for information leading to the conviction of auto thieves and chop-shop operators. The Virginia General Assembly established HEAT, the motor vehicle "tip" reward program in its 1991 session through passage of Senate Bill 870, which was introduced by Sen. Richard L. Saslaw of Springfield at the request of Attorney General Terry. The first funds for the program became available on March 1, 1992. "State crime statistics reveal that auto theft is steadily increasing in Virginia," Terry said. "That affects not only state and local law enforcement efforts, but also every driver in Virginia who pays for comprehensive auto insurance coverage. The HEAT program," she added, "provides an opportunity for citizens, law enforcement and the insurance industry to work together to halt the growth of this expensive crime." The program behind the hotline operates in much the same manner as other tip and reward programs. Staff at the VCIC will evaluate each tip called in to the hotline and pass information on to the appropriate local law enforcement agency for action. The Auto Theft Unit, operated jointly by the State Police and the Department of Motor Vehicles, will be available to help local agencies with cases that involve multi-jurisdictional operations or conspiracies. In turn, police departments and sheriffs' offices, acting on tips from the hotline, will report back to VCIC on the outcome of investigations and prosecutions so that rewards may be made. A rewards committee will evaluate all tips leading to convictions and recommend reward amounts. The committee includes representatives of the statewide Crime-Stoppers Association, the insurance industry and at large members appointed by Corvello. Rewards, as well as HEAT's overall operation, are funded by automobile insurers who write comprehensive insurance coverage in Virginia. Their annual assessments equal one-quarter of one percent (.25 percent) of total comprehensive premiums written in Virginia, or less than 25 cents for each car insured. "Virginia's HEAT program is based on Michigan's highly successful auto theft tip hotline," Corvello said. "The FBI Uniform Crime Report listed Michigan third in the nation in motor vehicle thefts before Michigan's HEAT program went into effect. Since implementing the HEAT program, Michigan has dropped completely out of the top ten," he said. Although Virginia has not been ranked among the top ten, auto theft has been on the rise, according to Assistant Special Agent in Charge R.H. Perry III, HEAT program administrator. "It is a growing problem nationally, except in states like Michigan that have an aggressive program," Perry stated. "I am enormously pleased that the General Assembly saw fit to create the HEAT program," said Attorney General Terry. "It is now up to citizens to join with our law enforcement officials to ensure that the program is successful in reducing auto theft and, indirectly, the cost of auto insurance in the commonwealth." A statewide public awareness program will begin later this spring to inform Virginians how they can "put the HEAT" on auto thieves. Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 00:42:34 Subject: Sprint Management Ethics to Be Reviewed SPRINT MANAGEMENT ETHICS TO BE REVIEWED; CWA MEMBER COMPELS BOARD TO FORM SPECIAL COMMITTEE March 19 (CWA) -- Sprint Corporation has adopted a shareholder proposal to review its management ethics submitted by a member of the Communications Workers of America. Sprint Corporation, formerly United Telecommunications, Inc., formed a Special Committee of its Board of Directors to review the Corporation's ethical policies and guidelines and to report back to stockholders. The company's action was taken after CWA member Gerald Day and his wife Janet Day filed a shareholder proposal for inclusion in Sprint Corporation's 1992 proxy statement. In their Statement of Support for the resolution, the Days stated that despite the efforts of the company to build a reputation of honesty and integrity, "there were two pending lawsuits which allege that management personnel have engaged in ethical misconduct." One of the lawsuits alleged that the Chairman of the Board and two high level officers of the company had violated antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act. The other lawsuit alleged in part that Sprint management personnel had "illicitly obtained ... proprietary cost and/or pricing information" from its competitors in connection with its bid for government contracts and that Sprint had presented "false and fraudulent claims for payment under its contracts ..." The Days expressed satisfaction that they were successful in compelling Sprint Corporation to take this action. "It's unusual for a company to accede so readily to a shareholder proposal," they said. "It would appear the company's action was taken because of the likelihood of substantial shareholder support for this resolution." "These allegations may prove to be unfounded," the Days added, "but whether or not they are found to have merit, we believe that it is prudent for the Board to establish this Committee to review the adequacy of the Company's ethical guidelines and policies, not merely with reference to the pending allegations, but to minimize the possibility that the Company efforts to build a reputation for honesty and integrity will be undermined by allegations of ethical misconduct by management in the future." "We and all shareholders are looking forward to the report by the Special Committee," the Days said. CWA represents 4,000 workers at Sprint Corporation. ### Communications Workers of America Contact: Jeff Miller Gaye Williams Mack +1 202 434 1172 ---------------- phil@rochgte.fidonet.org Phillip M. Dampier ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 23:55:09 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Silly Telco Customer Service Quote of the Week I called AT&T to order one of those new calling cards that you can restrict to only allow calling to a finite list of up to ten numbers. (BTW, I found out that if your account is billed directly, and not through your local phone bill, that you can have only one allowed number per restricted card, but that it can be any number. Now I can finally have a one-number card for my cellular phone number.) In any event, I complained that I had not been asked for my password, and that I had requested one to be put on my account the previous two times I had called. The rep paused, then told me that they "usually" don't put passwords on accounts. So, I asked in what cases they did, and was told "none." When I asked why this was, here's the response I got: (pause) "Sir, what if you went into a coma, and one of your relatives had to call to make some change to your account? We wouldn't want to prevent them from doing so just because they didn't know a certain word on the account." A coma? Give me a break Mother! I will give them credit in that when I called back and asked for a supervisor, that he thought this was as amusing as I did and promised to add the password to my account. Also, he made it a point to give me his full name and encourage me to call him back personally if I had any further problems. The "coma" rep also reminded me of the need to always push for more security from merchants for your accounts. After I read her my card number and name (both of which are embossed on the card and would be readily available to anyone who found it), she proceeded to recite my home address, and asked if it was still current. :-( Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Subject: Hosed by MCI Date: 13 Mar 92 15:40:42 PST (Fri) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) In an earlier message, I pointed out that we have been beating on MCI to make a circuit due a week ago work as ordered. We were told that it might require a backhaul to actually make it work. It turns out that it will take five more days to set up the backhaul. And this is considered an "emergency" (normally it would take weeks). Observations: 1. MCI is a "sales company" as opposed to an engineering or technically driven operation. It has a lot of people in suits who know a lot of buzzwords, but I have yet to speak to anyone that seems to really understand the technical level operation required to solve our problems. 2. It is doubtful that a similar circuit ordered from AT&T would have any of the problems that we have encountered. But if it did, "emergency" to AT&T means more like "within the hour". If AT&T had to route a backhaul, experience has shown that it can do it in hours, not days. But then AT&T is (apparently) an engineering-driven company. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 12:43:52 GMT From: eb4/91/92 Subject: Call USA / USA Direct I've been meaning to send some details of the MCI Call USA scheme, and the AT&T USA Direct scheme. As mentioned in earlier postings, I have cards for both. I must also state how impressed I am with them both. Very! I predominantly use CI as it is cheaper but the AT&T card does look quite pretty and has the advantage of automated service from the U.K. As mentioned before, Friends and Family is suported by the MCI card and can offer a quite substantial 20% discount. Actually, there was a Friends and family insert in this months bill. The basic rates are as follows: MCI AT&T Card surcharge $2.00 $2.50 \ First minute $1.20 $1.43 > Any and every time of day/year. Additional minutes 94c 93c / Hence longer calls work out cheaper. Incidentally, the MCI rate is the same rate time-wise as phoning from the US to the UK at the prime time but an extra 25c card surcharge. As for the cards there is no fee, minimum useage or any other extras -- in fact I recently had $15 credit as a new customer (an unexpected surprise). If no calls are made there are no bills sent out. When there are bills, it is directly debited from a Mastercard/Visa and the bills sent to the (overseas) billing address. Incidentally, the only gripe I have is that the bills seem remarkably complicated to initially understand! Perhaps it's just this thick Brit! I think BT is probably one of the better foreign telephone services, but this service is still a considerable improvement. If any `alien' (to the US) is tempted to acquire such a card all that is required is to phone the local MCI/AT&T access number and they will be more than happy to assist you. If anyone still has anything else they'd like me to answer please feel free to e-mail me. Bryan Montgomery montgomery_br%uk.ac.port.ee@uknet.ac.uk or bmontgomery@ev.port.ac.uk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 12:44:40 GMT From: eb4/91/92 Subject: Ignorance is Bliss? Excuse my ignorance ... but I have a couple of questions to ask -- that I think I should know but escape me at the moment; all I can think of at the moment are these wretched exams I've just finished! Oh yes, the questions :- 1) I want to add a monitor to my modem -- preferably very small physical size. What do I need? Am I right in thinking along the lines of impedance matching between the line and speaker? 2) I want to connect a device to the phone line that will play a message on answering the phone. I currently have a circuit that digitises, stores and replays a recorder message. This currently plays back through a normal 8 ohm speaker. Presumably this is virtually the reverse of the above problem. Thanks for any help that anyone can offer me. A thick Brit, Bryan Montgomery. montgomery_br%uk.ac.port.ee@uknet.ac.uk or bmontgomery@ev.port.ac.uk [Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I used to think there was a definite connection between Ignorance and Bliss ... but then I began reading messages on Usenet, and discovered how unhappy some of the writers were ... :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #254 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02583; 22 Mar 92 7:01 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01241 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 05:07:56 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01017 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 05:07:39 -0600 Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 05:07:39 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203221107.AA01017@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #255 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Mar 92 05:07:36 CST Volume 12 : Issue 255 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Innovate Switching, Transmission Solutions (FIDO via Jack Decker) Telecommuting References Wanted (Jeff Cantwell) Question About 800 Number ANI (John Perkins) Table of ISDN Rates Wanted (Ken Mandelberg) MCI Friends and Family 40% During May: Not What it Seems? (Bill Rubin) New AT&T Calling Card Mailing (John Temples) Telecommunication Flow Charting Program Wanted (SDL) (Reynold Schirmer) Switching Techniques and Old Phones (Robert Warren) International Audioconferencing Help Needed (Bill MacGregor) Inward-LD FX Line? (kiser@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil) ATT Solicitation (Michael Peirce) No More Short Rings (Mike Bray) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 16:20:48 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Innovate Switching, Transmission Solutions [The following message appeared in the Fidonet MDF echomail conference. For those of you who have wondered where they hide those new telephone central offices, this might give you a clue ... look down!] Original From: Dan J. Rudiak Subject: Innovate Switching, Transmission Solutions New York, Jan. 9 -- Northern Telecom is now offering telephone companies greater flexibility in locating remote transmission and switching systems in large metropolitan areas. The company today installed the first remote transmission system in a Controlled Environment ManHole (CEMH) under a sidewalk in Brooklyn, New York. In congested urban environments, telephone companies are increasingly encountering difficulties in locating, purchasing or leasing sites for remote telephone equipment. Northern Telecom, a leading telecommun- ications research and manufacturing firm, has responded by taking the proven technology and efficiency of the Controlled Environment Vault (CEV) a step further and developing the Controlled Environment ManHole (CEMH). "The Controlled Environment ManHole is the best alternative available to deploying remote telephone equipment in a public right-of-way," said George Caines, director, product interface, Northern Telecom Inc. "The CEMH allows the installation of equipment in locations not previously possible, reduces telephone company operating and maintenance costs and is environmentally and aesthetically sound." Installing a remote transmission or switching system in a CEMH is practical in areas where the entrance hatch needs to be flush with the surrounding surface, watertight, and vandalproof. The CEMH can be located in an easement or right-of-way such as a sidewalk, parking lot, park or limited roadway location that cannot be obstructed by an above-ground structure. The CEMH facilitates placement in the traditional "roadway" franchise, thereby simplifying right-of-way negotiations and permit acquisition. Environmental control of the CEMH is managed with a self-contained, earth-coupled geothermal heat pump. Additionally, the CEMH technology addresses the growing concern regarding noise pollution, as it is virtually noiseless. The CEMH is available in a variety of sizes and configurations. The vaults range from six feet by nine feet to ten feet by 26 feet. Electronics can be remote Northern Telecom switching bays or DMS-1 Urbans in line sizes from 1,500 to 10,000. In addition, there is provision for power, fiber or copper termination and multiplexers, digital cross connect panels and repeater shelves. Since the CEMH has modular construction, it permits prepackaging and factory installation of electronics. Because the CEMH is placed on-site as a pretested unit, placement time is minimized, and cable splicing and connection are simplified. Blue Wave/RA v2.05 [NR] * Origin: The Computer Connection BBS, HST/DS, 1-403-246-4669/74(1:134/68.0) ------ Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: cantwell@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Jeff Cantwell) Subject: Telecommuting References Wanted Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 17:29:44 GMT Can anyone recommend good books, articles, or references on tele- commuting? Recent works would be most desirable. Also, are there any newsgroups which deal with this subject? Has anyone been able to successfully telecommute? Thanks in advance for your help! Jeff Cantwell, Vanderbilt U. CIS Box 1804, Sta. B Nashville, TN 37235 Internet: cantwell@vuse.vanderbilt.edu Bitnet: CANTWEJR@VUCTRVAX Phone: (615) 322-0110 Fax: (615) 343-6449 ------------------------------ From: john@laser.rosemount.com (John Perkins) Subject: Question About 800 Number ANI Organization: Rosemount, Inc. Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 18:01:29 GMT From a COCOT that neglected to display its own number, I called the wonderful Mystic Marketing Company 800 number. Their automated system obligingly gave me the number I was calling from. Now, out of curiosity, I called CALL-ATT from the same COCOT, and asked the operator if he could give me the number I was calling from (since it wasn't displayed on the phone). He said that he did not have that information. Was he mistaken? How could the number be available to Mystic Marketing, but not CALL-ATT? If the ATT operator did in fact know the number, why would he refuse to give it to me? John Perkins [Moderator's Note: Instead of getting into a discussion/argument with you about why operators are not supposed to tell you the number you are calling from if you don't already know it, many operators simply find it easier to lie about it, and say they don't have it. It is considered a potential security problem to give out the number; you may be someone snooping around a bunch of unlabeled wire pairs looking for lines you can phreak on, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: km@mathcs.emory.edu (Ken Mandelberg) Subject: Table of ISDN Rates Wanted Date: 20 Mar 92 18:27:01 GMT Reply-To: km@mathcs.emory.edu Organization: Emory University, Dept of Math and CS I've seen info from time to time on what a few locations offering ISDN service are charging. However, I've never seen a table summarizing all the published ones. Does anyone have such a table? Ken Mandelberg | km@mathcs.emory.edu PREFERRED Emory University | {rutgers,gatech}!emory!km UUCP Dept of Math and CS | km@emory.bitnet NON-DOMAIN BITNET Atlanta, GA 30322 | Phone: Voice (404) 727-7963, FAX 727-5611 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 18:02:26 EST From: "Bill Rubin" Subject: MCI Friends and Family 40% During May: Not What it Seems? I am a F&F family customer (very limited usage, but every bit helps), and was quite interested in MCI's upcoming promotion where they will give 40% off all F&F calls made during May, as opposed to the usual 20% discount. I was even considering adding my relatives in NYC who we call quite frequently to try to save some money (we live in northern Westchester, an intra-LATA call, but relatively expensive). Anyway, I have been seeing MCI's commercials about this new promotion, and at the end in VERY small print is something about "credit to be used on calls from 8/1/92-???". So, I called up, and was told that this was true, your bill will not reflect the actual 40% discount, but you will instead receive some sort of coupons/certificates good toward the following month's bill! I have a large brochure that was sent out to F&F customers, and I don't see anything in there about it not being on the May bill. Besides, I get my MCI bill as part of my NY Tel bill -- am I supposed to mail these in to NY Tel for crediting to my account? Give me a break! Anyway, undeterred, I called the main MCI number to ask what the rate would be to the numbers I wanted to do F&F on. The bottom line is that the only time when MCI is cheaper than NY Telephone is on the first minute day rate, even with F&F figured in. Here is the breakdown: MCI NY Tel MCI F&F Day 27.5/17.0 25.4/10.0 22/13.6 (all rates are first/addl. minutes) Eve 22.5/14.4 15.24/6.0 18/11.52 Nt/Wk 17.5/10.8 8.89/3.5 14/8.64 The problem is basically that NY Tel gives 40% off after 9 PM, while MCI only gives 15-20% off for their discount. And the MCI night/ weekend discount is 35%, while NY Tel gives 65% off! So, I will not be adding these folks to MCI F&F. The only time I could conceivably save money is between 5-9 PM, because MCI evening starts at 5, while NY Tel starts at 9. But even then, I'd have to keep the call awfully short, because the evening extra minute charges on MCI are higher than NY Tel's normal rates -- even with F&F! By the way, is there any LD company which can beat the NY Tel prices? I would be interested ... Bill rubin@watson.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: jwt!john@uunet.UU.NET (John Temples) Subject: New AT&T Calling Card Mailing Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 01:54:43 GMT I recently received a mailing from AT&T offering me their new Calling Card. I just noticed that the ten-digit number above my mailing address appears to be my area code and phone number rearranged into a "random" order. Has anyone else noticed this? If they're going to take the time to try to protect our privacy, I would think they could use a slightly more sophisticated encoding scheme! John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john) ------------------------------ From: rschirme@digi.lonestar.org (Reynold Schirmer) Subject: Telecommunication Flow Charting Program Wanted (SDL) Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 14:52:45 GMT Is there a software program used for flow charting which uses the standard telecommunication's symbols (SDLs)? I've presently get a flow charting program called AllClear which draws the flow charts based upon a pseudo-code file the user developes. The drawback to this package is the symbols used are not the telecommunication symbols. I would like to find a package similar to this which uses the proper symbols. Preferrably somthing that works on a PC or an Apollo work station. Joe Schirmer rschirme@digi.lonestar.org DSC Communications Plano, Texas ------------------------------ From: warren@CAM.ORG (Robert Warren) Subject: Switching Techniques and Old Phones Organization: Altitude, St-Lambert QC CANADA Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 03:20:55 GMT I'm looking for information on the different switching methods used by phone companies through the years, along with their usage and general inner workings. Has anybody got a thesis laying around? Also, does anyone know where I can get an old payphone, preferably in a place within eastern Canada. RW - warren@cam.org ------------------------------ From: macg@SLCS.SLB.COM (Bill Macgregor) Subject: International Audioconferencing Help Needed Date: 20 Mar 1992 16:15:58 -0600 Organization: Schlumberger Laboratory for Computer Science My lab in Austin, Texas is attempting to run frequent audioconferences with a sister lab in Paris, France. Our five or six attempts so far have been rather frustrating. Using a POTS audio link between speaker phones, we experienced frequent line drops (10-12 in a one hour meeting), poor audio quality, and the squelch-like symptom of volume thresholding somewhere along the path. We've also tried digital hybrids at both ends, with only marginally improved results. There must be other people who need reliable, high-quality audio links from Europe to the US on a regular basis. Have you had any positive experiences you could share? We currently have a 56 Kb digital link between the labs (Accunet Switched 56 in the US, embedded in a 64K channel on the way to France, delivered via Numeris ISDN at 64K, and converted back to 56 K in a Matra Audio/S adapter). Could we use this link to transmit a high-quality digitized voice channel? I'll assemble and post interesting responses back to the group. Thanks in advance for any help you can give, Bill MacGregor ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 00:38:54 EST From: kiser@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil Subject: Inward-LD FX Line? Is that subject line as confusing as the phone call I got the other day? My Caller*ID box bbbrrrrings, dutifully displaying a *local* number. I answered the phone and it's a collection agency wanting payment on a bill I'd already paid long ago (hmmm ... AT&T bill -- whatta coincidence ;^) "Weird," I thought; she said she was in Louisiana. I called the number back exactly as it was displayed on the box and "DOO DAH DEE ... The number you have called is not in service." The displayed number was in a local exchange -- it just wasn't in service. Is that some sort of inward FX line arrangement? The town where this happened ain't that big -- they can't POSSIBLY have that many customers here to warrant an FX line all the way from LA (the state -- not the city). Hmmmmph. Ideas? [Moderator's Note: FX lines usually work in both directions, and I doubt you were called from one. What probably happened was that sometimes long distance carriers handle a call from one place to another and drop off the call at their POP (point of presence) in your community, then patch through a local outgoing call (from your local telco's perspective) to you from that point. The carrier used by the agency probably was doing that instead of terminating in the toll switch for your community and having the call passed along that way. Thus your ID box saw it as a local call rather than 'outside'. MCI used to do that years ago. In the late seventies on MCI's Execunet Service, it was possible to (once on their switch) dial 2129111111 (you had to add four final digits as filler to get the switch moving on the call) and actually connect with the NYC 911 center. Why? Because they were dropping the calls off at their office in New York and dialing them locally from there. Or the best of all was to dial 2120000000 (the switch always demanded ten digits but the local telco would subsequently ignore any it did not want!) and you would reach the local operator in Manhattan; so far as she was concerned when asked, you were calling from some local number in NYC at the offices of MCI. PAT] ------------------------------ From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce) Subject: ATT Solicitation ate: Fri, 20 Mar 92 21:32:27 PST Organization: Peirce Software Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce) I just had a mildly interesting conversation with an ATT person who wanted me to switch my long distance carrier. She gave me the standard pitch. I replied that since had two phone lines and the other line already has ATT as the default carrier, I didn't think I wanted to switch this line too. She replied, "Sounds like a good idea. Of course if you do ever want to switch this line just let us know and we'll be happy to take care of it for you". Of course, I didn't tell her that my other line is a modem line that only makes local calls :-) Michael Peirce -- peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org Peirce Software -- Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place Macintosh Programming -- San Jose, California USA 95117 & Consulting -- voice: (408) 244-6554 fax: (408) 244-6882 -- AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 02:58:34 EST From: mike@camphq.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Bray) Subject: No More Short Rings It's been quite some time since I've heard any partial rings on my telephone when someone calls me. As far as I know, each time my phone rings, it always starts out with a full four-second ring. And I also can't remember the last time I picked up the phone and someone was calling me (or me calling them) without my (or their) phone even ringing. Has there been some sort of changes made by telco regarding partial rings and such? Mike Bray on Campaign Headquarters, Fidonet 1:2606/533 mike@camphq.FIDONET.ORG or ...!apple!camphq!mike ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #255 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03959; 22 Mar 92 7:55 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08839 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 06:09:09 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09458 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 06:08:53 -0600 Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 06:08:53 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203221208.AA09458@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #256 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Mar 92 06:08:52 CST Volume 12 : Issue 256 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cell One/Vermont and New AT&T Card (Andy Sherman) Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (John Stanley) Re: Cellular Phone Use in S.E. Asia (Jill C. Arnson) Re: Voice Drop-Outs on International Link (dreamer@lhaven.uumh.ab.ca) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Rob Warnock) Damn the Constitution, We Want Law and Order! (Tommy O'Lin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: Cell One/Vermont and New AT&T Card Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 15:02:05 EST On 18 Mar 92 16:32:25 GMT, K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand) said: > It's actually past due -- every other phone carrier had to do it, why > not AT&T? AT&T was getting a lot of business from RBOC or LEC phone > cards that predated divestiture (and probably post-divestiture too, > now that I think of it) that the other carriers couldn't participate > in. I couldn't make a PIC on my phone card as I could on my phone > line. Why should AT&T automatically get my business? You've got some of this confused. Nobody got business because of the card numbers. You get card business by getting a phone PIC'd to you for Dial-0 service or by getting loyal customers to dial 10xxx0 to get on your network. Yes, AT&T and the RBOC's shared a database of card numbers. No, the OCCs didn't issue cards with those numbers on them. BUT, any legitimate OCC and any gonif with an AOS could bill you (via the LEC) using that card number. The LEC would provides card verification and billing services quite promiscuously, as is appropriate if they own the number. I don't see how this translates into your assertion that AT&T got a whole lot of business because of the shared card number database. From the stories in the Digest, it looks like we *lost* a whole lot of business because people saw a number on a card with our logo on it and assumed that nobody else could bill to it. I know you've been reading the Digest long enough to have read *ALL* those COCOT horror stories. Did you forget? > If I were the company subscribing to fraud-resistant services and that > company let you extend a dialed call to another number, I'd drop the > service. Yes, it's inconvenient for you, but fraud mounts up fast if > you have determined phreakers breaking in. I would bet AT&T will have > the same rules. Yeah, but you can always get an AT&T operator to dial for you by dialing 102880 after it times out. Lots of stuff about the calling line comes up on the operator console, so you *CAN NOT* charge calls to a toll restricted BTN this way. > There are probably kickbacks, and in volume Sprint's prices are pretty > competitive, but they also may like Sprint because their "hospitality" > network (set up for hotels and universities, and probably for cellular > companies, too) is very well-thought out and, IMHO very professional. I will not flame on about what I think of "hospitality" aggregators lining their pockets by forcing their customers to have no choice of carrier. A cellular company is not a "hospitality" organization. A cellular company is a carrier. Their obligations to their customers are (or ought to be) different from your obligations to yours. The other week we heard about a cell company with a dial-in roamer port that did not return answer supervision when it gave you the second dial tone. It's not legal for "hospitality" PBX's to do that kind of thing. So, if the cell companies want to be carriers, they should act like it and give equal access. > Every call that comes in is identified with our University's name, and > Sprint will tell our students how to dial on-campus calls, how to > reach the police or an ambulance, and provide other customer services > specific to our location, such as blocking all third party calls from > our exchange to our exchange. When asked, these features weren't > available from anyone else. You must not have asked in a long time. At least some of them are available from other carriers. > And if they have to do the same for the carrier of choice for every > customer, how long do you think it will be before your rates reflect > the cost? Would you care to make that same argument for RBOC's not giving you equal access on your home phone? > I question your comment "... which the majority of their customers > wish to use ..." As from my experience, the vast majority of people > carry RBOC cards and would prefer to continue using them. Yeah, if > questioned, most people have *heard* of AT&T, but I'll bet when they > make a call, what they really care about is that the call goes through > at a competitive price, and beyond that who cares who carries it? I don't think either you or the original poster has done the market research to back up any of this. 65-70% of residential phone subscribers are PIC'd to AT&T, with about 20% MCI PICs, and most of the balance to Sprint. People know who their long distance company is. They get upset when they get slammed. They get upset when they get bills from other companies for card calls, and are very confused about how it could happen. Now I'll grant your that they care more if they get a bill for Fred's Storm Door and AOS Company for ten times the prevailing rate, but people still like to know with whom they do business. Some, as you say, only care that the call goes through at a reasonable price. Others are quite brand loyal, for seemingly emotional rather than logical reasons. Others have made a business decision to use a particular carrier, getting a particular deal on card calls. They have a right to choose. Take me, for example. I have ROA with the card option. My *CALLING CARD* calls during night weekend hours are $0.11 per minute. Why does a cell company or a "hospitality" aggregator have the right to deprive me of that rate by forcing me to do business with another company at a higher price? Pfui. > AAMOF, I'd like to see the RBOCs given permission to carry calls ^^^^^ [ Didn't you mean IMHO? :^) ] > in their entire area (for instance, give NYNEX permission to > carry calls between New York, Mass, NH, Maine, etc.) That would be just wonderful. How long do you think that anybody would be able to afford to compete with them, what with the rest of us having to pay access charges to them to complete inter-LATA calls. There are too many potential abuses of the access system if the monopoly player charging for access is also a competitor. >> AT&T should be commended for its decision! > I don't believe the decision was AT&T's, but part of the divestiture > requirements that continue to seep down as technology improves to > separate AT&T from the RBOCs. You're almost right. 1/1/92 was another milestone in the Modified Final Judgement (MFJ), otherwise known as telecommunications according to Harold the Just. 1/1/92 was when the last of what were called "shared networking arrangements" had to disappear. The shared calling card database was one such arrangement. That MFJ requirement was in no way, however, connected with any "seep-down" due to improved technology. The date was the date was the date, and everybody had better have found a way to do it. Now, I suppose AT&T *could* have abandoned having its own cards and *only* contracted with the LECs for verification services on LEC cards. That would have been a bad strategic move. Much better for us to have an AOS-proof card like the OCCs. Good for customers, good for us, probably good for OCCs (who are in the same fix as we are), but bad for people who want to dictate our customers' business relation- ships for them. 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! These opinions are *MINE*, you hear me, *MINE*, all mine. ------------------------------ 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, 22 Mar 1992 08:41:35 GMT In article rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes: (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." > OK, OK, I admit it, I 'typo'd' the FAR Number, but you found it > anyway. Since paragraph (b) was lost in the string of >quotes, I add Paragraph (b) was deleted because it wasn't important to the discussion. It wasn't important because, it, too, did not say that the PIC could not be the person who makes the decision. > No, paragraph (b) doesn't specify WHO in the operators organization is > responsible for the determination. But paragraph (c) makes it pretty > clear that it's NOT the pilot in command. I wish you would point out the section that prohibits the PIC from acting as a representative of the operator in this matter. In every other action he makes, he is. Para. c does NOT say "the determination may not be made by the PIC", it says it "shall be made by the operator". There is a difference. The 'operator' is a legal entity, not a person. There HAS to be SOME PERSON who makes the decision. So far, there has been nothing that shows that the PIC can't be that person. Not under the FAR's. Maybe there is in some ancillary rulings, but none have been presented so far. ------------------------------ From: jca@drutx.att.com Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 16:53 MST Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in S.E. Asia nigel@isgtec.com (Nigel Burnett): > I'll be travelling to Japan next week and to Hong Kong, Beijing, > Seoul, Taipei, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, and Bangkok. Will my nifty > North American portable 832 channel phone work in any of these > countries? I doubt it. Our cellular switches that we design for the Far East have different signalling protocols that differ from those here in N.A. or even those in Europe. They use R2MFC signalling. jill c. arnson AT&T Bell Labs, Denver; (303)538-4800 jca@druwa.att.com or att!(druco/drutx)!druwa!jca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 09:43:07 MST Reply-To: dreamer@lhaven.uumh.ab.ca From: dreamer@lhaven.UUmh.Ab.Ca (The Dreamer) Subject: Re: Voice Drop-Outs on International Link In article is written: > I have observed an annoying problem when talking to my sister in South > Africa from Australia (where I am!). It sounds as if there is some > sort of voice-operated relay in the line -- it drops out when you stop > talking, and there is a noticeable delay before the voice circuit > re-opens, which chops off the first syllable of the next word. Most > disconcerting for monosyllabic (sp?) words! I've noticed this problem also when I call my parents in Saudi Arabia from Canada. Though the behaviour seems to vary a lot. At the beginning of the call its real bad ... makes it hard to decide who answered. But, at least there's no doubt that you've just received an international call. Last night things got real interesting when I experienced what would be the local equivalent of cross talk, except the strange voice drop-outs and echos were present in the other conversation also ... > What is likely to cause this sort of behaviour, echo cancellers? I > can't say if it's a cable or satellite link across the ocean, but my > gut feeling says its cable (no delays between question and answer)? If it is echo cancelling, it is not doing a very good job ... because I hear my own voice echoing back several seconds later mixed in with my parent's voice. Can be very disconcerting. > More to the point, is there anything I can do to stop it? If it's an > echo canceller, would sending something like a modem's guard tone > work? Does a guard tone have to be sent continuously, or does it > permanently disable the echo cancellers with a single burst? I'm not sure if a continuous tone works. I send FAXes to my parents on a regular basis. I find that ECM is a requirement, otherwise the FAX will fail and it transmission takes five to ten times longer per page compared to a local transmission. Lunatic Haven BBS +1 403 526 6957 ___ FAX +1 403 526 6019 Email: dreamer@lhaven.uumh.ab.ca || telepro!lhaven!dreamer@access.usask.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 09:44:44 GMT From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Reply-To: rpw3@sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA lydic@ka8lvz.uucp (lydic) writes: > It has been rumored (unsubstantiated) that UUNET sends a tape of all > Usenet transactions to the FBI every month. Then our moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Try to think this out: A tape of ALL Usenet 'trans- > actions' every month? How many giga-gazillion bytes would that be, Uh ... not very many at all, noble Moderator -- you let your outrage interfere with your arithmetic. At 20 MB/day, that's only 600 MB/month, about one third of a tiny 8mm tape [Exabyte or the like]. The net traffic would have to exceed 60MB/day to fill up a single 8mm tape per month. To update the old saw [and add a *little* technical content to this rebuttal], the highest bit-rate commercial long-haul data transmission medium is a Federal Express plane full of 8mm tapes. [Used to be: "A station wagon full of magtapes."] Of course, the *latency* is still 24 hours ... Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415) 335-1673 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 [Moderator's Note: Are you *sure* that's all it is every day? I thought it was much more than that in recent months. And are you including all the mailing lists which pass through UUNET going to their subscribers? Even with your figures, that's still a lot of reading for someone to do ... or according to the rumor, are there several people engaged in the task of keeping tabs on the net? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 09:29:22 EST From: adiron!tro@uunet.UU.NET (Tommy O'Lin) Subject: Damn the Constitution, We Want Law and Order! In article , the Moderator (Pat Townson) notes: > [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." The Bill of Rights gives us the right to assemble, but assemblies can get noisy. We don't need that one. The Bill of Rights prevents the government from forcing us to testify against ourselves. But only a criminal would need to exercise such a right. We don't need that one. The Bill of Rights protects us from illegal search and seizure. But only criminals and potential criminals would want to hide anything from the public. We definitely don't need that one. And so on. Are there any parts of the Bill of Rights that we *really* need? And from Townson again, > "We've already amended it a couple dozen times; I can suggest a few > more good amendments." PAT] Instead of adding more amendments, maybe we can just repeal the first ten or so. That would solve most of our problems, wouldn't it? In article the Moderator (Pat Townson) writes: > If I have to live with anything, I'd rather live with a reasonable > margin of law enforcement error; I don't see other viable choices > given our present constitution. The only way we are ever going to get *all* the criminals off the street is to lock up anybody even *suspected* of wrongdoing. So what if a bunch of innocent people get locked up with them? Better than locking everybody up, capital punishment for most crimes would ensure that they don't escape or get paroled to prey on society again. Sure, some innocent people will be incarcerated or executed, but that's a small price to pay for "peace and quiet and a community of law-abiding citizens." Tom Olin tro@partech.com uunet!adiron!tro (315) 738-0600 Ext 638 PAR Technology Corporation * 220 Seneca Turnpike * New Hartford NY 13413-1191 [Moderator's Note: Whatever you say. The proceeding was a public service announcement from Usenet, and this newsgroup. And remember, you can always have it your way with McDigest. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #256 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09452; 22 Mar 92 11:16 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29745 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 09:09:24 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25952 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 09:09:08 -0600 Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 09:09:08 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203221509.AA25952@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #257 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Mar 92 09:08:54 CST Volume 12 : Issue 257 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Does Anyone Have Follow-me in NY? (David E. Sheafer) Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (John Higdon) Re: Phone Lines and v32 (John Higdon) Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes (Jiro Nakamura) Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Lawrence V. Cipriani) Re: What's a Baud? (Peter da Silva) Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Hoyt A. Stearns, Jr.) NT Files Video Dial Tone Comments With FCC (FIDO via Jack Decker) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David E. Sheafer Subject: Re: Does Anyone Have Follow-me in NY? Date: 21 Mar 92 09:39:32 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA In article , dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > In article , gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu > (Gabe M Wiener) writes: >> Do either of the cellular carriers (NYNEX or Cellular One) have >> follow-me roaming at this point? > Not that I know of. NYNYEX does have FMR in the NY/NJ metro area now (I posted a message ---- about it a couple of days ago. (However, there was a typo in the first sentence it said no and should have said now.) David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows From: zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 14:36:16 PST Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls barry@coyote.datalog.com (Barry Mishkind) writes: > Unless the calls are coming from some misprint in a computer magazine > or on a BBS about a new BBS close to Uwe's number. If you've ever had > a slew of calls from someone asking about the car you supposedly were > selling, you know what I mean. Those oldtimers on this forum will remember that for years I suffered with an 800 number that was frequent target for misdialings from both the Hilton hotel chain and a local bay tour company. After getting my jollies doing as much harm to Hilton as I could by impersonating the company and then alienating callers, I had the number changed. Since then, the count of wrong numbers could be kept on the fingers of a person with no hands. That is until this week. Suddenly MANY calls a day started coming in. The callers seemed to want some strange things. Finally, a cooperative caller told me that he was responding to an ad in a national trade publication for a company that sells window treatment of some kind. Sure enough, it is my number in the ad. One mitigation is that the number only works in California, so most of the hapless callers are simply hearing a recording that indicates that the number cannot be reached from that particular telephone. The publisher apologized, but did not offer to do anything. It looks as though I am going to incur a number change expense once again. Who knows what surprises the new number will bring? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows From: zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 13:42:27 PST Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Phone Lines and v32 dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > It would seem that Telebit wants to discourage the use of V.32 and > encourage the use of PEP by making modems that don't work well with > V.32. This would serve their purposes well, but not the customers'. Before making allegations of this nature, it would be wise to nail down a few more data points. I have no stock in Telebit and am put off at times by the company's arrogance. However, as a user of many Telebit modems, PEP and v.32, I can tell you that I have seen absolutely no indication that Telebit purposely "cripples" v.32 in favor of PEP. It is not entirely meaningful to speak of an either/or situation with reference to the two modulation schemes. For UUCP transfers, PEP wins hands down. Even with v.32 AND g protocol spoofing, PEP is the clear winner in raw CPS, regardless of the v.32 modem manufacturer. Add to that the PEP capability for dealing with less than perfect connections and you can understand why PEP is still the standard for UUCP. Here in Silicon Valley, this site talks to more than a dozen other UUCP neighbors. Several of them have v.32; ALL of them have PEP. On the other had, there is nothing more painful that trying to use an interactive login over PEP. This is where v.32 shines. Being full duplex (as opposed to PEP's effective half-duplex), there is no "turnaround" delay and using the remote terminal is just like being on a local RS232 connection. For this reason, I use both systems. ALL of my personal modems are Telebit. NONE of them has any difficulty communicating with any other using v.32 or PEP. It makes no sense for Telebit to damage its reputation in the course of expanding its marketing base. And, no, Telebit has never indicated (to me, anyway) that it expects PEP to be all things to all people and purposes. It has been my experience with literally hundreds of modems that Telebit is one of the few product lines that actually work as advertised and has good customer support. I have long given up on Hayes, USR, and of course all of "clone" modem makers. (My last interaction with Hayes was over a fax modem. I was waved off with the comment, "We acquired that product from another company and don't really support it.") I have NEVER been waved off by Telebit. > The nice thing about standards is that they tend to be supported by > multiple vendors, so users are not locked into a single source. And I am very happy that Telebit is now one of them. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: I use a Telebit T-1600 modem in combination with a Wyse-50 terminal at 9600 baud to work on the Digest, and find the Telebit works just fine, whether I am logged in to eecs.nwu.edu or using rlogin from there to some more distant site. I've never had a minute's trouble with it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) Subject: Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes Organization: Shaman Consulting Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 05:57:12 GMT In article pturner@eng.auburn.edu (Patton M. Turner) writes: > I am going to purchase a RS-232 breakout box and am wondering if > anyone has any suggestions. I guess what I really want to know is > what advantages the more expensive models have over the $100 models, > and if anybody has had problems with the line powered models. Also > does anybody sell the quality BOB's cheaper than Jensen, SPC and the > like. I just use two ten dollar connectors. One tells me the status of each RS-232 line with two-color LEDs. The other is a mini RS-232 break-out box that I bought in Akihabara, Tokyo (and I've seen them in Rat Shack). Both are around the same size as DB-25 gender changers. It works fine for me in almost all situations. Sure, it isn't as nice as a $100 break out box, but why waste the money? If you are using it every day, then heck -- go for the money. But for us poor schlums, the $20 solution is the winner. And they have the added advantage of being truly pocket-sized! ;-) Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com The Shaman Group +1 607 277-1440 Voice/Fax/Data ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 00:59:30 EST From: lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc. In article holland@wyatt.ksu.ksu.edu (Rich Holland) writes: > What about regular toll-calls? If the customer fails to drop his > quarters into the COCOT after a given amout of time, they'll get the > bong tone and an operator. With the new system, will they get a > recording, or a person? This new service is only for AT&T 5ESS switches. How that relates to COCOTs I don't know [our system engineer is on vacation :-) ]. Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com [Moderator's Note: Unless the COCOTS are defaulted via the local telco to AT&T on long distance calls and the local telco identifies them as payphones to AT&T on passing the call, then probably it is is moot. PAT] ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: What's a Baud? Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 02:42:40 GMT In article tnixon@hayes.com (Toby Nixon) writes: >> 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. > PEP is the protocol; DAMQAM is the modulation scheme -- and it > actually runs at about 7.4 "baud" (symbols per second). Each symbol > is transmitted for 128 milliseconds, with seven milliseconds of "guard > time" between symbols. Each of the carriers can carry 0, 2, 4, or 6 > bits per symbol. If you calculate this out, you get about 22,000 bits per second. On real phone lines you can't get that high, but rates of up to 18,000 bits per second have been reported (I guess on local calls). It also falls back very nicely on long lines, dropping back about ten bits per second at a time as it finds channels it can't use or only use at two or four bits per baud. This gives VERY good performance on noisy lines ... like the ones we have at work (between our PBX and Sugarland Telephone). SuperPEP on the new TB3000s (when it comes out) should supposedly run at an even higher rate (I don't know if it uses more channels, or uses them more efficiently, or what ...), up to 22,000 bps on real lines! And that's BEFORE compression. Too bad nobody else makes PEP modems. Shannon's Limit on a good phone line is about 35,000 bits per second, so there's some room for growth. Not much, though: another doubling in modem speeds is probably not physically possible until we go full digital. Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480|1032 2400/n/8/1. ------------------------------ From: isus!hoyt@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles Organization: International Society of Unified Science Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 22:30:03 GMT In article konstan@elmer-fudd.cs. berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) writes: > Often, when I'm watching TV (most recently a broadcast station, > through cable) I find an annoying buzz (sounds like poorly grounded > equipment) whenever there are superimposed titles (e.g., captions, > names, etc.). The buzz is crosstalk from the video signal into the sound channel, probably caused by a combination of two things: The broadcaster is not controlling his video levels to be within specs, and a less than optimum television receiver with poor sound band filtering and automatic gain control (The sound and video are amplified in the same amplifier chain, and split apart after). Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| hoyt@isus.uucp 4131 E. Cannon Dr. | Phoenix, AZ. 85028 USA Voice: 602 996 1717 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 16:22:21 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: NT Files Video Dial Tone Comments with FCC [The following message is from the Fidonet MDF echomail conference:] Original From: Dan J. Rudiak Subject: NT Files Video Dial Tone Comments with FCC Washington, D.C., Feb. 3 -- Responding to a request by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Northern Telecom today filed comments supporting the FCC's efforts to establish video dial tone, a technology that allows people to receive video, image and text communications with the same ease as making a phone call. In its filing Northern Telecom, a leading global telecommunications researcher and manufacturer, said the agency needs to create an environment that encourages the development and deployment of switched video services, making the country more competitive in today's global economy. Research, released earlier this year by Northern Telecom and BellSouth, shows consumer support for many potential services. Northern Telecom emphasized that the FCC proceeding is focused on market forces and the technological advances that will change the way Americans will work, learn, shop and be entertained. Northern Telecom believes the benefits from the early deployment of video dial tone will include: * Improved economic competitiveness and an enhanced standard of living; * Enhanced individual productivity; * Greater access to knowledge for workers making decisions; * Improved education services and enhanced medical care; * Quicker movement of information among workers and within organizations; * Removal of distance as a barrier to teamwork and a reduction in the need to travel; * Access by smaller locations of large businesses, entrepreneurial small businesses, and work-at-home users to the same communications capabilities emerging in large corporations; * Easing the problems caused by time zones as they affect geographically dispersed international organizations; * Making specialized skills available as a resource regardless of geographic location; * Allowing teams to solve problems by communicating across distances rather than relying on face-to-face communications; * Enhancing traditional analog voice communications with powerful information tools, such as full motion graphics. The filing asks the FCC to note that current restrictions prohibiting local telephone companies from providing such services are contrary to the commission's desire that video dial tone be offered in an open and competitive environment. It also notes that by delaying action, the commission ensures that the LECs (Local Exchange Carriers) are unable to act, allowing others to capture a greater portion of the market, potentially retarding availability to a broader market base and the use of the service for social benefits such as reducing medical costs and improving educational opportunities. In its conclusion, the Northern Telecom filing recommends the commission remove barriers to full and competitive participation in the video market -- and regulatory disincentives to investment -- thereby creating the necessary conditions for the video diversity it seeks. Earlier this year, Northern Telecom and BellSouth released results of joint research conducted to determine public attitudes toward video dial tone service. The research shows the consumer trend to stay at home, combined with the advent of video dial tone, will create a $30 billion electronic information services industry by the year 2000. The 1991 market study, conducted by Noel Dunivant and Associates (now known as P G Research) of Raleigh, N.C., finds very high consumer interest in video dial tone as a gateway offering a variety of services, including: * Movies on a demand or near-demand basis (within 15 to 30 minutes after ordering); * Delayed view television (past television); * Interactive news and music; * Interactive grocery and catalog shopping from home; and * Electronic classrooms and multi-media libraries. Among 800 respondents to the study conducted in six U.S. cities (San Diego, Nashville, Atlanta, Buffalo, Orlando, Tulsa), about 70 percent are willing to purchase some or all of these services as they become available. Advances in communications and computer technology -- such as fiber-optic cable, digital switching and hyper-speed computing -- now make it economically attractive to transmit extraordinary volumes of electronic information in digital form over telephone lines. "Our experience in distance learning projects, in developing medical communications systems, and in helping business and government improve communications systems directly supports the commission's interest in the development of broadband networks, said Ian Craig, executive vice president marketing, Northern Telecom Inc. According to ComputerWorld, a weekly industry newspaper, the information services industry is currently at $8 billion and growing at an annual rate of 20 percent. Regional telephone companies are already conducting trials using fiber optic cable to provide consumers with push-button entertainment and information capabilities through their telephones. ------ ... The cost of feathers has risen ... Now even DOWN is up! Blue Wave/RA v2.05 [NR] * Origin: The Computer Connection BBS, HST/DS, 1-403-246-4669/74(1:134/68.0) ------- Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 [Moderator's Note: Now and then I break my own rule on removing extraneous signature text from articles; this is one such case. Like the elevator operator, whose job has its ups and downs, I thought the 'feather' comment was funny! :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #257 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16098; 23 Mar 92 2:16 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00020 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:21:10 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32445 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:20:50 -0600 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:20:50 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203230620.AA32445@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #258 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Mar 92 21:44:08 CST Volume 12 : Issue 258 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Dual-Mode Cellular Radios Placed in Service (FIOO via Jack Decker) Help Wanted With Cordless Phone Problem (David Niebuhr) US West and BBSs Update (Peter Marshall) Show-Me Long Distance (J. Philip Miller) Cable vs. Satellite Calls (Paolo Bellutta) ISDN Test Equipment Wanted (Hoyt A. Stearns, Jr.) ISDN Nitty-Gritty (David Lesher) Complete Answering Machine Software (Philip E. Pavarini, Sr.) COCOT Information Needed! (Heruld Fiskenmoskort) Panasonic PBX Information Request (Randy Bush) Billed For Busy on Cellular When Ticket Line Jammed Network (David Sheafer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 16:21:11 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Dual-Mode Cellular Radios Placed in Service [The following message is from the Fidonet MDF echomail conference:] Original From: Dan J. Rudiak Subject: Dual-Mode Cellular Radios Placed in Service Nashville, Tenn., January 23 | Northern Telecom's unique, dual-mode cellular radio technology is now providing mobile telephone service to customers in North America, the company announced today. Cellular Communications, Inc.'s Cellular One of Columbus, Ohio, and Bell Cellular Inc. of Toronto, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BCE Mobile Communications Inc., are the first to implement the new base station radios. In addition, McCaw's Cellular One of Minneapolis, Minn., and Independent Cellular Network, Inc., of Fort Myers, Fla., have placed orders for shipment later this year. Northern Telecom's dual-mode cellular radio channel units are unique because they will operate in analog or time division multiple access (TDMA) digital modes on a call-by-call basis. TDMA is the industry standard access technology for digital cellular systems in North America. Analog service is supported immediately, with digital service available for implementation by cellular service providers as early as the second quarter of 1992, when software testing will be complete and digital cellular telephones are expected to be more readily available. "This is the only radio channel unit available for cellular networks that can operate in either analog or digital mode, yet it's priced competitively with analog-only systems," said John Roth, president, Wireless Systems, Northern Telecom. "This means that much of the cost associated with going digital can be deferred until digital service is actually implemented." "Dual-mode cellular radio technology provides an innovative approach to solving the cellular industry's transition to digital service, " said Joe Sarnecki, vice-president, network services, Bell Cellular. The dual-mode cellular base station radio is the first cellular radio to be manufactured by Northern Telecom for use in its mobile cellular telephone systems. Northern Telecom previously offered only analog cellular radios produced by other manufacturers. Digital cellular radio technology promises increased capacity to meet growing subscriber demand, improved call quality, and access to many of the advanced features becoming available in "wired" public and private telephone networks. Many mobile cellular telephone system operators are expected to begin switching to digital radio technology this year. However, both analog and digital operation are considered requirements, given the substantial investment of current subscribers in analog mobile telephones. Northern Telecom's dual-mode cellular base station radio promises highly flexible system configuration and enhancement and substantially reduced maintenance requirements for mobile cellular telephone service providers upgrading from analog to digital radio technology. "It greatly simplifies the engineering task for cellular operators preparing their networks for the transition to digital service," Roth said. "Instead of having to install separate radio hardware based on an estimated mix of analog and digital subscriber use, our customers need only install the appropriate number of dual-mode radios and allocate channels for analog or digital use. And since channels are allocated in software, the mix can be changed dynamically as subscriber usage changes." Northern Telecom's dual-mode cellular radio consists of a digital signal processor-based (DSP) transceiver, capable of loading application-specific software for analog or digital operation, and for future enhanced cellular services. It supports either a single analog radio channel, or a TDMA digital channel capable of handling three simultaneous conversations, and allows the cellular system operator to allocate analog and digital radio channels dynamically on a call-by-call basis to meet changing subscriber demand. Benefits to the cellular system operator include: * Enhanced analog operation | DSP technology enhances analog operation, providing clearer voice transmission. * Smooth transition to digital operation | Dual-mode cellular radios installed to support analog subscribers today can be reconfigured in software to serve digital subscribers as required. * Simplified system engineering | Dynamic allocation of analog and digital channels makes it unnecessary to "over-provision" dedicated analog or digital radios to meet peak traffic demands. Likewise, no re-engineering is required to accommodate the changing mix of analog and digital subscribers. * Reduced maintenance | Feature enhancements are implemented in software, reducing hardware maintenance requirements. Northern Telecom recently achieved commercial "lockdown" certification of its dual-mode cellular base station radio. This certification, by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), verifies compliance with performance specifications for TDMA. Northern Telecom's lockdown field testing, conducted in Fort Worth, Texas, included the industry's first TDMA "call handoff" between two cell sites. Cell-to-cell call handoff allows a call to continue uninterrupted as the caller travels from the coverage area of one cell to another. --- Blue Wave/RA v2.05 [NR] * Origin: The Computer Connection BBS, HST/DS, 1-403-246-4669/74(1:134/68.0) -------------- Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 08:50:02 -0500 From: niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr) Subject: Help Wanted With Cordless Phone Problem I'm having a problem with a cordless phone and hope someone can assist me in locating the trouble. It seems that when I changed the cabling at a wall jack from the plug in type to a hardwired type going to my cordless phone base, another phone on that box (also hardwired) goes completely dead, including the light behind the push buttons. Here are the before and after block diagarams: Before: After: +-----------+ +-----------+ | Wall Jack | | Wall Jack | +-----------+ +-----------+ | | | | +------+ +----------+ +------+ +-----------+ +----------+ | Desk | | Cordless | | Desk | | Wall Jack |--| Cordless | | Phone| | Phone | | Phone| +-----------+ | Phone | +------+ +----------+ +------+ +----------+ Is the problem the second wall jack? When the cable between the second wall jack and the cordless phone is disconnected at either end, the problem goes away. Yes, I checked the wiring inside the jack twice before closing the beast. Please e-mail response to either address below and thanks in advance for the advice. BTW: A third phone in the kitchen doesn't exhibit any problem since it's on its own run with no breaks from the demark to the phone. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Subject: US West and BBSs Update From: Peter Marshall Reply-To: peterm@rwing.uucp Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 08:02:19 PST At the Oregon PUC, the Wagner v. US West Communications case is now awaiting a Hearings Officer's decision following the 3/13 submission of reply briefs. Excerpts follow from the US West reply brief: Wagner's complaint raises but a single issue: whether use of USWC's network is "obviously not confined to domestic use," requiring USWC to charge its business rates. To the vast extent Wagner's opening brief deviates from this single issue, it is completely irrelevant and outside the scope of this proceeding. Mr. Wagner's BBS service need not generate revenue or profit to justify USWC's application of business rates. The case law defining "business" and "business enterprise" as an undertaking for profit has absolutely nothing to do with USWC's characterization for billing purposes the tariff includes both traditional business activities and other "non-domestic" use certain subscriber activities that are not traditional commercial undertakings will still mandate business rates. The touchstone for analysis here is simply whether a service that: (1) generates up to 168 calls in an evening; (2) generates communication in which Mr. Wagner largely takes no personal interest; (3) facilitates communication to which Mr. Wagner usually is not a party; (4) permits access to "millions of users" around the world; (5) transmits messages that Mr. Wagner cannot possibly personally read; and (6) includes the advertising, or potential for advertising, of Shareware, can in any way constitute an "obvious domestic use" ... "Domestic use" as "ordinary use" is a practical analysis that this Commission should follow ... First Choice Communications' [characteristics] take it beyond any meaningful definition of "obvious domestic use." Mr. Wagner emphasizes the purely social nature of the communication among BBS users. In fact, USWC *does* apply residential rates to individuals communicating via any BBS service. Yet when a subscriber utilizes three lines to create a service that makes considerable and substantial use of USWC's network to facilitate communication *among others*, the Commission should not treat that use as "obviously domestic." To further Wagner's own example: When he hosts a party in his own house, USWC does not object. Yet when Mr. Wagner hosts a party in USWC's house, via USWC's telephone network, he should not expect that extraordinary network use to be subsidized by other Oregon ratepayers. The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA PEP, V.32, V.42bis ------------------------------ From: phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) Subject: Show-Me Long Distance Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 15:53:42 CST Well us folks here in Missouri, the Show-Me State now have our very own long distance company. According to a bulk mailing I received yesterday (addressed to Dear Southwestern Bell Customer) they will offer 10% to 21% on most Missouri calls [those over 34 miles] and 10% lower than the 1+ rate charged by AT&T on out of state calls. I do not need to change my existing long distance service, only use the 10778 prefix each time I call and I will be billed on my regular SWBT bill. The give me nice stickers for my phone book and phones with the 10778 number. More information available from 800-882-5095 [probably only works from Missouri]. I had thought that the trend was to eliminate the long distance providers, not more and more splintering of the market. This particular one seems to be targeting the intraLATA traffic rather than the interstate stuff that the big three always advertise. J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 [362-2694(FAX)] ------------------------------ From: bellutta@ohsu.EDU (Paolo Bellutta) Subject: Cable vs. Satellite Calls Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 23:00:57 GMT I've recently moved to the US, and I have a (probably) novice question. When I call from my home phone (I have chosen ATT as LD carrier), calls are always through satellite link. When my family is calling from Italy (don't know which company they use, but I suppose ATT too), calls are always via transoceanic cable. Is it possible to dial in a way that the calls are via cable and not satellite? Would they cost more? If this is a novice question, reply via e-mail, otherwise posting is fine with me. Paolo Bellutta - BICC - OHSU - 3181 SW Sam Jackson Rd. Portland, OR 97201 - internet: bellutta@ohsu.edu tel: (503) 494 8404 - fax: (503) 494 4551 ------------------------------ From: isus!hoyt@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) Subject: ISDN Test Equipment Wanted Organization: International Society of Unified Science Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 17:29:39 GMT Is there any test equipment available to bridge an ISDN U interface pair, and separate out the two directions of 2B1Q data? Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| hoyt@isus.uucp 4131 E. Cannon Dr. | Phoenix, AZ. 85028 USA voice 602 996 1717 ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: ISDN Nitty-Gritty Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 20:19:37 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex This question is rather too obvious, but I'll ask anyhow. How is ISDN carried? Not the stuff you and I see, but the carrier side of the loop. Now I doubt they pulse that hunk of copper with DC, so it has to be audio, just as we now send with modems. One difference is, of course, we don't call it a modem any longer -- we use a different term. But how different IS it, from alternatives such as switched56, etc? And what special tricks do they use? wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 19:49 EST From: pps@pavnet.nshore.ncoast.org (Philip E. Pavarini Sr.) Subject: Complete Answering Machine Software Organization: PAVNET News & Mail Service I have a Complete Answering Machine and would like to know if there's third party software which would allow prompts to be changed and/or eliminated. Any help regarding the CAM manufactured by The Complete PC, Inc. would be appreciated. Philip E. Pavarini Sr. -- Voice 216.891.9105 Fax 216.891.0009 INTERNET: pps@pavnet.nshore.ncoast.org -- UUCP: pavnet!pps P.O. Box 360302 -- Cleveland, Ohio 44136-0427 ------------------------------ From: whknight@sdf.LoneStar.ORG (Heruld Fiskenmoskort) Subject: COCOT Information Needed Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 21:36:36 CST Can someone please supply me with names and phone numbers and addresses of COCOT manfacturers. Thank you. ------------------------------ From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) Subject: Panasonic PBX Information Request Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon, US Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 05:44:05 GMT Back a while in this digest, someone posted re a Panasonic (I believe) system that was a couple thousand for 32 lines and was rather nicely featured as well. Anyone know of such, or what some of the nicer ways are currently available to handle an office of 25-30 lines? Thanks. randy@psg.com ...!uunet!m2xenix!randy [Moderator's Note: I'd think for 25-30 lines you'd still do well getting the Panasonic unit described earlier. You'll have a few spare lines for expansion that way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "David E. Sheafer, Class of 1989" Subject: Billed For Busy on Cellular When Ticket Line Jammed Network Date: 22 Mar 92 14:21:16 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA The Saturday that tickets went on sale for U2 I also tried to call the number for tickets. However since I had somewhere to go, I had to use my cellular phone for an hour to dial. When I got my bill a couple of days, I was billed for approximately 60 calls to the number I was dialing, all in a period of less than one hour. Nynex Mobile was more than happy to remove the charges from my bill, and as I have never been billed for a busy signal before, I assume the screw up on billing was on the part of New England Telephone and not NYNEX Mobile (they are both owned by the same company). David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #258 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16453; Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32374 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:22:38 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19740 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:22:19 -0600 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:22:19 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203230622.AA19740@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #259 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Mar 92 23:35:00 CST Volume 12 : Issue 259 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson CT2 Succeeds in Singapore (Peng-Hwa Ang) MCI News - Friends & Family (Phillip Dampier) Question About 800 Number ANI (David Lesher) New Rules (was 800 Blocking) (David Lesher) Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? (Nick Sayer) Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? (Barton F. Bruce) Need 800 ANI Number (Tony Heatwole) Re: Len Rose Released From Prison (Robert L. McMillin) Re: Len Rose Released From Prison (Rich Solis) Re: A Positive COCOT Experience (Robert L. McMillin) Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment (David Lesher) Re: 911 Source Identification (Carol Springs) Re: Voice Drop-Outs on International Link (Dave Pascoe) Re: Subject: Telecom Winds of Change (Donald E. Kimberlin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 11:10:32 SST From: Peng-Hwa Ang Subject: CT2 Succeeds in Singapore The weirdest thing is happening here. CT2 -- those cellular phones where you can call out but can't call in -- has taken off like a rocket in Singapore. Apparently, it is the only place in the world where this is happening. A highly placed but unquotable official at Singapore Telecom told me that they did a survey and found that most calls were outgoing. Anyway, they went ahead (splashed US$10 to $20 million) to set up those transmitters/receivers all over the island. They did not figure that it would do well. What do you know, they ran out of the phones in a flash. Apparently, even blue-collar types who work the whole day in the factory want them. The launch was in March and it's now more than three weeks but sales are still going great guns. It's going to be a money-maker. My hypothesis is that there is an element of status-seeking here. The phone is small and looks like the nifty US$2000 Motorola cellular but costs a tenth as much. Also, like HK, people want to be seen as important enough and busy enough to need telecom links. When the first handphones went on sale, people stood in prominent street corners and talked loudly over the phone. :) I'm told a similar sort of situation exists in HK where they want small phones with long antennas. Curious. ------------------------------ From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 13:41:55 Subject: MCI News - Friends & Family MCI is mailing all of their Friends & Family customers a large brochure touting the fact that the service has been wildly successful (surprise), and that to "thank" their loyal customers, they will be granting everyone 40% off calls to the Friends & Family members during the month of May. Also being promoted is a free five minute call to any person you nominate on the plan, in order for you to use that time to explain all of the benefits of using the plan. In other words, you become MCI Customer Service for five minutes. Included with the mailing is a printed insert illustrating your current plan members. Mine had mangled the spelling of every member in my calling circle. Other new features: - Include up to 20 members in your calling circle versus 12. - Promotion of their new MCI calling card with a special "Friends & Family" version. - Promotion of their $5.00 per month Personal 800 service. - Promotion of their international service, inclusion of one international number to get the 20% discount, and some new discounts for MCI's service for those travelling abroad. [Moderator's Note: But a message in the Digest early Sunday discussed the forty percent off deal, and compared it to local telco rates for intra-LATA calls, finding it was not such a great deal after all. Can you respond to that, after you see the message? PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Question About 800 Number ANI Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 11:16:47 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex [John Perkins asked about getting ANI from the operator.] PAT replied that it's a security problem since you can fish for pairs and find the assignment. You know, some may call me cynical, but ... This has been the "Bell Juice" line for years. Letting subscribers (ooops, now they are "customers" ;-) find an assignment was evil. But NOW, it is no long BAD, in fact it is GOOD! How? Why, just get Caller-ID at your confederate's location, and call HIM to find the assignment. Strange how good and evil get confused when there is a profit to be made ... PS: "Bell Juice" was a term an old boss used to describe the propaganda Bell fed its troops about the evils of competition. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu [Moderator's Note: It is true Caller-ID (or 800 service ANI) can be used in the way you suggest, to gain illicit information about someone else's service by finding a pair and identifying it in those ways. Of course you can also make a collect call to someone and have them tell you the number shown on their bill next month. Telco however sees no reason to specically have the operators help you dig for details. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: New Rules (was 800 Blocking) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 11:03:26 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex Kath said: > However, the reference you are looking got is the Telephone Operator > Consumer Services Improvement Act of 1990, Public Law No. 101-435, 104 > Stat. 986 (1990) (to be codified at 47 U.S.C. 226). Does this act cover COCOTs, also? Specifically I'm looking for the law on local DA from them. Several slimeCOTs here in the District area want $0.50 or so for it, and of course, they don't have any phone books. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ From: mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) Subject: Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'. Date: 22 Mar 1992 17:01:31 UTC Does this mean that if I am staying at a hotel and the phones don't take 10xxx I can complain? To whom do I complain? Nick Sayer N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA 37 19 49 N / 121 57 36 W +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest' ------------------------------ From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? Date: 22 Mar 92 22:57:21 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , stank@cbnewsl.att.com writes: > As a reminder to me and others, when are COCOTs required to begin > supporting 10xxx, and when do all LD companies (meaning AT&T) need to > provide 800 or 950 access? Certainly COCOT phones are generally quite 'smart' and so MUST have been allowing equal access as of 16-March-92 (a few days ago). I believe, but am not positive, that the IXCs also had to comply by that date, and I suspect all have. One problem is still the weenie ma + pa LEC that can hardly afford to upgrade to equal access, and that I for one would hate to see gobbled by the big LECs. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 18:02 EST From: Tony Heatwole Subject: Need 800 ANI Number Pat: A few months ago someone posted an 800 number which will give you back your ANI. I can't find it in the Telecom Archives. If you have it handy, I'd appreciate it if you would send me the number. Thanks, Tony Heatwole heatwole@hns.com [Moderator's Note: Offhand I do not. Would someone send Tony that number in Georgia which provided the service? Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 06:37:23 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Len Rose Released From Prison The Moderator writes: > Mr. Rose has now paid his debt to society ... For those of us relative newcomers to TELECOM Digest, please explain what it was that Mr. Rose did to wind up in the Federal slammer, and what makes his return noteworthy. 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: Phil Howard and others have written to ask the same thing. See the Note appended to the next mesage. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 17:42:54 -0500 From: Midnight Subject: Re: Len Rose Released From Prison Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA Why did he go to prison? Rich Solis midnight@access.digex.com [Moderator's Note: During 1988-90 there was a major federal crackdown on phone phreaks and hackers (using the perjorative sense of the word.) Len Rose was a well known Usenetter, active in several groups. He was found to be in possession of source code which belonged to AT&T, and he was found to have transmitted it interstate to one or more other computer sites. Based on that activity and other aspects of his social history revealed to the court, the court chose to impose punishment of one year in prison. At the time of his arrest, conviction and trial, there was much discussion on the net and in this group along with {Computer Underground Digest} discussing the merits of his case and the appropriateness of the punishment, if indeed there should have been any. You can check out the CUD Archives for a great deal of background on this. Also, check out the 'security' directory in the Telecom Archives using anonymous ftp at lcs.mit.edu. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 06:45:53 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: A Positive COCOT Experience Steve Howard writes: > I have had a positive experience with a local COCOT company, and I > thought that I would share it with the rest of the telecom > community... [stuff about picking a COCOT over US West payphones deleted] > The phones used are manufactured by Intellicall. I have been very > impressed. It would appear that these phones can be very user > friendly, if the owner desires to program them this way (Too bad that > most owners don't :-( ). This isn't the same Intellicall that {Forbes} skewered last November due to their extremely shady accounting practices, is it? (According to the article, Intellicall had been doing things like counting phones shipped as phones sold and paid for, etc. Not very pleasant stuff if you're interested in investing in the company.) 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: David Lesher Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 10:24:59 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex [Why can't two cell-phones have the same number]. > Would somebody please tell me why this can't be fixed/redesigned, > etc.? That is the wrong question. The correct one is: What profit is there in making folks get two {or more} accounts, and then making them pay for some special forwarding feature? The answer is obvious. Technical limitations are not the stumbling block; marketing considerations are. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 10:41:45 EST From: drilex!carols Subject: Re: 911 Source Identification Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA In Vol. 12, Issue 245, wex@cs.ulowell.edu (Paul M. Wexelblat) writes: > I was in my local police station this morning and got into a > discussion with the dispatcher about impending 911 service. > (I don't know what system we have in town, but it is Acton, MA What? You mean Acton is going to get Enhanced 911 even though NET has withdrawn its plans for Caller-ID in Massachusetts? Why, just a few weeks ago, the Boston Globe, that font of technical wisdom, announced in an editorial that because of the low-lives who had pushed for the availability of per-line blocking, Enhanced 911 would not be saving lives in Massachusetts the way it is in many other places. I naturally assumed that without Caller-ID, which as the Globe and all the rest of us know is the mechanism for Enhanced 911, NET would just scrap all its plans for Enhanced 911 and justifiably blame the privacy freaks. Gee -- they must've found another way! :^ :^ :^ :^ :^ :^ :^ :^ :^ :^ Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ From: pascoe@rocky.gte.com (Dave Pascoe) Subject: Re: Voice Drop-Outs on International Link Organization: GTE/SCSD Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 20:03:32 GMT In article dreamer@lhaven.uumh.ab.ca writes: > I've noticed this problem also when I call my parents in Saudi Arabia > from Canada. Though the behaviour seems to vary a lot. At the > beginning of the call its real bad ... makes it hard to decide who > answered. But, at least there's no doubt that you've just received an > international call. > Last night things got real interesting when I experienced what would > be the local equivalent of cross talk, except the strange voice > drop-outs and echos were present in the other conversation also ... > If it is echo cancelling, it is not doing a very good job ... because > I hear my own voice echoing back several seconds later mixed in with > my parent's voice. You are right -- it is suboptimal echo cancellation which causes the problem. Adaptive echo cancellers attempt to estimate adaptively the two echo components that are present. Then they subtract this estimate from the received signal (which is a sampled signal). They typically use things algorithms such as LMS (least mean squares) to optimize the filter coefficients in the echo canceller. For telephone channels the LMS algorithm provides sufficient tracking. So the echo canceller (the correct term, I believe, is echo suppressor, because you can't always completely cancel the echo) is basically an adaptive filter with coefficients that automatically adapt to the communications channel, whether it is a satellite channel or a fiber optic channel or whatever. So, you might still ask, "well why can't the echo cancellers just get rid of the echo?" Making echo cancellers perfectly adaptive is a very difficult job. But they are getting better ... with faster DSPs you will eventually see further improvements. For now you just have to put up with it. I don't believe you can do much about it. Of course, as the original poster pointed out, you will see this primarily on channels that traverse satellite links. Dave Pascoe GTE/SCSD pascoe@rocky.gte.com KM3T (617) 455-5704 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 02:34 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Telecom Winds of Change In a message <10 Mar 92>, Jack Decker and Patrick Townson exchanged the following: > 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: > 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 ... > [Moderator's Note: Yeah, those companies are operating here. I don't > personally know anyone using their services. PAT] Hey, Pat! You really know how to hurt a fella! Don't you know me? Or, maybe it's that you don't know I've been using the facilities of Diginet right down in the Loop since February, 1991. Just for a measure, here's what that buy got me: 1.) A cost about 2/3 of the Illinois Bell price; 2.) A co-location arrangement I could not get from IBT or AT&T; 3.) No, Zero, Nada downtime at all; 4.) A 25% reduction in data error performance over the long term. In general, a considerable improvement in the operation of our national network, since I've also used the similar facilities of Teleport of Denver (not affiliated with the NY-based Teleport Communications Group), Teleport of Houston (a TCG affiliate) and Metropolitan Fiber Optic of NY City. In each and every case, it's been a real pleasure to be one of a thousand customers instead of one of several million. I heartily recommend use of the offerings of any AAV based on a year's direct experience nationwide. Guess I'm really on Ma Bell's Subversive List now! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #259 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16629; 23 Mar 92 2:28 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31826 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:13:08 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19814 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:12:59 -0600 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:12:59 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203230612.AA19814@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #259 TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Mar 92 00:12:56 CST Volume 12 : Issue 259 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: NYNEX/NY has FMR -> No (Douglas Scott Reuben) Re: New AT&T Calling Card Mailing (Michael Schuster) Re: Telecommuting References Wanted (Peng-Hwa Ang) Re: Maximum Rates Chargable by California COCOTs (Laird P. Broadfield) Re: Hosed by MCI (Phil Howard) Re: Voice Drop Outs on International Link (Heruld Fiskenmoskort) Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment (Phil Howard) Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (L. W. Danz) Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes (Warren Burstein) Small Box in Old WE Desk Phone -- What is It? (John Nagle) Teleglobe Gets Five More Years of Monopoly (Dave Leibold) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22-MAR-1992 21:08:05.39 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: NYNEX/NY has FMR -> No Recently, nin15b0b@merrimack.edu (David E. Sheafer) on 21 Mar 92 09:39:32 GMT stated: >>> Do either of the cellular carriers (NYNEX or Cellular One) have >>> follow-me roaming at this point? >> Not that I know of. > NYNYEX does have FMR in the NY/NJ metro area now (I posted a message > about it a couple of days ago. Not to be rude to David or contradictory or anything, but the NYNEX/BAMS "partnership" service for the NY Metro Atra ("NYNEX/NY") does *NOT* have FMR. I just tried it today. Hitting *18/*19 from accounts with GTE/SF, BellSouth/Miami, SNET/CT and NYNEX/Boston (all of which offer FMR to their subscribers) will result in: "I'm sorry, we are unable to complete your call as dialed ... please call the operator for assistance (etc.)" The switch/recording number was RN9 each time. The last time I spoke to NYNEX/NY (to complain about very poor coverage about three weeks ago), I inquired as to when FMR will be available in the NY Metro area. Their reply: "Probably soon." They told me this two years ago. They always say this. So far, it hasn't happened. They may be getting *close* to allowing FMR. About two months ago, if you hit *18/*19, NYNEX/NY wouldn't even open up a voice channel for you. The switch would instruct your phone to return a "siren tone", ie, the same thing you get when you try placing a call in a "NO SVC" area. In February, they changed this to play the message noted above. I'm not sure why they did so, but it may be a precursor to allowing FMR. I dunno ... just a guess. Also, it was noted that they have a "711" roam info line. Not so -- yet. Dialing *711 returns the "No Svc" siren, while 711 returns the RN9 swtich recording. 611 won't work -- it just gets customer service, and unlike Cell One/Boston or whatever, they don't transfer after hours 611 calls to an automated information service. NYNEX/Orange county (Newberg), NY may have FMR now -- I have not tried it recently. Like the New York Metro NYNEX system, the Orange County system has pathetic coverage, and in my experience it is not worth the $3/day roam charge to use the phone there due to the poor quality of coverage. I will try it out soon and see what happens. NYNEX in general has awful coverage -- the {New York Times} recently reported that NYNEX has only 20 towers on Long Island, whereas Cell One presently has 50. It is obvious to anyone who drives there or boats in Long Island Sound that Cell One has unquestionably superior coverage. Why NYNEX has 300,000+ customers and Cell One only 150,000 or so I have no idea, probably the "Bell" name (?). Albany and Boston's NYNEX systems have decent coverage, although in Albany there are lots of gaps between Pittsfield and Albany along US-20. Also recall that NYNEX/Boston engages in the (I think) outrageous practice of charging airtime and (if applicable) a daily roam charge for *18 or *19. Anyhow, to receive calls in NY: for "B" side customers - NYNEX roam port - (212) 301-7626. - SNET/"Linx" customers get automatic call delivery, EXCEPT people from the SNET/Franklin County system (Anyone out there with a Frank. Co SNET #?) (FMR, as of Sunday, 3/22/92, not available) for "A" side customers - Cell One port - (212) 847-7626 - other McCaw systems with Ericssons - automatic call delivery and full use of features (except voicemail and No-answer-Transfer) - Customers from Metro Mobile/CT or Western Mass, or Cell One/South Jersey - automatic call delivery and full use of features, including voicemail. (Nationlink/Roam America not available as of 3/22/92) If anyone finds that NYNEX/NY *does* offer FMR to them *please* let me know! Also, if your home system is a McCaw/Ericsson, and you travel to other McCaw/Ericsson systems, could you let me know what sort of problems you have noticed in terms of call delivery, features, and voicemail in the roaming system? (Just send me some brief e-mail at your convenience if possible) Thanks! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster) Subject: Re: New AT&T Calling Card Mailing Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 01:36:15 GMT Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY In article jwt!john@uunet.UU.NET (John Temples) writes: > I recently received a mailing from AT&T offering me their new Calling > Card. I just noticed that the ten-digit number above my mailing > address appears to be my area code and phone number rearranged into a > "random" order. Has anyone else noticed this? If they're going to > take the time to try to protect our privacy, I would think they could > use a slightly more sophisticated encoding scheme! Several months ago I received a letter "warning" me that a new format AT&T card was forthcoming. It wasn't. This week I got a glossy mailing from New York Telephone, emphasizing how =THEIR= calling card is easy to remember, but the (non-existent) AT&T card isn't. I'm confused. I keep getting these letters, but nothing has changed. My (home phone number-based) AT&T card works as before .. at home and on the road. Mike Schuster NY Public Access UNIX: schuster@panix.com | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com | MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 11:02:28 SST From: Peng-Hwa Ang Subject: Re: Telecommuting References Wanted The "authority" in the loosest sense of the word is Jack Niiles (or is it Niles ) now at U. Southern California. He wrote the first study in 1976 or so and may have been the one who coined the word. The study was commissioned, I believe, by the City of Los Angeles, which, despite its cherubic name, is hell for commuting. Niiles/Niles has since written another study. Also in the early 1980s or so, there was a study entitled something like "Telec ommunications and Energy" by, I believe, someone called Tyler. This, if I recal l right, was a UN-sponsored study. (Pardon these vague references 'cos I studied them in the late 1980s.) LA has one or two other studies on telecommuting. When I visited the City's tel ecom office in 1988, they were trying to put city workers on telecommuting. The ir conclusion was that a lot of it was political (in the wide sense of the word ). As one of the officers said, "How would taxpayers feel if they see their City's employees' cars parked in the garage day after day?" Last heard, they have put a number of people on telecommuting though. And yes, there are lots of people who telecommute. Academics are classic examples. BTW, there was an article in {BusinessWeek} fall of 1987 that had an article on telecommuting saying something like 100+million Americans were doing it. The figures are bloated. They probably include anyone who does any stitch of work at work. Regards, Peng ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Re: Maximum Rates Chargable by California COCOTs Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 02:43:04 GMT In john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > In article dbw@crash.cts.com (David B. > Whiteman) writes: >> I found these rates from a newspaper article about COCOTs. These are >> the maximum rates allowed to be charged by COCOTs in California by the >> California Public Utilities Commission -- these rates only apply to >> calls within California: > And I have found literally two COCOTs from Hell (not Michigan) that > live outside my favorite supermarket. In addition to all of the > defects described below, it was almost impossible to talk due to the > extremely poor audio quality. Not even a contest with the one I found yesterday outside my favorite bookstore. I had walked by it on my way in, and thought "Oh good, that's new, and the next nearest it up the escalator and around the corner. Not only that, it looks like Genuine Bell." Bzzzzzzt, thank you for playing. I came out, and decided to check my voicemail (an 800 call). I get up to the phone, and notice that it's a COCOT, and my heart sinks. First, I looked at the rate card. Hmmm, AT&T is the default, that's a good sign. "Dial 211 or 817-xxx-xxxx (free call) for repair or refund", that's encouraging too. "Press 0 for a local operator or 00 for a long distance operator." How good can it get? I pick up the handset, and I've got sidetone, and the keys are giving proper DTMF. Nirvana. The awful truth: 1-800-my voicemail "Invalid number." 0 "Invalid number." 00 "Invalid number." 10288-0 "Invalid number." 10333-0 "Invalid number." 10777-0 "Invalid number." (Thouroughly disgusted at this point, and ready to chew someone out...) 211 "Invalid number." 611 "Invalid number." 1-817-xxx-xxxx "Invalid number." (Gnaaaaargh!) Insert 20 cents, dial local number, works perfectly. Hmmm. Hypothesis: local number setup okay, or defaulted to something, special number setup hosed. Go to other phone. Same results. Normally I'd let this pass as one of the inevitabilities of free enterprise, and once again wish I could afford cellular base fees, but this is a pretty bad example. Surely here in the People's Republic of Kalifornia there's a PUC bureau for reporting this stuff? (We have one for everything else, why not this.) BTW, I also remember a post from a year or so ago discussing a COCOT enforcement effort looking for volunteers, but by the time I called the number, I got SITs. Did this die? Did anybody get through to them? Laird P. Broadfield lairdb@crash.cts.com {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Hosed by MCI Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 04:23:50 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > 2. It is doubtful that a similar circuit ordered from AT&T would have > any of the problems that we have encountered. But if it did, > "emergency" to AT&T means more like "within the hour". If AT&T had to > route a backhaul, experience has shown that it can do it in hours, not > days. But then AT&T is (apparently) an engineering-driven company. Usually the first people to do anything are doing it because they happen to see a need for the product and know how to provide it. Thereafter everyone else just sees the money making opportunities. That's life. Well I've found that SOME followup companies do reasonably well. MCI does not seem to have been one of them. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: whknight@sdf.LoneStar.ORG (Heruld Fiskenmoskort) Subject: Re: Voice Drop Outs on International Link Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 18:00:16 CST Try a TASI locking frequency .... ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 04:50:18 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) aps@world.std.com (Armando P. Stettner) writes: > It has been asked whether or not it is possible to have two different > cellular phones answering to the same phone number. Pat (the > ever-present Moderator) has said the answer is no. In general, I > believe this to be correct. I believe the problem, however, is an > oversight in the design of the mobile telephone switching office > systems, specifically, the database which does the lookups to verify > the correct associations. > Would somebody please tell me why this can't be fixed/redesigned, etc.? Because it is already in place. If simply redesigning or fixing things that are designed wrong were done more often, *LOTS* of things would be different (and better) than they are now. You might have to dispose of hardware for some design changes. But this mentality even extends to software. Rather than quit using software they paid money for, because something better comes along ultra low priced, some management types prefer keeping the old clunker. It would make them look bad if they switched. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: dan@quiensabe.az.stratus.com Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls Date: 23 Mar 92 00:19:11 GMT Reply-To: dan@quiensabe.az.stratus.com In article zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon) writes: > Finally, a cooperative caller told me that he was responding to an > ad in a national trade publication for a company that sells window > treatment of some kind. Sure enough, it is my number in the ad.] The > publisher apologized, but did not offer to do anything. Gee, I might be tempted to take the names of the callers and then sell them to the publisher. At a reasonable price, of course :-} L. W. "Dan" Danz 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 ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein) Subject: Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes Date: 22 Mar 92 14:21:00 GMT Reply-To: warren@itex.jct.ac.il Organization: WorldWide Software I've never had any problem with line-powered BOB's. In fact I have seen battery-powered ones so sensitive that they registered the low voltage found on an input, which made it impossible to distinguish between inputs and outputs, one of the reasons I use the thing in the first place. warren@itex.jct.ac.il ------------------------------ From: nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) Subject: Small Box in Old WE Desk Phone -- What is It? Date: 23 Mar 92 04:13:08 GMT What's this strange thing in a WE desk phone of 1981 vintage? It's a reddish-brown plastic box, 15/16" x 2 1/8" x 7/16", with four wires attached to the touch-tone dial of a Western Electric 1-line desk phone which is telco-owned. It bears the marking "840364202 9-81", but no other ID. It contains three resistors, a cylindrical component 3/16" dia and 3/8" long with one orange band and the embossed number "521", a spring 3/4" long, clearly wired into the circuit, (looks like a heating element or a very low ohm resistor) and a four-terminal IC in an 8-pin DIP package marked "WE 4 1 838A", all mounted on a PC board with two screw terminals and two attached wires. The back of the PC board reads "AM-4 220". The phone is one of those that appears to have been retrofitted with modular jacks, and the box may be part of that conversion. There's an opening in the box next to the spring, probably for ventilation. John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 23:57:37 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) Subject: Teleglobe Gets Five More Years of Monopoly Canadian communications minister Perrin Beatty announced that Teleglobe, the national overseas carrier, will retain its monopoly on international calls for another five years. The word "monopoly" was avoided in favour of the euphemism "exclusive supplier". This monopoly arrangement could be reviewed in 1995, and the monopoly could be terminated or continued in 1997. Teleglobe's current structure came about when the company was sold by the federal government and made into a private enterprise in 1987. Teleglobe's 1991 profit was $25.7 million; 1990's profit was a third of that. There was a stated desire to achieve parity with U.S. overseas rates, though Teleglobe did not say when that would be expected. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #259 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17150; 23 Mar 92 2:45 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04428 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 01:04:11 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04055 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 01:03:58 -0600 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 01:03:58 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203230703.AA04055@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Air Fone Frequencies This is a special mailing of an article too large for the regular Digest. From: Leroy.Donnelly@ivgate.omahug.org (Leroy Donnelly) Subject: Air Fone Frequencies Reply-To: leroy.donnelly%drbbs@ivgate.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha A subject had been brought up on what the frequencies are used for in-flight air-to-ground. The following should clear up the questions. The FCC has issued rules on allocation of the 849-851/894-895 MHz bands for air-ground radiotelephone service. The new action, effective September 9, 1991: 1) changes channel spacing from GTE Airfone Inc.'s de facto standards; 2) orders GTE to make its service available to other air-ground licensees at non-discriminatory rates; 3) divides each channel block into 6 control channels (P-1 through P-6) and 29 communications channels (C-1 through C-29); 4) provides for a communications channel bandwidth of 6 kHz; 5) gives GTE 22 months to modify its current control channel scheme; during this period, GTE can use the lower 20 kHz of each channel block, which includes channels C-1, C-2, and C-3, for control. GTE then has another 38 months during which it can only use a 3.2 kHz control channel in channel C-2 of each channel block. After these transition periods end (September of 1996), GTE must switch to control channels marked P-1 through P-6 in the tables below; 6) empowers the FCC to assign exclusively one control channel to each air-ground licensee; 7) limits the ERP of airborne stations to 30 watts; maximum, and that of ground stations to 100 watts maximum; 8) limits the ERP of ground stations to 1 watt when communicating with aircraft on the ground. GROUND TO AIR CHANNELS (NOTE" "GB" in these listings denotes Guard Band, a series of 3 kHz spacings to separate communications channels from control channels) CH. # CHANNEL BLOCK 10 9 8 7 6 C-1 849.0055 849.2055 849.4055 849.6055 849.8055 C-2 849.0115 849.2115 849.4115 849.6115 849.8115 C-3 849.0175 849.2175 849.4175 849.6175 849.8175 C-4 849.0235 849.2235 849.4235 849.6235 849.8235 C-5 849.0295 849.2295 849.4295 849.6295 849.8295 C-6 849.0355 849.2355 849.4355 849.6355 849.8355 C-7 849.0415 849.2415 849.4415 849.6415 849.8415 C-8 849.0475 849.2475 849.4475 849.6475 849.8475 C-9 849.0535 849.2535 849.4535 849.6535 849.8535 C-10 849.0595 849.2595 849.4595 849.6595 849.8595 C-11 849.0655 849.2655 849.4655 849.6655 849.8655 C-12 849.0715 849.2715 849.4715 849.6715 849.8715 C-13 849.0775 849.2775 849.4775 849.6775 849.8775 C-14 849.0835 849.2835 849.4835 849.6835 849.8835 C-15 849.0895 849.2895 849.4895 849.6895 849.8895 C-16 849.0955 849.2855 849.4955 849.6955 849.8955 C-17 849.1015 849.3015 849.5015 849.7015 849.9015 C-18 849.1075 849.3075 849.5075 849.7075 849.9075 C-19 849.1135 849.3135 849.5135 849.7135 849.9135 C-20 849.1195 849.3195 849.5195 849.7195 849.9195 C-21 849.1255 849.3255 849.5255 849.7255 849.9255 C-22 849.1315 849.3315 849.5315 849.7315 849.9315 C-23 849.1375 849.3375 849.5375 849.7375 849.9375 C-24 849.1435 849.3435 849.5435 849.7435 849.9435 C-25 849.1495 849.3495 849.5495 849.7495 849.9495 C-26 849.1555 849.3555 849.5555 849.7555 849.9555 C-27 849.1615 849.3615 849.5615 849.7615 849.9615 C-28 849.1675 849.3675 849.5675 849.7675 849.9675 C-29 849.1735 849.3735 849.5735 849.7735 849.9735 GB 849.1765 849.3765 849.5765 849.7765 849.9765 to to to to to 849.1797 849.3797 849.5797 849.7797 849.9797 P-6 849.1813 849.3813 849.5813 849.7813 849.9813 P-5 849.1845 849.3845 849.5845 849.7845 849.9845 P-4 849.1877 849.3877 849.5877 849.7877 849.9877 P-3 849.1909 849.3909 849.5909 849.7909 849.9909 P-2 849.1941 849.3941 849.5941 849.7941 849.9941 P-1 849.1973 849.3973 849.5973 849.7973 849.9973 5 4 3 2 1 C-1 850.0055 850.2055 850.4055 850.6055 850.8055 C-2 850.0115 850.2115 850.4115 850.6115 850.8115 C-3 850.0175 850.2175 850.4175 850.6175 850.8175 C-4 850.0235 850.2235 850.4235 850.6235 850.8235 C-5 850.0295 850.2295 850.4295 850.6295 850.8295 C-6 850.0355 850.2355 850.4355 850.6355 850.8355 C-7 850.0415 850.2415 850.4415 850.6415 850.8415 C-8 850.0475 850.2475 850.4475 850.6475 850.8475 C-9 850.0535 850.2535 850.4535 850.6535 850.8535 C-10 850.0595 850.2595 850.4595 850.6595 850.8595 C-11 850.0655 850.2655 850.4655 850.6655 850.8655 C-12 850.0715 850.2715 850.4715 850.6715 850.8715 C-13 850.0775 850.2775 850.4775 850.6775 850.8775 C-14 850.0835 850.2835 850.4835 850.6835 850.8835 C-15 850.0895 850.2895 850.4895 850.6895 850.8895 C-16 850.0955 850.2855 850.4955 850.6955 850.8955 C-17 850.1015 850.3015 850.5015 850.7015 850.9015 C-18 850.1075 850.3075 850.5075 850.7075 850.9075 C-19 850.1135 850.3135 850.5135 850.7135 850.9135 C-20 850.1195 850.3195 850.5195 850.7195 850.9195 C-21 850.1255 850.3255 850.5255 850.7255 850.9255 C-22 850.1315 850.3315 850.5315 850.7315 850.9315 C-23 850.1375 850.3375 850.5375 850.7375 850.9375 C-24 850.1435 850.3435 850.5435 850.7435 850.9435 C-25 850.1495 850.3495 850.5495 850.7495 850.9495 C-26 850.1555 850.3555 850.5555 850.7555 850.9555 C-27 850.1615 850.3615 850.5615 850.7615 850.9615 C-28 850.1675 850.3675 850.5675 850.7675 850.9675 C-29 850.1735 850.3735 850.5735 850.7735 850.9735 GB 850.1765 850.3765 850.5765 850.7765 850.9765 to to to to to 850.1797 850.3797 850.5797 850.7797 850.9797 P-6 850.1813 850.3813 850.5813 850.7813 850.9813 P-5 850.1845 850.3845 850.5845 850.7845 850.9845 P-4 850.1877 850.3877 850.5877 850.7877 850.9877 P-3 850.1909 850.3909 850.5909 850.7909 850.9909 P-2 850.1941 850.3941 850.5941 850.7941 850.9941 P-1 850.1973 850.3973 850.5973 850.7973 850.9973 AIR TO GROUND CHANNELS CH. # CHANNEL BLOCK 10 9 8 7 6 C-1 894.0055 894.2055 894.4055 894.6055 894.8055 C-2 894.0115 894.2115 894.4115 894.6115 894.8115 C-3 894.0175 894.2175 894.4175 894.6175 894.8175 C-4 894.0235 894.2235 894.4235 894.6235 894.8235 C-5 894.0295 894.2295 894.4295 894.6295 894.8295 C-6 894.0355 894.2355 894.4355 894.6355 894.8355 C-7 894.0415 894.2415 894.4415 894.6415 894.8415 C-8 894.0475 894.2475 894.4475 894.6475 894.8475 C-9 894.0535 894.2535 894.4535 894.6535 894.8535 C-10 894.0595 894.2595 894.4595 894.6595 894.8595 C-11 894.0655 894.2655 894.4655 894.6655 894.8655 C-12 894.0715 894.2715 894.4715 894.6715 894.8715 C-13 894.0775 894.2775 894.4775 894.6775 894.8775 C-14 894.0835 894.2835 894.4835 894.6835 894.8835 C-15 894.0895 894.2895 894.4895 894.6895 894.8895 C-16 894.0955 894.2855 894.4955 894.6955 894.8955 C-17 894.1015 894.3015 894.5015 894.7015 894.9015 C-18 894.1075 894.3075 894.5075 894.7075 894.9075 C-19 894.1135 894.3135 894.5135 894.7135 894.9135 C-20 894.1195 894.3195 894.5195 894.7195 894.9195 C-21 894.1255 894.3255 894.5255 894.7255 894.9255 C-22 894.1315 894.3315 894.5315 894.7315 894.9315 C-23 894.1375 894.3375 894.5375 894.7375 894.9375 C-24 894.1435 894.3435 894.5435 894.7435 894.9435 C-25 894.1495 894.3495 894.5495 894.7495 894.9495 C-26 894.1555 894.3555 894.5555 894.7555 894.9555 C-27 894.1615 894.3615 894.5615 894.7615 894.9615 C-28 894.1675 894.3675 894.5675 894.7675 894.9675 C-29 894.1735 894.3735 894.5735 894.7735 894.9735 GB 894.1765 894.3765 894.5765 894.7765 894.9765 to to to to to 894.1797 894.3797 894.5797 894.7797 894.9797 P-6 894.1813 894.3813 894.5813 894.7813 894.9813 P-5 894.1845 894.3845 894.5845 894.7845 894.9845 P-4 894.1877 894.3877 894.5877 894.7877 894.9877 P-3 894.1909 894.3909 894.5909 894.7909 894.9909 P-2 894.1941 894.3941 894.5941 894.7941 894.9941 P-1 894.1973 894.3973 894.5973 894.7973 894.9973 5 4 3 2 1 C-1 895.0055 895.2055 895.4055 895.6055 895.8055 C-2 895.0115 895.2115 895.4115 895.6115 895.8115 C-3 895.0175 895.2175 895.4175 895.6175 895.8175 C-4 895.0235 895.2235 895.4235 895.6235 895.8235 C-5 895.0295 895.2295 895.4295 895.6295 895.8295 C-6 895.0355 895.2355 895.4355 895.6355 895.8355 C-7 895.0415 895.2415 895.4415 895.6415 895.8415 C-8 895.0475 895.2475 895.4475 895.6475 895.8475 C-9 895.0535 895.2535 895.4535 895.6535 895.8535 C-10 895.0595 895.2595 895.4595 895.6595 895.8595 C-11 895.0655 895.2655 895.4655 895.6655 895.8655 C-12 895.0715 895.2715 895.4715 895.6715 895.8715 C-13 895.0775 895.2775 895.4775 895.6775 895.8775 C-14 895.0835 895.2835 895.4835 895.6835 895.8835 C-15 895.0895 895.2895 895.4895 895.6895 895.8895 C-16 895.0955 895.2855 895.4955 895.6955 895.8955 C-17 895.1015 895.3015 895.5015 895.7015 895.9015 C-18 895.1075 895.3075 895.5075 895.7075 895.9075 C-19 895.1135 895.3135 895.5135 895.7135 895.9135 C-20 895.1195 895.3195 895.5195 895.7195 895.9195 C-21 895.1255 895.3255 895.5255 895.7255 895.9255 C-22 895.1315 895.3315 895.5315 895.7315 895.9315 C-23 895.1375 895.3375 895.5375 895.7375 895.9375 C-24 895.1435 895.3435 895.5435 895.7435 895.9435 C-25 895.1495 895.3495 895.5495 895.7495 895.9495 C-26 895.1555 895.3555 895.5555 895.7555 895.9555 C-27 895.1615 895.3615 895.5615 895.7615 895.9615 C-28 895.1675 895.3675 895.5675 895.7675 895.9675 C-29 895.1735 895.3735 895.5735 895.7735 895.9735 GB 895.1765 895.3765 895.5765 895.7765 895.9765 to to to to to 895.1797 895.3797 895.5797 895.7797 895.9797 P-6 895.1813 895.3813 895.5813 895.7813 895.9813 P-5 895.1845 895.3845 895.5845 895.7845 895.9845 P-4 895.1877 895.3877 895.5877 895.7877 895.9877 P-3 895.1909 895.3909 895.5909 895.7909 895.9909 P-2 895.1941 895.3941 895.5941 895.7941 895.9941 P-1 895.1973 895.3973 895.5973 895.7973 895.9973 GEOGRAPHICAL CHANNEL BLOCK LAYOUT (ground stations using the same channel block must be at least 300 miles apart) LOCATION CH. BLOCK ALASKA Anchorage 8 Cordova 5 Ketchikan 5 Juneau 4 Sitka 7 Yakutat 8 ALABAMA Birmingham 2 ARIZONA Phoenix 4 Winslow 6 ARKANSAS Pine Bluff 8 CALIFORNIA Blythe 10 Eureka 8 Los Angeles 4 Oakland 1 S. San Fran. 6 Visalia 7 COLORADO Colorado Spgs. 8 Denver 1 Hayden 6 FLORIDA Miami 4 Orlando 2 Tallahassee 7 GEORGIA Atlanta 5 St. Simons Is. 6 HAWAII Mauna Kapu 5 IDAHO Blackfoot 8 Caldwell 10 ILLINOIS Chicago 3 Kewanee 5 Schiller Park 2 INDIANA Fort Wayne 7 IOWA Des Moines 1 KANSAS Garden City 3 Wichita 7 KENTUCKY Fairdale 6 LOUISIANA Kenner 3 Shreveport 5 MASSACHUSETTS Boston 7 MICHIGAN Bellville 8 Flint 9 Sault S. Marie 6 MINNESOTA Bloomington 9 MISSISSIPPI Meridian 9 MISSOURI Kansas City 6 St. Louis 4 Springfield 9 MONTANA Lewistown 5 Miles City 8 Missoula 3 NEBRASKA Grand Island 2 Ogallala 4 NEVADA Las Vegas 1 Reno 3 Tonopah 9 Winnemucca 4 NEW MEXICO Alamogordo 8 Albuquerque 10 Aztec 9 Clayton 5 NEW JERSEY Woodbury 3 NEW YORK E. Elmhurst 1 Schuyler 2 Staten Island 9 NORTH CAROLINA Greensboro 9 Wilmington 3 NORTH DAKOTA Dickinson 7 OHIO Pataskala 1 OKLAHOMA Warner 4 Woodward 9 OREGON Albany 5 Klamath Falls 2 Pendleton 7 PENNSYLVANIA Coraopolis 4 New Cumberland 8 SOUTH CAROLINA Charleston 4 SOUTH DAKOTA Aberdeen 6 Rapid City 5 TENNESSEE Elizabethton 7 Memphis 10 Nashville 3 TEXAS Austin 2 Bedford 1 Houston 9 Lubbock 7 Monahans 6 UTAH Abajo Peak 7 Delta 2 Escalante 5 Green River 3 Salt Lake City 1 VIRGINIA Arlington 6 WASHINGTON Seattle 4 Cheney 1 WEST VIRGINIA Charleston 2 WISCONSIN Stevens Point 8 WYOMING Riverton 9 --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 DRBBS, Omaha Yes, Ivgate has alt groups ;-) (1:285/666.0)   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18231; 23 Mar 92 3:07 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18697 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:24:22 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00464 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:24:05 -0600 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:24:05 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203230624.AA00464@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #259 TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Mar 92 00:23:56 CST Volume 12 : Issue 260 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: NYNEX/NY has FMR -> No (Douglas Scott Reuben) Re: New AT&T Calling Card Mailing (Michael Schuster) Re: Telecommuting References Wanted (Peng-Hwa Ang) Re: Maximum Rates Chargable by California COCOTs (Laird P. Broadfield) Re: Hosed by MCI (Phil Howard) Re: Voice Drop Outs on International Link (Heruld Fiskenmoskort) Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment (Phil Howard) Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (L. W. Danz) Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes (Warren Burstein) Small Box in Old WE Desk Phone -- What is It? (John Nagle) Teleglobe Gets Five More Years of Monopoly (Dave Leibold) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22-MAR-1992 21:08:05.39 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: NYNEX/NY has FMR -> No Recently, nin15b0b@merrimack.edu (David E. Sheafer) on 21 Mar 92 09:39:32 GMT stated: >>> Do either of the cellular carriers (NYNEX or Cellular One) have >>> follow-me roaming at this point? >> Not that I know of. > NYNYEX does have FMR in the NY/NJ metro area now (I posted a message > about it a couple of days ago. Not to be rude to David or contradictory or anything, but the NYNEX/BAMS "partnership" service for the NY Metro Atra ("NYNEX/NY") does *NOT* have FMR. I just tried it today. Hitting *18/*19 from accounts with GTE/SF, BellSouth/Miami, SNET/CT and NYNEX/Boston (all of which offer FMR to their subscribers) will result in: "I'm sorry, we are unable to complete your call as dialed ... please call the operator for assistance (etc.)" The switch/recording number was RN9 each time. The last time I spoke to NYNEX/NY (to complain about very poor coverage about three weeks ago), I inquired as to when FMR will be available in the NY Metro area. Their reply: "Probably soon." They told me this two years ago. They always say this. So far, it hasn't happened. They may be getting *close* to allowing FMR. About two months ago, if you hit *18/*19, NYNEX/NY wouldn't even open up a voice channel for you. The switch would instruct your phone to return a "siren tone", ie, the same thing you get when you try placing a call in a "NO SVC" area. In February, they changed this to play the message noted above. I'm not sure why they did so, but it may be a precursor to allowing FMR. I dunno ... just a guess. Also, it was noted that they have a "711" roam info line. Not so -- yet. Dialing *711 returns the "No Svc" siren, while 711 returns the RN9 swtich recording. 611 won't work -- it just gets customer service, and unlike Cell One/Boston or whatever, they don't transfer after hours 611 calls to an automated information service. NYNEX/Orange county (Newberg), NY may have FMR now -- I have not tried it recently. Like the New York Metro NYNEX system, the Orange County system has pathetic coverage, and in my experience it is not worth the $3/day roam charge to use the phone there due to the poor quality of coverage. I will try it out soon and see what happens. NYNEX in general has awful coverage -- the {New York Times} recently reported that NYNEX has only 20 towers on Long Island, whereas Cell One presently has 50. It is obvious to anyone who drives there or boats in Long Island Sound that Cell One has unquestionably superior coverage. Why NYNEX has 300,000+ customers and Cell One only 150,000 or so I have no idea, probably the "Bell" name (?). Albany and Boston's NYNEX systems have decent coverage, although in Albany there are lots of gaps between Pittsfield and Albany along US-20. Also recall that NYNEX/Boston engages in the (I think) outrageous practice of charging airtime and (if applicable) a daily roam charge for *18 or *19. Anyhow, to receive calls in NY: for "B" side customers - NYNEX roam port - (212) 301-7626. - SNET/"Linx" customers get automatic call delivery, EXCEPT people from the SNET/Franklin County system (Anyone out there with a Frank. Co SNET #?) (FMR, as of Sunday, 3/22/92, not available) for "A" side customers - Cell One port - (212) 847-7626 - other McCaw systems with Ericssons - automatic call delivery and full use of features (except voicemail and No-answer-Transfer) - Customers from Metro Mobile/CT or Western Mass, or Cell One/South Jersey - automatic call delivery and full use of features, including voicemail. (Nationlink/Roam America not available as of 3/22/92) If anyone finds that NYNEX/NY *does* offer FMR to them *please* let me know! Also, if your home system is a McCaw/Ericsson, and you travel to other McCaw/Ericsson systems, could you let me know what sort of problems you have noticed in terms of call delivery, features, and voicemail in the roaming system? (Just send me some brief e-mail at your convenience if possible) Thanks! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster) Subject: Re: New AT&T Calling Card Mailing Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 01:36:15 GMT Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY In article jwt!john@uunet.UU.NET (John Temples) writes: > I recently received a mailing from AT&T offering me their new Calling > Card. I just noticed that the ten-digit number above my mailing > address appears to be my area code and phone number rearranged into a > "random" order. Has anyone else noticed this? If they're going to > take the time to try to protect our privacy, I would think they could > use a slightly more sophisticated encoding scheme! Several months ago I received a letter "warning" me that a new format AT&T card was forthcoming. It wasn't. This week I got a glossy mailing from New York Telephone, emphasizing how =THEIR= calling card is easy to remember, but the (non-existent) AT&T card isn't. I'm confused. I keep getting these letters, but nothing has changed. My (home phone number-based) AT&T card works as before .. at home and on the road. Mike Schuster NY Public Access UNIX: schuster@panix.com | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com | MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 11:02:28 SST From: Peng-Hwa Ang Subject: Re: Telecommuting References Wanted The "authority" in the loosest sense of the word is Jack Niiles (or is it Niles ) now at U. Southern California. He wrote the first study in 1976 or so and may have been the one who coined the word. The study was commissioned, I believe, by the City of Los Angeles, which, despite its cherubic name, is hell for commuting. Niiles/Niles has since written another study. Also in the early 1980s or so, there was a study entitled something like "Telec ommunications and Energy" by, I believe, someone called Tyler. This, if I recal l right, was a UN-sponsored study. (Pardon these vague references 'cos I studied them in the late 1980s.) LA has one or two other studies on telecommuting. When I visited the City's tel ecom office in 1988, they were trying to put city workers on telecommuting. The ir conclusion was that a lot of it was political (in the wide sense of the word ). As one of the officers said, "How would taxpayers feel if they see their City's employees' cars parked in the garage day after day?" Last heard, they have put a number of people on telecommuting though. And yes, there are lots of people who telecommute. Academics are classic examples. BTW, there was an article in {BusinessWeek} fall of 1987 that had an article on telecommuting saying something like 100+million Americans were doing it. The figures are bloated. They probably include anyone who does any stitch of work at work. Regards, Peng ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Re: Maximum Rates Chargable by California COCOTs Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 02:43:04 GMT In john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > In article dbw@crash.cts.com (David B. > Whiteman) writes: >> I found these rates from a newspaper article about COCOTs. These are >> the maximum rates allowed to be charged by COCOTs in California by the >> California Public Utilities Commission -- these rates only apply to >> calls within California: > And I have found literally two COCOTs from Hell (not Michigan) that > live outside my favorite supermarket. In addition to all of the > defects described below, it was almost impossible to talk due to the > extremely poor audio quality. Not even a contest with the one I found yesterday outside my favorite bookstore. I had walked by it on my way in, and thought "Oh good, that's new, and the next nearest it up the escalator and around the corner. Not only that, it looks like Genuine Bell." Bzzzzzzt, thank you for playing. I came out, and decided to check my voicemail (an 800 call). I get up to the phone, and notice that it's a COCOT, and my heart sinks. First, I looked at the rate card. Hmmm, AT&T is the default, that's a good sign. "Dial 211 or 817-xxx-xxxx (free call) for repair or refund", that's encouraging too. "Press 0 for a local operator or 00 for a long distance operator." How good can it get? I pick up the handset, and I've got sidetone, and the keys are giving proper DTMF. Nirvana. The awful truth: 1-800-my voicemail "Invalid number." 0 "Invalid number." 00 "Invalid number." 10288-0 "Invalid number." 10333-0 "Invalid number." 10777-0 "Invalid number." (Thouroughly disgusted at this point, and ready to chew someone out...) 211 "Invalid number." 611 "Invalid number." 1-817-xxx-xxxx "Invalid number." (Gnaaaaargh!) Insert 20 cents, dial local number, works perfectly. Hmmm. Hypothesis: local number setup okay, or defaulted to something, special number setup hosed. Go to other phone. Same results. Normally I'd let this pass as one of the inevitabilities of free enterprise, and once again wish I could afford cellular base fees, but this is a pretty bad example. Surely here in the People's Republic of Kalifornia there's a PUC bureau for reporting this stuff? (We have one for everything else, why not this.) BTW, I also remember a post from a year or so ago discussing a COCOT enforcement effort looking for volunteers, but by the time I called the number, I got SITs. Did this die? Did anybody get through to them? Laird P. Broadfield lairdb@crash.cts.com {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Hosed by MCI Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 04:23:50 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > 2. It is doubtful that a similar circuit ordered from AT&T would have > any of the problems that we have encountered. But if it did, > "emergency" to AT&T means more like "within the hour". If AT&T had to > route a backhaul, experience has shown that it can do it in hours, not > days. But then AT&T is (apparently) an engineering-driven company. Usually the first people to do anything are doing it because they happen to see a need for the product and know how to provide it. Thereafter everyone else just sees the money making opportunities. That's life. Well I've found that SOME followup companies do reasonably well. MCI does not seem to have been one of them. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: whknight@sdf.LoneStar.ORG (Heruld Fiskenmoskort) Subject: Re: Voice Drop Outs on International Link Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 18:00:16 CST Try a TASI locking frequency .... ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 04:50:18 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) aps@world.std.com (Armando P. Stettner) writes: > It has been asked whether or not it is possible to have two different > cellular phones answering to the same phone number. Pat (the > ever-present Moderator) has said the answer is no. In general, I > believe this to be correct. I believe the problem, however, is an > oversight in the design of the mobile telephone switching office > systems, specifically, the database which does the lookups to verify > the correct associations. > Would somebody please tell me why this can't be fixed/redesigned, etc.? Because it is already in place. If simply redesigning or fixing things that are designed wrong were done more often, *LOTS* of things would be different (and better) than they are now. You might have to dispose of hardware for some design changes. But this mentality even extends to software. Rather than quit using software they paid money for, because something better comes along ultra low priced, some management types prefer keeping the old clunker. It would make them look bad if they switched. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: dan@quiensabe.az.stratus.com Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls Date: 23 Mar 92 00:19:11 GMT Reply-To: dan@quiensabe.az.stratus.com In article zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon) writes: > Finally, a cooperative caller told me that he was responding to an > ad in a national trade publication for a company that sells window > treatment of some kind. Sure enough, it is my number in the ad.] The > publisher apologized, but did not offer to do anything. Gee, I might be tempted to take the names of the callers and then sell them to the publisher. At a reasonable price, of course :-} L. W. "Dan" Danz 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 ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein) Subject: Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes Date: 22 Mar 92 14:21:00 GMT Reply-To: warren@itex.jct.ac.il Organization: WorldWide Software I've never had any problem with line-powered BOB's. In fact I have seen battery-powered ones so sensitive that they registered the low voltage found on an input, which made it impossible to distinguish between inputs and outputs, one of the reasons I use the thing in the first place. warren@itex.jct.ac.il ------------------------------ From: nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) Subject: Small Box in Old WE Desk Phone -- What is It? Date: 23 Mar 92 04:13:08 GMT What's this strange thing in a WE desk phone of 1981 vintage? It's a reddish-brown plastic box, 15/16" x 2 1/8" x 7/16", with four wires attached to the touch-tone dial of a Western Electric 1-line desk phone which is telco-owned. It bears the marking "840364202 9-81", but no other ID. It contains three resistors, a cylindrical component 3/16" dia and 3/8" long with one orange band and the embossed number "521", a spring 3/4" long, clearly wired into the circuit, (looks like a heating element or a very low ohm resistor) and a four-terminal IC in an 8-pin DIP package marked "WE 4 1 838A", all mounted on a PC board with two screw terminals and two attached wires. The back of the PC board reads "AM-4 220". The phone is one of those that appears to have been retrofitted with modular jacks, and the box may be part of that conversion. There's an opening in the box next to the spring, probably for ventilation. John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 23:57:37 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) Subject: Teleglobe Gets Five More Years of Monopoly Canadian communications minister Perrin Beatty announced that Teleglobe, the national overseas carrier, will retain its monopoly on international calls for another five years. The word "monopoly" was avoided in favour of the euphemism "exclusive supplier". This monopoly arrangement could be reviewed in 1995, and the monopoly could be terminated or continued in 1997. Teleglobe's current structure came about when the company was sold by the federal government and made into a private enterprise in 1987. Teleglobe's 1991 profit was $25.7 million; 1990's profit was a third of that. There was a stated desire to achieve parity with U.S. overseas rates, though Teleglobe did not say when that would be expected. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #260 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09446; 23 Mar 92 23:17 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26156 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 21:09:00 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27942 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 21:08:45 -0600 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 21:08:45 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203240308.AA27942@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #261 TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Mar 92 21:08:42 CST Volume 12 : Issue 261 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Pennsylvania Supreme Court Bars Caller-ID (Comm. Daily via Dave Banisar) GTE Southwest/Iowa-Nebraska Contract Talks (Phillip Dampier) Hold Music Sponsorship (Michael Rosen) AT&T International Operator Assistance (Andrew Lie) Speakerphone at Disneyland (Craig R. Watkins) 3780 Protocol (Leroy Donnelly) UNIX and ISDN (Donald Molaro) Roaming in LA (Steve Forrette) Anyone Work With 900 Calling From PBX's? (Steve Chafe) Correction to 'How ISDN Works' (David G. Lewis) Only In America (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: CPSR, Washington Office From: Dave Banisar Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 15:49:09 EDT Subject: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Bars Caller-ID From March 23, 1992 {Comm. Daily} PA. SUPREME COURT THROWS OUT UNBLOCKED CALLER ID The PA state Supreme Court last week upheld lower court rulings that unblocked Caller ID service would violate state wiretap laws, but left open a significant question of whether any form of blocking would satisfy legal requirements. The March 18 decision by Judge Nicholas Papadakos for the seven-member court said the service violated state law "because it is being used for unlimited purposes without the 'consent' of each of the users of the telephone service." The PUC had approved service in 1989 without blocking, and was challenged in court by then-Consumer Advocate David Barasch. Bell of PA had argued that Caller ID was a legal trap-and-trace device operated by the telephone company, but Barasch and others had said that two traps were being used -- one by telephone company, which may be exempt from law, and one by the customer's Caller ID device. The court ruled state wiretapping law requires that "consent to any form of interception must be obtained from all parties." The ruling didn't answer questions whether Caller ID was constitutional, or what forms of blocking would suffice to meet state requirements. In oral arguments, the telephone company changed its policy and said it would offer per-call blocking. Bell of PA. spokesman Saul Kohler said that ruling "clears the way for Caller ID to be offered" with per-call blocking, and that the company was pleased service wasn't found to be unconstitutional. There's no timetable for proposing service, he said. But Irwin Popowski, who succeeded Barasch as Consumer Advocate, said it's an open question whether per-call blocking is adequate. Popowski wouldn't say what blocking standard his office would support, but noted that trend of regulatory decisions around the country lately has been to include per-line blocking in mix of services. There's a "real question" whether per-line blocking should be offered, he said. PUC Vice Chairman Joseph Rhodes, who wrote the 1978 privacy law while in the legislature, said it's possible that any new Bell proposal could lead to another three years of litigation. He called the decision "triumph for privacy," and said Bell statement claiming victory was "an absurd attempt to distort what the Supreme Court decided." Rhodes called on Bell to confer with Caller ID opponents to try to find a solution, and for the company to put more emphasis on Call Trace. ------------------------------ From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 16:30:53 Subject: GTE Southwest/Iowa-Nebraska Contract Talks CWA STARTS CONTRACT TALKS WITH GTE SOUTHWEST AND GTE IOWA-NEBRASKA; JOB SECURITY TOP PRIORITY FOR 20,000 WORKERS AT GTE NATIONWIDE IN 1992 WASHINGTON, D.C., March 19 (CWA) -- The Communications Workers of America will open negotiations for a new three-year contract with GTE Southwest on Tuesday, March 31, 1992 in Irving, Texas. Talks with GTE Iowa-Nebraska begin soon after. These are the first of several round of negotiations to be held in 1992 and 1993 with GTE, for new contracts covering a total of about 26,000 union represented workers nationwide. "GTE is among the healthiest, most profitable corporations in America, despite the recession," said CWA Vice President T.O. Moses. "Yet they have been drastically cutting jobs and laying off thousands of workers. These layoffs have a devastating effect on our communities, which lose both good jobs and the quality service these workers provided. GTE has a corporate responsibility to the communities which they serve, and the workers they employ, and we will urge them to meet that responsibility in our negotiations." GTE, the largest U.S. telephone holding company, is a financially strong, growing, successful corporation. In 1991, GTE saw significant increases in profits, revenues, return to shareholders, productivity, and acquired new assets. GTE paid $945 million for a share of the Venezuelan phone company in 1991, and consumated a $6.2 billion merger with Contel. Profitability per employee is estimated to exceed $35,000 per worker in 1992. [Detailed figures for 1991 have not yet been released.] GTE's telephone operations are the key to the company's success, providing an overwhelming share (85 percent) of their profits. "Our members, whose hard work has made millions for GTE, deserve a fair contract that protects their standard of living and insures employment security now and in the future," Moses stated. "These economic security goals mean a great deal to the communities where GTE employees live and work," Moses continued. "If our economy is ever going to thrive again, successful, profitable companies like GTE must make a commitment to create good jobs, instead of continuing to downsize. The thousands of jobs that GTE has cut over the years have hurt families and communities all over this country, in favor of boosting short term profits. GTE and other corporations must stop playing to Wall Street, putting workers on the unemployment lines to gain a quick jump in stock prices. GTE should adopt a long-term strategy that creates good American jobs, with good benefits and opportunities for advancement. GTE is more than able to meet those goals." "CWA will also be addressing problems caused by the merger of GTE and Contel, with our focus being to ensure that former Contel employees will be treated fairly," Moses said. Management is saying we are one company, and they must live up to those words. "CWA members at GTE will mobilize around the country on Tuesday, March 31st, to show their solidarity with the bargainers at GTE Southwest and GTE Iowa-Nebraska," Moses continued. "They will distribute leaflets to all union employees marking the start of bargaining. We understand that when one table sits down to negotiate, we're all there together, because we all work for the same company and belong to the same union. We're standing together and standing strong. Similar leaflets will go out nationwide every time another bargaining begins in each GTE region." CWA Local leaders from GTE met in Dallas, Texas, in December of 1991 and adopted bargaining goals for GTE, as well as adopting the bargaining goals set by all of the CWA telecommunications local leadership. CWA represents over 600,000 workers in telecommunications, printing, publishing, media, health care, and the public sector in the United States and Canada." ### Communications Workers of America Contact: Jeff Miller Gaye Williams Mack (202) 434-1172 Ben Turn (214) 637-0173 GTE - CONTEL MANAGEMENT DOUBLETALK Is management giving you nothing but doubletalk? If GTE and Contel management keep saying GTE is now one company ... - Why is GTE offering buyout incentives to its employees, but not to Contel workers? - Why aren't they offering the same pension plan? - Why do Contel employees have to pay part of their health care? (part of a brochure being distributed regarding GTE and Contel) ------------------------------ From: Michael.Rosen@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: Hold Music Sponsorship Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 07:13:19 GMT Here's something interesting I encountered while calling Ticketmaster (TM probably?) to purchase Orioles exhibition game tickets: Upon connecting, I was placed on hold and was presented with some classical music for my "entertainment" (sorry, I'm not much into clasical). Anyway, a little ways in, this voice cuts in and says: "Your hold time entertainment has been brought to you by Brinks Home Security ... blah, blah, blah ... [followed by advertisement for their services and an 800 number]" Has anyone else ever encountered hold music that was sponsored by someone? I found this to be quite odd ... 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: Mon, 23 Mar 92 09:39:38 CST From: alie@ssd.dl.nec.com (Andrew Lie) Subject: AT&T International Operator Assistance Two weeks ago I tried calling Hong Kong direct by dialing the country code (852) and the city code (5) followed by the local number (both the country code and the city code are in the phone book). I could not get through using this dialing sequence. So, I called the AT&T International Operator stating the dialing sequence and the announcement I got. He could not figure out what was wrong and connected me to the Hong Kong operator. The Hong Kong operator verified the local number and did not see anything wrong. The AT&T operator immediately disconnected my call without asking the other operator to extend the call. I gave up. Last Friday I received a bill from AT&T charging $7.37 + tax for that call (the number indicated is 852-555-1212). I talked to the AT&T representative and she insisted that it is their policy to bill such call. I am wondering whether anyone has similar experience with AT&T. BTW, I learned from a friend that calling Hong Kong no longer requires the city code (YES, I get through with this dialing sequence). I personally will not miss this type of operator assistance after it is automated. Andrew K. Lie ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Speakerphone at Disneyland Date: 23 Mar 92 12:05:47 EST Organization: HRB Systems, Inc. As I promised, here's the phone number that showed up on our 800 billing for a call from the speakerphone at Disneyland: (714) 999-5384 When I call it, I get that the phone has "been disconnected or is no longer in service." Craig R. Watkins crw@icf.hrb.com HRB Systems, Inc. +1 814 238-4311 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 07:19:24 CST From: Leroy.Donnelly@ivgate.omahug.org (Leroy Donnelly) Subject: 3780 Protocol Reply-To: leroy.donnelly%drbbs@ivgate.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha Looking for a supplier of UNIX based telecommunications packages that will do 3780. SCO and ZENIX will be the main operating systems of choice. Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 DRBBS, Omaha Yes, Ivgate has alt groups ;-) (1:285/666.0) ------------------------------ From: molaro@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Donald Molaro) Subject: UNIX and ISDN Organization: U. of Calgary Computer Science Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 22:04:58 GMT I am looking for information with regards to a hardware and software interface to ISDN from a UNIX system, either a SUN (sunos 4.1.X) or a CDC 4080 (AT&T sys V). Please respond via mail as I do not make it a habit to read this group. I will post a summary of there are sufficent responses. Donald Molaro molaro@cpsc.ucalgary.ca #include ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 16:11:20 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Roaming in LA Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Southland, and was quite dismayed with the problems I had with LA Cellular (the "A" carrier). I was trying to get a hold of a friend who's now in 310, and had the following problems in dialing: - Using ten digit dialing (as it was a local call from where I was) got "Your call cannot be completed as dialed." - 1 + ten digits got "Roamers must use 0+ for long distance," even though it was a local call. - 0 + ten digits got "Your call cannot be completed as dialed," or a reorder, seeminly at random. I finally just did a 0- call and placed it on my calling card. The next day, I remembered that permissive dialing for the 310/213 split was still in effect, and tried it with 213 + seven digits, and it worked just fine. Calling Customer Care got me a menu to wade through, and when I selected "technical problem," I was told to leave a voicemail message describing my problem. :-( When I called back and let the menu time out, I discovered that they don't have 24 hour customer care, and that I would have to call back on Monday. When I spoke with a rep on Monday, they told me that "Pacific Bell has not issued us any 310 prefixes yet, so all of our subscribers are still in 213." I said that while that may be true, there's no reason why that should prevent me from calling a landline in 310. After all, 310 is the "real" number for those that got moved -- 213 is just supported temporarily to ease the transition. "But sir, you don't understand; we have not been issued any 310 numbers yet!" I countered with the fact that I was able to call my office in the 206 area code, even though LA Cellular did not have any home customers with 206 numbers. "But sir, but sir ..." :-( I asked how, as a roamer, was I supposed to be aware of this situation, since the recordings don't say what the real problem is. This is especially bad since LA Cellular charges 1/2 a minute for each uncompleted call, no matter what the reason. So, I get a nice 50 cent charge for all of those intercepts, as well has having to pay calling card rates for a local call. I would think that as a common carrier, that they would have to have their act together and support new area codes (especially ones in their service area) on the first day they are activated. After all, isn't the permissive dialing period supposed to be so the CUSTOMERS, not the common carriers, can have it easy during the transition? Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: chafe@ucdavis.edu (Steve Chafe) Subject: Anyone Work With 900 Calling From PBX's? Date: 24 Mar 92 00:56:15 GMT Reply-To: chafe@ucdavis.edu (Steve Chafe) Organization: University of California, Davis Hello, Does anyone know what rules exist regarding providing 900 number access from PBX's? Is a university bound at all to provide such access to its "residential" customers who are living on campus in dorms? I understand that because of billing problems, many sites are unable to offer 900 service. If anyone has any info on regulations that relate to this issue, I would appreciate hearing from you! Thanks, Steve Chafe UCD Telecommunications Office chafe@aggie.ucdavis.edu ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Correction to 'How ISDN Works' Organization: AT&T Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 20:44:23 GMT In a previous article, I stated that the U-DSL using 2B1Q uses a line rate of 192kb/2; it's actually 160kb/s. Sorry for the slip-up. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 15:08 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Only In America Quote worth requoting (from a southern California motel room): On the bottom of a Comdial telephone is a sticker that reads: "Made Right! In America! (assembled in Mexico)" John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Your point is well taken, but please note that Mexico *is* in America, as is Canada. The USA does not have exclusive rights to the name America. This is something which annoys many of our neighbors to the north considerably: the monopolization of 'America' by people in the USA. Maybe we should ask Americus Vespucci his opinion on the matter. He's the one who drew the map and lent his name to this continent. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #261 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12513; 24 Mar 92 0:36 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29758 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 22:37:24 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21644 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 22:37:11 -0600 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 22:37:11 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203240437.AA21644@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #262 TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Mar 92 22:37:00 CST Volume 12 : Issue 262 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (David G. Lewis) Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (Alan L. Varney) Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (Tom Gray) Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes (Joel Upchurch) Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem (Kath Mullholand) Re: 911 Source Identification (Bob Frankston) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty Organization: AT&T Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 16:19:52 GMT In article wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) writes: > This question is rather too obvious, but I'll ask anyhow. How is ISDN > carried? Not the stuff you and I see, but the carrier side of the > loop. I'm not sure I understand your question. I think what you're asking is how does an ISDN DSL (Digital Subscriber Line -- the connection from an ISDN phone ("terminal") to an ISDN switch ("exchange")) function. There are as many different flavors of ISDN as there are switch vendors, so let's assume we're dealing with American National Standard, National ISDN 1, ISDN. The standard of interest refers to the "U" reference point (and I'm not going to try to draw the reference diagram, sorry), which is the interface between an ISDN exchange ("Exchange Termination" function) and a Network Termination 1 (NT1), which may be incorporated in an ISDN terminal or a separate piece of equipment. I don't remember the standard number offhand. The U interface (playing a little fast and loose with technology) is a two-conductor digital interface which operates at a line rate of 192kb/s. Line encoding is 2B1Q (two bits -- 2B -- encoded as one quartenary digit -- 1Q). Framing is defined in the standard; I don't know if it has a name. The three channels (B1, B2, D) are time division multiplexed onto the 192kb/s bit stream; B1 and B2 at 64kb/s each, D at 16kb/s, and overhead in the remaining 48kb/s. > Now I doubt they pulse that hunk of copper with DC, so it has > to be audio, just as we now send with modems. Well, if you hooked up a butt set to the pair, you'd hear some noise, but it's not digital data modulated onto an analog loop -- it's a digital loop. > One difference is, of course, we don't call it a modem any longer -- > we use a different term. Now you're talking about something different; namely, how user data at some usable rate is imposed onto a 64kb/s circuit-switched B-channel. That's the function of something called a Terminal Adaptor (which, again, may be a standalone box, or integrated into an ISDN phone, or a PC card, or whatever), and it performs something called Rate Adaption. There are two standards for rate adaption, V.110 and V.120, both of which use some sort of voodoo to put a signal at n kb/s (where n ranges from 0.11 to 56, probably) onto a 64kb/s channel; I don't know much more than that. Maybe Mr. Nixon at Hayes does? David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 12:48:12 CST From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty Organization: AT&T In article wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) writes: > This question is rather too obvious, but I'll ask anyhow. How is ISDN > carried? Not the stuff you and I see, but the carrier side of the loop. Dave, Your comments would suggest that you have a casual interest in ISDN. I'd suggest you take a look at some of the {IEEE Spectrum} articles over the last few years, for an overview of the subject. (This includes a lot of good multi-color drawings that go a long way towards making the topic accessible to non-engineering folks.) And if you have more than a casual interest, I'd suggest a trip to the local technical/university bookstore or library. ISDN is finally appearing in some books that might actually be used by non-engineers, by more popular authors such as Stallings and Tannenbaum (my personal technical library is at work, so please forgive the spelling.). If you're really interested, there are technical seminars on ISDN (and data communications) that will give you even more details. > Now I doubt they pulse that hunk of copper with DC, so it has > to be audio, just as we now send with modems. One difference is, of > course, we don't call it a modem any longer -- we use a different term. > But how different IS it, from alternatives such as switched56, etc? > And what special tricks do they use? At a conceptual level, ISDN REALLY DOES "pulse the copper", {actually, the pulses are usually modified bi-polar line codes} and it is NEVER "... audio, just as we now send with modems". Actually, ISDN is most unlike today's "audio" modems in that it's signals are understood by the local CO to be "non-audio". To see why that's important, first one has to understand the audio telephone system. At a simple level, the voice telephone system transmits audio signals in the 300-3100 Hz band in both directions over a single pair of wires to/from a telephone. Power for this communication comes from the local CO switch. The transmission is in the form of balanced AM signals over the "tip/ring" pair. Due to much variation in the "loop" wire plant, both the switch and the user's telephone have to use non-trivial circuits to adapt to the loop. Induced noise and cross-talk exist at various levels in the loop. Notice that this simple description does not attempt to handle the large variety of connection possibilities between the local CO switch and the CO at the far end of a connection. But you shouldn't care about that inter-CO connection, because it's there only to provide an audio path (with echo cancellation if needed) between the two CO switches. Nor does the description account for the large variety of connection possibilities between the user's telephone and the CO; again, this should be transparent (almost) to the user. The band-limited audio signal is viewed as being carried end-to-end, even if the truth is that it is digitized at a near-by "digital loop carrier", sent to the CO over fiber, to the far end CO over a mix of fiber/microwave/ radio digital systems, and delivered by the far end CO to a digital "fiber-to-the-curb" system, where it is converted for the first time back to an analog signal. You asked how ISDN is different than switched 56K services. Good question, but do you understand "switched 56K"? A typical version takes "common ground" DC serial data at 56000 bits/second over a V.35 (or similar) interface, converts it to a "bi-polar" synchronous signal over two pairs of wires (one transmit, one receive) at a DSU "modem" and furnishes that four-wire connection to the CO. The bi-polar signal uses one of many possible "line codes" to encode the data; typically a 1-bit is indicated by a pulse in the opposite direction from the last "1-bit" pulse, and 0 is no pulse. Clocking is provided by the incoming pair from the CO. Other versions use special DSUs to support 56K over a single pair, with various schemes to handle two-way transmission interference. These schemes obviously require more than 2*56K bandwidth. Note that, unlike "voice" calls, the CO has to know that the 56K service is being used (typically by dialing a code such as "#56" in front of the desired number). And every switch carrying the call to it's destination has to know this is a 56K call, and insure that the 56K data stream is not converted to analog voice along the way. Typically, this requires dedicated trunk groups and/or out-of-band signaling (e.g., SS7) between switches. ISDN involves several parts of the telephone network in various ways. It specifies how the "ISDN terminal" interfaces to a simple four-wire "binary" interface, how that interface adapts the signals to a two-wire interface {using the technology learned from the 56K-over- one-pair services} and how the CO switch converts this back to a four-wire-type interface. Also, to aid in offering new services, ISDN divides the binary interface into various mostly-independent "channels". The most commonly discussed are the B-channel (a basic bit stream) and the D-channel (a data channel supporting both "user" data packets and "terminal/CO" data packets). The latter data packets replace most of the DTMF and related tone signals exchanged by the terminal and the CO. Common configurations of channels would be 2B+D (two independent bidirectional 64Kb channels plus one 16Kb bidirectional data channel), 0B+D (16Kb bidirectional data channel), 1B+D (one bidirectional 64Kb channel plus one 16Kb bidirectional data channel). The 64Kb channels can be used as voice channels, with the terminal doing the analog-to-digital and reverse conversions. The D-channel is used to inform the other end about the status of the B-channels, set up calls, handle "feature" buttons on the terminal, etc. That is a brief summary of the ISDN interface called Basic Rate Interface (BRI), designed to work over a two-wire copper pair. There are various schemes for handling the two-wire encoding, resulting in terminals (or at least four-wire/two-wire interfaces) that are not compatible between vendors. This situation should be remedied by industry acceptance of a "National ISDN" interface for BRI, available soon. Since the two-wire interfaces do not change the 64Kb/16Kb channel structure, most ISDN terminals can work with other ISDN terminals that use a different interface, just as ground-start lines and proprietary PBX telephones work with loop-start telephones today. ISDN also provides an interface called Primary Rate Interface (PRI), designed to work primarily with PBX-like customer equipment. The most commonly mentioned version in called 23B+D, with 23 of the 64Kb bidirectional B-channels under control of one 64Kb D-channel. Note that the data packets on the D-channel are the same (mostly) as the slower 16Kb D-channel of BRI. So PRI and BRI "terminals" can interwork without special effort. This is one of the basic building blocks of ISDN; while there is a lot of variation (some call it flexibility) available in the terminal-to-CO-switch interface, the basic 64Kb B-channel and packets of the D-channel are pretty standard. Note that switched 56Kb services required some dedicated trunks (or at least some special non-standard signaling paths) in order for COs to "know" a "data" call was requested. ISDN provides for evolution in the inter-switch trunking area, to avoid non-standard solutions. In particular, the only standard trunk signaling provided by North American SS7 (Signaling System No. 7) is called ISDN-User Part -- also called ISUP. This part of SS7 is used to signal all SS7 "call set-up" requests, even for simple analog telephone calls. {CCITT provides a different User Part - Telephone User Part or TUP, for analog-only calls.} The set-up request allows switches to specify voice-or-data information, data rate, etc. For ISDN-to-ISDN calls, the user terminals can even exchange a limited amount of call-related data during call set-up. While this doesn't really discuss the "nitty-gritty" of the ISDN interface, I hope will at least focus future discussion on the area of interest. For example, are you interested in the actual two-wire encoding for ISDN BRI, or in the D-channel packet structure, or .... Your original question is like asking for the "nitty-gritty" of the interface between two packet switches -- the only answer is that "it depends". Al Varney - AT&T has not approved or disapproved the above information, nor passed upon its accuracy. ------------------------------ From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 16:46:39 -0500 Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) writes: > This question is rather too obvious, but I'll ask anyhow. How is ISDN > carried? Not the stuff you and I see, but the carrier side of the > loop. Now I doubt they pulse that hunk of copper with DC, so it has > to be audio, just as we now send with modems. One difference is, of > course, we don't call it a modem any longer -- we use a different term. The local loop will be pulsed with DC. The line code is called 2B1Q. Two binary bits are encoded with one quaternary symbol. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes From: upchrch!joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch ) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 00:40:49 EST Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > I just use two ten dollar connectors. One tells me the status > of each RS-232 line with two-color LEDs. The other is a mini RS-232 > break-out box that I bought in Akihabara, Tokyo (and I've seen them in > Rat Shack). Both are around the same size as DB-25 gender changers. > It works fine for me in almost all situations. Sure, it isn't > as nice as a $100 break out box, but why waste the money? If you are > using it every day, then heck -- go for the money. But for us poor > schlums, the $20 solution is the winner. And they have the added > advantage of being truly pocket-sized! ;-) If you don't want to spend a lot of money for a break out box, Dalco (1-800-445-5342) sells one for $26.80. The only drawback to the unit, is that the jumper wires are a little cheap. They appear to nothing more than wires with the insulation stripped off the end. At least it makes it easy to replace them when you lose them and you will lose them. Actually Dalco is a handy place to buy a lot of bits and pieces. (If your mail bounces use the address below. My map entry is new.) Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809 joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 11:56:57 -0500 (EST) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) Subject: Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem In posting 12.252.2 the Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: ... > Then they could offer to waive the $120+ deposit requirement if the > student agrees to waive his/her rights to fully unblocked 800 > service. PAT] I wonder if this is technologically possible? On our PBX, we can assign a restriction code by NPA or by NPA/NXX, and we can block specific NPA, NPA/NXX, and dialed numbers, but we can't place a restriction code on a dialed number to make it dialable by some and not by others. Granted, other PBXs can do different things. kath mullholand university of new hampshire durham, nh Inaccuracies should be attributed to my evil twin; not to my employer. [Moderator's Note: Can you treat all 800 calls as billable LD calls, by routing them through your switch and recording them like any other LD call but taking the cost to always be zero dollars and zero cents? You'd have an audit trail of who called any flaky 800 number that way. In other words, users would dial an 800 number like any other LD call with the proper code on the front, etc. Their monthly statement would show the 800 call with zero as the cost. You'd know who to manually bill for the $120 if a charge like that came through. Another solution would be to send 800-736-7886 and others of that kind to an intercept saying "This call requires manual assistance from the campus operator. Please hang up and dial the campus operator to place your call." There may be a law now that you cannot refuse to complete any 800 call, but there is nothing in the law which says the call has to be *user dialable* -- just that it has to be completable. The campus operator would shake down the caller for the $120 on a prepaid basis, *then* dial the call and connect it to the desired extension. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: 911 Source Identification Date: Mon 23 Mar 1992 09:33 -0500 I would like to see a copy of the {Globe} editorial that links E911 with Caller-ID. The only thing the two might have in common is SS7. The fact that NET has chosen to throw a childish temper tantrum because they had to give people (sorry, I guess those who choose a modicum of privacy are low-lives by definition [the return of HUAC?]), is no reason to deny E911. Perhaps NET simply requires a bit more time to update their software to handle these situations, but that is not my impression. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #262 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14776; 24 Mar 92 1:39 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04825 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 23:38:27 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12795 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 23:38:09 -0600 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 23:38:09 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203240538.AA12795@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #263 TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Mar 92 23:38:09 CST Volume 12 : Issue 263 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Conrad C. Nobili) Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment (John Higdon) Re: US West and BBSs Update (John Higdon) Re: Call Waiting Disable Kludge (Peter da Silva) Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel (Henry Mensch) Re: AOS, APCC and Other Slime (Andy Sherman) Re: Customer Service (Part 2): BT (Steve Forrette) Re: Small Box in Old WE Desk Phone -- What is It? (Julian Macassey) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 01:04:15 EST From: Conrad_Nobili@Harvard.EDU (Conrad C. Nobili) Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees Organization: Harvard University Office for Information Technology In article , Conrad_Nobili@Harvard.EDU (Conrad C. Nobili) writes: > The owner of a base station in the messaging scam can simply claim > that he is being harassed by "these strange hissing sounds" left > instead of a name in bogus collect calls. > [Moderator's Note: If I were a telco person investigating the misuse > of this system and you said to me "I am being harassed when I answer > the phone by these strange hissing sounds", my response would be "so > is that the reason you made those 'strange hissing sounds' back at me > when I called on your other line just a minute ago? ... were you > trying to get even with whoever is 'harassing' you? ..." :) PAT] Well, actually there is only ever 'hissing' in one direction. As the whole point (well, one of them anyway) of the automatic collect call operator is to *prevent* bidirectional free communication, one would have to construct some different "modem"s. Or at least modify some a bit. One would actually need a "mo" on the sending end and a "dem" on the receiving end. Remember, the "caller's name" is being digitally stored and played back *later*. So the "mo" could be a modem which ignores a lack of carrier and doesn't try to negotiate communication parameters. It would have to go instantly into full-bore transmit data mode. And the "dem" would be the obvious complement. And of course it would likely be wise to simply *record* the collect caller and run the tape through the "dem" later. Maybe one could use a simple answering machine to record the "messages". Would it have to have one of the special 5% messages on it to fool the computer- operator? I don't know ... Just wanted to point out that the only noise coming from the scam base station would be a polite North American "no" declining the collect call. The *only* evidence of the nefarious activity would be the statistics of the huge number of rejected collect calls to that number ... Conrad C. Nobili N1LPM Conrad_Nobili@Harvard.EDU Harvard University OIT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 01:18 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment David Lesher writes: [Why can't two cell-phones have the same number]. >> Would somebody please tell me why this can't be fixed/redesigned, >> etc.? > The answer is obvious. Technical limitations are not the stumbling > block; marketing considerations are. Did this ever set me off! With the technology widely available today, the major reason for the non-availability of almost any service has to do with administrative/political/marketing matters. The reason I cannot get CLASS features is not technical but political. And we have Mr. Kapor and the EFF with its laudable goal of establishing a "public data network". A recent pub-infra message talks of "tests" and "trial offerings" in MA of ISDN. ISDN has been tested six ways from Sunday. Its lack of availability has nothing to do with "cutting edge technology" or non-proliferation of suitable telco equipment. It is a matter of marketing. As Mr. Lesher pointed out, the telcos are asking the question, "Where's the profit?" Or maybe, as a number of e-mail correspondents have suggested, the various governments are not very excited about having citizens obtain the ability to privately communicate with one another using encryption. One can only speculate how much pressure has been applied to withhold ISDN technology from the public. And so it is with much of the technology that COULD be in the hands of all of us. The trick is not implementation, but other considerations such as "how can we maximize our return", "will this drain revenue from our antiquated services", "will we lose the ability to easily spy on all the evil drug dealers"? As you all know, the FBI is attempting to get this last question imbedded in the specifications for all new equipment. So the general answer to a question such as, "Would it be possible to ...?", is "technically, yes". But do not count on ever seeing it unless it makes money for the telco (big time), does not jeopardize anyone's (as in big business') cash cow, does not emasculate any tin horn government official's power, does not get in the way of the free and easy monitoring of citizens, and is not the target of Chicken Little types who will proclaim that the technology will destroy someone's way of life. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 00:46 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: US West and BBSs Update Peter Marshall quotes: > Mr. Wagner's BBS service need not generate revenue or profit to > justify USWC's application of business rates. But I would be willing to bet that Mr. Wagner's BBS DOES generate revenue -- for US West. I have a toy voice "party line" that has six CO lines feeding it here at home. It is jokingly referred to as the "ant farm". (Sociologists amoung us can contemplate the origin of that term.) From my monitorings of traffic on that system, it has become most apparent that callers have generated hundreds if not thousands of dollars a month for Pac*Bell by placing intraLATA calls to the machine. I have actually considered attempting to cut a deal with Pac*Bell to share in the revenue. It is gravy money; it all comes in the evening -- leisurely, off-peak, no-stress income that Pac*Bell would not realize without it. US West regularly makes an issue about the volume of calls to Mr. Wagner's BBS as if no one paid for the calls but were rather being "subsidized by ratepayers". This is total crap. If the BBS was not there for people to call, US West would not get the call revenue. It is as simple as that. If the BBS constitutes "ordinary" use under US West's mutable, convenient definitions is, perhaps, arguable. But the claim that it is "subsidized" by anyone is bogus. I would bet that if Mr. Wagner could obtain the figures on exactly just how much US West benefits from his "call attraction", he might be in a position to shut this nonsense down once and for all. In what is apparently a much more sensible arena, Pac*Bell does not measure a line's incoming traffic to develop some sort of "case" against a resident. Of course, Pac*Bell is not yet offering or about to offer BBS-style services such as those on the horizon for US West. And "unmeasured service" here is just that: unmeasured. It is not, as US West seems to insist, "unmeasured until you make 'too many' calls". It would be interesting to have US West define "too many" and having done that perhaps explain how that LIMIT is applied to UNLIMITED calling. I thought Pac*Bell was the worst. After reading all of the self-serving sewage that has come forth from companies such as US West and SWB, it is obvious that my opinions may need to be revised. Surely the difference between what Mr. Wagner pays for his telephone service and what US West thinks that he should be paying is not worth the effort being put into this case UNLESS US West is trying to set precedent for many similar future cases, as it goes from BBS to BBS effectively shutting each one down in turn by making such endeavors not economically feasable. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: But if the number of calls *received* by someone (and the revenue generated for telco as a result by the callers) was the criteria for whether or not business rates should apply to Wagner, then it would logically follow that American Express, IBM, Exxon, and Amoco should get residential rates also -- look at the incoming volume of traffic those giants get each day from residential users! PAT] ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Call Waiting Disable Kludge Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 12:24:19 GMT > [Moderator's Note: The problem with your solution is you still have to > consider the modem *on the other end* of your connection. It also > expects to hear a constant carrier [...] Another chance to plug Trailblazers. If you have a Trailblazer on the other end you can send it commands from your end, unless this feature has been disabled by an explicit command. (I really like Trailblazers, can't you tell?) Disclaimer: no connection with Telebit except as a VERY satisfied owner. Now if I could just convince PSI to put more PEP in their POPs. Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480|1032 2400/n/8/1. [Moderator's Note: My Telebit T-1600 has this feature also. Register S-45 is set to 0 to disable this, or 255 to enable it. Both modems must have this feature, and must have an MNP connection. The % command allows the user at a local DTE to send a command to the other modem as though it had been entered from the other end. I guess the first thing you would do when calling is set the other guy's S-10 register (Carrier Loss Detect Time) to some high value: AT%S10=255. But really, fiddling around with the other guy's modem is kind of rude unless you reset it when your session is finished; most people wouldn't bother. PAT] ------------------------------ From: henry@ads.com (Henry Mensch) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 10:36:43 -0800 Subject: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel Reply-To: henry@ads.com dem@nhmpw2.fnal.gov (David E. Martin) wrote: > I discovered a new way that hotels are rippping off business > travelers. At the hotel I am currently staying at (Bahia Hotel, San > Diego), they charge $4.50 plus tax for every incoming FAX. This is not uncommon ... although I've not seen a charge that high for an incoming fax. -- h ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: AOS, APCC and Other Slime Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 14:49:51 EST On 12 Mar 92 09:28:05 GMT, john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) said: > 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. This has been sitting in my inbox giving me a chuckle for a while. On top of everything else, the bottom feeders have gone to the wrong venue for relief. The transition to CIID cards was necessitated by the fact that yet another milestone in the Modified Final Judgement (MFJ) passed on the first of the year. The only way that the FCC can ban AT&T's CIID card is to prohibit AT&T from issuing *ANY* calling card of its own (requiring AT&T to buy all of its card verification and billing services from the LECs). I somehow think that the FCC would choke on something quite so drastic, especially if they'd have to pass it through to all interexchange carriers. Without such draconian measures the APCC is out of luck, unless they somehow pursuade Judge Green to reverse his order on shared network arrangements. Is it still snowing in Hell, MI? :^) Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 11:59:24 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Customer Service (Part 2): BT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA > [Moderator's Note: In some phone rooms, having a headset plugged into > the console tells the system that the position is attended, but idle > and waiting for a call. If the operator goes away for a minute (to the > bathroom, on coffee break, etc) and forgets to *unplug the headset > from the console*, the system keeps right on tossing calls to that > position. The mystified caller hears a click; he is on line with an > unused headset and nothing else. He hears the ambient room noise, but > of course an operator never does respond. Finally the caller decides > to try again. He abandons the call; the position becomes idle again > and within a second or two, there is another seizure and another poor > soul on the abandoned headset. And so it goes ... :) PAT] What really annoys me is when a call comes into a position whose attendant is there but does not want a call. For example, they are just getting ready to leave but a call comes in just before they busy out their position. The caller hears one or two seconds of background office noise, followed by a CLICK and eventually dialtone. Sometimes you can even hear a handset crashing into its cradle. It always seems to happen to me after I've been waiting in the queue for ten minutes or so, and have to call back and wait ANOTHER ten minutes! You would think that the person would know how long that call had waited, and do something other than dropping the call, but it is amazing just how rude some people can be when they are anonymous. A related story has to do with our beloved Pacific Bell. I called the Business Office about a year ago for some account matter, and my call was connected to a rep, and apparently he missed the beep from his headset (or whatever the call indication was). He was having some problems with his computer terminal, and was whispering all sorts of foul four-letter words as he was typing (complete with harder key presses as the language got more foul -- I'm sure we've all been there! :-)). After about 15 seconds of this, I decided to announce my presence with "Hello!". I could almost see him blushing from my end of the connection. He made a profuse apology, and I think was quite thankful that I was understanding. I would imagine that a lot of the folks that call the residential Business Office would not be as amused. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com, I do not speak for my employer. [Moderator's Note: The way some Automatic Call Distributors work is they just connect without any tone. The operator or agent or whatever knows a call is on the line when instead of a dead headset s/he hears a click and breathing on the line from the other end. PAT] ------------------------------ From: julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey) Subject: Re: Small Box in Old WE Desk Phone -- What is It? Date: 23 Mar 92 20:24:10 GMT Reply-To: julian@bongo.info.com (Julian Macassey) Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 259, Message 10 of 11 > What's this strange thing in a WE desk phone of 1981 vintage? > It's a reddish-brown plastic box, 15/16" x 2 1/8" x 7/16", with four > wires attached to the touch-tone dial of a Western Electric 1-line > desk phone which is telco-owned. It bears the marking "840364202 > 9-81", but no other ID. It is what they used to call "Polarity Guard". These were retrofitted into 2500 sets -- especially ones converted to modular -- so they were no longer polarity sensitive. In the old days, 2500 sets were polarity sensitive. This was no problem when they were hard wired and there only was one phone company. Problems arose when phones went modular, polarity tends to switch about between different jacks and different line cords. So you got the problem that we hear about on this Digest still of "My phone won't dial". The telco solution to this was to place a diode bridge before the DTMF pad so the polarity to the dial was always the same. Also old COs switched polarity on call supervision. So if you had a polarity sensitive phone and called the local MCI swwitch, the line would supervise and switch polarity when MCI answered the line. You DTMF pad would go dead at that point so you couldn't dial your passcode and number. Yes, another dastardly conspiracy from the telco. All DTMF phones now made have polarity guard. You can make your own polarity guard with four 1N4007 diodes from Radio Shack. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #263 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26727; 24 Mar 92 7:31 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07004 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 05:34:40 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26090 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 05:34:31 -0600 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 05:34:31 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203241134.AA26090@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #264 TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Mar 92 05:35:08 CST Volume 12 : Issue 264 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Roaming in LA (Mark Rudholm) Re: Cellular Phone Use in S.E. Asia (Louis Linneweh) Re: Emergency Interrupt of Cellular Phones (Louis Linneweh) Re: NYNEX/NY has FMR -> No (David E. Sheafer) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Mitch Mitchell) Re: Small Box in "Old" WE Desk Phone (Mark Rudholm) Re: Integretel (Andreas Meyer) Re: New AT&T Calling Card Mailing (Steve Forrette) Re: Auto-Callback and AUDIX (Andy Sherman) Re: ANI Number Wanted (Pete Tompkins) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 21:22:03 PST From: aimla!ruby!rudholm@uunet.UU.NET (Mark Rudholm) Subject: Re: Roaming in LA In Volume 12 : Issue 261 stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Southland, and was quite > dismayed with the problems I had with LA Cellular (the "A" carrier). > I was trying to get a hold of a friend who's now in 310, and had the > following problems in dialing: > - Using ten digit dialing (as it was a local call from where I was) > got "Your call cannot be completed as dialed." > - 1 + ten digits got "Roamers must use 0+ for long distance," even > though it was a local call. This is especially curious considering that I'm an LA Cellular subscriber and have been able to dial 310-xxx-xxxx since day one of the 310 area code (November 2, 1991). So obviously, they know how to handle such calls. I suppose there must be a bug in the software that only appears for roamers. Also, all calls to landlines anywhere within the LA Cellular Service Area (it is quite large, from the Channel Islands to the Nevada border and from Ventura to the San Diego County line) are billed for airtime only. So if you are on one of the Channel Islands calling Palm Springs during off-peak, the cost is competetive with land-line rates. But charging for incomplete calls is just highway (or Freeway) robery. And they just announced how they are going to extend "Free" Call-Waiting through July, 1992. So they give you the two bucks monthly for free, but they still charge you double air-time to have one person on hold while you talk to the other -- some "free."! And I agree, Customer Tolerance (oops, I mean, Customer Service) never seems to be open when I need them. PacTel Cellular (LA Cellular's competitor in this market) has been advertising their "MicroCell Technology" quite a bit, saying that it is better for the new breed of "Micro-Portable" handheld phones and that "Anything else is just Cellular." LA Cellular, on the other hand says that "MicroCell Technology is unproven" and that they have no plans to implement it at this time. Does anyone care to comment on "MicroCell Technology"? I'm torn between LA Cellular's superior desert coverage and PacTel's superior coverage in the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountains. If "MicroCell" is actually worthwhile, it may be the tie-breaker. rudholm@aimla.com ------------------------------ From: linneweh@rtsg.mot.com (Louis Linneweh) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in S.E. Asia Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 22:50:35 GMT jca@drutx.att.com writes: > nigel@isgtec.com (Nigel Burnett) writes: >> I'll be travelling to Japan next week and to Hong Kong, Beijing, >> Seoul, Taipei, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, and Bangkok. Will my nifty >> North American portable 832 channel phone work in any of these >> countries? > I doubt it. Our cellular switches that we design for the Far > East have different signalling protocols that differ from those here > in N.A. or even those in Europe. They use R2MFC signalling. Your NA cellular phone operates on the AMPS air interface spec (frequencies and protocol) that is also available in Hong Kong, Seoul and Bangkok for sure (but it is still a business decision as to whether they will authorize your mobile given a credit check.) Japan does not support NA or European Cellular (AMPS or TACS air interface, respectively) but yet a third type "J-TACS" using slightly different frequencies, bandwidths and protocols (Japanese only, of course). I believe Bejing uses TACS (sorry, not AMPS compatible) and I'm not sure about the rest. Perhaps Singapore is AMPS. Some of these countries do use MFC-R2 interoffice signaling, and while that is a European standard associated with the TACS air interface, it is not locked to it in any way. The question is: what frequency band is available and what standard do the neighboring countries use? An air interface is selected independently fron the wire-line protocol. Hong Kong has both AMPS and TACS systems quite heavily loaded and I'm pretty sure Bangkok is MFC-R2 and AMPS. The real question for you is: "How does one contact the business office in each of these places?" I'm afraid I can't help you with that. Lou Linneweh ------------------------------ From: linneweh@rtsg.mot.com (Louis Linneweh) Subject: Re: Emergency Interrupt of Cellular Phones Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 23:21:29 GMT dleslie@phakt.usc.edu (David Leslie) writes: > for an emergency interrupt. The operator asks if it is a mobile > phone, then says an Emergency Interrupt is impossible. I was just > wondering if that was accurate. Also, what about cellular call waiting? > [Moderator's Note: Cellular call waiting is available. PAT] Pat is right, call waiting is available, but if the mobile had the CW feature the operator would not be necessary. I don't know of any manufacturer that would allow the feature to be installed and activated on a mobile while it is in use on a call. I don't know of any manufacturer that makes use of the CW capability to allow operator access from a dedicated trunk group, though it would be possible, technically, with co-operation of the cellular system companies. The mechanism that provides the operator with the capability to break into a conversation in an emergency is normally provided on the line side of the network, often by a "no-test vertical" (metalic test access) at the line interface of the wireline network. Cellular networks are directly connected to the "trunk side" of the network (without the line concentrator stage) which does not have this facility. I would say the movie was quite accurate in this instance. Lots of things are possible in cellular with preplanning or with a lot of technical muscle. But I don't believe this is widely available to the average operator when the phone is cellular. Lou Linneweh ------------------------------ From: David E. Sheafer Subject: Re: NYNEX/NY has FMR -> No Date: 23 Mar 92 20:01:21 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA Recently, nin15b0b@merrimack.edu (David E. Sheafer) on 21 Mar 92 09:39:32 GMT stated: >>>> Do either of the cellular carriers (NYNEX or Cellular One) have >>>> follow-me roaming at this point? >>> Not that I know of. >> NYNYEX does have FMR in the NY/NJ metro area now (I posted a message >> about it a couple of days ago. > Not to be rude to David or contradictory or anything, but the > NYNEX/BAMS "partnership" service for the NY Metro Atra ("NYNEX/NY") > does *NOT* have FMR. I haven't tried it in NY/NJ however, I have dialed *711 from my phone in MA. It prompts to ask where your calling from, NY,NJ,MA, etc. and whether your an SNET Customer. If your an SNET customer it states you will receive automated call delivery, otherwise depending where you are you may use *18 or the roamer ports. In NY/NJ metro area you must use the roamer ports UNLESS your an SNET customer in which your calls will automatically be sent to you through automated call delivery. For Nynex Boston customers they just eliminated the 3.00/daily roamer fee when roaming on the SNET network, and reduced the cost per minute to .75. I'd assume they did the same for the NYNEX NY customers but can't say for sure. In Central NY, The Albany/Capital District Region, and Western NY they do have FMR thru the use of *18, *19. I hope that clarifies what I posted previously. David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 ------------------------------ From: mmitchel@digi.lonestar.org (Mitch Mitchell) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Organization: DSC Communications Corporation Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 18:37:52 GMT rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes: > lydic@ka8lvz.uucp (lydic) writes: >> It has been rumored (unsubstantiated) that UUNET sends a tape of all >> Usenet transactions to the FBI every month. I remember seeing a note a few years ago to the effect that UUNET sent tapes to the FBI so that some of their personell could read news on machines that for security reasons didn't have UUCP or other contact with the outside world. I'll bet the majority of 'monitoring' of USENET goes on during coffee breaks and lunchtime :->. {letni | egsner | mic | supernet}!harlie!mitch Mitch Mitchell {uunet | texsun | sulaco}!digi!mmitchel Voice Mail (214) 519-3257 mmitchel@digi.lonestar.org FidoNet: 1:124/4115.224 [Moderator's Note: What are you trying to do, kill a nice, quaint urban legend about how the people on Usenet are so special and so important that the Bureau of Inquisition sets about spying on them and 'monitoring' the postings therein? Next thing I know, you are going to be sending in articles claiming there is no Santa Claus. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 20:30:16 PST From: aimla!ruby!rudholm@uunet.UU.NET (Mark Rudholm) Subject: Re: Small Box in "Old" WE Desk Phone In Volume 12 : Issue 260 nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) asks: > What's this strange thing in a WE desk phone of 1981 vintage? That little box you found in your Western Electric 2500 is what was called a "Polarity Gaurd." WE's tone encoders were, until relatively recently, polarity sensitive. They would not produce tones unless the set was properly connected (tip to tip and ring to ring). A set equipped or retrofitted with a "Polarity Guard" can be connected to the line backwards without any apparent ill effect. rudholm@aimla.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 17:03:28 EST Organization: gnat - Dunellen, NJ From: ahm@gnat.rent.com (Andreas Meyer) Subject: Re: Integretel dboyd@informix.com (Diana Boyd) writes: > Yesterday I got a bill in the mail from VRS Billing Systems, under > that it says "on behalf of INTEGRETEL, Inc.". > Now, I *did* get some computer generated collect calls last year, I > thought it was one or two I accepted, not eight, I know I refused > some, too. > Even if I got the records from a year ago, I'd never remember which > calls I accepted and which I refused or how many. > Any suggestions, the total bill is only $25.01 but I am very angry; > how can they do this? Thanks to a local radio show, I know all about this scam now. (Readers in the NYC metro area should tune in to "Off The Hook", hosted by Emmanuel Goldstein; Wednesday nights at 9pm on WBAI, 99.5 FM) If someone uses IntegreTel to call you collect, you will hear a recording which tells you: "To accept this call, dial 1. To refuse, dial 0 or hang up." What they don't tell you is that if you DON'T press 1 and stay on the line, after five seconds THEY ASSUME YOU ACCEPT THE CHARGES and begin billing. So, if your answering machine or fax or modem picks up, IntegreTel will also bill for the call. (Not exactly cricket). To add insult to injury, their Customer Service number (800-736-7500) is a VRU which only works with a touchtone phone! And even if you do have a touchtone phone, the system asks you to supply a phone number for them to call you back "within three business days". (When "Off The Hook" called they didn't get a callback for two weeks). Apparently it is impossible to get a human on the Customer Service number. According to "Off The Hook", to reach a human at IntegreTel, you must call their offices in San Jose, California: 408-296-8959. (By the way, a company called Amnex runs a similar operation out of Orlando, Florida. Their number is 407-246-1234, but they are very quick to refer you to their legal department in Connecticut: 203-322-7300). Hope this helps somebody. Andreas Meyer, N2FYE Internet: ahm@gnat.rent.com Dunellen, New Jersey uucp: ..!rutgers!bobsbox!gnat!ahm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 13:49:54 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: New AT&T Calling Card Mailing Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article John W. Temples writes: > I recently received a mailing from AT&T offering me their new Calling > Card. I just noticed that the ten-digit number above my mailing > address appears to be my area code and phone number rearranged into a > "random" order. Has anyone else noticed this? If they're going to > take the time to try to protect our privacy, I would think they could > use a slightly more sophisticated encoding scheme! This beats a scheme that US Sprint used a few years ago hands-down! Their scheme was to print your account number, with the last digit converted to the n'th letter of the alphabet. So, account number 123123456 was printed as 12312345F. Talk about security! I guess Sprint doesn't think letter carriers are very bright. I would think that anyone who was "into" the kind of mischief that one could do with someone's account number would be smart enough to "decrypt" the account number. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: Auto-Callback and AUDIX Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 11:14:27 EST On 18 Mar 92 19:36:59 GMT, Mike (MNeary.El_Segundo@xerox.com) wrote: [ Describes trying to use the automatic callback on an AT&T Definity PBX with AUDIX voice mail covering no answer and busy.] > The problem is: no extension ever returns a busy signal, because > everyone is forwarded to Audix! Is there a way to say "do not > forward this call to Audix" so that I can actually *get* a busy > tone, punch F6, and be put through to the real person as soon as > they drop the handset? I reposted Mike's original (in its entirety) to an internal AT&T newsgroup in hopes of getting a Definity or AUDIX guru to answer. We were in luck. Steve Scholbrock of Bell Labs in Denver went into the lab and did some experiments. Here is his answer: "If auto-callback is activated before the call is answered by AUDIX, it will activate and work OK. Thus upon hearing the 'going to coverage' tone, you can activate auto-callback. (Activation depends on your set type. For a 740x, it needs a button assigned. For a 710x, use recall and the system FAC.) Alternatively, if it is a priority call (done by preceeding the call with the priority FAC or using a priority call button), it will not go to coverage. It will indicate busy for single line appearance phones and will give a priority ring for multi-line phones (that have an appearance available). In both cases, it will not cover to AUDIX and the auto-callback can be used. (Note: there are some interactions with Call-Forwarding and Auto-Callback). "This is my understanding and the results of some simple lab experiments. There may be better or more obvious ways to make this work." I hope this helps. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 14:14:42 PST From: pete!tompkins@uunet.UUCP (Tompkins) Subject: Re: ANI Number Wanted > A few months ago someone posted an 800 number which will give you back > your ANI. I can't find it in the Telecom Archives. If you have it > handy, I'd appreciate it if you would send me the number. It's not an 800 number, but as far as I can tell, it's free (I used it several months ago and was not billed): 10732-1-404-988-9664 Pete Tompkins tompkins@ttidca.tti.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #264 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28542; 24 Mar 92 8:22 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22087 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 06:20:26 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26881 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 06:20:14 -0600 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 06:20:14 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203241220.AA26881@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #265 TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Mar 92 06:19:53 CST Volume 12 : Issue 265 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (Holly B. Papaleonardos) Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (Tony Safina) Re: Call Return and Hunt Groups (Mark Brader) Re: ISDN Test Equipment Wanted (Rob Warnock) Re: Customer Service (Part 2): BT (John Higdon) Re: US West and BBSs Update (John Higdon) Variations on America (was Only in America) (Monty Solomon) AmeriGO Vespucci (Was Only In America) (Robert L. McMillin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hpapaleo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Holly B Papaleonardos) Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls Organization: The Ohio State University Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 06:56:32 GMT A few stories to relate about this subject ... First, my own personal experience. My old number was xxx-1447. The 24-hour child care service's was xxx-1147. Needless to say, I received about a dozen calls per day from distraught parents in need of emergency child care. My only real chance at fun came at one in the morning when I answered the phone, "Kinder-care ...?" I listened to the related sob story but broke down when she said she would drop Susan off at 9 the same day. "No, you're not," I replied sweetly, "because Kinder-Kare's real number is xxx-1147. READ THE AD WITH THIS LIGHTS ON!!!" and hung up. Sometime later the KK's number changed to something more mnemonic. Then there was the case of the large printing company and a newly-moved in family being assigned the same phone number. That one was pretty odd, considering that the business was well-established, yet the family was new. You would expect something like this when two new numbers are issued. Lastly, there was the case of the large suit when some sort of porn magazine ran an ad for a free phone sex number. They put in enough information, alright, except THE AREA CODE!! Depraved perverts in every area code in US and Canada called some poor soul and kept pestering and threatening. Most had their numbers changed. Anyway, later the poor souls banded together and sued the publishing company, later winning. That was a bad one, there. ------------------------------ From: disk!tony@uunet.UU.NET (tony) Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls Organization: Digital Information Systems of KY Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 07:00:56 GMT In article , Uwe_Hagendorf@fl.maus.de (Uwe Hagendorf) writes: >> For more than four weeks now I get calls all around the clock, about >> 10-15 times in 24 hours, day and night. This happened to me a couple of weeks ago but not to the same extent, a caller rang my number about five times. Every time I answered a modem tone greeted me on the other end. They called once every 45 minutes or so. Finally I turned on my modem -- no connection. After that I decided to try turning on my fax machine -- I intercepted my wife's girlfriend that time. After that they didn't call any more and I'm still wondering whether it was someone trying to send me a fax, someone who thought I ran a BBS, or ... ??? I can't imagine it was someone trying to send me a fax -- my letterhead only gives one phone number and below that I say, "Fax Available." Anyone with any sense should know this means they have to call me first so I can turn on the fax machine. I wonder if this is the general concensus as to what people think when they read, "Fax Available," on someone's letterhead or business card? Tony Safina disk!tony@uunet.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 04:49:00 -0500 From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Call Return and Hunt Groups I asked about this phenomenon: > I have Call Return, which here means that if I dial *69 ... the > system first tells me what number last called me, and then allows > me to return the call by dialing 1 ... Together with this feature, > Bell [Canada] packages the ability to re-call the last number that > _I_ dialed, by dialing *66 ... [And in either case if the line is > busy the system waits for it for me.] > Now, here's the thing. I have found out by experimentation that if > the number I'm calling with *66, and presumably with *69 also, is on > a _hunt_group_, then only the _individual_line_ is rung or monitored. I asked if this was for a human-factors reason, or a technical reason, or if it was a bug. David G. Lewis of AT&T replied: > When the switch receives a request to monitor a given line's busy/idle > status, it doesn't "know" that the line is a hunt group member; the > request to monitor line status is *not* the same as an attempt to > terminate a call, and therefore does not use the hunt group logic. > The answer to your question, therefore, is "that's the way the service > is designed". This explains how the non-hunting is implemented, which is more or less what I had already guessed. It does *not* explain why, except to imply that it was intentional rather than a bug. > It would certainly be technically feasible to change the service so > that it monitors for any idle line on a hunt group, but it's not clear > that that's the desirable functioning of the service. Consider for > example a call center with 50 agents on a hunt group; if agent #34 > calls you with a question about your order and your auto-recall > attempt goes to agent #12, who doesn't know what you're talking about, > there seems to have been a general loss of utility. [Why didn't he make it 100 agents so I could do Get Smart jokes? :-(] This situation does not seem to me to be a sensible use of a hunt group in the first place. Automatic call distribution is the thing to use here. With a hunt group, the workload distribution across the 50 agents would be grossly uneven! #1 would be on the phone all the time, except for a brief respite after completing a call until the next one came in; #2 would be slightly less busy, and so on until #50 would get calls only if all 49 other agents were busy! In any case, without such new features as *69, it would be impossible to reliably call a particular agent in such a setup. If one wanted to, one would have to call one of the numbers, accept whichever agent answered, and then _ask_ to be transferred to agent #13. So if *69 is able to reliably call a particular line, then this is an _added_ _secondary_feature_. Added secondary features are always nice if they have no cost, but in this case there _is_ a significant cost -- in the usability of *69, or rather *66, with a more important use of hunt groups. This "more important" use is to reach a number of lines which are all routed to the _same_ person or set of people. For instance, in small companies using a key system, any employee may answer any line. Or maybe a "switchboard operator" answers all the lines. In this case the hunt group is simply being used to provide multiple paths and not to do any sort of call distribution. (The common use of a hunt group with a set of modems is also an example of this -- the modems are separate, but they all provide paths to the same computer or network.) In this common situation, callers always call the first line in the hunt group; they don't even have to know about the others. Say I dial my doctor's office, and the line is busy. I want to get through to him as soon as possible. If he uses a single line, I just dial *66 and I do get through as soon as possible. But if he uses a hunt group, and I only know the first number, I should repeat-dial the number myself, just as I would without *66? Does this make sense? What if, as I implied above, I _don't_know_ whether he has one line or several? Similarly, with *69, if the system tells me that it will call the number 488-ZZZZ if I press 1 now, doesn't the Law of Least Astonish- ment _demand_ that the effect be the same as if I had dialed 488-ZZZZ in the first place ... including any hunting or call forwarding? (Of course, for these purposes it would also be desirable for any lines emerging from a company to identify themselves to Caller-ID or *69 with the number of the first inward line. Having calls from the same company identified with different numbers is a pain anyway. But this is something of a separate issue, and I can certainly see that there are reasons why it might be desirable to identify the lines individually. In any case, this is not my main complaint.) If nobody produces a _technical_ reason why the DMS-100 can't do it right, I think I'll write to Bell Canada about it. If I do, and I get a reply, you will hear about it. Incidentally, are there places where these or analogous functions _do_ work "right"? Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 10:13:08 GMT From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Subject: Re: ISDN Test Equipment Wanted Reply-To: rpw3@sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA isus!hoyt@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) writes: > Is there any test equipment available to bridge an ISDN U interface > pair, and separate out the two directions of 2B1Q data? It would be very hard to do, perhaps impossible. At the very least, you would need to insert loss into the line, to find out which way the energy is moving. That is, you would have to create the equivalent of a pair of back-to-back "VSWR meters" to extract the energy moving "from left to right" from the energy moving "from right to left" (which requires *some* insertion loss, I believe). ISDN uses adaptive equalization and adaptive echo-cancellation at the *ends* of the 2-wire line to approximate a "perfect" 2-wire-to-4-wire hybrid. This is so sophicticated that it is able to tolerate multiple fairly long open "stubs" bridged across the subscriber's line. You would have to equal this performance in your line monitor. It'd be rough ... It will probably be much easier for you to settle for monitoring the already four-wire S/T interface on the subscriber side of the NT1. Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415) 335-1673 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 00:20 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Customer Service (Part 2): BT Steve Forrette writes: > A related story has to do with our beloved Pacific Bell. I called the > Business Office about a year ago for some account matter, and my call > was connected to a rep, and apparently he missed the beep from his > headset (or whatever the call indication was). A variation is when one calls Pac*Bell and is connected to an apparently unattended station. One morning I was attempting to place some orders and calling the business office landed me into what sounded like a handset laying on a desk in a large office area. Repeated "hello"s returned no response. After calling back numerous times and being connected to that unattended telephone each time, I stayed on the line and placed another call to the office. When the call was answered, I told the rep that I was currently connected to a position that was unoccupied or the person had collapsed. The problem was corrected forthwith. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 00:12 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: US West and BBSs Update On Mar 23 at 23:38, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: But if the number of calls *received* by someone > (and the revenue generated for telco as a result by the callers) was > the criteria for whether or not business rates should apply to Wagner, > then it would logically follow that American Express, IBM, Exxon, and > Amoco should get residential rates also -- look at the incoming volume > of traffic those giants get each day from residential users! PAT] Exactly my point! USWC brings up call volume time and time again in making its case when in fact it has no bearing whatsoever. It smoke-screens its own irrelevancy by constantly trumpeting the allegation that Mr. Wagner is himself bringing up irrelevant points. USWC downplays the only matter that has significance: Mr. Wagner is using some telephone lines in his home (otherwise know as a residence) for purposes unrelated to his or any one else's BUSINESS. It is NOT an office-in-home; it is NOT related to his income stream; it is not an organized operation (such as charitable); and it is not advertised in paid media. In essence, what Mr. Wagner does with those lines is HIS affair. He is not stealing service or making any misrepresentations to the utility. But USWC ignores all of these quintessential facts. Sweeping it all away, the company brings up such irrelevancies as: there are many incoming calls; the system is reachable from all over the world; Mr. Wagner does not read every message (what the hell business is it of USWC's whether Mr. Wagner reads messages on his own computer or not????); and that communications MAY be taking place that for some reason or another MAY be discussing the trading of software. Thank heaven Pac*Bell uses the tariffs literally when determining business or residence status for a given line. Interestingly enough, the Oregon tariffs are very similar to California, which is why USWC is throwing up so much smoke. A strict interpretation of the tariff would have caused the case to have been tossed out long ago. USWC is obviously desperate to get some precedence established so that it can indeed wage war against the free BBSes. Note that all of its arguments against Mr. Wagner appear to be defining BBSes to a tee. And after USWC has its way with BBSes, who will be next? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: After USWC has its way with BBSes, who will be next? Well, maybe you will be next, John. Maybe mother will look at all your numbers and decide to do a number on you! Someone is probably sitting there now saying " ... first let's stamp out all the BBSes; then when those are all wiped out, we'll start on the ant farms ..." :) I'm glad IBT has a more even-tempered disposition about such things. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 01:03:19 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Variations on America (was Only in America) > [Moderator's Note: Your point is well taken, but please note that > Mexico *is* in America, as is Canada. The USA does not have exclusive > rights to the name America. This is something which annoys many of our > neighbors to the north considerably: the monopolization of 'America' > by people in the USA. PAT] America includes North, Central, and South America. # Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA 01701-0405 # roscom!monty@think.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 01:42:58 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: AmeriGO Vespucci (Was Only In America) John Higdon observed: > Quote worth requoting (from a southern California motel room): > On the bottom of a Comdial telephone is a sticker that reads: > "Made Right! In America! (assembled in Mexico)" > [Moderator's Note: Your point is well taken, but please note that > Mexico *is* in America, as is Canada. The USA does not have exclusive > rights to the name America. This is something which annoys many of our > neighbors to the north considerably: the monopolization of 'America' > by people in the USA. Maybe we should ask Americus Vespucci his > opinion on the matter. He's the one who drew the map and lent his name > to this continent. PAT] Or perhaps we should ask Amerigo Vespucci, as he no doubt would have preferred to have it spelled. As with Columbus, who had his name Latinized by the scholars of the day (did they have Latinizing while-you-wait service?), history books like to drop the Italianate -o form in favor of the Latin -us, and with good frequency. If he were still around, no doubt he would have business cards printed to settle the matter, perhaps with a tag line reading: "Continents discovered -- if you like us, tell the Queen -- if not, tell us!" 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #265 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06959; 24 Mar 92 11:22 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11470 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 07:33:11 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23303 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 07:33:02 -0600 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 07:33:02 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203241333.AA23303@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #266 TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Mar 92 07:33:03 CST Volume 12 : Issue 266 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Problem With Lynx Ring Detector (Mitchell K. Hobish) New AT&T Card (vs a LEC-Issued one) (Ralph W. Hyre) Northern Telecom DMS 100/200 Patch Problems (Kevin Houle) Need Information on Satellite Phone (Nadim Massoud) Request For Definitions or FAQ (Bill Campbell) Possible FAQ? Connecting Dual Line Phone (Mark B. Wroth) Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Michael Harpe) Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Leonard Erickson) Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Jamie Hanrahan) Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Bruce Perens) Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Martin McCormick) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mhobish@nasamail.nasa.gov (MITCHELL K. HOBISH) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 10:11 PST Subject: Problem With Lynx Ring Director This one's got me stumped, so I turn to the heavy-hitters in TCD for aid: I have a business line to which has been added the Ident-a-Ring/ Distinctive Ring/whatever feature. To facilitate distribution of incoming calls, I have put in place a box named the Ring Director, made/distributed by Lynx. The box recognizes the distinctive ring for each of the now three incoming numbers (one physical line, however) and outputs the ring and makes the connection accordingly. Specifically, the main number is on port one (long ring); the fax number goes to port two (two short rings); and a second voice line is on the box's port four (short-long-short pattern). In an attempt to keep things simple (hah!) I sought to use one phone and one answering machine to handle both voice lines. I used a Radio Shack two-RJ-11-plug-to-one-RJ-14-jack adapter to feed a Radio Shack two-line coupler, designed to allow two lines to share one answering machine. The output of the coupler goes to a five-jack block, into which I have plugged the phone and the answering machine (and two modems, but that's another story). Things seemed to work well (initially) but I soon found that after a call came in on the second voice line (port four), I was unable to get any dial tone on the phone until after another call came in. It didn't matter which voice line received the call; there was no dial tone until a call came in. No problem with calls coming in on the "main" line. It's not just the port, as I tried every combination of port, number, etc. that I could. It was always after an answered, incoming call on the secondary number that I lost dial tone for outgoing calls. I could hear the relay(s) in the Ring Director box attempting to establish a connection (i.e., go off-hook) but there was no dial tone. Plugging another phone into the second voice line port demonstrates that the Ring Director is working normally; it's the addition of the Radio Shack adaptor that's messing things up. The folks at Lynx can't help, and no one at Radio Shack has any idea of how their answering machine coupler works. For now, I've pseudo-solved the problem by putting the voice lines in parallel with the line going into the Ring Director box. It works, but now the phone rings when the fax line is called, whereas the Ring Director, if used properly, prevents this. Can anyone tell me what's going wrong? Or, offer a better (but still cost- effective) solution? E-mail, please to mhobish@nasamail.nasa.gov. Thanks! ------------------------------ From: rwh@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Subject: New AT&T Card (vs a LEC-issued One) Date: 23 Mar 92 17:16:18 GMT Reply-To: rwh@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand) writes: > DREUBEN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: >> I for one am glad that AT&T introduced it's new calling card which can >> only be used on the AT&T or LEC networks. > It's actually past due -- every other phone carrier had to do it, why > not AT&T? > I couldn't make a PIC on my phone card as I could on my phone > line. Why should AT&T automatically get my business? I have both types of AT&T calling cards; some number + PIN, issued by Cincinnati Bell Telephone (CBT), and the 'new' card, 'direct' from AT&T. Thanks to a recent (summer '91) FCC or Judge Green order, I found I was indeed able to complete calls on other carriers. MCI worked from a pay station and a residence line. Sprint [who made the formal complaint about not having access to CBT's database to validate card numbers] only worked from pay phones. (I always got the Sprint operator when I used my CBT-issued/AT&T labeled card from a residence line). The Cincinnati Bell newsletter I read mentioned that AT&T didn't want other carriers to have access to their card database for validation purposes. Not that the databases are separate, things are more 'normal' now. BTW, Metromedia/ITT didn't work from anywhere. Guess they don't want the business :-) I'd be curious to find out how the costs of these calls may be impacted by my Reach-Out America plan. Billing seems complicated enough with the multiple vendors and billing agents involved, without considering the impact of these billing plans. Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. E-mail: rhyre@cinoss1.att.com Phone: +1 513 629 7288 (Mailtool messages cheerfully accepted) Radio: N3FGW [144 Mhz] ------------------------------ Subject: Northern Telecom DMS 100/200 Patch Problems From: lunatix!iowegia!kevin@ms.uky.edu Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 21:30:19 CST Organization: Iowegia Waffle BBS, Clive IA USA, +1 515 226 2156 We installed a patch from Nothern Telecom in our DMS 100/200 this past weekend, with disasterous results. I do not know the type of patch; I am not a switch tech. But on the AMA side, things got ugly. The switch patch caused the switch to reverse the overseas indicator on all call detail records passed via tape to our billing computer. When processed, the software (correctly) took the originating NPA and used it for the terminating NPA. This was followed by a lookup in a terminating point master file. Obviously, nary an exchange existed in the TPM, and thousands of calls errored out. It took an entire day of communications with Northern to determine the extent of the damages, and for our software consultants to write code to process the faulty CRD's into billable records. This situation was complicated by an MCI blunder. They made a translation change in the 515 area code which caused no NPA to be sent to our trunk for 515 <-> 515 intralata calls. Our trunk requires ten digits. We lost 8500 calls on that one, no recovery, and I do believe someone at MCI lost a job. Ok, I've complained enough. All in a day's work in telecom I guess. :) Kevin Houle : iowegia!kevin@ukma.uucp kh1461a@acad.drake.edu System/News Admin., Iowegia Waffle BBS, Clive IA USA ------------------------------ Organization: The American University - University Computing Center Date: Monday, 23 Mar 1992 21:32:18 EST From: Subject: Need Information on Satellite Phone I need to buy a satellite phone to be used in Spain, in an area where there is no regular phone service, and where cellular phones don't reach. I read somewhere that GTE makes such a phone. Size of the device is of no conce rn. Any information such as price, price of communications, and quality of the latter would be appreciated. Nadim Massoud Massoud@auvm.american.edu ------------------------------ From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) Subject: Request For Acronyms List and FAQ Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 17:12:54 GMT I haven't seen a FAQ for this newsgroup, and it is replete with acronyms (COCOT, LATA ...). Would it be possible for a posting so that newcomers could learn the jargon? Bill INTERNET: bill@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software UUCP: ...!thebes!camco!bill 6641 East Mercer Way uunet!camco!bill Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591 [Moderator's Note: The place you want to look is the Telecom Archives. There you will find not only a requently sked uestions file, but also a few different files dealing with acronyms used in the telecom industry and by consumers, etc. The Telecom Archives is located at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where it is available using anonymous ftp at lcs.mit.edu. Use anonymous to login, then give your name@site as password. When online, 'cd telecom-archives'. You may use an ftp mail server also if your site does not support ftp. Most back issues of TELECOM Digest for eleven years are there also. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 14:33:33 CST From: texsun!astrid!mark@sunbird.UUCP (Mark B. Wroth) Subject: Possible FAQ? Connecting Dual Line Phone As I suspect this is either a frequently asked question or an extremely basic question, please email rather than posting a response. I have two telephone lines coming into the house, one for general (voice) telephony and the other for digital (primarily). I am investigating the possibility of connecting the two of them together and attaching a two-line phone so that I can use either line while sitting at my desk. My problem is that I don't know how to connect two lines in a single cable, and my one easily available reference book (a Radio Shack "Install Your Own ...") does not discuss the issue. The desired final arrangement would be to allow me to use the voice instrument on either line, while leaving the modem on the line that currently comes to the desk (auto-answering and so on). So my two questions are: 1. What connections do I need to make in the cable coming to the desk, and 2. Is there anything I should watch for in the modem part of this? Mark Wroth 70327.1614@compuserve.com ...uunet!letni!rwsys!lawton!astrid!mark ------------------------------ From: meharp01@vlsi.ct.louisville.edu (Michael Harpe) Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles Organization: University of Louisville Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 15:11:04 GMT Actually, the buzz is caused by the letters in the caption. The "super" is being inserted at too high a video level and is bleeding over into the aural subcarrier. Your TV is trying to demodulate this as a 4.5 MHz FM audio signal. If it only happens on cable, then the cable signal is probably too hot. If it happens in broadcast "off-air" signals then it's probably the broadcaster's fault. They should catch that in master control. "Key buzz" is really annoying. It's really difficult to determine at your end where the problem is because there is a LOT of equipment between the source at the station (VTR, switcher, satellite downlink, distribution amps, you name it) and your set. Mike Harpe ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 92 12:12:49 EST From: Leonard Erickson <70524.2603@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles In volume 12 #243 Joe Konstan writes: > Often, when I'm watching TV (most recently a broadcast station, > through cable) I find an annoying buzz (sounds like poorly grounded > equipment) whenever there are superimposed titles (e.g., captions, > names, etc.). > I recall that I've seen this on and off in the past and have a couple > of guesses: > 1. This is an equipment problem at the broadcaster. > 2. This is a problem closer by (cable or my set) due > to interaction with close-captioning (which I do > not have). It's your TV set. Specificly, the filtering circuitry that seperates the chrominance and luminance data sideband from the audio sideband. Sets with cheap filters see high frequencies in the color signal (fine grained patterns or text) as being part of the audio signal. Thus the buzz. You *may* be able to to get the set adjusted if it has only recently started doing it. If it has always done it, you are likely S.O.L. There's a *reason* why some sets cost more than others ... [Moderator's Note: I've been running so many of these replies because I am amazed at the diversity of explanations! Some say the broadcaster is at fault, while others blame the television set. So which is it? PAT] ------------------------------ From: jeh@cmkrnl.com Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles Date: 23 Mar 92 09:28:47 PST Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA In article , isus!hoyt@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) writes: > In article konstan@elmer-fudd.cs. > berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) writes: >> Often, when I'm watching TV (most recently a broadcast station, >> through cable) I find an annoying buzz (sounds like poorly grounded >> equipment) whenever there are superimposed titles (e.g., captions, >> names, etc.). > The buzz is crosstalk from the video signal into the sound channel, > probably caused by a combination of two things: The broadcaster is not > controlling his video levels to be within specs, and a less than > optimum television receiver with poor sound band filtering and > automatic gain control (The sound and video are amplified in the same > amplifier chain, and split apart after). Which brings up an often-effective "fix" for this problem: Adjust the TV set's AGC control. The "broadcaster out of specs" is not supposed to be common, and a misadjusted AGC control (or an older set whose AGC control needs to be adjusted to compensate for aging components) can produce this problem all by itself. OTOH, broadcasters, especially small ones who aren't network affiliates, and most especially a certain Mexican station that broadcasts to a certain US market, can also produce the problem. An obvious clue: If it happens on more than one station, it's most likely the set. Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA Internet: jeh@cmkrnl.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens) Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:28:21 GMT On occasion I also notice a "buzz" in TV sound that is related to the picture. It's always when _white_ information is being displayed. I suspect that the video signal is overmodulated, and is thus affecting the sound carrier. I'm unable to blame this on the broadcaster, since something else could be wrong: there could be a lack of headroom in the cable head-end, my VCR, or my TV. I'd need a vectorscope and a calibrated TV tuner to track down the problem. Bruce Perens ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 14:44:34 -0600 From: martin@datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu The problem of hearing a buzz during subtitles is a very common one. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the network and very little to do with your local TV station. It is a byproduct of the method used to transmit television. In a nutshell, the audio is FM and the video, AM. Almost all modern TV sets receive the sound by mixing or heterodyning the video and audio carriers to produce an IF frequency of 4.5MHZ. The sound detector is, essentially, a FM radio and is supposed to respond to frequency modulation and not changes in amplitude. Alas, there are many changes going on in the amplitude of the carrier as the video changes. In the video signal, the amplitude of the signal depends upon the brightness of the picture, among other things. In the NTSC system, used in the United States, Canada, Japan, and a few other places, the picture is reverse polarized, in that the black areas represent high signal and the white ones, a very low signal. The vertical synchronization signal meant to keep your picture from rolling, is the blackest of the black. Your TV receiver just looks for the strongest peak of the signal and locks on to that. When there is a very high contrast picture, such as a printed message, the automatic level circuitry in your set just can't keep up with the extremes of signal being delivered. The result is that during the wide signal swings from superblack sync to white print or a white background, the FM sound detector looses the audio signal because there isn't enough video carrier to mix with the sound signal to get good FM limiting. Hence, the buzz. If the TV or VCR has been buzz free, but has just started to hum along with the show, it may have developed AGC problems and should be taken to a good TV technician. If it has always done it on all channels, it could be that this particular set doesn't handle high contrast pictures as well as it should. Martin McCormick Amateur Radio WB5AGZ Oklahoma State University Computer Center Data Communications Group Stillwater, OK ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #266 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08715; 25 Mar 92 1:01 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22789 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 22:54:35 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19948 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 22:54:17 -0600 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 22:54:17 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203250454.AA19948@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #267 TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Mar 92 22:54:19 CST Volume 12 : Issue 267 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Hosers at Sprint (Mark Walsh) Ohio PUCO to Rule on Caller ID This Week (Bruce Klopfenstein) A Visit to the AT&T Phone Store (Howard Pierpont) LEC Competition in Rochester? (Mark Fulk) Information Wanted on Phone/Mail Services (Dale Ollila) Vendor Ethics: LANsystems (Roger Marquis) Bell Atlantic to Offer Fax Broadcast (Randy Gellens) Originating Phone Number Unavailable (Monty Solomon) Digicom Modem Information Request (download@poldid.polito.it) Cellular Phone Service in Europe (Allan M. Schiffman) Information Wanted: EE Opportunites in Cellular (marty@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) Information Wanted on PC Telex Card (Roupen Nahabedian) Information Wanted on Call Processing Applications (Kevin Davies) Re: Need Information on Satellite Phone (John R. Covert) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 12:54:52 PST From: walsh@optilink.com (Mark Walsh) Subject: Hosers at Sprint In 1984, my wife and I had a maze of billing problems with Sprint, but just as we were about to throw in the towel, they decided that we did not owe them anything, and started fresh. Things were just fine between us and Sprint until a few months ago when we experienced the problem of delayed bill processing (we would send in our payment right away) which would result in a computer generated message to the effect that we had better pay up or else. "Oh well," I thought, we had been through this before. Then my wife got a note from Pacific Bell that we could have our Sprint charges included in our Pacific Bell bill, so that we would only have to write one check. We thought it was a good idea, and signed on. You guessed it, they both billed us for the same calls. My wife called Sprint to straighten it out, and thought that it was resolved. Next thing you know is that we get a letter in the mail from Sprint saying that they are sorry that we decided to discontinue our service, and could they get us back with these various incentives. Sheesh! No wonder the Japanese don't want anything to do with American telephony. The little podunk company that delivers me varying amounts of bottled water every month is capable of doing computer billing, why not Sprint and MCI? I have never seen any posts in this newsgroup from anybody at either of these two companies. Why is that? Cheers -- Mark -- KC6RKZ ------------------------------ From: klopfens@andy.bgsu.edu (Bruce Klopfenstein) Subject: Ohio PUCO to Rule on Caller ID This Week Date: 24 Mar 92 19:39:32 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. COLUMBUS, OH -- The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) will make a ruling on Ohio Bell's application to offer Caller ID in Columbus and Cleveland during the Commission Meeting to be held on Thursday, March 26, 1992 at 11:15 a.m., Offices of the Commisssion, Hearing Room 11-A, 11th Floor, 180 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH. A Media Availability will be held immediately following the Commission Meeting in Hearing Room 11-D. The Commissioners will be available to answer press questions. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 05:40:56 PST From: Howard Pierpont Subject: A Visit to the AT&T Phone Store After much discussion about rotary phones and the fact that my folks would not convert if they had to pay an extra monthly charge, SNET raised everyone's rate and made touch-tone available at "no cost". They also told everyone that they had to call in to have the service changed. I plugged in a WECO touch-tone and it worked fine. Off the the AT&T store to purchase three wall mount reconditioned WECO push button phones. There were a few units on the wall at the back of the store but I had to ask. They were a little reluctant to sell the units but rang up the sale anyway. [49.95 each] After the sale, the sales rep said that if I had brought in my old rotary phone I could have a $15.00 rebate. "Keep the slip and when you are in the neighborhood drop off the old phone." Stopped in yesterday with the old phone. My salesman was not there. [Surprise]. The other sales rep gave me a credit on my monthly lease [I do not lease, I buy!!]. He then reversed the transaction and had to give me a full credit on my original purchase and then charge me for the new phones. He complained that the $15.00 credit was only supposed to be on new equipment. He managed to give me the credit as $10.00 on one phone and $2.50 on each of the other two. (Looks like the retail store guys have some leeway in pricing?) There was a display with the 1050/1020 master slave units priced at $199.00. Some nice features including intercom and mute buttons. I inquired and was told that there were a limited number produced [1000] and very few sold [like 10]. Seems, according to the sales rep that the market survey was done a year after introduction and 'everyone wanted two line capability' so the 1050 was discontinued. He couldn't find the box for the 1050 (no instructions, power supply or ability to test the unit) but had lots of 1020 units available. A call to another store that had collected a bunch of 1050/1020 units for a sales leverage yielded one complete set that will be UPS today. Now if he had found the packaging for the 1050 he was willing to discount the unit by $10-$15. When he went into the book and then the system the repair replacement price was $160 total plus tax. [BTW_the two line system is retailed at $400.] Anyone have any experience with the 1050/1020 product line? Anyone from AT&T want to talk about any 'undocumented features?' Howard Pierpont Digital Equipment Corp pays my salary but I can't speak for them. ------------------------------ From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) Subject: LEC Competition in Rochester? Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 15:35:42 GMT I just had an interesting dinner conversation with a local sales rep for Motorola. Two of his customers are offering fiber-optic networking in the Rochester, NY area to businesses; mostly they offer T1, T3, and ethernet repeater service. I'd seen their ad, and figured that they were a Rochester Telephone subsidiary. It turns out that they are reselling bandwidth installed by Rochester Gas and Electric. It seems that RG&E has installed a fiber cable (sorry, don't know the type) with every new or replaced natural gas pipeline and major electric cable for the last five years. They now have more optical fiber installed than Rochester Telephone. For the nonce, they are avoiding direct competition with the telco, but my informant figures that they'll be offering telephone service within a few years, when the stockholders figure out that the possibility. This figures; easements to install the cables are one of the largest expenses faced by a communications company, and RG&E already has easements. Mark A. Fulk Computer Science Department fulk@cs.rochester.edu University of Rochester Omit needless words -- Strunk Rochester, NY 14627 ------------------------------ From: daleo@SSD.intel.com (Dale Ollila) Subject: Information Wanted on Phone/Mail Services Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division, Intel Corp. Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 18:50:16 GMT A partner and I are in the process of writing a book about many of the things a person should do when changing from an employee to an independent contractor/consultant status. While much of the information we have compiled applies nationwide, some of the information is regional, so I'd like to ask for some help from people on the net concerning local rates. If you could email any responses to me, I will summarize and post all general-interest info to the net. The questions are as follows: 1. Information on cellular phone service: a. Your local cellular company and its service area. b. Cost to activate service. c. Monthly rate 1) for one hour, or 2) for three hours. d. Cost per minute over the base rate. 2. Information on answering services: a. Cost for line rental. b. Cost of call forwarding. c. Cost for extension lines. 3. Have you encountered any resistance (or favorable comments) from clients or colleagues on the use of answering machines and/or voice mail? 4. Have you checked into the use of private mailbox services? If so, what was the cost? Comments on usefulness? Thanks for any help/information you can provide. Dale Ollila ------------------------------ From: marquis@well.sf.ca.us (Roger Marquis) Subject: Vendor Ethics: LANsystems Date: 24 Mar 92 23:25:37 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA A question for LAN managers: Have you found consultants information unreliable when they are also hardware vendors? I'm curious having recently been sold less than usefull equipment by a company (LANsystems) we hired for their consulting and NOT their hardware and I'm anxious not to get burned again by resellers posing as consultants to move product. As network consultants LANsystems had been recommended by another, smaller company. To their credit LANsystems was able to identify a bad microwave bridge which, when taken out of service, solved most of our problems. They also warned us of problems with the size of our LAN and it's routerless / bridgeless topology. To address that issue they recommended we purchase Wellfleet routers. Our only problem with Wellfleet is that their routers can only bridge, not route VINES IP. VINES is our most common traffic and growing quickly. Cisco routers do route VINES and were clearly indicated for this installation. Nevertheless LANsystems pushed _hard_ to sell Wellfleet and despite many protests the IS director (who is not especially telecomm literate) gave them the go-ahead. I know they made a 40% profit on these brouters but am shocked at the slack ethics of both the on-site consultant and his regional manager. Now we're stuck with this hardware. Anyone interested in three slightly used Wellfleet brouters? Roger Marquis ------------------------------ From: Date: 24 MAR 92 21:49 Subject: Bell Atlantic to Offer Fax Broadcast Someone recently asked about a fax broadcast service, in connection with a fax delivery option for a newsletter. Saw this recently: BELL ATLANTIC TO OFFER FAX SERVICES WITH TANDEM COMPUTERS Bell Atlantic announced its local telephone companies will begin offering three new fax services. Fax Overflow will help businesses whose fax machines are constantly busy with incoming messages. When a fax machine is busy, the service will store it on Bell's computers and resend it when the fax machine is no longer busy. Fax Mailbox is designed for businesses that want to be able to retrieve fax messages while on the road. And Fax Broadcast will allow businesses to send a fax document to many locations without having to occupy a single fax machine for repeated transmissions. During the program's trial period, the services will utilize a Tandem CLX minicomputer, Audiofax Fax Pad processors and software by Tandem Telecommunications. Bell will charge about $10 per month for Fax Overflow and $15 for Fax Mailbox. Fax Broadcast will cost $5 per month plus $.40 per minute for each number dialed. (PR Newswire 3/11/92) Randy Gellens randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 18:45:06 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Originating Phone Number Unavailable A friend of mine on Oahu in Hawaii is having trouble with one of his phone lines. Whenever he dials a long distance call an operator comes on the line to ask him his phone number telling him that it wasn't available and that they can't complete the call without it. They need it in order to bill him. He tried calling 700 555 4141 to see who is long distance carrier is (should be AT&T) and he gets a recording which states "We're sorry. Because of a temporary equipment condition, your call did not go through ..." What would cause this problem and why does it only occur on one of his two lines? Both phones are in the same exchange. An unusal feature of his exchange is that he can dial tones but the exchange converts them to pulses in order to complete the call. Monty roscom!monty@think.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 11:15 GMT+1 From: DOWNLOAD@POLDID.POLITO.IT Subject: Digicom Modem Information Request Last week a friend gave me a modem board of which he hasn't neither an instruction booklet nor a jumper setting description so, we can't use it. It has 20 (twenty!) dip switches which thus can be set in 2**20 different ways ! If someone on this list has the jumper setting description or knows its features please mail them directly to me: (DOWNLOAD@POLDID.POLITO.IT or DOWNLOAD@POLDID.TO.CNR.IT or DOWNLOAD@DIDVX2.POLITO.IT) or to the list if you can't reach me directly for any reason. The manufacturer of the modem is DIGICOM and the model is M3-12PC. Is a 1200 baud modem (as it seems to be) or has an higher baud rate ? On the board there is also a pair of (serial ?) numbers: X5093 4D0478. (The DIGICOM BIOS release is 1.0 and there is no date on the board.) Thanks in advance, Luca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 11:16:01 PST From: ams@eitech.com (Allan M Schiffman) Subject: Cellular Phone Service in Europe My wife is going on a trip to Holland and France next month. If she takes her cellular phone with her, will she be able to activate it somehow? Surely it will be more complicated than on our periodic trips to Tahoe from the Bay Area, where, courtesy of "Follow-me Roaming", I guess, it just works ... Allan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 16:40:11 -0600 From: marty@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (marty) Subject: Information Wanted Regarding EE Opportunities at Cellular Companies I'll be graduating in May and I would like to work in the cellular communications industry. Are there many electrical engineering positions at cellular companies? Can someone provide me a list of the top cellular companies that I should look into? So far, I have information on GTE and McCaw. Any information that you can give me is greatly appreciated. Thanks, marty ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 12:44:50 PST From: ntmtv!nahabed@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Roupen Nahabedian) Subject: Information Wanted on PC Telex Card I'm looking for information on a PC TELEX card (like a fax/modem card). Something to connect a PC to a TELEX line ... is there such a thing? I am not talking about dial-up services services like Western Union, AT&T EasyLink, etc... Any information will be appreciated. Thanks, Roupen Nahabedian Northern Telecom, Inc. Mountain View, California UUCP: ames!ntmtv!nahabed nahabed@ntmtv.UUCP ARPANET: ntmtv!nahabed@ames.arc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ From: iisat!kevin@iisat.uucp (Kevin Davies) Subject: Information Wanted on Call Processing Applications Organization: Public Access UNIX Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 23:28:41 GMT Has anyone worked with call processing equipment for micros? In particular, we're looking at some applications which require the use of digitized voice, at touch-tone detection for the software. One company I know of, Dialogic, has hardware to handle this. Has anyone any experience with this company or ones like it? (This will be on 80486 machines with either DOS or Unix). Thanks in advance. Kevin Davies Public Access Unix UUCP: dalcs!iisat!kevin or cs.dal.ca!iisat!kevin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 07:27:29 PST From: John R. Covert Subject: Re: Need Information on Satellite Phone > I need to buy a satellite phone to be used in Spain ... You will pay somewhere between $20,000 and $40,000 for a portable Marisat terminal capable of providing telephone service. The price of calls from the U.S. to Marisat terminals has recently been reduced from $12.00 to $10.00 per minute. It may very well be more expensive from Spain. I have no information on the cost of outgoing calls from the Marisat terminal. Quality is good but not excellent. Marisat Services in Washington, D.C. (800 424-9152) can provide a list of equipment manufacturers if you still are interested. john ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #267 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10696; 25 Mar 92 1:56 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19610 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 23:55:18 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15322 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 23:55:04 -0600 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 23:55:04 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203250555.AA15322@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #268 TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Mar 92 23:55:00 CST Volume 12 : Issue 268 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson New Product - CSID (Eric Jacksch) Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (FIDO via George S. Thurman) Wireless Telecom Services in Asia (Mark Rudholm) Potpourri (Cellular, 800-CALL-ATT, V.32, &c.) (Michael Scott Baldwin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: New Product - CSID From: jacksch@insom.pc.ocunix.on.ca (Eric Jacksch) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 05:30:13 -0500 Organization: Insomniacs' Guild, Kemptville, Ontario, Canada The following is part of a document describing a new product for PC/XT/AT machines which enables the computer to make use of Caller-ID information passed from the phone company. Call SecurID Telephone call identification, screening, redirection and logging system. SUMMARY OF FEATURES ICON CS Canada Inc. 21 Lynwood Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 2B4 Phone/Fax (613) 722-0115 INTRODUCTION TO SYSTEM FEATURES A. GENERAL OVERVIEW Call SecurID is a comprehensive computer-based utility which allows all in-coming telephone calls or signals from related devices to be accepted or rejected, monitored, logged and organized in a multi-field database, all with unattended operation. Designed for use within a home, business or professional facility or in a computer security environment, Call SecurID assures automated control over all telephone-based communications in a manner that can be user customized for specific needs and circumstances. Working with a personal computer, the Call SecurID system captures the CMS or CLASS data transmitted between the first and second rings of the telephone. This data currently includes the phone number of the calling party, the date, and the time to the nearest minute. A hardware insert board and a device driver capture and transmit the data to the software system. The software interrogates a data base looking for an existing entry for the calling number. If it locates the number, a screen identifying the calling party flashes onto the monitor and presents information that the user previously entered. If, on the other hand, the software does not find a number, it adds the new number into the database. An Unknown Caller screen is then exhibited which the user can edit to identify the caller and to add any other information that may be desired to be visible on the screen the next time the same party calls. The user can identify each calling number as either an acceptable caller, a nuisance caller, a limited caller or a special caller. An acceptable call will go through to the handset or other specified device. A nuisance caller will activate a "hang-up" routine. A limited caller can only get through during certain specified hours of working days and a special caller will be identified on the main screen with a different colour or reverse video. Besides the choice of five categories noted above, the user can identify each caller in one of ten groups. Group zero is a "ring, ring, ring" group. The calling party will hear the phone ringing as though nobody were there to answer. Group 1 callers are directed to the first of three output ports. Group 2 callers are directed to port #2 and Group 3 callers are directed to port #3. Groups 4 to 9 callers are also directed to port #1. However, these groupings are used to bring up user modified/designed screens for categories of callers such as "business," "family," or "friends" to suit information required in each separate case. The practical result of such signal flow management is that calls can be directed to, say, a handset or an answering machine on port #1, a modem on port #2 or a FAX machine on port #3. There are no restrictions on any of the ports for any telephone device. The software operates in one of two modes: TSR (Terminate and Stay Resident) or a Stand-alone mode. The TSR mode is employed in circumstances where the computer used for the Call SecurID system is also used for word processing or another computing activity. Using this mode, when a call comes in a Terminate and Stay Resident (TSR) kernel starts the main Call SecurID program while saving the current screen and activity. The caller's identification screen appears for a brief predetermined time, or upon command, is held while a conversation or other telephone operations take place. Thereafter, the interrupted activity is returned to the screen and the computer is again available for use. The Stand-alone mode is designed for a dedicated computer that is used to protect a dial-up system on a mini or mainframe computer. Here the Call SecurID screen is always visible. It shows the last 14 callers in the log, the numbers of the originating phones, the names of the parties as entered by the user, their categories and groups, as well as the date, time and duration of each call. This mode can also be used with a multi-tasking system such as DESQview or Windows 3 where Call SecurID operates in the background and can be selected at will to show the screen log or other information. B. HARDWARE The hardware is an insert card for an 8 or 16-bit XT/ISA Bus slot in standard PC/MS-DOS computers using Intel 8088, 8086, 80286, 80386 or 80486 processors. Main operation is via the 8 bit section of the bus with two extra interrupts available if installed in a 16-bit slot. The hardware has all necessary FCC and DOC approvals. Four RJ11 connectors on the bracket of the Printed Circuit Board (PCB) connect the "line" (top connector) and three output ports for telephone devices such as a handset, an answering machine, a modem or a FAX machine. The output ports are port 1 (next to the line connector), port 2 and port 3 at the bottom of the bracket. Your PC provides power for the operation of the board. Hence, an external power device is not required. The board can be configured to use one of four Interrupts on the PC. Use IRQ3 or IRQ5 on 8-bit PC and XT type computers. On 16-bit AT, 386 and 486 computers, an additional two options, IRQ10 and IRQ12 are available. Inserting a jumper on one of four sets of pins near the PC connector selects the IRQ. The board can also be configured to use one of seven "addresses" on the operating system: 0360 Hex, 0340 Hex, 0320 Hex, 0300 Hex, 0260 Hex, 0240 Hex, and 0220 Hex. Thus interference with other devices such as scanners, can be avoided. This is accomplished using jumpers on three sets of pins near the top of the board. In a security facility, default operation of the system can be set in such a manner that, in the event of a power failure, the system will not accept telephone calls. In the converse setting, if the computer is turned off or if power fails, telephone calls would continue to be passed through in the normal way. A jumper installed on one of two sets of pins near the connector end of the board selects the desired configuration. C. SOFTWARE Call SecurID software has three main components. The first is a device driver activated when the computer is started. This is the software element which continually interfaces with the hardware to capture the information transmitted by the telephone company. Upon receipt of a call, the device driver issues a signal that is picked up by the TSR or the Stand-alone portion of the software program. Your computer's config.sys file must be edited to insert the command which installs the device drive. The second component is the Terminate and Stay Resident kernel. It is installed by adding the proper activating command to the computer's autoexec.bat file. When an interrupt is received from the device driver, the TSR kernel initiates the main program, the third component of the software. The main program accepts the information transmitted by the telephone company and begins to operate. The main program can be activated by the TSR or, in the Stand-alone mode, can be run continuously. The only difference in operation is that the Stand-alone version continually interrogates the device driver and hardware to monitor in-coming calls. When run in TSR mode, the program is started by the TSR when a call arrives. After accepting the information transmitted by the telephone company, the main program -- operating in TSR mode -- compares the received phone number to a list of numbers in a database. If it finds the number there, the program displays a screen dedicated to that caller. The screen can be edited to include information which will appear when that particular caller phones again. If the number is not found in the database, an entry is made for that calling number and an Unknown Caller screen appears on the monitor. The user can then enter the name of the caller and any other information that is to be displayed at the next call from the same source. This information is then saved as an editable screen. A caller's screen can display the dates and times of the last five calls as well as the total number of calls from that party. The log and any caller's screen can be reviewed by the user at any time. The software includes a menu system with the Common User Access (CUA) form of interface for performing maintenance and other activities. When activated, the menu line appears at the top of the screen making available pull down menus for each menu line item. Context sensitive help screens are also available. Activities that can be selected include editing, printing, dialing out -- complete with call logging -- adding information to a caller's screen or changing the category and/or group of a caller. In addition, this portion of the software provides the ability to view the database of callers, the log or a history file containing data on all calls. The user can also search any of the files on any field. Amongst its other useful utilities, the software includes a function which moves entries from the log to history files on a user defined schedule. D. SYSTEM VERSIONS The system is available in three versions: SYSOP, BUSINESS, and SECURITY. Each has been designed to meet specific needs. The SYSOP version is tailored to dial-in bulletin board monitoring where three output ports categorize and group callers and direct calls to different devices. The BUSINESS version is designed for use by small to medium sized businesses or professional service organizations using individual phones lines (not PBX systems). It offers the added ability to dial out using the system and, thus, to record all phone calls originating from within the office. Additional printing functions respond to the needs of individual business operations. The SECURITY version is designed as a call screening protection system for mini and mainframe computers with dial-in databases or other proprietary information. It includes special lock-out features to prevent unauthorized access. It is also designed as a total system incorporating up to four dial-in lines on a single computer. Eric Jacksch, jacksch@insom.pc.ocunix.on.ca (UUCP: aficom!insom!jacksch) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 00:30 GMT From: George S Thurman <0004056081@mcimail.com> Subject: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears Found in the Fidonet Shortwave Echo: Msg#: 8319 *SHORTWAVE* 03-20-92 23:15:00 From: DAVE PLUMB Subj: CORDLESS UNSAFE! Well, Eric Postpischil couldn't find anything on when it's legal to monitor CMT communications, but he did find this gem on other cordless phones that is worth passing on. Of course, we all knew that the IRS was above the law, anyway, right? :-( IRS CUPS ITS EAR TO CORDLESS PHONES (USA Today, 7/30?) If you're thinking about declaring a few imaginary dependents this year, don't mention it on your cordless phone. The Internal Revenue Service may be listening. Under new guidelines for its criminal investigators, the IRA can use radio scanners to eavesdrop on suspected tax dodgers while they chat on their cordless phones. No warrant is necessary. The IRS policy, issued as an update to a handbook for investigators, comes in the wake of a recent Supreme Court action. The high court declined in January to review a federal appeals court ruling that conversations on cordless telephones are not subject to federal privacy laws. "The IRS thinks that since there are no legal or constitutional protections against listening in to cordless telephone conversations, its agents aren't bound by any higher principles," says Janlori Goldman of the American Civil Liberties Union's Privacy Project. As of this year, one in four homes has a cordless phone; more than 9 million were sold last year alone. The ACLU has asked Congress to overhaul the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which extended federal privacy protection to such areas as cellular telephones and electronic computer mail - but specifically omitted the emerging technology of cordless phones. "The current law makes no sense," says Goldman. "If your telephone happens to have a cord, your privacy is protected by federal law. If not, you have none." Eric J Werme uucp: mit-eddie!alliant!werme Phone: 508-486-1214 * Origin: Dave's Mailer in Enfield, London, UK [0000-0600 GMT] (2:252/140) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 14:39:13 PST From: aimla!ruby!rudholm@uunet.UU.NET (Mark Rudholm) Subject: Wireless Telecom Services in Asia Hutchison Telecom has operations in; Hong Kong, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, Macau, Philippines, and Bangladesh. They are also constantly expanding their operations. They offer services such as; PCN, Telepoint, Cellular Telephone, Paging, Public Mobile Data, Trunked Mobile Data, International Value Added Services, Information Services, Satellite Systems & Services, and Broadcast radio. Hutchison Telecom is the provider of AMPS Cellular service in Hong Kong. I do not know if they operate an AMPS system anywhere else in Asia. A friend of mine who is one their executive team has an AMPS phone that he has no problem using here in Los Angeles. When he arrives, he establishes temporary service with either of the two carriers by having all charges billed to a credit card. Hutchison offers the same type of temporary service to anyone with an AMPS phone. Their customer service is excellent and availble 24 hours a day. In any case, here's where to reach them: Hutchison Telecommunications Ltd. (A Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. company) 27th Floor, Great Eagle Centre 23 Harbour Road Wanchai Hong Kong Tel: +852-828-3222 Fax: +852-827-1393 udholm@aimla.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 12:52 EST From: michael.scott.baldwin@att.com Subject: Potpourri (Cellular, 800-CALL-ATT, V.32, &c.) Cellular One of NY/NJ uses *71 for Immediate Call Forward instead of *72. Anyone know why they are different? Also, No Answer/Busy Transfer has to be enabled manually. Bleah. Last weekend I was in South Jersey. The A carrier there is also called Cellular One, but it's a completely different company. They couldn't even tell me what I was paying for my calls. Anyway, call waiting didn't work, and I couldn't retrieve my voice mail. Incoming calls and voice mail seemed to work. Cell One now says to dial *35 to enable Voice Mail in CT, RI, and MA. I couldn't get a straight answer from the rep, but I am guessing this is only in the DMX areas, and not all of MA, for instance. Of course, this means I do *not* get incoming calls. If I dial *350 to get incoming, I do *not* get voice mail. This is exactly how the North American Cellular Network operates. They seem to think that this is the same as having "all of my features." Give me a break. Someone mentioned a "one phone number" service in Bell Atlantic territory. I attempt to do that here with a computer that dials *72 codes for me on my home line. Not perfect, but close. My biggest problem is the voice mail garbage I mentioned above. Basically, I cannot use any cellular voice mail system, because they simply don't work outside my home area. People tell me to use 55x-yyyy (x!=5, yyyy=last four digits) for ring back in NJ. Sadly, it doesn't work from +1 201 539. I want to use it to as a cheapo intercom system in my (big) house. I don't know how ring back would work, but I would like something similar to party lines back in good 'ole MD. We just dialed our own (or any other party's) number, and got a busy. After hanging up, all phones would ring. Anyone who picked up phones could talk to each other. I also have Identa-Ring, so I'd like to be able to ring back either number, and be able to pick up one or more extensions and talk. 800-CALL-ATT lets me bill intra-LATA calls to my AT&T card, but I cannot dial 10ATT to do the same (NJ Bell blocks it). What is the scoop on IXC completion of intra-LATA calls? This wreaks havoc on the dialing instructions ("if you don't here AT&T hang up and dial ...") because they will never work here. You either get "NJ Bell" or " We're sorry, it is not necessary to dial a carrier access code ..."). I use a AT&T Dataphone II V.32 modem at home, and it just doesn't work. It hangs up all the time, usually when there are power fluctuations (washer or boiler comes on, &c.). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #268 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29201; 25 Mar 92 9:51 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30874 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Mar 1992 07:50:14 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18986 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Mar 1992 07:50:06 -0600 Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 07:50:06 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203251350.AA18986@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #269 TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Mar 92 07:50:02 CST Volume 12 : Issue 269 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Need Information on Satellite Phone (Julian Macassey) Re: Need Information on Satellite Phone (Aaron Good) Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes (Craig R. Watkins) Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes (Robert S. Helfman) Re: Ring Back Number Wanted For NJ (John V. Zambito) Re: Ring Back Number Wanted For NJ (Tony Safina) Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" (Arthur Rubin) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Brad Hicks) Re: 911 Source Identification (Carol Springs) Re: Phone Lines and v32 (Brandon S. Allbery) Re: Len Rose Released From Prison (Kamran Husain) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: julian%bongo.UUCP@nosc.mil (Julian Macassey) Subject: Re: Need Information on Satellite Phone Date: 25 Mar 92 04:23:26 GMT Reply-To: julian@bongo.info.com (Julian Macassey) Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article MASSOUD@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 266, Message 4 of 11 > I need to buy a satellite phone to be used in Spain, in an area where > there is no regular phone service, and where cellular phones don't > reach. I read somewhere that GTE makes such a phone. Size of the > device is of no concern. Any information such as price, price of > communications, and quality of the latter would be appreciated. GTE? In the Inmarsat business? How does IDB sound? They will sell you one of these units -- as used by Peter Arnet in Bhagdad. Ok, The units start at $55,000.00 and go up to $68,000.00 for a 56Kbs unit; just the job if you want a Usenet feed to keep up with the Digest. I have heard that the price of these things is coming down. Air charges are $8.74 per minute peak and $6.84 off peak. The usual unit is a 30 Kilo suitcase holding the electronics and a 1.2 Meter dish weighing 4.5 Kilos. Power is 150 - 318V DC or 90 - 240 V AC (47 - 64 Hz). Power consumption is 220 W transmit and 100 W stand by. The interface is two two-wire ports, a modem port and telex port. The Antenna can be 20 feet from the suitcase and the phone can be 500 feet from the suitcase. For more info, place an order etc, call IDB at (213) 870-9000, or (301) 590-7074, or (800) 432-2376. If you have any trouble ask for James Feld at the 213 number and mention my name. 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: agood@netcon.smc.edu (Aaron Good) Subject: Re: Need Information on Satellite Phone Organization: Santa Monica College, Santa Monica, CA Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 00:32:38 GMT In article MASSOUD@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU writes: > I need to buy a satellite phone to be used in Spain, in an area where Pick up a copy of the magazine Popular Communications, Monitoring Times, {73 Magazine}, or {CQ Magazine} -- any ham radio store should carry them. There is a company that advertises called ,"CES" (I think). The ad shows the Magnavox portable satellite telephone system for about 25,000.00 dollars U.S. and a few hundred more for an air shipping container. The telephone is an INMARSAT portable ground terminal. ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes Date: 24 Mar 92 10:06:55 EST Organization: HRB Systems, Inc. In article , jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > I just use two ten dollar connectors. One tells me the status > of each RS-232 line with two-color LEDs. I love two-color LED's, but NOT for this application. I would only buy boxes that have two LED's for each signal. I can "see" a single character at 9600 or 19.2 with two LED's (I see the normally-off one flash on) but I can't "see" a single character with the dual-color LED's. That is, I can see a red LED blink on for a 19.2k character, but I can't see a green LED turn red for that amount of time. Maybe it's a personal problem. Craig R. Watkins crw@icf.hrb.com HRB Systems, Inc. +1 814 238-4311 ------------------------------ From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) Subject: Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 03:57:04 GMT In article upchrch!joel@peora.sdc.c cur.com (Joel Upchurch ) writes: > jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: >> of each RS-232 line with two-color LEDs. The other is a mini RS-232 >> break-out box that I bought in Akihabara, Tokyo (and I've seen them in >> Rat Shack). Both are around the same size as DB-25 gender changers. >> It works fine for me in almost all situations. Sure, it isn't >> as nice as a $100 break out box, but why waste the money? If you are I bought one of Radio Shack's little two-color LED Mini-Testers for $15 about a year ago for use at the office -- we have 35 RS-232 drops in our department alone. For most RS-232 work, it has been a God-send. It is small, slips in your pocket, and for 99% of the situations, it's more than sufficient. I have a full-size Black Box breakout box at work which I have used exactly once in the last year, when I HAD TO do something exotic. I made up a test cable with a DB25 on one end and a set of four foot clip-leads for the other end, marked with Brady wiremarkers as to function and numbers indicating the order on our punchblocks. Plugging the R/S mini-tester into this cable makes it possible to test terminal circuits at the punchblocks with one hand while standing on a ladder, something that ain't easy with a full-size breakout box. I liked the Radio Shack gadget enough to go buy one for myself for home. I have to do com development work, using my 386 talking to an old IBM dinosaur. The minitester makes it very easy to see what's going on. I leave it permanently in place between the two machines. It's the only really valuable thing I have ever found at Radio Shack. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 11:48:00 EST From: jvz@sunsrvr1.cci.com (John V. Zambito) Subject: Re: Ring Back Number Wanted For NJ Organization: Computer Consoles Inc., Rochester, NY > Anyone know the ringback or other interesting tests here? 411 give us local (Rochester Tel) directory assistance. 511 tells us what number we are calling from. ------------------------------ From: disk!tony@uunet.UU.NET (tony) Subject: Re: Ring Back Number Wanted For NJ Organization: Digital Information Systems of KY Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 22:51:41 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Using 'ringback' is not illegal. That function is > however for testing procedures only by telephone technicians and is > not tariffed for use by the general public. I find your excuse for Please, ... what does "not tarriffed for use by the general public," mean? `Sounds kind of ominous to me. If a procedure is not illegal that is one thing, but if it is "not tarriffed" does that mean the phone company could cut off your service if you use it? I have only used it twice to date and my service has not been cut off, but if I used it several times per month would that change anything? Tony Safina disk!tony@uunet.UU.NET [Moderator's Note: You won't get your service cut off for using ringback, but by not being tariffed, I mean it has no rules which apply to it and no price tag assigned to it (like Call Waiting for example.) Telco does not really like unauthorized people using it for anything other than its original purpose; that of testing. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com"@BIIVAX.DP.BECKMAN.COM Subject: Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" Date: 24 Mar 92 18:47:54 GMT In John R. Covert writes: > Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended ... > Restrictions on the Use of Telephone Equipment: > It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States -- > (A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes > or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using > any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded > voice -- > (i) to any emergency telephone line; > (ii) to the telephone line of any guest room or patient room of a > hospital, health care facility, elderly home, or similar establishment; > (iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular > telephone service, ..., or any service for which the called party > is charged for the call. > (B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using > an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior > express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for > emergency purposes ... (Does this apply to modem calls? What if the number is published as a BBS number (a) in a magazine or (b) on a BBS?.) > (C) ... to send an unsolicted advertisement to a telephone facsimile > machine; or Again, who is responsible if I have a FAX but give someone else's FAX number who (a) I think will accept return FAXes or (b) I am trying to FAX/slam? I think the law needs some more work. Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea 216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer. [Moderator's Note: The law does not need any more work. First of all, why would your modem be making calls to the category of phones mentioned above -- emergency lines, hospital rooms, cellular phones, etc.? The intent is very plain: to avoid hassles for phones which would *never* or rarely be used for the purposes specified. And if you have a FAX, why would you give someone else's FAX number? If you are trying to 'FAX/Slam' some person, then I suspect the law would include you as a violator. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 16:49 GMT From: "J. Brad Hicks" <0004073044@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On John W. Lydic (lydic@ka8lvz.uucp) said: > It has been rumored (unsubstantiated) that UUNET sends a tape of all > Usenet transactions to the FBI every month. To which Pat replied: > How many giga-gazillion bytes would that be ... Do you > really think the Federal Bureau of Inquisition [reads the entire > UseNet]? Delusions of grandeur ... Not that long ago, {Life} ran a set of photos from inside the Langley, VA offices of the CIA. I clearly remember one photo of the inside of an automated tape storage facility (they called them "tape silos") with enough raw data given in the photo caption to calculate the total storage per silo. It also indicated that there were multiple silos; the number that sticks in my head is nine of them. I don't remember if it came out to 1.5 Tb per silo or if it was just 1.5 Tb for the whole system, but that's good enough for order of magnitude purposes. Yes, I said Tb. As in terrabytes. As in millions of megabytes. Now, given their strong interest in signals intelligence and photo recon, the CIA may need a bit more storage space (digitized undecoded signals and digitized photographs, for example) than the FBI, but obviously Congress didn't flinch from buying an intelligence service that kind of data storage. Now, let's approach it from the other angle. Didn't we see an article here in TCD about a company that produces a monthly CD-ROM of the entire UseNet? So one year's worth of traffic for the highest-volume period of the UseNet to date would rattle around loosely in a good CD-ROM jukebox; the entire historical contents of the UseNet would fit into a small room on hardware costing less than $100k, which would be pocket change to the FBI. You think the FBI wouldn't care? Even with newsgroups which might attract "perverts" (alt.sex.bondage, alt.sex.pictures, rec.nudism), "hackers" (comp.dcom.telecom, alt.dcom.telecom, comp.org.eff.talk), and other groups of "potential criminals"? If not, then I think you have insufficient understanding of the history of an organization that got its start compiling dossiers on poets and writers. Now, the only limiting factor here is manpower. Do I think that one or more FBI special agents, investigators, or even clerks actually READS the 12 Mb per day of text that flows through UseNet? My personal guess would be no, that even the FBI doesn't have an unlimited budget and the "productivity" (amount of criminal activity successfully prosecuted per investigator hour) would be too low. But I strongly suspect that they store it in a format where if my name came up on some "enemies list", a special agent could pull everything I wrote on this medium to look for admissions of criminal intent, or even just to build a personality profile. One last potential objection: With all of those privacy freaks using the FOIA to get their files, wouldn't this have been proven by now? Not necessarily, or even likely. The FOIA specifically exempts information that would reveal methods of intelligence gathering; it may well be that the FBI could argue that their UseNet collection was only valuable as long as potential criminals didn't know they were monitoring it, and have a blanket permission under FOIA to not release any information collected in that fashion. All legal as church on Sunday. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 08:33:35 -0500 From: carols@world.std.com (Carol Springs) Subject: Re: 911 Source Identification Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In article Bob_Frankston@frankston. std.com writes: > I would like to see a copy of the {Globe} editorial that links E911 with > Caller-ID. The only thing the two might have in common is SS7. Never submitted it and don't have it anymore; sorry. It was amusing, though. > The fact that NET has chosen to throw a childish temper tantrum > because they had to give people (sorry, I guess those who choose a > modicum of privacy are low-lives by definition [the return of HUAC?]), > is no reason to deny E911. I never saw any evidence that NET was actually denying E911, or even slowing down its plans. I think the {Boston Globe} editorial was written by someone who'd befuddled himself rather than being misled by NET. Then again, someone once sent me e-mail saying that some bad NET reps had set out deliberately to confuse people in this very regard, in order to increase the chances of passing Caller-ID as originally specced out by NET. I'm uncertain whether to attribute remarks like these to paranoia, and I'd appreciate any further info from those who were there during the lobbying and such. (I would be annoyed if there were actually any slowdown in NET's new E911 implementations -- aren't the new 411 charges being earmarked for this project?) Carol Springs carols@world.std.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 20:10:59 -0500 From: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH) Subject: Re: Phone Lines and v32 Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.org (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH) Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH As quoted from by zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon): > dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writebit? It would seem > that Telebit wants to discourage the use of V.32 and K encourage the] > use of PEP by making modems that don't work well with > at times by the company's arrogance. However, as a user of many > Telebit modems, PEP and v.32, I can tell you that I have seen > absolutely no indication that Telebit purposely "cripples" v.32 in The new T3000 doesn't even *come* with PEP. (It's a $100 option.) Wouldn't Telebit have made the V.32 option the add-on if they wanted to push PEP that badly? Brandon S. Allbery, KF8NH [44.70.4.88] allbery@NCoast.ORG Senior Programmer, Telotech, Inc. (if I may call myself that...) ------------------------------ From: khx@se44.wg2.waii.com (Kamran Husain) Subject: Re: Len Rose Released From Prison Date: 24 Mar 92 16:35:48 GMT Reply-To: khx@se44.wg2.waii.com Organization: Western Geophysical Exploration Products Who is Len Rose and why was he is prison? Was he a telemarketer? kamran [Moderator's Note: Uh, no ... he wasn't a telemarketer. (Keeping a straight face as I type this.) Len was one of those notorious 'hackers' you've probably read about in the newspapers. He was convicted of having source code in his possession which could do Bad Things, and transporting it around the net. Are you suggesting telemarketers belong in prison? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #269 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19465; 26 Mar 92 5:11 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31326 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:46:08 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26236 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:46:00 -0600 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:46:00 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203260746.AA26236@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #270 TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Mar 92 01:08:48 CST Volume 12 : Issue 270 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson "Natural Monopoly" Dies (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker) The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Ptasnik New 900-Type Number? (Holly B. Papaleonardos) Telebit Modems and Call Waiting Disable Kludge (Gordon Burditt) Replacing a Cell Phone (Peter B. Hayward) Petitioning Indiana PUC (Doctor Math) Early Summary of Responses about TV Caption Buzz (Joe Konstan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 16:40:55 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: "Natural Monopoly" Dies [The following message originated in the Fidonet FCC echomail conference:] Original From: Don Kimberlin Subject: "Natural Monopoly" Dies One of the most propagandized statements the phonecos heap upon your eyes, ears and minds is a claim that "the phone business" is a "natural monopoly." There might have been a ring of reason to it in the context in which Theodore Vail wrote that about 80 years ago (while under the tutelage of the railroad baron, Theodore Vanderbilt). But, technology has made gigantic inroads into the real capital and operating cost of local telecommunications transmission plant. The "natural monopoly" is so dead that anyone who tries to use it on you should be shamed. Here's a paper by Royce J. Holland, president of Metropolitan Fiber Systems, discussing the matter, as published in a newsletter recently sent out by MFS, its "MFS News-Letter" for Winter, 1992: THE LAST MONOPOLY "The local loop remains the last domestic bastion of bottleneck facilities and circumscribed competition ..." "Competition means strife, industrial warfare; ... it often means ... resorting to any means that the conscience of the contestants or the degree of enforcement of the laws will permit." "This unflattering view of competition was espoused in the early twentieth century by Theodore Vail, the former president of the Bell System. The twin cornerstones of Mr. Vail's philosophy were that telephone service is a "natural monopoly" and that the goals of affordable universal service can only be achieved in a monopoly environment. "To a proponent of a competitive, market-based economy, the term "natural monopoly" is the ultimate oxymoron. Much like Marxism-Leninism, monopolism results in the stifling of initiative, restriction of technological innovation, development of a stultifying bureaucracy, and general acceptance of mediocrity. Fortunately, many areas of the American telecommunications industry, including equipment manufacturing and long distance services has transformed monopolism to a relic of a bygone era. Competition in these industries has resulted in technological innovation, dramatic improvements in customer service, robust increases in demand, and significant reductions in costs. "Affordable universal telephone service is a laudable goal that has been a major tenet of domestic telecommunications policy ove the last half century. MFS heartily endorses the goal of affordable universal service and believes that a competitive environment in the local loop will strengthen this national committment. As we have proposed in two pending FCC rulemaking proceedings, non-dsicriminatory contributions by all competitors to promote universal service will produce significant benefits for consumers and the US economy. "The last two decades have seen the death of monopolism in many areas of telecommunications. In fact, the local loop remains the last domestic bastion of bottleneck facilities and circumscribed competition. Despite the exaggerated outcries of `billions lost to bypass,' by the Baby Bells, the local exchange carriers still control over 99 percent of the local access market. And the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) in particular use these outrageous fabrications to try to justify the removal of the Modification of Final Judgment restrictions on their lines of business and to gain further deregulation. "Even in this last monopoly market, the benefits of very limited competition are very apparent. The RBOCs are beginning to improve customer service and network reliability, at least in the cities where limited access competition exists. And our new product offering for interconnecting high speed computer networks will undoubtedly spur the Bells to accelerate the development of similar products. It is particularly ironic that MFS is leading the way in commercializing the technology for America's Information Superhighways of the Future while the RBOCs continue to focus on non-regulated overseas markets." (Alluding to the millions the RBOCs have invested in phone companies, cable TV and transoceanic submarine telephone cables instead of their local business.) "Once again, consumers have benefitted from a competitive rather than a monopoly environment. "Although competition has gained a small beachhead, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of monopolism's death are greatly exaggerated. The lack of true competition has sparked legislative and regulatory initiatives such as the Cooper Bill in Congress and Chairman Barnich's Telecommunications Free Trade Zone Proposal at the Illinois Commerce Commission to remove regulatory barriers to entry in the local exchange market. As our Local Equal Access Initiative and other pro-competitive proposals are implemented, and competitors to the Baby Bells continue to set the standards for customer service and technological innovation, Theodore Vail's horse-and-buggy era philosophy may ultimately be consigned to the dustbin of history." And, one more case, as Paul Harvey puts it, of, "Now You Know the Rest of the Story." Remember it when the monks of your phoneco start chanting the mantras of the obsolete Bell System again! WM v2.02/91-0073 * 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: Thanks for passing this along, Jack. Even if Don Kimberlin is extremely anti-AT&T and anti-telco, his articles are quite interesting. What I don't understand though is why all the late arrivals on the scene feel they have some right to place their lines and equipment inside the telco central offices. For example, IBT here had to put some of their competition's equipment in *their* CO. It seems like none of these late arrivals actually want to start from scratch and build a telephone company. They want to rip off the wire pairs they need from the local telco, the inside building wiring they need, the terminal blocks, etc. They want to use the century-plus of experience and plant the telco has developed, then charge lower rates and claim telco is the ripoff! I don't see where the telcos owe them anything except that once MFS and the others build their network, spend billions of dollars on outside and inside plant, build their own central office building and otherwise get things together, the telco can hand them a bunch of wire pairs out the door and say 'here is your gateway to our network'. Nothing more. Let MFS and the others develop their own software, make their own applications to the long distance carriers for interconnection, etc. *Then* let's compare prices. They are even using IBT's heating and air conditioning in a CO. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 11:40:43 -0800 (PST) From: David Ptasnik Subject: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone I have heard it said repeatedly that competition in the dial tone marketplace would not be good because only the big cities would benefit. That "cream skimmers" would come in and leave rural users with service at inflated prices, or without service entirely. I firmly believe that this is telco propaganda. When I was selling business telephone systems in Illinois, I had a nice big map of the state. This map showed the boundaries of control of each phone company. Illinois Bell was the cream skimmer. The biggest cities were served by IBT. The middle sized towns were served by GTE. The rural areas were either served by truly local service (El Paso Tel, Illinois not New Mexico), Centel, or one of a couple of regional companies. The rural customers did not pay significantly higher rates than urban customers. Often the reverse was true. I have never heard of any kind of subsidy going to the little guys. They just priced their services at a fair mark up. Even though their loops were a lot longer, they still seemed to do fine. I really don't think that the phone service in El Paso, Mendota, Paxton, or Foosland will be impacted by IBT losing their monopoly. I do think that IBT will become LOTS more competitive if faced with competition. Imagine being able to set appointments for installation of service. Imagine remotely programmable call forward busy, don't answer, and variable being offered at low prices (or just being offered, the 5ESS can do them all now). Imagine digital services at rational prices. You might have to insure univeral service within the existing service boundaries, or maybe by CO boundaries. These issues can be resolved. Sure, breaking up a monopoly can be ugly (I can hear Judge Green laughing in the background). Yes it means that we have to learn more about our telephones in order to make an informed decision. Yes there will be new rip offs. Yes it means some people will get worse service. Still, phone technology has exploded since divestiture. While things are more complicated than they were before, they really are better and less expensive. It's called progress. Someday it might even help Mendota. Dave Ptasnik davep@u.washington.edu (NOT the opinion of the University of Washington, or any university departments) [Moderator's Note: Sure, like we all get to pay for directory assistance calls now because MCI was telling their customers to use AT&T for 'free' directory, then place the actual revenue-earning call on MCI. If these birds want to start *from scratch* and build it all themselves like telco did, then I support competition, but not otherwise. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hpapaleo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Holly B Papaleonardos) Subject: New 900-Type Number? Organization: The Ohio State University Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 07:21:25 GMT When opening a commercial information service (BBS), a friend of mine was faced with several options for the possibility of long- distance callers. He decided on the 800 number, but said he was offered two other options: a 900 number, but also a 700 (yes seven-hundred) number, both billable. Has anyone else heard of this 700 service? Delphi: WTHUNDER Alexi Papaleonardos NetworKING BBS: +1 614 868 4793 [Moderator's Note: 700 is basically like 900 except each carrier does its own thing with the entire 700 number space. Where 700-something on AT&T will get you one thing, the same 700 number on Sprint will get you something else. It is not as widely used as 900, however. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Telebit Modems and Call Waiting Disable Kludge Organization: Gordon Burditt Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 20:24:28 GMT > [Moderator's Note: My Telebit T-1600 has this feature also. Register > S-45 is set to 0 to disable this, or 255 to enable it. Both modems > must have this feature, and must have an MNP connection. The % command On a Trailblazer Plus, you have to have a PEP connection. I suppose on a T3000, you have to have a MNP or v.42 connection (my T3000 hasn't arrived yet). > allows the user at a local DTE to send a command to the other modem as > though it had been entered from the other end. I guess the first thing > you would do when calling is set the other guy's S-10 register (Carrier > Loss Detect Time) to some high value: AT%S10=255. But really, fiddling > around with the other guy's modem is kind of rude unless you reset it > when your session is finished; most people wouldn't bother. PAT] Allowing parameter reset remotely is a very convenient feature when you're testing configuration options that affect transfer efficiency, or are just setting up the modem and one end is unattended. Some systems have &D2 (a.k.a. S52=2, reset parameters on DTR drop) set, so resetting S10 after your session isn't necessary. This option is also useful for dealing with dialin/dialout parameter differences (resetting verbose response option after dialout, for example), so many systems may use it anyway. However, "remote access" has its problems. There is great opportunity for REALLY rude behavior, especially if the dialup number is well-known. (At least the default is off, so people who don't know about remote access probably have it off). I don't have the version with callback security, so there may be some protection there, but consider the effect of some of the commands: - Turn off auto-answer. - Lock interface speed at 300 baud. - Program the number directory to contain the number of someone you wish to annoy or something expensive (Saddam's personal residence?), then activate the option to dial out whenever DTR goes from OFF to ON. - And, of course, writing the obnoxious parameters into all of the saved configurations. Denial-of-service attacks are easy. Running up big phone bills is possible. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon [Moderator's Note: To program the number directory however you need the system password for the other modem. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 09:57:53 EST From: hayward@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu (Peter B. Hayward) Subject: Replacing a Cell Phone I suppose this has been beaten to death already on this group, but I must have missed the discussion. Since the retail sale of cell phones is subsidized by the carriers, what provision is there when one needs to replace a cell phone because the old one is dead or one wishes (let's say) an installed model in place of a transportable? I called my carrier and was offered a trade-in on my phone but the carrier's list price for the new phone was nearly double that I could obtain retail. Of course, I can't get the phone retail because I am not a new subscriber. I suppose I could subscribe with the alternate carrier, but then I would lose my long established number, have to pay a new account connect charge, etc. And what about getting around this by purchasing a used phone? Such must exist as people upgrade. Are there places that sell used cell phones without the requirement that they be activated with carrier X or Y? Peter ------------------------------ Subject: Petitioning Indiana PUC From: drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 11:03:00 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department Here in lovely North Central Indiana, we are served by a #1A ESS. As far as I know, it is possible to get all custom calling features with this switch; but Indiana Bell only offers some of them: call fowarding, (cancel) call waiting, 3-way calling, and speed dialing. I would really like to have distinctive ringing and/or busy call forwarding. Not only can I not order them, my Bell rep doesn't even know when I will be able to get these services in my calling area. I could get these services if I regraded my residential lines to business (which would double the cost) and paid extra for Centrex, but that's not what I want. I suspect that these services are not offered either because they're not tariffed, or because Bell is too cheap to upgrade their switch to a newer generic which handles these services. My guess is the former. There is a process by which mere subscribers can petition the Utilities Commission to force Bell to offer services where they are technologically capable. From what I have gathered, it requires a petition with at least 12 signatures, among other things. Has anyone done this? Can anyone offer hints, suggestions, etc? Finally, does anyone out there who happens to live in St. Joe county (South Bend/Mishawaka) want to sign the petition? Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 12:29:47 PST From: konstan@elmer-fudd.cs.berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) Subject: Early Summary of Responses about TV Caption Buzz I'm still wading through the flood of responses, but since I'm going out of town for a couple of weeks I thought I'd post a quick summary. I received 22 responses which pretty much all agreed that the problem was the high level of white in captions seeping into the audio band. Then the fun starts. About 1/2 of the responses said that it was my TV. Most thought it could be repaired, but some said it wasn't worth it for an old set (mine is about five years old). About 1/3 blamed the broadcast station for not properly regulating the level and the rest blamed the cable folks for not properly adjusting the levels. Armed with this information, I'll try out another TV set first (and if necessary, adjust/repair this one) and then bug the cable folks (after all, I pay them for this!). Joe Konstan konstan@cs.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #270 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19836; 26 Mar 92 5:23 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20679 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:08:56 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24234 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:08:48 -0600 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:08:48 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203260708.AA24234@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #270 TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Mar 92 01:08:48 CST Volume 12 : Issue 270 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson "Natural Monopoly" Dies (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker) The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Ptasnik New 900-Type Number? (Holly B. Papaleonardos) Telebit Modems and Call Waiting Disable Kludge (Gordon Burditt) Replacing a Cell Phone (Peter B. Hayward) Petitioning Indiana PUC (Doctor Math) Early Summary of Responses about TV Caption Buzz (Joe Konstan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 16:40:55 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: "Natural Monopoly" Dies [The following message originated in the Fidonet FCC echomail conference:] Original From: Don Kimberlin Subject: "Natural Monopoly" Dies One of the most propagandized statements the phonecos heap upon your eyes, ears and minds is a claim that "the phone business" is a "natural monopoly." There might have been a ring of reason to it in the context in which Theodore Vail wrote that about 80 years ago (while under the tutelage of the railroad baron, Theodore Vanderbilt). But, technology has made gigantic inroads into the real capital and operating cost of local telecommunications transmission plant. The "natural monopoly" is so dead that anyone who tries to use it on you should be shamed. Here's a paper by Royce J. Holland, president of Metropolitan Fiber Systems, discussing the matter, as published in a newsletter recently sent out by MFS, its "MFS News-Letter" for Winter, 1992: THE LAST MONOPOLY "The local loop remains the last domestic bastion of bottleneck facilities and circumscribed competition ..." "Competition means strife, industrial warfare; ... it often means ... resorting to any means that the conscience of the contestants or the degree of enforcement of the laws will permit." "This unflattering view of competition was espoused in the early twentieth century by Theodore Vail, the former president of the Bell System. The twin cornerstones of Mr. Vail's philosophy were that telephone service is a "natural monopoly" and that the goals of affordable universal service can only be achieved in a monopoly environment. "To a proponent of a competitive, market-based economy, the term "natural monopoly" is the ultimate oxymoron. Much like Marxism-Leninism, monopolism results in the stifling of initiative, restriction of technological innovation, development of a stultifying bureaucracy, and general acceptance of mediocrity. Fortunately, many areas of the American telecommunications industry, including equipment manufacturing and long distance services has transformed monopolism to a relic of a bygone era. Competition in these industries has resulted in technological innovation, dramatic improvements in customer service, robust increases in demand, and significant reductions in costs. "Affordable universal telephone service is a laudable goal that has been a major tenet of domestic telecommunications policy ove the last half century. MFS heartily endorses the goal of affordable universal service and believes that a competitive environment in the local loop will strengthen this national committment. As we have proposed in two pending FCC rulemaking proceedings, non-dsicriminatory contributions by all competitors to promote universal service will produce significant benefits for consumers and the US economy. "The last two decades have seen the death of monopolism in many areas of telecommunications. In fact, the local loop remains the last domestic bastion of bottleneck facilities and circumscribed competition. Despite the exaggerated outcries of `billions lost to bypass,' by the Baby Bells, the local exchange carriers still control over 99 percent of the local access market. And the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) in particular use these outrageous fabrications to try to justify the removal of the Modification of Final Judgment restrictions on their lines of business and to gain further deregulation. "Even in this last monopoly market, the benefits of very limited competition are very apparent. The RBOCs are beginning to improve customer service and network reliability, at least in the cities where limited access competition exists. And our new product offering for interconnecting high speed computer networks will undoubtedly spur the Bells to accelerate the development of similar products. It is particularly ironic that MFS is leading the way in commercializing the technology for America's Information Superhighways of the Future while the RBOCs continue to focus on non-regulated overseas markets." (Alluding to the millions the RBOCs have invested in phone companies, cable TV and transoceanic submarine telephone cables instead of their local business.) "Once again, consumers have benefitted from a competitive rather than a monopoly environment. "Although competition has gained a small beachhead, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of monopolism's death are greatly exaggerated. The lack of true competition has sparked legislative and regulatory initiatives such as the Cooper Bill in Congress and Chairman Barnich's Telecommunications Free Trade Zone Proposal at the Illinois Commerce Commission to remove regulatory barriers to entry in the local exchange market. As our Local Equal Access Initiative and other pro-competitive proposals are implemented, and competitors to the Baby Bells continue to set the standards for customer service and technological innovation, Theodore Vail's horse-and-buggy era philosophy may ultimately be consigned to the dustbin of history." And, one more case, as Paul Harvey puts it, of, "Now You Know the Rest of the Story." Remember it when the monks of your phoneco start chanting the mantras of the obsolete Bell System again! WM v2.02/91-0073 * 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: Thanks for passing this along, Jack. Even if Don Kimberlin is extremely anti-AT&T and anti-telco, his articles are quite interesting. What I don't understand though is why all the late arrivals on the scene feel they have some right to place their lines and equipment inside the telco central offices. For example, IBT here had to put some of their competition's equipment in *their* CO. It seems like none of these late arrivals actually want to start from scratch and build a telephone company. They want to rip off the wire pairs they need from the local telco, the inside building wiring they need, the terminal blocks, etc. They want to use the century-plus of experience and plant the telco has developed, then charge lower rates and claim telco is the ripoff! I don't see where the telcos owe them anything except that once MFS and the others build their network, spend billions of dollars on outside and inside plant, build their own central office building and otherwise get things together, the telco can hand them a bunch of wire pairs out the door and say 'here is your gateway to our network'. Nothing more. Let MFS and the others develop their own software, make their own applications to the long distance carriers for interconnection, etc. *Then* let's compare prices. They are even using IBT's heating and air conditioning in a CO. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 11:40:43 -0800 (PST) From: David Ptasnik Subject: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone I have heard it said repeatedly that competition in the dial tone marketplace would not be good because only the big cities would benefit. That "cream skimmers" would come in and leave rural users with service at inflated prices, or without service entirely. I firmly believe that this is telco propaganda. When I was selling business telephone systems in Illinois, I had a nice big map of the state. This map showed the boundaries of control of each phone company. Illinois Bell was the cream skimmer. The biggest cities were served by IBT. The middle sized towns were served by GTE. The rural areas were either served by truly local service (El Paso Tel, Illinois not New Mexico), Centel, or one of a couple of regional companies. The rural customers did not pay significantly higher rates than urban customers. Often the reverse was true. I have never heard of any kind of subsidy going to the little guys. They just priced their services at a fair mark up. Even though their loops were a lot longer, they still seemed to do fine. I really don't think that the phone service in El Paso, Mendota, Paxton, or Foosland will be impacted by IBT losing their monopoly. I do think that IBT will become LOTS more competitive if faced with competition. Imagine being able to set appointments for installation of service. Imagine remotely programmable call forward busy, don't answer, and variable being offered at low prices (or just being offered, the 5ESS can do them all now). Imagine digital services at rational prices. You might have to insure univeral service within the existing service boundaries, or maybe by CO boundaries. These issues can be resolved. Sure, breaking up a monopoly can be ugly (I can hear Judge Green laughing in the background). Yes it means that we have to learn more about our telephones in order to make an informed decision. Yes there will be new rip offs. Yes it means some people will get worse service. Still, phone technology has exploded since divestiture. While things are more complicated than they were before, they really are better and less expensive. It's called progress. Someday it might even help Mendota. Dave Ptasnik davep@u.washington.edu (NOT the opinion of the University of Washington, or any university departments) [Moderator's Note: Sure, like we all get to pay for directory assistance calls now because MCI was telling their customers to use AT&T for 'free' directory, then place the actual revenue-earning call on MCI. If these birds want to start *from scratch* and build it all themselves like telco did, then I support competition, but not otherwise. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hpapaleo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Holly B Papaleonardos) Subject: New 900-Type Number? Organization: The Ohio State University Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 07:21:25 GMT When opening a commercial information service (BBS), a friend of mine was faced with several options for the possibility of long- distance callers. He decided on the 800 number, but said he was offered two other options: a 900 number, but also a 700 (yes seven-hundred) number, both billable. Has anyone else heard of this 700 service? Delphi: WTHUNDER Alexi Papaleonardos NetworKING BBS: +1 614 868 4793 [Moderator's Note: 700 is basically like 900 except each carrier does its own thing with the entire 700 number space. Where 700-something on AT&T will get you one thing, the same 700 number on Sprint will get you something else. It is not as widely used as 900, however. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Telebit Modems and Call Waiting Disable Kludge Organization: Gordon Burditt Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 20:24:28 GMT > [Moderator's Note: My Telebit T-1600 has this feature also. Register > S-45 is set to 0 to disable this, or 255 to enable it. Both modems > must have this feature, and must have an MNP connection. The % command On a Trailblazer Plus, you have to have a PEP connection. I suppose on a T3000, you have to have a MNP or v.42 connection (my T3000 hasn't arrived yet). > allows the user at a local DTE to send a command to the other modem as > though it had been entered from the other end. I guess the first thing > you would do when calling is set the other guy's S-10 register (Carrier > Loss Detect Time) to some high value: AT%S10=255. But really, fiddling > around with the other guy's modem is kind of rude unless you reset it > when your session is finished; most people wouldn't bother. PAT] Allowing parameter reset remotely is a very convenient feature when you're testing configuration options that affect transfer efficiency, or are just setting up the modem and one end is unattended. Some systems have &D2 (a.k.a. S52=2, reset parameters on DTR drop) set, so resetting S10 after your session isn't necessary. This option is also useful for dealing with dialin/dialout parameter differences (resetting verbose response option after dialout, for example), so many systems may use it anyway. However, "remote access" has its problems. There is great opportunity for REALLY rude behavior, especially if the dialup number is well-known. (At least the default is off, so people who don't know about remote access probably have it off). I don't have the version with callback security, so there may be some protection there, but consider the effect of some of the commands: - Turn off auto-answer. - Lock interface speed at 300 baud. - Program the number directory to contain the number of someone you wish to annoy or something expensive (Saddam's personal residence?), then activate the option to dial out whenever DTR goes from OFF to ON. - And, of course, writing the obnoxious parameters into all of the saved configurations. Denial-of-service attacks are easy. Running up big phone bills is possible. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon [Moderator's Note: To program the number directory however you need the system password for the other modem. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 09:57:53 EST From: hayward@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu (Peter B. Hayward) Subject: Replacing a Cell Phone I suppose this has been beaten to death already on this group, but I must have missed the discussion. Since the retail sale of cell phones is subsidized by the carriers, what provision is there when one needs to replace a cell phone because the old one is dead or one wishes (let's say) an installed model in place of a transportable? I called my carrier and was offered a trade-in on my phone but the carrier's list price for the new phone was nearly double that I could obtain retail. Of course, I can't get the phone retail because I am not a new subscriber. I suppose I could subscribe with the alternate carrier, but then I would lose my long established number, have to pay a new account connect charge, etc. And what about getting around this by purchasing a used phone? Such must exist as people upgrade. Are there places that sell used cell phones without the requirement that they be activated with carrier X or Y? Peter ------------------------------ Subject: Petitioning Indiana PUC From: drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 11:03:00 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department Here in lovely North Central Indiana, we are served by a #1A ESS. As far as I know, it is possible to get all custom calling features with this switch; but Indiana Bell only offers some of them: call fowarding, (cancel) call waiting, 3-way calling, and speed dialing. I would really like to have distinctive ringing and/or busy call forwarding. Not only can I not order them, my Bell rep doesn't even know when I will be able to get these services in my calling area. I could get these services if I regraded my residential lines to business (which would double the cost) and paid extra for Centrex, but that's not what I want. I suspect that these services are not offered either because they're not tariffed, or because Bell is too cheap to upgrade their switch to a newer generic which handles these services. My guess is the former. There is a process by which mere subscribers can petition the Utilities Commission to force Bell to offer services where they are technologically capable. From what I have gathered, it requires a petition with at least 12 signatures, among other things. Has anyone done this? Can anyone offer hints, suggestions, etc? Finally, does anyone out there who happens to live in St. Joe county (South Bend/Mishawaka) want to sign the petition? Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 12:29:47 PST From: konstan@elmer-fudd.cs.berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) Subject: Early Summary of Responses about TV Caption Buzz I'm still wading through the flood of responses, but since I'm going out of town for a couple of weeks I thought I'd post a quick summary. I received 22 responses which pretty much all agreed that the problem was the high level of white in captions seeping into the audio band. Then the fun starts. About 1/2 of the responses said that it was my TV. Most thought it could be repaired, but some said it wasn't worth it for an old set (mine is about five years old). About 1/3 blamed the broadcast station for not properly regulating the level and the rest blamed the cable folks for not properly adjusting the levels. Armed with this information, I'll try out another TV set first (and if necessary, adjust/repair this one) and then bug the cable folks (after all, I pay them for this!). Joe Konstan konstan@cs.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #270 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22578; 26 Mar 92 6:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29039 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:43:05 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22213 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:42:57 -0600 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:42:57 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203260742.AA22213@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #271 TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Mar 92 01:43:00 CST Volume 12 : Issue 271 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Phonecos Renege on "Deal" (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker) My School Switched Over From AT&T to Sprint (Michael Rosen) NWS Weather Radio -- New System (Mike Riddle) Anyone Out There Use Dispcall on a DMS? (Steve Chafe) Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (Ronald T. Crocker) Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (Mike Berger) Re: Cellular Phone Service in Europe (John R. Covert) The 1-800 Man (Carl Moore) Re: Cell Phone Number Assigment (Phil Howard) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 16:40:30 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Phonecos Renege on "Deal" [The following message originated in the Fidonet FCC echomail conference:] Original From: Don Kimberlin Subject: Phonecos Renege on "Deal" Here's another way the local phonecos are failing to meet their often ballyhooed "service to the public," "natural monopoly" and "all things to all people" profile they like to put forth. Now, after making a committment to the FCC that they understood all the requirements (after all, they ARE the only real "experts," aren't they?) and committed to the FCC that they could participate in "800 number portability" by April, 1993, the local phonecos are `fessing up that they won't have SS7 installed adequately to accomplish it. One, good old Southwestern Bell, who was always one of Ma Bell's nastier children, has even sued the FCC at this late date, trying to get the court to tell the FCC it can't tell a local phoneco how to run its business! Here's a story quoted from two trade journal sources: TELCOS ASK FOR SS7 ROLLOUT DELAY By: Kathleen Killette "Local telephone companies last week remained strongly at odds with the biggest customers -- and users and long distance carriers -- about how quicly they should be required to roll out Signaling System 7 networks and associated databases for routing "800" - number traffic. "In filings with the FCC last week, several telcos said it will be too expensive and too technically difficult to comply with the agency's March, 1993 deadline for SS7 deployment and implementation of the 800-number databases. "But user advocates say those claims are exagerrated. `Telco had full input into the negotiations that led up to the FCC's adoption of the rules, and their whining is now inappropriate,' said Henry Levine, a partner in the law firm of Morrison & Foerster and counsel to Mastercard International and other large financial institutions. "The SS7 networks will support databases for screening and routing 800-number calls to the proper interexchange carriers -- called 800-number portability -- which is expected to shorten the time it takes to set up calls and which will let users retain their 800 numbers when they switch long-distance carriers. "Number portability is also crucial to carriers who face intensifying competition for business users. AT&T, which the FCC believes still has the lion's share of the 800-number market, is forbidden to provide 800-number service as an integrated component of its customized Tariff 12 network services until telcos provide number portability. "The databases, according to the FCC, should enable telcos to cut their access call setup times to five seconds or less for 97 percent of 800-number traffic. By MArch, 1995, the telcos must achieve a maximum access time of five seconds for 100 percent of their 800 traffic, with a mean time of 2.5 seconds. "In reports filed with the FCC last week, telcos reiterated their claims that there are significant costs to comply with the deadlines, and that variations in their switching equipment within their territories were not taken into account when preliminary call setup estimates were issued by the Industry Carriers Compatibility Forum." (Well, whose fault is _that_? -- God's?) "San Francisco-based Pacific Telesis Group and several other telcos have asked the FCC to waive its rules, and St. Louis-based Southwestern Bell Corp. has challenged the FCC's rules in court. "But Levine dismissed telcos' worries about equipment variations and cost burdens. `The call setup variations due to [switch] inconsistencies are measurable in hundredths of a second; that doesn't justify the magnitude of the changes now being requested,' he said. TRAFFIC PERCENTAGE TO MEET FCC REQUIREMENTS FCC Plan 1993 97% 1995 100% Ameritech 1993 74% 1995 96% Bell Atlantic 1993 85% 1995 100% BellSouth Corp, 1993 93% 1995 98% GTE Telephone Operations 1993 90% 1995 100% Nynex Corp. 1993 92% 1995 98% Pacific Telesis Group 1993 84% 1995 98% Southwestern Bell Corp. 1993 72% 1995 95% USWest, Inc. 1993 64% 1995 no committment So, on yet another front, you now know, in Paul Harvey's style, yet another part of "The Rest of the Story." Remember that when your phoneco next propagandizes you with how well they are taking care of your interests! WM v2.02/91-0073 * 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: Michael.Rosen@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: My School Switched Over From AT&T to Sprint Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 23:46:25 GMT On my school system, we dial 9 for our direct dial local and long distance calls. These calls are handled by AT&T ACUS with individual students using their PSC's to complete their calls. For any other type of call (0+ calls), we dial 8 and then 0 and the number. Up until yesterday we were using AT&T; now the university has switched over to Sprint (George Washington University, btw -- yeah, I know I'm at an address in NC, this is just a bbs I use). I called 1-800-CALL-ATT to ask if this would cost more for me to use my card through Sprint. I was told that I wouldn't be able to use my card and to ask for an AT&T operator, telling her that I was being blocked from using my card, thereby saving me operator rates. But my card did work through the Sprint -- So I asked the Sprint operator if this would cost me more and he said they should be about the same if not less. Is this true? 10288 does not work through my system. I will be enquiring about that. AT&T has something interesting for those of us not able to access them. If you call 1-800-CALL-ATT, choose option 2 for dialing instructions, and then option 1 you will hear, "AT&T, please dial the number you are calling or 0 for an operator now, , please dial your card number and PIN, or 0 for an operator now." If you remember all the menu choices, you won't have to listen through too much, but it's a pain just to get to AT&T. What would happen if I just dialed my AT&T card number from a payphone using MCI, Sprint, or some other legitimate company? Would my rates be effected for the better or worse? 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: Wed, 25 Mar 92 08:06:50 CST From: Mike.Riddle@ivgate.omahug.org (Mike Riddle) Subject: NWS Weather Radio -- New System Reply-To: mike.riddle%inns@ivgate.omahug.org Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE Here in Nebraska we just finished Severe Weather Awareness Week. As anyone who's spent much time in Tornado Alley can attest (right, Patrick?), there's a need each year about this time to review your emergency plans and procedures. One of the things I noticed is the National Weather Service radio stations, in addition to the 1050 Hz alert tones, now transmit something called (if I heard this right) "WR - SAME". If you have a newer, more expensive (natch!) set, your alarm can be tuned to your specific county. Since my local weather radio supports seventy-thousand square miles, a more localized alert would be nice. The Weather Service could tell me of one source: NEMAR, 4220 Proton Road, Dallas, TX 75244, +1 214 233 7859. I haven't called yet, but prices were supposed to be in the $400-500 range. Does anyone have information about other possible sources, or the encoding technique used, for this system? Thanks. mike.riddle@inns.omahug.org Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.3 ------------------------------ From: chafe@ucdavis.edu (Steve Chafe) Subject: Anyone Out There Use Dispcall on a DMS? Date: 25 Mar 92 23:04:54 GMT Reply-To: chafe@ucdavis.edu (Steve Chafe) Organization: University of California, Davis Does anyone out there work with the DISPCALL utility for DMS switches? I use it but I am not an expert and would love to be in contact with other users. Steve Chafe chafe@aggie.ucdavis.edu ------------------------------ From: crocker@rtsg.mot.com (Ronald T. Crocker) Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 15:07:53 GMT *** WARNING: UNABASHED PLUG FOR PRODUCT :-> *** Of course, if you purchase the new Motorola cordless telephone, the transmissions between the handset and the base station are "encrypted," so prying ears may be able to hear something, but it will not be what they were looking for! Ron Crocker Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group (708) 632-4752 [FAX: (708) 632-4430] crocker@mot.com ------------------------------ From: berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu (Mike Berger) Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 20:37:28 GMT 0004056081@mcimail.com (George S Thurman) writes: >Found in the Fidonet Shortwave Echo: > Msg#: 8319 *SHORTWAVE* > 03-20-92 23:15:00 > From: DAVE PLUMB > Subj: CORDLESS UNSAFE! > Well, Eric Postpischil couldn't find anything on when it's legal to > monitor CMT communications, but he did find this gem on other cordless > phones that is worth passing on. Of course, we all knew that the IRS > was above the law, anyway, right? :-( Doesn't the Secrecy of Commications Act apply here? You can legally monitor, but not disclose the contents of, any transmission not intended for general broadcast. So legally, the IRS agent can listen, but he can't tell anybody about it. Mike Berger Department of Statistics, University of Illinois AT&TNET 217-244-6067 Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 06:20:29 PST From: John R. Covert Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Service in Europe There is not now and never will be cellular compatibility between the U.S. and Europe. Europe currently uses a plethora of different cellular standards, preventing the use of cellular phones registered in one country in any other country (except for an interchange between the Nordic countries and Switzerland). U.K. phones work in no other countries; German phones work in no other countries. Europe is moving towards a new worldwide standard being adopted by almost every country in the world except for the U.S. and Canada. This is the CCITT "GSM" standard (Groupe Speciale Mobile). The U.S. uses a standard called AMPS, which is in use in the countries in the table below. However, just because your phone will work does not mean that you can roam; the local service operator may insist on renting you one of their own phones. Do not take your phone with you without making prior arrangements; in some countries it may be seized by customs officials upon arrival. Note that Australia currently has an AMPS system running; however, they are installing a GSM system. I have no idea how long they intend to continue to run the AMPS system. I also understand that roaming is not currently available when going to Australia, anyway. American Samoa AMPS American Samoa Government (PTT) Antigua AMPS Boatphone of Antigua Argentina AMPS Companie de Radio Commun. Mobiles (CRM) Australia AMPS Australia Telecom (PTT) Bahamas AMPS Bahamas Telecomms Corp. Bangladesh AMPS Hutchison Bangladesh Telecom Pvt Bermuda AMPS Bermuda Telephone Co., Ltd. Brazil AMPS Telebras (in Rio & Brasilia) British Virgin Islands AMPS CCT Boatphone Brunei AMPS Jabatan Telecoms Brunei Canada AMPS Cantel (A) or Local Telco (B) Cayman Islands AMPS Cable & Wireless Chile AMPS CTC, CIDCOM,VTR/Millicom,Telecom Chile Costa Rica AMPS Millicom and Comvik Dominican Republic AMPS Codetel Gabon AMPS OPT Grenada AMPS Grentel Boatphone Guatemala AMPS Millicom Hong Kong AMPS & TACS Hutchison Radio Indonesia AMPS Perumtel Israel AMPS Motorola Tadiran Jamica AMPS JTC Mexico AMPS various Netherlands Antilles AMPS St. Maarten Boatphone New Zealand AMPS PTT Pakistan AMPS Paktel and Pakcom Paraguay AMPS selection in progress Peru AMPS Lima Parker Co. Philippines AMPS 1) PLDT 2) Express St. Kitts & Nevis AMPS CCT Boatphone St. Lucia AMPS St. Lucia Boatphone South Korea AMPS Korea Mobile Telecom Taiwan AMPS PTT Thailand AMPS CAT Uruguay AMPS Abiatar Venezuela AMPS CANTV Zaire AMPS Telecel /john [Moderator's Note: My thanks also to Gregory A. Lucas and Wilson Mohr, both of Motorola who responded the same way, but without the detail John Covert included. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 9:24:58 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: The 1-800 Man Jerry Brown, in a news release from KYW 1060-AM radio in Philadelphia, has been called "the 1-800 man". The occasion was that he had just won the Connecticut primary. ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 19:21:17 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) >> Would somebody please tell me why this can't be fixed/redesigned, >> etc.? > That is the wrong question. The correct one is: What profit is there > in making folks get two {or more} accounts, and then making them pay > for some special forwarding feature? > The answer is obvious. Technical limitations are not the stumbling > block; marketing considerations are. I have to disagree in this specific case. They COULD have designed in the capability to have TWO (or more) phones worked on the same number, AND THEN CHARGE MORE TO HAVE IT SET UP. They didn't design it in in the first place. Secondly, the mentioned features DO *NOT* perform the same function. Forwarding one number to another does not function the same way. Though I personally do not need it, it COULD have been done by having all the assigned phones ring. But it wasn't, and this capability is simply not offered at any price. As it turns out, the only way I have found to do what I want to do turns out to be one which increases the revenue to a major cell phone maker, which happened to have a major effect on the design of the system :-) There is a saying: "Do not subscribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence." Basically this means that more often when things go wrong, it was because someone just didn't know, or was incapable of knowing, how to do it right. I'm sure the designers of the cellular phone technology could have: 1. made two or more phone work as one number; 2. used digital technology for the audio; 3. made a secure system. But they don't get to make the decisions. Many of the design decisions that are made are done by those who have an agenda. Many others make the decisions just out of pure ignorance (and probably got their high authority job by some other means). I still believe the design decisions that left out the multiple phone capability were made simply because no one in a position of authority thought that anyone would want to do that (early enough to get it into the design without an awkward retrofit that would be costly). Still there might have been technical reasons, such as too many phones ringing at one time. Though this could have been gotten around by having each assigned phone charged the same full subscriber rate (i.e. same rate for two phones whether its two numbers or one number), and a limit (maybe two) on the number allowed. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #271 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09966; 27 Mar 92 1:44 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24216 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 23:42:53 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11364 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 23:42:41 -0600 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 23:42:41 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203270542.AA11364@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #272 TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Mar 92 23:42:41 CST Volume 12 : Issue 272 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hold Music Sponsorship (John Higdon) Re: Roaming in LA (John Higdon) Re: Phoneco Winds of Change (David W. Barts) Re: New AT&T Card (vs a LEC-issued One) (Cliff Barney) Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" (Jim Budler) Re: Unfairness at the Ranch (John David Galt) Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? (Monty Solomon) Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (Marco S. Hyman) Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (Hoyt A. Stearns, Jr.) Re: Len Rose Released From Prison (Kamran Husain) Re: Len Rose Released From Prison (Mike Godwin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 21:50 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Hold Music Sponsorship Michael.Rosen@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) writes: > Upon connecting, I was placed on hold and was presented with some > classical music for my "entertainment" (sorry, I'm not much into > clasical). Anyway, a little ways in, this voice cuts in and says: I, on the other hand, am "into classical" and am at least slightly familiar with the repertoire. Nothing annoys me more than regularly interrupting a Mozart piano concerto or a Sibelius tone poem to 1) remind me that "they" are sorry I am having to wait; 2) tell me about the latest company offerings; or 3) simply remind me that I am on hold. If I am going to have to listen to music (and I DO prefer classical over "cover" instrumental versions of popular songs -- otherwise known as elevator music), then let me listen to the bloody music without interruption. If the interval on hold is to be used for advertising, then just give me a steady stream of advertising. Then I can just turn my brain off. As a writer of ACD programming, I can tell you that in my systems when the caller ends up connected to the MOH bus, he STAYS there until his number comes up in the queue. No one needs to be reminded every ten seconds that he is still on hold. Knowing what I know about ACD, this is no reassurance that I have not been forgotten. It is just an annoyance. To its credit, Pac*Bell lets you listen to the music without verbal punctuation. It also frequently uses KDFC in San Francisco for the source. Yes, KDFC is San Francisco's oldest classical music station! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 22:03 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Roaming in LA Steve Forrette writes: > Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Southland, and was quite > dismayed with the problems I had with LA Cellular (the "A" carrier). Sounds a lot like two years ago when I roamed in PacTel (the "B" carrier). Since then, PacTel has put its house in order. I have been in LA a lot the past few weeks and have had no trouble calling long distance (10D), calling numbers in Long Beach (310), or using the FMR. In fact, it was most satisfactory. > I was trying to get a hold of a friend who's now in 310, and had the > following problems in dialing: Hah! A lot of landline phones in there LA region cannot dial 310 numbers yet. GTE apparently has not heard about this yet even though it serves the majority of phones in the 310 area. The problem works in reverse: 310 phones get various recordings when trying to call 213 phones by using '213' in front of the number! > So, I get a nice 50 cent charge for all of those intercepts, as well > has having to pay calling card rates for a local call. And I thought PacTel was a ripoff. It charges 50% of the current air time rates for busy or no answer. But at least the calls go through properly. > I would think that as a common carrier, that they would have to have > their act together and support new area codes (especially ones in > their service area) on the first day they are activated. After all, > isn't the permissive dialing period supposed to be so the CUSTOMERS, > not the common carriers, can have it easy during the transition? Cellular service (and I am paraphrasing recent posts) is considered a "non-essential" service. That means the PUC does not give a damn how badly cellular providers screw customers or what kind of shoddy service is provided. You are at the tender mercies of the marketplace. And I understand that many of the rats are deserting the sinking "LA Cellular" ship. Unfortunately, as a roamer, you cannot even vote with your feet. You are stuck with the agreement made by your home company (obviously in your case, Cellular One). The roaming agreements in LA factored heavily in my choice of Mobilnet as my home company. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 22:31:29 -0800 From: David W. Barts Subject: Re: Phoneco Winds of Change In message , Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: > ... So when you talk about local competition and say that the local > carriers will "cherry pick" the most profitable areas, I'm sure that > will be true ... at first! But these carriers will want to acquire > more customers, and my guess is that if the legal restrictions went > away, there would be enough frustrated phone phreaks that would like > to own their own phone company that would start up smaller firms out > in the hinterlands. And, you can discourage "cherry picking" by > specifying mandatory service areas (perhaps an entire county, or LATA, > or a minimum service area of n contiguous square miles, within n years > of obtaining a license to operate). Well, just be prepared for the phone companies to come back to the PUC's after n years is up, begging for an extension of time because to spend any more expanding their territory right now would mean their financial insolvency. And then be prepared for them to come begging again after the extension they are granted is up. David Barts N5JRN UW Civil Engineering, FX-10 davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu Seattle, WA 98195 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 22:46:40 PST From: Cliff Barney Subject: Re: New AT&T Card (vs a LEC-issued One) Pac Bell says that its calling card works anywhere, with any vendor. ------------------------------ From: jimb47@netcom.com (Jim Budler) Subject: Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 07:17:34 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) In article John R. Covert writes: > Public Law 102-243 was passed last year by the 102nd Congress and > signed by President Bush on 20 December 1991. [...] > (B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using > an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior > express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for > emergency purposes ... Oh, that explains it. I've started getting calls: : "I have an important message for you from xxx, do you want to hear it?" Me: Yes I learned very quickly (one try) to say no. Jim Budler You can reach me at: jimb47@netcom.com jimb@silvlis.com 72415.01200@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: John_David_Galt@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Unfairness at the Ranch Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 00:59:57 PST Steve Forrette writes: > Now, is this playing on a level field? I would imagine that many of > the Pacific Bell offices in the Bishop Ranch facility are for the > unregulated products they offer, but they are able to take advantage > of their monopoly position that no other service provider has access > to in that their numbers are still accessible in both area codes, and > probably will be for the indefinite future. This is not a new practice. The Los Angeles area, which has now had THREE splits and will do a fourth later this year, has many prefixes of this type. In general, the one in the "wrong" area code will be listed as "foreign exchange" and billed as if it belonged to some city in the new area -- even though its real location has never changed. It's a great deal for the LEC, which gets to rake in the bucks without changing anything. So Pac Bell is providing itself with a service that it has offered to other businesses since at least 1984 (the 213/818 split). What's all the fuss? One thing does appear to have changed: the prefix lists in our white pages no longer show all-FX prefixes as, for example, "East Bay (Richmond FX)." I don't know why this change was made, but it's cosmetic, and there are many equally important facts they have never listed. (For example, my present home in San Jose is in the same billing zone as Santa Clara, but they wouldn't let me keep my number -- they're two different COs. The phone book does not mention this, let alone say which CO owns which prefixes.) John David Galt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 04:17:45 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand) wrote: > stank@cbnewsl.att.com asks: >> As a reminder to me and others, when are COCOTs required to begin >> supporting 10xxx, and when do all LD companies (meaning AT&T) need to >> provide 800 or 950 access? > Short answer: they'd better already. > From the FCC News dated July 11, 1991: (liberally paraphrased) > All carriers must provide an 800 or 950 number by January 11, 1992. > All pay phone providers must unblock 10xxx sequences by January 11, 1992. Are cellular phones required to support 10xxx? Cellular One/Boston offers AT&T or MCI and 10xxx doesn't work. I recently found out that MCI didn't bill any Cellular One long distance calls for five years! # Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA 01701-0405 # roscom!monty@think.com [Moderator's Note: Who told you that MCI didn't bill Cellular One LD calls for five years? PAT] ------------------------------ From: marc@ascend.com (Marco S Hyman) Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty Date: 25 Mar 92 05:16:51 GMT Organization: Ascend Communications, Alameda, CA In article deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes: > PC card, or whatever), and it performs something called Rate Adaption. > There are two standards for rate adaption, V.110 and V.120, both of > which use some sort of voodoo to put a signal at n kb/s (where n > ranges from 0.11 to 56, probably) onto a 64kb/s channel; I don't know Common forms of rate adaption in the ISDN world are: X.25: (most people dont think of this as a rate adaption protocol, but it does the job.) Don't just think of D-channel X.25 to D-channel X.25. Think of all the people with ISDN phones making D-channel X.25 calls to their friendly PAD on a B-channel. Pure packet switching. The rest are used to rate adapt over a circuit switched 64 kbit/s B-channel. DMI: This is a proprietary scheme found in AT&T ISDN phones and terminal adapters. For the async inclined DMI mode 2 is often used. It performs rate adaption by varying the number of flags sent between frames. Frames are kept very small (2-8 data bytes if I remember correctly). V.110: Rate adaption is performed by defining what bits are used to carry the data. Running 56 kbit/s over a 64 kbit/s link is the most common form of V.110 -- only 7 out of every data bits are used. V.120: Basically its Q.921/LAPD run over a B channel. In fact, the spec for V.120 is written as differences to Q.921, you need both to understand what is going on. Rate adaption is via RR/RNR. marc work: marc@ascend.com uunet!aria!marc home: marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us pacbell!dumbcat!marc ------------------------------ From: isus!hoyt@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty Organization: International Society of Unified Science Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 17:44:46 GMT In article wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) writes: > This question is rather too obvious, but I'll ask anyhow. How is ISDN > carried? Not the stuff you and I see, but the carrier side of the > loop. Now I doubt they pulse that hunk of copper with DC, so it has > to be audio, just as we now send with modems. One difference is, of > course, we don't call it a modem any longer -- we use a different term. ISDN is true digital transmission using (in US) a 4 level code called 2B1Q (2 bits 1 quat). There are 2 + voltages and 2 - voltages, but no zero volts (each direction). The voltage changes about 80K times per second. It is true full duplex. Each end subtracts out what it is sending so as to receive only what the other side is sending, using an elaborate echo canceller consisting of a digital filter. Luckily, AMD, Mitel, and others make single chip network interfaces that render all these details transparent to the user. The constant 160 kilo bits/second data is split up into several separate lower bit rate streams. These sub bit streams then have HDLC protocol added for the two 64 + 16 kbps streams, and some possible proprietary protocols for talking to network interfaces, plus some sync, equalization, and other overhead. On top of the HDLC protocol, one can have a rate adapter that converts standard baud rates to the channel by sending some bits more than once (wasting bandwidth). The bi-directional interface is called "U", and it is often split into two channels, one in each direction by the network interface chip (called S,T interfaces). It is possible to go directly from a U interface to an application device. This isn't often done for reasons I haven't figured out (why have two network interfaces, A U and ST)? except: With a U interface, you can't just "add extension phones"; only one device can be on the pair at each end, not true with ST interface. Hope this helps. Disclaimer: I don't have the specs in front of me, so I'm doing this from memory. Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| hoyt@isus.uucp 4131 E. Cannon Dr. | Phoenix, AZ. 85028 | USA voice 602 996 1717 ------------------------------ From: khx@se44.wg2.waii.com (Kamran Husain) Subject: Re: Len Rose Released From Prison Date: 26 Mar 92 16:50:14 GMT Reply-To: khx@se44.wg2.waii.com Organization: Western Geophysical Exploration Products > [Moderator's Note: Uh, no ... he wasn't a telemarketer. (Keeping a > straight face as I type this.) Len was one of those notorious > 'hackers' you've probably read about in the newspapers. He was > convicted of having source code in his possession which could do Bad| > Things, and transporting it around the net. > Are you suggesting telemarketers belong in prison? PAT] No. I did not mean to imply that. Simply wishful thinking. (Case History; I've been getting calls from machines about credit cards, insurance etc at 4 AM, and this has been going on for two weeks since we listed our phone number in our local directory. It is the same voice for all three products and we get it at both our numbers which have the same 271-XXXX and XXXX+302 . It`s probably an amateur with a telemarketing system who does not realize the difference between 0400 and 1600 hours and is soliciting fixed blocks of numbers. I think this is illegal but I am changing my phone numbers anyway since I am moving and do not want to deal with this nonsense.) I apologize if I offended someone with my remark. kamran [Moderator's Note: No one was offended, except possibly a telemarketer reading the Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) Subject: Re: Len Rose Released From Prison Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 17:23:02 GMT Our Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Uh, no ... he wasn't a telemarketer. (Keeping a > straight face as I type this.) Len was one of those notorious > 'hackers' you've probably read about in the newspapers. He was > convicted of having source code in his possession which could do Bad > Things, and transporting it around the net. Are you suggesting > telemarketers belong in prison? PAT] The source code Len was convicted of possessing was that of AT&T System V, version 3.2. It is true that you can do a lot of bad things with that. Our Moderator doubtless recalls that Len had attempted to publish a modified version of login.c in {Phrack Magazine}. But it was his possession of the original source for login (and everything else in System V v 3.2) that was the basis of his conviction. Mike Godwin, mnemonic@eff.org (617) 864-0665 EFF, Cambridge ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #272 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14994; 27 Mar 92 3:16 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02721 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 27 Mar 1992 01:10:51 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29295 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 27 Mar 1992 01:10:37 -0600 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 01:10:37 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203270710.AA29295@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #273 TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Mar 92 01:10:39 CST Volume 12 : Issue 273 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Show-Me Long Distance (Will Martin) Re: Integretel (Joel Upchurch) Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel (Bruce Clement) Re: ISDN Test Equipment Wanted (Patton M. Turner) Re: Call Waiting Disable Kludge (Keith Smith) Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" (Arthur Rubin) Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Jack Winslade) Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel (Andrew M. Dunn) Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Jim Harkins) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 8:31:54 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: Show-Me Long Distance I, too, received the "Show-Me Long Distance" flyer and stickers Phil described. Their 10XXX access code is "10778". I just checked the Telecom Archives for the latest 10XXX list, in the "occ.10xxx..." files, and cannot find this number listed. The latest version of that 10XXX list appears to be of mid-1991 vintage. Can I safely assume from that evidence that this "Show-Me Long Distance" company did not exist as of mid-1991, and that using 10778 here in Missouri was not possible until recently? Is "778" now listed as being owned by "Show-Me" or is it listed under some other owning or holding company? Can this same code be used in other states by other-named companies for *their* intrastate services, or is "778" now just valid in Missouri? (The flyer says that interstate calls made using 10778 will be charged at a rate 10% lower than the AT&T 1+ rate. It only mentions using 10778 "within this SW Bell service area" so I don't know where else it might function.)^^^^ Can anyone tell me just when this became available? I want to know how many months I've been paying more than I needed to for my intrastate LD; 99.9% of my LD bill is my wife's weekly calls to her aunt in Warrenton, MO, within the SW Bell calling area, and I had checked with SW Bell every now and then over the years to see if there was *any* way I could reduce these charges. I had even asked about paying for her aunt's phone service to be upgraded somehow to become local to St. Louis, figuring that would cost me less as a monthly charge than I was paying for LD calls. No way. (I seem to have a nagging recollection that Warrenton is in a GTE-service enclave and thus few options or interactions with SW Bell were feasible.) Now I finally see a way to save at least something off these exorbitant intrastate charges! I called Show-Me to get rate guotes for calls from here to Warrenton and then used their provided figures to compare with my latest LD charges from SW Bell. A significant savings looks likely. In case anyone cares, here are the rates they quoted me for St. Louis-Warrenton: DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKENDS 1st MIN .3649 .2919 .2372 ADD'L MINS .2136 .1709 .1388 (According to the state highway map, that is a 58-mile distance. I don't know how that compares with the distance used by telcos to figure rates.) As a side note, does anyone know if there have been any companies' calling plans or discount offers or other deals which would have helped me save something all along on intrastate calls that usually ran $25-$30 per month? I had never been contacted before by any LD provider saying that their plan "x" would save me any money, and all the publicity I ever see about rate savings says "interstate" in the fine print. We all know that some LD vendors would complete intrastate calls despite tarrifs or regulations, but I never heard of such being available here in Missouri. Note that I am referring to calls that would show up on my bill as being provided by SW Bell, NOT by my default 1+ carrier (AT&T). I wanted to test this just now from my work phone at a Federal office building here in St. Louis by calling 10778-1-700-555-4141, but our phone system gives an intercept as soon as we dial "910" (9 for the outside line and 10 to begin the 10XXX code), saying "The number you have reached is a non-working number at the federal offices in St. Louis, Missouri. Please consult your directory or call directory assistance. St. Louis 2400N." (It also gives the same intercept after "9170" so I can't even check the default carrier.) What with all the discussion recently about blocking 10XXX access, I wonder if the cited law doesn't apply to, specifically exempts, or does include US Gov't offices? (There's an awful lot of regulations out there that the gov't establishes but manages to make itself exempt from, but I don't know if this is one of them ...) If we are violating the law I'll report it to our telephone person. Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil [Moderator's Note: You are not a subscriber or customer of the phone service. You are an employee of the owner of the phone system, and that makes a difference. Your employer can administer the phones as it sees fit ... it cannot sell phone service to the public without following the rules for same. Your point about the government not following its own rules is good though; all those federal agencies, including Congress, which are always sticking their noses in what should be the private business of each individual NEVER follow their own rules where their own employees are concerned. And don't forget those deadbeats in Congress, using NSF checks to pay their bills. My all time favorite though was several years ago when the Washington, DC city council fined and finally had to sue the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to get the Supremes to properly dispose of their trash every day. The court was throwing out tons of waste paper daily, filling the dumpsters to overflowing. The wind would scatter it all over the street, forcing city sanitation workers to clean it up. The Court was told to order more dumpsters; refused to do it; it was fined but refused to pay the fines; and finally sued. A judge ruled that except in matters specifically related to their duties under the Constitution, the Supreme Court had to follow the same municipal ordinances as everyone else in town. The Court's Administrative Office chose not to appeal, but it took all that to get them to clean their mess up from the lawn, sidewalks and streets around their building. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Integretel From: upchrch!joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 14:48:19 EST Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL > dboyd@informix.com (Diana Boyd) writes: > Even if I got the records from a year ago, I'd never remember which > calls I accepted and which I refused or how many. Speaking of late bills, my last bill from AT&T had some phone calls from last October. The note on the bill explained it was due to a data-processing problem. Sounds like one of the boys or girls at the processing center forgot to hang one of the tapes to me. (If your mail bounces use the address below. My map entry is new.) Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809 joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982 ------------------------------ From: bclement@cavebbs.gen.nz (Bruce Clement) Subject: Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel Organization: Children of Ingle-Frey Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 22:32:33 GMT In article dem@fnal.fnal.gov writes: > I discovered a new way that hotels are rippping off business > travelers. At the hotel I am currently staying at (Bahia Hotel, San > Diego), they charge $4.50 plus tax for every incoming FAX. I found > this out after having my secretary send me four FAXes. It sounds a lot, but were the faxes delivered to your room/suite, or did you collect them from the lobby? If they were delivered to your room, then the price seems reasonably close to the US$4.00 that some hotels charge for a cup of coffee delivered to the room. If this was the charge for collecting from the lobby, then IMHO they are gouging, don't go back, tell the world, and tell the hotel *why* they won't get your (or your associates) business in future. Bruce Clement ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 21:15:17 CST From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: ISDN Test Equipment Wanted Rob Warnock writes: >> Is there any test equipment available to bridge an ISDN U interface >> pair, and separate out the two directions of 2B1Q data? > It would be very hard to do, perhaps impossible. At the very least, > you would need to insert loss into the line, to find out which way the > energy is moving. That is, you would have to create the equivalent of > a pair of back-to-back "VSWR meters" to extract the energy moving > "from left to right" from the energy moving "from right to left" > (which requires *some* insertion loss, I believe). While Rob's explanation makes sense, Tec makes a ISDN test set that has an optional U interface. One would assume the customers NT1 would still be connected, and that they don't expect the tech to cut the loop before using the set, so it seems to me it is probally bridging the line. Another explanation might be a requirement for the tech to disable the termination before using the set. Anyone know? The Tec test set is for voice (POTS or ISDN) only, so this still doesn't answer the original question. At $1200 plus interfaces, I think Harris-Dracom will still sell a lot of TS-21 and 22's :-). Pat Turner pturner@eng.auburn.edu KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA ------------------------------ From: keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith) Subject: Re: Call Waiting Disable Kludge Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 03:14:42 GMT In article peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > Loss Detect Time) to some high value: AT%S10=255. But really, fiddling > around with the other guy's modem is kind of rude unless you reset it > when your session is finished; most people wouldn't bother. PAT] Of course with your Trailblazer you can also have it RESET when DTR wiggles so the S10 value would go back to power up if the host simply resets the '232 line. (Like Unix would do ...) Keith Smith uunet!ksmith!keith 5719 Archer Rd. Digital Designs BBS 1-919-423-4216 Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) Date: 25 Mar 92 22:44:41 GMT Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc. In "a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com"@ BIIVAX.DP.BECKMAN.COM (I guess that's me) writes: > In John R. Covert dec.com> writes: >> Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended ... >> Restrictions on the Use of Telephone Equipment: >> It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States -- >> (A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes >> or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using >> any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded >> voice -- ... >> (iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular >> telephone service, ..., or any service for which the called party >> is charged for the call. > (Does this apply to modem calls? What if the number is published as a > BBS number (a) in a magazine or (b) on a BBS?.) > [Moderator's Note: The law does not need any more work. First of all, > why would your modem be making calls to the category of phones > mentioned above -- emergency lines, hospital rooms, cellular phones, > etc.? The intent is very plain: to avoid hassles for phones which > would *never* or rarely be used for the purposes specified. The intent is clear, but there are some problems. In the case of modem/FAX calls (which usually autoredial if busy or no recognized answer, thereby making it an automatic telephone dialing system (unless otherwise defined in the law)), what happens if the number called is published (incorrectly) as being a modem/FAX number. We all know reputable publications don't make misteaks. :-) It also occurs to me that this would make mis-auto-dialing an 800 number might be covered. (Of course, if "automatic telephone dialing system" is defined to mean something like a "War Games" dialer, or if "artificial or prerecorded voice" doesn't include modem/FAX communications, then there are only minor problems.) (continuation of Moderator's Note) > If you are trying to 'FAX/Slam' some person, then I suspect the law would > include you as a violator.] The excerpts John Covert sent seemed to make the person making the call liable, even if the number was maliciously supplied by a third party. I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong. Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea 216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 12:12:58 CST From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On Reply-To: jack.winslade%drbbs@ivgate.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha A couple of days ago I was talking to an employee of a local software firm which offers dumps of Usenet traffic on CD ROM for a fee. Apparently a CD ROM will hold a couple of weeks worth of traffic. We did not talk about government agencies requesting the disks, but he did say that many of the purchasers were overseas, and the disks offered a low-cost alternative (although delayed in time) to paying overseas telephone time for delivery of megabytes per day. I'm sure this firm is not the only one archiving news. If a government agency wanted to browse the news, they don't have to make special arrangements to do so, all they have to do is obtain a copy of the disks which are available to the public. They don't even have to do that. They could easily arrange for a full-with-a-capital-'F' newsfeed of howmany thousand groups from any number of sites. Good day. JSW Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 DBBS Omaha (1:285/666.0) [Moderator's Note: Ah, don't say those things. You are supposed to help keep the myth alive ... you know, the one about how the FBI 'monitors' certain newsgroups and certain writers on the net. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: mongrel!amdunn@uunet.UU.NET (Andrew M. Dunn) Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada Subject: Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 06:10:50 GMT dem@nhmpw2.fnal.gov (David E. Martin) wrote: > I discovered a new way that hotels are rippping off business > travelers. At the hotel I am currently staying at (Bahia Hotel, San > Diego), they charge $4.50 plus tax for every incoming FAX. Yup, it's expensive. But I submit that it's not a 'rip-off'. They're providing a service that you want, that's quite valuable to you. If it isn't worth $4.50 to you to receive a FAX, then you don't have to use the service. But if you need to receive a FAX, it's cheaper by far than renting a FAX machine or bringing one with you. It's only a rip-off if FAX service is something they're expected to provide (in the same category as towels, sheets and a reading lamp) and yet they charge an inordinate fee for it. Somebody's got to pay for the FAX machine, and the time for somebody to operate it, put paper in it and deliver all the messages! Andy Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.uucp) ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn) ------------------------------ From: pacdata!jimh@uunet.UU.NET (Jim Harkins) Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles Organization: Pacific Data Products Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 00:17:12 GMT In article TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: I've been running so many of these replies because > I am amazed at the diversity of explanations! Some say the broadcaster > is at fault, while others blame the television set. So which is it? PAT] You're all wrong. You've all seen those cereal ads with the bee-like creatures in them. You also probably don't remember the cereal, like me :-) Anyway, it turns out these creatures are real and live inside your TV tube. Normally they just sit back and enjoy whatever you happen to be watching, but as their eyes aren't so good they have to actually get up and fly around to read the text in older sets. Living in an electromagnetic field as they do their wings generate a lot of RF energy when they fly, thus the buzzing you hear in your speakers. This also explains the phenomena of your TV being tuned to the Playboy channel when you return from a night on the town and your kids disclaim all knowledge of how it got there. Jim Harkins [ucsd|uunet]!pacdata!jim Pacific Data Products pacdata!jim@uunet.UU.NET ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #273 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18796; 27 Mar 92 4:46 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21055 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 27 Mar 1992 02:32:11 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09546 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 27 Mar 1992 02:31:58 -0600 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 02:31:58 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203270831.AA09546@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #274 TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Mar 92 02:32:00 CST Volume 12 : Issue 274 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Bob Frankston) Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Tim Gorman) Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Dave Weitzel) Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Carl Moore) Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Tony Kennedy) Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (Jim Budler) Re: "Natural Monopoly" Dies (Marvin Sirbu) Re: Customer Service (Part 2): BT (Clive Feather) Re: Customer Service (Part 3): Mercury (Clive Feather) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone Date: Thu 26 Mar 1992 09:50 -0500 > [Moderator's Note: Sure, like we all get to pay for directory > assistance calls now because MCI was telling their customers to use > AT&T for 'free' directory, then place the actual revenue-earning call > on MCI. If these birds want to start *from scratch* and build it all > themselves like telco did, then I support competition, but not > otherwise. PAT] These are old issues but they do deserve an occasional response, even if I am not an economist. 1. Were DA calls ever free? Being part of AT&T's overhead doesn't mean they were free. Maybe there can now be third party DA services that offer advantages over AT&T's offerings. 2. Did telco really build things from scratch? I would think that the regulated monopoly environment made it much easier (or cheaper) to raise the capital necessary to build the physical plant and negotiate exclusive right of ways for wiring. I'd argue that this was a societal investment. Competition needs a relatively level playing field and Judge Green was a bulldozer. [Moderator's Note: Not a bulldozer ... a bull in a china shop is more like it. And yes, over the past 115 years or so, telco built from scratch. Let the others try stringing wire across the Rocky Mountains in January to restore service lost by rural subscribers in a winter storm. As Charles Brown, former chairman of Illinois Bell and later of AT&T once commented in discussing the costs of maintaining the network, "when was the last time MCI had two of their men killed in a mudslide on the side of a mountain they were working on ..." PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 92 12:13:27 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone David Ptasnik writes in TELECOM Digest V12 #270: > Illinois Bell was the cream skimmer. The biggest cities were served by IBT. > The middle sized towns were served by GTE. The rural areas were either > served by truly local service (El Paso Tel, Illinois not New Mexico), > Centel, or one of a couple of regional companies. The rural customers did > not pay significantly higher rates than urban customers. Often the reverse > was true. I have never heard of any kind of subsidy going to the little > guys. They just priced their services at a fair mark up. This may be the case in Illinois. It is certainly not true in Kansas. Local service rates in many of the small independent company territories are higher. My parents live in one such area. Subsidies? Apparently you have never heard of Division of Revenue and settlement payments? We have moved past that in Kansas but instead pay the independent companies an "access charge" for traffic sent to them or received from them. Tim Gorman - SWBT *opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ From: M19249@mwvm.mitre.org Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 13:28:15 EST In article davep@u.washington.edu (David Ptasnik) writes: > I have heard it said repeatedly that competition in the dial tone > marketplace would not be good because only the big cities would > benefit. That "cream skimmers" would come in and leave rural users > with service at inflated prices, or without service entirely. I > firmly believe that this is telco propaganda. > When I was selling business telephone systems in Illinois, I had a > nice big map of the state. This map showed the boundaries of control > of each phone company. Illinois Bell was the cream skimmer. The > biggest cities were served by IBT. The middle sized towns were served > by GTE. The rural areas were either served by truly local service (El > Paso Tel, Illinois not New Mexico), Centel, or one of a couple of > regional companies. The rural customers did not pay significantly [stuff deleted] > [Moderator's Note: Sure, like we all get to pay for directory > assistance calls now because MCI was telling their customers to use > AT&T for 'free' directory, then place the actual revenue-earning call > on MCI. If these birds want to start *from scratch* and build it all > themselves like telco did, then I support competition, but not > otherwise. PAT] Please PAT cut us a break. ???*from scratch*??? No, no, no ... the telcos have been in bed with the regulators since telco time immemmorial. Its only been in the last several years that competition was even considered as viable. It's easy to 'build it all yourself' when you're the only game in town and no one else is allowed to build. What was your opinion on the MCI complaints against ATT way back when? I personally applaud the forward looking regulators that are allowing competition. Ask Wall Street companies what they think and you will see several big users and investors. I heard Mr. McGowan of MCI call the near term future of local competition 'Holy Hell' and that is probably what we should expect. The proverbial 'little old lady in tennis shoes' that the regulators are protecting now has cordless, cellular, FaxModems ... who really loses? Local competition will make our urban business districts have a better and more robust telecom infrastructure, IMHO. And that is good for the USA if not for the monopoly telco. Ask the NY commission or even the chairman of the Illinois commission why well regulated competition is good. Dave Weitzel "my opinions only, standard disclaimer applies" Flame OFF, we now return you to the normally scheduled newsgroup ;) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 10:10:38 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone There is mentioned "El Paso Tel., Illinois not New Mexico". El Paso is in Texas, not in New Mexico. [Moderator's Note: And, as the ignorant magazine subscription order takers out in Boulder, CO at the fulfillment house say when a caller gives an address in New Mexico, "sorry, we can't bill you if you don't live in the USA." Really. Geography is a sore point with me; I'm embarassed and sorry I overlooked that error; I really am. PAT] ------------------------------ From: adk@sun13.SCRI.FSU.EDU (Tony Kennedy) Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone Date: 27 Mar 92 05:45:34 GMT Organization: SCRI, Florida State University > Moderator's Note: Sure, like we all get to pay for directory > assistance calls now because MCI was telling their customers > to use AT&T for 'free' directory, then place the actual > revenue-earning call on MCI. We all paid for directory assistance calls anyhow -- AT&T was never a charitable institution. Now the people who use directory assistance frequently are no longer subsidized by those who don't. [Moderator's Note: Gee, that's funny. When I said *exactly what you said* about why local measured service was fairer than flat rate, I got jumped by a dozen readers who disagreed the other way around. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jimb47@netcom.com (Jim Budler) Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 07:01:15 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) In article Conrad_Nobili@Harvard.EDU (Conrad C. Nobili) writes: > For more than four weeks now I get calls all around the clock, about > 10-15 times in 24 hours, day and night. > When I pick up the phone, I hear a "piiiiip"-sound for about a second, > then a break for another second, then another "piiip"-sound and so on, > ten times. When that is over, the caller closes the connection after > sending a "krk-krk-krk-krk-krk" kind of noise. > This whole thing is repeated two or three minutes later, the next two > calls are done 15 to 120 minutes later. My modem (9600 baud, V.42bis) > doesn't connect, neither does a fax machine. It doesn't seem to be a > PEP modem either. German Telecom says it's a "data transmitter", and > that they can't do anything in this case. They say the last chance is > to have the Telecom try to trace the call, but that's at my expense > and would cost 20,-DM a day. Is that really my last chance? [...] > [Moderator's Note: I do not know the rules about telecom in Germany, > but in the USA the telco owes him the right to the peaceful and normal > use of his telephone as per his contract with the company, and > tariffs, etc. Here the calls could be treated as an annoyance or > harassing in nature. Telco would trace the connection. If the > Bundespost insisted on charging him for the cost of tracing the calls > and ending the problem he could probably agree to to pay; have them do > it; then go to the person or company responsible and demand payment > from them for the cost involved in tracking them down to end the > problem. He'd probably prevail. Telecom may not understand exactly > what he wants. He should go back to them defining the matter only in > terms of receiving harassing calls from an unknown source and ask them > to investigate and correct the problem. PAT] About a year ago we went through this problem at work. Many times a day the switchboard would get dead calls. We finally ended up calling Pac*Bell about it. They instituted a trace, no cost except for the legal forms we had to sign to authorize it. When the results finally came in I felt dumb. Pattern: approx. once an hour three calls in succession. Answer: uucp. One of our uucp connections had programmed our contact number into their uucp systems file instead of our modem number. Other symptom *I* should have noticed: all connects were on our outbound calls. They recorded the inbound numbers, matched it to our log of dead calls and identified the name of the calling party. Upon identifying the name of the calling party we contacted the people and corrected the problem. They did ask upon identification something like "We've identified the calling party and believe it is a technical error, do you wish to prosecute?". We said, "No, if it's an error we can resolve it". Then they identified the source. And yes, it was very quickly resolved. I submit this not to say there is some pattern the original poster should be aware of, but to reinforce the fact that the phone company can and will help, without charge. Jim Budler You can reach me at: jimb47@netcom.com jimb@silvlis.com 72415.01200@compuserve.com [Moderator's Note: We had a FIDO BBS here in Chicago about five or six years ago which was placing calls in the middle of the night to a 79-year old woman ... for a month straight. IBT put the BBS out of business; showed the sysop no mercy at all when the lady indicated she wanted to prosecute. Hint: keep those phone numbers accurate, folks! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 09:24:31 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: "Natural Monopoly" Dies [Pat writes:] > quite interesting. What I don't understand though is why all the late > arrivals on the scene feel they have some right to place their lines > and equipment inside the telco central offices. For example, IBT here > had to put some of their competition's equipment in *their* CO. It > seems like none of these late arrivals actually want to start from > scratch and build a telephone company. They want to rip off the wire > pairs they need from the local telco, the inside building wiring they > need, the terminal blocks, etc. They want to use the century-plus of > experience and plant the telco has developed, then charge lower rates > and claim telco is the ripoff! I don't see where the telcos owe them > anything except that once MFS and the others build their network, > spend billions of dollars on outside and inside plant, build their own > central office building and otherwise get things together, the telco > can hand them a bunch of wire pairs out the door and say 'here is your > gateway to our network'. Nothing more. Let MFS and the others develop > their own software, make their own applications to the long distance > carriers for interconnection, etc. *Then* let's compare prices. They > are even using IBT's heating and air conditioning in a CO. PAT] When the alternative access providers use telco building space or their local loops they do not "rip them off". They pay for it. They pay rent, they pay for the heating and air conditioning and they pay for the use of the loops. What IBT wants to do is "tie" its products together: if you want to buy use of our loops, you must also buy use of our switches and our interoffice trunks (i.e. standard dial tone or leased line service). When IBM tried to say, "If you want to buy our mainframe software, you have to buy our hardware" it was rightly seen as a violation of antitrust law. Forcing IBM to sell the software separately allowed companies like Amdahl to compete for hardware sales. MFS isn't asking for the loops or central office floor space to be free; they are asking that they be allowed to buy the use of loops and rent floor space without having to buy the use of Digital Cross Connects, SONET multiplexor's, 1A switches, interoffice trunks, and everything else that IBT wants to bundle with the loops in order to increase their revenues. For years IBT and the other telcos had a government franchised monopoly that prevented anyone else from building loops. Now they want to use their existing monopoly over loops to give them a competitive advantage in selling other functions like cross-connection or interoffice trunking. Marvin Sirbu Carnegie Mellon University [Moderator's Note: So why can't MFS do like IBT did (and does)? Get a permit from the City of Chicago to dig in the street and install their own loops? Get easement rights from landlords to wire buildings; buy some land and build a telephone exchange, etc. Simple: no one will *ever* be able to accomplish what AT&T has done in the past. Even after 20 years, MCI has only started to come close; and MCI's first petition to the Illinois Commerce Commission in the late sixties stunk of fraud ... but that's a whole different story. PAT] ------------------------------ From: clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather) Subject: Re: Customer Service (Part 2): BT Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 7:50:08 GMT In Telecom 12.244.7 Nigel Roberts relates some experiences with BT's UK direct service. I feel I ought to comment. > They often seem unable to tell which trunk the call is coming in on as > they usually ask me "What is the number in _France_ you are calling > from?" or even (on one occasion) "Which city in JAPAN are you calling > from?" ?!?!?!? I used BT Direct from Hungary in late 1990. The operator asked "what is your number in Hong Kong ?". When I queried this, he explained that "his screen was showing HG". He was quite happy to accept that that this was Hungary. > They seem to have a fetish for knowing the number you are calling from When calling from the USA, I always say "calling from area code 212" (or whatever) before they can ask me. This seems to work. > the polite operator (one of the few) Every one I've ever got has been polite. What annoys me is that the US number (800-44-55-66-7) doesn't work in Canada -- instead, some totally unrememberable number is needed (and the Bell Canada Operator / Directory Services didn't know it). Clive D.W. Feather | IXI Limited | If you lie to the compiler, clive@x.co.uk | 62-74 Burleigh St. | it will get its revenge. Phone: +44 223 462 131 | Cambridge CB1 1OJ | - Henry Spencer (USA: 1 800 XDESK 57) | United Kingdom | ------------------------------ From: clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather) Subject: Customer Service (Part 3): Mercury Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 10:06:05 GMT In Telecom 12.245.1 Nigel Roberts writes: > I'd probably even use British Rail if they were in the LD business > (actually it is a possibility) simply because they are not BT. [Your > calls would get to the right place, just half and hour late :-) ] Just where do you think Mercury puts its fibres so that it doesn't have to dig up the roads ? (Answer: along the railway lines.) Actually, BR are looking into the telephone business, according to the rail press. They have an enormous amount of spare capacity -- in one case, the connections to (train) signals about 5 km from a signal box were made via an existing 250 km route rather than pay the cost of installing 5 km of new cable. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #274 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13602; 27 Mar 92 14:36 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02989 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 27 Mar 1992 08:04:30 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24579 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 27 Mar 1992 08:04:23 -0600 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 08:04:23 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203271404.AA24579@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #275 TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Mar 92 08:04:14 CST Volume 12 : Issue 275 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Potpourri (Cell) - *35/*350 (Douglas Scott Reuben) Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (Steve M. Hoffman) Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (Les Bartel) Re: ANI Number Wanted (Doug Rorem) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26-MAR-1992 03:53:25.34 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: Potpourri (Cell) - *35/*350 In Telecom Digest Vol. 12, Issue 286, michael.scott.baldwin@att.com, wrote: > Cellular One of NY/NJ uses *71 for Immediate Call Forward instead of > *72. Anyone know why they are different? No one really knows ( :) ), but here's the reasoning: One reason I have heard is that since Cell One/NY uses the No-Answer-Transfer feature to forward unanswered calls from the Ericsson to the Motorola (where the voicemail system presently is), hitting the "old" *73 command would blow away your NAT, and thus your voicemail. So, they got rid of the *73. Yet other Ericssons use *73, Northeast Motorolas have *73, and even at times *73 works in NY -- and every one of the above will blow away your voicemail. In an effort to stop this, Metro Mobile and Cell One/South Jersey (the adjacent systems to Cell One/NY) removed the *73 feature for NY customers. Metro removed it for everyone. Yet this didn't do much -- the code they substituted, *70, also blows away voicemail. Moreover, other Northeast EMX's, like Philly and Boston and Atlantic city still have *73, so a NY customer can go up there, and hit *73, and blow away his voicemail quite easily. You can also blow it away in another McCaw/Ericsson system that has not disabled the *73 command. So I have no idea what has been achieved. I have suggested that they go back to the old codes. That is, use *71, *72, *74; and *7X3 or *7X0 to cancel the specific features, or *73 for a "global" cancel. To avoid disrupting voicemail, program the NY switch to ignore "harmful" commands. But no one seems interested in doing this. Moreover, I see no reason to convert the entire nation just because NY is having some trouble getting its Motorolas to talk to its Ericssons. I doubt that this is the REAL reason for the sudden change. Alternately, I have heard that McCaw is trying to "standardize" the commands on the "A" side nationally, and this is their attempt at doing so. So far, the only thing that I have seen them do is get rid of NAT, and use new commands for call-forwarding: The old *72 is SUPPOSED to be switched to *71. The old *73 is SUPPOSED to be switched to *710. I have no idea what the new command will be for No-Answer-Transfer or Busy Transfer. But this is by no means standardized: In New York, *74 and *72 and *71 ALL do the same thing: set up Call-Forwarding. *73 works for some (all?) customers, and hitting *73 can blow away your voicemail. In Miami (another McCaw Ericsson), *72 seems to work, but *71 does not. *73 WILL blow away your voicemail if you are a NY customer. Note that Miami customers may have other features which will or will not work. In non-Ericsson systems which are part of a connection to NY (Metro Mobile and Cell One/NJ), the codes are standard Motorola. But it varies where everyting works: In Metro mobile's old "Fairfield system" (they are all unified now, sort of), a NY customer can enter: *71, *710, *713, *72, *720, *723, *74, *740, *743 and *70. Each one will give the standard Motorola confirmation tone, but only *71 and *710 will work. (That is, only *70/*710 will be sent through the "Protocol Converter" which translates between the Motorolas in CT and NJ to the Ericsson in NY. Everyting else will return the Motorola confirmation tone, but will not go through the converter and not affect the Ericsson, thus not have any effect on your calls.) In Metro Mobile's "Hartford system" only *71 and *710 will give you a confirmation tone. Yet Metro Mobile customers can use all the features, and they will have some effect. (You can even hit *720, which, like *723 is supposed to kill ONLY your call-forwading, while leaving your No-Answer-Transfer and Busy-Transfer alone. But, Metro being brain-dead, thinks *720 means "Forward to "0", and promptly forwards your calls to the SNET operator!) So forget any sort of standardization ... I could go on and on with a chart of "what codes work in what system for which cell company's customers", but that's beyond the scope of this post. Suffice to say that nothing is settled yet, and that more changes will occur and it may get worse (less standardized) before we see any improvement in the Northeast. California had no problem putting together its linkages (although there were some bugs on the "B" side prior to implementation in 1990), so it is a shame that all this is going on here. And you can't really get a straight answer from any of the mobile companies about what is going on. > Also, No Answer/Busy Transfer has to be enabled manually. Bleah. If you have voicemail, Cell One/NY can not also give you NAT. You can have either or. There is no way (yet) to allow you to set Voicemail or another number as your NAT number. Busy transfer can be set to another number or voicemail, but you may have to pay airtime even if you choose voicemail. I'm not sure about this. (Presently, if Cell One/NY gives you voicemail, you pay no airtime for calls that forward to your voicemail system. If you hit *71-111-7 digit mobile number, you WILL pay airtime. Odd how they can't tell their system to simply not charge for any type of forwarding to voicemail.) > Last weekend I was in South Jersey. The A carrier there is also > called Cellular One, but it's a completely different company. They are called "Cellular One of New Jersey". The SID codes are: 00173, 00575, and 01487. They cover most of central and southwestern New Jersey. They do NOT cover Atlantic City, Vineland, Ocean County, or Newtown. Atlantic City and Vineland use Motorolas, so they can be linked up easily, and your call-forwarding features will work there. Newtown is an Ericsson, and I think they should be linked up by now to NY. Ocean County is a "cellular island" and they don't connect with anyone. They make their money the cheap way -- off of roamer traffic on the Garden State Parkway. You can start a call in the NY system, drive down the GSP, cross through the Ocean County system, and be handed off to the Cell One/NJ system, and not ever have to use the Ocean County system. (Granted there will be static in areas, but your call will generally not drop.) > They couldn't even tell me what I was paying for my calls. Anyway, > call waiting didn't work, and I couldn't retrieve my voice mail. > Incoming calls and voice mail seemed to work. They are generally refered to as "ComCast Cellular", and yeah, they get call delivery to/from NY, features will work, etc. Rates are $.99 per minute, no roam charge for NY customers. They bill incomplete calls after 45 seconds. I am checking into why Call-Waiting does not work there -- it did a few weeks ago. Possibly a bug in the Protocol converter. Any other Cell One/NY customers notice feature problems in CT or NJ? To call voicemail when all else fails, dial 111+7 digit mobile in a Motorola switch. This usually works for me. > Cell One now says to dial *35 to enable Voice Mail in CT, RI, and MA. > I couldn't get a straight answer from the rep, but I am guessing this > is only in the DMX areas, and not all of MA, for instance. Of course, > this means I do *not* get incoming calls. If I dial *350 to get > incoming, I do *not* get voice mail. This is exactly how the North > American Cellular Network operates. They seem to think that this is > the same as having "all of my features." Give me a break. *35 and *350 are indeed a "do not disturb" feature. It will officially start on April 1st. Why? Well, they haven't said so directly, but since Bell Atlantic (a "B" system) is finalizing its takeover of Metro Mobile on April 1st, toll charges will have to be levied for calls coming in and out of the Metro Mobile system. (Appropriate that this "enhancement" takes place on April Fool's day ... sure are a lot of fools at Bell Atlantic if they actually paid money for Metro Mobile! :) ) So Metro Mobile started it's *28/*29 system which I posted on earlier. You can use *29 to turn OFF call delivery outside your home area, and thus not pay toll charges to receive calls there. *35 presenlty does nothing: If you are in CT, hit *35, calls will come to your phone, and if you don't answer, go back to voicemail. *350 will allow calls to come to CT, but NOT go back to your voicemail. (Other interesting things happen if your phone is busy. This is left as an excercise for the reader :) ) I inquired about this, an NO ONE at Cell One/NY knows what is going on here. They SAY that no toll charges will be billed for calls delivered to CT. So WHY would I want to turn call delivery off? Why not just let it default to voicemail all the time? The focus of the *35/*350 "feature" is to either force calls to voicemail with *35 (which it doesn't do anyhow), or to cancel voicemail and have calls delivered to you. So let me get this right: There is no charge for calls delivered into CT. OK. So why make a big deal if after five rings and I don't answer phone, that calls should not go back to voicemail? I asked: "If the call is NOT answered in CT and it goes back to NY, whether there is a problem because CT has to open a new channel to NY, and thus charge NY a toll for that channel", yet this is not how it works. If the call is unanswered in CT, it is "taken back" by the NY system, and forced over to voicemail. No new CT -> NY channel is opened up; the NY -> CT channel is closed, and a new NY -> voicemail channel is opened, and the call is deposited into voicemail. So there does not seem to be a single problem (technically or otherwise) in allowing the calls to go back to voicemail if no one answers. This is THE most imporant feature of my cell phone (besides talking :)). It is bad enough that voicemail does not work in the McCAw "North American Signalling Network", yet to take away the feature for apparently no good reason to those who travel to New England greatly reduces the utility of the cellular service. The fact that it works FINE now makes this decision even more irritating. Phew! OK, so what's going on here? Is there ANYOME at McCaw who is reading this who has any idea of what's going on? Anyone in general?? BTW, *28 ("deliver my calls anywhere" for CT customers) = *350, *29 ("Don't deliver my calls" for CT customers) = *35 They all work! I wonder if they work in NY as well, ie, if I can hit *28/*350 or *29/*35 interchangeably outside of CT. About the only NICE feature with the *28/*29 - *35/*350 system is that is you are in the *28/*350 mode, and hit another *28/*350, you DON'T get a confirmation tone, but a reorder. The same is true for *29/*35. (This is only true for NY customers in CT -- CT customers in always get a confirmation tone. Must have something to do with how the Protocol converter and/or the Ericsson in NY works.) This is good so if you can't recall that you hit *28 or *350, and you hit it again, you will know that the "*28/*350" condition has been active all along. Very much like hitting 72# on a 1/AESS after you have already forwarded calls, or 73# after you have already hit 73# and have no forwarding in place. Anyhow, there are a few more subtleties to the *35/*350 system and the "new" call forwarding codes, but I'll only post on those if there is some interest. (This has already taken up 1.5 hours of my time ...!) Overall, I am happy with what McCaw does -- they are a strong force towards the unification of the "A" side providers. Yet they clearly messed up here, and should take measures to restore the old (and familiar) system of forwarding-type features. Moreover, an effort should be made to ensure that voicemail and call-delivery work hand-in-hand, and not as mutually exclusive features outside of one's home area. And hey, if they let me take a whack at it, I'm sure *I* could do a better job! :) ... having a different set of codes in EVERY new system is ridiculous. So is having to always remember to turn on voicemail when you leave the car. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: steveh@rtsg.mot.com (Steve M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 15:13:37 GMT In article crocker@rtsg.mot.com (Ronald T. Crocker) writes: > *** WARNING: UNABASHED PLUG FOR PRODUCT :-> *** > Of course, if you purchase the new Motorola cordless telephone, the > transmissions between the handset and the base station are > "encrypted," so prying ears may be able to hear something, but it will > not be what they were looking for! Yea, I picked up one of these gizmos back in December and while the encription is very nice to have, it much clearer than most cordless phones I've used. I replaced my Southwestern Bell Freedom Phone with it. I figured it has a 30 day refund policy so I at least compared it. Yes, I do work for Moto, but regardless I think it's a nice phone. Anybody want to buy my old phone???? Whoever rated that other phone as the best was sure pulling our chains! Steve Hoffman Motorola Intl. Subscriber Division GSM email: steveh@isdgsm.rtsg.mot.com All opinions are my own. ph: 1.708.632.2588 Big corporations have none. fax: 1.708.632.2545 ------------------------------ From: b11!lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel) Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears Reply-To: b11!lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 19:05:37 GMT In article , 0004056081@mcimail.com (George S Thurman) writes: (Discussion of IRS and cordless phone eavesdropping deleted.) > "The current law makes no sense," says Goldman. "If your telephone > happens to have a cord, your privacy is protected by federal law. If > not, you have none." Does the law specify how long, and what type this cord should be? Unfortunately, I'm only half joking. But really, would a corded cordless phone be protected? Ie, there is a cord on the phone, but the communication still involves the radio link between the hand set and the desk set. Les ------------------------------ From: rorem@bert.eecs.uic.edu (Doug Rorem) Subject: Re: ANI Number Wanted Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 23:17:37 GMT pete!tompkins@uunet.UUCP (Tompkins) writes: >> A few months ago someone posted an 800 number which will give you back >> your ANI. I can't find it in the Telecom Archives. If you have it >> handy, I'd appreciate it if you would send me the number. > It's not an 800 number, but as far as I can tell, it's free (I used it > several months ago and was not billed): > 10732-1-404-988-9664 I tried this on an IBT payphone in Chicago and had the automated voice come on and ask for $2.10. By the way, which company has 10732 for an access code? Doug Rorem rorem@bert.eecs.uic.edu [Moderator's Note: 10732 is one of AT&T's access codes; similar to 10288 but for a different category of calls. Your last name is of interest to me: are you related to the composer Ned Rorem? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #275 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15760; 28 Mar 92 2:37 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15997 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 00:36:12 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30923 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 00:36:03 -0600 Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 00:36:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203280636.AA30923@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #276 TELECOM Digest Sat, 28 Mar 92 00:35:55 CST Volume 12 : Issue 276 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Phonecos Renege on "Deal" (John Higdon) Re: Myth Busting (Norman Soley) Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Jack Decker) Re: Information Wanted on Call Processing Applications (Norm Aleks) Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? (Steve Forrette) Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel (Barton F. Bruce) Re: Inward-LD FX Line? (Barton F. Bruce) Re: 700 Numbers (whknight@sdf.LoneStar.ORG) Re: Call 1-800-CALL-ATT (Michael Scott Baldwin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 11:41 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Phonecos Renege on "Deal" Jack Decker writes: > So, on yet another front, you now know, in Paul Harvey's style, yet > another part of "The Rest of the Story." Remember that when your > phoneco next propagandizes you with how well they are taking care of > your interests! The one thing that telcos enjoy about being telcos is the fact that they can send bills out every month and the people that receive them have to pay. It is a wonderful cash cow whose return is quaranteed by regulatory edict. What these companies do not like is being forced to provide anything for that money. Capital improvement to regulated plant is just money out the door -- money that could be better spent funding the competitive services such as pay BBSes or voicemail. In case you were not reading between the lines, each of these sisters (particularly Pac*Bell) will soon be before the respective PUCs demanding rate increases to cover the FCC-mandated upgrades. And everyone pays; not just those who happen to be lucky enough to be served by modern equipment. When one is a telephone subscriber he is subject to the luck of the draw. If his CO does not provide services he deems necessary, he is out of luck. One still cannot go shopping for telephone service. There are a number of services that I would find very useful. Pac*Bell cannot provide them. My choices are 1) wait; and 2) move. By refusing to provide value for money recieved, the telcos are hastening the day when dial tone competition will be a reality. I, for one, would drop Pac*Bell at the earliest possible moment. It is most heartening to see the FCC putting some pressure on these companies to actually deliver. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: soley@trooa.enet.dec.com (Norman Soley) Subject: Re: Myth Busting Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Date: 26 MAR 92 14:12:06 In article Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: > 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? I heard a radio bit on this recently, seems the earliest citation anyone could locate was a letter from Edison that is now in the archives at Bell Labs. There was a later piece that was supposed to debunk that claim but I missed it. What I found most interesting is the context, Edison was advocating the use of the word hello instead of a signalling bell. Essentially his idea was that the phone company would connect the caller to your line and they would holler hello repeatedly until someone noticed the noise coming out of the box on the wall and started talking back (which is not that far off the way it actually worked with a signalling bell). Hello was supposed to carry further than the greeting words in common use at the time. Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District Digital Equipment of Canada soley@trooa.enet.dec.com Opinions expressed are mine alone and do not reflect those of Digital Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 16:09:45 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees In message , Conrad_Nobili@Harvard.EDU (Conrad C. Nobili) wrote: >> [Moderator's Note: If I were a telco person investigating the misuse >> of this system and you said to me "I am being harassed when I answer >> the phone by these strange hissing sounds", my response would be "so >> is that the reason you made those 'strange hissing sounds' back at me >> when I called on your other line just a minute ago? ... were you >> trying to get even with whoever is 'harassing' you? ..." :) PAT] > Well, actually there is only ever 'hissing' in one direction. As the > whole point (well, one of them anyway) of the automatic collect call > operator is to *prevent* bidirectional free communication, one would > have to construct some different "modem"s. Or at least modify some a Well, some of them don't do such a good job of preventing it. For example, if you place a collect call from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada (Bell Canada territory) you get prompted to enter a card number or "11" for a collect call. If you enter "11", your name (or whatever you choose to give for a name) is digitally recorded. So far, so good. But then you hear the ringback tone, followed by the called party's answer, and the digital playback of the collect call announcement (which includes the recording of your "name"). But if an answering machine answers, you here the entire message from the answering machine as it is played (or at least the first half-minute or so of it), along with Bell Canada's automated announcement. If the other end doesn't respond in a recognized manner, the automation announces the call a second time, before finally saying "please hold for an operator" and breaking the audio path. One can imagine an obvious potential for fraud here. For example, a kid could call home collect and when asked for his name, reply "when's dinner?". When the announcement was played, the parent (or whomever) could reply "Six thirty" which of course would not be recognized as a valid response, after which the caller would just hang up, abandoning the call (that's a trivial example and the best I can think of on short notice, I'm sure that someone with more imagination could think of all sorts of ways this could be abused. Yes, I know this is wrong and I'm not condoning it, just illustrating how easy it would be). Michigan Bell's automated equipment (as used in lower Michigan) seems to be smarter; it doesn't cut an audio path from the called party back to the caller until the call has been accepted. This still would allow delivery of a short one way message from the caller to the called party, but you'd never know if the message was received (after all, the dog could have knocked the phone off the hook when it rang, for all the caller would know). But in the system used in Canada, you'd know that called phone was answered, who answered it (provided you could identify the voice), and they could acknowledge receipt or even pass useful information back in the opposite direction! Either Canadians are more honest than U.S. residents (I really doubt that they're THAT much more honest, especially considering the number that come over here to Sault, Michigan to shop, and then smuggle back their purchases!), or else Bell Canada really blundered when they put that system in! Wonder if this is a system used only in Canada (pity!) or if some of the U.S. telcos have a similarly insecure system? For readers not within range of Canadian television stations, the "Only in Canada? Pity!" line is from a Canadian tea commercial of a few years back. Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: naleks@world.std.com (Norm Aleks) Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Call Processing Applications Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 23:26:13 GMT In article iisat!kevin@iisat.uucp (Kevin Davies) writes: > Has anyone worked with call processing equipment for micros? > In particular, we're looking at some applications which require the > use of digitized voice, at touch-tone detection for the software. One > company I know of, Dialogic, has hardware to handle this. Has anyone > any experience with this company or ones like it? > (This will be on 80486 machines with either DOS or Unix). Dialogic makes good equipment, and has by far the largest share of the market for voice-processing hardware. Two other good companies are Natural Microsystems of Natick, Mass. (508/650-1300), and Rhetorex (forgot their number). They both have drivers for both DOS and Unix, but another good operating system you should think of is OS/2 (in fact, many people think it's *best* for voice processing apps -- its multithreading is fantastic). Natural Microsystems has two programming products to help you develop your application: ME/2 is a set of C-language libraries, and Vscript is a full fourth-generation voice application programming language. Dialogic depends on other vendors to supply similar products. I have a Natural Microsystems four-line card and the ME/2 libraries, and I'm very happy with the combination. Norm Aleks / naleks@world.std.com naleks@world.std.com +1 617 266 1826 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 22:21:21 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article Monty Solomon writes: > Are cellular phones required to support 10xxx? Cellular One/Boston > offers AT&T or MCI and 10xxx doesn't work. I recently found out that > MCI didn't bill any Cellular One long distance calls for five years! I think that only the cellular companies that are run by an RBOC (or have a certain percentage of stock owned by an RBOC) are subject to this requirement. My only experience with Equal Access from a cellular carrier was with Cellular One of San Francisco, in which Pacific Telesis has a minority ownership position. They offer Equal Access, but it is subject to some restrictions: 1. The carriers must install dedicated facilities to the MTSO (cellular equal access doesn't use the landline equal access facilities). As such, only the major carriers feel it's worthwhile to install these facilities. At first, only AT&T and MCI served Cellular One SF. A while later, US Sprint was added. 2. 10XXX is not available. When I asked Cellular One SF if there was a way to "select the long distance carrier on a per-call basis", and after explaining it a couple more times so that she understood what I meant, the response was "Why would anyone want to do that???" 3. 0+ always goes to AT&T, regardless of the 1+ selection. While this seems strange at first, it is actually what I wanted. That way, I could place callingcard calls via AT&T while still have 1+ calls via Sprint. And since Sprint and MCI calling cards don't use 0+ dialing for access, it's not unfairly denying the selected carrier from calling card revenue. (Also, I don't know why I would ever want to talk to the Sprint operator for other than a calling card call; that's about all they can help you with anyway.) Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel Date: 27 Mar 92 01:27:22 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , dem@nhmpw2.fnal.gov (David E. Martin) writes: > I discovered a new way that hotels are rippping off business > travelers. At the hotel I am currently staying at (Bahia Hotel, San > Diego), they charge $4.50 plus tax for every incoming FAX. I found I know many occasions where FAXes were sent unrequested and even undesired to business travelers who in no way should be expected to pay for them. They were sent as a more complete and accurate form of the old fashioned "leaving a phone message at the desk". Of course maybe this hotel charges for phone messages. I even heard of one hotel that had a guest needing to print something from his laptop. Since he had a FAXmodem, *they* suggested he simply dial the INTERNAL extension number of their FAX so he would not be charged the even minor local call charge it would take to reach the FAX's outside number. No charge for all he printed, and they KNEW it was from him to him. Some Best Western's are extra *NICE*! > this out after having my secretary send me four FAXes. I will be writing > an angry letter to the management, but I don't expect a whole lot of > results. Anyone else been bit? Perhaps it would be fitting to FAX the manager your comments. Perhaps some others would care to send their comments, too. You forgot to post their manager's name and the HOTEL's FAX number. 800.info gives 800.288.0770, but their reservation's are closed this late at night, so a FAX number and manager's name will have to wait. In the meantime, it is wise to ASK telecom and fax policies when booking reservations, and simply NEVER use telecom-hostile properties, but DO tell they why you are skipping them. ------------------------------ From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: Inward-LD FX Line? Date: 27 Mar 92 01:56:31 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , kiser@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil writes: > My Caller*ID box bbbrrrrings, dutifully displaying a *local* number. I > answered the phone and it's a collection agency wanting payment on a > ... > "Weird," I thought; she said she was in Louisiana. I called the number > back exactly as it was displayed on the box and "DOO DAH DEE ... The > [Moderator's Note: FX lines usually work in both directions, and I > doubt you were called from one. What probably happened was that > sometimes long distance carriers handle a call from one place to > another and drop off the call at their POP (point of presence) in your > community, then patch through a local outgoing call (from your local > telco's perspective) to you from that point. The carrier used by the Lets keep this really simple. They used a Feature Group A (FG-A) line. Nothing magic. This one was arranged for one-way use, apparently. An IXC can use them exactly as you witnessed. It is in reality simply an old FX line with fancy modern pricing. The IXC probably was using it to complete a call that may have overflowed FG-D trunks, or where equal access ISN"T even available. Unlike FG-B or FG-D lines, FG-A lines could be billed to the IXC (as was this case, probably), or can be billed to the end customer when that is who is using it as an FX line. The bill you get has many weird charges out to many decimal places, and clips you for traffic BOTH ways, and even for 800 calls, I think. The charges are all TINY, but very very real. One of the few cases where a customer gets to see what really looks like carrier to carrier billing. Of course there IS a small chance, that though REMOTE, the agency makes MANY MANY calls into your area and an FX line really is in place. ------------------------------ From: whknight@sdf.LoneStar.ORG Subject: Re: 700 Numbers Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 18:45:03 CST The majority of the 0+700+XXX+XXXX numbers (from what I know) are used for confrence calling ... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 08:08 EST From: michael.scott.baldwin@att.com Subject: Re: Call 1-800-CALL-ATT > ...call 1-800-CALL-ATT, choose option 2 for dialing instructions, and > then option 1 you will hear, "AT&T..." If you remember all the menu > choices, you won't have to listen through too much, but it's a pain > just to get to AT&T." There aren't a whole bunch of choices. "1" for AT&T calling card, "2" for dialing instructions, "3" for AT&T Universal. That's it. After "2", there isn't a menu at all; just press "1" to get the "AT&T ". You don't have to wait for *any* voice prompting. As soon as 800-CALL-ATT answers, you can immediately dial "21". I think it is intentionally slightly annoying to encourage you to try 10-ATT-0 first. The message between the "2" and the "1" tells you about 10-ATT-0 *twice* just to make sure. Speaking of such things, I notice (on my ISDN set) that call supervision isn't returned until after I press "21". During the 10-ATT-0 blurb my call still isn't completed. I've noticed that other voice prompting systems do this as well: 800-423-4343 for AT&T Universal leads me through two levels of menu selection before the call is completed. How is this done, and is this available to any customer? Isn't this potentially abusable? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #276 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18394; 28 Mar 92 3:26 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29498 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 01:26:19 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02675 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 01:26:05 -0600 Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 01:26:05 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199203280726.AA02675@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #277 TELECOM Digest Sat, 28 Mar 92 01:26:00 CST Volume 12 : Issue 277 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson U.S. Postal Service Worldpost (Nigel Allen) Caller-ID Box Info Wanted (David Niebuhr) AT&T Any Hour Saver (Monty Solomon) N0X/N1X Coming to 813 in Florida (Carl Moore) Unique Caller ID Decision in Ohio (Bruce Klopfenstein) Major FTS-2000 Change (David Lesher) MCI and Cellular One/Boston (Monty Solomon) Dominican Republic on a Phone Bill (Carl Moore) Modems Price List From "Survey" (Phil Pavarini Jr.) So Who is at Fault? (Bruce Perens) Looking for Pointer to Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Jack Callaghan) Cable Companies (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund) Closed Captioning Question (Joshua E. Muskovitz) Wireless PCNS / Ubiquitous Computing (Mark Alcazar) Re: Unfairness at the Ranch (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nigel Allen Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 19:00:00 -0500 Subject: U.S. Postal Service Worldpost Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto The U.S. Postal Service and other postal administrations are being hurt by competition from fax machines (it's usually cheaper to send a one-page letter across the country by fax at off-peak rates than to mail it as a first-class letter) and, for overseas mail, from remailers such as TNT Mailfast who pick up mail from one country and mail it in another. The U.S. Postal Service is fighting back with something called Worldpost which may be of interest to U.S.-based companies that send out a lot of international mail. For more information, call 1-800-456-3600, ext. 250, or write to: Worldpost United States Postal Service P.O. Box 7899 Mt Prospect, IL 60065-7899 The phone number can be dialed from Canada, although I expect that this is simply a mistake by the U.S. Postal Service or its telemarketing service bureau. Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 [Moderator's Note: Could you write again please, and tell us in more detail about the Worldpost Service: how it works, the charges, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 07:16:45 -0500 From: niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr) Subject: Caller-ID Box Info Wanted In a catalog distributed by a local equivalent to Service Merchandise, there's an ad for the AT&T Call Display 30 which keeps a record of the last 30 incoming calls. The advertised price is $59.99 (+ Uncle Mario's kickback). I realize that NY doesn't have CID yet and I'm curious about this unit and would like any information possible (good and bad). Please e-mail to either address below (not the one in the header -- I work from several systems) since it's much easier for me to receive mail that way. Thanks in advance. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 07:41:28 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T Any Hour Saver AT&T has a brand new Reach Out America plan called "Any Hour Saver". It is $10 for 60 minutes each month and $0.20/min for calls during the day and $0.11/min for calls after 5 PM. Depending upon your state you also get a 5% discount on intrastate long distance calls. They are also currently waiving the $5.00 sign up fee. They use the most expensive calls towards filling the included 60 minutes. # Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA 01701-0405 # roscom!monty@think.com [Moderator's Note: Are you sure they use the most expensive sixty minutes to fill the prepaid hour? I was told they use the first sixty minutes, in whatever order they may be. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 10:07:20 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: N0X/N1X Coming to 813 in Florida Because no one else has sent this along to telecom, I wrote back to Dave Leibold and he says it's OK to do so myself. Notice that 305/407 split was done in 1988 without the use of N0X/N1X. Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 20:57:57 -0500 From: Dave Leibold Subject: New Area Codes To: cmoore@BRL.MIL Looks like 813 is going to interchangeable prefixes, with an area code split pending in 1996 (after interchangeable area codes come into effect) ... this was the message as received from the Fidonet FCC conference area where some discussion on 813 exhaust is going on. * Original Area: FCC * Original From: Paul Knupke Jr. (1:250/501) * Original To : Bill Blomgren (1:250/524) BB > I understand that the Tampa area keeps the 813, but areas south > of Sarasota will turn into something else in a couple of years. > As of this Saturday, we BB > go to 10 digit long distance for > everything outside the immediate bay area. Coverage of this event has been very poor. Few people know it ... someone should mention it in BaySysop and BayChat ... so people don't wonder why they can't call Sarasota or Lakeland anymore. pekjr JABBER v1.1 #37 * BETA TESTERS WHO LIE! On the next Geraldo. Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: klopfens@andy.bgsu.edu (Bruce Klopfenstein) Subject: Unique Caller ID Decision in Ohio Date: 27 Mar 92 01:19:41 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. As reported by the Associated Press in the Tiffin, OH {Advertiser-Tribune}: State utility regulators today allowed Ohio Bell to offer a service that lets customers see the telephone number of incoming calls. But the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio also required the company to offer a service that would prevent telephone numbers from being revealed to subscripbers. The decision by the PUCO followed 2 years of debate over whether Caller ID is am intrusion of the callers' privacy particularly for those who want their telephone numbers kept confidential. The company has contended that Caller ID reduces the threat of nuisance and pnscene calls because they can be traced easily. The service would be avilable for $6.50 a month. The display device must be bought separately at an estimated cost of $55 to $120 ... Ohio Bell intends to offer the service first in Cleveland and Columbus. THE COMMISSION SAID OHIO BELL MUST PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING BLOCKING OPTIONS: + MAKING AVAILABLE FREE PER-CALL BLOCKING TO ALL SUBSCRIBERS. + OFFERING FREE PER-LINE BLOCKING TO CUSTOMERS WITH NON-PUBLISHED NUMBERS. + OFFERING SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR PER-LINE BLOCKING TO CUSTOMERS WITH PUBLISHED NUMBERS AT A CHARGE EQUAL TO THE COST OF A NON-PUBLISHED NUMBER. ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Major FTS-2000 Change Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 20:34:19 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) For the last ten years or so, FTS calls have been dialed with either seven or ten digits. "On-net" calls, i.e. those to another USG agency, went with a seven digit number. Originally, the prefix was the same as your POTS number, and the last four digits always were. But as the system spread, it got difficult to find a prefix that was unused both within FTS and the NAPA assignments in the destination city. For example, let's say my NAPA number is 202-345-9999. My FTS number is 345-9999. But Vinnie may have 703-556-8888, and an FTS assignment of 654-8888, cuz the FTS 556 is already in use in San Francisco. Now, for the last eight years or so, off-net calls have been handled by 8 + AC + 7D [note - no leading "1"]. Prior to that, you dug through the GSA directory, found the number for the FTS operator in Podunk, called her, and {S}HE dialed the local call, and gave you a nice clean, 30 db down patch ;-{ Well, with FTS 2000, which appears to be a network mostly in software {I'm not really sure how much of it is dedicated, isolated trunks}, things are changing. I just saw a memo announcing that FTS numbers will cease to exist at all. To reach another agency, we will just dial the full NAPA number. We'll get a one-month permissive dialing period before all the old ones go away. This will tend to make things a little easier -- it's gotten increasingly hard to find an up-to-date FTS directory, even if you are concerned enough to want to ;-} As a side note, we also get new FTS trouble reporting numbers. They are {8} 700-288-xxxx and such. Guess that furthers the notion that IEC's are free to use the 700 pseudo-code as they see fit. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 03:21:43 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: MCI and Cellular One/Boston > Are cellular phones required to support 10xxx? Cellular One/Boston > offers AT&T or MCI and 10xxx doesn't work. I recently found out that > MCI didn't bill any Cellular One long distance calls for five years! > [Moderator's Note: Who told you that MCI didn't bill Cellular One LD > calls for five years? PAT] I was aware that MCI had not billed for long distance calls for some period of time from some associates that had MCI as their long distance carrier. A Cellular One customer service rep told me about the MCI fiasco recently. When they finally started billing for the calls, the bills covered only the past two months or so. It is the commercial division of MCI that handles the Cellular One/Boston long distance calls. They bill the customers directly. The Friends & Family program is available, but not any of the frequent flyer mileage programs. Primetime is also available. There was a discussion here a few months ago about Cellular system SIDs. The February 13, 1992 edition of the Cellular One USA-Canada Roaming Guide lists the SID for each system along with the customer service number, band, access number, service number, and rates. It is interesting to note that there is no standard customer service number. The customer service numbers listed include *611, 611, *711, *INFO, 811, and *311. All of the Canadian systems list 0 as the customer service number. Cellular One/Boston has institued a free information number which started out as *INFO and is now *FYI. All kinds of information is available like rate plans, how to use Message Plus, etc. They will be reusing *INFO shortly for some new services. Celluar One/Boston is currently testing Roam America and will probably offer it sometime in the next couple of months. Someone recently posted a query about *71 and *72. For Cellular One/Boston, *71 is used for No Answer Transfer -- typically to enable Message Plus. *72 is used for Call Forwarding. *73 cancels *71 or *72. Call Waiting, Call Forwarding, Three-Way Calling, and Message Plus are all provided for free. They can be disabled if you don't want the service. They are offering a new service called Maintenance Plus with the following benefits for $5/month: One free antenna replacement per year; One free cellular phone tune-up per year; A free diagnostic test each time the phone is brought in for service; Use of a loaner phone (same number) if repair will take > 1hr; Free repair, adjustment, or replacement, to extent not covered by the manufacturer's warranty, of the following: transceiver, data cable, mount, wiring, control-head, hands-free, horn relay Monty roscom!monty@think.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 10:21:29 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Dominican Republic on a Phone Bill On a phone bill I have found a call to the Dominican Republic placed via MCI. It is in area code 809 (although Haiti, the other part of the island on which the Dominican Republic is located, has its own country code 509). Furthermore, although it is in country code 1, it appears on the bill as if it were outside that country code: 1. no city name, only the country; 2. the number called is printed without embedded blanks. (The number is 809544xxxx.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 17:49 EST From: pep@pavnet.nshore.ncoast.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.) Subject: Modems Price List From "Survey" Organization: PAVNET Someone had mentioned to me that a modem price list, from a survey or something, was compiled from the {Computer Shopper} (or other magazine or sources) and posted to usenet. It was printed, and I guess the message header had something to the effect "usenet@almaden" or "usenet at almaden". I would have sent mail to "almaden", but no uucp site with that name seems to exist. This 'master price list' of all of the modems is _VERY_ important, if anyone has any suggestions ... I'd appriciate it! Phil Pavarini Jr. -- Voice 216.891.1122 Fax 216.891.0009 INTERNET: pep@pavnet.nshore.ncoast.org -- UUCP: pavnet!pep P.O. Box 360302 -- Cleveland, Ohio 44136 ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens) Subject: So Who is at Fault? Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 16:10:00 GMT Pat says: > [Moderator's Note: I've been running so many of these replies because > I am amazed at the diversity of explanations! Some say the broadcaster > is at fault, while others blame the television set. So which is it? PAT] In a telephone circuit, you can often diagnose where a problem is happening by the sound. Bad microphones, swinging connections, and maladjusted repeaters all have their characteristic "sound". NTSC television embodies two sacrifices that would not have been made today. The spectrum space had to be limited: VHF was a defense technology (radar). The receivers had to be made less expensive: phase-locked loops were priced in the tens of dollars, not in cents as they are today. Same for frequency standards and filters. Because of these sacrifices, there isn't much margin for "system reliability". Any bad component will make the entire signal path look bad, and it won't be as easy to diagnose as your phone. Bruce Perens ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 07:26:10 PST From: callaghan@bss.enet.dec.com Subject: Looking for Pointer to Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 I'd like to get my hands on the text of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Am I lucky enough that TPC would cough it up on request, or should I go to the nearest Federal Center and request Public Law 102-243? Or does someone know a quick pointer that would make this all simpler then that. Any assistance appreciated. Jack [Moderator's Note: We've seen a recent posting from John Covert quoting at length from this. Perhaps John would be so kind to forward the entire document here for inclusion in the Telecom Archives. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sg04%ploni@gte.com (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund) Subject: Cable Companies Date: 27 Mar 92 16:45:58 GMT Reply-To: sgutfreund@gte.com Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA I would like to know which are the largest national cable TV companies, which have the best engineering facilities, and which are the most technically innovative. I would also like to know what are the current legal restrictions on cable providing voice service, and are there ANY tarriffing limitations on their providing data and mixed data/video (multi-media). [The NYSE stock symbols would also be nice :-) ] Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund sgutfreund@gte.com GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA harvard!bunny!sgutfreund ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 13:40:24 EST From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" Subject: Closed Captioning Question Does anyone know which brands (and models?) of TVs have closed captioning support BUILT IN? At some point, all of them will have to, by law, but I had heard that some already support it. Any info should be mailed to me: rocker@vnet.ibm.com