Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18812; 2 Jan 93 21:03 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18161 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:13:02 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06239 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:12:38 -0600 Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:12:38 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301030112.AA06239@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #1 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Jan 93 19:12:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 1 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: What You Should Have Received (TELECOM Moderator) Volume 12 Accelerated Index Now Available (TELECOM Moderator) Yet Another Horrible AOS Story (Chris Petrilli) Computer Directed Call Forwarding (Allan D. Griefer) Another Payphone Mystery? (John Schmidt) Status of Old Bell System Books (Howard C. Berkowitz) More Harassment Questions (Jim Rees) Changes to AT&T International Help Line? (Dave Leibold) Internet/UUCP Dial-up Line in Singapore? (Anto Daryanto) The Ultimate Call Screener (Jeffrey Jonas) Telephony of the Future (Dave Niebuhr) Re: The Future of Wired vs Wireless Services (John Adams) Telecomics (Peanuts 1st Jan 1993) (Dave Leibold) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:32:19 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: What You Should Have Received Several unnumbered items were sent out between the end of Volume 12 which had 928 issues and this, the start of Volume 13 and another year here at TELECOM Digest. 1) A copy of the FAQ. 2) A letter to Usenet comp.dcom.telecom readers about the Digest. 3) An image of the Telecom Archives directory and ftp instructions. 4) An endless supply of Caller-ID messages and replies ... :) (actually, three large files with several messages each in the first two and a single longer message in the third.) If you did not get any of these and feel you must have them, you will find the first three items already in the archives at one place or another; the mailings which went out on January 1-2 will not be put in the archives again (needless duplication). I am not going to put the clean out of Caller-ID messages in the archives either; so if you for some reason did not get Parts 1, 2 and 3 of that, you'll need to annoy me by asking for copies from here. Happy New Year, and welcome to Volume 13 of TELECOM Digest. The Digest was started in 1981 by Jon Solomon, and we'll wrap up twelve years of this in August, 1993. Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 15:16:38 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Volume 12 Accelerated Index Now Available The Accelerated Index to TELECOM Digest Volume 12 subjects and authors is now available in the Telecom Archives for grabbing via anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu. It is called an accelerated index since it points to other large files which contain clusters of back issues (in groups of 50) where the subject or author will be located. A typical entry in the index will look like this: 12/101-150: Article Title Here (First Last Name of Author Here) 12/101-150: Re: Response to Article Here (First Last Name of Author) This would tell you to go to the sub-directory in the archives for Volume 12, and pull the large file named 'vol12.iss101-150'. When you have that file available to you, then use grep or other methods of searching within that file for the desired articles and authors. Author's names are always in (parenthesis) but sometimes were shortened in the header (i.e. John Smith became J. Smith or J Smith) as needed to make it fit on the line in the Digests from which the index was created. Searching for the last name is better than the full name since these variances could cause you to miss some entries. The Accelerated Index is sorted in alphabetical order, with "Re:" ignored where it appears. You can dump it out to a printer if desired, however the file is about 9500 lines in length. All articles with identical names will usually have one without 'Re:' and one or more with 'Re:' on the front. Where titles are identical (since the 'Re:' if it exists is ignored in the alphabetical sort) the sorting then continues by *first* name of author. As an example, "Re: My Life Story" by Adam Smith would appear before "My Life Story" by John Higdon. Depending on the name of the original author, the original article (that is, the one without 'Re:' on the front) may appear anywhere in the cluster of identically-named articles. If you see more than one identical titles and none of them say 'Re:', then it is likely the 'Re:' was somehow overlooked in processing -or- they are two articles with similar material but both are 'original'. Conversely, if you see one or more articles with 'Re:' and no offsetting original article (the one in the bunch without 'Re:' on the front) one of two things is possible: either there was no 'original article', i.e. I screwed up in the original publication or the thread started in Volume 11 and the (Re:)plies got carried over to Volume 12. Some help is available in the use of the Accelerated Index within the index itself: grep -i "Intro:" for several lines of help at the start of the file. A companion file covers volumes 9-10-11 from 1989 through 1991. It is set up the same way, and is in excess of 24,000 lines. I was thinking about merging volume 12 into the earlier index, but there were some problems with that, namely the sorting of entries got very difficult, and anyway, some of you already have the earlier edition. Besides, there are simply too many small sites where a file of some 35,000 lines in total simply could not be handled. Final note: If you are at a UUCP or BBS site, I strongly recommend you seek permission from your system administrator before hauling such big files across the wire; and make sure you have room on your spool for the uncompressed results. Remember, these two index files to subject and author names are in compressed format in the archives. (They have the suffix '.Z' after their name.) You must use binary mode to transfer them via ftp, or else the results will be trashed when you try to uncompress them. I hope these indexes to subjects and authors in TELECOM Digest since April, 1989 will be useful to you. It is strongly recommended you have a good working knowledge of the 'grep -i' command and can be creative in your use of 'grep' for searching for the best results. Let me know how it works for you. Patrick Townson TELECOM Moderator ------------------------------ From: petrilli@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) Subject: Yet Another Horrible AOS Story Date: 2 Jan 1993 01:13:16 GMT Organization: Department of Redundency Department Just to increase the enjoyment for the holidays, I thought I'd share my AOS story with everyone. I was on the way from Austin, TX -- where I live -- to Dallas to visit a friend, when I stoped in Garland to make a "routine" call to tell him that I would be there shortly (Garland is 30 minutes or so from where he lives), when I foolishly selected a "generic" pay phone at a Texaco gas station. Sicne both the origination number and the destination number were in the 214 area code, I decided to place the call simply using a quarter (hoping it wasn't long distance). Anyway, I reached the party, and spoke to them for a total of about five seconds before the phone decided that it wanted to eat more of my money ... it asked for something around $2.50 for the "next two minutes." At that point, I dialed the phone number against to use my SWBT phone card, hoping to force it to deal with SWBT ... no go, I get a "bong" and a "Thank you for using ATMT" (note this sounds A LOT like "The Phone Company" AT&T). I then dialed the standard 10288, the whole number, and then receive a bong and the same "ATMT" message. Not even forcing through to AT&T ... I'm not a happy camper. To solve the problem, I ended up driving about a block to a SWBT pay phone that liked what I wanted better ... note that THIS pay phone allowed me to make the full call on a quarter. Chris Petrilli petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu I don't even speak for myself. ------------------------------ From: usenet_interface@almaden.ibm.com Subject: Computer Directed Call Forwarding Date: 2 Jan 93 05:39:21 GMT Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center I'd like to set up a system that forwards a call to a particular party based on a code number that's entered by the caller. In other words, I want to have the caller call a particular number, say the main number for a business after hours and enter a four digit code. the system would then look up that code and forward the call based on that. This would allow us to have people call for emergencies without releasing the home phone numbers of the employees. Any ideas how this might be easily implemented? Opinions are strictly my own, Allan D. Griefer, IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, CA VNET/BITNET: GRIEFER at ALMADEN Fax: (408)927-4004 Internet: griefer@almaden.ibm.com mcimail: 398-8024 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 00:42:31 EST From: JOHN SCHMIDT Subject: Another Payphone Mystery? I recently visited my Alma Mater, WPI in Worcester, Mass. (A/C 508). When I got there, I wanted to call my mother in Ahmerst Mass. (413-253****). There was a payphone, clearly identified as a New England Telephone phone, near where I parked. The long distance carrier was clearly marked as AT&T. I dropped a quarter in and dialed the number (1+) The response was a beep something like a touchtone followed by "Deposit two dollars please." Thinking this a bit steep, and not hearing the AT&T "boing", I hung up and dialed 1-0-288-413-etc. Same result. Being thoroughly annoyed at this point, I went into a nearby dorm, where I found another identically marked payphone, with a NET credit card phone next to it. I tried the payphone first, same result both ways. I then used my AT&T Master Card in the credit card phone, got the familiar "boing", etc, and placed my call. (The bill on my card, which arrived last week, was 85 cents.) What gives with the payphones? Shouldn't I have gotten AT&T? (I'm pretty sure that Worcester and Amherst are in different LATA's. In any event, isn't $2.00 a pretty steep rate for a direct dial pay call of about 35 miles? I thought charged calls were generally more expensive than cash payphone calls, but then I rarely make long distance(?) payphone calls these days. Any answers welcome. John H. Schmidt, P.E. |Internet: schmidt@auvax1.adelphi.edu Technical Director, WBAU |Phone--Days (212)456-4218 Adelphi University | Evenings (516)877-6400 Garden City, New York 11530 |Fax-------------(212)456-2424 ------------------------------ From: hcb@world.std.com (Howard C Berkowitz) Subject: Status of Old Bell System Books Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:14:23 GMT I'm trying to track down the current sources for several references, the copies of which I have available being pre-Bell-breakup. I know some have gone somewhere in AT&T, some in Bellcore, etc. Others (e.g., the BSTJ) may have changed name. Can anyone give me pointers to current titles, ordering sources, and ideally price for: Transmission Systems for Communications Engineering & Operations in the Bell System Notes on the Network Direct Dialing Notes Thanks. ------------------------------ From: rees@dabo.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: More Harassement Questions Date: 2 Jan 1993 20:50:06 GMT Organization: University of Michigan CITI Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu Suppose someone calls me every morning, lets the phone ring once, then hangs up, so that I never actually pick up the phone. Is that still considered harassement? If someone calls and lets the phone ring only once, will Caller-ID still be delivered? I'm asking for a friend. My own ringer is on a timer, so I don't hear it early in the morning. Two of my lines don't even ring at all. [Moderator's Note: Tell your friend that everywhere I know, deliberatly causing the telephone of another person to ring for no purpose other than to harass or annoy is against the law. There need not be any actual conversation. Since Caller-ID is delivered between the first and second rings, it may or may not be delivered on such a call. Here in Chicago, it seems the data is sent immediatly on the end of the first ring, and most of the time when I've gotten 'one-ringers' the number has gotten here before the originating CO had a chance to tell my CO to disconnect the call, etc. I think it would be worth a shot to learn the identity of the caller; your friend might have to wait for a few calls to have the two CO's out of synch with each other just enough to allow your friend's CO to slide the information out to him. Then, he'll need to observe this a few more times just to assure himself that it is a deliberate, calculated activity. Won't the caller be surprised! Actually I think 'return last call received' -- *69 -- might be even more reliable than Caller-ID, because once the caller hits your friend's CO, his number *is* in the buffer, and even if the CO does not get around to sending the ID in time (before the caller breaks the connection), causing the ID not to show up or to show up with errors in it, etc ... he'll still be able to call back. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:18:18 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) Subject: Changes to AT&T International Help Line? AT&T operated an international calling assistance line at 1 800 874.4000 for some time. Now, it seems that AT&T has changed the number, or at least cut out access from Canada. I don't know whether the line is still active in the U.S. or not. I believe there was a regular telephone number which could be called collect from other countries as well ... anyone have that information handy? Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG [Moderator's Note: Yes, 800-874-4000 is working from the USA. AT&T says people not in the USA should call collect to a 412 number. PAT] ------------------------------ From: anto@dutetvd.tudelft.nl (Anto Daryanto) Subject: Internet/UUCP Dial-up Line in Singapore? Organization: Delft University of Technology Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 09:32:16 GMT Hi, I am now living in Holland but in five weeks I am going back to Indonesia. Here I frequently use Internet access from university for my study, and I know I'll miss it. Does anybody know whether a dial-up line available in Singapore so that I still can use the access to internet? (We don't have an internet access yet in Indonesia). If it exist how can I contact them? Thanks in advance and Happy New Year ... Anto Daryanto Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Telecommunication- and Traffic-Control Systems Group E-Mail: a.daryanto@dutetvd.et.tudelft.nl ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 18:16:14 EST From: jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET (Jeffrey Jonas) Subject: The Ultimate Call Screener I recall a story about an author who devised a doorbell that worked as follows: you inserted a $10 bill to ring the bell. If the person home thought it was worth answering the door, you got your money back. How about having only a 900 number? If it's someone to whom you wanted to speak, there would be no charge. All other calls were charged something like $10 for bothering you. (This is assuming that there's such a thing as a variable rate 900 number). Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@panix.com [Moderator's Note: There are carriers like MCI who will deliver 900 service to you without doing the billing on it. They deliver the ANI with the call and you figure out who/how to bill. Even if all you charged was 25-50 cents per call, it would cut down on many of your wrong numbers, sales calls, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 08:39:21 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Telephony of the Future Re: PAT's request for what we think telephony will be future will be like in 2000 or maybe even 2100. I'd like to post my $.02. I think that we will see a much larger proliferation of the cell phone industry; e-mail directly via satellites as opposed to wire and satellites today; the physical size of the hardware in each switch will shrink. Who really can imagine what our children and grandchildren will witness? I can't but I'd sure like to be around to see what happens. As I said, just my $0.02. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: I imagine all kinds of things we consider impossible now will be reality. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john) Subject: Re: The Future of Wired vs Wireless Services Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 14:26:07 GMT I hope fellow netters will pick up this discussion, but for the moment, my $.02: In case you suspect that any of the following represents any parties opinions other than my own, allow me to reassure you that these are *MINE*, only *MINE*! I suspect that outside sociological, economic, and political pressures will do more to answer the posed question than mere technology alone. Issues such as the makeup of the future family, ecological issues, the global "shrinking" phenomina and others will sharply influence what types of telecommunication prevail. Will technology alone "make markets"? Evidence abounds that it takes more than shear technical brilliance to make a difference. I suspect that each of us who earns her/his daily bread in this industry needs to sharpen our focus on the other "softer" sciences. At least from my perspective, the softer sciences are indeed *MUCH* harder to master than those we use daily. Will the current industry infrastructure (Don't you just love the way we can beat this politicisms to death :-) ) remain viable by 2010? I sure don't know! But lack of knowledge never stopped me before ;-)! When all else fails, the basic survival instinct is alive and well in most businesses. My only concern is that the Bumbling Baristers of Boondoggleville (aka Washington Beltway Bandits) will somehow seek to call *ALL* the plays in telecommunications in the future. Competition? ... you bet! But let's have some real competition, not the contrived kind we have all witnessed as fashioned by the warring lobbyists on the steps of the Capital. Remember that *NO* business will remain in business without a proper profit to reward those risk takers who provide the fuel of any venture. Profit is not a dirty word! I am convinced that rate of return regulation will die a natural death before the year 2000. While price cap regulation seems to be in vogue with our lawyer friends(?), I'm almost positive that zero regulation (price/cost only) will be in effect by 2010. Jack (John) Adams Bellcore NVC 2Z-220 (908) 758-5372 {Voice} (908) 758-4389 {Facsimile} jadams@vixen.bellcore.com kahuna@attmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:58:26 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) Subject: Telecomics (Peanuts 1st Jan 1993) The Peanuts comic appearing today (1st January 1993) featured a telephone conversation between Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown as follows: Peppermint Patty to Charlie Brown: "Hi, Chuck ... just calling to wish you a Happy New Year ... do you love me, Chuck?" Charlie Brown in reply: "I'm sorry, but your call cannot go through ... please hang up, and do not dial again ..." ... On a loosely related note, the Adam comic that appears in {The Toronto Star} now has a grainier appearance, with digital style contours on the artwork. The era of syndicators faxing those cartoons to newspapers is well underway. Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG [Moderator's Note: Some of the cartoonists have even made reference to their use of the fax machine: consider 'Family Circus', where in one episode, by artist/author Bill Keane (whose cartoons deal with his family and himself) the picture is a picture of Keane himself as he draws the cartoon and a caption telling his son Billy to 'hurry up and get this in the fax machine to the Syndicate right away, or it will be too late for the Sunday papers ...' :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #1 ****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27026; 2 Jan 93 23:48 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11932 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:22:28 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15194 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:22:02 -0600 Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:22:02 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301030322.AA15194@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #2 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Jan 93 21:22:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 2 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (Roger B.A. Klorese) Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (James Borynec) Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (Todd Lawrence) Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (Dave Ptasnik) Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (Hans-Gabriel Ridder) Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works (E. Siegman Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works (Jon Sreekanth) Re: Anybody Know of LARGE Modem Server Systems? (Tom Benham) Re: Anybody Know of LARGE Modem Server Systems? (Paul Schauble) Re: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charges (Albrecht) Re: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charges (A. Dunn) Re: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charges (Forrette) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:59:16 GMT Organization: QueerNet John Higdon : > How soon we forget. Hours after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, I > tried at some length to get though to my home from southern > California. All circuits were busy. Then I tried Sprint. The call > went right through. Discussions right here on the Digest pointed to > the policy of AT&T of purposely restricting incoming access to a > disaster area. I, for one, was very grateful for the fact that AT&T's > policies are not always imitated by the competitors. I am, personally, very grateful that AT&T's policy was as it was. It enabled me to *reach* my loved ones outside the area quickly when I *could* get to a phone and *chose* to contact them, rather than being locked out by my neighbor's Aunt Minnie calling their answering machine to see if the cat was OK. The disaster area residents should be in control of the flow of information and the resources used to achieve it. AT&T made a splendid call on that one. ROGER B.A. KLORESE +1 415 ALL-ARFF rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk ------------------------------ From: james@cs.ualberta.ca (James Borynec; AGT Researcher) Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 21:19:40 -0700 On 25 Dec 92 21:26:00 GMT, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) said: > I would have thought that by now AT&T would have stopped its annoying > practice of drastically reducing its capacity on holidays. A number of > AT&T employees have told me that for reasons that are not very clear, > the company has traditionally blocked off a major amount of the > system's capacity on various holidays such as Christmas and Mother's > Day. Network managers, traditionally have two means of controlling high-volume traffic. They can either re-route or they can block. Re-routing is useful if the place they route it to has capacity to spare. Selective Blocking can actually RAISE the number of completed calls by stopping calls that would fail anyway before they chew up any more trunks. Under traditional signalling schemes, a call attempt will aquire available trunks until it either succeeds and is billed or fails and releases the trunks. In the second case, no money comes to the telco. The Telco (AT&T in this case) seeks to avoid the second case, in order to maximize revenue. j.b. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... From: todd@valinor.mythical.com (Todd Lawrence) Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 01:25:01 CST > The Amateur Radio Emergency Service and National Traffic System hold > health and welfare inquiries until the disaster scene is ready to > accept them, placing a much higher priority on real emergency traffic. > I recall hearing a few years ago that AT&T long distance circuits were > setup to limit incoming calls, when necessary, so outgoing calls > always would have circuits available. I have an old (four or five years old) AT&T trunk service/reference guide that has a passage to the effect that upon reaching 60-70% trunk group saturation, 4ESS will return a reorder to all but callers with a priority class of service code. I do not know if this practice is still in effect but I would suspect that something very similar is for exactly the reasons mentioned in the preceding thread. Todd Lawrence LOD! Communications internet : todd@valinor.mythical.com IMF Data Acquisition Group uucp : uunet!valinir!todd ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 10:32:49 -0800 (PST) From: Dave Ptasnik Reply-To: Dave Ptasnik Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... On 25 Dec 92 21:26:00 GMT, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) said: > I would have thought that by now AT&T would have stopped its annoying > practice of drastically reducing its capacity on holidays. A number of > AT&T employees have told me that for reasons that are not very clear, > the company has traditionally blocked off a major amount of the > system's capacity on various holidays such as Christmas and Mother's > Day. This is the real reason you get the "All Circuits Busy" > recording, not because there is an inordinate amount of traffic. > Naturally, there is no trouble calling anyone on Sprint or MCI since > these companies do not engage in this silly ritual of network choking. To which andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) replied: > They also don't have anywhere near the market share, which means their > networks aren't presented with anywhere near the load. I *have* heard > that the OCCs have more headroom, since they have all those trunk > routes in place but lower market share ... > Maybe one of my ex-colleagues will address this issue? From a previous life as an OCC vendor, I'm not at all surprised that MCI and Sprint provide better service on holidays. They have a higher percentage of business customers than AT&T. Business have higher long distance bills, and therefore more incentive to search out low rates. Most residential users (probably no one who reads this list) have very little long distance usage, so rates are not a significant factor in their LD choices. They are more interested in reliablilty and ease of use. AT&T at least provides the perception that they are the best for these. With a higher percentage of business usage, most OCC's have very little traffic on their switches at nights, on weekends, and holidays. The trunks that are busily full during the day sit idle. We used to periodically get directives from our switch manager to sell more residential accounts, and try to busy up the lines at night a little more. We were paying fixed monthly charges on the lines, as well as usage charges. More evening traffic let us better afford the fixed monthlies, as well as helping our rate taper charges (don't mean to be obscure with that term, if you don't know what rate taper on WATS lines was all about, you didn't miss much). Unfortunately finding residential users with long distance bills in excess of, say, $50.00/month was really tough and time consuming. Mangement actually started paying us bonuses for res customers. I think I'm glad again that I'm not doing that any more. All of the above is nothing more than the personal opinion of - Dave Ptasnik davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: ridder@zowie.zso.dec.com (Hans) Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:02:22 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > BTW, some AT&T tech called yesterday to tell me that the blocking that > I experienced on Christmas Day was the result of my local telco, not > AT&T. Yeah, right. And just whose recording is "408-2T"? The recording I was getting when trying the big three carriers was "206-2T". It sounded the same on each carrier. Wouldn't that make you think it was an LEC issue? Hans-Gabriel Ridder DECwest Engineering, Bellevue, Washington, USA Any opinions expressed are not those of my employer, honest. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 14:02:56 PST From: Anthony E. Siegman Subject: Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works Organization: Stanford University Concerning this issue, let me post the following suggestion once again, because it seems to be a good, workable, practical, effective proposal: Enact legislation requiring that all telemarketing calls come with Caller-ID from a uniquely designated area code prefix, like 600, 700, whatever. No freedom of speech issues are involved; the technical/economic burden on the telemarketer is very modest and affordable; no central data banks are required; and individuals can block or not as they choose, at very low cost, with no effect on the rest of their telephone usage. It's just like marking special advertising inserts in magazines as "Advertising" on each page, so you know what you're getting. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 09:47:24 -0500 From: jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) Subject: Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works In article burgoyne@access.digex.com writes: > Simple mechanisms exist to prevent autodialers from reaching you. ... > I assume, therefore, that there is another device out there which > *DOES* identify whether the calling party is human or machine, and can > block all calls from one or the other. I also assume that this is > available for a price that the average person can afford, and is not a > hassle to them to use (i.e., you don't force the caller to go through > a menu or anything just to get to you -- it all happens behind the > scenes). Yes, what _are_ the simple mechanisms? One I can think of is: answer the phone silently. Outbound message gadgets probably wait for the called party to say something ("Hello ") before beginning their spiel. At the expense of confusing some of your human callers, have a box at your end pick up the incoming call, wait silently for voice energy, and then ring you. Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc. Fax and PC products 5 Walden St #3, Cambridge, MA 02140 (617) 876-8019 jon_sree@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: tbenham@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Tom Benham) Subject: Re: Anybody Know of LARGE Modem Server Systems? Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 03:09:32 GMT vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) writes: > In article mtndew!friedl@uunet.UU.NET > writes: >> I have a customer who may need to set up a huge number of modem >> lines to service incoming calls to his UNIX system, and he wants to >> find a system that already does this rather than roll his own. While >> we could probably do it ourselves for small numbers of lines (say, up >> to 32), these may just not scale up very well to handling several >> hundred modems and serial lines and phone lines. Digiboard has a line of serial concentrators. You might try them. IBM also sells some RS6000 stuff that allows many lines in. Tom ------------------------------ From: pls@cibecue.az05.bull.com (Paul Schauble) Subject: Re: Anybody Know of LARGE Modem Server Systems? Organization: Bull HN Information Systems, Inc., Phoenix Product Division Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 08:13:06 GMT The request for a modem server for lots of modems brings up something I've been wondering about for a long time: Lots of modems means lots of incoming phone lines. First question: At what point does it become cheaper to have an incoming T1 or T3 line and a switch on site? Second question: once you reach this point, the signal path becomes: - incoming DIGITAL signal delivered via Tx carrier - DIGITAL signal deliver to line card. - line card converts signal to ANALOG - ANALOG signal carried via wire pair to modem. - modem (usually) converts signal to DIGITAL - modem feeds DIGITAL signal to DSP to demodulate. This multiple conversion seems silly. Doesn't anyone make a modem that can directly eat the demultiplexed Tx data? Or better, eat the T1 signal directly? ++PLS ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 16:33:02 CST From: bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht) Subject: Re: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charges In article stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > The Moderator noted: >> discovered that in the two or three seconds the phone was off hook >> (with dial tone) before the autodialer started doing its thing, his >> pocket tone dialer could cut that dial tone and let him call anywhere >> on the store's nickle. Provided he got his digits dialed before the >> autodialer cut in, telco accepted his digits and ignored those from >> the device. > There are auto-dialers available that prevent this. I tried this > trick with the elevator phone in our building. When you take the > phone off-hook, you hear dialtone, then hear it dial the answering > service for the elevator company. As soon as the dialer hears a > touchtone generated from the headset, it hangs up the line. Boy, they > won't let anybody have any phun these days! Wouldn't it be easiest to rig a circuit that disconnects the handset circuitry until the phone had completed the predetermined dial sequence? I suppose, to be safe, it would also need to recognize the dial-tone so that it would cut the handset out if someone left the phone off the hook after disconnect. bruce@zuhause.mn.org ------------------------------ From: Andrew M. Dunn Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada Subject: Re: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charges Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 01:52:40 GMT In article stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > trick with the elevator phone in our building. When you take the > phone off-hook, you hear dialtone, then hear it dial the answering > service for the elevator company. As soon as the dialer hears a > touchtone generated from the headset, it hangs up the line. Boy, they > won't let anybody have any phun these days! Seems to me there'd be a _much_ easier way to do this. Simply add a set of contacts on the autodialer which close after the sequence is dialed (most autodialers work that way anyhow, with some sort of 'end' circuit). Use this to close the outbound voice path. That way, nothing from the mic gets sent until _after_ the number's dialed. Solves the problem quite neatly. Andy Dunn or ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charges Date: 2 Jan 1993 01:21:55 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > There are auto-dialers available that prevent this. I tried this > trick with the elevator phone in our building. When you take the > phone off-hook, you hear dialtone, then hear it dial the answering > service for the elevator company. As soon as the dialer hears a > touchtone generated from the headset, it hangs up the line. Boy, they > won't let anybody have any phun these days! > [Moderator's Note: Now that is interesting! I wonder how they do it? > Apparently if the autodialer hears a tone, and *it* did not make the > tone, it disconnects. Is that how it works? PAT] Yes, this is exactly what it does. The reason I was trying to dial out is that I was calling the ANAC number to get the elevator's phone number. Then, I was going to call it when co-workers were in it to conduct the 'elevator survey' that was talked about here a couple of years ago. But, I suspect that if the auto-dialer is smart enough to prevent me manually dialing with a pocket dialer, that it probably blocks incoming calls from reaching the phone as well. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com [Moderator's Note: I've seen elevators with autodialers on their phones but quite a few have a direct ring-down circuit instead. That is, you take it off hook and it immediatly starts ringing the other end of the dedicated wire. In the 77 West Washington Building downtown, (Chicago Temple Building) each elevator has a ring-down phone which rings to the elevator supervisor in the lobby on a multi-line phone with several buttons. Going off hook in the elevator lights a button on his phone; if he goes off hook it rings the elevator phone associated with that line/button. There is an 'extension' phone with many buttons in the elevator machine room on the 21st floor so the building engineer or elevator mechanic can also talk to people in each car. The lobby supervisor can talk to the 21st floor via the building's PBX system. He also has an illuminated panel which tells him where each car happens to be in the shaft at that moment and if it is moving or sitting there, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #2 ****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29450; 3 Jan 93 0:35 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07753 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:14:53 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28980 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:14:30 -0600 Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:14:30 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301030414.AA28980@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #3 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Jan 93 22:14:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 3 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (John R. Levine) Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (Shrikumar) Re: EasyLink and Internet? (Steven H. Lichter) Re: Easylink and Internet? (Jim Gorak) Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes (Doug Sewell) Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes (Dave Grabowski) Re: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem (Tom Benham) Re: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem (Jim Budler) Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY via AT&T? (Bob Yazz) Re: GTE Betting the Bankroll on Wireless (Dave Ptasnik) Re: More Idiocy From GTE (Andy Sherman) Re: How to Prepare For the Startup of an AM Radio Tower Nearby (Nick Sayer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 2 Jan 93 11:36:23 EST (Sat) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) > [Zounds! The whole calling card number is on the mag stripe.] I think you will find that historically with telco calling cards there hasn't been a distinction made between a "non-secret" part, the first ten digits, and a "secret" part, the last four. In years past when calling fraud wasn't such an issue, the check code was so simple that the operator could validate it as the call was placed by checking a little cheat sheet. If a calling card number was compromised, the telco would issue an entirely made up number in which the fourth digit was a 1. The only use to date that I have found for the mag stripe on a calling card is in the card reader phones found mostly at airports, which read the whole calling card number and stuff it down the line at the appropriate time as you're making a phone call. These phones are already hard enough to use, and I suspect that if they read ten digits from the card and asked you to enter the other four by hand, nobody would use them at all. If you are concerned about the security of your calling card, leave it at home. Every phone I've ever seen that reads calling cards also lets you punch in the number by hand. Admittedly, then you have to look out for shoulder surfers, but I guess this again proves that there's no free lunch. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 13:22:35 -0500 From: shri%unreal@cs.umass.edu Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud Organization: UMass, Amherst MA + Temporal Sys & Computer Networks Bombay India In article cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us wrote: > I've been working on a credit card / phone project, and discovered > something that is probably known to many but was news to me: My PIN is > _on_ my calling card! Recorded on Track 2, offset 23 characters after > the SS. In the clear. I believe the bankcard passwords are also often in the clear in the ISO mag stripe. Shudder! Remember having read something to that effect on the net. Could some please deny ... please .. please! Or do the ATMs check with the central computer each time (hope the traffic is encrypted.) shrikumar (shri@legato.cs.umass.edu) ------------------------------ From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: Re: EasyLink and Internet? Date: 2 Jan 1993 16:57:18 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) As far as I can tell you could always send to Internet from EasyLink. In the help files it tells you how. A bit costly I would guess, but if you needed to send a message I guess the cost would not matter. I tried it once when I first got on Internet and it worked fine. I was even able to send one to myself on GTEMail. As time passes more of the systems seem to be linking. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 06:24 GMT From: Jim Gorak <0003735974@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Easylink and Internet? dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb) writes: > I have long understood that sending email between EasyLink and > Internet was out of the question. ....(part deleted) > Can anyone tell me there has been a change of policy at EasyLink re. > Internet mail? Can we send to EasyLink? If so, what is the proper > set-up for the address envelope? Can they send to us? What does the > address look like? There are a couple of ways to address e-mail from the Internet to an AT&T Easylink subscriber. I have been using the "Easy" way. I'm not sure that this official but, so far, it has worked every time for me. You need to find out the Easylink subscriber's Easylink number (ELN), i.e. 62925933, which is my Easylink number. the Internet address is: 62925933@eln.attmail.com An Easylink subscriber can send to an Internet address bu using the following format: (i.e. for dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu) IPM PRIMARY COUNTRY US ADMD ATTMAIL ORG UUCP DDA ID-internet(b)dnewcomb(a)whale.st.usm.edu END+ (message text...) " " " " " " (message text...) MMMM Hope this works for you. Regards, Jim Gorak X.400 S=Gorak;DDA:ID=3735974;A=MCI;C=US | Internet 3735974@mcimail.com MCI Jim Gorak / 373-5974 | CompuServe >MCIMAIL:373-5974 Telex 6503735974 "6503735974MCI UW" | Tele-Home +1 414 541 2007 Post 3231 S. Landl Lane #108 | Tele-Work +1 414 792 5580 Milwaukee, WI 53227-4474 USA | Tele-FAX +1 414 792 5598 ------------------------------ From: doug@CC.YSU.EDU (Doug Sewell) Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 14:22:56 GMT say,halim s (ssay@prefect.cc.bellcore.com) wrote: > Does anyone know or could you tell me a reference for this "standard"? > I am sure some address generator software would have this algorithm. Here's the algorithm (about two months ago I translated it into a 4GL language for our DBMS. There was also an article in a recent PC magazine including source code). Your post was pretty well on-the-money. Here's the algorithm (with a disclaimer that I'm working from memory after having glanced briefly at the code last week, and double-checked it against the bar-codes of some bills I have to mail): (1) Coding can be five digits (rare), nine digits (most common) and more to include house codes/street address numbers (this is not very common yet). (2) You have a tall start bar, N+1 sets of five bars (the +1 is a check digit) and a tall stop bar. The tall bars are ones, and the short bars are zeros. The code is self-clocking (that's scanner termin- ology). (3) There will always be two tall bars and three short bars. The bars are numbered 7, 4, 2, 1, and 0 and are summed together (with the means that 0-9 are: 0 - 11000 1 - 00011 2 - 00101 3 - 00110 4 - 01001 5 - 01010 6 - 01100 7 - 10001 8 - 10010 9 - 10100 (4) The check digit is 10 - mod(sum of digits,10). So for 32232-5121 the check-digit is 9 (3+2+2+3+2+5+1+2+1 = 21, 10 - mod(21,10) - 9. For 43218-2210 it's 7, for 50360-0001, it's 5. Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University doug@cc.ysu.edu doug@ysub.bitnet !cc.ysu.edu!doug ------------------------------ From: dcg5662@hertz.njit.edu (Dave Grabowski) Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J. Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 02:05:47 GMT {The New York Times} had a short article with diagram that explained the mysterious barcodes on January 28, 1990. Here's the gist (jist?) of it: Bars are divided into sets of five. Within a set, each bar, left-to-right, represents the numbers 7, 4, 2, 1, and 0. In each set of bars, only two are tall. These two represent the numbers that should be added to get a digit. (By convention, 7 + 4 = 0). The barcode starts and ends with a tall bar. The check digit is the number that would be required so that the sum of all digits plus the check digit is evenly divisible by ten. i.e., if the zip+4 code was 15230-9821 (digits add to 31), the check digit would be 9, because 31+9=40, which is divisible by 10. Dave Kappa Xi Kappa - Over & Above! dcg5662@hertz.njit.edu 9 Sussex Ave., Newark, NJ (car theft capital USA) 70721.2222@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: tbenham@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Tom Benham) Subject: Re: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 03:02:28 GMT bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) writes: > I don't sell ZyXELs, but thought I'd throw in my $0.02 to aid in the > discussion of such fancy modems. On the topic of modems. DO any of these modems also support synchronous transmission for HDLC? I was looking at Motorola's line and they apparently have two different lines: one 'Sync-UP' and the other 'FasTalk'. It is not clear to me why there should be two lines of modems. Currently I've got a V.32b+Fax+++ async modem, but it does NOT support synchronous xmit which I need for SDLC connections. Guidance appreciated. Tom ------------------------------ From: jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) Subject: Re: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem Organization: Silvar-Lisco Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 07:06:10 GMT The PPI modem doesn't currently do Caller-ID. I'm using one right now. It could probably offer it with a firmware change, but it doesn't. Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com Silvar-Lisco 72415.01200@compuserve.com 703 E. Evelyn Ave. jimb47@netcom.com Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 +1.408.991.6115 ------------------------------ From: Bob Yazz From: yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz) Subject: Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY via AT&T? Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 21:26:52 GMT John Higdon writes: > But what people do not understand is that those preciously private > telephone numbers will soon be displayed out of state on a wide scale. > It is only other CALIFORNIANS that will not see the number displayed. You don't seriously believe such a state of affairs will stand, do you John? The PUC will order that numbers not be delivered, period. I can even see the potential for lawsuits against Pac Bell over this. Sounds like an incentive to switch to a long distance company that does not use SS7. How do you think AT&T might feel about this? Bob Yazz ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1992 11:09:07 -0800 (PST) From: Dave Ptasnik Subject: Re: GTE Betting the Bankroll on Wireless willard!peri@gatech.edu (Leigh Melton) wrote: > GTE is betting the bankroll on wireless systems. It's the number one > priority in Stamford HQ, or so I'm told by a friend who works for GTE. > They apparently feel that wireless is their chance to "dig ATT's > grave" and finally beat Ma Bell at a *different* game, as they never > could using current systems. So far, the wireless PBX seems to be the > item that everyone is drooling over. I love it! The telco with one of the worst basic dial tone reputations in the business is chasing a silly pipe dream. Why can't these guys get a clue and start improving the one thing that is their bread and butter. They should be offering more and more dial tone features for basic service, ISDN at realistic prices with realistic features, Caller ID (at least at the Higdon estate), etc. But NOOOOOOOOO, they have to play games with selling equipment. "Wireless" PBX's will continue to be a very small part of the market for a long time. They still require a ton of wiring (all those little antennas and mux's all over the building). The equipment cost is higher on a per phone basis, so is not practical for large phones with lots of feature keys that sit on desks. Most people don't really want to carry a small personal phone around with them all the time, they leave their offices to avoid phones. Many women's outfits don't have pockets or belts for storing the phones. Because the sets have to be small and light, they tend to be number code intensive for feature activation, customers LOVE codes ;-). Sure cordless is great for some people in some applications. But certainly not most people and most applications. I'm sure AT&T is quaking with fear, and GTE rate payers and stockholders are gibbering with glee. Once again everyday users will see rates go up, and/or slow feature realeases, and/or service degredation to pay for this latest folly. C'mon GTE, get a life. All of the above is nothing more than the personal opinion of - Dave Ptasnik davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: More Idiocy From GTE Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 16:46:52 EST On 28 Dec 92 15:07:25 GMT, mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair) said: > As I'm at a friends house, I decide to put the call on calling card. > 102880+10D. GTE. Huh ...? I know this is intralata but I > told them to use AT&T. They can't override my choice of carrier can > they? Try it again except as 102880 + 7D (713 has gone 1/0 + 10D on > all LD calls but who knows what GTE is doing). GTE. Local exchange carriers look at the whole number before passing it off to an IXC, precisely because of what you tried to do. AT&T is very likely not tariffed to carry that call, so the switch knows better than you do, and routes it via the LEC. However, AT&T issued CIID card should still be good for a GTE carried call. AT&T has reciprocal card verification and billing agreements with virtually every LEC in the country so that your AT&T card is AOS-proof and OCC-proof but not LEC-proof. (That is a feature, not a bug). Andy Sherman Salomon Inc - Unix Systems Support - Rutherford, NJ (201) 896-7018 - andys@sbi.com or asherman@sbi.com "These opinions are mine, all *MINE*. My employer can't have them." ------------------------------ From: mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) Subject: Re: How to Prepare For the Startup of an AM Radio Tower Nearby Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'. Date: 03 Jan 1993 02:56:23 UTC jrg@bertha.att.com writes: > Can anyone suggest any measurements, recordings, or other things that > should be done now, before broadcasting starts, that will help if we > need to later complain to the FCC about interference, bad phone noise, > etc.? If there are any firms that specialize in this type of > measurment, their names or numbers would be appreciated. This pushes one of my hot buttons. In the vast majority of cases the interference is the fault of the home electronics equipment designers who failed to adequately shield the equipment from high density RF fields. In all but the tiniest minority of cases the transmitter in question is operating entirely normally, legally, and totally within the norms of modern engineering practice. In many cases it is simply the sight of an antenna that gets the xenophobes working. It is common practice for a new Amateur Radio operator in the neighborhood to put up an antenna without connecting it to a transmitter for a month or two. Invariably a couple RFI complaints come in from the xenophobic community. The solution is to make consumer electronics less susceptable to RFI. The FCC has jurisdiction over susceptability regulation of all home electronics. They have chosen to abrogate that responsibility in favor of letting the manufacturers have their own way. If you suspect that the transmitter is emitting harmonics or other out-of-band emissions, then you can indeed sick the FCC on them. It is incredibly unlikely that a commercial station would put out illegal amounts of spur simply because spurs cost money A) in fines from the FCC and grief from the guy at double the frequency and B) it's wasted energy and therefore wasted money (a 7 kW FM transmitter with a -13 dB spur is putting out 350 watts on that spur. That's 10% waste. Techies: Yes, a -13 dB spur is pretty outrageous, and the math is simplified, but it sort of illustrates the idea). There is one exception: CB stations with (illegal) amplifiers almost always throw out spurs because the operators of those stations don't know how to tune the amp properly. This is NOT the case with Amateur radio stations (yes, Virginia, there is a bloody huge difference) -- for one thing the amps in the Amateur service aren't illegal (Hams can use up to 1500 watts PEP, CBers can use about 5 [I forget the actual number, but it's very tiny]). So what to do? 1. Don't be a xenophobe. If it's not bothering your home electronics, don't throw a tantrum! 2. If it IS causing you trouble, it is PROBABLY because your device is susceptable NOT because the transmitter is doing something wrong. Call the transmitting agency with this attitude and you'll be a lot more likely to get help than if you call 'em up and insist that everything was fine before they came along. Being the cause of RFI and being "at fault" are two entirely different things. 3. Tell the FCC that the consumer electronics industry is entirely incapable of regulating susceptability in consumer electronics, as they have proven quite conclusively. Nick Sayer N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest' PGP 2.1 public key on request ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #3 ****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03908; 3 Jan 93 1:59 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32213 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:46:20 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26423 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:45:57 -0600 Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:45:57 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301030545.AA26423@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #4 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Jan 93 23:46:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 4 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Recent East Coast Storm (Dave Niebuhr) Re: X.25 Switch Vendor Info Please (Tom Benham) Re: Loaned Phones/Courtesy Phones (Was AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#) (S. Howard) Re: Loaned Phones/Courtesy Phones (Was AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#) (Pelliccio) Re: No Link Between Location and CO? (David Tamkin) Re: DID as Replacement For Caller ID? (John Higdon) Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... (Martin McCormick) Re: Looking For Small-Handset Cordless Phone (Will Martin) Re: SNET Rate Request (Seng-Poh Lee) Re: New Call Feature (was Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works) (A. Siegman) Re: What Are the Prefix "Codes" For Tone Dialing? (Gordon Burditt) Re: PRO-34 Wanted (Craig R. Watkins) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 07:57:03 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: The Recent East Coast Storm In TELECOM Digest Volume 12 : Issue 928 jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET (Jeffrey Jonas) writes: [ report about storm damage in NYC deleted ] > [Moderator's Note: You are correct. Not a word was mentioned here. I > did not see it personally, and no one bothered to write about it. :( > Thanks for bringing it up. PAT] Long Island took a *major* hit. Places like Bayville, located on a peninsula jutting into Long Island Sound, were cut off completely from the mainland of the island for days. The damage there was unbelievable; houses destroyed, roads washed out, electricity out and variable telco service. Ditto Eaton's Neck and Asharoken. Downtown Port Jefferson, located directly on the Sound, was under several feet of water. Docks were washed out and the ferry terminal was severely damaged from the wind and waves. A friend of ours who lives in Nassau County and right on the ocean spent the night on the top floor of her apartment building. Her car had water up to the top of the tires. Downtown Riverhead, located on a small river (anyone who has seen a major river wouldn't call this one a river), had flood waters up to the tops of cars. My wife works there and had to find an alternate route home. Orient Point was cut off from the Island when a causeway became damaged after a barge (whatever that was doing there) hit a bridge on the causeway. Damage: No electricity or telco service (really bad since the only way to get water there is by wells with electric pumps). Orient Point is on the easternmost tip of the North Fork of Long Island. Fire Island, which protects the mainland was breached in two places: One was a 500 foot gap which looks like a new inlet; the other is 100 feet wide. Both are pouring sand and water into the south shore bays and upsetting the salinity levels. This can wipe out what is left of the clamming and fishing industry there. Robert Moses State Park, located on Fire Island, saw the near undercutting of a road in front of a lighthouse which used to have about 100 feet of beach in front of it. Almost 50 homes on Fire Island washed out to sea or were destroyed in place. Some are so cut off that one local township has said: "No more road rebuilding to them. We (the taxpayers) can't afford it." There were one or two lives lost due directly to the storm. Other than that injuries were minimal if at all. During the course of the storm, the winds seemed like they were of hurricane force and probably were in some places. Nassau and Suffolk Counties were declared disaster areas last week thus clearing the way for federal aid. On a sad note, the Nassau County of the American Red Cross has gone broke. It had spent a lot of money last August when Hurricane Andrew struck Florida and the Gulf states. This was money and supplies that they contributed to the relief effort. Red Cross officials said that this storm will take $500,000 (US) of their 1.5 million budget which has nearly been exhausted by this time of the year. How did the storm affect me personally? Not much. I lost electricity for 2 1/2 hours. Telco service was available all of the time. I live 1.5 miles from the Great South Bay to the south and east and never had to worry about flood damage. Some of my wife's colleagues were, though and they had to evacuate. There were a lot of complaints about electricity service from the Long Island Lighting Company for outages. LILCO's way of doing things is to restore service to the greatest area first and then go after the smaller ones. One problem was that just when one area was restored, another would go out. Some days, no one can win. To their credit, I will congratulate LILCO and NYTel for their efficiency and dedication in restoring their respective services. Neither of these utilities is on my Christmas Card list, nor will they ever be. However credit must be given where it is due. I apologize to PAT and others for not reporting in sooner but the holidays got in the way and the storm came just before they did. What an ufortunate occurrance. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: Thanks for passing along your very sad note. I guess the storm in Florida late in the summer occupied so much attention and took so many resources the events in California (big fire which went on for a long time destroying many things) and New York early in December were given a short-shrift in the media as well as relief agencies whose funds were dangerously low as a result of the Florida horror. 1992 was a very bad year disaster-wise in the USA with the various events both of nature and the total social breakdown which occurred in Los Angeles in April. Here in Chicago, 1992 was the second most murderous year in our city's history with over 900 murders committed in the city alone. Saddest of all, about 200 of the persons killed were under age 21; about two dozen were small children -- about two youngsters per month are gunned down in our public schools here, usually as a result of their gang-affiliations or lack of same. :( We here in Chicago are fully expecting a major riot ala Los Angeles in the next year or two. With luck (see my tongue in cheek), the New Yorkers and Californians will get their tribulations by fire and flood out of the way early in the new year and thus get the attention and relief assistance they deserve before it all runs out. :( PAT] ------------------------------ From: tbenham@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Tom Benham) Subject: Re: X.25 Switch Vendor Info Please Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 03:14:05 GMT rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes: > jchen@ctt.bellcore.com writes: >> A foreign company would like to purchase a few small X.25 switches >> from an US company. I am collecting information for them. > Be aware that X.25 packet switches fall under the COCOM export > controls. You will need an export license, and can't ship at all to > some countries. As Phil Karn said at the time: I don't know about export controls, but IBM sells software that runs on PCs that lets you build an X.25 net. A friend of mine and I were thinking of selling it in the Carribean, but opted for other greener pastures. In addition, you can also build a very expensive X.25 net on an SNA backbone. I know no one in his right mind would want to do this, but it is possible. Tom ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 9:28:24 MST From: Steve Howard Subject: Re: Loaned Phones/Courtesy Phones (Was AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#) In article Bob_Frankston@frankston.com writes: >> COCOTs have. People who rent out their homes or condos have similar >> issues with loaning their phones to others. > Things you can currently do: > 1) Ask for a toll restriction. In one place I had to pay a one time > charge. In another there was a monthly charge. (Not altogether > sure about which was which but I think the monthly charger was > Illinois Bell, the other one Southwestern Bell. Other differences > were being able to reach Operator. > Of course a toll restricted phone is of somewhat limited utility but a > lot better than having driving to a payphone for even local calls. > Incoming long-distance calls are of course not restricted. And if you > happen to have a calling card you can even get direct dial rates (from > AT&T at least) if you tell the LD operator (800 numbers can be > dialed) that you are at a toll-restricted phone. A solution that I recommend to some of my clients is to: (1) order selective class of call screening from the LEC (this is toll restriction with 0+ and no 10XXX), (2) Contact an IXC that offers toll-restriction, forced authorization code validation, and commission on 0+ calls, (3) have your line PICed to the carrier found in step 2, and (4) order collect and third party block. Under this scenario, your transient guests can place calls (on which you make commission), you are protected from toll charges, and the owner/authorized persons can make calls at direct dial rates by using their authorization code. Steve Howard Breckenridge Ski Resort steveh@paradise.breck.com Disclaimer = The opinions above do not necessarily represent those of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 18:38:20 EST From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: Loaned Phones/Courtesy Phones (Was AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#) In regards to loaned telephones and blocking access to tolls and 900/976 number, I believe Radio Shack sells a unit for under 100 bucks that completely restricts toll calling. Just allows you to dial straight seven digits, not much else. Tony Pelliccio pjj125 @ uriacc.uri.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 13:20 CST From: dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) Subject: Re: No Link Between Location and CO? Organization: Contributor Account at ddsw1, Chicago, Illinois 60657 Randy Gellens wrote in : > When I called to find out what prefixes I could be on and which > switch types, I received some conflicting information. It seems that > I could be served by any of three COs, with 19 prefixes, and a mix of > 1, 1A and 5 ESS switches. Even though the total area served by the > COs is rather large, it appears as though any location within the > total area could be served by any of the three. Anywhere else I've > been, each CO has a defined area it serves. > Is this the case? Why does PacBell do it this way? In Chicago two Illinois Bell CO's are in the same building at 10 S. Canal Street. Although some prefixes are wired from Canal East and some from Canal West, they can appear anywhere in the service area. One company I used to deal with had, in the same office, voice lines on the Canal West 312-648 prefix and data lines on the Canal East 312-715 prefix. The matter of voice vs. data wasn't the issue either, because virtually every voice phone line in Sears Tower is wired from Canal East (312-993 or 312-876, mostly), and AT&T's original Redi- Access node for downtown Chicago was out of Canal West (312-454). Are the three CO's at three different locations? David W. Tamkin Box 59297 Northtown Station, Illinois 60659-0297 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com CompuServe: 73720,1570 MCI Mail: 426-1818 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 00:49 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: DID as Replacement For Caller ID? TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM writes: > It's still *very* expensive except for people who have the kind of > money that they are willing to spend upwards of three grand to put PBX > capability in their multi-million dollar houses. I never claimed that CNID workarounds would be cheap or even only moderately expensive. Actually, the most practical workaround is an 800 number delivered via direct trunk from a long distance carrier. This is universal, unblockable, and works from anywhere in the country. There are no pending actions before any regulatory body to change the ability of end users from receiving callers' numbers in real time. All it takes is money, something available to businesses and individuals with means. My hat is off to the activists. Once again, they have managed to keep a useful technology out of the hands of the average person, while businesses (you know, those nasty types who will abuse the knowledge of your phone number when you call for inquiry) are using 800 numbers in ever-increasingly creative ways. It sure is a good thing that the activists pay good lip service to the cause by disliking ANI delivery a whole lot! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 04:52:22 -0600 From: martin@datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu The talk about static on AM radios being useful is only the tip of the iceberg. Let's suppose you are blind and you have given your PC something monumental to do such as sort a large amount of data or search for a key word in a huge document. Two things can happen which can drive someone to strong drink. The software may print a running status message, telling you that all is well each time it does something right. Who wants to be told 5,000 times that everything is OK? Some program setups may do their work silently, but one wonders if the machine is sleeping or working. If it takes 30 minutes, for instance to search a huge document for a key word, one doesn't expect to hear anything for a while. If something terrible happens like a crash, the effect sounds the same until 45 minutes, 50 minutes, etc have gone by and you realize that the whole time has been a waste. Hear's the fix. Take a portable AM or FM radio and place it near the computer. Tune around until you find a whine or buzz that suits your ears. It should be possible to find a signal which varies when the computer is doing something and stays relatively monotonous when it is hung up or idling. One doesn't have to have golden ears to be able to tell when it sounds like things have gone sour. This trick has also proved useful when doing long file transfers as it is possible to hear disturbances in the noise from the machine when data are coming in. By using a little common reasoning, one can even get some idea of whether or not there might be a problem with the data stream by listening to the cadence of packets and noting whether they seem to be steady and not halting or ragged. Try it, sometime. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 10:30:02 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Re: Looking For Small-Handset Cordless Phone Thanks to all who responded to my query! Several people suggested answering machines, but I fear these elderly people are anti-answering-machine. (My wife is like that -- she never will leave a message on anybody else's answering machine, either, except my voicemail at work, even though three of our closest friends have answering machines. When she calls them and they do not pick up, I have to take the phone from her and leave the message ... :-) I agree that it is a viable solution, but I don't think its worth trying to force them to change their attitudes at this late date. I did receive valuable pointers to a couple specific models from Panasonic and Motorola which I will follow-up on. The suggestion to modify an ordinary cordless with a handle my aunt can hold sounds good -- that might be the most cost-effective route. Thanks again, and Happy New Year to Telecom'ers worldwide! Regards, Will ------------------------------ From: splee@pd.org (Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy) Subject: Re: SNET Rate Request Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 15:20:44 -0500 (EST) > Needless to say, overall rates are up. To take my home town of > Stamford (in exchange class II) as an example, current residence rates > are: Flat $11.19, Message $7.59, and Select-a-Call $6.00. New rates > (now exchange class III) will be: HCA $15.00, ECA $25.65, and Per Call > $10.00. > It's unclear how the current Flat Rate area (which generally includes > your own town and physically adjacent ones) compares to the new HCA's > and ECA's, though SNET claims that for "most customers" the new ECA is > larger than the current Flat Rate area. Based on the flyer SNET sent me with my bill, it appears that people who need Flat Rate Calling to adjoining exchanges are going to have their bills doubled. HCA appears to only cover your own local exchange, in my case, Cheshire. That means you have to subscribe to ECA to get at least the Flat Calling area you used to have. This means my Flat rate would go from $11.19 to $25.65, just so I can maintain Flat Rate to the adjoining town. Thats more than DOUBLE! While its true that ECA is supposed to give you a wider Flat Rate calling area, SNET has not been to public about just how far an ECA each exchange will get. Seng-Poh Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 13:40:12 PST From: Anthony E. Siegman Subject: Re: New Call Feature (was Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works) Organization: Stanford University rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (Richard Nash) writes: > Sorry, but telemarketeers are a virus that require radical steps to > rid ourselves of them. That may be putting it a bit harshly (in a free country, even telemarketers have some rights), but yes, telemarketing requires some legal and social controls; and we (the targets of telemarketing) will just have to keep pushing until we get them. > My proposal is that all telemarketeers are required by law to identify > their intent to the called party's CO which would determine if the > called party wishes to receive solicitation. YES! YES! YES! This would be technically easy and inexpensive to do (just require that any telemarketing call come from a special designated prefix, like 600 or 700, or whatever); it's _all_ that's needed; it's a trivial restraint on the telemarketer's freedom; it gives the recipient full choice, to block or not. We have got to work to get this basic idea recognized and implemented. ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Re: What Are the Prefix "Codes" For Tone Dialing? Organization: Gordon Burditt Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:00:39 GMT > *65 turn on delivery of caller id (if you are subscribed) > *85 turn off delivery of caller id (why would anyone want to do this?) Because some phone companies charge for Caller-ID on a per-number- delivered basis? Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon [Moderator's Note: IBT used to do that, but starting a few months ago they no longer charge for delivery over a certain number. One monthly fee pays for it all. Another oddity IMHO here is that call screening can be turned on with *60 and turned off with *80. This is despite the fact that while within the *60 menu of things to do, one can both add and remove numbers from the repertoire. If you can add or delete whatever you want there, why bother to have a command to turn it off? Perhaps it is because IBT is not marketing Call Screening as a permanent way to get rid of troublesome callers, but merely as a way to avoid certain people at certain times of day; although I cannot imagine be willing to chat with certain numbers on my list regardless of the time of day or occassion. Ditto the feature where you can list certain callers to get the red carpet with special ringing on your end; that too can be turned off, although if your boss is an important person to hear from at 3 PM, why wouldn't he be important at 3 AM? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Craig R. Watkins Subject: Re: PRO-34 Wanted Date: 2 Jan 93 10:42:11 EST Organization: HRB Systems, Inc. In article , wah@zach.fit.edu ( Bill Huttig) writes: > I can't find any Radio Shack PRO-34 Scanners left around here ... if > any one can find one for me I would be gald to pay the $39 + shipping > + misc to receive one. Yesterday I was in Radio Shack for some parts (just let those Radio Shack bashers tell me where else I can get parts on New Year's Day during halftime in the middle of nowhere in Pennsylvania!) and I asked about the PRO-34. It was really $39 -- I saw it on the computer screen. However, the guys behind the counter said it was discontinued about a year ago and anything at a price like that gets snapped up by employees. They claimed that regional folks even get together every-so-often to swap discontinued items between stores (and often they are for employee purchase). They wished me good luck finding one (well, actually, I already have one), so I will wish the same to you. [Moderator's Note: Well I must say it is the finest scanner radio I have ever owned, and I've had several over the years, beginning with the old crystal units twenty or so years ago; and before that I had a tunable VHF receiver which I bought from Radio Shack's predecessor company Allied Radio, circa 1960-65. Allied's HQ was right here in Chicago at Western and Washington Aves. What a grand store that was, and located right across the street from Olson Electronics just in case you needed to stop in there also on the way home. One complaint I have about Radio Shack is how often the staff changes in the store three blocks from my house. All new people there twice around since I bought my CT-301 phone, and three times around since I bought the PRO-34. I've purchased video cameras there also. Thousands of dollars spent in that one store alone; the current bunch of employees has no idea who I am; the people there three years ago used to drop everything to wait on me. I have my PRO-34 earphone jack wired out to a larger communications style speaker pulled from an old speaker-phone. It really sounds great that way. I still use my old Regency H-604 crystal scanner from years ago sometimes also. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #4 ****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08956; 3 Jan 93 4:12 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27808 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 Jan 1993 02:13:43 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28116 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 Jan 1993 02:13:18 -0600 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 02:13:18 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301030813.AA28116@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #5 TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Jan 93 02:13:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 5 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Mission Impossible: IBT Getting My Order Correct (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Panasonic KXT-123211 Software (Craig R. Watkins) Re: Email to Genie (Fred Ennis) Re: About a Second Line in My Home (Dave Levenson) Re: ZyXEL Modem Review (Bill Fenner) Re: Sprint 800 Residential (Ray Normandeau) Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (David Ash) Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (Sean Donelan) Re: Bell Canada Calling Card Fraud (Tony Harminc) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:45:38 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Mission Impossible: IBT Getting My Order Correct The past week has been a barrel of laughs where IBT is concerned with an order to change some service for me. On December 23, IBT was given the following instructions regarding some lines I manage: (There were): Two hunt groups: one beginning xxx-2700 with four lines following. one beginning xxx-7200 with a second line following. Two phones independent of the hunt groups, xxx-7347 and xxx-7296. On 7347, there were various features such as call waiting, three way calling, caller-id, etc. The request: Drop the 2700 hunt group entirely. Add one additional line to the 7200 hunt group making three lines in total there, with the two back lines hunted from 7200. Change the number on the line 7347 to 2700 and retain all the features that 7347 had on it, plus add voicemail from IBT. So I was dropping four of the eight lines and re-arranging the remaining four lines. I was promised the order would be done on Monday, December 28, the day the billing is cut off each month. When I went to check on the work Monday evening, here is what I found: The 7200 hunt group was done correctly. There were now three lines in the group. The numbers following 2700 in that hunt group had been turned off, but with an intercept saying 'being tested for trouble ... try again later.' That intercept recording is still on those lines, now a week later. 7347 had been replaced by 2700, but with none of the features on it (just a straight line; if in use caller got busy signal, etc). No forwarding, no call waiting, etc.) I called Monday night and complained; was told to call the Business Office on Tuesday since 'the order had been written up wrong ...'. Tuesday morning I called the Business Office. There was nothing wrong with the order said the rep; the people who work in the CO have to learn to read better. She assured me it would all be corrected that day. Tuesday night I check the (newly numbered) 2700 line. Still no features on it. I call Repair again as the Business Office suggested, and am told they can do nothing ... call the Business Office on Wednesday morning. Wednesday morning I wake up early and very cranky. I am on the line to the Business Office the minute it opens. I am put on hold, and the rep comes back to assure me, 'they are working on it right now, as we speak ... give them about an hour, call me back if problems.' Somehow I got distracted and did not get a chance to look at those phones or lines Wednesday night. Late Thursday afternoon, New Year's Eve, I go to that location. Now 2700 has all the features -- including call waiting, as witnessed by the fact that *70 responded with the tone bursts -- but they had somehow decided to make 2700 also hunt into 7200 when it was busy!! That I did not want, and I called Repair, 6 PM New Year's Eve. The clerk said no one would be around that evening, but Friday (New Year's Day) there would be someone working in the CO ... again I am assured it will be fixed. New Year's Day, about 10 AM I called Repair. 'Colleen' took my call, put me on hold, and came back to say that 'Arlene' was in the CO working on it ... wait a few minutes and see if it is okay ...'. Sure enough, about fifteen minutes later, 2700 (which is supposed to be stand alone, no hunt group but with lots of features, remember) gives a little ding-ding on the bell. I lift the receiver and hear static on the line ... no dial tone ever comes on, but there is battery present. Well, I figure, I guess it is being worked on. I test the line several minutes later by using it to dial itself, expecting to get a busy signal ... instead it rings, and instead of hunting to the 7200 line as it had been doing, now it hunts to the *second line* in the 7200 hunt group! I call back Repair, bellow loudly and the clerk puts me on hold. She comes back to say 'Arlene' will call me in a few minutes when she finishes talking to another customer. I leave the little office where these phones are located and go downstairs to (a) relieve myself and (b) get hot water for my coffee in that order ... I am on the way back upstairs and hear the phone ringing, but it stops before I get to it. Well, that's no problem, after all, what is Caller-ID for? The display screen shows a number, 312-509-something, and figuring it might be the person in the CO wanting to talk to me, I press the 'Call Back' button on the display unit. It rings and someone answers, 'Repair, Colleen speaking.' I ask did she call me, and she asks 'how did you get my direct number?' ....!!! From here on, it goes downhill ... A few minutes later, another call comes from a woman named 'Debbie' who states she is a repair supervisor in the Irving CO. Her complaint is thus: someone has 'been calling' repair on 'unauthorized numbers' and it had better stop. If I want Repair Service, the number to call is 611 and none other. I told her all I did was press the 'call back' button on the display unit and if she did not want calls on that line then the thing to do would be to block her ID; that would prevent me from calling. After all, what did she think Caller-ID was for? Furthermore, I noted, in the Centel phone book (Centel is another phone company which has a few exchanges on the northwest side of Chicago; they operate from the Chicago-Newcastle CO) it plainly says people using Centel phones who need Illinois Bell repair *cannot* dial 611 (they'll get Centel repair) and *must* dial 509-something to get IBT. Finally, I noted, instead of talking about my calls on 'unauthorized lines' maybe we should talk about how her tech staff on New Year's Day could not get their act together, and whether an appeal to the Chairman's Office on Monday would be in order ... I am put on hold ... a minute or so later, "Colleen" picks up the line to tell me I need to call the Business Office on Monday, since the order 'plainly says' that 2700 is to hunt to the second line in the 7200 hunt group .... I defied her to find me something specific in the order which said that and told her if she could, I'd come over to the CO and buy lunch for her. Back on hold I go ... I am told 'Arlene' will call now if I will hang up. So I hang up. The phone rings a second or two later, again with a number 907-something clearly displayed on the Caller-ID. It is 'Arlene' who wishes to argue with me about whether or not the order called for hunting (as opposed to call-waiting) and where it was to hunt. I told her if it is supposed to hunt, as you claim the order reads, then how come *70 works? The line has call-waiting alright, it just never gets a chance to reach that point since you have it hunting. She finally decides maybe someone transposed the digits 2700 and 7200 somehow and that is how the hunting got installed on 2700. After trying to gain some sympathy from me by telling me how she is there working on New Year's Day on overtime trying to get some jobs finished (and I try to gain her sympathy by telling her some stories from the olden-golden pre-divestiture days of telecom) she agrees to look into it and 'see what can be done'. Finally about 4 PM New Year's Day, after several calls to Repair Service and about an hour in aggregate wasted on the matter, the line is fixed, voicemail works and all the features are present. Four days after the job was due, with numerous calls, the work gets finished. Almost that is ... the xxx-7347 number (and the other discontinued numbers in the original hunt group) still have the 'being tested for trouble' intercept on the line. Obviously, someone did not close out the order. But I could care less about those numbers; they were merely being disconnected with no referral on them anyway. And 'Arlene' claims she still is unable to put a default carrier on the line ... the Business Office will have to write that part of the order all over again. I won't worry about it for now. For now, I'll be content if the software to be used on the computer associated with those lines arrives soon, gets installed and works okay. PAT ------------------------------ From: crw@icf.hrb.com (Craig R. Watkins) Subject: Re: Panasonic KXT-123211 Software Date: 2 Jan 93 15:30:05 EST Organization: HRB Systems, Inc. In article , petrisko@evax2.engr. arizona.edu (William Petrisko) writes: > Does anyone know of PC software available as a front-end to > programming the Panasonic phone system? I would also be interested. > Also (just an annoyance factor) when dialing, it seems that the > touchtone echo is *delayed* until you get to the third or fourth > digit. I believe if you decrease your CO line "Pause Time" (default: 3.5 sec) this may help your problem. I believe the PBX is delaying your tones from your CO line in order to give the CO time to provide dial tone. Craig R. Watkins crw@icf.hrb.com HRB Systems, Inc. +1 814 238-4311 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Email to Genie From: fred@page6.pinetree.org (Fred Ennis) Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 15:40:31 -0500 Organization: Page 6, Ottawa, Ontario +1 613-729-9451 > it -- with a cover note saying, "Mike, I thought this was some very > interesting stuff and hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did ..." That reminds me of a rather clever practical joke played by Stuart MacLeod, columnist at Thompson News Services in Ottawa. The victim was Geoff Scott, M.P. Members of the press gallery had been sent a book that was the story of the Portugese immigrating to Canada. The book was part English, part Portugese. There was no index, which forms the basis for the gag. Stuart sent the book to Geoff, along with a note supposedly from the author saying "I hope I quoted you correctly each time." This, of course, forced Geoff to read the entire book. Nothing to do with Telecom, but a great practial joke. All the best for the holidays. Fred Ennis, fred@page6.pinetree.org [Moderator's Note: Fred's message is like the late-arriving Christmas card. He sent it December 15; it got here Saturday afternoon! Happy holidays to you too, Fre ... what there is left of them. How I will hate my office more than ever when I have to go in Monday morning! PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: About a Second Line in My Home Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 20:17:23 GMT In article , Ben Black <76672.2564@Compu Serve.COM> writes: > I've ordered a second line in my home for computer use. There is > standard four wire cable in the wall (red/green/yellow/black.) > Can I use the unused pair (yellow/black) for the second line, saving > me the trouble of running a new pair all the way to the network > interface? You can use the second pair in a length of quad station wire for a second line, BUT: expect to find crosstalk between the first and second line. How much crosstalk will depend upon how many feet of quad you use. Voice users probably won't interfere with each other. Modem sounds will probably be faintly audible to voice users of the other line. Ringing will be the most noticable noise that bleeds through. A ring of your voice phone will likely cause a few dropped bits on your modems. I recommend, if at all possible, that you either use a separate piece of cable, or use cable with two or more twisted pairs for multi-line service. 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: fenner@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) Subject: Re: ZyXEL Modem Review Organization: Penn State Computer Science Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:02:51 -0500 In article levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) writes: > Two types of security features. One does dial back, the other works > only with another XyXEL modem. This is wrong. There are two types of security, one which asks for a password, and the other which only works with ZyXELs, which checks against the other modem's supervisory password. Either mode can allow dialback, either to one of 10 numbers based on which password matched, or the "enter-password" mode can also request a number to dial back on. The security is completely transparent to the host connected to the modem, except for the amount of time for the CONNECT message to come back. For example: Remote ZyXEL Host -------- --------- ---------- RING -> <- ATA (negotiate connection) <- PassWord = mypass -> <- Correct CONNECT 38400 -> i.e. the host doesn't see the fact that the connection occurred until the correct password has been entered. Bill ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sprint 800 Residential From: ray.normandeau@factory.com (Ray Normandeau) Date: 2 Jan 93 20:30:00 GMT Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-8298v.32bis Reply-To: ray.normandeau@factory.com (Ray Normandeau) > I'll give it the full six months, but I'm concerned about the number > of wrong numbers. It could be more trouble than it's worth. I know of a business that had AT&T 800 service and discontinued it due to too many wrong numbers. They were getting billed for calls to the number after business hourts when no one ws in the office and there was no modem fax TAD or human to pick up the phone. This is a company with the President and ONE worker. ------------------------------ From: ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash) Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University. Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:43:29 GMT In article johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > The only use to date that I have found for the mag stripe on a calling > card is in the card reader phones found mostly at airports, which read > the whole calling card number and stuff it down the line at the > appropriate time as you're making a phone call. On this topic, has anyone ever found any use at all for the mag strips on the calling cards issued by MCI and Sprint? As far as I know, even the card readers which allowing billing to these carriers won't allow the physical use of the card? David W. Ash ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu HOME: (415) 497-1629 WORK: (415) 725-3859 ------------------------------ From: sean@cobra.dra.com Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud Date: 3 Jan 93 00:34:25 CST Organization: Data Research Associates, Inc. In article , cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (gordon hlavenka) writes: > I've been working on a credit card / phone project, and discovered > something that is probably known to many but was news to me: My PIN is > _on_ my calling card! Recorded on Track 2, offset 23 characters after > the SS. In the clear. If you are working on a credit card/phone project a good introduction is "Credit Card Validation and Security" by David Jordan (MCI Corporate Systems Integrity Organization), Telecommunication Journal, Vol.59 (April 1992). Mr. Jordan wrote: "In the United States, several administrations utilize 14-digit card numbers, with the last four digits referred to as the customer PIN. For customer convenience the PIN is printed on these cards. The fraud deterrent capability associated with the use of the PIN in these implementations is negated." Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 00:52:37 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Bell Canada Calling Card Fraud Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) wrote: [quoting from a leaflet distributed with recent phone bills] > Calling cards can no longer be used as a billing option when placing > long distance calls from payphones in Bell territory to certain > destinations: > + locations in 809 area code(*) (as of October 30, 1992); > + overseas (as of April 13, 1992) unless you call from a Millenium > payphone; > In spite of these restrictions, there are still a number of ways you > can place overseas or 809 calls from payphones: > + use your American Express, Visa, Mastercard or EnRoute card in > Millenium phones (these are the "card swipe" phones); > + place a person-to-person collect call; > + bill your call to a validated third number in Canada or the United > States, or > + place a cash call from a regular payphone. This is getting bizarre. I never carry my calling card because, unlike the various other cards in my wallet, its number is valuable on its own -- without the physical card. This, of course, is because the PIN is printed right on the card, and the number (with PIN) is accepted without the card itself. Now Bell is saying I must carry the card in order to make these calls (a good start), but the PIN is still printed on the card and stored unencrypted on the magstripe. In a previous job I had access to credit card embossing and encoding equipment, and I was tempted to make copies of my calling card on credit card stock with a fake number embossed, but with the correct one on the magstripe. This solves some of the problem, but I concluded that, even though it wouldn't be illegal, I would probably spend a lot of time "helping the police with their enquiries" if I was ever found with such a card. > [Moderator's Note: Well here we go again with the telcos claiming > that 'fraud is everyone's problem ... ' it is NOT everyone's problem; > it is telco's problem. They won't install the technology to eliminate > or help reduce fraud; it is simply easier to discriminate against > large numbers of citizens whose national origin is that of an affected > country. I must say Bell Canada seems to be more open about admitting > what they do; you'll never see AT&T ever put anything in writing about > their illegal and discriminatory practices. Of course I don't know the > law in Canada; maybe Bell Canada is breaking no laws by blocking calls > in this manner. AT&T needs to have the screws turned to them harder > than ever on this issue. PAT] But note that Bell Canada is disallowing such calls to all foreign countries except the United States. They are not picking a small (and troublesome) subset as AT&T seems to have done. I think it would be pretty hard to make a case of discrimination against everyone except American immigrants. Tony Harminc [Moderator's Note: Are you *positive* that if you try to use a Bell Canada card on a call to the UK, Australia or New Zealand it won't go through? Forget what their literature says for a moment and try it. If it does go through on the card, then the very same situation exists in Canada as here: discrimination against what you term a 'troublesome subset' ... although a credit grantor can deny credit to someone who has defrauded or is attempting to defraud them, the credit grantor cannot, under the law, approve a line of credit then selectively refuse to honor that line of credit because there 'might be' fraud committed. If AT&T would put in writing in their published literature such as their 'International Calling Guide' that credit cards cannot be used on international calls to point X, Y and Z then they would have a stronger case in their favor. But in fact, their literature says just the opposite. Look in the guidebook at the little boxes checked off which indicate 'collect/credit card calls accepted to/from this country'. Nearly every country, and certainly all the verbotin places show the AT&T card as being accepted as payment. Nor can the credit grantor deny credit under some scenarios and approve it under other scenarios when the end result would be that a class of customers against whom discrimination is illegal would be the persons primarily or exclusively affected. That is just making an end run around the law, and the courts would rule as such. If AT&T allows white people with a European ethnic background living in Winnetka, IL to call the UK using a calling card as payment, they cannot lawfully refuse to let a Latino person living in the Humboldt Park area of Chicago call Puerto Rico on the same pre-approved calling card plan. AT&T might say they disallow all calls to Puerto Rico on a calling card, but that misses the point. Wealthy people with European ancestry living in Winnetka have private phones and don't need to run out to the corner 7/11 and use the payphone. Poor Latinos and Black people do need to use the payphone. And from the time I take the receiver off the hook on a payphone and proffer some method of approved payment to telco, that phone line is leased to me for my use, just like the phone in someone's home in Winnetka. Bottom line: people from 'certain ethnic backgrounds' living in the inner cities get shafted on credit from (the credit grantor) AT&T. Any other credit card issuer who arbitrarily ruled out certain areas of cities or certain types of purchases when the result was a large class of people was primarily affected would get their knuckles rapped. AT&T deserves no less. VISA and AMEX know how to deal with fraud where their cards are concerned without discriminating against credit worthy customers. Why can't AT&T figure out how it is done? Hopefully they will get slapped around a little on this until they begin obeying the law like Ma and Pa's corner store has to do when they issue credit to their customers. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #5 ****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04383; 3 Jan 93 12:34 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14741 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 Jan 1993 10:37:28 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04046 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 Jan 1993 10:37:01 -0600 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 10:37:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301031637.AA04046@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #6 TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Jan 93 10:37:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 6 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (Paul Robinson) Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (John R. Levine) Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes (Shrikumar) Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes (Paul Robinson) Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes (Craig R. Watkins) Re: More Idiocy From GTE (Daniel Burstein) Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY via AT&T? (John Higdon) Re: Internet and Easylink (Paul Robinson) Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works (Shrikumar) New AnswerCall Features (Joe Bergstein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 05:05:45 EST Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud In TELECOM Digest 12-928, cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (gordon hlavenka) writes: > I've been working on a credit card / phone project, and > discovered something that is probably known to many but was > news to me: My PIN is _on_ my calling card! Recorded on > Track 2, offset 23 characters after the SS. In the clear. [Stuff Deleted] > I suppose it could be argued that validating PINs on-line > is a difficult task, but on the other hand my ATM card works > in London and if the PIN is recorded on this card it's > encrypted ... It's not. The interesting thing is that banks operate almost identically the way Internet does for handling TELNET or FTP or E-Mail requests. One computer calls up another computer through several intervening computer systems over the backbone. In the case of Internet, the backbone is supplied by NSF in the U.S. and by the local PTTs in foreign countries. If you look at your card, it will identify the 'backbone' supplier; a name like 'CIRRUS' (owned by Master Card) or 'PLUS' (owned by Visa). These are the two major international ATM networks. This backbone establishes a connection between the bank you are at and the one you have an account with. This bank sends across the card number your card has and sends across the PIN that you type in, along with a statement of what you want it to do (send money, send your balance, etc.) The receiving computer gets this information and then decides what to do with it just as if you were at one of its own machines. Then it will either send back some information (account balance) or an approval (give him the $300) or a denial (sorry, he doesn't have enough) or in worse case, a rejection (refuse his request and eat the card). In short, the local bank simply sends the information you gave it (in encrypted form) back to the issuing bank; the local bank simply follows instructions. Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM These opinions are mine alone ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 3 Jan 93 10:55:43 EST (Sun) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) > Or do the ATMs check with the central computer each time (hope the > traffic is encrypted.) Of course they do. How else could they know whether there was any money in your account? Some early ATMs were standalone or semi-standalone with lists of bad account numbers downloaded into them, so the cards they used either had the PIN on the magstripe or computed the PIN from the account number. These days, all machines are online (they look to the host like 3278 terminals) so there's no need to have the PIN on the card. Whether they encrypt the traffic is a good question. Banks are big believers in security through obscurity so they get very touchy whenever you ask a technical question about their ATMs. I've even been asked to move out of the line of sight when I was standing near an ATM in the bank lobby as they were servicing it. In fairness, I suppose they wanted to be sure I didn't see them dial the combination lock on the ATM's safe. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl [Moderator's Note: But please note there is also something on the card which provides for a so-called 'overnight limit'. I have a Cash Station card connected with CIRRUS. I also have a 'Banking Card' from First National Bank in Chicago which functions as a debit card. It has a Master Card logo on it and can be used wherever credit cards are used, except that it makes a direct debit to my checking account. It is also hooked into CIRRUS. On occassion -- but it is growing more and more rare -- the network will be 'down'. When this is the case, a cash machine will give me up to $100 *because I ask for it*, without any verification. Once the network is back up, the transaction will be processed when the tapes are updated that night. If there is not enough money in the account, and either one party or the other gets paid, rest assured the bank recovers their money first. A Cash Station transaction which itself cannot be cleared later from lack of funds is a Very Bad Thing, and that card will have a hold on it not only until the money gets deposited to clear it but until 'someone' calls the bank collection department to plead their case. First offense, okay; second or third offense (of causing an overdraft because Cash Station was down when you took the money you didn't have) is Bad News. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 02:40:13 -0500 From: shri%unreal@cs.umass.edu Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes Organization: UMass, Amherst MA + Temporal Sys & Computer Networks Bombay India In article dcg5662@hertz.njit.edu writes: > The barcode starts and ends with a tall bar. The check digit is the > number that would be required so that the sum of all digits plus the Curious enough to hunt for another factoid ... does anyone know what fraction of the entire snail mail in the US is generated by business and how much by Aunt Agatha ? Should give some insight into how much mail the automatic sorters actually can ever benefit from. And if the dreams of USPS to read human handwriting are so important? And if the "tele-sorter" (aha ... that makes it related to TELECOM Digest :-) experiment, where the sorter machines will project image of letters to a sorter clerk via telecom and the clerk punches button from miles away to send the letter to the right bin, is likely to be significant.? Also, Is there a summary of several bar codes ftp-able somewhere ? shrikumar ( shri@legato.cs.umass.edu, shri@iucaa.ernet.in ) ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 05:09:50 EST Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes In TELECOM Digest 12-928, ssay@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (say,halim s) asks: > I would like to find out the encoding for the ZIP code bars on USPS > mail envelopes. Ask the post office for the circular on bar code. It's a small pamphlet of about 5 pages, and it explains how all of the codes work, as there are two codes; one for ZIP code and one for ZIP+4 code. There is no charge for the pamphlet. If your local Post Office doesn't have it, try a main office in a large city. Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM These opinions are mine alone ------------------------------ From: Craig R. Watkins Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes Date: 3 Jan 93 10:01:29 EST Organization: HRB Systems, Inc. In article , doug@CC.YSU.EDU (Doug Sewell) writes: > (1) Coding can be five digits (rare), nine digits (most common) and > more to include house codes/street address numbers (this is not > very common yet). There is an eleven digit code which is called the Advanced Bar Code (ABC). It consists of the the ZIP+4 plus the last two digits of the street address, the theory being that it uniquely identifies the destination allowing automatic sorting for the order of delivery. Craig R. Watkins crw@icf.hrb.com HRB Systems, Inc. +1 814 238-4311 ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) Subject: Re: More Idiocy From GTE Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 08:24:57 GMT Organization: Panix, NYC In andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) writes: > On 28 Dec 92 15:07:25 GMT, mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles > Mattair) said: >> As I'm at a friends house, I decide to put the call on calling card. >> 102880+10D. GTE. Huh ...? I know this is intralata but I >> told them to use AT&T. They can't override my choice of carrier can >> they? Try it again except as 102880 + 7D (713 has gone 1/0 + 10D on >> all LD calls but who knows what GTE is doing). GTE. > Local exchange carriers look at the whole number before passing it off > to an IXC, precisely because of what you tried to do. AT&T is very > likely not tariffed to carry that call, so the switch knows better > than you do, and routes it via the LEC. However, AT&T issued CIID > card should still be good for a GTE carried call. AT&T has reciprocal > card verification and billing agreements with virtually every LEC in > the country so that your AT&T card is AOS-proof and OCC-proof but not > LEC-proof. (That is a feature, not a bug). There actually is a way around this that usually works. AT&T does, in fact, have a 1-800 dial up number which they implemented after a bit of a fight with the FCC (which is a -very looong- story for another day). If you dial "1-800-CALL-ATT" you can access an ATT "Boing" or even an ATT -human- operator! (Similar schemes also work for most of the other carriers as well. you can -usually- make LOCAL LATA calls when you hook into the systems in this manner. This is quite helpful if you're calling from a coin phone, and your carrier is nice enough not to charge a surcharge ...) dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 00:04 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY via AT&T? Bob Yazz writes: > You don't seriously believe such a state of affairs will stand, do you > John? The PUC will order that numbers not be delivered, period. I > can even see the potential for lawsuits against Pac Bell over this. But the PUC cannot order this, just as it cannot prevent any carrier from passing realtime ANI to end users. In SS7, the calling number is ALWAYS transmitted as part of the data packet, although there is a bit that identifies it as a "blocked" number if such is the case. First, why would Pac*Bell even care about blocking if it does not trade in CNID? Second, what the end telco does about the "block bit" is up to the telco in the destination state. The PUC has no jurisdiction in this matter whatsoever. And remember, the PUC has not prohibited CNID. It has just placed what Pac*Bell considers to be unreasonable conditions on its offering. So Pac*Bell does not offer it. But the PUC has no authority to tamper with the SS7 protocol, particularly on interstate calls. Remember, the phone numbers of Californians are appearing right and left at locations both within and outside the state via ANI. Just as the PUC cannot do anything about this it cannot do anything about similar transmission via SS7. The PUC is only concerned about the feature known as "Caller-ID" as offered by LECs to customers in California. All else is outside the PUC's purview. The fact of the matter is that callers from California will have their phone numbers displayed wherever CNID is offered in other states, like it or not. Oddly enough, if a California caller dials *67 before placing a long distance call, the block bit will be set and there is a good chance that the display at the called telephone will say "Private Number" or whatever it is they say for blocked CNID. But most callers will not know this, and Pac*Bell is under no obligation to educate them. Pac*Bell is not offering CNID and therefore not required to meet any of the conditions for that service as mandated by the PUC. > Sounds like an incentive to switch to a long distance company that > does not use SS7. How do you think AT&T might feel about this? Switching to an IEC that does not use SS7 is a temporary reprieve at best; within several years calls will be sent no other way. And remember, there is still ANI. In this area, the Big Three are all using SS7 to Pac*Bell. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 04:41:10 EST Subject: Re: Internet and Easylink In last year's TELECOM Digest 12-928, a user named dnewcomb@whale.st. usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb) was overheard discussing "EasyLink and Internet?": > I have long understood that sending email between EasyLink and > Internet was out of the question. It's not; Pat sends us TELECOM Digest to our Easylink Mailbox every day. Easylink autoforwards all of our mail to our fax machine at no charge, so as a result, we get TELECOM Digest delivered to our fax machine automatically and it costs us nothing except fax paper. (It's a plain paper machine, so it's only a couple of cents a page.) Last week I figured out how to send a message FROM an Easylink subscriber TO Internet. I used it in order to subscribe to some Bitnet lists. I'll mention both ways for anyone interested. To send to someone's Easylink address, you must know the *exact* Easylink number. This is an eight-digit number which always begins with 62. Then you have to know the gateway, which is complicated, then the splitting scheme, then the addressee. What you are doing is translating an Internet RFC822 address into a CCITT X.400 address (or back). There are two ways to get to someone's Easylink address. One is via MCI Mail and the other through AT&T Mail. To go through MCI Mail, you'd use the following: g=firstname%s=lastname%dda.eln=62xxxxxx%4356996@MCIMAIL.COM or s=firstname_lastname%dda.eln=62xxxxxx%western_union@MCIMAIL.COM or g=firstname%s=lastname%dda.eln=62xxxxxx%western_union@MCIMAIL.COM All of these are identical; 4356996 is Western Union's gateway account on MCI Mail. This is how Pat sends us the TELECOM Digest. To go through AT&T Easylink (Western Union is a subsidiary of AT&T), you'd use the following: wu/s=firstname_lastname/dda.eln=62xxxxxx@mhs.attmail.com or mhs!wu/g=firstname/s=lastname/dda.eln=62xxxxxx@attmail.com In all of these, the two things which are mandatory are s=name and dda.eln=62xxxxxx, and you can optionally use the g= format for first name. If you want a blank in the middle of the name, you insert an underline _ which is why it is there. To _send_ from Easylink is much harder. It consists of sending an IPM (their name for X.400) message to the ATTMAIL ADMD, with an id of: ID-!i!n!t!e!r!n!e!t!!hostname!!user Where an address of user@hostname is translated into the UUCP style hostname!user. For example, this account becomes: ID-!I!N!T!E!R!N!E!T!!FZC!!CU.NIH.GOV This is required because the ID of "internet" has to be in {lower case} in order for AT&T mail to forward to it. Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM These opinions are mine alone ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 02:28:28 -0500 From: shri%unreal@cs.umass.edu Subject: Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works Organization: UMass, Amherst MA + Temporal Sys & Computer Networks Bombay India In article siegman@sierra.stanford.edu writes: > proposal: Enact legislation requiring that all telemarketing calls > come with Caller-ID from a uniquely designated area code prefix, like > 600, 700, whatever. No freedom of speech issues are involved; the Oh yes. That is a good idea. Placing the onus on a business to identify themselves to the law is very implmentable as well. Also with just a tiny modification to the CNID concept (no additional cost) instead of a number, the company name would be delivered. In most cases an LCD with alphanumeric display with say only the ITA2 or Baudot char set should not be any more expensive that currently used digit displays. The modems part etc could remain the same, and the phone companies can make some money out of delivering a 12 letter alphanumeric ... enough perhaps (is it?) to have them do the software changes needed to their COs. A couple of days back, I caught the tail end of Bob Beckel (sp?) sitting in for Larry King on CNN. On the show was the small-biz owner who (guess its her) had filed that suit, and one Ray Kolker introduced as a Dialler manufacturer. He was pretty forceful in suggesting that there are better way available in technology today "such as of the type of Caller-ID", which can deal better. I have time and again thought up ideas on similar lines, but each time I am reminded that all these are going to be a "little difficult" to do till SS7 reaches all COs and is nationwide. Is it not the case that a lion's share of telemarketing is across state lines to benefit from the lower IXC rates? Of course, then telemarketeers would simply call from that small state near the Bahamas where the tarot readers used to live :-) Might even be cheaper. (Freely allowing cross talk of ideas between various threads I read in the past year..) their neutral-accented sale-droids could be in the safe vicinity of the Air Command, with all calls piped to the bahamas, and coming in from there right at dinner time, and your CNID box says "International Call". The Phone Company might even encourage this with a discount, like apparently they did in when .. Oh well ... :-) shrikumar ( shri@legato.cs.umass.edu, shri@iucaa.ernet.in ) ------------------------------ From: Joe.Bergstein@p501.f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Bergstein) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 01:58:16 -0500 Subject: New AnswerCall Features I thought TELECOM Digest readers might be interested in some new features announced by C&P Telephone for their Answer Call CO based voicemail service. As an Answer Call customer, I received an announcement that there will be a price increase in February from $5.00/month to $6.50/month. The letter included news of the following new features: Optional Busy Greeting: You can have two separate personal greetings -- one to let callers know when you're on the phone, the other to indicate when you're not available to answer. The Optional Busy Greeting will be a standard AnswerCall feature with no additional charge. Reminder Service: You can program Answer Call to call your home number and play a pre-recorded reminder message at a set time that you choose. This option will be introduced on a free trial basis, after which time a small usage charge of $0.15 per activation will apply. Special Delivery Service: Answer call will call you if you're away from home when an urgent message arrives in your AnswerCall mailbox. This service will be free for a limited time after which a $0.35 per activation charge will apply. [Note that the announcement does not clarify what an "urgent" message is, and whether callers will have an option to flag a message as "urgent"]. Although not mentioned in the letter, the price list includes a Pager Notification option at a cost of $3.00 per month for up to 65 activa- tions plus $0.20 per activation over 65. [Note, too that these prices are for residential users only. I believe that these services are available for business users at slightly higher prices]. [Moderator's Note: Answer Call appears to have some additional features not being offered by IBT in their voicemail service, such as the Pager Notification, and reminder service. It sounds nice. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #6 ****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11576; 4 Jan 93 1:43 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28977 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:41:35 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22131 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:41:11 -0600 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:41:11 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301040541.AA22131@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #7 TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Jan 93 23:41:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 7 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Mission Impossible: IBT Getting My Order Correct (John Higdon) Re: Mission Impossible: IBT Getting My Order Correct (Jeff Sicherman) Re: Mission Impossible: IBT Getting My Order Correct (Thomas Lapp) Re: Additional Phone Charges (Paul Robinson) Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (Daniel Burstein) Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes (Dr. Math) Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (John R. Levine) Re: Problems with Payphones at WPI (NET/AT&T) (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Another Payphone Mystery? (Dave Levenson) Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (Ben Cox) Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... (George Armhold) Re: Pocket Auto-Dialer? (Lyle Seaman) Re: What Are the Prefix "Codes" For Tone Dialing? (Gordon Burditt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 09:55 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Mission Impossible: IBT Getting My Order Correct On Jan 3 at 2:13, TELECOM Moderator writes: > A few minutes later, another call comes from a woman named 'Debbie' > who states she is a repair supervisor in the Irving CO. Her complaint > is thus: someone has 'been calling' repair on 'unauthorized numbers' > and it had better stop. If I want Repair Service, the number to call > is 611 and none other. Interesting difference in approach. Virtually everytime I call in trouble to Pac*Bell for my service or for others, a call back comes from someone who, upon getting my machine, leaves his/her name and direct telephone number, usually 973-something. When calling this number either the person leaving the message answers or someone else does who promptly puts the repair tech on the line. And then, it is only necessary to give my name, not the number reported for the repair person to immediately pinpoint the repair ticket. All in all, I find Pac*Bell very open about its "internal" numbers. On only one occasion was I invited to call 611 rather than the number that I did. It was explained that it was necessary to do that to open a ticket that could be followed up on by the person to whom I was speaking at the time. Sounds as though IBT may still have a touch of the old Ma Bell left in her. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 11:24:34 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Mission Impossible: IBT Getting My Order Correct Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article TELECOM Moderator writes: > The past week has been a barrel of laughs where IBT is concerned with an > order to change some service for me. ... Story deleted ... > For now, I'll be content if the software to be used on the computer > associated with those lines arrives soon, gets installed and works > okay. Aside from the pleasure of the phone company getting hoisted on their own caller-id petard (sp?), this story raised an interesting idea: With the phone companies getting rid of intelligent and experienced (and thus higher paid) people in record numbers (and, if Higdon is to be believed, GTE well ahead of the industry in this strategy) the opportunities for confusion over increasingly more complex and potentially contradictory services with less decreasingly less competent people at the phone company to deal with them would seem to loom large. Perhaps it's time for them to take the lead of some banks and provide some limited sort of ON-LINE (via modem and terminal/PC) access for selected, knowledgeable customers to submit their own work-orders by interacting with an expert system that has access to a database of their current configuration, knowlegde of features and how they interact with each other, and the logic to sort it all out correctly. It would at least eliminate one source of mis-communication or mis-interpretation of both clients wishes and the nature of the modern phone system/network workings. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 13:07:49 EST From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Re: Mission Impossible: IBT Getting My Order Correct > Almost that is ... the xxx-7347 number (and the other discontinued > numbers in the original hunt group) still have the 'being tested for > trouble' intercept on the line. Obviously, someone did not close out > the order. But I could care less about those numbers; they were > merely being disconnected with no referral on them anyway. I know it is 'preaching to the choir' to tell Pat this, but others in situations like this may also want to watch the billing that comes over the next billing period or so to make sure that Billing gets their part right as well. Disconnected lines have been known to continue getting billed well after disconnect date ... thomas%mvac23@udel.edu (home) lapp@cdhub1.dnet.dupont.com (work) [Moderator's Note: Oh, absolutely. You can bet I'll review the next bill very closely before forwarding it on to the person who pays it every month. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 04:54:32 EST Subject: Re: Additional Phone Charges In Telecom Digest 12-928, Jerry Leichter says: > One of my favorites, non-listed phone number (note: NOT > non-published; non-listed IS available from DA, they just have > to leave it off the yearly list they send to the printers) goes > from $1.00/month to $2.00/month. I'd love to see the salaries > for the people who must go through and pull the non-listed > numbers out by hand; nothing else can justify that kind of > charge. (Before you say, well, non-listed numbers generate > more DA calls: DA calls go from 24 to 40 cents, plus they go > from first 5/3 free for residence/business to 3/0 free.) I may have mentioned this before, but the simplest way to get the equivalent of an unlisted number is to ask for the phone to be listed {without address} under your roommate's name of Zyagur Xeanamux. When someone calls asking for him, you know that it's a telemarketer. What, you mean you don't have a roommate by that name? Exactly ... Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM These opinions are mine alone. ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 08:13:09 GMT Organization: Panix, NYC Some posters have asked what it meant when they tried making a long distance call and got back the recording "all circuits are busy, 418-25T" (or similar stuff). Well, in the OLD days, your LD call would get pushed along the route until it hit a switch or trunk "somewhere out there" which was busy. BUT, in the new modern age, your call is "held" at the local central office (or, perhaps, a centralized toll/long distance interface) until the entire rest of the path can be set up. Accordingly, if -anything- is wrong -amnywhere- from the office (either one) to your final destination, you will get a LOCALLY GENERATED recording. (Again, this might be at a somewhat distant toll switching station, but it'll be a LOT closer than it used to be). I've had this experience far too many times when calling from my area to places that, for some reason or another, had a partial disruption in trunk service, or had a sudden increase in traffic. For example, after the Florida hurricane, I tried to call some of my co-workers who had been sent down there, and kept getting "all circuits are busy ... 212-XT" with "212" being the area code UP HERE (NYC). As others have pointed out, certain long distance carriers are less likely to be jammed than others, but I'll refer back to them for the details. HOWEVER, that does remind me of some trouble I had fifteen or twenty years ago. From 11:00 pm till about 11:30, it was almost impossible tomake outgoing long distance phone calls from my neighborhood. After a LOT of arguing with NYTel, and finally tracking down some techies who understood their network, we figured out what was happening. The area I lived in was next to a university with lots of residential students. Many of whom would either call home, or other distant locations. Accordingly, the time vs. number of calls equation in this area was very different from that in more traditional localities. College age students, for example, are more likely to be awake at 11:00 pm, are more likely to hold off on making their calls until then, will tend to talk longer (????), etc., etc., etc. I'm sure anyone reading this can easily come up with many other reasons the standard phone queing formulas didn't work. Anyway, once they actually looked at blocked calls, they added a few more outgoing trunk line connections to the toll centers (i.e., they set it up to allow for more LD calls). Take care, dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 12:31:33 -0500 From: Doctor Math Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes say,halim s (ssay@prefect.cc.bellcore.com) wrote: > Does anyone know or could you tell me a reference for this "standard"? > I am sure some address generator software would have this algorithm. I have a postscript implementation of the algorithm; I used it to make a label generator for Avery 5262 label stock. It's a little hacked - for some reason it won't work with the zip code for my grandparents' house ... if there's interest I can submit it to the Digest. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 3 Jan 93 14:01:32 EST (Sun) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) Hey, I'm following up my own note. Isn't there a physical law or something to prevent this? > [Moderator's Note: But please note there is also something on the card > which provides for a so-called 'overnight limit'. The $100 when the network is down is a nice feature, but not one that is widely available. Around here, when the network goes down, machines put up the CLOSED sign. That's one of the reasons I have six ATM cards in my wallet from four different banks. Citibank machines in New York City at least used to have a similar feature. For a long time, over a year, someone who clearly had inside information was using an old invalid Citicard to make $100 withdrawals from machines all over the city when the machines were offline while their network nodes were down for maintenance. The maintenance schedule was deliberately erratic and quite secret. Had the guy used the card even once in an on-line machine the card would have been eaten and that would have been that. I never heard whether they managed to catch him. I'd think that it would have been straightforward to set up a sting to catch him in the act. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl [Moderator's Note: I think the banks here which give money on trust when the network is down do have something called a 'negative listing' of cards which should not be honored in that way. Here in the Chicago area, the First National Bank operates the Cash Station computer (as well as their own, of course), so using one of their cards at one of their own machines is a bit different than using their card at a machine which is only on line occassionally, etc. Some machines here seem to only contact the main system once a day during the night. Those machines have a record of whatever the system told them from the night before, and they go by those figures all day. I know when I asked the Devon Bank about this, they specifically stated their cash station was NOT on line all the time. They can deal with their own customers records at all times; they get the rest of the records whenever they do. Clever people have found ways to get some float out of the cash machines over holiday periods, etc, knowing they won't actually see the transaction on their own account for two or three days in the event of a three day weekend. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 15:20:23 EST From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: Problems with Payphones at WPI (NET/AT&T) I think if you read the card on the phone it says that all COIN calls are handled by AT&T and all credit card calls are handled by another company. That really baffles me, I mean, if it's a New England Telephone payphone, with access to AT&T on coin calls, then why use someone else to handle credit card calls? Theory: NET wants to make some bucks ... sooo ... I'll bet if you traced down the company that handles those cc calls it'd come right back to NET. [Moderator's Note: Not so. Payphones do get randomly assigned to various LD carriers, but AT&T is the only LD carrier in a position to collect coins, due to their prior relationship with the Bells. I am told no one else wants the coin business; thus it stays with AT&T. None of the other carriers seem to think it is worth thier time to develop and install the needed equipment. That is the reason you always see AT&T handling the call where coins are concerned even if the default carrier for all other types (credit card, etc) is some other LC company. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Another Payphone Mystery? Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 02:49:29 GMT In article , JOHN SCHMIDT writes: [about a payphone that requested $2.00 in coin for an intra-state toll call, and then allowed the same call to be placed using a calling card for 85 cents.] > I thought charged calls were generally more expensive than cash > payphone calls, but then I rarely make long ... The coin rate is the operator-assisted rate. The calling-card rate is usually less than the operator-assisted rate. Intra-state calls usually cost far more (per mile) than inter-state calls. I'm not sure what carrier you were using, or whether your call crossed a LATA boundary. All of these affect the price. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 17:02:33 -0600 Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud From: thoth@uiuc.edu (Ben Cox) Reply-To: thoth@uiuc.edu (Ben Cox) Organization: Ancient Illuminated Sears of Bavaria johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > I think you will find that historically with telco calling cards there > hasn't been a distinction made between a "non-secret" part, the first > ten digits, and a "secret" part, the last four. On my AT&T card, the entire number (including PIN) is stamped on the card in raised digits. Ben Cox thoth@uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: armhold@dimacs.rutgers.edu (George Armhold) Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... Date: 3 Jan 93 23:08:10 GMT Organization: DIMACS @ Rutgers University martin@datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu writes: > Hear's the fix. Take a portable AM or FM radio and place it > near the computer. Tune around until you find a whine or buzz that > suits your ears. It should be possible to find a signal which varies > when the computer is doing something and stays relatively monotonous > when it is hung up or idling. I've often been able to "hear" a computer transfer data. While logged in from home I like to listen to a particular FM radio station that comes in very weakly. When I transfer a screenfull of data (eg ^L in emacs) I can hear a very noticable disturbance in the already weak FM signal. Sounds kind of like driving under a bridge w/ AM radio. This is with an (old) Amiga 1000 and ZyXEL 14.4 modem. Strangely, I never noticed this before with my old Avatex 1200 bps modem (same serial cable.) Hmm, I wonder if the baud rate is the variable here, or if the ZyXEL is not up to spec ... At RU, I worked with Sun 4/110s. They were networked via thin-net coax. I have pretty sensitive ears, and could always hear a high-pitched whine when lots of data went through the wire (opening an xterm, for example.) One thing that was neat about this is that whenever someone logged in to the workstation I was working on I could actually *hear* them log in. Nobody believed me of course. Whenever I tried to show it to someone they thought I was nuts. :-) George Internet: armhold@dimacs.rutgers.edu UUCP: {backbone}!rutgers!dimacs!armhold BITNET: armhold@PISCES.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 18:18:11 -0500 (EST) From: Lyle_Seaman@transarc.com Subject: Re: Pocket Auto-Dialer? I too have been waiting for a "pocket databank" which incorporates an auto-dialer. The closest thing to it that I have yet seen is the Psion Series 3 "palmtop", but at $400 it's a bit too functional for my needs. Not too much, though, and the price will probably drop. One notch down from that is the Sharp EL-6260 Dialmaster Pocket Auto Dialer. According to the advertising text it: - Stores up to 450 names [short ones, probably - lws] and numbers - Features 12-character X 2-line display - Tone generator dials numbers - 2 search keys - Secret function - Calling card function - Back-up battery. Listed by J&R Music World at $55. ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Re: What Are the Prefix "Codes" For Tone Dialing? Organization: Gordon Burditt Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 18:50:53 GMT >>> *65 turn on delivery of caller id (if you are subscribed) >>> *85 turn off delivery of caller id (why would anyone want to do this?) >> Because some phone companies charge for Caller-ID on a per-number- >> delivered basis? >> [Moderator's Note: IBT used to do that, but starting a few months ago >> they no longer charge for delivery over a certain number. One monthly So someone might want to turn it off if they don't normally exceed that number, or they're going on vacation for a good portion of a month and won't exceed the "certain number". (My incoming VOICE calls probably wouldn't exceed that number in a month, whatever it is.) >> fee pays for it all. Another oddity IMHO here is that call screening >> can be turned on with *60 and turned off with *80. This is despite the >> fact that while within the *60 menu of things to do, one can both add >> and remove numbers from the repertoire. If you can add or delete >> whatever you want there, why bother to have a command to turn it off? Individually adding and deleting 10 or 20 numbers takes a lot of time. (I still claim that for this service to replace Caller-ID in getting rid of telemarketers, the list needs to be able to hold 10 or 20 thousand numbers). Can you delete all the numbers and add them back later? This implies an ability to list all the numbers, including ones added with "screen out last caller". Can you do that? If so, the anti-Caller-ID folks will scream about that one. By the way, can you reliably load up your list with a modem or autodialer? In spite of certain modems with voice mail capability, you're not easily going to have voice recognition capability, and you'll have to put up with using blind pauses, "wait for bong", "wait for dial tone", "wait for quiet answer" and such which most modern modems have. Is there some way to load your list starting from an unknown state, again with a modem or autodialer? You can't if the menu items change numbers depending on whether you have numbers in the list, or if the tone sequence varies depending on whether you have numbers programmed (conditional "are you sure" prompts, for example). >> Perhaps it is because IBT is not marketing Call Screening as a >> permanent way to get rid of troublesome callers, but merely as a way >> to avoid certain people at certain times of day; although I cannot >> imagine be willing to chat with certain numbers on my list regardless >> of the time of day or occassion. Ditto the feature where you can list One way it could be used is to screen out somewhat over-enthusiastic callers from, say, your spouse's family except when your spouse is there. Or except when you have time to talk after the kids are asleep. These callers might even like it if it saves them LD charges on "sorry, s/he's not home yet" calls. You don't have to use Call Screening to get rid of telemarketers and other pests; it may not be very effective anyway if they have lots of lines. And not everyone has obscene callers bothering them. >> certain callers to get the red carpet with special ringing on your >> end; that too can be turned off, although if your boss is an important >> person to hear from at 3 PM, why wouldn't he be important at 3 AM? PAT] If you're using the distinctive ring pattern to ring the phone in your workshop (where you don't want to be disturbed except in emergencies), it's not going to be very effective to route calls there unless you're IN your workshop (which you probably won't be at 3AM). So you turn it on and off depending on where you are. By the way, who said the treatment you give callers on the list has to be "red carpet"? It could be just the opposite, as in asking certain deadbeats to pay their bills or contact your lawyer. You could also use a pre-arranged setup that calls from certain people during the day get voice, and calls after hours get the fax machine or modem. This may not be very good for businesses, but it might be for work-in-the-field or work-at-home employees. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #7 ****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26055; 5 Jan 93 3:36 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09593 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:39:14 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23979 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:38:46 -0600 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:38:46 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301050738.AA23979@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #8 TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Jan 93 01:38:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 8 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson V&H Report January 1993 (David Esan) Worries About Privacy Could Tone Down Success of Caller ID (Boston Globe) Colorado Gets Caller ID (Richard Lucas) CNID on Answering Machines? (David H. Close) Need History/Stories re: Rotary Mechanism (Ken Blackney) Baby Bell Breakups (Paul Gatker) Spread Spectrum Regulations in Europe (Lester Baskin) Voice Mail Options (John Pettitt) Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? (Glenn F. Leavell) Operator Breaking Cellular Connection (Thomas K. Hinders) SS7 Links Fron CA to NY (Tim Gorman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: de@moscom.com (David Esan) Subject: V&H Report January 1993 Date: 4 Jan 93 20:26:34 GMT Organization: Moscom Corporation, Pittsford NY Once a quarter I receive the BellCore V&H tape. Using this information I can total the number of exchanges in each area code. The twenty most populous area codes are listed below. After the written text of this article I have included the count for each of the area codes, one sorted by NPA, the other sorted (in reverse) of the number of exchanges in a given NPA. The tape is dated 15 January 1993. I am not responsible for the information supplied in this tape. Yes, the date is several weeks out. The information will be current as of that date. It is distributed early so that it can loaded by that date. I have not included the following in my counts of exchanges: - NXX's that are not dialable by a standard user (ie nxx's that begin with a 1 or 0). - Mexican exchanges in the 52? series of area codes. I've got them, you can dial them with 011, but they're not really NPAs. - Exchanges that are non-dialable in the 88? series of area codes. I've got those also, but you can't dial them, so I'm not including them. This tape includes information for the new NPA's 909 and 210. 905 in Toronto, and 810 in Detroit have not appeared yet. The fields are: ------------ rank last in October, 1992 213: 736 (1, 7) area code --^^^ ^^^ ^------- number of new exchanges |-------------- total number of exchanges 301: 751 ( 1, 7) 416: 678 ( 6, 4) 206: 642 (11, 7) 604: 582 (20, 13) 512: 703 ( 3, 2) 919: 672 ( 8, 12) 708: 634 (14, 25) 216: 579 (19, 8) 212: 700 ( 4, 3) 215: 660 (10, 11) 713: 627 (13, 10) 503: 574 (18, 3) 313: 680 ( 7, 12) 714: 656 ( 9, 2) 703: 610 (16, 7) 803: 564 (11, xx) 205: 680 ( 5, 4) 602: 644 (12, 9) 403: 605 (15, 1) 303: 563 (11, xx) Of the top 20 we know: 1. 301 - split in progress. Number should be reduced by split. 2. 512 - split in progress. Number should be reduced by split. 3. 212 - split in progress. Number should be reduced by split, and the movement of the Bronx to 718. 4. 313 - split in progress. Number should be reduced by split. 6. 416 - split soon to be in progress. Number should be reduced by split. 9. 714 - split in progress. Number should be reduced by split. Given all of that, the NPA that is largest and is not splitting nor has plans (at this time) to split, is 205 in Alabama. Other NPAs that are candidates for a split include eastern North Carolina (714), Philadelphia (215), and 602 (Arizona). The 3 smallest NPA's were and remain : 906: 117 - Michigan's Upper Peninsula (+1 new exchange) 807: 105 - Western Ontario (No change) 917: 104 - The new NYC NPA (+40 new exchanges) A new statistic that I have added to this report is percentage growth. I have taken the difference between the number of exchanges in January and October, and divided by the number in January and multiplied by 100. In math notation that would be: ((October # - January #)/January #)*100 The top ten are: 917 62.50 (Growth of new NYC NPA) 210 6.47 (Growth of new Texas NPA) 909 5.03 (Growth of new California NPA) 305 4.37 (Western Florida, rapid growth area) 708 4.10 (Chicago Suburbs, rapid growth) 704 3.42 (Western North Carolina) 312 3.41 (Chicago City) 702 3.16 (Nevada) 310 3.05 (Growth of new Los Angeles NPA) 809 2.97 (Growth of the Caribbean) The only NPAs to be in last reports top ten and this reports top ten are: 310, 708 All the NPAs and the number of nxx's in each are listed below: 301: 751 501: 553 201: 442 502: 365 715: 321 814: 268 512: 703 314: 547 412: 441 914: 362 819: 314 315: 266 212: 700 404: 543 614: 432 704: 362 815: 313 806: 264 313: 680 813: 537 515: 431 406: 361 915: 312 309: 263 205: 680 405: 534 407: 420 701: 357 805: 300 709: 261 416: 678 904: 532 402: 418 801: 356 208: 299 608: 254 919: 672 619: 531 601: 417 605: 356 613: 298 509: 251 215: 660 305: 525 415: 414 519: 355 609: 298 603: 243 714: 656 817: 523 410: 414 504: 354 918: 296 901: 232 602: 644 203: 515 818: 411 204: 352 218: 296 308: 210 206: 642 804: 505 210: 411 207: 348 409: 295 417: 206 708: 634 514: 497 617: 408 912: 347 706: 294 707: 197 713: 627 718: 495 907: 401 908: 347 812: 286 802: 181 703: 610 414: 494 616: 400 510: 346 712: 286 506: 179 403: 605 717: 493 716: 398 419: 344 202: 284 607: 176 604: 582 312: 485 516: 394 304: 344 903: 282 719: 174 216: 579 513: 474 508: 389 318: 343 606: 275 307: 169 503: 574 310: 473 316: 376 319: 339 808: 274 401: 139 803: 564 816: 469 219: 373 517: 338 507: 273 413: 133 303: 563 317: 460 213: 373 618: 335 705: 272 302: 127 612: 561 306: 453 217: 370 408: 334 909: 271 906: 117 615: 560 916: 450 418: 367 505: 329 902: 271 807: 105 214: 554 913: 445 209: 367 702: 326 518: 270 917: 104 809: 553 David Esan de@moscom.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:25:25 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Worries About Privacy Could Tone Down Success of CID From the 1/4/93 {Boston Globe} Worries about privacy could tone down success of Caller ID Jonathan Yenkin Associated Press Boston - Caller ID, a phone service touted as an electronic peephole to let customers see who's calling, is making its way around the country. But it may not become a ringing success because of privacy worries. The service, which displays the number and sometimes even the name of the caller, is available in more than 20 states and has won praise for deterring obscene and annoying phone calls. But because of privacy concerns, many states have slapped on restrictions that phone companies fear will undercut the service's value. "At what point does the subscriber say, 'It's not worth it anymore?' I don't know," said Clifton Metcalf, a spokesman for Southern Bell in North Carolina. "We're going to find out." The restrictions imposed by utility regulators allow callers to block their numbers from appearing on a display unit by the phone. This can be done by pressing certain keys when making each call, or, in some states, by having the line blocked off entirely from being decoded by Caller ID. After the state imposed such restrictions in Massachusetts, New England Telephone officials found them so onerous that they initially withdrew their plans to offer the service. Susan Butta, a spokeswoman for New England Telephone, said executives worried the restrictions might make the service harder to sell. They eventually changed their minds and decided to try it. U.S. West Communications, which serves more than a dozen states, decided to include the blocking options in its proposals to utility regulators, not waiting for officials to order them, said Gwen Law, a company project manager. Consumer advocates and civil liberties groups say such restrictions are necessary. In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court ruled this year [sic] that Caller ID - without the blocking options - violated the state wiretap law. Critics often point to battered women or undercover police officers as examples of people who need to keep their phone numbers secret. "There are some people for whom the risk of forgetting to block is very great," said Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America. But New Jersey Bell, which pioneered Caller ID in the late 1980s, doesn't offer any blocking, and fewer than 1 percent of customers have complained about phone numbers leaking out, said company spokesman James W. Carrigan. On the other hand, Carrigan said the service has helped deter nuisance calls. About 200,000 New Jersey Bell customers, or 4.6 percent, subscribe to Caller ID. That compares with a 28 percent acceptance rate for Call Waiting, which allows customers to receive more than one call at the same time. But Carrigan insisted customers in his state who don't have Caller ID still benefit, "because the other people don't know whether you have the service, so they won't make that (harassing) call." In some places, phone companies say they are succeeding with the service despite the restrictions. Centel Corp. in Las Vegas, which serves southern Nevada, offers the blocking options and still has more than 10 percent of its customers subscribing. Dianna Fyke, a marketing manager for Centel, said there were some initial fears, but once people get accustomed to the service it becomes "a matter of fact thing." ------------------------------ From: Richard Lucas Subject: Colorado Gets Caller ID Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 21:23:42 MST Caller ID is officially available in Colorado today. My wife finally got through to the business office this evening to order it for us, after busy signals on attempts during the day. While we are normally served by the Loveland business office, our call ended up being answered by the Colorado Springs business office (different area code and LATA). The rep said that calls had been non-stop all day, with virtually every other call involving an order for the Caller ID service. The best gauge of consumer opinion is how they vote with their dollars, not with their words. If Colorado's first-day results can be generalized to other areas, then John Higdon is quite correct that the PUC decision in California gives the voices of a few more weight than the desires of the majority. Rick Lucas (rlucas@bvsd.co.edu) Debate Coach, Fairview HS, Boulder, CO [Moderator's Note: When Caller-ID officially started here in Chicago a couple years ago, telco had a huge number of orders the first few days. It is still one of the more popular services offered by IBT. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dhclose@cco.caltech.edu (David H. Close) Subject: CNID on Answering Machines? Date: 5 Jan 1993 05:09:00 GMT Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena I find the current discussion of CNID features on modems very interesting. But, being in the market for a new answering machine, I want to know if there are any which store CNID, if received, and play it back when messages are retrieved. Or are there other techniques available? Anybody? Dave Close, dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu, BS'66 Ec ------------------------------ From: Ken.Blackney@noc.ocs.drexel.edu (Ken Blackney) Subject: Need History/Stories re: Rotary Mechanism Date: 4 Jan 93 21:05:28 GMT Organization: Drexel Univ -- Telecom & Networking I am publishing the 93 edition of Drexel University's telephone directory. The cover artwork shows a rotary phone dial and a handset. I would like some stories (more on the fun side than the technical side) of the dial (when it started, how it worked, how many still used, etc) to include in an "About the cover art" section inside the directory. Thanks much, Ken ------------------------------ From: paul@panix.com (Paul Gatker) Subject: Baby Bell Breakups Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:44:06 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC I heard an interesting theory regarding investing in the Baby Bells. The theory was that they could be breaking up ala AT&T, and in so doing, the parts would be much more valuable than the present whole companies. This due to the rapidly exploding telecom revolution. The theory sounds very reasonable to me. Any other info, data, on this? paul@panix.com COMPULITE GRAPHICS Brooklyn NY usa Design & Consultation ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 12:43:11 +0200 (IST) From: baskin lester Subject: Spread Spectrum Regulations in Europe As part of a study at the Graduate School of Business Administration, Tel Aviv University we need information regarding SPREAD SPECTRUM REGULATIONS in EUROPE. Can anyone on this list speak to this subject or point to sources of information or point to an expert in this field? Any assistance in this matter would be much appreciated. Thank you in advance. Please respond directly to me as I am not a member of this list. Lester Baskin Internet: whart01@ccsg.tau.ac.il ------------------------------ From: jpp@StarConn.com (John Pettitt) Subject: Voice Mail Options Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 16:12:47 PST With my startup moving along, I now have an office and since I can't afford or justify a receptionist I am going to get voice mail (horrid as it is I don't have a lot of option). So the question is: Should I get a voice mail card for a PC (Nat Semi has an interesting looking card that does voice/data/fax ($229 in the local Comp USA) or do I go with the Pac Bell offering? Comments suggestions etc, either way most welcome. BTW If you know anybody who has 500K to invest in a software startup let me know :-) (for the legal freaks this is not an offer to sell securities :-) John Pettitt Mail: jpp@StarConn.com CEO, Dolmus Inc. Voice: +1 415 967 UNIX Fax: +1 415 967 8682 ------------------------------ From: glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) Subject: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:20:49 GMT It seems that I've seen discussion on the following topic in the TELECOM Digest before, but I can't remember the answer or find anything relevant in the archive index. My parents live in Mississippi and get their local phone service from South Central Bell. According to my parents, the bells in their phones make a 'ping' every evening around 10:15PM. They say that the ping almost always occurs around the same time, but that on certain nights it may not occur until close to midnight. They've called South Central Bell about this, and they were told that the ping was NOT occuring due to anything that the phone company was doing. By calling my parents number, I have not been able to find a way to duplicate the ping myself -- I always end up creating at least one full ring. What is the likely cause of this ping? Is it possible that some individual is doing it as an annoyance, or is it more likely a problem from within the phone system? Thank you. Glenn Leavell University of Georgia glenn@creator.ucns.uga.edu 706-542-5110 University Computing and Networking Services, Athens, GA 30602-1911 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 93 07:40:15-0800 From: /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com Subject: Operator Breaking Cellular Connection I was watching the movie Patriot Games this past week. In it our hero Harrison Ford (aka Dr Ryan), on his cellular phone, asks the operator to break into his wife's cellular phone connection. The operator tells him this is not possible, he has to wait till she hangs up. Although the cellular connections are not "static" like land-lines it seems to me that SOMEONE could have broken in. Happy New Year to all the Telecom readers. Thomas K Hinders Martin Marietta Computing Standards 4795 Meadow Wood Lane Chantilly, VA 22021 703.802.5593 (v) 703.802.5027 (f) [Moderator's Note: Most likely some person on the technical staff at the cellular company could have done it by going in on the desired line at the switch, but the telco operator could not do so. It is much like asking the telco operator to cut in on a conversation between two PBX stations. The local PBX operator is the one to ask. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 04 Jan 93 10:32:07 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY John Higdon writes: > Bob Yazz writes: >> You don't seriously believe such a state of affairs will stand, do you >> John? The PUC will order that numbers not be delivered, period. I >> can even see the potential for lawsuits against Pac Bell over this. > But the PUC cannot order this, just as it cannot prevent any carrier > from passing realtime ANI to end users. In SS7, the calling number is > ALWAYS transmitted as part of the data packet, although there is a bit > that identifies it as a "blocked" number if such is the case. Actually the PUC could order this and make it stand. The Network Interconnect package needed to allow SS7 interconection between the LEC and the IXC's makes provision for the calling number to be deleted from any IAM message sent to the IXC. This is true in every central office switch type I am aware of. This includes NTI, AT&T, and Ericsson. SWBT policy is that this feature is invoked in all central offices with SS7 interconnection to IXC's until calling number delivery is tariffed and sold in that CO and all subscribers have been fully informed (through bill inserts, etc.) of the impacts they will see. So the PUC could order this be done in PB-land and also require that PB negotiate with the switch vendors to insure the capability is retained from this day forward. Tim Gorman - SWBT *opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #8 ****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03854; 5 Jan 93 6:15 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21486 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:20:47 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00519 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:20:09 -0600 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:20:09 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301050920.AA00519@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #9 TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Jan 93 03:20:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 9 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Cellular Modems (was Cellular RJ-11 Jacks) (Steve Pershing) Motorola Flip Fone Won't Reprogram (Jason Rogers) Part 68 - Just the FAQs (Rob Bailey) [TDR] DISA Yaks to FCC on PCS (Paul Robinson) Cellular One Off-Peak vs SWBMS Off Peak (Mark Earle) AC 215/610 Split (Bob Kupiec) Prepaid Card Phones vs. COCOTs (Peter Capek) Car (*not* Personal) Cell Phone Rcommendations? (Andrew Klossner) Prodigy <> Internet (jdelancy@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil) USA to UK Clear Calls (Richard Spence) Automated Sales Calls (Ray Normandeau) Alternate to AT&T Mail Delivery (Tom Lahey) Residential vs Business LD (was All Circuits Are Busy ...) (Peng Hwa) 1A ESS Master Scanner Correction (Alan L. Varney) Reference for "Tragedy of the Commons" Article (Jim Haynes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Cellular Modems (was Cellular RJ-11 Jacks) From: sp@questor.org (Steve Pershing) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 23:17:40 PST Organization: Questor|Free Usenet News|Vancouver, BC: +1 604 681 0670 In article , dsjohns@uswnvg.com (Dwight Johns) writes: > Many of the newer cellular phones out there have (oh, what's a good > politicaly correct term) less than fully functioning RJ-11 jack on > Now my only complaint is that I can't go over 1200 baud on a > cellular connection and that I drop carrier whenever I handoff. ZyXEL's modems are capable of working on a cellular connexion. They have a proprietary "cellular mode" which handles cell hand-offs easily. If you are looking for data on these modems, we have most of their spec sheets scanned in as 300x300dpi TIFF images, which are ZOO-compressed. If you send a message to: mail-server@questor.org with the first lines in the body of text being: help dir files you should get enough info back to get you started. (We also have data sheets on Telebits, and a neat little PC-based EPROM programmer.) Best regards from snowy Vancouver, B.C. (yes! ...SNOWY!) Steve Pershing, SysAdmin The QUESTOR Project FREE access to Environ, Sci, Med, & AIDS news, and more. [also UUCP] on a ZyXEL-1496S v.42bis, v.32bis, v.33, up to 16,800bps. -=- -=- -=- -=- Fones: (+1 604) Data: 681-0670 Telefax: 682-6160 Voice: 682-6659 ------------------------------ Subject: Motorola Flip Fone Won't Reprogram From: jrogers@questor.org (Jason Rogers) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 23:02:08 PST Organization: Questor|Free Usenet News|Vancouver, BC: +1 604 681 0670 Well, I bit the bullet and bought a nice little Beige Motorola flip-fone from a shady fellow at a low price. I wanted one just to be able to take it apart and see the works inside, and to be able to use it for 911 in case of emergencies. It took me about 20 minutes to figure out the lock code, and I was in luck as the factory six-digit security code was still the default. This particular phone seems to be the cheapest flip-fone of the Motorola line. It is gray in color, has a seven-digit green, seven-segment LED display, and has "In Use", "No Svc" and "Roam" indicators. The Touch pad is the usual 12 buttons, with two rows of four control buttons each, labelled: Rcl Sto Clr Snd Pwr Vol Lock End I have had it apart. Nice construction ... all surface mount components, lots of RF ground fingers, etc. I managed to re-program the unit a couple of times by entering the initial programming sequence (STO, #, Security Code entered 2x, RCL). Well, it seems to have stopped there, and won't reprogram any more. Manuals for such phones seem to indicate that there is a finite limit on the reprogramming, and after a number of tries it will have to be reset by a service person. Can anyone tell me how to re-enable reprogramming?? Many thanks in advance. (A tech manual would probably be an asset!) :-) Jason Rogers (jrogers@questor.org) | QUESTOR: Free Dial-in Public Access to Usenet Health, Medical News | | & AIDS forums, and Info on Global Environment at +1 604 681 0670. | [Moderator's Note: By setting a finite number of times the phone can be re-programmed, Motorola is trying to discourage people like yourself from buying phones from other shady characters (did I mean to insert the word 'other' back there?). When you run out of attempts, then you have to take the phone to a dealer, where it shows up on his hot list of stolen phones and he whispers to the guy at the counter to try and stall you while he calls the police from the back room. :) But, as they say, knowledge is power: you can be your own service technician and save yourself the potential for embarassment when the clerks at the cell phone dealership snicker as the police lead you away. If your Motorola phone has a 25 pin connector to the battery, then it is likely that pin 21 is what they call the 'manual test line'. By tying pin 21 low, the phone goes into 'local test mode' and some additional reprogramming can be done, including the resetting of that register which keeps track of how often you have hacked at or tried to phreak with the instrument. As luck would have it, pin 21's neighbor, pin 20 happens to be ground. *Carefully* solder a little wire with a micro-mini push off/on switch in the middle between pins 20-21 (be sure the pins are the same on your unit, of course). Install the battery and clicking the switch on or off should take you in and out of test mode. You'll get a screen display something like this: #??#. You fill in the ?? part. I think register 32 re-initializes the non-volatile memory (sets everything to zeros). DO NOT turn off the phone until the normal display returns. The phone may sit there and do nothing for upwards a minute ... just wait it out. You should be back in business for a few more hacking and phreaking attempts. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 05 Jan 93 01:38:59 EST From: Rob Bailey, WM8S <74007.303@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Part 68 - Just the FAQs This has got to be a FAQ, but I can't find it anywhere. I know I've seen it asked before, but I've never seen an authoritative reply: What certification is REQUIRED before a company can sell a device that is intended to be attached to the public switched service network? I.e., if I was going to build and sell a touch-tone interface or a modem of some sort, would I have to get Part 68 type acceptance certification? Could I just make the device according to part 68 requirements, of do I actually need to pay somebody to prove to the FCC that the device meets those specifications? Do I need to register the device with the FCC? Attach an REN to the device? Who performs such certification (if it's required)? How much is it? How long does it take? Ad nauseum ... isn't there a book somewhere called "How to get a device Part 68 approved" or something? Finally, another question I've seen asked thousands of times: it's completely unreasonable to expect me to pay the fortune the federal government wants for a printed copy of Part 68; is it on-line somewhere free? Has anyone gone through this process that can shed some light? Toby? Rob 74007.303@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 18:41:26 EST Subject: [TDR] DISA Yaks to FCC on PCS "DISA yaks to FCC on PCS" (Gee, I've always wanted to do a 'Variety' style headline. :) ) Article Summary Government Computer News, January 4, 1993, Page 38 This is a summary of an article about a technology you've probably never seen, complained about by an agency you've probably never heard of. In an article titled "Defense agency wants PCS voice services in public domain", author S. A. Marud tells how the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) has jumped into the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) inquiry into the standards to be set on the operation of the startup Personal Communications Services (PCS) industry. PCS is a wireless digital technology which operates at 2 gigahertz. Cellular is analog. Also, one advantage of the service is that a number can be assigned to a person, not to a telephone. Two groups in DISA, the Federal Wireless Services User Forum (FWSUF) and the Interagency Cellular Radio Working Group (ICRWG) were the impetus for filing comments. They want to be certain that PCS supports at least Group 3 / Group 4 Fax, paging, images, and voice and data encrypted with an STU-III device. i.e. that a group 3 fax modem should work the same whether it's plugged into a wall jack or a PCS phone. PCS should also support dialing "0" for Operator and 911 for Emergency. ICRWG wants there to be two nationwide carriers for PCS, or in the alternative, at least one frequency block reserved nationally to one carrier and the rest awarded to local carriers. DISA's concerns on National Security and Emergency Preparedness makes it want certain basic services (Such as area code 710?) to be part of the new system, and that at least voice services to be available through the public switched (read local telco, AT&T, FTS-2000, MCI etc.) network. The systems should be made to be interoperable (meaning the phone you use in Dallas should also work in Kansas City, Chicago, New York and Los Angeles), either from the start or soon after some industry standards can be developed. DISA would also prefer that PCS licenses be issued for large areas if no nationwide carrier(s) are authorized. DISA is worried that PCS may be declared to be "private carriers" which means that the government cannot mandate that they be part of the Telecommunications Priority System (TSP) which allows the government to sieze telephone lines. TSP was invoked by the federal government for more than 4000 circuits and services during Hurricane Andrew. Certain industry groups are watching the rulemaking process on PCS, including the Wireless Information Network Forum (which represents computer and communications companies including Apple, AT&T & IBM), Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) (guess who they represent). CTIA is worried that the FCC might decide that PCS license won't be issued to a cellular operator in the same area. A decision on how the PCS industry is to be structured is expected from the FCC sometime in Fall 1993. Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM These opinions are mine alone. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 21:00:45 -0600 From: mearle@cgull.ccsu.edu (Mark Earle) Subject: Cellular One Off-Peak vs SWBMS Off Peak Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, the 'B' carrier for cellular phones in most of Texas, offeres a variety of monthly plans and costs. These seem to be market taylored. For instance, in DFW there isn't a readily accessable off peak plan with zero cents per air minute. In many smaller markets, including Corpus Christi, there is such a plan available. I pay $40/month (plus taxes, $5 for voicemail on 3rd ring/no ans). Cellular One announced via a full page ad, radio spots, and a TV spot, their version of off peak. $40/month 240 minutes "free" additional off peak minutes 9 cents includes 15 "free" peak minutes, additional peak minutes 15 cents. [SWBMS with the above is 40 cents / min peak, no "free" minutes]. Off peak is 8 p.m. local through 7 a.m., plus all day Saturday / Sunday, and four holidays (Easter, 4th July, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and this year, they included New Year's Day.) In some ways the C1 plan looks better, as the peak minutes are cheaper, and really, 240 "free" off peak minutes is a lot of talking. I rarely run up more than 60 or so off peak minutes, and many of those are because at 0.00/min, who cares? I probably won't change carriers now (although I could next month) mainly because of the hassles of changing the number people use to get me. As yet, I'm unsure if the C1 plan includes "features". SWBMS includes CW, CF, 3W, and detailed billing in the above plan. * In DFW and other large market cities, SWBMS offers the zero - peak "Advantage" plan, but only to corporate or group buyers. Sometimes individuals can "push" and get this plan. In Corpus, we can get it simply by agreeing to a 1 year service commitment. mearle@cgull.ccsu.edu 73117.351@compuserve.com Mark Earle 1:160/50 ------------------------------ From: beyonet!olwejo!bob@cs.widener.edu (Bob Kupiec) Subject: AC 215/610 Split Reply-To: olwejo!bob@uunet.UU.NET Organization: Olwejo - Private UNIX System Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:35:13 GMT I just heard on the news today that Bell of Pennsylvania will announce an Area Code split in AC 215. Supposedly, in 1994 there will be a split to AC 610 that will separate Philadelphia with its suburbs. Most of Philadelphia will continue with 215 while the suburbs will pick up 610. I knew this would happen soon. Seems like it's here right now! Bob Kupiec, N3MML Internet: kupiec@hp800.lasalle.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 01:40:09 EST From: capek@watson.ibm.com Subject: Prepaid Card Phones vs. COCOTs Reading the discussion here recently about COCOTs and the cost to a premises owner of a LEC coin phone, I wonder if these economics will change when prepaid card access phones become common. I would guess that such phones (common in Europe for years, but only just starting to be available in New York, and nowhere else in the US that I know of) would make it possible for an LEC to provide a card phone which is less subject to vandalism (due to the lack of a coin box) and requires less service (again, no coin box to empty). Does anyone have any facts about this? Peter Capek ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 13:39:40 PST Subject: Car (*not* Personal) Cell Phone Recommendations? Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon There was a time when the only cell phones were hard-wired into a car. My wife wants one of these for the car she's buying: she never wants to take it away from the car, and she wants it to turn on whenever the car is started. She doesn't want to mount a hand-held or drop in a transportable bag phone. Any recommendations? Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 15:48:56 EST From: jdelancy@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil Subject: Prodigy <> Internet About a month or so ago, someone posted that a gateway for Email from Internet to/from Prodigy would probably be in business by Christmas. Anyone have the latest status on that "activation"? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 19:34 GMT From: Richard Spence Subject: USA to UK Clear Calls Reply-To: rspence@cix.compulink.co.uk I know that it is possible to get a 'digital line' to the USA by using a different dialing code from the UK. This results in a full 64kbps line being made available for ISDN terminal to ISDN terminal calls. It must be possible to do the same operation from the USA, but I don't know the code. Does anybody out there know? Just for interest the code from the UK would be 0101 aaa nnnnnn for a 'normal' line and 01001 aaa nnnnnnn for an ISDN line. Thanks, Richard Spence rspence@cix.compulink.co.uk CompuServe: 100112,304 >>>MATRIX version 1.21e ------------------------------ Subject: Automated Sales Calls From: ray.normandeau@factory.com (Ray Normandeau) Date: 3 Jan 93 14:18:00 GMT Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-8298v.32bis Reply-To: ray.normandeau@factory.com (Ray Normandeau) Contact Ray Normandeau 718 392-1267 Download this and other "off-beat" items by computer modem from Normandeau Newswire on Invention Factory BBS 212-274-8110 Updated January 3, 1993 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ===================== Computer Dialers Got You By The Calls? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ by Raymond B. Normandeau Normandeau Newswire- No matter where you are from the Nassau border to the Hudson River you may have gotten a computer dialed call telling you that you may be eligible for a fabulous prize. If you have not gotten such a call yet, cheer-up, you probably will. The recorded message is played to you extremely fast. You may have won a life-time supply of amphetatmines so that you too may start a similar business. Have you gotten computer dialed calls from "Hopping Harry". Maybe calls mentioning Reno Nevada? Have these calls told you to call a 540-nnnn number? Do you think that maybe the recorded messages failed to tell you the price of the call? Did the recording mention "Five-Four-Oh" several times? If the recording said "The call is billed at Five-Four-Oh" they meant that you are billed #5.40. You WERE paying attention weren't you? Those are the bargain calls, the sky is the limit. Was an address speed spoke so fast that "slow you" missed it? If you have multiple phone lines and have been lucky enough to be the recipient of multiple calls you may like to go pick up your multiple prizes in person. You may have been told to call 540-0100, 540-9900 or another 540-nnnn number. Now ... back to that address. Sneaky us, taped one of those calls and played back the address. Would you like to visit the office where the calls came from? Are you Hopping Mad? Here is the address: Eagleton Group Inc 717 East Jericho Turnpike #213 Huntington Station, NY 11746 If the recording tells you that you must call within "n" minutes and you want to get more information by phone without paying a hefty fee for the call, then dial 718-830-8781 which is a Forest Hills answering service for the Huntington Station address. You will only be charged for a regular local call. So now you have it. You can pay them a visit! You may have to speak to them real slowly like. They don't hear as fast as they talk. However, no matter how slowly you tell them that you want no more calls from them, they won't stop calling you - ever. We know, we tried! ------------------------------ From: toml@batfish.attmail.com Date: 3 Jan 93 21:46:32 GMT Subject: Alternate to AT&T Mail Delivery I've recently started getting telecom off the Internet via AT&T mail. (currently my only access to the Internet). I just did a quick calculation and each issue costs me in the range of $2.05!!! While I've found the content to be very educational and worth far in excess of the $2.05 per issue, I'm afraid that my e-mail budget is about to go bust! Does anyone know how I can get an Internet feed via dial-up? (with something less than a $0.95 for the first 3000 characters and .05 per 1000 after that?) I'll keep watching for a couple of more days! Thanks in advance, Tom Lahey - toml!batfish@attmail.com (for now!) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 11:04:34 SST From: Ang Peng Hwa Subject: Residential vs Business LD (was All Circuits Are Busy...) Dave Ptasnik wrote: > With a higher percentage of business usage, most OCCs have very > litte traffic on their switches at nights, on weekends, and > holidays. The trunks that are busily full during the day sit idle. > We used periodically to get directives from our switch manager > to sell more residential accounts, and try to busy up the lines > at night a little more. I am trying to develop a theory around the facts provided above to argue that there are limits to competition in the long-distance market. (Ok, I know I'm treading on sacred grounds here.) One of my arguments is that for true long-distance competition -- along the line of the USA model -- vs phony LD competition as in UK, there must be a diversity of users: both residential and business. As Dave noted, the residential users typically call in the evenings, when trunks are idle. While Dave notes the difficulty of finding residential users with more than $50 in LD charges, I am finding difficulty obtaining the relevant data to prove the point. I'm still developing the idea so inputs sans flames are welcome. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 16:23:18 CST From: varney@ihlpl.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: 1A ESS Master Scanner Correction Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL In response to an article from bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler), I wrote: > If you are MOST curious (i.e., willing to spend money), you > should know that almost all the hardware (and some software, tools, > testing details, etc.) associated with 1/1A ESS(tm) switches is > described at a high level in two special issues of the Bell Labs > Technical Journal (BSTJ), one on the 1 ESS switch, and a later one that > describes the 1A Processor (used in both 1A ESS and 4ESS(tm) switches). > "No. 1 Electronic Switching System", BSTJ, Vol. 43 No. 5, > September 1964, Parts 1 & 2. > "The 1A Processor", BSTJ, Vol. 43 No. 5, February 1977. Terry Kennedy has (rightly) questioned the Volume numbers ... the second reference should be: "The 1A Processor", BSTJ, Vol. 56 No. 2, February 1977. Al Varney -- just MY mistake ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 23:07:06 -0800 Subject: Reference for "Tragedy of the Commons" Article Several people have asked for the reference for the Garret Hardin "Tragedy of the Commons" article that I mentioned in connection with telemarketing. The reference is: {Science Magazine} (Amer Assn for the Advancement of Science) vol 162, p 1243, 13 December 1968 The axe Hardin was grinding in writing the article was population control; but the argument is widely applicable. It goes roughly like this. Suppose there is a meadow which produces enough grass to feed 1000 cows. Suppose it is used in common by 100 farmers, each with 10 cows. Now if a farmer acquires an extra cow he has increased his wealth by 10%, while each of the 1001 cows is affected by a food shortage of only 0.1%. Hence the temptation is overwhelming to stick in an extra cow or two. If only one farmer did this the effect would be practically insignificant; but when all the farmers give in to this temptation all the cows suffer from malnutrition as the meadow becomes seriously overgrazed. [Moderator's Note: This is the essence of what many people tried to explain years ago regards so-called 'victimless crimes'. In some situations the process of victimization is very slow -- so slow as to be almost indiscernable; in fact we see no immediate victim and claim therefore there must not be one. Instead of the personal discipline in our lives needed to make society as a whole function well, each of us says, 'well, this one little thing won't hurt, there are no victims.' After a few months, years or decades, these little (I like to call them termites in our conciousness) pecadillos each of us practice in our lives have eaten away enough of our society that there is a serious erosion we are unable to stop. Bit by bit, piece by piece until it all collapses like a rotting beach house on the ocean hit by the tides day after day. The USA in the 1990's is proof of this. The termites have been feasting for years, and the foundation is almost gone. Yes, I am guilty of this same sloth also. Old I grew too soon and wise too late. :( PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #9 ****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12238; 6 Jan 93 18:36 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21459 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:30:50 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09661 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:30:02 -0600 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:30:02 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301062230.AA09661@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #10 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Jan 93 16:30:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 10 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson North Carolina Area Code 919 to Split Into 919 and 910 (Bob Goudreau) 800 Number Troubles (Mike McNally) 976 Fraud in Toronto (Tony Harminc) Asia-Pacific Engineering Journal - Call For Papers (Chua Kee Chaing) Out of Town Businesses on Local Numbers? (lunatix!chelf@ms.uky.edu) UUCP Through Multiple Carriers (Michael Hamilton) Hunt Groups (Rob Boudrie) Does a CNID Device List Exist? (Don Wegeng) A Minor Nit With the Telecom FAQ (Pat Turner) Colorado Gets Caller ID (Tim Gorman) Do-It-Yourself Caller ID (Thomas K. Hinders) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:55:48 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: North Carolina Area Code 919 to Split Into 919 and 910 David Esan, in the January V&H report, notes: > Other NPAs that are candidates for a split include eastern North > Carolina (714) [sic], Philadelphia (215), and 602 (Arizona). Someone else recently posted an article describing 215's split into 215 and 610. Well, we can now add 919 (which is what Dave *meant* to say above when describing the crowded area code that covers all of eastern and northern North Carolina; 704 covers just the southwestern portion of the state) to the list of splitters. Today's _News_&_Observer_ (Raleigh's daily) announces that a new area code 910 will be created out of 919 later this year. The new area will encompass the northwestern and north-central areas of the state (including the "Triad" area of Greensboro, Winston Salem and High Point), and will cut a diagonal corridor through the middle of the state on its way to the coast, where it will also pick up the entire southeastern portion (including Wilmington and Fayetteville). The 919 code will be reduced to the central and northeastern parts of North Carolina, starting at Sanford and stretching north and east to include the Resarch Triangle (Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill) area all the way to the Outer Banks and the eastern part of the Virginia border. The "permissive dialing" phase (when 910 is first activated, but when 919 will still also work for 910 numbers) will begin November 14th of this year. The cutover will be complete on February 13, 1994, when 910 will be required for all numbers in the new area. The newspaper article notes that "... it is expected that the 910 area code will cause some confusion because it is so similar to 919". (Incidentally, has any area code split ever used a new code so similar to the old one?) Of course, we TELECOM Digest readers know the reason for this, and so does the article, which mentions that "... the 910 area code was the only one available to North Carolina." So that's it folks: all the N10 area codes have now been exhausted, given that the US government is apparently not going to relinquish its secretive 710 code. If there are any other splits within the NANP before the NXX era begins next year, they'll have to burn one of the N11 or N00 codes. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally) Subject: 800 Number Troubles Date: 6 Jan 93 19:16:15 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Palo Alto, CA Here's something a little strange, to me anyway. I've been trying all morning to call Equifax and find out how to get a copy of my credit information. I got through once to their robo-phone system, and after about five minutes of menu navigation it just dropped me in the middle of a recorded message. Fine. I tried to call back, however, and got the message "Due to technical difficulties, we cannot complete your call. Please try again later." Hmm. I repeatedly dialed and got the same result. The AT&T operators told me that the number is an MCI number, and they directed me to MCI 800 service (888-1800). There, I was told that the number was indeed working, but that the customer (Equifax) had set up the account such that only 45% of the calls originating rom my area code (415) would succeed. The rest get the "technical difficulties" message. Two separate MCI people told me this same thing. Well gee, I'm a little miffed at this setup; why don't I just get a busy signal? MCI would save themselves a lot of time if they'd do that instead of the clearly bogus message; if I got a busy signal, I would interpret that to mean that my call couldn't get through because the capacity had been exhausted. Alternatively, the message could tell me exactly what's going on: "We're sorry, but you lose; we only accept 45% of the calls from area code 415, and you're in the unlucky 55%." Mike + Software + Digital Equipment + Western Software + mcnally@ McNally + Laborer + Corporation + Laboratory + wsl.dec.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 00:56:39 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: 976 Fraud in Toronto This past November, a company I consult for had three unauthorized calls to (416) 976-9467 made on one of its lines. Each call was one minute long and was billed at $24. Thinking back, we remember the likely perpetrator -- a man claiming to be serving legal papers on someone who supposedly used to work at the office address. There were several small discrepancies to his story, but he seemed just as puzzled as we were. He asked to use the phone, and I remember that he did a lot of dialing, but when challenged he showed a pager with display and claimed he was calling his voicemail. Bell Canada has agreed to remove the charges, but will not tell us the name of the owner of this number. We are not eager to pursue it with the police, because of the small amount of the fraud, but we are concerned that this may be part of an organized scam (else how would the 'process server' benefit?) and others may also have been hit. The $24 charge is quite a bit higher than the usual sex and sleaze lines which -- according to the ads -- are mostly $10. We have cleaned up our act for handling of future visitors who want to use the phone (for now we dial it, and toll restrictors are coming soon), but I would like 1) suggestions for how to pursue this, and 2) to hear from anyone else in 416 who has been hit with calls to this number. Perhaps someone in an adjacent NPA could dial it and let me know who answers. Many thanks. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: eleckc@nuscc.nus.sg (Chua Kee Chaing (Dr)) Subject: Asia-Pacific Engineering Journal - Call For Papers Organization: National University of Singapore Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:11:13 GMT ASIA-PACIFIC ENGINEERING JOURNAL PART A - ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING December 1993 Issue on Communications Engineering CALL FOR PAPERS The Asia-Pacific Engineering Journal (APEJ) provides within the rapidly changing Asia-Pacific region a unique source of information on current international research activities and trends in technology. It aims to keep its readers fully briefed with major papers, reports and reviews on state-of-the-art technologies and products. The journal is published in separate parts that cover the disciplines of Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Chemical and Industrial Engineering. Part A is devoted to Electrical Engineering, and covers the four main areas of Communications Engineering, Computer Engineering, Control and Automation, and Microelectronics. The December 1993 issue of Part A of the APEJ is devoted to Communications Engineering. The issue will be a special issue concentrating on the field of High-Speed Networking, and original contributions in all aspects of this field of research are now solicited. In particular, relevant topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following: * Broadband ISDN and ATM networks * Gigabit/s networking * Lightwave networks * High-speed transport protocols * Management of high-speed networks * Flow and congestion control in high-speed networks Prospective authors are requested to submit four (4) copies of their manuscripts, written in English, and including a 100-word abstract, to the following by 1 April 1993. Dr. Kee C. Chua Department of Electrical Engineering National University of Singapore 10 Kent Ridge Crescent Singapore 0511 Fax.: +65 777 3117 Email.: eleckc@nuscc.nus.sg ------------------------------ Subject: Out of Town Businesses on Local Numbers? Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 0:32:59 EST From: lunatix!chelf@ms.uky.edu The other day, I saw the number for a business located in a nearby town (which is not normally in the local calling area), however, the prefix was a local one. I tried calling the number, but could not get through. I tried the operator and she connected me, and after asking why the 'number' was in my town, and the 'business' was in another, she only said, 'It's in the computer, but it is connected to a different town.' Any ideas as to what's happening here? [Moderator's Note: Businesses (actually, anyone, but it is mostly businesses) can have a 'foreign exchange' line -- commonly known as an FX. When they use that phone, or receive calls on it, it is as though they were in the place where the phone exchange is located. There are various reasons one might do this. One reason is the company makes a large volume of calls to that town, and the cost of the FX line plus local calling charges, if any, are less than the cost of the same number of calls dialed as long distance. Other times an FX line is intended to give a company a 'presence' in the town where it is located. They wish to make a convenient way for their customers in that town to reach them, and find the call volume is sufficient to warrant a dedicated FX line rather than hundreds (or thousands) of calls on 800 lines. Whether or not an FX line makes better sense than (for example) a IN-WATS line is an applications problem. With the cost of long distance and/or 800 calls being less than ever before, FX lines are not nearly as common as they used to be. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pacific!mkh%jato@jato-news.jpl.nasa.gov (michael hamilton) Subject: UUCP Through Multiple Carriers Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:13:34 GMT I am currently taking a newsfeed through a university (which shall remain nameless, but Thank God John Robinson is back) in Los Angeles. To do this, I must go through my local carrier GTE, and through the carrier that services the university area, Pac-Bell. Further, the University has an Instanet Data PABX port selector that I have to navigate through, before I finally reach the system I want. To do this, I'm using a Telebit T2500, and going through what I believe is a Micom modem on the university side. My question: is all this routing through various switches causing my horrible throughput? I should be getting on the order of 1200 cps, and I get more like 400, if and when I don't time out waiting for the other end. I have tried every combination of register settings, disabling V.42, MNP, etc., but nothing improves this performance. I know it's not the modem, because talking to another T2500 (in the same GTE area) I got >4X what I'm getting now. Thanks for any thoughts on this. Responses through e-mail are preferred, but if you post here I'll eventually see it. michael hamilton mkh@pacific.jpl.nasa.gov / oceanography from space ------------------------------ From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) Subject: Hunt Groups Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:10:33 GMT Is it possible for two numbers serviced by the same physical CO to be placed on a hunt group even though they has different exchange prefixes? I don't want to have either of my numbers changed since one is my old number everyone knows, and the other is a xxx-xx00 number (had to pull some strings to get it). When I ordered service and made various inquiries, I run into folks who don't know what terms like "POTS line" and "demarc" mean, and offered me services excluded by tariff (the sales rep initially told me they could offer me a metered line, though this is prohibited if you have an unmetered line in the same house). [ After answering his questions about the various telco terms, he asked if there was anything else he should know about the fone system, saying that they had obviously not trained enough. I told him he should learn all about area code 710, and to keep asking until he finds someone who can explain what it is for. (Wish I could be there for that :) :) ) ]. rob boudrie rboudrie@chpc.org [Moderator's Note: I've never heard of a hunt group including lines on different prefixes, even if they were in the same CO. Anyone? PAT] ------------------------------ From: wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com (Don Wegeng) Subject: Does a CNID Device List Exist? Reply-To: wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com Organization: Xerox Corp., Henrietta, NY Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:55:10 GMT With all of the requests for information about CNID devices, it occured to me that it would be useful if someone or some publication had assembled a list of the devices that are currently available. I appreciate that it may be very difficult to keep track of all of the products that are being introduced, but perhaps one of the consumer magazines has published a summary. Does anyone know of such a list? Thanks, Don wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com ------------------------------ From: turner@Dixie.Com Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 10:27 EST Reply-To: turner@dixie.com Subject: A Minor Nit With the Telecom FAQ I think Dave did an excellent job with the faq, but I would like to make a minor nit. > Q: What do "tip" and "ring" mean? > A: The conductors of a wire pair to a telephone set are referred to > as tip (T) and ring (R). Tip (T) is usually the more positively > charged of the two while Ring (R) tends to be more of a ground. This seems to be a common misconception. CO battery is -48, rather then +48 with respect to (WRT) ground. Thus tip is positive WRT ring, but is actually at ground, if current isn't flowing. Ring is then at -48 V, again assuming no voltage losses. The reasons for doing is galvonic corrosion protection. A conductor with a - charge will repel chlorine ions, as Cl ions are negative also. If the line were to have a posative charge, Cl ions would be attracted. This form of corrosion protection is called cathodic protection. It is often used for pipelines, bridges, etc. I don't know how important it is now, but it was very important in the days of open wire transmission lines. CO battery does not have to be 48 V. 24 V is often used for PBX and Key systems, long loops may have a higher battery voltage. > However, two wires normally suffice to complete a connection > between a telephone and the central office; any extra wiring > would be for purposes such as grounding or for party line ringing. Also to supply dial light for the Princess phones. Pat Turner KB4GRZ turner@dixie.com ------------------------------ Date: 06 Jan 93 10:04:04 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Colorado Gets Caller ID In TELECOM Digest V13, #8 I read the following concerning Caller ID penetration. Colorado (Richard Lucas): Heavy Demand at initial offering. Nevada (Centel) : 10% penetration IBT (Moderator) : Very popular service long term New Jersey (NJ Bell) : 4.6% penetration (no blocking available) Colorada has PUC mandated restrictions about blocking availability and, as I remember, so does IBT. I am unsure about Nevada -- does anyone know if blocking availablity is mandated there? I realize that initial demand in Colorado doesn't necessarily translate into similar long term demand, but for the sake of argument, assume it does. Let's also assume that Nevada has mandated blocking availability. That would mean that Caller ID penetration is higher in those areas with mandated blocking than in the area that doesn't have any blocking at all available. By more than double in the case of Nevada! Perhaps PacBell is making a marketing mistake by not offering caller id even though mandated blocking restrictions would apply? Perhaps their total revenues would be higher than if no blocking at all was available? Tim Gorman - SWBT *opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 11:25:11-0800 From: /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com Subject: Do-It-Yourself Caller ID From the Dec 1992 {Telecommunications} magazine in the Technology Watch Page 14: Do-It-Yourself Caller ID "Caller ID hits the computer marketplace. While the Telcos roll out Caller ID systems and regulators wrestle with privacy issues, the consumer marketplace is offering its own form of call screening. One such product is offered through KES Communications Inc., which has released Friends Only, a device that picks up calls before the telephone rings. With it, users can dodge unwanted calls via a three-digit security access code." "When a caller initially gets through, an operator-like voice says: 'Thank you for calling; please enter your access code.' Callers who do not enter the code within ten seconds are disconnected. The device is FCC compliant, but users may encounter some procedural difficulties prior to using the product. KES notes that changes in telco facilities, equipment, or operation of the product. In addition, the local exchange carrier must be notified prior to connection in order to comply with state tariffs; and in some states, PUCs must approve use prior to connection. The device uses RJ-11C connectors which plug into telephone and wall receptacles. It is compatable with special features such as call waiting, call forwarding, and three-way calling. The price is $99.95." No address or phone number was supplied. Wonder if you need a access code to get them to answer the phone? Thomas K Hinder Martin Marietta Computing Standards 4795 Meadow Wood Lane Chantilly, VA 22021 703.802.5593 (v) 703.802.5218 (f) [Moderator's Note: This is just the old 'Priv-Code' device. It first came out in the middle 1970's and was manufactured then by the International Mobile Machines Corp. of Bala Cynwyd, PA. It sits on the line and grabs all incoming calls. Unless the person enters the proper code, your phone never rings. Certain codes are allocated to send calls direct to an answering machine you attach to the line. I had one about fifteen years ago; they are fun, but can be a nuisance for people trying to legitimatly reach you who do not have a code number. I think someone wrote me once to say IMM no longer was making the thing; someone else is doing it now. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #10 ***************************** Due to a transmission error, issue 11 appears in this file following issue 14. In addition, some other issues between here and the end of the file arrived out of order as well.   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20352; 7 Jan 93 17:00 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10241 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:55:17 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03882 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:54:53 -0600 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:54:53 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301072054.AA03882@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #12 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Jan 93 14:54:50 CST Volume 13 : Issue 12 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Calling Canada From Italy - Answers (Wm Randolph Franklin) Canadian Competition Full Steam Ahead; Bell Canada Loses (David Leibold) Bell Canada Proposes Extended 911 Service (For a Price) (David Leibold) Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune (Udi Manber) 16550 UART Request (Randy Zagar) FAQ Update on the Way (David Leibold) Equivalence Charges (Tony Harminc) Bellcore Documents Phone Number Wanted (Daniel Drucker) TSR Comm. S/W (Dave Dunwoodie) Cellular Phones: CLI, VOICE & SHORT (Rudolf Usselmann) What is Junk Fax? (Ron Herff) What Should I Know if I'm Buying a Cellular Phone? (Joel M. Hoffman) Possibility of Interstate Closed-User-Group of Dial-up Modems? (Mike Brown) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wrf@speed.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) Subject: Calling Canada From Italy - answers Reply-To: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:52:21 GMT In December I asked how to call Canada from Italy since AT&T and MCI didn't do it (with US cards). Several people said that there is a "Canada Direct" number from Italy, 172 1001. It charges, roughly, $6 for 3 minutes, then $1 per minute, and say that they take AT&T calling cards. Thanks to: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) Tony Harminc Samuel Ho The Italian PTT prints a wallet card giving direct numbers like this for many countries. It's available at some visitor centers and international airports. I mentioned about using MCI to call from Italy to Germany. That's a real example, they have large ads for the service. They charge $2/minute, which suggests that the call is routed via the USA. Calling Germany directly from Italy is only (!!) $1/min. Italy is apparently one of the more expensive European countries for international calling. International directory assistance from Italy can be complicated. They try to use their own copies of the foreign directories instead of connecting you to a foreign operator. When I tried to get a number in Zurich, the Italian operator who could talk to me in English could not easily read the German phonebook to look up the really obscure number I wanted, that of the Swiss Post Office. On the plus side, the newer pay phones have an LCD display for messages, and the messages are available in four languages. Italy has variable length phone numbers, even within one city, such as Genoa. Area codes are also variable. I'm available for questions about phones in Italy since I just came back from three months over there. Wm. Randolph Franklin, wrf@ecse.rpi.edu, (518) 276-6077; Fax: -6261 ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 00:02:45 EST From: David Leibold Subject: Canadian Competition Full Steam Ahead; Bell Canada Loses CFRB Radio in Toronto reported today that Bell Canada will not pursue any further appeals with respect to the decision last June which opened up public long distance competition in Canada. Bell appealed portions of that decision relating to the level of compensation that competitors to Bell would have to pay to gain trunk-side access to Bell's local network. That is, while Unitel was able to offer a local number port service (Feature Group A type service), the enhanced services such as equal access, 10xxx+ dialing, 950 access and 800 services were on hold while the appeal was being processed. In December, the appeal court found that the CRTC did not overstep its authority in issuing the long distance decision, and that the CRTC's decision could stand. At that time, Bell could have made another, final appeal to the Supreme Court of Ca nada but as of today's announcement, such an appeal is not proceeding. Some time will elapse as preparations for full trunk-side access are made. The prevalence of Bell Canada DMS digital switches should make the switch to equal access relatively straightforward on a software scale (those DMS switches have to work in the U.S. environment in any event). The costs seem to be in the hardware and trunks necessary to connect to the carriers. At least we're not getting any COCOTs ... yet :-) dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 00:15:05 EST From: David Leibold Subject: Bell Canada Proposes Extended 911 Service (For a Price) {The Toronto Star} reports that Bell Canada has applied to bring 911 service throughout Ontario (and not just certain municipalities that elect to have the service, as is currently the case). Bell proposes that customers be charged 30 cents per month as part of the local monthly service, though. 70% of residences in Ontario have access to 911 at present, paid for by municipalities involved. If approved, the extended 911 service would be installed within five years. Municipalities would still have to staff response centres and connections to emergency services, if they join the 911 service. There are occasional cases outside of 911-serviced territory where calls to 911 are attempted, but fail. In those areas, the operator is normally able to handle emergency calls, but the lack of universal 911 service can be dangerous for the unwary. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 00:57:37 -0800 From: udi@cs.washington.edu (Udi Manber) Subject: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune If you always thought that 1-800 numbers (in the US) are toll free, think again. With new technology and the lack of regulations, people are finding new ways to make money. I learned this the hard way after being charged for (apparently) dialing the wrong 800 number. It took me a month and a half and probably 20 phone calls to find out this story. I'll try to make it short. It is possible, and apparently perfectly legal, to set an 800 number such that when you call you hear a recording that tells you that there will be charges for the call. The call is then transferred to a "station to station" call (quote from someone I talked to, but probably the wrong term) with arbitrary charges. That domain was reserved until recently to 900 numbers but through call forwarding (or some other mechanism) it can be done from any number! (If you haven't already guessed, most of these numbers are adult phone lines.) The idea (if there ever was one) is that you will have a fair warning and can hang up, but this is not enforced and is not always done. There are such numbers out there that will charge you whatever they feel like when you happen to dial them, and they are regular 800 numbers, and maybe even regular local numbers (not 976 or other special prefixes). The possibilities for scams are endless (I list some below for your reading pleasure), and the most scary thing is that it is so difficult to do anything about it. I talked to the billing company (INTEGRETEL which is an umbrella billing company for lots of outfits), US West (more on that later), ATT (who really has nothing to do with that and hate it just as much as I do), and the Washington state utilities commission. Everyone essentially said "just pay it, nothing we can do about it." Only after several conversations with the commission, and calls from them to US West (initially US West would not even take my complaint), I was told that US West now has a policy of removing such charges (coming from INTEGRETEL) for anyone who complains. When the next bill came, I found that they didn't. I called again, and no one knew anything about that policy. After more calls I was finally put in touch with someone probably higher up at US West who seemed to know what he was talking about. According to him (and two people at the commission), there is nothing really they can or going to do (besides handling complaints). They will remove the charges -- and he apologized for the operators and supervisors who did not know about that policy -- but will not prevent this from continuing. (He also told me that he got hold of some of those 800 numbers and indeed some charge you from the first second no matter what you do.) Washington State has a recent law regulating 900 numbers, but there is nothing about 800 numbers (they're free, right?). I don't know if this is a local idea or whether it is all over the place. I was told several times that there are no rules anywhere that say that 800 numbers are toll free. It's just something that everyone "knows". US West feels that they cannot discriminate against businesses that use their lines, and cannot prevent that use without a specific law. Since in this case the 800 number led to an out of state call, the utilities commission can't do anything. Everyone agreed that this is probably a great scam, but ... The beauty of this scam is that you are so far away from the people who are making it (you can't even find out who they are). They get your local phone company to bill you and the phone company feels they have to do it. Complaining is so hard, most people would prefer to pay the charges (I definitely spent more time than it was worth), not to mention that it is part of the phone bill and many people wouldn't notice (it appears as a long-distance call). And in the worst case they will not get your money. So here are some scam ideas (these are all fiction; do not try it at home): You can get an 800 number that is one digit away from a widely used 800 number and rip off anyone who makes a mistake (maybe that's what happened to me, they would not tell me the number). How about setting your own 900 number so that you can forward calls to it by all those who try to sell you something. Wouldn't that be great? They: "How are you doing this evening Mr. Manber?" Me: push a button and voila "You have reached the toll line explaining why unsolicited calls are bothering me. You will be charged $15 per minute starting 15 seconds ago. Please stay on the line..." (I think, by the way, that this is possible...) I was told that there were cases where people's calls got transferred *out of the country* after making local calls. You can put ads for information on how to make $10 a minute - just call 1-800-747-6337. That's 1-800-rip-offs! [This is an imaginary number - don't call please!]. How about tricking modems into calling those "local" numbers? Or going into lots of public places and asking "can I use your phone for a local call?" (You wouldn't block 800 numbers or local calls!) I have never seen this mentioned anywhere. I am really curious to know how this forwarding is physically done and whether anyone knows of any discussion on that at the FCC (who is probably the only agency that can do anything about it). Since I spent quite a bit of time already, I'd like to know any additional information anyone can give me about this (and similar) scams. Udi Manber (udi@cs.washington.edu) [Moderator's Note: We have discussed this here on many occassions in the past. Integretel will give you the name of the client they are billing for if you are persistent enough. The bad thing about outfits like Integretel and their clients are they make it hard on the honest operators of information and (yes, even phone sex) services. They don't seem to care that the public paints all such services with the same brush. PAT] ------------------------------ From: zagar@chester.cms.udel.edu (Randy [Java Man] Zagar) Subject: 16550 UART Request Reply-To: zagar@chester.cms.udel.edu Organization: Marine Studies, University of Delaware Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:51:10 GMT Okay folks ... if you'll e-mail me the names of vendors that sell computers with the 16550 UART on the motherboard, I'll summarize and re-post to the net. Thanks, Randy Zagar Internet: zagar@Chester.CMS.UDel.Edu Bell-net: 302/831-1139 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 22:04:20 EST From: David Leibold Subject: FAQ Update on The Way Some corrections and comments have arrived with respect to the FAQ which was re-posted to start the year off. Since the FAQ hasn't been touched in a year, I am about to get an update out of the way. This is the last chance to send in any corrections or other ideas for the version 4 FAQ which is expected to be available by the end of January. so ... send those cards and letters to: dleibold1@attmail.com or ... dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jan 93 01:36:49 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Equivalence Charges I was reviewing the phone bill for a company where I am consulting, and realized that Bell Canada is charging for one more equivalence feature than I would expect, e.g. there is a hunt group of three lines - the one published number hunts to the second if busy, which hunts to the third if second is busy, and that's the end - busy signal. Bell charges for three equivalence features for this. The droid in the business office insists that there is an 'ending feature' that must be installed on the third line to make it all work. I believe this is complete nonsense, but just before I open my mouth wide, could someone confirm that technically there is no 'feature' that need be installed on the last line of a hunt group? It would seem that this scheme of charging penalizes small business and residential users who have only a few lines. Large users will barely notice the 'n+1' charge distributed over many lines. Tony Harminc [Moderator's Note: When I worked at the UC phone room about 1960, there was one group of incoming trunks with *97* lines in a rotary hunt. MUseum 4-6100 hunted 6101 which hunted 6102 and on up the line to 6196. Outgoing calls from the switchboard started the other way around, with the first outgoing call on 6196 then backward one at a time. In actual practice the incoming calls met the outgoing calls around 6150. I thought that many lines in a hunt group was pretty outrageous. One time I tried busying out all the lines from 6100 through 6195, then placed a call to 6100 ... it took maybe two seconds longer than usual to hunt that far before sure enough, it rang in on 6196. (This was about four in the morning.) PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Bellcore Documents Phone Number Wanted From: mertwig!daniel@uunet.UU.NET (Daniel Drucker) Reply-To: Daniel Drucker Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 11:09:41 EST Organization: Abnormalities of Reality I was just reading _The Hacker Crackdown_ (Bruce Sterling). It mentions an 800 number and a catalog from Bellsouth where you can order various telco documents. (For instance E911.) Does anyone know the number? Please reply by mail as I do not recieve this newsgroup. Daniel Drucker daniel%mertwig@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Dave Dunwoodie 6042 Subject: TSR Comm. S/W Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 06:38:25 MST I need a TSR that will write to the CRT anything received from the modem. My modem has caller ID, but I'm not in the mood to leave the PC in terminal mode on the off chance that the phone might ring! Ideas? ------------------------------ From: rudi@netcom.com (Rudolf Usselmann) Subject: Cellular Phones: CLI, VOICE & SHORT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:12:39 GMT I have a Motorola MicroTAC Lite pocket phone. It has three features which I still don't quite understend: CLI, VOICE & SHORT CLI - seems to be something like Caller ID, it will store the phone number of the last caller. VOICE - Some sort of mailbox support? SHORT - Some sort of mailbox for short messages? None of these feature are supported yet (at least according to the company I have my service with). Does anybody have more info on these features? When will they beocme available? I'm in the SF Bay Area. The two major cellular providers are Cellular One and GTE Mobilnet. BTW: Which is "better" GTE or C1? Thanks a bunch ! rudi rudi@netcom.com Phone: (415) 321-8692 x236 work; (510) 745-7834 home ------------------------------ Subject: What is Junk Fax? From: ron.herff@satalink.com (Ron Herff) Date: 7 Jan 93 14:00:00 GMT Organization: Datamax/Satalink Connection * Ivyland, PA (215) 443-9434 Reply-To: ron.herff@satalink.com (Ron Herff) The FCC has passed some new regulations regarding junk telephone calls and "junk FAXes." Does anyone have the text of these new regulations? I am particularly interested in what makes a FAX a "junk FAX." Are all unsolicited FAXes "junk FAXes?" Is an unsolicited FAX directly addressed to a person "junk?" and illegal? Ron Herff [Moderator's Note: An unsolicited fax sent to someone is not automat- icaly 'junk' any more than an unsolicited phone call is 'junk', despite what a lot of companies may claim about 'unauthorized' fax messages or 'unauthorized' email, etc. If a large company can call me on the phone and try to sell me something, I can send them a fax message telling them what I think. PAT] ------------------------------ From: joel@wam.umd.edu (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: What Should I Know if I'm Buying a Cellular Phone? Organization: University of Maryland, College Park Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:32:34 GMT I'd like to purchase a portable phone -- one that I can take with me and use in the car, but don't know anything about them. Is there somewhere I can look for info? Or, would some kind soul like to tell me what I should know? The phone will mostly be used in the New York City area (in the city and in the suburbs), if that makes any difference. Many thanks! Joel [Moderator's Note: You might want to get the back issues of the Digest from the Telecom Archives (anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu) and read over the numerous discussions we have had on this in the past. It is really an applications problem: how do you intend to use the phone, how often, etc. There are far too many deals in the market place at any given time to cover them all here. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Possibility of Interstate Closed-User-Group of Dial-up Modems Date: Thu 7 Jan 93 02:46:24 CST From: mb2452@swuts.sbc.com Reply-To: mb2452@swuts.sbc.com I have an application where I want to deploy about 200 dial up modems across several states that are only accessible from a few originating phone numbers. Is this possible with off the shelf services and equipment? Using dedicated lines to PADs on an X.25 network and configuring the ports as a closed-user-group will work; but I am searching for a cheaper solution. Regards, Mike Brown Communications Support / Wide Area Networks Information Services us-mail: Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. One Bell Center, Rm. 24-V-5 St. Louis, MO 63101 voice: 314-235-7863 fax: 314-235-1397 e-mail: mb2452@swuts.sbc.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #12 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22338; 7 Jan 93 17:46 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31527 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:33:27 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24461 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:33:03 -0600 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:33:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301072133.AA24461@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #13 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Jan 93 15:33:05 CST Volume 13 : Issue 13 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson GTE Billing - Another Profit Center? (Jack Decker) ACD Equipment Suggestions (Justin Leavens) Telecom Archives Dial Up Update (Mark Earle) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com Subject: GTE Billing - Another Profit Center? Date: 7 Jan 93 02:41:57 From: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com Now I know what you all mean about GTE. I am now convinced that they are totally incompetent. I've already detailed my problems with the obsolete subscriber carrier units. Basically, as it stands now, I am still on the carrier. My connections are clear, but low in volume on my end. After their first couple of bungled attempts at repair, I have not had any problems getting dial tone. My 2400 bps modem works, and I have used a FAX machine on this line with apparent success. Were it not for the low receive volume, and the fact that every time a CB radio user drives by while transmitting I can hear the signal on the phone, and the low on-hook voltage (15 volts) that won't drive some line-powered equipment, I would have no complaint about the service. The GTE supervisor says they can install a filter to cut the RF interference, but it happens infrequently and I'm afraid it might degrade my modem connections. Actually, I was prepared to let it go because they told me that next summer they were going to put a remote unit out here with a fiber-optic link to the central office. When they do that, I will be getting dial tone from less than half a mile away, rather than the seven or eight miles of old cable that are doubtless serving us now. However, a GTE repairman let it slip that due to budget cutbacks, that project has probably been put on hold for now. I wonder if there is any way to get it back on track? I suppose I could escalate my complaints to the PUC, but as I say, I'm afraid that GTE might try a "quick fix" that will really screw up my line (and, as the GTE man said, I'm only paying for voice grade service so I have to expect "a little" interference). In the meantime, I dug out an old rotary dial phone with a volume control handset, so I have at least ONE phone that I can hear fairly well on. But all of this pales in comparison to my recent experience with their billing department. Our first GTE bill was a shocker. Now, to put things in perspective, I have to admit that our income level was on the low side last year (this was one reason we moved) ... so low, in fact, that we now qualify for "lifeline" service, which gives you a discount on the initial installation charges as well as a $4.10/month credit on the monthly service charge (which is a good thing, since the normal monthly rate for flat rate service is $16.09, not including taxes ... considerably higher than what we paid on Michigan Bell. At least the flat rate service here really IS flat rate [no 400 call cap as in Ma Bell territory], so I'm not complaining too much about the higher rate, although it gave me considerable pause when I first learned how high it was). Now, we had paid the $19.50 installation charge in advance (that's the only way they'd install our service) so it was quite a shock when our first month's bill came to $55.50! Here's how they came up with that amount: Private telephone line $12.59 (these are in advance for Interstate access charge 3.50 the period Jan 1 to Feb 1) Michigan Lifeline service credit CR 4.10 (note this is a credit) Service order processing 9.13 "Line connect charges/NRC" 10.38 [Note the above comes to $19.51. I won't quibble over the penny, but I *did* have a problem with the fact that I had already paid this and it wasn't credited!] Local service-38 days from Nov 23 $20.38 (NOTE no lifeline credit!) Federal excise tax (3% of $32.37) .97 State tax (4% of $51.88) 2.08 911 operational charge .50 (MI Bell didn't charge this!) Emergency telephone service .07 [I wonder why is there a separate charge for 911 and emergency telephone service?] Now, I had problems with two things on this bill: First, the lack of credit for the $19.50 prepayment of the "service order processing" and "line connect charges/NRC", and second, the lack of any lifeline credit for the 38 days of initial service. Not that the latter would break me, but if they are supposed to be taking it off, they should do so. Anyway, yesterday (Monday, January 4) I went to the local GTE Phone Mart in Muskegon, Michigan (where I had paid the initial $19.50) in the hope of getting the matter settled. Fat chance! A GTE employee led me to a bank of four memory-dial telephones that had buttons on them preprogrammed to connect callers to various departments (e.g. billing, new service orders, repair, etc.) and told me that I would have to call the billing department from there. I could have done the same thing from home. But the worst of it was that there were already others there trying to do the same thing, and ALL of us were getting busy signals. That's right, not even the normal eternal wait on hold with occasional recorded announcements that you usually get when calling from home, just a constant busy signal. The GTE employee said we should just keep redialing. In addition, the phones themselves apparently went through some sort of private PBX and were equipped with three-way calling, so if you didn't hang up long enough to release the line, you'd dial out on the second leg of a three-way call. Then when you tried to hang up the second time, you'd get your original busy back, or if you hung up for too long, the phone would ring. This caused no end of confusion for the hapless folks trying to reach various GTE departments. The woman next to me was at her wit's end trying to deal with the phone and the busy signals, and all she was trying to find out was where she could pay her phone bill besides at the phone mart. Why would she want to know that? Because there must have been at least fifty people already in line trying to get to the ONE payment window (or at least it seemed like it; I honestly didn't count but it was a LONG line). Naturally, the GTE employees who worked inside the phone mart couldn't take payments, and couldn't tell her where else she could make payments either. After about 15 minutes of redialing, I finally got through and spoke to someone in the business office. After being transferred once (to "collections"), I spoke to another representative who agreed that the $19.50 should be credited to my account, but who said that it might take three or four months(!) for the credit to appear on my bill, and in the meantime I could just deduct the $19.50 each month from the billed amount, until the credit appeared. But the lifeline was another matter. She at first agreed that I had a credit coming, but couldn't tell me how much. She said she'd have to call me back later at home with the amount! I had wanted to pay my bill while at the phone mart (in spite of the long line) but at this point I decided to forget it and wait until I was in town again. Well, just after 3 P.M. I got home and the GTE rep phoned me shortly thereafter. Now get this: She said that I had received a lifeline discount on my installation ($19.50 instead of the normal charge, which was "normally more like $40"), and that this was in lieu of a lifeline credit on my initial service period. I said that just didn't sound right to me, because folks would wind up paying different amounts depending on where their initial billing fell in the billing cycle. In my case it would have been 38 days without the credit, for someone else it could be 15 or 45 or whatever. I asked if this was allowed in the tariffs and she confidently proclaimed that indeed, this was in their tariffs that were on file with the M.P.S.C. (I had already mentioned the possibility of a complaint if we couldn't resolve this matter, since I am really losing patience with GTE, but I tried not to be too hard on the rep ... after all, she can't help it that she works for that kind of employer)! I said that while I was not calling her a liar, I would like to see a copy of the tariff section that authorized them to bill in that manner, and asked if she would send me a copy. She said she would talk to a supervisor and that they would either send a copy to me, or else she would have the supervisor call me. Well ... today she called back and said that they would NOT be sending me a copy of the tariff because, and I quote, "the information I received yesterday was in error". She went on to say that I was indeed entitled to a credit of $5.53, and explained how she arrived at that figure (it included a credit for taxes collected on the amount, which is something I would have asked about had she not mentioned it). And then she said something that struck me as strange ... she said something to the effect of "Since you're getting the credit, you don't need a copy of the tariff, right?" I said no, I didn't, but the tone in her voice almost led me to believe that for some reason they REALLY, REALLY DIDN'T WANT me to have a copy of that tariff! It makes me wonder what they're hiding in there (or if they just plain couldn't find a copy in any convenient place!). She assured me that the $5.53 credit would be on my next bill, and that I could deduct it from my current bill. "What about the $19.50?", I asked ... would that be credited on my next bill? Probably not, she explained, but maybe in another month or two. But, she had said that I could also deduct that amount from my payment, right? Well, yes, if I really wanted to ... (Nah, I think I'll let GTE have another $19.50 to play with until they get around to giving me the credit ... NOT!) Now surely GTE has computers, so why should it take them three or four months to issue a credit for a prepayment? Even if mine had gotten "lost", as was claimed, I had the receipt in hand and could have shown it to any phone mart employee, had anyone there been deemed competent enough to handle billing adjustments. I wonder how much slack they would cut ME if I were four months late paying a $19.50 phone bill? GTE is now the largest telephone company in the United States, and they are the perfect example of a monopoly gone bad. You folks who want to go into competition with a local telco for dial tone should really consider doing it in GTE territory first. You'd probably be able to get 90% of their customer base overnight (the other 10% would be GTE employees and their families, folks who are on vacation, and the EXTREME few who've never had any beef with GTE). And if the regulators tried to stifle the competition, the local folks would probably mutiny! Keep in mind that: 1) A lot of folks in this situation probably don't realize they're being overcharged. They probably expect a high initial bill, so they'd pay the extra $25 or so without question. Nevertheless, it's money that GTE is not LEGALLY entitled to collect. I wonder how much additional revenue they take in this way? Even assuming that the $19.50 would have eventually been credited had I not complained (and I certainly have no reason to believe that would have happened), there's still the other $5.53 that I would almost certainly not have received had I not demanded to see the tariff authorizing the charge. How many "lifeline" customers even know what a tariff is? 2) A lot of folks who did question the bill would have accepted the first explanation given. I almost did, until I thought about the fact that it would be inequitable depending on when the billing cycle kicked in for various customers. In one way, you could say they lied to me at first ... maybe not deliberately, but the first explanation certainly wasn't truthful. How many customers would realize that? 3) What other company do you know that, when a customer appears to inquire about a bill, herds the customer into a room and hands them a phone without so much as a hint of apology, even though the lines are consistently busy? How many other companies do you know that can make customers stand in line for half an hour or more to pay a bill? This sort of thing may be common in other countries, but only the government and monopolies can get away with it here (well, some entertainment-related industries can too, but those are usually cases where demand exceeds supply). Sorry this is so long, but I am now prepared to believe just about every rotten report that's ever been posted about GTE. They sure haven't impressed ME any! I know I'm not one of their prime customers (no optional features on my line, and not even any intraLATA toll revenue for them this month) but when you are a monopoly, you have to serve the small customers and the big ones alike. I say let's give 'em some competition so they don't have to put up with insignificant customers like me! ;-) Of course, I gather their big customers don't get much better treatment, from what I read here in comp.dcom.telecom! Jack Decker --- 1:154/8.0 FidoNet, Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com ------------------------------ From: leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens) Subject: ACD Equipment Suggestions Date: 7 Jan 1993 12:29:45 -0800 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA I'm about to start looking for equipment for one of our offices to do automatic call distribution and some other items. Not being sure what kinds of things are available, let me list some things we want to accomplish: 1. Must be ISDN compatible (does this throw me out right there?). Our campus runs on a 5ESS. 2. We'd like to automate our switchboard operatations as much as possible, so touchtone menus are needed. 3. Some of our offices want a recorded message to play to each caller before the call is transferred to the office. 4. Some of the offices would like recorded messages to play while callers are on hold in queue. How many callers can typical systems queue up? Any comments or information on what kind of equipment could be purchased/leased to do these things would be very helpful. Please e-mail responses, as I have a hard time keeping up with the volume of messages here these days. Thank you in advance. Justin Leavens / Microcomputer Specialist / University of Southern California ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 14:47:43 -0600 From: mearle@cgull.ccsu.edu (Mark Earle) Subject: Telecom Archives Dial Up Update Patrick et all, My FidoNet dial up system has been repaired, and some upgrades will be occuring in the next few weeks. I'm re-organizing files into smaller logical groupings, etc. The system will NOT answer the line if it is unavailable (i.e., if I am working on it) so anyone should be able to try accessing without a toll call, if it is temporarily down. Some BBS's use the auto answer feature of the modem, and the modem will answer when the computer is down. My software decodes the word "ring" from the modem, and then issues the answer command. So when the softwaer is turned off, no answer. I have some more storage available. While I don't think there is enough to mirror all of the archives, certainly the more recent stuff would fit; I'll report on that, assuming Pat has no problem with it being available. Also to save connect time, the files will all be compressed with pkzip. Those who might need non-compressed (other non msdos systems, etc) may make arrangements with me to get the files non-compressed. I've found the majority prefer compressed as this saves connect / toll charges. Anyhow, the system is available at +1 512 855 7248, and uses a US Robotics HST modem, which has MNP5 available. NON-HST callers with modern modems (v32/42) should get reasonable transfer rates, although the base connection will be 2400 baud. mearle@cgull.ccsu.edu Mark Earle fidonet 1:160/50 Note: Fidonet system operators or point operators may do automated file requests. Ask for 'files' to get the current list. [Moderator's Note: Thanks for your help in making the Telecom Archives (or at least a subset of the archives) available via dialup phone for our many readers without Internet FTP arrangements. Readers, if you use this service to retrieve back issues of the Digest or other telecom files, be certain to leave a note of thanks to Mark. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #13 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24788; 7 Jan 93 18:42 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02510 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:16:32 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02761 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:16:02 -0600 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:16:02 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301072216.AA02761@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #14 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Jan 93 16:16:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 14 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hunt Groups (Steve Forrette) Re: Hunt Groups (Marc T. Kaufman) Re: Hunt Groups (Daniel Burstein) Re: Hunt Groups (Terry Kennedy) Re: Hunt Groups (Jeff Wasilko) Re: Hunt Groups (Arthur Coston) Re: Hunt Groups (Brian Perry) Re: Hunt Groups (Tom Lahey) Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... (Ken Stox) Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... (Martin Harriss) Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... (Kenneth Crudup) Re: Alternate to AT&T Mail Delivery (Paul Robinson) Re: Alternate to AT&T Mail Delivery (Rob Knauerhase) Re: Alternate to AT&T Mail Delivery (Alan Toscano) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Hunt Groups Date: 7 Jan 1993 01:49:34 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes: > Is it possible for two numbers serviced by the same physical CO to be > placed on a hunt group even though they has different exchange > prefixes? I had a similar setup recently, but strictly speaking, it was busy-transfer rather than hunting. It was on a 5ESS switch. The fact that I wanted the busy-transfer was known at the time I placed the order for the two lines, and the computer happened to select numbers on two different prefixes. I would imagine that on a modern SPC switch, the prefix difference would not matter. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: kaufman@xenon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: Hunt Groups Reply-To: kaufman@cs.stanford.edu Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA Date: 7 Jan 93 01:56:30 GMT rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes: > Is it possible for two numbers serviced by the same physical CO to be > placed on a hunt group even though they has different exchange > prefixes? > I don't want to have either of my numbers changed since one is my old > number everyone knows, and the other is a xxx-xx00 number (had to pull > some strings to get it). When I ordered service and made various > inquiries, I run into folks who don't know what terms like "POTS line" > and "demarc" mean, and offered me services excluded by tariff (the > sales rep initially told me they could offer me a metered line, though > this is prohibited if you have an unmetered line in the same house). You can get the effect you want by ordering Remote Call Forwarding from the old number to the new. The old number becomes a bookkeeping entry in the old central office that just forwards calls to your new number. I use it because there are lots of folks who just know my old number (clients I haven't seen in a few years). Not cheap ($15/mo + message unit charges for the forwarded calls - PacBell), but if you need it, you need it. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU) ------------------------------ From: dannyb@Panix.Com (Daniel Burstein) Subject: Re: Hunt Groups Organization: Panix, NYC Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:43:29 GMT In rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes: > Is it possible for two numbers serviced by the same physical CO to be > placed on a hunt group even though they has different exchange > prefixes? > [Moderator's Note: I've never heard of a hunt group including lines on > different prefixes, even if they were in the same CO. Anyone? PAT] Yes, indeed it IS possible, but whether they'll provide it or not is aanother story. I initially had a single line in the NYC 212-874 exchange, and upgraded (?) to have a total of six lines. There were two hunt sequences in it, and yes, they crossed over from the "old" exchange (874) to the other ("491" I think ...) and back. And, to have even more fun, the lines were all "intellidialed" (tm nyt) which is a version of centrex. This allowed pick up from any line (helpful) as well as the ability to three way a call, hang up, leave the other two folk connected, and get back to dial tone. (VERY helpful if someone calls and you say, oh, John is the one you want, hold while I transfer you). danny burstein dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ From: Terry Kennedy Subject: Re: Hunt Groups Organization: St. Peter's College, US Date: 7 Jan 93 02:50:29 EST Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article , Telecom Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: I've never heard of a hunt group including lines on > different prefixes, even if they were in the same CO. Anyone? PAT] It's certainly possible, but I don't know if the current releases of the switch software will do it. However, the various call forward functions will work across prefixes, or across switches if desired. So the subscriber could order call forward on busy (or on busy/no answer) and then set whatever form of hunt group up that he wanted. This could be done either with customer-selected for- warding (the kind usually explained in the phone book, where the customer sets the forwarding, or with fixed forwarding, where it is set up in the switch and the customer can't change it). Note that your local telco may not know how to sell you these services, so you may have to be persistent. One tack that supposedly works is that they sell fixed call forwarding as part of "Answer Call". Also, if your phone service is measured, you may be able to have fixed forwarding at no per-message charge. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA terry@spcvxa.spc.edu +1 201 915 9381 ------------------------------ From: Jeff@digtype.airage.com (Jeff Wasilko) Subject: Re: Hunt Groups Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 02:58:16 EST Organization: Univ of Fnord; Roslyn's Cafe Div. Reply-To: jeff@digtype.airage.com We have a 12 line hunt group with numbers in three prefixs (834-, 762- and something else) in a hunt group without any problem. They are all served off the same 2B switch ... Jeff Jeff's Oasis at Home. Jeff can also be reached at work at: jwasilko@airage.com ------------------------------ From: arthur@ais.com Subject: Re: Hunt Groups Date: 7 Jan 93 21:05:19 GMT Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC Our company has hunt groups composed of lines that have different prefixes. For example, one group of ten lines has four different prefixes. It doesn't seem to matter. Local service is from Southern Bell in Chapel Hill, NC. I believe we had a similar situation with another group from GTE on Durham, NC local service. (We have experience with both carriers. Both have given us quite good service the last few years, including solving some interactions between the two locals.) Arthur Coston Applied Information Systems arthur@ais.com ------------------------------ From: brianp@portal.vpharm.com (Brian Perry) Subject: Re: Hunt Groups Organization: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:14:14 GMT I have a setup similar to this on both a 1AESS and a 5ESS switch here in the Boston area. In both cases there are multiple exchanges in the hunt groups. The only criteria is that all the exchanges in the group must terminate on the same switch. Brian K. Perry, Systems Manager Tel: 617-499-2414 (office) Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated 617-576-3111 (main #) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:05:00 -0500 From: toml@Cayman.COM (Tom Lahey) Subject: Re: Hunt Groups We have had this done several times. Over the past two years we have had several additions to our incomming local lines and in each of the cases we were issued numbers with a different prefix (889-xxxx, 880-xxxx, 883-xxxx), and have had them added, to our existing hunt groups. NYNEX (New England Telephone) issued the numbers when we asked for extra trunks on the hunt groups. Currently of our two hunt groups, one has two different prefixes and the other covers all three. I don't know it this has any bearing however we are serviced by a "SLICK 96", which may be doing some of the translation that allows this? Tom Lahey batfish!toml@attmail.com [Moderator's Note: Uh, no ... the SLC-96 (subscriber line carrier) has nothing to do with the hunt groups. It is a way of providing additional phone service in areas where wire pairs are in short supply. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kstox@admips2.Berkeley.EDU (Ken Stox) Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... Reply-To: kstox@admips2.Berkeley.EDU (Ken Stox) Organization: AC Nielsen Co. Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 19:25:26 GMT Back in the "old" days, we used to leave an AM radio next to an IBM 1130, you could actually pick up the CPU activity. One clever programmer started writing some very interesting compositions. Of course, with the advent of modern synthesizers, it would be totally unimpressive. #include Ken Stox Consultant to A.C. Nielsen kstox@naitc.com ------------------------------ From: martin@bdsgate.com (Martin Harriss) Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... Reply-To: bdsgate!martin@uunet.UU.NET (Martin Harriss) Organization: Beechwood Data Systems Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 14:50:23 GMT In article armhold@dimacs.rutgers.edu (George Armhold) writes: > At RU, I worked with Sun 4/110s. They were networked via thin-net > coax. I have pretty sensitive ears, and could always hear a > high-pitched whine when lots of data went through the wire (opening an > xterm, for example.) One thing that was neat about this is that > whenever someone logged in to the workstation I was working on I could > actually *hear* them log in. Nobody believed me of course. Whenever > I tried to show it to someone they thought I was nuts. :-) Ethernet tranceivers have a DC-DC converter on them that isolates the electronics that interface with the network and the electronics in your computer. Said DC-DC converter probably operates at 10-20kHz. When the tranceiver electronics sends or receives data, it may draw more current and in doing so change the frequency that the converter operates at. This may be the whine that you hear. So you're probably not nuts after all! Martin Harriss uunet!bdsgate!martin ------------------------------ From: kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup) Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... Organization: Open Software Foundation Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:02:25 GMT In article armhold@dimacs.rutgers.edu (George Armhold) writes: > At RU, I worked with Sun 4/110s. I have pretty sensitive ears, and could > always hear a high-pitched whine when lots of data went through the wire > One thing that was neat about this is that whenever someone logged in to > the workstation I was working on I could actually *hear* them log in. > Nobody believed me of course. Whenever I tried to show it to someone they > thought I was nuts. :-) I believe you. Sun's power supplies seem to be just adequate enough so that during periods of heavy CPU-intensive computations (like interrupt-based devices like network chips causing context switches), when the machine is drawing more current, the regulator in the switcher supply (which is a high-frequency oscillator so that there's less ripple when the AC it produces gets rectified and filtered, and more efficient because of smaller cores to burn up good electricity as heat) causes the oscillator to increase the duty cycle of the primary winding pulses to compensate for the increased requirements. This period of additional supply registers in the cores of the transformers as a slight "bleep", and a bunch of them together produce the "music" you hear. I used to troubleshoot Sun-2's aurally as well. Kenny Crudup, Contractor, OSF DCE QA OSF, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142 +1 617 621 7306 kenny@osf.osf.org OSF has nothing to do with this post. ------------------------------ From: tdarcos@attmail.com Date: 7 Jan 93 16:48:28 GMT Subject: Re: Alternate to AT&T Mail Delivery In TELECOM Digest 13-9, Tom Lahey - toml!batfish@attmail.com says: > I've recently started getting telecom off the Internet via AT&T > mail. (currently my only access to the Internet). To quote one of their own ads, "You're not dealing with AT&T." Your message is coming through some X.400 server (BATFISH) that is connected to AT&T Mail. You are probably being charged by the X.400 provider whoever that is. If you were a direct AT&T Mail customer you would have an account like TOML@ATTMAIL.COM just as much as this one is TDARCOS@ATTMAIL.COM. Neither AT&T Mail nor MCI Mail charges anything to receive messages. You should take the service directly from them, as AT&T Mail will only charge you (1) if you send a message (2) if you compose the message on line, there is a surcharge. (MCI does not charge extra for messages composed while on-line.) > Does anyone know how I can get an Internet feed via dial-up? (with > something less than a $0.95 for the first 3000 characters and .05 per > 1000 after that?) I have accounts on both AT&T Mail and MCI Mail. It's no coincidence that I have the account name (TDARCOS) as the same on both systems. I would have tried an account on Sprintmail, but I came across the same thing as you are complaining about: they *CHARGE* to *RECEIVE* mail, at 5c/K, at the same rate as I pay to *send* messages! MCI Mail charges $35 a year to subscribe. AT&T Charges $3 a month and you can use their terminals at airports free. The only cost on either should be a one-time charge of 50c to send a message to "telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu" to start the subscription. If you want to send messages, they will cost you 50c for the first 500 bytes, then 10c for each 1K up to 10K, then 5c/K above 10K. MCI offers a plan which gives you the first 40 message units (of 5K each) for $10 a month, or the first 250 message units for $25 a month. Message units also include 1/2 page domestic facsimile transmissions. MCI Mail and AT&T Mail are accessible through direct 800 numbers which do not charge you for connect time. AT&T Mail is also accessible via 950-1ATT (950-1288) in many areas. AT&T is only accessible at 2400 baud via their regular 800 number; MCI has 1200, 2400 and 9600 baud 800 numbers. Neither makes any charge to receive mail (AT&T will charge you if you accept a message from another AT&T subscriber that was sent to you /COD). AT&T Mail allows messages to be downloaded using cheapo xmodem7. MCI Mail allows messages to be downloaded using ZMODEM or KERMIT. AT&T does a *much* better job of keeping Internet RFC841 headers on incoming messages, especially those from BITNET Listservers where the originator is often eradicated by MCI Mail and other services. MCI Mail provides a better interface for sending messages. Your account number on MCI Mail is also a free incoming telex number; AT&T charges $25 a month for an incoming telex number. AT&T Mail can be reached by voice at 1-800-MAIL-672 (624-5672) MCI Mail at 1-800-444-MAIL (444-6245) Paul Robinson TDARCOS@ATTMAIL.COM {and} TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:03:35 -0600 From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: Re: Alternate to AT&T Mail Delivery > Does anyone know how I can get an Internet feed via dial-up? (with > something less than a $0.95 for the first 3000 characters and .05 per > 1000 after that?) You might not want to trade per-char fees for per-minute fees, depending on how fast your modem is. However, for the price of the call there is the Cleveland Free-Net, (216) 368-8888 which provides both Internet mail and Usenet newsgroups (so you can read the TELECOM Digest either way) at no cost to you. There are also Free-Net systems in Youngstown OH and Peoria IL if those are closer or otherwise preferable to you. Combined with PC-Pursuit (30 off-peak hours of data LD for $30 -- see the Digest archives) that might be an even better solution for you. Rob Knauerhase, University of Illinois @ Urbana, Dept. of Computer Science [Moderator's Note: There are numerous other services available as well that while not free, are reasonably priced. Here in Chicago, both chinet and gagme accept public subscribers. There is also the Portal Communications Company in San Jose, and the nice thing about Portal is their direct connection to Sprintnet; if you subscribe to PC Pursuit then you can make an easy connection to Portal (@C PORTAL) at regular PC rates. And don't forget the Well as another possibility. PAT] ------------------------------ From: atoscano@attmail.com Date: 7 Jan 93 14:51:40 GMT Subject: Re: Alternate to AT&T Mail Delivery In TELECOM Digest V13, #9, Tom Lahey asks about alternatives to AT&T Mail, believing he will pay an average $2.05/issue to receive the Digest via AT&T Mail. In actuality, there is *no* usage charge to *receive* messages on AT&T Mail -- *unless* they are sent "COD." ("COD" messages must originate within AT&T Mail. If the recipient doesn't wish to pay for the message (s)he may DELETE it without reading it, in which case the sender is billed for its cost. An on-line mailbox may also be flagged to reject "COD" messages at the time they are submitted by the sender. Messages from the Internet, such as the Digest, may *not* be sent "COD.") Aside from any applicable recurring monthly and annual charges, AT&T Mail's only *usage* charges are for *sending* messages, receiving "COD" messages, and accessing "shared folders." This can be confirmed by calling the AT&T Mail billing office in Atlanta: 800 MAIL672 (option 2). BTW, AT&T Mail now expects to finally implement its previously announced, but as yet unimplemented, Minimum Usage Billing requirement of $25/month/invoice, sometime next year (1994). That is when they expect to convert to a new billing system. Before anyone panics, remember that several mailboxes may be billed together in a single invoice. A Alan Toscano Internet: atoscano@attmail.com or atoscano@taronga.com P O Box 741982 AT&T Mail: !atoscano AT&T Enhanced FAX: !0200607 Houston, TX CIS: 73300,217 AT&T TELEX: 406232556 UI 772741982 USA Work: +1 713 216 6616 Work-FAX: +1 713 216 2193 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #14 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26093; 7 Jan 93 19:13 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01261 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:19:38 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20700 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:19:14 -0600 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:19:14 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301071919.AA20700@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #11 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Jan 93 13:19:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 11 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Motorola 'Secure-Clear' Cordless Telephones (Tim Tyler via Monty Solomon) Sci.electronics Phone Fraud! (Larry Ching via Monty Solomon) CRTC Review of Telecom Regs (Dave Leibold) Cell Phone SID in US / My Friend, Nynex Mobile ... (Phydeaux) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:29:17 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Motorola 'Secure-Clear' Cordless Telephones [Moderator's Note: Monty passed this along to the group. PAT] Newsgroups: sci.crypt From: tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler) Subject: Motorola 'Secure-Clear' Cordless Telephones Message-ID: Organization: UMCC Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:39:56 GMT "Why A Motorola Cordless Phone?" "Cordless phone eavesdroppers are everywhere" says pro golfer Lee Trevino, spokesman for Motorola. "But with my Motorola Secure Clear Cordless Phone, my private conversations stay private." So says a glossy brochure (# BA-81) that Motorola's Consumer Products Division (telephone # 800/331-6456) distributes to promote their new 'secure' cordless phone product line. When I first read the cover of the brochure, I said to myself, "Wow, I wonder what sophisticated technology it must use?" Motorola has been developing and selling secure voice and data systems, from DVP and DES up to the current 'FASCINATOR' algorithm for classified military and federal government secure voice for many years. Page Two of the slick brochure provides some rhetorical questions and answers: Why Motorola Cordless Phones? Q. What is meant by Secure Clear? Secure Clear is an exclusive technology that assures you no eavesdroppers will be able to use another cordless phone, scanner or baby monitor to listen in to your cordless conversations. Q. How difficult is it to eavesdrop on someone's cordless conversation? It's not difficult at all. Simply by operating a cordless phone, scanner or baby monitor on the same channel as you're on, an eavesdropper can listen in. Security codes alone DO NOT prevent eavesdropping. Q. What are security codes and what do they do? Security codes allow the handset and base to communicate with each other. With the Secure Clear cordless phone, one of 65,000 possible codes are randomly assigned every time you set the handset in the base. This means that a neighbor cannot use his handset to link with your base and have phone calls charged to your phone number. Q. Describe the basic difference between Secure Clear and Secure Clear protects against eavesdropping. Security codes prevent the unauthorized use of your phone line. Usually all cordless phones have security codes, but not both. Q. What is the purpose of the Secure Clear demo? The Secure Clear demo is a unique feature of Motorola phones that allows you to actually experience what an eavesdropper would hear when trying to listen to your conversation. By pressing the SECURE DEMO button on the Motorola phone, you and the person on the other end will hear the same scrambled noise an eavesdropper would hear. ---------- Hmmm ... I went to the Motorola Secure Clear cordless phone display at a Sears store, took a deep breath, and hit the demo button in order to hear what the "scrambled noise" which would protect a conversation from eavesdropping sounded like. White-noise like that of a digital data stream? Rapid analog time-domain scrambling? No, the scrambled "noise" sounded like inverted analog voice. That's right, they're using the 40 or 50 year old (3kHz baseband) speech inversion system -- the same one which they stopped marketing for their commercial two-way radio gear about a decade ago -- to make Lee Trevino and other ignorant people's "private conversations stay private." For those of you not familiar with speech inversion, it simply flip-flops the voice spectrum so that high pitched sounds are low, and vice versa. It sounds a lot like Single Side Band (SSB) transmissions, although an SSB receiver will not decode speech- inversion scrambling. Prior to 1986, several companies -- Don Nobles, Capri Electronics, etc. sold inexpensive kits or scanner add-ons which could be used to decode speech inversion. Several electronics magazines also published schematics for making your own from scratch, at a cost of about $5. After the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, it became illegal to decode or decipher encrypted communications which you weren't a legitimate party to, so the standard practice of selling these quasi-legal products as 'experimental kits' or 'for educational purposes only' became common. Today, some companies will not specifically sell a 'speech-inversion descrambler,' but instead market a 'speech inversion scrambling system' which means the kit will encode as well as decode speech inversion, although most people buy them simply to hook up to their scanners and monitor the few public safety agencies and business that (still) use speech-inversion scrambling. Yes, technically, it is a felony for you to use a speech- inversion descrambler to monitor these Motorola 'Secure Clear' cordless. Or for that matter, the new Radio Shack DUoPHONE ET-499, cordless phone which also depends on speech-inversion for privacy protection. The public utility of the ECPA has been argued about ever since before it was enacted. It is rather obvious that the ECPA was pushed upon the ignorant, money-hungry Congress by the powerful (& wealthy) Cellular Telephone Industry Association (so the CTIA could propagate misinformation to the public, but that's another story ...). I also realize that the 46/49MHz cordless phone channels are apparently allocated for analog-voice only. Despite the ECPA, it is unconscionable to me that Motorola -- who surely knows better -- would produce the slick brochure & specifically market the 'Secure Clear' line as being invulnerable to eavesdropping. Their wording unequivocally gives the impression that the 'Secure Clear' conversations are secure, not only from other cordless phone and baby monitors, which have several common frequencies, but also against communications hobbyists with scanner radios. It is bad enough that many public safety officers still think that by using the 'PL' ('Private Line,' also known as CTCSS) setting on their Motorola two-way radios, no one else can listen in. While the 'Private Line' fiasco might be attributable to misconception on the part of the radio users, in my opinion, Motorola's Consumer Products Division has to know that there are thousands of scanner monitors who have the technical ability to defeat the speech-inversion 'Secure Clear' system. A Motorola representative at the 1992 Summer Consumer Electronics Show in Chicago confirmed this to me, with a smirk on his face. There's a big difference between Motorola's aforementioned wording and that of Radio Shack's on page 3 of their 1993 catalog: New! Voice-Scrambling Cordless Telephone DUoFONE ET-499. Cordless phones are great. But since they transmit over the airwaves, your private conversations could be monitored. Now you can enjoy cordless convenience with voice scrambling for added [emphasis theirs] privacy protection -- frequency inversion makes transmissions between the handset and base unintelligible... It's not "Motorola should know better." Motorola DOES know better. Otherwise, they wouldn't be spending time or money on truly 'secure' (based on current technology, of course) communications and transmission security systems. I sure am thankful that our federal government and military users of secure-mode communications systems don't rely on Motorola's marketing department to provide factual information as to the level of security provided by Motorola equipment. Too bad that for the most part, the public does. For anyone looking for a cordless telephone that offers a decent level of privacy, take a look at some of the new cordless phones which use 900MHz. Most of the new ones not only use CVSD digital voice for the RF link, but also direct-sequence spread spectrum. By no means are these phones secure ('encoded,' yes, but 'encrypted,' no), despite some of the wording in their owner's manuals. The Tropez 900 actually seems to generate a very weak analog harmonic in the 440MHz spectrum, but you'll still be a lot better off than poor old Lee Trevino. Tim Tyler Internet: tim@ais.org MCI Mail: 442-5735 P.O. Box 443 C$erve: 72571,1005 DDN: Tyler@Dockmaster.ncsc.mil Ypsilanti MI Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA 48197 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:34:36 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Sci.electronics Phone Fraud! [Moderator's Note: Monty also passed this along for us today. PAT] From: larryc@shell.portal.com (Larry WB Ching) Newsgroups: sci.electronics Subject: SCI.ELECTRONICS Phone fraud !!! Summary: A recent attempt to rip-off sci.electronics correspondents. Keywords: fraud, con artists, phone numbers Message-ID: Date: 1 Jan 93 23:16:23 GMT Sender: news@unix.portal.com Organization: Portal Communications -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 At about 6PM Thursday evening, I got a phone call. The operator said that he had a collect call to me from Charles Pooley in New York. The name was familiar, but I didn't remember exactly why. I said I would accept the call, but then the "operator" said the call couldn't get through because I had the call collect option blocked. He then said he could pass the call through if I gave him my calling card number. I said that I'd rather call Mr. Pooley myself, and could the "operator" give me Mr. Pooley's number. There was a pause, then a phone number with a San Jose area code! It didn't occur to me until later that , if the call was from New York, why was the call-from number (408) !??! I remembered that Charles and I had been corresponding on a topic from sci.electronics. I was lucky enough to have an old message from him lying around, and emailed him a message about my mysterious phone call. Charles Pooley replyed to me today -- turns out the guy tried the same scam on him too! But this time, the bogus operator said the collect call was from me to Charles! Charles was also wary, and didn't give the crook his calling card number. So - WATCH OUT! How this con artist chose my name and Charles' to try is beyond me. As far as public postings in sci.electronics, I don't think Charles and I had exchanged more than four public postings. Most of our correspondence has been via "private" email. This has definitely raised my paranoia level. If, out of the millions of public postings during 1992, someone should choose two correspondents who have exchange only a slight amount of messages .... I mean, why us? Or, is there a "boilerroom" operation going on, with a bunch of phony operators, armed with USENET listings -- calling people with this con? OH! - I may have put my phone number in one of my public sci.electronics postings - that's probably how the scamsters make their selection. Makes sense ... CHILDREN BEWARE!!! larryc@shell.portal.com [Moderator's Note: I note the public access site you use for Usenet (Portal Com) is located in area 408 (San Jose, CA). PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:49:48 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) Subject: CRTC Review of Telecom Regs [from Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) press release] December 16, 1992 CRTC TO REVIEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY FRAMEWORK OTTAWA/HULL - The CRTC today announced that it intends to review the approach it takes to regulating telephone companies that provide basic local telephone service in order to ensure that the manner in which it regulates is efficient, effective and in the public interest (Telecom Public Notice CRTC 92-78). In recent years, technological change and increasing competition have significantly altered the nature of the telephone industry. The Commission wants to examine whether or not there are more efficient and effective ways to regulate or to streamline regulation, without compromising basic regulatory goals such as affordable local service and prevention of anti-competitive behaviour. "Canadians currently enjoy the benefits of a first-class telecommunications industry," said CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer. "By undertaking a review of our regulatory procedures we are trying to ensure that the Canadian telecommunications industry remains at the forefront of international communications and continues to provide top-quality service, local as well as long distance, to meet the growing information requirements of residential and business users." Since telephone companies have evolved into multi-dimensional service providers subject to increasing competition, questions arise about the continued appropriateness of traditional monopoly-style regulation. However, the Commission considers that regulatory streamlining will depend in part on the degree of effective competition in the markets served by the telephone companies. While some markets may be increasingly competitive, Canada's telephone companies continue to exercise considerable market power due to their control over access to local telephone systems and their dominance in the long distance telephone market. Where telephone companies exercise market power, regulation will be required to protect subscribers and industry competitors from any abuse of that power. "While the Commission is committed to considering changes to the current framework, in pursuit of regulation that is more effective and more efficient, the resulting framework must ensure that subscribers and competitors are adequately protected," said Louis (Bud) Sherman, CRTC Vice-Chairman for Telecommunications. "Changes must take account of any monopoly or dominant power the telephone companies could exercise." Having raised these general issues, the Commission invites the telephone companies and other interested parties to submit comments and specific proposals for changing the existing regulatory framework. Submissions should bee aimed at achieving the following goals: * reduction of the regulatory burden where there is already effective competition in place; * encouragement of the development of new technology and innovative services to serve the expanding information requirements of residential and business customers; * protection of subscribers and competitors from abuse of market power; * equitable treatment of subscribers in terms of service and prices; * the opportunity for telephone companies to earn a reasonable rate of return; and, * a recognition that the telephone companies and other telecommunica- tion carriers must be permitted to equip themselves to meet increasing competition at home and abroad. During the course of the review proceeding, the Commission anticipates receiving proposals to: * streamline or eliminate regulatory requirements in light of changes in industry structure; * reduce the size of local service subsidies by, among other things, new types of local services to generate increases in local service revenues and encouraging investment to reduce costs; * change the current system of allocating the subsidy to ensure that it is equitably distributed among subscribers; and, * examine alternatives to the Commission's existing rate base rate of return approach to regulation of the telephone companies that may better balance the interests of subscribers and competitors, while maximizing the operating efficiency of the companies. Parties wishing to participate in this proceeding must notify the Commission of their intention to do so by writing to the Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa,Ontario, K1A 0N2, by March 15, 1993. Submissions to this proceeding must be filed with the Commission by April 12, 1993. The Commission will convene and oral public hearing, scheduled to commence on November 1, 1993, in connection with this proceeding. - 30 - Contact: Bill Allen, Director CRTC Public Affairs, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2 (819) 997.0313 - TDD (819) 994.0423 - Fax (819) 994.0218 or one of our regional offices listed below: Halifax, Nova Scotia - (902) 426.7997 - TDD (902) 426.6997 Montreal, Quebec - (514) 283.6607 - TDD (514) 283.8316 Winnipeg, Manitoba - (204) 983.6306 - TDD (204) 983.8274 Vancouver, British Columbia - (604) 666.2111 - TDD (604) 666.0778 or from the Department of Communications Regional Office: Toronto, Ontario - (416) 973.8215 Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 11:10:14 PST From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) Subject: Cell Phone SID in US / My Friend, Nynex Mobile ... Hi! I have the SID chart from the telecom archives, but it's quite old. Has anyone managed to get a list of SIDs for US cellular service providers? My carrier (Nynex mobile in NJ) tells me to just 'dial *611' to find out what system you are on. "We do not have that information." My phone displays SID, and I've noticed that there are many new ones I've wandered into that are not on the list. It is difficult to get *any* information out of Nynex. They tell me they have call delivery into Philadelphia. I try it and it doesn't work. I call them when I'm in Philly, and ask them to call me back on my mobile number and it *still* doesn't work. What do they conclude? Of course, everything is working fine. Finally, I attempted to get roaming rates and information from Nynex. They sent me a booklet from 1990 with a few roamer ports listed. What I really wanted was the rates. When I lived in Chicago, Cell/One in Chicago had a nice handy booklet with all of this. But Nynex told me they could and would give the information out only for cities/systems I specifically requested. That is, in order to find out the rates for, say, California I would have to name each city and have them read the information to me over the phone. How the rates that the customer pays are a confidential item, to be specifically kept *from* the customer I'll never know. After a lot of complaining and threatening to cancel my service they finally photocopied their roamer information -- which is up to date and includes all systems, roamer ports, daily and per minute charges, etc. Do many other 'service' providers give customers this much of a hard time when they want to find out rates? In the last two years I'd say my experience with the cellular industry is that the carriers never have anybody who knows anything answering the phone, and they absolutely refuse to let you speak with anybody who knows anything. , reb -- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com or reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV h:861 Washington Avenue Westwood NJ 07675 201-376-5766 ICBM: ??.??N ??.??W w: reb Ingres Park 80 West Plaza I Saddle Brook, NJ 07662 201-587-1400 [Moderator's Note: Both Cellular One and Ameritech in Chicago have the booklet you describe, listing roamer ports in hundreds of cities and dialing instructios, etc. They send them out as part of the sign up kit or you can get that information mailed out anytime. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #11 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27108; 7 Jan 93 19:37 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23778 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:00:07 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07721 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:59:33 -0600 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:59:33 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301072259.AA07721@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #15 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Jan 93 16:49:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 15 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (Brent Capps) Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (Richard McCombs) Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? (Bill Huttig) Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? (Joe Malloy) Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? (Brent Capps) Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? (John Rice) Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? (Troy Frericks) Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? (Fred Schimmel) Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto (Daniel Burstein) Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto (Jan Steinman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps) Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc. Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:03:49 GMT In article andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) writes: > On 25 Dec 92 21:26:00 GMT, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) said: >> I would have thought that by now AT&T would have stopped its annoying >> practice of drastically reducing its capacity on holidays. A number of >> AT&T employees have told me that for reasons that are not very clear, >> the company has traditionally blocked off a major amount of the >> system's capacity on various holidays such as Christmas and Mother's >> Day. This is the real reason you get the "All Circuits Busy" >> recording, not because there is an inordinate amount of traffic. > I can't imagine why they would deliberately turn away business, since > they make money selling it. Furthermore, if you go find back issues > of the {AT&T Technical Journal} in a library, I suspect you will find > that Mothers' Day is the acid test for new routing algorithms like > DNHR (Dynamic Non-Hierarchical Routing) and RTNR (Real Time > Non-Hierarchical Routing). I strongly suspect that AT&T turned on every traffic throttling tool in their arsenal. That's why they're there -- to keep the switch from being overwhelmed by the number of origination attempts. Remember, switches have limited internal resources -- call control buffers, interprocess communications mechanisms, timing-critical events -- that start breaking down when the switch gets really, really busy. If, say, a given interprocess communications channel gets choked with messages, internal watchdog processes may conclude that part of the system is stuck and deliberately swap the switch to the standby CPU, which of course will quickly get overwhelmed and lock up. So to prevent this they turn on a throttling feature like LLC (line load control) which will only give you dial tone on, say, 1 out of every 10 origination attempts. > On 27 Dec 92 09:24:00 GMT, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) said: >> How soon we forget. Hours after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, I >> tried at some length to get though to my home from southern >> California. All circuits were busy. Then I tried Sprint. The call >> went right through. Discussions right here on the Digest pointed to >> the policy of AT&T of purposely restricting incoming access to a >> disaster area. I, for one, was very grateful for the fact that AT&T's >> policies are not always imitated by the competitors. > The choke after the earthquake had a reason behind it. It was to > reserve some large fraction of trunk capacity for outgoing calls from > the disaster area. That policy and the reason for it was plastered > all over the media, in hopes that people would wait for the "I'm OK" > call rather than flooding the network with call attempts to empty > houses. I believe that the disaster assistance agencies also liked > that arrangement, since it improved the chances of their folks on the > scene being able to call out. This should hardly have come as a surprise to anyone. Disaster planning agencies publicised this fact beforehand, and I made arrangements with all my loved ones in the state to call a mutual friend in Texas who would relay messages and act as a kind of information clearing house. When the '89 quake hit I was in Los Gatos not far from the epicenter and was able to communicate with my husband in San Francisco because we could both call Dallas and leave messages for each other. You couldn't get through to San Francisco from Los Gatos for several hours after the quake. All in all I thought AT&T and Pac Tel did a fine job. After all, the power wasn't back on in Los Gatos until the next afternoon, but the phones were working within 15 minutes, and I don't know if they ever actually went down. As an aside, I was working for T1 mux manufacturer DCA/Cohesive at the time, and literally hundreds of these big (6' tall) mux cabinets were rolling around the test lab and mfg area like loose cannons. Engineers were scrambling like mad to keep from being crushed. We had a bunch of $5000 Fireberd T1 testers stacked precariously six high on top of one cabinet, and it's a miracle they didn't fall over. Ironically our customers were required to bolt their muxes to the floor instead of standing them on their castors like ours were, but one customer's mux fell *through* the floor, so bolting it down didn't do them much good. Fortunately, nobody got hurt at our site. I was in Oregon working for Kentrox on T1 CSUs within two months. That quake was the last straw for living in California. Brent Capps bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff) bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... From: rick@ricksys.lonestar.org (Richard McCombs KB5SNF) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 14:26:18 CST Organization: The Red Headed League; Lawton, Ok In comp.dcom.telecom, rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (and other in similar words) writes: > Or, take a lesser used route (MCI or Sprint). For the future, the Well I distinctly remember having trouble calling from Lawton, OK to Fort Worth, TX using MCI, so they get saturated to. Internet: rick@ricksys.lonestar.org If I bounce (the maps have errors that I have no control over) then use bo836@cleveland.freenet.edu BITNET: bo836%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 11:49:04 -0500 From: wah@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) Subject: Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis The answer -- at least one possible answer -- is that the phone company runs line tests every day at about the same time ... (The same thing happed to me but at 6:20 AM and would wake me up) ... I don't remember why but I ended up buying (about $4 at Radio Shack) a polarity phone line tester; it should the polarity was reversed. Then all I had to do was to change the red and green wire around in the jack and I didn't have anymore pings. Bill ------------------------------ From: Laura G. Malloy Subject: Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? Organization: Bates College, Lewiston, Maine Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:14:17 GMT In article glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) writes: > It seems that I've seen discussion on the following topic in the > TELECOM Digest before, but I can't remember the answer or find > anything relevant in the archive index. > My parents live in Mississippi and get their local phone service from > South Central Bell. According to my parents, the bells in their > phones make a 'ping' every evening around 10:15PM. They say that the > ping almost always occurs around the same time, but that on certain > nights it may not occur until close to midnight. They've called South > Central Bell about this, and they were told that the ping was NOT > occuring due to anything that the phone company was doing. [deletia] Same thing happens to us in Clinton, NY, each evening (sometimes weekends, too) at just about 11 PM. I've always assumed some sort of telco testing was going on, but it would be nice to know exactly what they are doing! Joe Malloy/WB2RBA German Department/Hamilton College/Clinton, NY ------------------------------ From: bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps) Subject: Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc. Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:04:22 GMT In article glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) writes: > According to my parents, the bells in their phones make a 'ping' every evening around 10:15PM. SSB is pulling your leg. Your CO switch is running automatically scheduled self-diagnostics. They start every evening at the same time, but they're really testing the line cards and not the lines, so only one line per card gets 'pinged', typically the first one. I used to have a line in Dallas that would ping every evening at 8:15 PM. Brent Capps | bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff) bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) ------------------------------ From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com Subject: Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 21:00:32 GMT In article , glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) writes: > My parents live in Mississippi and get their local phone service from > South Central Bell. According to my parents, the bells in their > phones make a 'ping' every evening around 10:15PM. They say that the > ping almost always occurs around the same time, but that on certain > nights it may not occur until close to midnight. They've called South > Central Bell about this, and they were told that the ping was NOT > occuring due to anything that the phone company was doing. This, not uncommon, occurrance is caused by automated line test equipment. The real clue is the fact that it happens every night at about the same time.In SCB it's probably MLT or MLT2. This equipment can be set up to routinely test each line in an office, every night on a regular schedule. The phenomena is known as 'bell tap'. When the line is tested, it is disconnected from the line finder, or line circuit, which provides dial tone, for the one or two seconds that it takes to perform the parametric measurements on the line. These tests are usually done at low voltage (10-20v) and won't usually cause a phone to ring. When the line is re-connected to the line circuit, -50v is placed back on the line. The 50v is sometimes enough to cause the ringer magnet to pull the clapper against the bell, one time. Also in some of the 'cheepie' phones with electronic ringers, the sounder will 'cheep' once when voltage in initially applied (re-applied). One solution to the problem is to reverse tip and ring on the phone (reverse the red and green wires at the connector block. This causes the magnet to kick the clapper the opposite direction when voltage is initially applied. This will usually work, but if the phone is an older touch tone phone, this may cause the T.T. Pad not to work (they were polarity sensitive in older Bell Phones). Also, it's sometimes possible to mechanically adjust the bell, so that the -50v pluse isn't quite enough to pull the bell magnet enough to cause a tap. With the advent of automated line test equipment in the past 15 years or so, this has been an on-going problem. It's much more prevalent in Europe, where telephone instruments are of generally higher impeedance and it takes much less voltage to ring the phone. On the other side of the equation, the automated testing allows the telco to recognize deteriorating outside plant cable in many cases before the customer even recoginzes that there's a problem, and fix it. Often out of service lines are reported by the equipment and repaired with the customer never being aware of a problem. A deteriorating cable or cross connect box that could ultimately result in 20-50 subscriber trouble reports can often be found, diagnosed, and repaired before any customer reports occur, so that grade of services is improved overall. (And it's less expensive to do it that way then respond individually to each and every call as they occur), thus everybody saves. John Rice K9IJ | "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was | MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially | Not my Employer's.... rice@ttd.teradyne.com | Purveyor of Miracles,Magic and Sleight-of-hand ------------------------------ From: troyf@microware.com (Troy Frericks) Subject: Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:18:19 GMT In article glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) writes: > My parents live in Mississippi and get their local phone service from > South Central Bell. According to my parents, the bells in their > phones make a 'ping' every evening around 10:15PM. They say that the Have you tried swapping out the phone? This would rule out some things like EMI being picked up from something like a water softner or a lamp on a timmer. Some cheap (cherp, cherp) phones tend to be less tolerant than others. Troy Frericks Internet: troyf@MICROWARE.COM Microware Systems Corporation UUCP: uunet!mcrware!troyf 1900 NW 114th St Phone: (515)224-1929 Des Moines, IA 50325-7077 Fax: (515)224-1352 ------------------------------ From: schimmel@gandalf.ca (Fred Schimmel) Subject: Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd. Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:42:11 GMT It used to be that there was something called a line integrity test (LIT) that occured in the interval just before the ring cycle began. The circuit was re-arranged to test the line between the CO and the phone. This is one reason why Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) needs to identify its Ringer Equivalence Number (REN) because the test had differing results depending on the number of ringers on the line. Perhaps you added or removed some phones, modems, answering machines, etc. Perhaps your local CO routinely at 10:15PM does a maintenance check of all its lines, and this is when the ping occurs. Try calling and asking for a test supervisor to see if they do something like this. Or count your equipment total REN and inform the phone company. It could just be a misprogrammed test, or an indicator that the line is faulty. Perhaps someone else remembers more about LIT. I believe this was a #5 crossbar feature. Fred Schimmel Gandalf Data Ltd. schimmel@gandalf.ca ------------------------------ From: dannyb@Panix.Com (Daniel Burstein) Subject: Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto Organization: Panix, NYC Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:35:24 GMT In Tony Harminc writes: > This past November, a company I consult for had three unauthorized > calls to (416) 976-9467 made on one of its lines. Each call was one > minute long and was billed at $24. Thinking back, we remember the > likely perpetrator -- a man claiming to be serving legal papers on > someone who supposedly used to work at the office address. There were > several small discrepancies to his story, but he seemed just as > puzzled as we were. He asked to use the phone, and I remember that he > did a lot of dialing, but when challenged he showed a pager with > display and claimed he was calling his voicemail. > Bell Canada has agreed to remove the charges, but will not tell us the > name of the owner of this number. We are not eager to pursue it with > the police, because of the small amount of the fraud, but we are > concerned that this may be part of an organized scam (else how would > the 'process server' benefit?) and others may also have been hit. The > $24 charge is quite a bit higher than the usual sex and sleaze lines > which -- according to the ads -- are mostly $10. A similar scam has been going on in New York City. A messenger will show up at a company with a package, and when no one there seems to match the addressee, he asks to use the phone. Calls a "540" exchange (one of the extra charge numbers; the others are 550, 970, 976, and another about to be announced) and the company gets billed for $50 or so. When people notice it on the bill and complain, the local telco wipes the charge. But how many people don't ... Which brings up a question or two about this whole concept of surcharged phone numbers: Aside from all the legal questions (I'd love someone to push a strong lawsuit about misbilling and all sorts of other things), I'd like to know the following: Does anybody out here have any sort of breakdwon as to the users, or rather, providors, of these services? Thanks, danny ------------------------------ From: steinman@hasler.ascom.ch (Jan Steinman) Subject: Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto Reply-To: steinman@hasler.ascom.ch Organization: Ascom Hasler AG Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:08:43 GMT In article 3@eecs.nwu.edu, Tony Harminc () writes: > This past November, a company I consult for had three unauthorized > calls to (416) 976-9467 made on one of its lines. Each call was one > minute long and was billed at $24. Thinking back, we remember the > likely perpetrator -- a man claiming to be serving legal papers on > someone who supposedly used to work at the office address. There were > several small discrepancies to his story, but he seemed just as > puzzled as we were. He asked to use the phone, and I remember that he > did a lot of dialing, but when challenged he showed a pager with > display and claimed he was calling his voicemail. This sounds like a scam I heard about from a client in New York City. It is simple to do, given the right information. All you need is a bunch of numbers of pagers that display a number to call. Call those pagers, and give the 976 number to call. The process server may have been an unwitting victim of this hoax. For whatever reason, my client assigned pagers to virtually all their staff, and the numbers were sequential. The hoax was discovered one day when every beeper in the whole joint began ringing, and people compared numbers and discovered they were the same number. This was not too long ago -- not everyone recognizes the significance of 976, especially when it is in the form of a generally important interrupt, like your pager going off! Jan Steinman, Bytesmiths steinman@hasler.ascom.ch 2002 Parkside Court, West Linn, OR 97068-2767 USA +1 503 657 7703 Beundenfeldstrasse 35, CH-3013, Bern, Switzerland +41 31 999 3946 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #15 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15828; 12 Jan 93 0:20 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15721 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:18:06 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06215 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:17:41 -0600 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:17:41 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301120417.AA06215@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #16 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Jan 93 22:17:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 16 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Weekend Mail Breakdown Here (TELECOM Moderator) C&P Enters Electronic Services Market (Paul Robinson) Bell Atlantic Cellular Charges (Lyle Seaman) Need Help in the Study of Computers and Communications (Michael Hauben) Compressed Speech Warbles ... Need Help! (Michael K. Minakami) Data Intensive Wan - Need Recommendations (Andy Brager) AT&T Buys 20% of Unitel (Dave Leibold) Sega Announces VR Peripheral (Washington Post via Paul Robinson) AT&T and Novel Form Alliance (Washington Post via Paul Robinson) Cheapest LD Company to Call One Interstate Number Four Hours/Week (W Lance) Programming Instructions for a Nokia 101 Cellular Phone (Lustig Help Needed With Motorola Micro-Tac (Brian Cartmell) Looking For DID Information (Roy M. Silvernail) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Weekend Mail Breakdown Here Date: January 11, 1993 22:00:00 CST This is just a short note to say that over the weekend the software was out of order here at eecs. Some changes were made in the way things are mounted on the system and corresponding changes were NOT made to the alias file where the telecom mailing list is referenced. Thus, attempts by me to mail issues of the Digest resulted in sendmail looking for my list and not being able to find it. This somehow got past the sysadmin when the work was being done Saturday morning, so I was unable to get anything out to the list over the weekend. It got repaired when he came to work Monday. Sorry about that. Patrick Townson TELECOM Moderator ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 20:05:56 EST Subject: C&P Enters Electronic Services Market Article Summary C&P, Herndon Firm Introduce Interactive 'Scanfone' (Washington Post, Jan 7, Page D11) John Burgess tells about Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company, in cooperation with Herndon, VA-based U.S. Order, the company that created it, a new phone for use with electronic services such as banking. The phone appears similar to a kitchen wall-mounted telephone stuck on the left side of a credit card reader with a swipe slot and a bar-code wand. The phone with services rents for $11.95 a month. You can order things by using the wand to scan some bar codes, and then select items from the LED display. It is called a "Scanfone' and when you order something you can then swipe your credit card through the reader. Some companies have agreed to sign up for the service, including Safeway, which will deliver groceries for a $9.95 service charge through Grocery Express (who already does the same thing for the same price by picking up the phone and calling them voice.) Maryland National Bank is already running a bank-by-phone four-line display phone. This type of service has not been very popular because it has usually been hard to use and overpriced. The people selling it, naturally, claim that with some practice you can pay bills easier and faster with this system than with a pen and a checkbook (which since not everyone you pay bills to will be subscribed to this, you are still going to need and have to pay with, anyway.) One instant disadvantage is if you order something from a merchant using this method and it's out of stock, you get a notice by U.S. mail, not on the same call as you would on a voice telephone call. Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM These opinions are mine alone. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:57:04 -0500 (EST) From: Lyle_Seaman@transarc.com Subject: Bell Atlantic Cellular Charges Someone recently posted some cellular charges for the Austin area, so here's Bell Atlantic's rates. There are some discounts if you have lots of phones. Bell Atlantic Cellular Price Plans 10/92, one phone: Activation fee: $50. $ /min free minutes $/month peak/offpeak peak/offpeak 2: 28 0.40/0.40 0/ 0* 12: 27 0.37/0.37 0/ 0* ** 204: 18 0.65/0.15 0/200 214: 70 0.36/0.36 90/ 30** 212: 100 0.35/0.35 150/ 60** 211: 140 0.35/0.35 240/120** *251-500 min usage => 4% discount, 501-750=>6%, 751+=>8%. Discounts apply only to home system minutes. ** these are "annual plans" which are "subject to substantial early termination fee" No charge for busy or unanswered calls. Peak hours 0700-1900 Mon-Fri except New Year's Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day. Off-Peak hours all other times. Airtime charges on a mobile originated call begin when connection to the cellular system is established. Cellular Radio service is capable of being intercepted without the knowledge or permission of the user by third parties possessing certain types of devices or equipment. Each partial minutes of airtime is billed as a full minute. Monthly allowance does not apply to roaming. Airtime and toll charges apply to Bell Atlantic IQ Services (forwarding, call waiting, 3way calling, no-answer/busy transfer). Mobile Messenger: $6/month, free with plans 211 or 212 ------------------------------ From: hauben@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Michael Hauben) Subject: Need Help in the Study of Computers and Communications Organization: Columbia University Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:49:28 GMT Communications among humans has begun to radically change since the introduction of computers into the process. I plan to try to work in the field of computer communications and networks. I am currently a college sophomore and must declare my major or concentration by April. Thus, I am trying to design a special concentration of study to propose to my advisor. Broadly I would like to call my concentration "Computers and Society." I would like to study this field as broadly as possible, incorporating history of technology, sociology, philosophy, and thinking on future implications. However, if I must narrow my approach, I might want to focus on "Computers and Communications." I am interested in the role computers play in our society. Recent technological advances have been advancing society at a faster rate than ever before possible. I would like to study the computer's place in society in relation to what advances it has made possible. Also I would like to study how the technology, that is the computer, can, has, and will change society. Currently I am planning to study computers and telecommunications. I plan to study both the technological foundation, and the social impact and implications of computers to communication. I need to plan a program of studies. I need help figuring out what focus to take in my program of studies, and also suggestions of courses that would form a solid program in the study of computers and communications. It is possible to take courses in other divisions of my University, such as the School of Engineering, if I design my own interdisciplinary major. Again, I would be interested in hearing from others about what majors of telecommunications or computers and communications exists in other schools. Either that or the possible broader major of computers and society or technology and society would be interesting to hear. Also, any suggestions of what kinds of courses should be involved in either majors. Thank You, Michael Hauben hauben@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu am893@cleveland.freenet.edu ------------------------------ From: minakami@xenon.stanford.edu (Michael K. Minakami) Subject: Compressed Speech Warbles ... Need Help! Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University. Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 09:52:23 GMT Hello all, I'm using a GSM compressor to try to compress some voice data digitally recorded at a studio. The uncompressed voice sounds quite good, however once it's compressed there is an annoying warble in the voice. Does anyone have any ideas how I could "fix" this? Any pre-filters? I suspect this is the same warbling experienced by some RELP coders, as GSM employs LPC followed by long-term-prediction and residue encoding. Any leads would be greatly appreciated! Michael Minakami Computer Science/Psychology Stanford University ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 1993 00:23:39 +0000 (GMT) From: andyb@wndrsvr.la.ca.us (Andy Brager) Subject: Data Intensive Wan - Need Recommendations Organization: Wonder Server - Public Access for SoCal I need recommendations for a WAN. The WAN will have a star topology, as there will be one central site, and many (currently three envisioned but more to be added) remote sites. The remote sites may have a small (three user?) LAN. The central site will probably have a larger LAN, type unknown, quite possibly Novell. The amount of data involved is enormous. On the order of 500MB every 20 minutes or so. I believe it will not be a steady stream of data, but a 500MB chunk every so often. This may or may not already take compression into account. Currently, ten minutes or so to get the data from the remote sites to the central sites is acceptable, however this may change in the future. Eventually real-time may be required. The remote sites will most likely have the data coming from a HP 9000 HP/UX system. Currently there is no equipment, no cable, no building (as far as I know there is no building). My main question is, what hardware is needed at each end to support this WAN? In addition, what facility and service would be best? My back of the envelope calculations say that T1 would take 45 minutes, T3 would be 90 seconds. Is there a dial-up T3 option? Are there other facilities that would work for this? What sort of bandwidth can one get using a VSAT and spread spectrum (if that is a bad question, how fast can 500MB be transmitted)? One or two of the sites may be geographically close (a few miles?), but most will eventually be quite far. Do I need to worry about the local phone company, or do I only have to deal with a long distance carrier? What other questions should I have asked? What information did I leave out? Thanks in advance!! Andy Large Packages (10K+ Total) to: cerritos.edu!swc!wndrsvr!andyb ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 11:30:24 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) Subject: AT&T Buys 20% of Unitel AT&T will buy 20% of Canadian carrier Unitel Communications, according to an announcement issued shortly after Bell Canada and BC Tel announced that there would be no further appeals to last June's pro-competition decision. Before, Rogers Communications had 40% of Unitel while Canadian Pacific had the other 60%. Now AT&T will get 20% with Rogers stake going down 8% to 32%, and CP's stake down 12% to 48%. The deal is expected to close 29th January, plus a $200 million equity investment among the three shareholders to boost capital base. The U.S. stake in Unitel raises concerns. Rod Hiebert of British Columbia's chapter of Telecommunications Workers Union said "The U.S. carriers have enough spare capacity in their systems to serve all of Canada at the flip of a switch." Thus, foreign-controlled carriers in Canada may have no incentive to provide facilities in Canada. The AT&T link does allow for convenient cross-border connections and opportunities. Another part of the deal means Unitel will be getting its network switching equipment from AT&T rather than Northern Telecom. Unitel reports 38 000 subscribers to its limited public long distance service so far. Bell Canada revenues last year were $2.2 million, Unitel's $400 million. Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 19:51:50 EST Subject: Sega Announces VR Peripheral >From Page D12 of the January 7, 1993 {Washington Post}: Sega of America said that Virtus Sega, a full-color "virtual reality" peripheral for the 16-bit Genesis, will be available in the fall. Sega plans to release at least four software titles in 1993. The games will feature flying, driving and fantasy action. ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 19:53:27 EST Subject: AT&T and Novell Form Alliance From the {Washington Post}, Page D12 of Jan 7: AT&T and Novell, the computer software giant, announced an alliance to create products that link computer networks and business telephones. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:25:36 -0500 From: wlw2328@ultb.isc.rit.edu (W.L. Lance) Subject: Cheapest LD Company to Call One Interstate Number Four+ Hours/Week The subject says it all, I am looking for the cheapest way to confer with someone in CA (I am in NY) four or more hours a week. The number will always be the same, and the calls will be after 6 or 9pm EST. Does anyone have any sugg suggestions? I have heard some discussion of purchasing blocks of time in a advance for better discounts. I also thought I heard someone mention (along time ago) a set monthly fee with unlimited calling to one number. Does anyone have any info? The more the better so please respond! Thanks, Lance Ware ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 15:18:29 -0800 From: Barry Lustig Subject: Programming Instructions for a Nokia 101 Cellular Phone The Nokia 101/1000 Series handportable CMT uses an EEPROM NAM that can be programmed directly from the standard user keypad. In order to access the NAM, you must enter the special access code currently programmed into the phone. This code can be changed and therefore may vary from phone to phone. Once the programming mode is accessed, NAM parameters are loaded by entering them into the display and "storing" them to selected memory locations. Be sure to obtain all parameters before proceeding. ACCESS NAM PROGRAMMING MODE: 1. Turn the phone on. 2. Enter the NAM access code. Factory default is *3001#12345 3. Enter [STO] 00. 4. Verify that "STORE NOT DONE" appears in the display. If "NOT ALLOWED" appears, check to see of you have entered the access code correctly. Note: If the correct access code is unknown, reprogramming must be referred back to the wholesale purchaser of the phone. ENTER SPECIAL NAM PARAMETERS (Memory Location 01): 5. Press and hold the [CLR] key until the display clears. 6. In one long string, enter the special NAM parameters according to the format of Example 1 below. Enter each emergency number (such as 911 or *911) followed by the pound (#) key, the Language Code followed by the asterisk (*) key, and the desired four digit lock code. Language codes: 0 = English, 1 = French, 2 = Spanish. EXAMPLE 1: Pound Key__________________ _________ Asterisk Key \ \ / 9 1 1 # * 9 1 1 # 0 * 1 2 3 4 / / \ \_____ Lock Code Emergency_____/________/ \___________ Language Code Numbers 7. Enter [STO] 01 [STO]. ENTER MOBILE PHONE NUMBER (Memory Location 02 or 04): 8. Press and hold the [CLR] key until the display clears. 9 Enter the correct 10 digit phone number. 10. If desired, press the [ALPHA] key and enter a name of up to 16 characters. Note that the zero (0) key can be used to insert a blank space. After the name is entered, press [ALPHA]. 11. (For Primary NAM) Enter [STO] 02 [STO]. (For Optional NAM) Enter [STO] 04 [STO]. ENTER SYSTEM PARAMETERS (Memory Location 03 or 05): 12. Press and hold the [CLR] key until the display clears. 13. In one long string, enter the system parameters according to the format of Example 2 below. Be sure to separate each parameter with an asterisk (*). Do not place an asterisk before or after the string. EXAMPLE 2: System ID________ _____ Group ID Mark \ / _ _ _ 3 4 * 1 * 1 * 3 3 4 * 1 5 * 1 5 Access Method ____________/ / \ \___ Access Overload Class Local Use Mark ______________/ \_________ Initial Paging Channel VERIFY NAM INFORMATION 15. Press and hold the [CLR] key until the display clears. 16. Enter [RCL] followed by one of the memory locations from above (01 through 05). 17. Verify that the information for that memory location is correct. 18. To exit the programming mode, power the phone off then back on. If "NAM ERROR" appears on the display, programming was done incorrectly and must be repeated. Enjoy! barry ------------------------------ From: brc@halcyon.com (Brian Cartmell) Subject: HELP Needed With Motorola Micro-Tac Organization: Encryption Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:38:40 GMT Someone was telling how to reset and put a Motorola in test mode by connecting pin 20-21 but my micro-tac has a eight pin connector with what looks like a ground. Does anyone have a idea of how to put this in test mode? Thanks, Brian ------------------------------ Subject: Looking For DID Information From: roy@cybrspc.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 17:52:15 CST Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN Gee, thanks, everybody ... just because I mention TELECOM Digest once in a while, my friends now think I'm some sort of Telecom Guru! :-) This little quest is inspired by John Higdon's recent DID discussion. Can someone provide me a pointer to the DID signalling spec? Hopefully, it's on an ftp site somewhere, although I didn't see any mention in the Telecom Archives index PAT posted last week. Or do I need to go to Bellcore for this? (If so, got a document number?) Thanks in advance, folks! Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #16 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15866; 12 Jan 93 0:22 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16968 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:19:25 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24279 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:18:57 -0600 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:18:57 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301120418.AA24279@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #17 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Jan 93 22:19:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 17 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY (David G. Lewis) Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY via AT&T? (Andy Sherman) Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY via AT&T? (Gordon Burditt) Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY (John R. Levine) Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY (John Higdon) Re: Additional Phone Charges (Richard Lucas) Re: Additional Phone Charges (Mike Gordon) Re: The Future of Wired vs Wireless Services (James Hanlon) Re: The Future of Wired vs Wireless Services (mark@coombs.anu.edu.au) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY Organization: AT&T Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:09:31 GMT In article tim gorman <71336.1270@Compu Serve.COM> writes: > John Higdon writes: >> Bob Yazz writes: >>> The PUC will order that numbers not be delivered, period. >> But the PUC cannot order this, just as it cannot prevent any carrier >> from passing realtime ANI to end users. > Actually the PUC could order this and make it stand. Actually, to my knowledge (the Mother of all Disclaimers), the PUC could *not* order this, nor make it stand. The FCC could, but state PUCs have no jurisdiction over interstate telecommunications, and the FCC tends to take a dim view of state PUCs attempting to claim jurisdiction over interstate matters. The FCC, as far as I know, is considering this issue even as we speak. >> In SS7, the calling number is ALWAYS transmitted as part of the >> data packet, although there is a bit that identifies it as a "blocked" >> number if such is the case. > The Network Interconnect package needed to allow SS7 interconection > between the LEC and the IXC's makes provision for the calling number > to be deleted from any IAM message sent to the IXC. This is true in > every central office switch type I am aware of. This includes NTI, > AT&T, and Ericsson. I believe Bellcore TRs specify that this must be provisionable on a per-IXC basis in each CO, FYI. > SWBT policy is that this feature is invoked in all central offices > with SS7 interconnection to IXC's until calling number delivery is > tariffed and sold in that CO and all subscribers have been fully > informed (through bill inserts, etc.) of the impacts they will see. > So the PUC could order this be done in PB-land and also require that > PB negotiate with the switch vendors to insure the capability is > retained from this day forward. It's technically feasible, but outside their jurisdiction for interstate calls. > *opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence* Ditto. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!goofy!deej Switching & ISDN Implementation ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 11:57:20 EST Subject: Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY via AT&T? From: andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) John Higdon writes: > But what people do not understand is that those preciously > private telephone numbers will soon be displayed out of state on > a wide scale. It is only other CALIFORNIANS that will not see > the number displayed. yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz) replied: > You don't seriously believe such a state of affairs will stand, > do you John? The PUC will order that numbers not be delivered, > period. I can even see the potential for lawsuits against Pac > Bell over this. Californians may *think* they control everything, but in reality NOT. The California PUC has absolutely no jurisdiction over the carrying of telephone calls in interstate commerce. That is the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC. In fact, this genie is already out of the bottle. All of the major carriers are right now happily delivering your billing number to their 800 and 900 customers who subscribe to ANI. The PUC is allowing it, one assumes because they know they have no authority to stop it. Unless, of course, you mean to imply that the most egalitarian California PUC would allow number delivery to big bad business but not to "da people". :^| yazz> Sounds like an incentive to switch to a long distance company yazz> that does not use SS7. How do you think AT&T might feel about yazz> this? Go and find one. Do you *really* think that AT&T is the only carrier with SS7 on its mind? It may be ahead in its deployment, but it is not alone. Now I know why John and others have been referring to some of the arguments in this thread as Luddite. Do you really think that LECs and IECs expect to make enough money from CNID and ANI to pay for the tremendous investment in SS7? Dream on. SS7 is being deployed because it promises to provide *much* faster and more robust call setup than its predecessors. I doubt you will get any company to drop SS7. A more realistic, and less technically ignorant, campaign would be to persuade one or more IECs to drop calling number delivery over SS7. (A campaign which I would oppose, but one that at least is not just plain stupid). Since you want to kill SS7 to stop CNID and ANI, may I assume you intend to deprive the rest of us of ISDN as well? You can't do that either witout SS7. Andy Sherman Salomon Inc - Unix Systems Support - Rutherford, NJ (201) 896-7018 - andys@sbi.com or asherman@sbi.com "These opinions are mine, all *MINE*. My employer can't have them." ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY via AT&T? Organization: Gordon Burditt Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 07:20:27 GMT >> You don't seriously believe such a state of affairs will stand, do you >> John? The PUC will order that numbers not be delivered, period. I >> can even see the potential for lawsuits against Pac Bell over this. > But the PUC cannot order this, just as it cannot prevent any carrier > from passing realtime ANI to end users. Why? Federal law? What's so special about SS7? Has it been enacted into law by Congress or the FCC? I don't see anything prohibiting a sufficiently provoked PUC (or the state legislature backing the PUC) from doing any of the following (except perhaps common sense on the part of the PUC? Naaaah. Not if the voters are out for blood.) downright silly things: - Prohibiting the inclusion of any equipment that uses SS7 in the rate base, or otherwise fiddling with the formulas so the only profitable thing to do with it is decommission and destroy it. - Prohibiting the use of SS7, especially for in-state calls, with anything but the phone company's own customer service number in any "originating number" or "billing information" field. - Requiring a new tariff for every SS7 packet transmitted. - Making all phone service flat-rate and prohibiting charges for individual calls, thereby eliminating the need for per-call "billing information" except for one billing number for each in-state phone company. Local phone companies eat charges from MCI, Sprint, AT&T, etc. - Abolishing phone numbers (in-state) and using names and addresses. - Threatening the phone companies that if they don't quit sending phone numbers out of state, the PUC will set the rate for local calls at negative five dollars a minute. Customers will then figure out that two more lines with a call permanently connected between them is better than a welfare check, and that pretty soon they can work up to thousands of lines. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ Subject: Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 9 Jan 93 11:23:05 EST (Tue) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) [The question is whether Pac Bell will ship CLID data via SS7 links to LD carriers for out of state delivery.] I doubt it. The biggest obstacle to long distance CLID delivery isn't technical. It's money. The local telcos claim on the one hand that the CLID data they can provide to LD carriers on their originating calls is valuable and proprietary stuff and the LD carriers should pay them for it. On the other hand, the CLID data passed from an LD carrier to a terminating telco is just part of the standard set of SS7 features and should be passed along for free. I imagine the LD carriers have a somewhat different view. So this means that you're not likely to get CLID any time soon on calls that aren't carried end-to-end by your local telco. Within the US, I haven't heard of any reports of CLID being delivered across a LATA boundary. (Note that LATA boundaries are largely unrelated to area code boundaries. In particular, 201 and 908 are the same LATA.) Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 09:44 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> writes: > So the PUC could order this be done in PB-land and also require that > PB negotiate with the switch vendors to insure the capability is > retained from this day forward. Boy, are you giving the CPUC an order of magnitude credit more than it deserves! You have to understand that the CPUC is absolutely brain dead. I could give you a list of things that are wrong with CA utilities as long as your arm that the CPUC shrugs off routinely. Fortunately, the marketplace provides a modicum of inherent regulation, even in monopolies. In any event, I can guarantee you that the California excuse-for-a-regulatory board has not a clue regarding the switch features, technological ramifications, or in fact anything more complex than dialing a call. Check that -- the commissioners have secretaries place calls. Example: Remember the matter that I brought up a couple of years ago about the fact that all cellular prefixes in the Bay Area should carry no toll and be available for $.20 from utility phones? I checked and this is indeed the tariff. Six months of griping to Pac*Bell and the PUC has never resolved the problem of inconsistent charging from PB payphones. Our PUC at work. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: rlucas@bvsd.Co.EDU (Richard Lucas) Subject: Re: Additional Phone Charges Organization: Boulder Valley School District Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:02:14 GMT In article TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM writes: > I may have mentioned this before, but the simplest way to get the > equivalent of an unlisted number is to ask for the phone to be listed > {without address} under your roommate's name of Zyagur Xeanamux. When > someone calls asking for him, you know that it's a telemarketer. > What, you mean you don't have a roommate by that name? Exactly ... In an earlier message in this issue of TELECOM Digest, John Higdon (I think) mentions Pat's problems with repair and comments about IBT having a touch of Ma Bell still with them. Having worked a few years ago on the class action lawsuit against what is now US WEST, I was astonished in my research to discover just how much of Ma Bell was still present in the business office practices of different Baby Bells. With that experience in mind I hope that the following comments on Paul Robinson's message will apply in most parts of the country. These comments are made as a former service rep. Your basic account record/service order is likely to carry two distinct sets of information - listing and billing. They do NOT have to match each other, which provides the method of avoiding the non-pub charge. Request that the LN (Listed Name) be some made-up name (I've seen listings in people's dog's name, and one employee had hers entered as Raggety, A.), and the billing lines to read: BN1 John Smith for BN2 A. Raggety The key question to the company when I worked for them was billing responsibility. As long as the first line of the billing info (the BN1) was the responsible party, we really didn't care too much about the LN. The CI (Credit/Contact Information portion of the order/record) was tied to the responsible party. The closer to a `real' name your LN request is, the less trouble you'll have getting it by the service rep; more unusual combinations may simply involve more haggling if the rep is in his/her God mode. It's your phone line and you don't want to be listed, but your roommate does? Avoid the additional listing charge by giving them the LN/BN2, and you take the BN1 responsibility. Works great! Other codes to consider: Our listing has the (OAD) and (OCLS) codes in the listing line -- the first translates to Out Address Directory and keeps us out of the listings by address book the company produces, and the second translates to Out Customer Listing Service and keeps us off the customer listings lists that they sell to other companies. For an address we simply list our community name (Boulder); our service record shows that for the LA (Listed Address - which can also be completely blank) and then has a SA (Service Address) for the actual physical location. There's all sorts of listing tricks available, but the ones that don't generate revenue are rarely mentioned. Pressing the service reps for additional details is completely legitimate, and even serves as a reasonable test of whether or not the rep knows what they're doing. As a footnote to the listings question, I audited the service records of the individuals specifically named in the class action lawsuit's initial filing. One of them, a doctor, had both a non-pub listing (his name) AND an additional listing (roommate's name), with the corresponding monthly charges (almost $3/month total). Besides being a stupid way of doing it (give her the LN/BN2 and him the BN1, for NO monthly charge), it was against the tariff rules in place at the time. While the subsequent lawsuit settlement returned to him the overcharge for the inside wire maintenance agreement, that overcharge was only a tiny fraction of the listings overcharge. I did notify one of the telco's attorneys about the listings problem, but didn't have a current letter of authorization to follow up on the matter. I wouldn't be surprised to find the charges still in place today, particularly since a number of service reps had probably accessed his records between the lawsuit filing and my audit without ever mentioning (much less correcting) the listings problem. Footnote 2: Linebacker is an ENHANCED wire maintenance agreement, NOT the basic agreement. One poster a few months ago mentioned getting service in the northern midwest, with Linebacker mentioned in a way that indicated that it was presented as the basic maintenance agreement. It isn't in Colorado, and I doubt it is elsewhere either. Rick Lucas (rlucas@bvsd.co.edu) Debate Coach, Fairview HS, Boulder, CO ------------------------------ From: mwgordon@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mike Gordon) Subject: Re: Additional Phone Charges Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept. Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 08:07:50 GMT In article TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM writes: > I may have mentioned this before, but the simplest way to get the > equivalent of an unlisted number is to ask for the phone to be listed > {without address} under your roommate's name of Zyagur Xeanamux. When > someone calls asking for him, you know that it's a telemarketer. > What, you mean you don't have a roommate by that name? Exactly ... Good luck trying to get the number listed under a name that's different than the billing name! Our local telco won't do it, which can be quite annoying when you have a few people sharing a house. (Another college town telecom woe :( ) And forget about being billed under a different name! I've heard that you can get your name trademarked (or something like that) as it refers to you. This supposedly is what stars use to keep their names from being used by unethical retailers, etc. (For example, the Mel Gibson line of sportswear at Sammy W's Superstores.) Now, couldn't a Joe Regular do the same sort of thing? Something like "All businesses are forbidden to use the name Joe Regular (when refering to Joe Regular of 123 Average St. blah blah) in any advertisments or publicatio without the express written permission of Joe Regular." Then write the telco a certified letter saying that they are expressly forbidden from using your name in their publication. Of course you would include a copy of the "trademark" document. The same tactic could be used for those nasty (and brain-dead) junk mailers that love to fill our mailboxes and trash cans. I know it is expensive to get any sort of legal documents created, but maybe some of our readers are lawyers (or have friends or family members who are) and thus can get a free opinion on this. Any opinions about this out there? By the way, I feel that being charged monthly to protect (in one small way) our right to privacy is extortion! What real cost is there associated with being left off of a list? Mike Gordon N9LOI 99681084@uwwvax.uww.edu ------------------------------ From: tcubed@ddsw1.mcs.com (James Hanlon) Subject: Re: The Future of Wired vs Wireless Services Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:04:07 GMT Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john) writes: > I suspect that outside sociological, economic, and political pressures > will do more to answer the posed question than mere technology alone. After much experience, both painful and rewarding, I have to agree. > other "softer" sciences. At least from my perspective, the softer > sciences are indeed *MUCH* harder to master than those we use daily. And are applicable far more often than we'd care to admit. Just what is the ratio? I have my own judgments -- any other opinions? > Will the current industry infrastructure (Don't you just love the way > we can beat this politicisms to death :-) ) remain viable by 2010? US, yes; the LECs and the Inter-LATA carriers make money with zero incremental thought on their parts. Such an easy life will be perpetuated by all sorts of rationalizations -- after all, there's still a Western Union! The international picture will reflect a more entrepreneurial orientation, as formerly nationalized administrations get, first, privatized, then, overlaid with only nominally national wide-band high-connectivity networks. I base my reasoning on the fact that non-US administrations have fewer intrinsic constraints upon them -- they largely limit themselves. It only takes one executive of vision to get the ball rolling, once freed from bureaucratic concerns, and enjoying the support of the Prime Minister/President/King. Network architecture is no longer mysterious these days, and comm/compute hardware is notoriously commoditized. There are numerous non-US telco administrations with the know-how to pull off e.g. a wide-band wireless point-to-point variable bandwidth overlay network for large geographic areas, that considers the PSTN a relatively small component. I am disposed to wireless because, in the foregoing scenario, it permits the subversion of any existing wired network without directly confronting any entrenched (sorry) bureaucracy. Wireless for the first hop is a viable strategy as long as reasonably cheap broadband rf modems are available, and spread-spectrum technology can make the above-10 GHz area sharable. I am assuming that this will happen. > venture. Profit is not a dirty word! I am convinced that rate of > return regulation will die a natural death before the year 2000. > While price cap regulation seems to be in vogue with our lawyer > friends(?), I'm almost positive that zero regulation (price/cost only) > will be in effect by 2010. I predict that individuals in 2010 will have the option to contract with global bandwidth/connectivity providers for any sort of frame transfer, with various guarantees of delivery, ordering, delay, and BER. And AT&T, and FCC, will have very little to say about it. Jim Hanlon tcubed@ddsw1.mcs.com ------------------------------ From: mark@coombs.anu.edu.au (Mark) Subject: Re: The Future of Wired vs Wireless Services Date: 10 Jan 93 00:29:55 GMT Organization: Australian National University Hi, I was chewing the fat and heard about an idea I thought was cute. Telecom Australia is working on a radio phone system that has a lot of potential IMHO. The idea is you have slim compact handsets that are basically a smart radio with a short range. Spread over the CBD at first and then the suburbs are base stations that each phone user can log into with the same handset. When the user is at work they can log into their office station and their calls are charged to their work or when they go home they are charged to their home number. You have the ability of having a single handset you can use at work and home, without having to reprogram it. The idea of the short ranges of the base stations is to enable a high density per area. The system doesn't allow one to roam from zone to zone as such and keep the call going, you have to sit still or at least stay in radio range. If you want to roam, get a hands free car phone or a more sophisticated (and expensive) mobile phone. One bonus for business is your facility phone can be transported around the building with only a power lead needed wherever you set up shop again. No reprogramming or rewiring needed. A business can have their own station to save on call costs. It was mentioned the possibility of the use of smart cards to automate the logging onto the zone station. It would also authenticate the caller if used with PIN numbers etc. Encryption is expected to be encompassed in the system for added security. What I like is you can remove your smartcard or switch off the unit and then can't be tracked. If you want to recieve calls then you log into a zone to let it know you're willing to be contacted. There will be packages offered with these phones and pagers so you can save the phone battery until someone pages you. One problem is the listening in capability that is always there. At work or home your on a radio link, most likely plain voice. It makes taps easier, even with the different frequency assigned to you for each call. This system brings closer the concept of Personal Communication Numbers (PCNs) so you can one day be contacted anywhere in the world, just by anyone dialling your permanent number. The only problems I can see immediately are those involved with the amount of frequencies, RFI and the ease of monitoring. Sounds like a nice system. Mark mark@coombs.anu.edu.au ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #17 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17060; 12 Jan 93 1:18 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03715 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:03:36 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09413 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:03:09 -0600 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:03:09 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301120503.AA09413@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #18 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Jan 93 23:03:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 18 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Interesting Statistic on Calls From Prisons (Larry Cipriani) Cordless Key Systems? (Jonathan Edwards) Updating Survey of E-Mail Services - Need Help. (Donald R. Newcomb) PC Software for ATTmail (Donald R. Newcomb) Panasonic KX-Txxxx Mailing List (Bill Cerny) Opinions on PBX - Toshiba Strata DK-56 (Raul Rathmann) Audiovox Cellular Phone MVX-500 (ie Minivox) (Steve Wachtel) Hooking up a US modem in Czechoslovakia (Raul Rathmann) Modem Won't Hang Up (Richard Budd) Area Code 610 (Carl Moore) FAQ About 900 Numbers? (Stephan Meyers) Will a UK Telephone Work in the US (Will it Ring?) (Richard Lamb) Phoneline Simulator to Test Modems - How? (George Planansky) About C&P's "Swipe Reader" Phones (Paul Robinson) Info Wanted: Telecom in Holland? (Bryan Petty) Internet / UUCP / Compuserve / Anything in Belize? (Larry Krone) Need Help Dealing With PacBell and Harrasing Calls (J. Eric Townsend) Cellular One Offers FREE Weekends in NC (Alan M. Gallatin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 15:43:34 EST From: lvc@cbvox1.att.com Subject: Interesting Statistic on Calls From Prisons Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc. I work on a small part of the AT&T Automated Alternate Billing System, i.e., the speaker independent voice recognition call processing product that is being trialed in Seattle, WA, Jacksonville, FL, Phoenix, AZ and probalby a few other places by now. One of the customers of AABS is an RBOC; they connected telephones in prisons to the AABS. In this situation, the caller can only make a collect call, and the caller cannot reach an operator except if by some fluke a network failure occurs. One statistic which was suprising is the number of abandoned calls, i.e., the caller hung up on the system before their call was completed. 80% of all collect calls were abandonded, and 97% of those were from a prison. I'm guessing the large number of abandonded calls from prisons is due to prisoners trying to beat this system. The motivation for this feature was to (a) eliminate the abuse operators received from prisoners -- operators like this feature quite a lot by the way, and (b) prisoners have been known to have their friends get jobs as operators who can give them free calls. Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com ------------------------------ From: edwards@world.std.com (Jonathan Edwards) Subject: Cordless Key Systems? Organization: IntraNet, Inc. Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:53:33 GMT I am thinking of putting a "key" phone system into my home. The main reason for this is to gain paging capability. But I also want to be able to use cordless phones. I presume that if this is possible at all I would lose the paging function at the cordless phones. Is there any solution to this, or should I just install a separate intercom? Thanks Jonathan Edwards edwards@intranet.com IntraNet, Inc 617-527-7020 ------------------------------ From: dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb) Subject: Updating Survey of E-Mail Services - Need Help Organization: University of Southern Mississippi Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:37:59 GMT A year and a half ago I did a survey of e-mail providers which one might use for his personal e-mail. I noticed recently that this was put in the telecom archives under the name "e-mail.systems.survey" and is beginning to need an update. I will undertake to update this survey but need some help. I tried to include those systems that had some sort of inbound communications system (e.g. Telnet, PSN, 800 number, etc) that would provide access from, at least, the continental US. A word or two were included about Fidonet and DASnet. The systems surveyed were: MCImail, ATTmail, EasyLink, GEnie, Pinet, Telemail (Omnet), World, Portal, Netcom, Compuserve, Fidonet and DASnet. I will not have room to include every public-access site and BBS in the country but would like to include pointers to where this information can be found. If you are interested and have experience as a user of these or other systems which should be included, please review the report in the archives and respond to me by email regarding updates, changes, additions or corrections. Thank you. Donald R. Newcomb dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu newcomb@usmcp6.bitnet ------------------------------ From: dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb) Subject: PC Software For ATTmail Organization: University of Southern Mississippi Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:50:15 GMT I would like to know the experiences of anyone using an inexpensive non-ATT software package for the PC to interface to ATTmail. ATTmail imposes a stiff fee for "online composition" of messages but this can be avoided by composing messages off-line and up-loading via various mail transfer packages. Most of the PC packages marketed by AT&T are more expensive than I feel is necessary. I understand that a UUCP protocol can be used. How do addresses such as TELEX and X.400 work in various packages? How are they formatted. I would appreciate specific experiences and recommendations. Thank you. Donald R. Newcomb dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu newcomb@usmcp6.bitnet ------------------------------ From: bill@toto.info.com Subject: Panasonic KX-Txxxx Mailing List Organization: Sun, Surf 'n Sushi, San Diego, CA Date: 11 Jan 93 03:06:56 GMT Due to the popularity of the Panasonic KX-Txxx series of key systems, there's a new mailing list starting up to discuss features, bugs and other work-arounds for this wonderful family of electronic key systems. To subscribe, mail to: kxt-request@info.com To post an article, mail to: kxt@info.com. Bill Cerny 10288-0-700-FON-BILL ------------------------------ From: rathmann@nic.cerf.net (Raul Rathmann) Subject: Opinions on PBX - Toshiba Strata DK-56 Date: 11 Jan 1993 07:58:47 GMT Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group Hi folks: I am considering picking up a Toshiba Strata DK-56 PBX with various handsets. Does anyone have any opinions on this unit, good or bad? Also important, I will be hooking up a PC based voice mail system to this PBX, probably with Dialogic equipment. Anyone know of any gotchas? I understand that some systems don't signal a disconnect correctly or at all. Does this unit have this problem? Thanks - Raul rathmann@cerf.net ------------------------------ From: wachtel@cerl.gatech.edu (Steve Wachtel) Subject: Audiovox Cellular Phone MVX-500 (ie Minivox) Date: 11 Jan 93 08:13:50 GMT Organization: CERL/EE, Georgia Tech, Atlanta I just recently got a Minivox portable phone. I found out after I had paid for the phone that there are phone options that are not user configurable. These require the service provider (ie my authorized agent of PacTel) to set these options. One option which I consider important is the assignment of the security code. My agent told me that it was customary for them to set my security code to the last digets of the telephone number. Is this right? After much complaining I was able to get them to change the security code. But I want to learn the procedure so that I don't have to rely on them. Please, if anyone has the programmer's manual for this phone or some information on how I might obtain one, or just the code sequences necessary to do this and other phone options, please post a response or send me email. Thanks. Stephen Wachtel stephen.wachtel@ee.gatech.edu Georgia Institute of Technology (404) 894-2507 400 Tenth St. NW, CRB 376 Atlanta, GA 30332-0540 ------------------------------ From: rathmann@nic.cerf.net (Raul Rathmann) Subject: Hooking up a US Modem in Czechoslovakia Date: 11 Jan 1993 08:22:52 GMT Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group Hi, I have a friend of a friend that is teaching at university in Czechoslovakia. He wants to hook up a modem to the university phone system. I'm assuming that he can use the extension line coming in to his office to dial out, then with his modem hooked up, he can get the modem to grab the connection with an AT command and he's on his way. Problems I can forsee will be mainly with the phone system and wiring. Could he splice into the phone system and expect the modem (and phone) to work? I'm sure the power situation will be a concern. Does anyone have any good ideas here? By the way, he has said that there is no way to get this info from the university, they're in the dark ages and information is not readily shared. Thanks, Raul rathmann@cerf.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 10:16:03 EDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Modem Won't Hang Up Organization: CSAV UTIA We are experiencing difficulty with our modem connecting with an IBM Control Unit Model 7171. There are 16 lines here at the Czech Academy of Sciences Informatics Institute connected to an IBM 4361 host. Because of the poor quality of phone lines in Eastern Europe, our external connections through modems and the CU are frequently dropped, but the modem remains on-hook and we have to manually power off and reset. This is especially a problem over the weekend when the system is running without operators. Do you know of any software that could automatically take the modem off-hook when the connection is dropped? We use Gandalf ACCESS Series 24A and Hyundai HMD 2404M external modems. All modems on the host side use MNP5 because it is the only way to establish reliable connections for more than five minutes given, again, the quality of the lines. The Czech government is working on improving phone quality, we may have digital fiber optic lines in Prague by the end of 1993. Richard Budd | USA klub@maristb.bitnet | CR budd@cspgas11.bitnet | 139 S. Hamilton St. | Kolackova 8 | Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 | 18200 Praha 8 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 14:39:13 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Area Code 610 Last Octwober, the Digest had a message (repeated below) about the 610 area code. I have lost track of which digest it was in. Because 610 has just been announced for a split of 215, I am re-sending the message. >Date: Wed, 21 Oct 92 09:08:32 +0200 >From: spyros@isoft.intranet.gr (Spyros Bartsocas) >Subject: Area Code 610 >Recently the Greek newspapers are filled with ads of '900' type of >services located in Australia and North America. Examples of prefixes >used are 609-490, and 609-426. Are these local 976 type prefixes? A >lot of these are 610-204-xxxx numbers. Where is 610 located? >Spyros Bartsocas spyros@isoft.intranet.gr [609-426 & 490 are in Hightstown, NJ; a Moderator's Note, omitted here, followed.] [Moderator's Note: I wonder what will become of the +1-610 premium services once 610 gets used legitimatly here in the USA? PAT] ------------------------------ From: artn@bert.eecs.uic.edu (Stephan Meyers) Subject: FAQ About 900 Numbers? Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:36:25 GMT I am interested in getting a 900 or a 976 number in the Chicago area. The information about starting something like this up seems to be pretty hard to get -- most of the "customer service" people have been really rude, treating me as a crank caller. I'm just curious, about how it works, costs, etc, and maybe I'd start up a line. I have found out the basic startup and monthly charge (AT&T wants $2300 install + $750/month + 30 cents/minute + 10% of whats left after 30 cents/minute -- breakeven on a $1/minute call would be around 1200 minutes per month, or 40 minutes per day, without counting startup). Of course, what I would really want is a service who has the equipment, can help me set up a line, and would operate based on a percent of the money (if they take 50% of the money, say, instead of hefty startup costs, that's fine by me). It's strange, in fact, how hard this is to find out. You'd think one or two phone calls would do the trick, and that the phone companies would be dying to sell you the service, but everyone is so rude! me: Hi, I'm interested in finding out how to start a 900 line them: What sort of information would you be providing [as in "Are you another phone sex jerk?"] me: Ummmm, well, I'm kicking around some ideas, but I was thinking about something about the art scene in Chicago. them: You want customers in all 50 states to call you and find out about art. ["you really think ANYONE would be interested in what you have to say?"] me: Well, really just Chicago, but who knows? them: Well you'll have to call Illinois Bell about 976 number service. [she almost hung up on me] me: Well, I'd still like to know about the nationwide service, I'm just trying to figure out what it costs, etc And then I finally got her to tell me how much it costs, and after a little more prodding, she gave me a number for AT&T's equipment leasing for 900 service. Arrgh! It's a multi-billion dollar industry, and I want to (maybe) buy something from you! Give me a little respect, please!!! Anyway, as in the subject line, if anyone has an FAQ with everything you ever needed to know about 900 services, please email to: artn@bert.eecs.uic.edu Thanks! Stephan Meyers | artn@uicbert.eecs.uic.edu (Art)^n Laboratories, inventors of the Stealth Negative PHSCologram (312) 567-3762 [Moderator's Note: The main reason they start the conversation by asking what kind of service you wish to operate is because if you plan on some sort of phone sex thing, they will immediatly tell you they no longer will bill for phone sex. They will give you the lines, but you have to figure out how to do the billing, via some service bureau or otherwise on your own. That little 'gotcha' discourages many would-be sex line operators from beginning. None of the carriers will bill for sex these days ... too much hassle and fraud. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lamb@xtcn.com (Richard Lamb) Subject: Will a UK Telephone Work in the US (Will it Ring?) Organization: XtcN Ltd Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 21:28:38 GMT I bought a phone in the UK and am using it in the US. The DTMF stuff works fine, but I cant seem to make it ring. Should I be able to ? Rick XtcN Ltd, lamb@xtcn.com, Tel:508-655-2960, FAX:508-655-4559, Telex:6504829720 11 Roxbury Ave.,Natick MA 01760,4425 Butterworth Pl.N.W.,Washington D.C. 20016 ------------------------------ From: gplan@cs.umb.edu (George Planansky) Subject: Phoneline Simulator to Test Modems - How ? Reply-To: george@tusk.med.harvard.edu Organization: HMass, Boston MA Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:32:17 GMT To test modem/terminal-server settings I would like to connect connect the modems directly via a phoneline simulator. I gather that just a modular four-wire flat cable won't work, since the modems, for one, want to see a carrier. Is this something simple to coble together (or not simple and expensive to buy)? Please reply by email, thanks. George george@tusk.med.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:39:37 EST Subject: About C&P's "Swipe Reader" Phones The number to call to get information about C&P's "Swipe Reader" telephone is 1-800-999-9699. If this call is not accessible from your area, let me know. ------------------------------ From: bp@teaser.lis.pitt.edu (Bryan Petty) Subject: Info Wanted: Telecom in Holland? Date: 12 Jan 93 04:12:51 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh I am doing some research on the Telecommunications infrastructure in Holland. If anyone can recommend any references or contacts for information it would be greatly appreciated. If there is any interest I will post a summary. Thanks! Bryan Petty University of Pittsburgh Graduate Telecom Student/Slave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 11:20:16 -0800 From: Larry Krone Subject: Internet / UUCP / Compuserve / Anything in Belize Is there any type of Net access available from Belize (Central America?) Please Email responses to: swslr@well.sf.ca.us Thanks, Larry Krone ------------------------------ From: jet@nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend) Subject: Need Help Dealing With PacBell and Harrasing Calls Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames Date: 11 Jan 93 16:09:39 Sometime during the night of 6 Jan 93, some individual(s) with a fax decided that my home voice number was also a fax and started dialing. Since then, I've received a *lot* of calls from this fax machine, often on regular intervals (10min before the hour being common). I suspect it's on the east coast, since things started up around 5am this morning. PacBell is being less than helpful. "Hope they notice that the fax isn't getting through." "There's no way for us to figure out where the call is originating from." So I started dropping computer-words. :-) Me: "Can't they set up a line trap?" Them: "Uh... yes.. but, uh, that might not work." Me: "Well, can PacBell at least determine if it's coming in LD or if it's originating from a local exchange?" Them: "uhm, probably." Repair Service just took a call on it, they think that maybe they "can figure out who's calling you and get them to stop". Anybody know the "right" questions/requests to make of PacBell so that they do this sort of thing a bit more quickly? J. Eric Townsend -- jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311 (DoD# 0378) [Moderator's Note: Can you temporarily call forward your phone to a line with a fax machine and recieve a transmission from the idiots? If so, then I presume once their identity is discovered, you could call them yourself and give them a piece of your mind. PAT] ------------------------------ From: alan@acpub.duke.edu (Alan M. Gallatin) Subject: Cellular One Offers FREE Weekends in NC Date: 11 Jan 93 23:27:30 GMT Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C. Cellular One in the Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina is offering a new feature on most of their calling plans. In addition to whatever monthly charge you are currently paying, for an extra $10 they will give you unlimited airtime on the weekends (defined as 11:59pm Friday to 12:01am Monday) for all calls made (or received) while in your local calling area. The only charges incurred would be for directory assistance or long distance land charges. Off-peak minutes with C1 go as low as $.20/minute with some plans (and are often more than that) so the break-even point is 50 minutes (or less). Any ideas why they'd just open the floodgates like this? As an aside, Centel (the only competitor in this market) is not matching the program or even coming up with something remotely close. Alan M. Gallatin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #18 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17955; 12 Jan 93 1:54 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19951 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:47:40 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07194 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:47:11 -0600 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:47:11 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301120547.AA07194@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #19 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Jan 93 23:47:10 CST Volume 13 : Issue 19 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Rutgers Exchange-Changing Mayhem (birchall@pilot.njin.net) Want Info on Ringing Voltages/Cadences Around the World (Steve Pershing) US Losing Lead in Telecom - USC Report (UPI via Ang Peng Hwa) Call for Volunteers at INTEROP 93 Spring (Ole J. Jacobsen) Bellcore NPA/NXX Information (Al Varney) Use a Phone, Go to Jail (Paul S. Sawyer) Canadian Competition Full Steam Ahead; Enter AT&T (Andrew M. Dunn) Visual "Bell" For a POTS Line (Kristobal Pedregal Martin) Re: Colorado Gets Caller ID (John Higdon) Re: Colorado Gets Caller ID (Conrad Kimball) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: birchall@pilot.njin.net (Shag) Subject: Rutgers Exchange-Changing Mayhem Date: 11 Jan 93 22:16:32 GMT Organization: Screaming in Digital, the Queensryche Digest Rutgers University has an outlying campus in Camden, NJ. The campus is in exchange 609-757, with some businesses. Since that exchange has become full, the campus is being moved to a new exchange, 609-225, which went into service on Friday (1/8/93). Banners to this effect were placed on the campus dialins early this week. Within a day, several users of a public system at Rutgers had left posts saying that they would no longer be able to call in for free, because NJ Bell had told them the new exchange wasn't local to them. Naturally, since the "localness" of a call is based on the distance between CO's (at least in NJ), and the CO's were quite obviously right where they'd always been, this caused a lot of confusion for the rest of us, who were quite certain it would be a free call, as always. It turned out that a scenario like this was being repeatedly carried out: User calls the operator to ask about 225. Operator keys 225 into the computer. Since 609-225 doesn't _exist_ yet, the computer decides that they must (of course) mean 908-225, which is some 60 miles away (and, coincidentally, a local call from a _different_ Rutgers campus). Operator tells user that it's not local. User panics. When I called NJ Bell, and explained to the operator that it was a Rutgers campus changing exchanges, the operator's response was, "Oh, I remember when they did that up here in New Brunswick, it'll still be local." Convincing all the users who had been told by NJ Bell that it _wasn't_ local was a bit of a challenge, though! When I mentioned this to a friend in Rutgers Telecom (T.P. Brisco), he pointed out another bit of trivia: "I understand when we split from 908-932 to 908-932 and 908-445, that originally NJB proposed that we take the newly available 809 exchange (instead of 445). We rescinded that proposal on the grounds that a phone number like 908-809-xxxx would lead to too many typographical errors, and confusion with the newly minted 908 area code. Maybe we should've asked for 923 instead of 445?" T.P. also posted a followup message mentioning that people had better specify 609-225 when they called the operator. I think all the users have caught onto the idea now, but there's bound to be a few who stop calling in (particularly people from outside Rutgers who just dial in to use the public system). Of course, those few who continue believing it's a toll call after all our explaining are probably modem-incompetent anyway. Shag birchall@pilot.njin.net, shag@glia.biostr.washington.edu, birchall@njin.bitnet Operator of ShagNet - Rutgers/NJIN dialup access for Burlington County, NJ Happy and informative user of a PPI 14400 FaxModem and GeoWorks Pro Editor of the Queensryche E-mail Digest - "Screaming in Digital" ------------------------------ Subject: Want Info on Ringing Voltages/Cadences Around the World From: sp@questor.org (Steve Pershing) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 15:08:01 PST Organization: Questor|Free Usenet News|Vancouver, BC: +1 604 681 0670 I have sold a good few ZyXEL modems to various happy clients around the world via our mail-server. In one instance (and I suspect there are many more) the modems worked fine, but would not answer when a call was incoming. This particular instance was in Japan. After a call to ZyXEL's tech support, they had a hidden register which had to be set, and voil`a, everything worked just fine. Recently, I noticed a posting in comp.dcom.modems in which a Swedish ZyXEL user seemed to be having similar problems. Is there such a great diversity in ringing current and ringing cadences, other than the ringing in country code 1 and country code 44? If there is a FAQ describing this, please let me know about it and I will get hold of it. Thanks! Steve Pershing, SysAdmin The QUESTOR Project FREE access to Environ, Sci, Med, & AIDS news, and more. [also UUCP] on a ZyXEL-U1496S+ => v.42bis, v.32bis, v.33, up to 16,800bps. -=- -=- -=- -=- Fones: (+1 604) Data: 681-0670 Telefax: 682-6160 Voice: 682-6659 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 10:38:51 SST From: Ang Peng Hwa Subject: US Losing Lead in Telecom - USC Report This report is from UPI: Los Angeles -- America's traditional lead in telecommunications is eroding very rapidly as other nations promote new technologies, according to a study released Wednesday. "The potential of new information communication technologies and services is widely appreciated around the world and many nations are making aggressive steps to promote their deployment," said the University of Southern California study. The study, produced by the USC's Center for Telecommunications Management and covering 24 nations, found that the US lagged in a number of key technologies compared with other nations, such as converting analog networks to more efficient digital networks and investment. It said digitalization of the US network stood at just over 50 percent at the end of 1991, which ranks ninth of 18 reporting countries, while US investment in public network infrastructure was 12th among the 18 countries. It also said other nations were retiring used equipment much faster than the US. "While a number of other nations have dramatically increased their capital investment in infrastructure, US investment is flat or declining," it said. "Furthermore, depreciation trends in the US show a shocking pattern." The study added: "During this remarkable period of rapid technological progress and obsolescence, asset lives for public network equipment of local exchange companies have actually increased in the US. Nations like Japan, the United Kingdom, Singapore and others write off and replace equipment twice as fast as most US carriers." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 18:52:32 PST From: Ole J. Jacobsen Subject: Call for Volunteers at INTEROP 93 Spring Please distribute as widely as possible: Call for Volunteers: The INTEROP Conference Assessment Team (CAT) Interop Company is seeking student volunteers to serve as quality control monitors for INTEROP 93 Spring, to be held in Washington, DC, March 8-12, 1993. This is a unique opportunity for students to attend the industry's premier networking conference and tradeshow, while helping us improve the quality and consistency of the conference. As a CAT member you will receive: * Complimentary conference registration for all three conference days; * Complimentary conference notes; * Complimentary registration for an INTEROP tutorial on Monday/Tuesday [NEW!] (You may be assigned to a tutorial that is not your "first choice", but we will make every effort to acommodate your requests.) * Complimentary lunch all three days; * Special INTEROP CAT T-shirts; * A complimentary copy of the book "Exploring the Internet"; As a CAT member you will be asked to: * Monitor preassigned conference sessions on one of the three conference days, by submitting written reports and acting as the "eyes and ears" of the conference organizers. We will provide you with a basic evaluation form to aid the preparation of the reports. (You will be free to attend any conference session and the INTEROP exhibition on your "days off.") * Provide an accurate count of the number of people attending the sessions you are assigned to. ("Clickers" will be provided!) Successful CAT candidates will be students currently enrolled in a computer science or electrical engineering course at undergraduate, graduate or post-graduate level. Applicants should have some understanding of (and interest in) computer networking issues. All applications must be received by February 15, 1993. Please note that Interop Company cannot cover any travel or accommodation costs associated with the CAT program, however as a CAT member you will be elligible for the standard conference discount rate at a number of Washington, DC hotels. To apply, send e-mail to: ole@interop.com with a brief biography and relevant contact information. Don't forget to send a POSTAL address as we will need to send you some hardcopy material. *** PLEASE: Do not include my message in your reply. If you must include it, please do so AFTER your reply rather than before it. Thank you very much.*** Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop Company, 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, Phone: (415) 962-2515 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 08:31:03 CST From: varney@ihlpl.att.com Subject: Bellcore NPA/NXX Information Reply-To: Al Varney Organization: AT&T Patrick, Several folks have asked for information available in some form from Bellcore -- and my e-mail to them failed. Perhaps you could post this AND include it in FAQ or archive. Thanks. To Bob Larribeau at , asking for NPA/NXX information: Information about which LEC "owns" an NPA/NXX, and lots of other data you might want, is in several Bellcore "products". For example, the NPA-NXX V&H Coordinates Tape (primarily for billing) contains the OCN (Operating Company Number) for each NXX -- you can translate that to an LEC (or equivalent in Canada/Caribbean). To Richard Cox, who asked for information on the NPA/NXX activity guide: I tried to reply, but both and didn't work; SMTP says 'compulink.co.uk' is unknown. ----- So, I've attached a canned response I use for questions about Bellcore, but the telephone numbers correspond to the normal TR/TA document center. The NPA/NXX information is maintained by the (somewhat) separate Traffic Routing Administration (TRA) group, at +1 201 829 3071. To complicate matters, there are three PUBLIC documents published by Bellcore's document center, but maintained by the TRA. These are available by contacting the document center as described in the attachment. - FA20: "Telephone Area Code Directory (TACD) Microfiche" Contains all customer-dialable points in the North American Numbering Plan with the corresponding NPA. Issued monthly. $50 - TR-EOP-000093: "TACD Paper Report" As above, issued annually around September. Ordered by State and Locality. Carrier Identification Codes are included. - TR-OPT-001843: 800/900 List on Paper, giving company name and telephone contact for each NXX assigned with the 800 and 900 codes. Issued quarterly. [Call the document HOTLINE in the attachment for prices of paper documents.] For all other TRA "products", or information about on-line access to a database of routing data, contact the TRA Hotline at +1 201 829 3071, or write to: Traffic Routing Administration Bell Communications Research, Inc. 435 South Street, Room 1J321 Morristown, NJ 07962-1961 These non-public documents and on-line access require signing a "Terms and Conditions Agreement" before purchase. You should ask for a complete list of products and prices. Some of the documents do not include Canada. Some of the more "common-use" TRA documents are: - NPA-NXX Vertical and Horizontal Coordinates Tape (the "V&H Tape") is primarily for billing purposes, and lists (for each NXX) the type of NXX, major/minor V&H coordinates, LATA Code, the ROA, Time Zone, Place Name, OCN (TELCO) and indicators for IDDD and "Non-Dialable". - NPA/NXX Activity Guide lists all NPA/NXX codes schedules to be added, removed or "modified" (monthly). There's also an Active Code List that lists all NPA/NXX codes that aren't planned to be removed or "modified" for the next 6 months. - Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) contains information on all USA/Caribbean destinations, switching entities, Rate Centers and Localities, Tandem Homing information, operator service codes, 800/900 NXX assignments, etc. (3 1600 BPI tapes!!!) Mostly useful to IXCs and other TELCos. Good Luck, Al Varney varney@ihlpl.ih.att.com ------ (canned response follows:) ------------------- Bellcore TAs and other preliminary "advisories" are only available by writing: Bellcore Document Registrar 445 South Street - Room 2J-125 P. O. Box 1910 Morristown, NJ 07962-1910 TRs and other "standard" documents can be ordered from: Bellcore Customer Service 60 New England Avenue Piscataway, NJ 08854-4196 or by calling the document HOTLINE (menu-monster) at 1-800-521-CORE (1-800-521-2673). They take AMEX, VISA and MasterCharge, International Money Orders, and Checks on US Banks. If you don't have a document number handy, they can send you a catalog of technical documents. International calls are on +1 908 699 5800. (If you want to order a document, press 2 at the automated greeting. If you want to talk to a person about availability, prices, etc, press 4 at the automated greeting) FAX on (908) 699-5800. If you want to talk to the "pub" folks, or a technical person, the numbers/addresses are in the front of any TR (and the "Catalog"). Al Varney - the above represents my opinion, and not AT&T's.... (And I do wish Bellcore paid commissions for these referrals!) ------------------------------ Subject: Use a Phone, Go to Jail Date: 11 Jan 93 10:02:32 EST (Mon) From: paul@unhtel.unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer) Recently here (Strafford County, NH) a man was sentenced to four months in jail for telephone harrasment for making two "hang up" calls. With this type of precedent, couldn't we give telemarketers at least 30 days (first offense...) and 800- number billing converters 5-10 years? :-) :-) Paul S. Sawyer - University of New Hampshire CIS - paul@unhtel.unh.edu Telecommunications and Network Services - VOX: +1 603 862 3262 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 - FAX: +1 603 862 2030 ------------------------------ From: amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn) Subject: Canadian Competition Full Steam Ahead; Enter AT&T Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 14:46:36 GMT In article DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA (David Leibold) writes: > At least we're not getting any COCOTs ... yet :-) No, but AT&T announced yesterday that they're entering the Canadian market via a modified partnership/investment arrangement with Unitel. Unitel is presently a joint venture of Canadian Pacific and Rogers Communications. Each will reduce their stake to 40% to give AT&T 20% of Unitel in exchange for investment, market development, technical expertise, and access to AT&T's American network. Unitel President George Harvey commented that it was the right move to make at the right time, that AT&T was a strong player in the world telecommunications market, and that the arrangement would benefit all parties. He particularly stressed that the move would lead to faster, cheaper communications throughout Canada, and that he expected rates to fall quickly as new arrangements were made. Unitel offers communications services in competition with Bell Canada in the long-distance market, as well as private circuit facilities to businesses (which has been their mainstay up until the present time). It will be interesting to see what this venture brings. It will, at the very least, be a significant change to the Canadian telecommun- ications marketplace. I don't work for Unitel, Rogers, CP, or AT&T. Nor am I a customer (yet). But I did once work for Unitel's predecessor... Andy Dunn or ------------------------------ From: pedregal%unreal@cs.umass.edu Subject: Visual "Bell" For a POTS Line Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 11:51:05 EST Reply-To: pedregal@cs.umass.edu Greetings. I have a couple of applications for a device that flashes a light (maybe even a strobe) when a plain phone line rings. Such a thing must exist, but I can't find sources. Please email to me and I'll summarize. Thanks! Cristobal Pedregal Martin pedregal@cs.umass.edu Computer Science Department UMass / Amherst, MA 01003 [Moderator's Note: The easiest way to do this is get a neon test thing from Radio Shack (or anywhere else ...). Just wire it parallel to the phone line. It does not draw enough current to take the phone off hook but will flash in sync with the ringing of the phone. I have an appliation here where there are several lines going into a computer which is used for voicemail. No one wants to sit and listen to those bells on the incoming phone lines ring all the time, yet it is very important to know if for some reason the computer is not answering the line ... with no bell it would never be noticed if something had gone wrong. So, I have several 'beehive lamps' (the little plastic things with a dome on top and a neon bulb mounted within) mounted on the wall with double-sided tape. Wires run to each from the associated phone line. They flash on for a couple seconds each time a call comes in on that line. The only line with an actual bell on it is the final line in the hunt group -- when it rings, it serves notice that the computer has a full house, at least for the time being. I also have a little counter installed on that line which increments by one each time that line rings ... by viewing the register, one can see how often a full house occurred since the last time the register was reset. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 18:25 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Colorado Gets Caller ID tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> writes: > Perhaps PacBell is making a marketing mistake by not offering caller > id even though mandated blocking restrictions would apply? Perhaps > their total revenues would be higher than if no blocking at all was > available? Maybe so. I, for one, would buy Caller-ID even if blocking applied to 99% of the state's telephones on a per-line basis. For me, the telephone is an instrument whose purpose is to communicate with friends, business associates, and customers -- plus people who could potentially become one of these. ALL OTHERS are of no interest to me whatsoever. Those who fit into the desired category of callers would never block CNID to me; those in the undesired category can block all they like. I look at CNID as sort of a "wired PL". Just as there are many users on some commercial two-way radio bands who stay out of each others' hair by the use of "private line" encoding, CNID allows a similar enhancement when using the public telephone network. You know that when the phone rings, it is a "desirable" rather than a wrong-number- idiot, a mysterious one-ringer pest, a hangup-when-you-answer creep, a telesales slime, or even a former customer whom you wish never to hear from again. Now if I could just convince Pac*Bell that there are others like me out there. Perhaps I could show them my e-mail ... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: cek@sdc.boeing.com (Conrad Kimball) Subject: Re: Colorado Gets Caller ID Date: 11 Jan 93 22:17:39 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle, WA In article , rlucas@bvsd.Co.EDU (Richard Lucas) writes: > The best gauge of consumer opinion is how they vote with their > dollars, not with their words. If Colorado's first-day results can be > generalized to other areas, then John Higdon is quite correct that the > PUC decision in California gives the voices of a few more weight than > the desires of the majority. Sometimes that is quite proper. Tyranny of the majority, and all that. And that's assuming "the majority" is _fully_ informed of the issues, which I doubt is the case in this particular situation. Conrad Kimball | Client Server Tech Services, Boeing Computer Services cek@sdc.boeing.com | P.O. Box 24346, MS 7A-35 (206) 865-6410 | Seattle, WA 98124-0346 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #19 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20998; 12 Jan 93 3:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27863 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:37:30 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23203 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:37:01 -0600 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:37:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301120737.AA23203@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #20 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Jan 93 01:37:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 20 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune (Steve Forrette) Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune (Mickey Ferguson) Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune (John Sullivan) Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune (Liron Lightwood) Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune (Curtis Sanford) Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune (Dave Levenson) Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune (Lou Taff) 1-800-RIP-OFFS (was Calling 1-800 Can Cost a Fortune) (Paul Robinson) Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto (Troy Frericks) Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto (John David Galt) Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto (Brian Onn) Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (Rob Boudrie) Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (Anthony E. Siegman) Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud (Ed Oliveri) Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... (Ben Cox) Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... (Paul Robinson) Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... (Barry Mishkind) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:33:27 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article udi@cs.washington.edu (Udi Manber) writes: > I learned this the hard way after being charged for (apparently) > dialing the wrong 800 number. How did this charge appear on your bill? Was it a call to a 900 number, or perhaps a collect call? Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 16:41:12 PST From: mickeyf@clipper.zfe.siemens.de (Mickey Ferguson) Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune Reply-To: mickeyf%clipper@pnsts412-sun.zfe.siemens.de > If you always thought that 1-800 numbers (in the US) are toll free, > think again. With new technology and the lack of regulations, people > are finding new ways to make money. [stuff deleted] > It is possible, and apparently perfectly legal, to set an 800 number > such that when you call you hear a recording that tells you that there > will be charges for the call. [more stuff deleted] > So here are some scam ideas (these are all fiction; do not try it at > home): [more stuff deleted] How long will it be before the COCOTs jump into the calling card fraud? How difficult would it be to program a pay phone to look for when a caller dials the 800 number which is associated with one of the long distance providers, and then just capture the calling card digits, but pass on the digits and complete the call? Then the COCOT software just writes the calling card digits and the long distance provider into its private database, which is then dumped and sold off to the drug dealers, etc. The more I think about this, the more I get terrified at just how easy such a scam would be. Hmmmm, maybe I'll just go out and buy a pay phone and modify the software ... NOT! Maybe one idea to regulate COCOTs without too much difficulty or paperwork would be to require them to be bonded, just like a home contractor is. Since the possibilities are just sitting there, this would at least help to pay for any fraud that could result. Or am I being too paranoid? Mickey Ferguson -- PhoneMail Development -- ROLMfax and Eclipse ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 18:37:11 CST From: sullivan@geom.umn.edu Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune I'm now confused. I don't always read TELECOM Digest, so I may have missed something, but I have seen previous posts about INTEGRETEL, etc., and I always got the impression that people trying to bill you for 1-800 calls would get your number from their ANI, and send you a separate bill for whatever they wanted. I hadn't heard of getting actual phone charges from calling 1-800. If I forward calls to some other number _I_ pay the charges on the resulting call, not the person who called my first number. Why would any telephone company agree to provide billing services to anyone like INTEGRETEL anyway? The other thing that has always confused me is why alternative long-distance companies (AOSs?) can charge things to an AT&T calling card. I realize that Ma and the Baby Bells have some sort of agreement to allow charges to each others' calling cards. And I gather that this all has something to do with the fact that there is some standard way to determine if a calling card number is valid. But again, why does AT&T agree to provide billing service for these people? I can't imagine if Sears suddenly decided to accept payments by JCPenny credit cards that JCPenny would actually let them collect on the bills. Sorry if this is all old hat, but I haven't seen good answers to these questions here or elsewhere ... John Sullivan sullivan@geom.umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:24:24 +1100 From: Liron Lightwood Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune So, what happens when you call one of these costly 1-800 numbers from a payphone? Do the phone company pick up the bill? Do you get asked to insert money? Or do you get a recorded message saying the number cannot be dialed? I understand that 1-900 numbers cannot be called from US payphones, but 1-800 numbers can. Does this apply for all 1-800 numbers available in the area where the call is made from? [Moderator's Note: What happened in the past was that the information providers resorting to this sleazy tactic (of issuing a bill to the caller after the caller dialed the 800 number) did attempt to send a bill to the owner of the payphone ... and of course, the 'owner' of the payphone (in effect, the subscriber) was telco itself ... telco would not pay the IP's, and the IP's quickly learned to consult a data base which lists payphone numbers, then refuse to do business with the folks calling from them. The IP's still get tripped up occasionally by COCOTS, (or actually, the COCOT owner gets the bill, he squeals like a pig and the IP has to eat the charges) so when these numbers get iden- tified, they also get added to the list of numbers not to be dealt with. I think the IP's have begun to circulate the 'untouchables' list among themselves as a mutual protection kind of thing. But in the early days of the 800-converted-to-900-or-worse racket, it sure was fun seeing how many charge-backs could be shoved up Mystic Marketing's corporate waste eliminator at one time. Calls went through to those astrologers, Tarot practitioners and 'counseling services' from every payphone in Chicago, I suspect, and probably from other cities as well. So how come the astrologers could not detect this little shortcoming in their scam from the beginning? :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: sanford@ascend.com (Curtis Sanford) Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune Date: 11 Jan 93 16:36:11 GMT Organization: Ascend Communications, Alameda CA In article udi@cs.washington.edu (Udi Manber) writes: > If you always thought that 1-800 numbers (in the US) are toll free, > think again. With new technology and the lack of regulations, people > are finding new ways to make money. > It is possible, and apparently perfectly legal, to set an 800 number > such that when you call you hear a recording that tells you that there > will be charges for the call. Typically 800 numbers are not blocked from pay phones. What happens if you call such a number from a pay phone? Is this a way to have sweet revenge on the COCOT industry? [Moderator's Note: See my comments in an earlier message in this issue. The IP's have begun keeping a data base of payphones, and they refused to service callers from those places. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:20:19 GMT I think that the public, or at least, the readers of this Digest, can help correct this problem ... for every non-toll-free 800 number you can find, share it with as many friends as you can. Then, whenever you have some time to kill and you're near a public telephone, place lots of calls to these numbers. When the telco or other public telephone provider starts getting these bills, they'll probably use their clout with regulatory agencies to suppress such use of the 800 service access code. Any thoughts on this? 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 [Moderator's Note: And you also are invited to read my comments on this in an earlier message in this issue. It just won't work any longer; the astrologers and Tarot practitioners don't want any more BS from the deadbeats of the world (like all good TELECOM Digest Moderators) ... Mystic Marketing says cut it out, now! To be sure you do, they've got the number of the payphones at the local 7/11 or bus station, or wherever you are when you get the urge. :) By all means though, keep trying; let's be sure they get their data base as complete as possible. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: lmt@homxb.att.com Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 13:20 EST Subject: Re: Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune Pat: With reference to a recent article in comp.dcom.telecom, I wonder if you could refer me to (or send me a copy of) a telecom discussion detailing just how calls to 800 numbers are charged for and end up on someone's bill. I'm having a hard time understanding it. Thanks for any help. Lou Taff, AT&T Bell Laboratories 185 Monmouth Parkway West Long Branch, NJ 07764 (908) 870-7584 lmt@homxb.att.com [Moderator's Note: I'll do better than that, Lou. I'll print another whole issue on the topic -- you are reading it now. Perhaps some of the people who have raised the topic in the past will share their wisdom with you. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:02:51 EST Subject: 1-800-RIP-OFFS (Was Calling 1-800 Can Cost a Fortune) In TELECOM Digest Vol 13 #12, Udi Manber suggested: > You can get an 800 number that is one digit away from > a widely used 800 number and rip off anyone who makes > a mistake...You can put ads for information on how to > make $10 a minute - just call 1-800-747-6337. That's > 1-800-Rip-Offs... From a Government Centrex number in Maryland that is authorized to dial 1-800 numbers, I got the message: "Recording C2. We're sorry, the number you've dialed is not authorized from this location. C2." And this repeats several times. So it looks like some of us are protected from RIP-OFFS! :) Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM "If I or anyone else is caught making opinions, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of our actions..." ------------------------------ From: troyf@microware.com (Troy Frericks) Subject: Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:16:28 GMT > A similar scam has been going on in New York City. A messenger will > show up at a company with a package, and when no one there seems to > match the addressee, he asks to use the phone. Calls a "540" exchange > (one of the extra charge numbers; the others are 550, 970, 976, and > another about to be announced) and the company gets billed for $50 or > so. Please explain. I thought that 1-976-xxx-xxxx and 1-900-xxx-xxxx were the only way for the called party to gain $$$ from the call. What other ways are there? Do the above reference calls area code 212: 1-212-540-xxxx, 550-xxxx, 970-xxxx, and 976-xxxx? If so, how am I going to know that an extra charge applies (being from Iowa)? Troy Frericks Internet: troyf@MICROWARE.COM Microware Systems Corporation UUCP: uunet!mcrware!troyf 1900 NW 114th St Phone: (515)224-1929 Des Moines, IA 50325-7077 Fax: (515)224-1352 [Moderator's Note: Being from Iowa you don't have to worry about it, as your telco will not connect you to a 212-540/550/etc number. In that sense, they (540 numbers) are like 976; since the host telco has no way to legitimatly collect for these numbers from interstate callers (one could question the legitimacy of the whole concept, but that is another issue), telcos simply do not put them through to each other. In the case of 900, specific tariffs apply for interstate calls; for 976 and its kin, they do not. Many of the IP's from a few years ago can tell you how they begged and pleaded with telco to not allow calls to their 976 numbers from out of state: callers from Chicago and elsewhere would dial into (as an example) 415-976-GAYS -- a gay bridge operating in SFCA at 13 cents per minute interstate night rates -- and tie up all the ports so none of the locals could get through at two dollar or more per minute rates. If you are not in NY Tel's territory, you will not connect with 212-540 et al; if you are not in Illinois Bell's territory you will not connect with 312-976. Ditto PacTel and their premium lines. That's why whenever I see these 'urgent memos' from security personnel at various corporations warning their employees against 'a scam originating in New York where they call your beeper number and you call back, getting charged X dollars' I always get a big laugh. It WILL NOT work (to the benefit of the scammer) unless the victim is in the 212/718/914/516 area codes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John_David_Galt@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 10:18:02 PST I have an idea that would make us more secure against this type of fraud. I wonder if any of the telcos would be willing to implement it. What I'd like to do is get my phone blocked so that direct-dialed calls to a 900, 976, ... number won't go through, but calling-card calls will. That way if I really want to try one of these services, I can get through, but a visitor can't (unless he uses his own card, and then he pays). John David Galt ------------------------------ From: brian@ganglion.Canada.Sun.COM (Brian Onn - OpCom Staff) Subject: Re: 976 Fraud in Toronto Organization: Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:28:32 GMT On Wed, 06 Jan 93 00:56:39 EST, Tony Harminc said: > This past November, a company I consult for had three > unauthorized calls to (416) 976-9467 made on one of its lines. [...] > Bell Canada has agreed to remove the charges, but will not tell > us the name of the owner of this number. In Toronto, you can call the Bell Canada Customer Listing Bureau at (416) 446-3090, between 1100 and 1400 EST, and if you give them the phone number, the operator will tell you who the number is registered to. The rules for 976 numbers may be different, however. The process works for most "normal" numbers. Give it a try. Brian Onn. Internet : Brian.Onn@Canada.Sun.Com Operation Commitment, Uucp : uunet!sun!suncan!brian Product Support Specialist. Voice : (416) 477-6745. [Moderator's Note: I just now tried it for 312-976-WAKE, our local wake-up service (if their bill doesn't cause you to jump out of bed, I don't know what would). IBT-CNA (312-796-9600) would only say it is a "Public Announcement Service"; no record as to owner, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:59:39 GMT > I believe the bankcard passwords are also often in the clear in the > ISO mag stripe. Shudder! Remember having read something to that > effect on the net. Could some please deny ... please .. please! Denied. (You're welcome!) Bank card passwords are stored in encrypted form (one way encryption using the DES algorithm on a combination of the account number, user selected PIN and a few other things) which allows for local verification of passwords but only by your own bank. There are two different standards by which this is done, but each has a bank-specific encryption key (often refered to as the Pin Verification Key, or PVK). This key is kept highly confidential -- anyone with the key could generate the hashed pin for each possible password (only 10,000 in the typical four digit password) , compare each to the hashed value on the card, and decode the PIN that way. Your own back can verify the password within the ATM; other bank's ATM's must query your bank via the network. rob boudrie ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 14:08:00 PST From: Anthony E. Siegman Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud Organization: Stanford University > [Moderator's Note: I think the banks here which give money on trust > when the network is down do have something called a 'negative listing' ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > of cards which should not be honored in that way. Here in the Chicago I believe another more generic term for this kind of list, made available in any form, is "derog list" (with obvious interpretation). ------------------------------ From: eo@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Ed Oliveri) Subject: Re: Good Opportunity For Fraud Organization: AT&T Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:00:48 GMT In article johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > Citibank machines in New York City at least used to have a similar > feature. For a long time, over a year, someone who clearly had inside > information was using an old invalid Citicard to make $100 withdrawals > from machines all over the city when the machines were offline while > their network nodes were down for maintenance. The maintenance > schedule was deliberately erratic and quite secret. Had the guy used > the card even once in an on-line machine the card would have been > eaten and that would have been that. I never heard whether they > managed to catch him. I'd think that it would have been > straightforward to set up a sting to catch him in the act. Are you sure this was Citibank? Every Citibank ATM I've seen CANNOT eat a card since the card is dipped into the card reader, never leaving the user's fingers. Ed Oliveri, eo@cbnewsb.att.com OR att!cbnewsb!eo [Moderator's Note: The Citibank ATM's in Chicago eat the card for a minute and spit it out when finished with it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: thoth@uiuc.edu (Ben Cox) Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... Reply-To: thoth@uiuc.edu (Ben Cox) Organization: Ancient Illuminated Sears of Bavaria Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:05:40 GMT kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup) writes: > winding pulses to compensate for the increased requirements. This > period of additional supply registers in the cores of the transformers > as a slight "bleep", and a bunch of them together produce the "music" > you hear. I used to troubleshoot Sun-2's aurally as well. If you don't configure the device driver for the /dev/audio device on a SPARCstation 10, you can hear interesting music on SpeakerBox, too ... :-) Ben Cox thoth@uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:32:27 EST Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature ... kstox@admips2.berkely.edu writes in TELECOM Digest 13 #14 about how someone programmed the IBM 1130 to generate tones on an AM radio. I've got one better than that. I was in the computer center at Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa, Ca., when someone got the *line printer* to play the five tones from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"! I was there, I heard it. Slick; it used exactly ONE piece of paper to do this. Do not ask me how. Try *that*, Hewlett Packard! Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM ------------------------------ From: barry@coyote.datalog.com (Barry Mishkind) Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 01:50:24 GMT kstox@admips2.Berkeley.EDU (Ken Stox) writes: > Back in the "old" days, we used to leave an AM radio next to an IBM > 1130, you could actually pick up the CPU activity. One clever > programmer started writing some very interesting compositions. Of > course, with the advent of modern synthesizers, it would be totally > unimpressive. Radio Shack actually sold several tunes that played on the TRS-80 and made noise on a radio held near. This was late '70s Regards, Barry Mishkind barry@coyote.datalog.com FidoNet 1:300/11.3 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #20 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22555; 12 Jan 93 4:42 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31841 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:32:48 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22792 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:32:22 -0600 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:32:22 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301120832.AA22792@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #21 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Jan 93 02:32:20 CST Volume 13 : Issue 21 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes (Sean Case) Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes (Steve Hutzley) Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes (Sean Malloy) Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes (Zealand R. Hatch) Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes (Michael Rosen) Database of Area Codes, NPA-s and Zipcodes Wanted (John Villalovos) Re: Hunt Groups (John Rice) Re: Hunt Groups (Bill Huttig) Re: Hunt Groups (Barton F. Bruce) Re: Hunt Groups (Steve Forrette) Re: Hunt Groups (Stephen Diercouff) Re: Hunt Groups (Dave Levenson) Re: Hunt Groups (Jim Knight) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gsc@coombs.anu.edu.au (Sean Case) Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes Date: 12 Jan 93 00:08:56 GMT Organization: Australian National University shri%unreal@cs.umass.edu writes: > Curious enough to hunt for another factoid ... does anyone know what > fraction of the entire snail mail in the US is generated by business > and how much by Aunt Agatha ? > Should give some insight into how much mail the automatic sorters > actually can ever benefit from. And if the dreams of USPS to read > human handwriting are so important? Here in Australia, most envelopes are sold with preprinted boxes for the (four-digit) postcode. Australia Post claim that their equipment can read hand-scrawled postcodes so long as they're in the boxes. Typescript addresses don't have to use the boxes, but pushing the postcode out to the right of the address is supposed to help. They don't say what sort of error rate they have, though. I heard a story some time back that the good ol' USSR had envelopes with a mark sense area for the postcode (possibly using a seven-segment layout). Mail with unreadable postcodes was discarded. That's certainly one approach ... is this just obsolete propaganda? Sean Case gsc@coombs.anu.edu.au ------------------------------ From: hutzley@ranger.dec.com (Steve Hutzley) Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:22:33 GMT In article , ssay@prefect.cc.bellcore. com (say,halim s) writes ... > I would like to find out the encoding for the ZIP code bars on USPS > mail envelopes. > I could figure out this much: > Ones are long bars, zeros are short bars. Start and end with a one. > Each digit has five characters. I could figure out what zero through > nine correspond to. > The only remaining part is the check digit at the end. Only one check > digit is used both for five digit regular ZIP code and nine digit > extended code. > Now my question is: What is the encoding/decoding rule for this single > check digit? > Does anyone know or could you tell me a reference for this "standard"? > I am sure some address generator software would have this algorithm. See {PC Magazine} a few months ago (November/December), they had the whole scheme in there. Its kind of an inverted BCD where the LONG ONES are 0 and the SHORT ONES are 1 (I think), and there were CLOCK pulses in there to compensate for the speed variances of the reading machines. Steve ------------------------------ From: scm3775@tamsun.tamu.edu (Sean Malloy) Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes Date: 12 Jan 1993 04:30:42 -0600 Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX > Also, Is there a summary of several bar codes ftp-able somewhere ? As an aside: On wuarchive.wustl.edu in /mirrors/win3/fonts/truetype are two fonts that might relate to this topic: usps_bar.zip and barcod39.zip I make no claims about their accuracy, but if you're running MS Windows 3.1 then they might help. Sean C. Malloy - Texas A&M University - scm@tamu.edu ------------------------------ From: zrh@uts.amdahl.com (Zealand R. Hatch) Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes Date: 11 Jan 93 19:28:57 GMT Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA I'm not sure what this has to do with telecom but having recently investigated this I'll share what I know. There is a group of publications available from the Post Office. Publication 25: Designing Business Letter Mail (Aug 1992) This publication replaced the previous Pub. 25 "A Guide to Business Mail Preparation". The major sections from the index are. 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Basics of OCR and Barcode reading 3.0 Physical Characteristics of Automation Compatible Letter Mail ("Machinability") 4.0 Addressing for Automation 5.0 Postnet Barcode 6.0 Facing Identification Mark (FIM) Patterns 7.0 Preparing Reply Mail for Postal Automation It's well writen and has all of the information you need to "produce" a barcode and put it where it needs to go on the envelope. Publication 28: Postal Addressing Standards The major sections from the index are. I Introduction A Background B Overview II Postal Addressing Standards A General B Last Line of the Address C Delivery Address Line D Rural Route Addresses E Highway Contract Route Addresses F General Delivery G Postmaster Addresses H Post Office Box Addresses I Puerto Rico Addresses This publication is "a comprehensive guide to all styles of addressing". Not required reading if what you're interested in is barcodes. Publication 67: Automation Plan For Business Mailers This publication outlines the Post Office's plans for business mail. Interesting as a general overview. Your local Postmaster should be able to obtain these publications for you without cost. As to the question of how does this help with the hand written address, the SORTING of letters is being converted to barcodes and a letter is sorted a bunch of times before it is put in your mail box. So the plan is when a letter initially comes into the post office it's first checked for a barcode. If it is there the letter goes off to the sorters. If not, the address is checked to see if the City, State and ZIP Code are machine readable. If they are the barcode is applied to the envelope and its off to the sorters. If not the letter is queued for manual reading. Again the barcode would be applied and then its time for the sorter. Not all post offices have all of the equipment needed for all of these steps yet. And it will be 1995 before all letter mail will be automated. I hope this helps; Happy Mailing, Zealand Hatch - 408 746-8720 - {where_ever}!amdahl!zrh Amdahl Corporation -or- zrh@amdahl.amdahl.com ------------------------------ From: mrosen@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: Re: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 04:59:38 GMT FZC@CU.NIH.GOV writes: > In TELECOM Digest 12-928, ssay@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (say,halim s) > asks: >> I would like to find out the encoding for the ZIP code bars on USPS >> mail envelopes. > Ask the post office for the circular on bar code. It's a small > pamphlet of about 5 pages, and it explains how all of the codes work, > as there are two codes; one for ZIP code and one for ZIP+4 code. > There is no charge for the pamphlet. If your local Post Office > doesn't have it, try a main office in a large city. I have that booklet. The title is "A Guide to Business Mail Preparation," Publication 25. Here is the address for comments or suggestions and I believe this is where I ordered it from: Marketing Dept Regular Mail Services Div U S Postal Service HQ 475 L Enfant Plz SW Rm 5541 Washington DC 20260-6336 They describe the specs for the Postnet bar code and the FIM patterns. As for the algorithm, I'll have to find my {2600} issue with the article (where I found the address for the publication originally). There's 52 bars in a ZIP + 4 Postnet bar code, with two long bars on either end. I can't remember the exact methodology for the bars in the middle at the moment, I'll repost when I find the {2600} issue with the article. Also, I have a program I ftp'd at one time called envlj. Scan for it via archie, etc. It will print both FIM patterns and Postnet bar codes when you supply a complete ZIP + 4 and only a Postnet bar code when using a five-digit ZIP. Michael Rosen Tau Epsilon Phi - George Washington University mrosen@nyx.cs.du.edu Michael.Rosen@bbs.oit.unc.edu or @lambada.oit.unc.edu ------------------------------ From: villalj@xanth.cs.orst.edu (John Villalovos) Subject: Database of Area Codes, NPA-s and Zipcodes Wanted Date: 12 Jan 93 07:13:58 GMT Organization: Oregon State University I was wondering if anyone could point me in a current or fairly current list of Area Codes, NPA's and Zipcodes. I wanted to be able to set up an application where people could tell me their Zipcode and I could figure out their Area code and possibly some of the NPA's for the Zipcode. I once had a program like this but I don't anymore. It was put out by AT&T and the data was somewhat out of date. Thanks, John Villalovos Certified Netware Engineer villalj@xanth.cs.orst.edu (503) 753-7883 [Moderator's Note: I'll tell you who keeps a great data base on this: our reader Carl Moore has lots of files on this. I'm sure when he sees this he will contact you directly. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com Subject: Re: Hunt Groups Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 23:14:45 GMT In article , rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes: > Is it possible for two numbers serviced by the same physical CO to be > placed on a hunt group even though they has different exchange > prefixes? > [Moderator's Note: I've never heard of a hunt group including lines on > different prefixes, even if they were in the same CO. Anyone? PAT] Not a hunt group, but 'forward on busy' should work if the lines are in the same switch. It accomplishes the same end. John Rice K9IJ rice@ttd.teradyne.com [Moderator's Note: But John, the big difference between the two at least where Illinois Bell is concerned is that 'forward on busy' is handled like any call-forwarding, with a unit (or more) charged on each call. On the other hand, IBT gives 'hunt' for free. Same identical feature, but the one is charged for call after call after call, making it quite expensive if you get several thousand calls each day with 99 percent or more of them going somewhere other than the lead number. IBT tried to get *me* to take that feature on a voicemail system I look after instead of traditional hunting. I said nuts to that and insisted on regular hunting (and checked the bill the next month to be sure they obeyed!) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 21:57:38 -0500 From: wah@zach.fit.edu ( Bill Huttig) Subject: Re: Hunt Groups In SouthernBell land there are rotaries on two or more exchange ... I would recomend (if you can get it from your carrier) that you get call forward on busy between the lines ... line 1 on busy forwards to line 2 line 2 on busy forwards to line 1 ... I have my lines set up that way and I only have to pay $1 for each forward on busy ... a rotary would have made be pay about $16 more per line ... and call forward busy does the same thing. [Moderator's Note: Well this seems to be an applications thing based on the volume of calls received. IBT does *not* charge any special fees for hunting. It is free as lomg as all the lines are on the same exchange. You can pay $1 per call forwarded on busy if you wish, but I thought it was too expensive when IBT said each forwarded call would cost one 'unit' -- about 3.5 cents here. Even at three cents per call forwarded, I'd wind up paying several hundred dollars per month for this service, which is useless considering the same thing is free from IBT if you ask for 'hunting' instead. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:19:12 -0500 (EST) From: Barton F. Bruce Subject: Re: Hunt Groups Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) wrote: > Is it possible for two numbers serviced by the same physical CO to be > placed on a hunt group even though they has different exchange > prefixes? Sure is! but depends on local CO equipment. Or there are tricks you can play. Most CO switches cover several exchange codes. Telco may bitch and scream, but often will hunt between exchanges on their own just to make their life easier or to get out of some messup they caused. You may also get number in a hunt group that are 'theoreticals' that have NO exchange mere customers can dial (can YOU dial 017-9325? I thought not!). If you can't get them to do it or it is IMPOSSIBLE (may be on different CO switches, not just exchanges), then, if you have NO message unit implications and NO problems paying for a phone line that only is a number, get call forwarding on the isolated single one and set it to forward and GROUND both Tip and Ring to PERMANENTLY busy it. If they bitch, tell repair you are having some equipment problems and you DID busy it, but if they could DO IT FOR YOU while you get your equipment straightened out, and that you will CALL THEM when you need it restored, they probably will leave it that way for ten years. All calls to that number will then forward to the other numbers were you can have several lines. If you can get few line centrex service, you may be able to get line in use forwarding - more a secretarial feature than hunting. > [Moderator's Note: I've never heard of a hunt group including lines on > different prefixes, even if they were in the same CO. Anyone? PAT] Many times. No problem. ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Hunt Groups Date: 12 Jan 1993 02:15:55 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article TERRY@spcvxa.spc.edu (Terry Kennedy) writes: > However, the various call forward functions will work across > prefixes, or across switches if desired. So the subscriber could order > call forward on busy (or on busy/no answer) and then set whatever form > of hunt group up that he wanted. This could be done either with > customer-selected for- warding (the kind usually explained in the > phone book, where the customer sets the forwarding, or with fixed > forwarding, where it is set up in the switch and the customer can't > change it). One problem with using call-forward-on-busy as a creative way to create hunt groups of more than two lines is that many telcos restrict it to handle no more than one forwarded call at a time. This restriction may also be placed on Remote Call Forwarding numbers and regular (immediate) call forwarding. With US West in Washington State, RCF costs around $18 per month plus message units, and can handle only one call at a time. You can purchase additional "circuits" for $18 per month each. But, if you can find somewhere to terminate a loop, you can get an unmeasured business line for around $32 per month, add call forwarding for around $4. Then, for $36, you get up to 20 concurrent calls forwarded with no message units. The 20 call maximum was what call forwarding was configured for on my switch - the person at the business office had to check this out when I asked, and I got the impression that different switches had it set to different values. Pacific Bell on the other hand, sets all of their switches to the same value: they only allow one concurrent call for regular call forwarding. Also, if you want to have a busy or no-answer forwarding go to a number that's on a different switch, it is technically a different feature: "busy call forwarding extended." It was not widely available until a couple of years ago. Since this feature is a necessary part of the telco's own voicemail offering, it is now magically available most everywhere now. But some switches may not yet support it, so busy-forwarding may be restricted to the local switch. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: sgd@tfm.com (Stephen Diercouff) Subject: Re: Hunt Groups Organization: tfm Associates, Ltd. Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:32:39 GMT stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > In article rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob > Boudrie) writes: >> Is it possible for two numbers serviced by the same physical CO to be >> placed on a hunt group even though they has different exchange >> prefixes? > I had a similar setup recently, but strictly speaking, it was > busy-transfer rather than hunting. It was on a 5ESS switch. The fact > that I wanted the busy-transfer was known at the time I placed the > order for the two lines, and the computer happened to select numbers > on two different prefixes. I would imagine that on a modern SPC > switch, the prefix difference would not matter. I have three numbers, with three different prefixes, in a rotary hunt group. The latter two were assigned at the time I ordered the hunt group. If it makes any difference, the switch is a 5ESS, and the territory is USWest. Stephen Diercouff, tfm Associates, Ltd., Bellingham WA voice: +1 206 733 5721 Internet: sgd@tfm.com fax: +1 206 738 0630 UUCP : uunet!nwnexus!tfm!sgd Snail : P.O. Box 5084/Bellingham WA 98227-5084 ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Hunt Groups Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:52:42 GMT In article by rboudrie@chpc.org, Pat adds: > [Moderator's Note: I've never heard of a hunt group including lines on > different prefixes, even if they were in the same CO. Anyone? PAT] In Brooklyn, NY, I have a customer with a 12-line hunt-group (which is used by callers to access a voice-response banking system). Most of the lines in this hunt group are 718-388-xxxx numbers, but three of them are in another prefix. When New York Telephone was installing them, I asked the installer if there was a mistake in the line numbering, and if he would verify that hunting worked correctly throughout the 12-line group. He verified the directory number of each of the lines, and he and I worked together to verify that hunting worked as ordered. The serving central office is a Northern Telecom DMS-100 which was cut into service less than three years ago. The two prefixes are served by the same switch. 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 [The Man in the Mooney] ------------------------------ From: jfk@ais.org (Jim Knight) Subject: Re: Hunt Groups Organization: UMCC Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:06:15 GMT M-Net A Public Access Unix System here in Ann Arbor has two different prefixes in it's trunk hunt. We had no trouble getting the phone company to add two numbers from another site into our trunk hunt. We are in the 313 area code, and have both 994 and 996 prefixes in our trunk hunt. Jim ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #21 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07525; 13 Jan 93 2:42 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26437 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:24:54 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00611 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:24:32 -0600 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:24:32 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301130624.AA00611@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #22 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Jan 93 00:24:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 22 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson History.of.Area.Splits (Carl Moore) Has Anybody Tried the AmeriVOX Card? (Steve Tomlin) Can Paging Software Detect Alphanumerics? (Brad S. Hicks) Only in LA ... (Los Angeles Times via Rich Greenberg) These Phone Systems Are Great! (National Lampoon via Dan Danz) Looking at Voicemail (Michael J. Logsdon) Bawling Out Congress by Computer (Dave Niebuhr) Catalogs of Phone Equipment/Systems: Is There a List? (Bill Blum) MF Signaling Test Gear (Bob Turner) Experiences Wanted With Munich-32 (Craig Twardy) Multiline Phone Recommendations (Steve Elias) Phonejak Transmission System? (David Morgenstern) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 18:44:40 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: History.of.Area.Splits Just mailed off to the archives with these additions: Comment that all calls should be makeable as 1 + NPA +7D. Notes about 215/610 and 919/910 splits. Note that 714 now has N0X/N1X prefixes (and that it has become 714/909). Note that 503 will be programming for N0X/N1X prefixes. Note that all New England areas (except Connecticut) will be programming to allow for the NXX area codes (same changes also allow for N0X/N1X prefixes). [Moderator's Note: Here is the most recent version of Carl's work. This will be available in the archives later this week when I get a chance to go there and install it. PAT] -------------- Generalizing prefixes from NNX to NXX (i.e., allowing N0X/N1X) is an alternative to splitting an area which has had only NNX up to this point. When an area has NXX (not NNX) prefixes, its long distance dialing instructions usually are: 7D or 1 + NPA + 7D within area (can no longer use 1 + 7D); 1 + NPA + 7D to other areas (can no longer use NPA + 7D); for 0+ calls, try 0 + NPA + 7D (some 0 + 7D would require timeout). In other words, the leading 1 (or 0) means that what follows is an area code. These instructions can, without further revision, accommodate area codes of form NXX, not just of form N0X/N1X, and thus I believe they will become universal when area codes must generalize to NXX, for which the deadline is January 1, 1995 (had been July 1, 1995). But since the first batch of NNX area codes will be of NN0 form, some areas might be able to keep 1 + 7D for intra-NPA long distance by disallowing prefixes of NN0 form; I do not know if this will be affected by use of 52x codes (x not necessarily 0) for Mexico. It is unclear how generalizing area codes to NXX would affect the policy of not using N0X/N1X prefixes until NNX starts running short. An exception to the above dialing instructions was discovered in Feb 1992 for 215-267 (Denver) and 215-484 (Adamstown) in Pennsylvania. These exchanges are served by Denver & Ephrata Telephone & Telegraph, which also serves a part of the 717 area, and which is keeping the old instructions (1 + 7D and 0 + 7D within area code), even though this will necessitate timeout resolution for some calls from the 215 portion of their service area. This will change only when it is about time for the NXX area codes. Ideally, all calls should be makeable as 1+NPA+7D (this does not necessarily mean that shorter forms would be forbidden). These areas have N0X/N1X prefixes: 213, California, July 1973 (7D on all calls within it) (later 213/818, now 213/310/818) (this area continued to publish 0+7D instruction for within-NPA 0+ calls) 212, New York, some days after 24 Nov 1980 (7D on all calls within it) (later 212/718, now 212/917/718) 312, Illinois, Oct 1982--but got 1st N0X/N1X spring 1983? (7D on all calls within it) (now 312/708) 201, New Jersey (7D on all calls within it; also applies to 609) (now 201/908) 214, Texas, 1986 or 1987 (by July 1987) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 817, at least in Fort Worth area) (now 214/903) 301/202/703, Maryland/DC/Virginia, 1987, due to DC area growth (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (301 now 301/410) 415, California, Feb 1989? (7D on all calls within it) (now 415/510) 404, Georgia, Oct 1989? (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 912) (now 404/706) 919, North Carolina, 2 Mar 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 704) (to become 919/910) 416, Ontario, 3 Mar 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (to become 416/905) 602, Arizona, 1 July 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 313, Michigan, 1990? (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (to become 313/810) 512, Texas, 9 Sept 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (now 512/210) 205, Alabama, Dec 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 215, Pennsylvania, 20 May 1991 (7D on all calls within it; exception noted above, but the new instructions were also applied to: 717-354,355 New Holland 717-656,661 Leola 717-768 Intercourse) (to become 215/610) 206, Washington, 12 Jan 1992 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 813, Florida, 7 Mar 1992 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 305,407,904) 713, Texas, 8 Mar 1992 (permissive dialing 8 Dec 1991) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 714, California, 1992? (7D on all calls within it) (now 714/909) 503, Oregon, 10 July 1993 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) No note about N0X/N1X prefixes, but instructions are being changed to accommodate the coming of NXX area codes: 207, Maine; 413,508,617, Massachusetts; 603, New Hampshire; 401, Rhode Island; 802, Vermont (all New England areas except Connecticut); 1993-1994 (7D on all calls within area code) Areacode splits: If no date appears, the split may not have been announced publicly due to lack of direct-dial facility at the time, or may never have occurred. Early splits can only be guessed at with the following guidelines: If an areacode is of form N1X, it is in a state or province with more than one areacode. (The reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.) If an areacode is in a state or province with only one areacode, it is of form N0X. (The reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.) what?/209 California what?/707 California what?/805 California 305/813 Florida 404/912 Georgia, 1953 or 1954 December 1991 Greater Atlanta call guide, in discussing 404/706 split, said "It's been 38 years since Georgia added an Area Code." what?/309 Illinois 502/606 Kentucky 504/318 Louisiana 616/906 Michigan, sometime after Nov 1960 612/507 Minnesota 402/308 Nebraska what?/607 New York 704/919 North Carolina 405/918 Oklahoma 901/615 Tennessee what?/806 Texas 206/509 Washington what?/608 Wisconsin what?/705 Ontario what?/807 Ontario 201/609 New Jersey, late 1950s 415/408 California, 1960 305/904 Florida, July 1965 703/804 Virginia, 24 June 1973 at 2:01 AM 714/619 California, Nov 1982 713/409 Texas, Mar 1983 (full cutover 90 days later) 213/818 California, Jan 1984 212/718 New York, 2 Sept 1984 (full cutover 31 Dec 1984) Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island became 718; Manhattan & Bronx stayed in 212; Bronx switched from 212 to 718, 1 July 1992 (full cutover 16 May 1993, but until then, calls from Bronx to Brooklyn/ Queens/Staten Island must still be dialed 1+718+7D) 303/719 Colorado, 5 Mar 1988 305/407 Florida, 16 Apr 1988 617/508 Massachusetts, 16 July 1988 312/708 Illinois, Nov 1989 (full cutover 9 Feb 1990) 202 District of Columbia & vicinity, 1 Oct 1990 This behaved somewhat like a split despite no new area code. 202 area code, previously useable for all but the outermost Maryland and Virginia suburbs, was restricted to DC proper. (Use 301 or 703, as the case may be, to reach the suburbs.) As a result, government offices (now including the Pentagon) using zipcodes starting with 200,202,203,204,205 and located in Md. or Va. can no longer be listed in area 202. Prefixes in the Pentagon, which is in Virginia, were previously in area 202 (not 703), and in 1990 were moved to area 703. (Local calls across area code border changed from 7D to NPA+7D.) 214/903 Texas, 4 Nov 1990 (full cutover 4 May 1991) 201/908 New Jersey, 1 Jan 1991 (full cutover 8 June 1991) 415/510 California, 2 Sept 1991 (full cutover 27 Jan 1992) 301/410 Maryland, 1 Nov 1991 (full cutover 1 Nov 1992) 213/310 California, 2 Nov 1991 (full cutover 16 May 1992; was to be 2 May 1992, but was postponed indefinitely because of riots just before then) (all GTE plus some PacBell went into 310) 212/718/917 New York, 1 Jan 1992 (917, to be overlaid on 212 & 718, is to be used for cellular & pagers) 404/706 Georgia, 3 May 1992 (full cutover 3 Aug 1992) 512/210 Texas, 1 Nov 1992 (full cutover 1 May 1993) 714/909 California, 14 Nov 1992 (full cutover 14 Aug 1993) (Riverside and San Bernardino counties go into 909; Orange County remains in 714) 416/905 Ontario, 4 Oct 1993 (full cutover 10 Jan 1994) 919/910 North Carolina, 14 Nov 1993 (full cutover 13 Feb 1994) 313/810 Michigan, 10 Aug 1994 215/610 Pennsylvania, 1994 On Feb 1, 1991, area codes 706 and 905, which had been used in the U.S. for calling parts of Mexico, were discontinued. Country code 52, already available for such calls, was to be used. 706 and 905 thus became available for use elsewhere, and were later announced for use in Georgia and Ontario respectively. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 16:39:14 PST From: tomlin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Steve Tomlin) Subject: Has Anybody Tried the AmeriVOX Card? I read the recent article on the AmeriVOX card and it seemed to be a good way to give family members long distance capability without having to worry about a credit card balance. Does anyone use the AmeriVOX card regularly? If so, how does the service compare to the standard credit cards? Does anyone have more information on the history of the company? Thanks for the info. I'll summarize the responses for the net. ------------------------------ From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com Date: 12 Jan 93 17:17:26 GMT Subject: Can Paging Software Detect Alphanumerics? Is it possible under the IXO/TAP protocol, or any companies' interpretations of it, to detect whether or not a particular pager number can receive text pages? If memory serves, when you send a pager message using IXO, you send pagerID message , and then it sends you back either an , a , or another signal (I think ) that means " and we're hanging up on you now." So from that, you'd think not. But the paging computer I call also sends an error message, I think it's error message . This is fine by the spec, which says that after you transmit, you're supposed to ignore anything other than the ACK, NAK, or ESC-EOT. But sometimes those error messages are helpful. For example, if it's an invalid pager ID, you get a message that says so, so I search the return strings for "INVALID PAGER" and if I find it, don't bother retrying. Now what I'd really like, is for the paging computer to detect that I'm trying to send an alphabetic page to a numeric-only pager and give me a with an error message that says so. Does anybody do this? Would this be a reasonable thing to ask the folks at Cybertel and/or Skytel to support? J. Brad Hicks Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 17:07:48 PST From: richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg) Reply-To: richg@hatch.socal.com Subject: Only in LA ... From the {LA Times} Business pages, 1/12/93: Off The Ticker by Carla Lazzareschi Cellular Phone, Hold the Mayo: Los Angeles - indeed the world - gets its first drive through cellular telephone store today with the opening of Cellular Specialists on North La Brea in West Los Angeles {ed note: near Beverly Hills}. The store, brainchild of Bob Neman, offers on-the-go cellular shoppers one stop service for their portable telephone needs without, as Neman says, time-consuming delays or high pressure sales tactics. It is modeled after a fast-food restaurant and sends waitress like order takers to the parking lot with menus listing daily specials. Shoppers select a model and wait during a credit check for a mobil telephone number from PacTel Cellular. Prices, while comparable to those charged by the large electronics emporiums across Soutjhern California, run somewhat higher. What else do they get? While they wait for their phones, customers are offerred a cup of steaming cappuccino. This is, after all, L. A. Rich Greenberg Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 310-417-8999 N6LRT Play: richg@hatch.socal.com 310-649-0238 What? Me speak for Amdahl? Surely you jest.... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 18:00 EST From: Dan_Danz@vos.stratus.com Subject: These Phone Systems Are Great! Hi Pat ... I thought the list might get a kick out of this ... Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 17:45 EST From: Bill_Everts@vos.stratus.com To: John_Daleske, Dan_Danz Subject: These phone systems are great! Nat'l Lampoon True Facts 12 Jan 1993 According to the {Houston Chronicle}, Suzanne Handerson offhandedly answered a ringing pay phone at a Waco, Texas shopping mall. A voice asked, "Hello. Mrs. Henderson?" Henderson looked around to see if she was on Candid Camera, or a program of that sort. On the phone was the man who tends her yard, calling with a question about the garden. It turned out that the mall pay phone had almost the same number as her home phone. Said Henderson, "It was a question of dialing the wrong number and getting the right person. I was speechless." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 18:47:28 -0500 From: am339@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael J. Logsdon) Subject: Looking at Voicemail Reply-To: am339@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael J. Logsdon) Any suggestions for a PC-based voice mail system for a two campus, 150 phone system will be appreciated. I'm system administrator and I'm looking at Microlog Callstar 1000 sized with four ports and four hours of memory. Can I assemble my own? Mike Logsdon University School, Cleveland am339@cleveland.freenet.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 14:53:31 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Bawling Out Congress by Computer Today's {Newsday Jan 12, 1993} had an article about how by April of this year, all members of the House of Representatives, their staffs, their committees and even standing committees will be reachable via the Internet. Connections to them will be through Compuserve, Genie, MCIMail and ATTMail (other connections would probably be available also). There are no plans for the Senate to go online as yet. Jack Belcher, overseer of the House Information Services, a congressional computer networking department says: "For starters, it's up to the individual member to decide if he even wants Internet access." If so, the member may opt to set up a "public" mailbox, where unsolicited correspondence could be mailed. Or the member of Congress could make a personal mailbox publicly known. Some of the more technophobic members of the House could even opt to have all e-mail messages printed out upon receipt, Belcher said. Though a computer sits in virtually every office, only a handful of representatives and 2,000 of 12,000 staff members currently have Internet access. I can just see it. Our esteemed Moderator states once in a while that MCIMail just out and out dumps the DIGEST if so much as one address is wrong. Think of what MCI can do with this group if one congress-critter's name is misspelled. Well, there goes more of our tax dollars down the drain. I'll stick to good old fashioned letter writing and phone calls. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: I'll be interested in seeing how many of them get uptight and start complaining about 'unauthorized email' sent to that address, etc. That has happened with email to executives of large corporations, you know ... they are frightened to death of public contact with their customers ... I should not be surprised to see some of our public servants react the same way. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 09:19:21 EDT From: Bill Blum Subject: Catalogs of Phone Equipment/Systems: Is There a List? I would like to know if any list subscriber has a list of companies that offer catalogs of their equipment. I occasionally get flyers from companies like Hello Direct and Hi Hello, but little else. Do any of you have specific companies (with 800 phone numbers, preferably) that you have dealt with, and why? Predominantly I'm looking for phone sets at present, but I'm interested in a couple of companies that offer complete lines of phone equipment, as well. ADthanksVANCE [Moderator's Note: 1-800-HI-HELLO is the phone number for the Hello Direct people. PAT] ------------------------------ From: turner@udecc.engr.udayton.edu (Bob Turner) Subject: MF Signaling Test Gear Organization: Univ. of Dayton, School of Engineering Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:37:50 GMT Does anyone know of test gear available to test CPE that uses MF (NOT DTMF) signalling? It can be for two or four wire circuits. I know such a device exists, I just don't know who manufactures it. Primarily it will be used to test ANI delivery on customers CPE equipment. Thanks. Bob Turner Senior System Engineer 513-434-2738 turner@udecc.engr.udayton.edu CommSys, Inc. 77 West Elmwood Drive, Suite 101, Dayton, OH 45459 ------------------------------ From: twardy@gandalf.ca (Craig Twardy) Subject: Experiences Wanted With Munich-32 Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd. Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:59:37 GMT I am investigating using the Munich-32 device in a design. Does any one have any experience or comments on it? The real name is the peb20320 and it is manufactored by Siemens. It is a 32 channel hdlc controller. Please respond by email. Thanks in advance. Craig Twardy CAnet: twardy@gandalf.ca Gandalf Data Ltd., 130 Colonnade Road Voice: (613) 723-6500 Nepean, Ontario, Canada K2E 7M4 Fax: (613) 226-1717 ------------------------------ Subject: Multiline Phone Recommendations Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 08:44:26 PST From: Steve Elias Does anyone have any recommendations for a pair of multiline telephones with intercom, auto-redial. For a residence, Radio Shack has a $179 phone that meets this description, but please send along any other pointers. {Teleconnect} magazine had an article about a really nice one about a year ago, but I don't have that issue now. eli eli@cisco.com ------------------------------ From: davidm@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (David Morgenstern) Subject: Phonejak Transmission System? Organization: California State University, Sacramento Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:47:48 GMT I saw the ad for the Phonejak Telephone extension system in the Compuserve rag. So did my teenage daughter. She wants better quality than our current cordless phone is giving us in our apartment. Has anyone used this system? It's a device that has a transmitter and receivers that plug into wall power outlets. The company says that it will support 2400 kbaud data transmission, so I could get some use out of my old Supra upstairs (I recently bought a v.32bis modem) with my creaky Mac Plus. Has anyone used this device for phones? Has anyone used this system for data? Any and all help appreciated! Please reply to my mail address: davidm@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu. Thanks, David Morgenstern, BMUG CheerLeader davidm@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #22 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11952; 13 Jan 93 4:40 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02634 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:45:24 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16110 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:45:00 -0600 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:45:00 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301130745.AA16110@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #22 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Jan 93 01:45:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 23 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sprint 800 Residential (Gary Morris) Re: Sprint 800 Residential (Steve Elias) Re: 800 Numbers and Live ANI Advice Sought (Pat Turner) Re: New Call Feature (was Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works) (Steve Forrette) Re: Mission Impossible: IBT Getting My Order Correct (Dave Niebuhr) Re: More Idiocy From GTE (Charles Mattair) Re: Intra-lata LD and COCOTs (Matt Healy) Re: Wanted: List of Active & Proposed Undersea Cables Worldwide (S. Loftus) Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works (Matt Healy) Re: Bell Canada Calling Card Fraud (Eric R. Skinner) Re: Another Payphone Mystery? (David Esan) Re: Panasonic KXT-123211 Software (Phil Wherry) Re: Baby Bell Breakups (John Higdon) Re: Frequently Asked Questions re Telecom Stuff (Don McKillican) Re: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charges (Klossner) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: garym@telesoft.com (Gary Morris @pulsar) Subject: Re: Sprint 800 Residential Organization: Alsys Group, San Diego, CA, USA Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:40:32 GMT In jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma) writes: > About a month ago, a Sprint rep called and asked if I wanted to try > Sprint's Residential 800 service... They offered to waive the installation > charge as well as the monthly service charge for the first six months... > I'm confused about the monthly service charge. I thought the rep said > it was $5 a month, ... I also signed up to try this out. I was told the monthly charge would be $5, and that after the 6 month free trial (except for usage), that if we had at least $45 per quarter in usage charges then we would not be charged the monthly $5 charge after that, just usage charges. I haven't had any wrong numbers yet but have only had it for about two weeks. Gary Morris Internet: garym@telesoft.com Ada Software Development UUCP: uunet!telesoft!garym Alsys West (TeleSoft) Phone: +1 619-457-2700 San Diego, CA, USA Fax: +1 619-452-2117 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sprint 800 Residential Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 07:52:48 PST From: Steve Elias I used Sprint 800, a few years before this "Sprint residential" thang became available. The wrong numbers were quite annoying, Get ready for lots more. Some telemarketers are slimy enough to demon dial 800 numbers trying to sell fax toner paper, etc. I now use MCI residential 800. Their security code feature is a Good Thing for residential use. eli ------------------------------ From: turner@Dixie.Com Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 00:05 EST Subject: Re: 800 Numbers and Live ANI Advice Sought Reply-To: turner@dixie.com The Moderator wrote a good comment, but I thought I would add a few things. Since mail to Greg seems to bounce, I'll reply to the Digest. As Pat stated 800 service with Real Time ANI is available from the big three. As far as I know this always involves a dedicated trunk to their POP. AT&T is the least flexible, offering to deliver it only out of band with PRI ISDN. At one time this required a AT&T switch, now I suspect their are other peices of CPE equipiment that will handle it. Coastcom makes a channel bank just for 800 service, though I don't know if it will dump the ANI data out a RS-232/V.35 port or not. I would imagine that as AT&T complies with the newer ISDN-1 standards, most any PBX could handle it. The AT&T service is called INFO-2 and is part of their Megacom service. The ANI delivery adds $.02/call up to a limit, past which it is $.01/call. Sprint will deliver ANI with in band MF and MCI will deliver it with your choice of MF or DTMF. If you can't deal with a T span, any dumb channel bank will do. The extra DS0's can be used to taste to joys of LEC bypass. Pat Turner KB4GRZ turner@dixie.com ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: New Call Feature (was Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works) Date: 13 Jan 1993 09:32:06 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA With the upcoming introduction of Caller ID in Washington State, I've been evaluating how I will put it to use to screen calls at home. Since the WA implementation will include calling name delivery, as well as calling number, I've thought of what I think is a clever way to differentiate business callers from residential callers. Any number that's not in my local database can have each word of the calling name run against an English dictionary. Business names are quite likely to have one or more words of the directory listing in the dictionary, whereas residential listings are likely to have no parts in the dictionary. While not perfect, this in combination with rejecting private calls, as well as a local database of known numbers, should work quite well at filtering out the junk. To get fancy, I could always allow calls from names that contain "police", "fire", etc. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 09:01:22 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: Mission Impossible: IBT Getting My Order Correct My latest NYTel bill showed a number 890-6611 that I could call for repair service in addition to 611 (I think that's the way it goes). Quite by accident a few months ago, I found that 890-XXXX is a NYTel exchange in each area code. The XXXX varies by area code for the same office. An example is 890-1100 for the billing office in area code 516, but not in area code 212. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 09:58:30 CST From: mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair) Subject: Re: More Idiocy From GTE Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX On 28 Dec 92 15:07:25 GMT, mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair) said: > As I'm at a friend's house, I decide to put the call on calling > card. 102880+10D. GTE. Huh...? I know this is intralata > but I told them to use AT&T. They can't override my choice of carrier > can they? Try it again except as 102880+7D (713 has gone 1/0+10D on > all LD calls but who knows what GTE is doing). GTE. > Call the operator to see whats going on - it should work, you must be > misdialing, etc. > Finally, in disgust, 1028800. AT&T. Placed the call and nobody > answered :-( Several people sent me Email suggesting this is proper and expected behaviour on the part of GTE. After doing some checking, I think is more a case of permissible (sp?) behaviour. SWB appears to always hand off -- I have started using 102881+ on all intralata calls from my house; an examinination of my last three phone bills shows 0 LD routed thru SWB. SWB will even hand off within the Houston EMS. A call from my house to 713 288 -- both ends within the EMS (288 is a non-EMS exchange) routes thru AT&T which curiously enough is tariffed for the call. Calls to AT&T indicated they see both types of behaviour: the LEC reserving LD service for intralata (GTE) and the other as I see with SWB. Indicentally, this whole mess started when I found out SWB charges 35 cents versus AT&Ts 22 cents for an intralata call I make a lot. Charles Mattair mattair@synercom.hounix.org Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer. ------------------------------ From: matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy) Subject: Re: Intra-lata LD and COCOTs Organization: Yale U. - Genetics Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:15:31 GMT In article , Jay.Ashworth@f8649. n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jay Ashworth) wrote: > Since these phones automagically route LD calls to the phone owner's > preferred AOS/IXC, (which I'm told is no longer illegal), _all_ calls > go there. Even calls that would normally go through the LEC. > Is there an equal access code that routes calls through whatever LEC > owns the line? Or specific ones for each LEC -- although I suspect that > would be impossible to administer. I also would like to know if there's any such code! Recently I was in an airport whose LD carrier was not AT&T. I wanted to make a short (about 100 km) toll call. When I tried 10-ATT-0 I got a recording saying this call cannot be carried by AT&T, I suppose because they are not allowed to handle intra-LATA calls. The phone would not accept my AT&T card when I dialed 0-xxx-xxx-xxxx or 0-xxx-xxxx. I had to dial 0-0 and tell a human operator the number I was calling and my AT&T card number. Matt Healy matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu ------------------------------ From: George Loftus Subject: Re: Wanted: List of Active and Proposed Undersea Cables Worldwide Date: 12 Jan 1993 19:16:36 GMT Organization: Brown University - CIS In article Frank Vance, airgun!fvance@ uunet.UU.NET writes: > I am looking for a list of all the intercontenental undersea cables, > both active and proposed. I would like to know such things as > capacity, ownership, and where the cable terminates. ------------------------------ From: matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy) Subject: Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works Organization: Yale University--Genetics Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:19:33 GMT > BTW, Some mail carriers will not deliver 4th class junk if you ask > them, but it is illegal for them to not deliver it. In my apartment building, there's a bin next to the mailboxes where the carrier puts all "extremely obvious" junk mail (ie, 27 identical envelopes arriving bulk rate to various apartments). Every couple of days it gets emptied of anything nobody has claimed. May not be technically legal, but it sure is handy. How I wish junk phone calls were so easily screened! Matt Healy matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu ------------------------------ From: ers@XGML.COM (Eric R. Skinner) Subject: Re: Bell Canada Calling Card Fraud Organization: Exoterica Corporation Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:07:16 -0500 In article Tony Harminc writes: > But note that Bell Canada is disallowing such calls to all foreign > countries except the United States. They are not picking a small (and > troublesome) subset as AT&T seems to have done. I think it would be > pretty hard to make a case of discrimination against everyone except > American immigrants. > [Moderator's Note: Are you *positive* that if you try to use a Bell > Canada card on a call to the UK, Australia or New Zealand it won't go > through? Forget what their literature says for a moment and try it. > If it does go through on the card, then the very same situation exists > in Canada as here: discrimination against what you term a 'troublesome > subset' Just two weeks ago I tried calling Australia from a payphone in downtown Toronto; I got the familiar "bong", and punched in my card number. After a few seconds, an operator came on the line, asked me for my number again, then told me that I was unable to make a call to Australia using my card. I tried a few minutes later from a business line at a nearby office and it went through fine. On Bell Canada's new "Millenium" phones which have a card swipe slot, the LED display has been running a message lately to the effect that International calling card calls should be prefixed with "011" instead of the usual "01". I don't know why ... Eric R. Skinner ers@xgml.com Exoterica Corporation Tel +1 613 722 1700 Ottawa, Canada Fax +1 613 722 5706 [Moderator's Note: '011' is for direct-dial international calls and '01' is for operator-assisted international calls, i.e. collect, credit card, third-number billing, etc. Anyway, if calls to other countries are disallowed using calling cards from payphones, why did the operator bother asking you to repeat the number? What difference would it have made if she understood it correctly the first time or not since the call would not be allowed anyway? PAT] ------------------------------ From: de@moscom.com (David Esan) Subject: Re: Another Payphone Mystery? Date: 12 Jan 93 19:40:13 GMT Organization: Moscom Corporation, Pittsford NY In article schmidt@auvax1.adelphi.edu (JOHN SCHMIDT) writes: > I recently visited my Alma Mater, WPI in Worcester, Mass. (A/C 508). > When I got there, I wanted to call my mother in Ahmerst Mass. > (413-253****). < And further tales of woe about the request of $2.00 to complete this call > Just ran this through my database. The distance from Worcester to Amherst is 38 miles. They are in two different LATAs. The expected cost by ATT should be: $.18 per minute, with an $.86 surcharge. Where did $2 come from? Why didn't you get ATT? Good questions. David Esan de@moscom.com ------------------------------ From: psw@carillon.mitre.org (Phil Wherry) Subject: Re: Panasonic KXT-123211 Software Reply-To: psw@carillon.mitre.org (Phil Wherry) Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:40:28 GMT petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu (William Petrisko) writes: > We recently purchased a Panasonic KXT-1232-11D hybrid key telephone > system. One feature that attracted us to it was the availablity to > program it over the RS-232 port. This, however, leaves A LOT to be > desired ... in fact, it seems it is actually easier to program from a > display set, because it actually tells you what you are programming > instead of having to use the program book to reference the cryptic > codes. Does anyone know of PC software available as a front-end to > programming the Panasonic phone system? I have one of these switches, and finally settled on a fairly low-tech solution: I dumped the switch parameters to an ASCII file, then used a text editor to annotate them heavily. I'd be happy to supply you (or any other interested readers) with a sample copy; just drop me an email note. Phillip Wherry Member of the Technical Staff The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA psw@mitre.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 09:57 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Baby Bell Breakups paul@panix.com (Paul Gatker) writes: > I heard an interesting theory regarding investing in the Baby Bells. > The theory was that they could be breaking up ala AT&T, and in so > doing, the parts would be much more valuable than the present whole > companies. This due to the rapidly exploding telecom revolution. More than theory, my friend. Pacific Telesis has already applied to break the now-very-lucrative PacTel wireless services off from Pacific Bell. A new holding company would be created and the two companies would have no connection whatsoever. What has happened is that the non-regulated wireless ventures have finally taken off and capital that has heretofore been siphoned off from the regulated utilities is no longer needed. The split accomplishes two things (three if you include the stated, public reason). First, it looks good. Pacific Telesis can now say without lying that there is no connection between the two companies. Second, it prevents any dreaded backflow of funds. While Pacific Telesis never had any problem with having your regulated dollars fund the wireless ventures, it sure as hell does not want the reverse to happen and piss off the investors that it has finally attracted. The stated reason for the split is that it frees the unregulated side of stifling rules imposed by PUCs. Given the fecklessness of the CPUC, I find this laughable at best. I have never seen a utility "suffer" at the hands of the California Pretty Useless Club. Remember, this is the same body that allows PG&E (our excuse for an electric utility in northern California) to charge the highest rates in the country for electricity while at the same time providing service that rivals that in the worst third-world country for unreliability. But you will see the LECs breaking up. While Pacific Telesis has never been at the forefront of technology, it has always been a pioneer in separating people from their money. Once again it is a trendsetter. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 13:52:24 EST From: don@stam.qe.bell.ca (Don McKillican) Subject: Re: Frequently Asked Questions re Telecom Stuff The question on getting specifications for the Caller ID service lists a Bell Canada contact at 220 Laurier in Ottawa. That address is no longer valid (in fact I don't think we still have facilities there). The correct address is: 160 Elgin St. Room 790 Ottawa, Ont. K2P 2C4 Incidentally, as of this week, that position (Director - Switched Network Services), has been transferred from Bell Canada to SRCI (Stentor Resource Centre Inc.) So the title may be changing before long too! Plus ca change... (the more things change...) Don McKillican Internet: don@stam.QE.Bell.CA Analyst -- Systems Planning Envoy: [id=DMCKILLI]Bell Bell Canada, Montreal Tel: (514) 870-7611 ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 13:26:17 PST Subject: Re: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charges Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon > "There are mechanical locks that can be used to physically lock > the dial pad." Even in the 1960s, many of us got around such locks by pulsing the hook at the right frequency. Today, a hand-held touch-tone (not-R) generator is all you need. Even lines for which touch-tone isn't "enabled" often respond to the tones. (not-R) Touch Tone is no longer a trademark of AT&T or anybody else. > "USOC DH2 - Screening to deny 1+ and 411. ( 1 + 800 allowed.)" How does this prevent you from placing a toll charge through 1 800 CALL-ATT? Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #23 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13386; 13 Jan 93 5:02 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08911 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:42:40 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23302 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:42:16 -0600 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:42:16 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301130842.AA23302@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #24 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Jan 93 02:42:15 CST Volume 13 : Issue 24 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: CNID on Answering Machines? (Toby Nixon) Re: CNID on Answering Machines? (Lance Neustaeter) Re: Legality of City Ordinances Against Junk Calls? (Paul Buder) Re: AC 215/610 Split (Rudolph T. Maceyko) Re: New AnswerCall Features (Rudolph T. Maceyko) Re: A Minor Nit With the Telecom FAQ (Matt Healy) Re: Cell Phone SID in US / My Friend, Nynex Mobile ... (Steve Forrette) Re: Equivalence Charges (Steve Forrette) Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? (Timothy Hu) Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? (Steve Hutzley) Re: Mission Impossible: IBT Getting My Order Correct (Michael Rosen) Re: Prodigy <> Internet (Tom Benham) Re: Additional Phone Charges (Chuck Munro) Re: Out of Town Businesses on Local Numbers? (Joe Bergstein) Re: Out of Town Businesses on Local Numbers? (Barton F. Bruce) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: CNID on Answering Machines? Date: 12 Jan 93 17:47:39 EDT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , dhclose@cco.caltech.edu (David H. Close) writes: > I find the current discussion of CNID features on modems very > interesting. But, being in the market for a new answering machine, I > want to know if there are any which store CNID, if received, and play > it back when messages are retrieved. Or are there other techniques > available? Anybody? I don't know of any answering machines that store Caller ID info along with the message, but the system we have here at home provides almost the same level of functionality. We have an answering machine that stores the date and time of the call, and a separate caller ID box that also stores date and time along with the number (almost all boxes do that). It's easy to match up the message time with the info in the caller ID box. I'll bet that you can buy a machine with date and time stamping and a separate caller ID box for less than the combination of the two, and without doing much searching. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 401243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | BBS +1-404-446-6336 AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15 USA | Internet tnixon@hayes.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 20:21:53 PST From: Lance_Neustaeter@tvbbs.wimsey.bc.ca (Lance Neustaeter) Subject: Re: CNID on Answering Machines? David H. Close Had some good questions regarding CNID and answering machines. I've also wondered about the same possibilities and would also note that it would also be very handy for a (digital, of course) answering machine to be able to play a number of different personal outgoing messages depending on which number is calling ("Hi, Joe. I'm not in right now..."). This would also be very useful if you had a message you wanted to get to someone but you haven't been able to get ahold of. You could leave the message on the machine waiting for that person in case they call you -- and you can go about your business without having to keep trying to call them. ------------------------------ From: paulb@techbook.com (Paul Buder) Subject: Re: Legality of City Ordinances Against Junk Calls? Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:02:51 GMT lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes: > Some Ohio cities [e.g., Bedford] have ordinances against telephone > solicitations. What is the legality of such an ordinance? Does > [Moderator's Note: Well, it is a lot like the soon-to-be and ex-cons > in the Chicago City Council passing an ordinance saying Chicago is a > 'nuclear free zone ...' .. about as stupid as they come. We can no > more keep bombs from landing here than Bedford, OH can keep people out > of their jurisdiction from ringing their telephones or citizens in CA > or PA can keep people out of state from seeing their phone numbers. > Maybe the Bedford authorities had nothing better to work on that day. PAT] Here in Oregon it is illegal to do computer telemarketing, that is, a machines recording, no human. It seems to work. I haven't gotten any machine based sales pitches. paulb@techbook.COM Not affiliated with TECHbooks Paul Buder Public Access UNIX at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400, N81) ------------------------------ From: rm55+@pitt.edu (Rudolph T Maceyko) Subject: Re: AC 215/610 Split Date: 12 Jan 93 17:28:06 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh In article olwejo!bob@uunet.UU.NET writes: > I just heard on the news today that Bell of Pennsylvania will announce > an Area Code split in AC 215. I just read this on clari.tw.telecom. I'm sure others will notice that this seems to conflict with "TWX" use ... ... or has that been abandoned by everyone (including Canada)? Rudy Maceyko Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA ------------------------------ From: rm55+@pitt.edu (Rudolph T Maceyko) Subject: Re: New AnswerCall Features Date: 12 Jan 93 17:38:55 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh In article Joe.Bergstein@p501.f544.n 109.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Bergstein) writes: > [Note that the announcement does not clarify what an "urgent" message > is, and whether callers will have an option to flag a message as > "urgent"]. For the uninitiated, we're discussing Answer Call and its call-me- when-I- get-a-message feature. Callers may mark a message as "urgent" by pressing "#" to end the recording of their message, then pressing "9" for options, "1" for marking the message urgent, then "1" to send the message. Interestingly, callers aren't *told* that they can press "9"; it's absent from the menu (for me anyway, 412-441 in Bell of PA land). When I first tried the service, it called me whenever *any* message was left, not just urgent ones. After a few repair calls (with the repeated response from them of "perhaps your touch-tone pad is sending the wrong tones ..."), someone finally found out what was really wrong and fixed it. A limitation of the service that's described in the "brochure" is that the number you define to have the service call you at must be within your regional calling area. It will accept any number but will silently ignore "long-distance" numbers. Rudy Maceyko Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA ------------------------------ From: matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy) Subject: Re: A Minor Nit With the Telecom FAQ Organization: Yale University--Genetics Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:07:45 GMT In article , turner@Dixie.Com wrote: >> However, two wires normally suffice to complete a connection >> between a telephone and the central office; any extra wiring >> would be for purposes such as grounding or for party line ringing. > Also to supply dial light for the Princess phones. A few years ago, I got a notice from SW BELL in Texas about old dial-light transformers that presented a fire hazard. The letter included templates to hold over any transformers located near phones to check if they were the suspect models, with an 800 number printed to call if I had any. Since there were no transformers in my apartment, I put the letter in file 13. Matt Healy matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Cell Phone SID in US / My Friend, Nynex Mobile ... Date: 12 Jan 1993 20:25:42 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) writes: > I have the SID chart from the telecom archives, but it's quite old. > Has anyone managed to get a list of SIDs for US cellular service > providers? There is a company in Florida whose name escapes me at the moment that publishes a varity of material about cellular roaming. They make the popular "Official Cellular Roaming Handbook" that lists every cellular system in the country, along with coverage maps, local and roaming rates, roam port numbers, customer service numbers, and System ID's. It costs around $16, and is very helpful for frequent roamers. They also make higher-end publications, and you can purchase data on magnetic media if you wish. Perhaps another Digest reader can contribute their name and phone number. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Equivalence Charges Date: 12 Jan 1993 22:28:11 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article TONY@VM1.MCGILL.CA (Tony Harminc) writes: > I was reviewing the phone bill for a company where I am consulting, > and realized that Bell Canada is charging for one more equivalence > feature than I would expect, e.g. there is a hunt group of three lines > - the one published number hunts to the second if busy, which hunts to > the third if second is busy, and that's the end - busy signal. Bell > charges for three equivalence features for this. > The droid in the business office insists that there is an 'ending > feature' that must be installed on the third line to make it all work. > I believe this is complete nonsense, but just before I open my mouth > wide, could someone confirm that technically there is no 'feature' > that need be installed on the last line of a hunt group? This is the way hunt groups are tariffed by US West in Washington State, and Pacific Bell in California. It's not for technical reasons, but that is indeed the correct price. When I've only wanted a two-line hunt group, I've found that busy-transfer is a better deal. The monthly cost is a bit more, but you pay for it only on one line, and the installation cost is often a lot less than hunting. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: timhu@ico.isc.com (Timothy Hu) Subject: Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Boulder CO Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:40:14 GMT > Same thing happens to us in Clinton, NY, each evening (sometimes > weekends, too) at just about 11 PM. I've always assumed some sort of > telco testing was going on, but it would be nice to know exactly what > they are doing! It happens to us in Cheyenne, Wyoming, too. Timothy Hu timhu@ico.isc.com | The intelligence (or lack of) expressed Interactive Systems Corporation | above does not necessarily reflect the Resource Solutions International | that of anyone else. ------------------------------ From: hutzley@ranger.dec.com (Steve Hutzley) Subject: Re: Why Does Phone Bell 'Ping' on a Regular Basis? Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:16:15 GMT In article , schimmel@gandalf.ca (Fred Schimmel) writes ... > It used to be that there was something called a line integrity test > (LIT) that occured in the interval just before the ring cycle began. > The circuit was re-arranged to test the line between the CO and the > phone. This is one reason why Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) needs > to identify its Ringer Equivalence Number (REN) because the test had > differing results depending on the number of ringers on the line. > Perhaps you added or removed some phones, modems, answering machines, > etc. Perhaps your local CO routinely at 10:15PM does a maintenance > check of all its lines, and this is when the ping occurs. Try calling > and asking for a test supervisor to see if they do something like > this. Or count your equipment total REN and inform the phone company. > It could just be a misprogrammed test, or an indicator that the line > is faulty. > Perhaps someone else remembers more about LIT. I believe this was a #5 > crossbar feature. Just a note on RENs, When I got my first, 1200 baud (wow!) modem, I called New England Telephone, told them about the modem, and the REN, basically, they said "YEAH, SO!"... so maybe they have some equipment than can compensate for this, or the DROID I talked to got him/her out of a situation he/she didn't understand ... Comments? Steve ------------------------------ From: mrosen@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Rosen) Subject: Re: Mission Impossible: IBT Getting My Order Correct Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 05:13:09 GMT Wow, what incompetence. Next time, I'd suggest putting your request in writing and faxing the damn thing. That way they can't misunderstand or claim to have different orders, etc. Michael Rosen Tau Epsilon Phi - George Washington University mrosen@nyx.cs.du.edu Michael.Rosen@bbs.oit.unc.edu or @lambada.oit.unc.edu ------------------------------ From: tbenham@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Tom Benham) Subject: Re: Prodigy <> Internet Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:52:27 GMT jdelancy@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil writes: > About a month or so ago, someone posted that a gateway for Email from > Internet to/from Prodigy would probably be in business by Christmas. > Anyone have the latest status on that "activation"? I just got a note from Prodigy that advised me to look for Internet mail access in January, but I haven't seen it yet. Tom ------------------------------ From: chuckm@canada.hp.com (Chuck Munro) Subject: Re: Additional Phone Charges Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:02:58 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard Canada Ltd, Dartmouth, N.S. And what about the charge made to keep your number from popping up on those new Caller-ID telephones! I'm miffed! A one-time charge I could understand (after all, somebody has to enter a few keystrokes into the switch software), but a *monthly* charge that goes on and on like the Energizer Bunny ??? Chuck ------------------------------ From: Joe.Bergstein@p501.f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Bergstein) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:32:42 -0500 Subject: Re: Out of Town Businesses on Local Numbers? On Jan. 6 in a message from lunatix!chelf@ms.uky.edu, a TELECOM Digest reader inquired about an apparent local telephone number for a business outside the local calling area. Our Esteemed Moderator, Pat, provided an explanation of FX service. I wonder if this reader really encountered remote call forwarding (RCF), a switched inbound service, rather than FX, which is quite costly and requires a substantial amount of usage for cost justification. For our reader(s), RCF establishes a local calling number, that when dialed, forwards the call to a predesignated number. In this case, the predesignated number would be a toll call to the distant business. The business picks up the toll charges for these calls. Why would a business do this? Just as in this reader's case, to maintain what appears to be a local presence by providing a local calling number for the customers. In the Washington D.C. metro area, there are many firms located just beyond the metro calling area. They can be reached from a portion of the metro area adjacent to theirs, but not from the entire metro area. Many of these firms establish RCF numbers which are accesible from the entire Washington D.C. metro area to ensure that the large number of potential customers can reach them via a local call. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:04:34 -0500 (EST) From: Barton F. Bruce Subject: Re: Out of Town Businesses on Local Numbers? Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. lunatix!chelf@ms.uky.edu wrote: > The other day, I saw the number for a business located in a nearby > town (which is not normally in the local calling area), however, the > [Moderator's Note: Businesses (actually, anyone, but it is mostly > businesses) can have a 'foreign exchange' line -- commonly known as an > FX. When they use that phone, or receive calls on it, it is as though FX lines are ONLY one of many ways to do this. An FX line makes sense if there is a LOT of traffic or sometimes if it is also needed to be able to dial back out into the foreign area. Very often, folks will have the phone line delivered to some business there (friend, lawyer, answering service, or whatever) and then simply order call forwarding on the line and set it to forwward to the remote location. Paying for that service, and some modest amount of toll calls is often FAR cheaper than a leased FX line. Some folks instead get that same line and BUY some call forwarding box and simply plug it into a second line they pay for at into the same location. Connection quality may suffer, but you don't need telco to be running the latest generic on their stepper for it to work :-) And just sometimes telco offers 'REMOTE CALL FORWARDING' where NO line goes anywhere. When a local call is dialed, it gets forwarded to the remote site. The toll charges go to the number with this service on it. Often there is a FULL service order write charge and other bullcrap just to change the foward to number. If you have a trustworthy site you can have the first flavor above line delivered to, that is best and someone can plug a phone in and reset the number as needed. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #24 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18532; 15 Jan 93 2:36 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01145 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 15 Jan 1993 00:16:09 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29495 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 15 Jan 1993 00:15:46 -0600 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 00:15:46 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301150615.AA29495@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #25 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Jan 93 00:15:45 CST Volume 13 : Issue 25 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson What's the Best Cordless Phone? (Mohit K. Goval) AT&T Extended Range Cordless Telephone 9530 (AT&T message via Ken Jongsma) Even Egghead Has Trouble Understanding E-Mail (Paul Robinson) Quantitatively, How Much Will LEC Competition Affect Rates? (H. Shrikumar) Correction to NY/Philly Post (Douglas Scott Reuben) Prodigy Update Report in Newsbytes (Newsbytes via ghadsal@american.edu) What is Teleport? (Johan Vounckx) What is Tariff 12 (or is it 11)? (Paul Robinson) Cellular Accessories (J. Philip Miller) TransTalk Experience? (Eric Pearce) Want to Buy! (Ron Martin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL) Subject: What's the Best Cordless Phone? Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 20:19:07 GMT Can anyone tell me their opinions on what the best cordless phone is? I'm looking for one that lets the user dial and answer from the base, as well as from the actual unit. So far, I'm strongly considering the new AT&T 5515. It's about $160 w/o tax. Thanks. [Moderator's Note: Maybe you will want to wait for the new AT&T 9530 which is due to be released in a few months. It is digital and uses the 900 megs range. I've included an announcement sent recently to all AT&T employees in this issue which describes it in detail. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: AT&T Extended Range Cordless Telephone 9530 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 16:43:16 -0500 (EST) I was sent this from a broadcast to AT&T employees. I thought you might be interested ... *** AT&T today announced a high-power, all-digital cordless phone with four times the range of today's conventional cordless telephones. The AT&T Extended Range Cordless Telephone 9530 operates in the 900-MHz frequency, providing virtually interference-free conversations with consistent sound quality up to one mile from the base. The AT&T 9530 uses full digital transmission to encode speech onto a radio signal, much like music is encoded onto a CD, and to provide clearer sound over a longer range than cordless phones operating in the 46/49-MHz frequency. AT&T's spread-spectrum, frequency-hopping architecture, which is patent-pending, actually avoids interference by "hopping" the radio signal among 50 of the available 173 channels during a conversation. If any of the channels experience interference, the 9530 automatically swaps it for a new, clearer channel. Because it operates over a different frequency, the AT&T 9530 is unaffected by forms of interference common to 46/49-MHz cordless phones, such as garage door openers, baby monitors and radio intercoms. It also performs well in environments typically difficult for conventional cordless, such as high-rise apartment and multilevel buildings. The random selection of 50 of 173 channels, along with digital speech encoding, makes it nearly impossible to eavesdrop on conversations. The AT&T 9530 was designed and developed by AT&T Bell Laboratories, employing advanced integrated circuit technology developed jointly with AT&T Microelectronics. The AT&T Extended Range Cordless Telephone 9530 will be available in late spring at AT&T Phone Centers nationwide for $449.99. For more information, call 800-222-3111. ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 17:47:47 EST Subject: Even Egghead Has Trouble Understanding E-Mail In a catalog from Egghead Software, they are selling an E-Mail package for Microsloth Windoze called "The Wire", which, according to the blurb for it: All messages are routed through MCI mail, a centralized electronic mail service maintained by MCI Communications ... a $15.00 per month account fee includes 1-800 access and up to 60 messages of 5,000 characters or less in length delivered via e-mail, fax, telex, U.S. Postal Service, or via gateways to CompuServe, PRODIGY, Internet, and other on-line information services. I *know* that CompuServe and Internet have gateways on MCI Mail. I know Prodigy is considering getting an Internet gateway, but I was unaware that they had a gateway on MCI Mail. So I decided to look and see. A gateway on MCI Mail is called an "EMS": -- Transcript follows -- Pad ID: P3 - Port: 17. Please enter your user name: tdarcos Password: Connection initiated. . . Opened. Welcome to MCI Mail! Reach up to 1,000 worldwide recipients quickly through MCI fax Broadcast. For more information, call Operator 6 at 1-800-999-2096. Today's Headlines At 4 pm EST: --News Of Strikes Against Iraq Boosts Defense Sector Stock --Intel Shares Soar On News Profit Even Stronger Than Expected Type //BUSINESS on Dow Jones for details. MCI Mail Version V11.2.C Your INBOX has 43 messages Command: find ems internet MCI Mail Directory Information MCI ID Name Organization Location EMS 376-5414 INTERNET NRI Reston Command: find ems compuserve MCI Mail Directory Information MCI ID Name Organization Location EMS 281-6320 COMPUSERVE Columbus, OH Command: find ems western union MCI Mail Directory Information MCI ID Name Organization Location EMS 435-6996 WESTERN UNION AT&T USA Command: find ems att att is not listed as an Electronic Mail System. Command: find ems at&t at&t is not listed as an Electronic Mail System. Command: find ems attmail MCI Mail Directory Information MCI ID Name Organization Location EMS 414-0940 ATTMail AT&T USA Command: find ems prodigy prodigy is not listed as an Electronic Mail System. Command: find name prodigy MCI Mail Subscriber Information MCI ID Name Organization Location User has unlisted name in MCI Mail Directory - Transcript Ends -- What this indicates is that there is no gateway on MCI to Prodigy (except maybe via Internet), except that someone (who wishes not to be known) has an ordinary account. Also, I discovered other errors: MCI Mail only gives you E-Mail, Gateway Mail (Like Internet), and Fax messages as part of your "free" allocation. Telex and Paper Mail messages are charged. The moral of this story is that often the advertisement writers don't even understand the technology. Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM These opinions are mine alone. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 23:36:53 -0500 From: shri%legato@cs.umass.edu (H.Shrikumar) Subject: Quantitatively, How Much Will LEC Competition Affect Rates? Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst Hi, I (again) have a question ..... I was thinking of scenarios of telecom development, deregulation and de-monoplisation, comparing with the history as seen in the US industry. The following question came up: If LEC competetion were the norm, what changes can one expect? With open competetion in the LD business, we've seen a fall of LD rates, and an improvement of service. (Is there some place I can see quantitatively this fall over the decade or more?) Now, if LECs also were to be opened up, how much (if at all) would the local phone rates change by? Would there be a net change in LEC revenues per line ? What about total LEC revenues? Will it also result in growth of number of subscriptions due to the competition? Or would the rates merely get readjsuted, with different plans, some with lower entry cost, and many restrictions (limited calls per month, per peak hour), other more expensive, but with greater facilities? In general, what would be the fixed cost, and variable cost per call? (The bottom line, how much of the current rates is "water"?) In other words, if the conjecture that a monopoly tends to be relatively inefficient, and increased competition would force them to drive down costs, either by better management or with better techology, is correct ... then by how much can one expect the local dial-tone rates to change ? I look forward to the wisdom on this list. Many thanks! -- shrikumar ( shri@legato.cs.umass.edu, shri@iucaa.ernet.in ) +========================================== PS: Re: PHONE RESTRICTED FOR TOLL ETC. ... BTW ... I'd be travelling a while, so it turns out its my turn to worry about others using my phone now. The recent discussions on this list has left me better prepared. In article andrew@frip.wv.tek.com .. >> "USOC DH2 - Screening to deny 1+ and 411. ( 1 + 800 allowed.)" > How does this prevent you from placing a toll charge through 1 800 > CALL-ATT? No, but it can still prevent billing to the number. I have little faith in any add on device, or blocker, for what I add anyone can delete. So I am looking for what New England telephone can provide me, implemented *at* the switch, and they taking the responsibility. Turns out that they have two kinds of "1 block", and opting for both would prevent all direct dial toll calls, all premium calls and also alert the operator (called via 0) to not transfer manually to a IXC for a LD call. (I can further be mean, and ask for 0 Operator block as well ... but if they assure me their operator will be alerted, thats fine with me.) These blocks will also imply screening of any collect or third party calls. They'd allow a 1-800 call to go thru. But CALL_ATT can then bill to a calling card, but not to my number since, as per above, the screening will not allow that. I further quizzed them, mentioning the infamous name heard so often in this forum (I think I percieved a hint of recognition from the representative) ... but then she assured me that that will not occur too. Her word is NET's word. I am just going to get them to reiterate three times (a holy number) that no further charges than a fixed monthly bill will apply. I will then order these blocks, and mail then a letter thanking them for the assurances I had heard from them that day, carefully listing my concerns and their assurances, and preserve a copy of the letter. I suppose if still someone slaps me ... its a NET problem, and that should be insurance enough. (Hope so!). So no Dial-1, no Operator assisted calls, no premium calls, no collect calls in, no third party calls. No scam calls. Local call OK, 1-800 OK (and free), Calling card OK (charge his card). Your LEC should have similar blocks too, perhaps in a different combination, and tarriffs. I think this is quite conclusive. Good Luck! ------------------------------ Date: 14-JAN-1993 18:16:02.57 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Correction to NY/Philly Posting Recently I noted that Cell One/NY has initiated automatic call delivery to Philadelphia (00029). I also incorrectly noted that you need to use the "Do Not Disturb" feature to have your calls sent to voicemail, as you need to do in Connecitcut (00119) and the the ComCast areas of New Jersey (00173, 00575, 01487). (And on all of the NACN as well.). Philly is connected to NY via IS-41 RevA, and NOT the "Protocol Translators" which NY uses to connect to CT and NJ. IS-41 RevA *can* apparently hand the call back to NY if no one answers in Philly, so if you let the call go unanswered it will eventually bounce back to your voicemail with Cell One/NY. (The Protocol Translator can handle calls like this FROM CT and NJ, ie, CT and NJ customers roaming in NY will have their calls go back to their home systems if they are not available, but for some reason the PT can't handle a call from NY to CT/NJ so that it will bounce back to NY upon "no answer".) Also, Wilmington is not YET officially connected -- if you go active in Philly and drive down to Wilmington (00123) you will get calls, but you can't go active in Wilmington and have calls delivered. This will change in about a week when IS-41 RevA is set in place to Wilmington as well. Overall, then, a definite improvement, although IS-41 RevA does seem to have one annoying flaw (in my opinion): If someone places a call to you while you are roaming in an IS-41 RevA "networked" area, and either abandons the call, talks to you, or gets a busy, a SECOND call within two minutes will AUTOMATICALLY go to voicemail or and "out of vehicle" recording. IS-41 RevA will not pass a second call along for two minutes after the first! So if someone calls you, and notices that it is taking a while for ringing to start (while you are being located in the roaming market), thinks he may have misdialed and tries you again, if the second attempt is in under two minutes, he will get your voicemail or an "out of vehicle" recording. This occurs regardless of whether you have "Call-Waiting" or not -- you will only get Call Waiting calls AFTER the first two minutes, before that callers will still be dumped to voicemail. Hopefully, someone at Cell One or the people writing IS-41 stuff can reset this to be something like 15 seconds instead of the unreasonably long period of two minutes. As I said, though, overall, not having to use *35/*350 is certainly an improvement! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Organization: The American University - University Computing Center Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 20:09:24 EST From: GHADSAL@AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Prodigy Update Report in Newsbytes WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK, U.S.A., 1993 JAN 13 (NB) -- Recent layoffs will not impact the ability of Prodigy to meet its announced goal of establishing an Internet connection, a top company executive has told {Newsbytes}. He adds that the staff reductions will not stop Prodigy from implementing publicly announced system improvements. George Perry, vice president and chief counsel of Prodigy Services, discussed the January 11th firing by Prodigy of 250 of its 1,100 employees, citing the need to reduce costs and improve efficiency. Perry told Newsbytes, "This was a painful and difficult move. We felt, however, that the reorganization is a better plan for the future and will greatly aid us in reaching profitability." Perry said, "By sheer coincidence, we passed the one million household mark last week and we have two million individuals as members. We feel that we have contributed greatly to the communications explosion." The Internet connection will allow electronic mail to be sent between Prodigy subscribers and the approximately 20,000,000 users of the many networks that collectively make up what is known as the Internet. Among Prodigy's commercial competition, GEnie has recently added this feature joining America OnLine, CompuServe, Delphi, AppleLink, MCI Mail, AT&T Mail and the WELL as systems which provide this access. In announcing the layoffs, Prodigy President Ross S. Glatzner was quoted as saying, "This is a tough day. But in the end, it was the necessary thing to do. We became very layered over the years and the decision making wasn't as crisp as it needed to be." As part of the reorganization, Prodigy also will turn over the functions of its membership services division to an outside firm, SPS Payment Systems of Layton, Utah. SPS will offer jobs to 65 of the 100 workers in the membership services division, currently located in Yorktown Heights, NY. It has also been speculated in the press that the reorganization will mean less emphasis on programming and systems organization. This view is based on the recent departure of several top programming executives including senior vice president, Henry Heilbrunn, who left the company in the week before the staff cuts. ------------------------------ From: vounckx@goya.esat.kuleuven.ac.be (Johan Vounckx) Subject: What is Teleport? Organization: Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 08:28:09 GMT Hi, I've recently heard the word "teleport". It seems to be a place where companies can make use of lots of communication services, like videoconferences, ... Can anyone give me more information on that? Are there some teleports existing? (It seems that in Torino, Italy, there is one.) Thanks, Johan Vounckx K.U.Leuven-ESAT Laboratory Kard. Mercierlaan 94 B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium [Moderator's Note: A company in the USA headquartered in New York City called 'Teleport' provides local telco bypass service to a few large companies both in that city and a few other places such as Chicago. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 19:15:51 EST Subject: What is Tariff 12 (or is it 11)? I have a question which came up once because of something an article someone mentioned. AT&T has a special schedule for some customers, which apparently the customers love and AT&T's competitors hate. I was wondering what it was. The name of the schedule is either the infamous "Tariff 11" or "Tariff 12". As the last time I looked the AT&T general dial tariffs were numbered 200 or more, this sounds odd. Does anyone know anything about either a "Tariff 11" or "Tariff 12"? Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM These opinions are mine alone. ------------------------------ From: phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) Subject: Cellular Accessories Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 20:40:32 -0600 (CST) Having finally broken down and picked up a bag phone to lug around in my car, I started looking around for accessories. I was quite suprised that I have been uable to find any discount, mail order type suppliers. While Hello Direct is frequently recommended here, they are neither generally inexpensive, nor do they carry a wide variety of brand name products. In my particular case, I am looking for a battery for a Uniden CP 1900A but suspect that there must be folks who sell stuff for many brands. Any recommendations? 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)] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 20:25:05 -0800 From: eap@ora.com (Eric Pearce) Subject: TransTalk Experience? I'm looking at the TransTalk router from International Transware. It is supposed to allow me to initiate a switched 56k connection from a Mac, i.e. Mac <-- LocalTalk --> TransTalk <-- V.35? --> CSU/DSU --> SW56k-land Does anybody have experience with this product? What is a good, low cost CSU/DSU that will work with it? Someone mentioned Adtran. The primary use would be transfering large files to a print shop (we are a book publisher). The 14.4 modems I'm using now are not fast enough. We are in the boonies, so no ISDN yet. Thanks, Eric Pearce | eap@ora.com | O'Reilly & Associates Publishers of Nutshell Series Handbooks and X Window System Guides 103 Morris St, Sebastopol, CA 95472 1-800-998-9938 or 707-829-0515 ------------------------------ From: ereddy@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Ron Martin) Subject: Want to Buy! Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 21:30:22 GMT I want to buy a key set. Would like to get a small Northern Telecom Meridian setup with three or four extensions, but will take a look at any offers. Mail me with your price, unit description and condition and any other info. Thanks in advance, Ron ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #25 *****************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22616; 15 Jan 93 4:45 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28613 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 15 Jan 1993 02:23:46 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21677 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 15 Jan 1993 02:23:18 -0600 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 02:23:18 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199301150823.AA21677@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #26 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Jan 93 02:23:15 CST Volume 13 : Issue 26 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Apartment Security Stupidity (Elana Beach) OBT and Flat-Rate Service (Rob Knauerhase) Free Publicity on Telecommunications Issues (Tom Worthington) Calling Cards (was Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune) (Andy Sherman) Voice Mail With Call Back (Paul Robinson) Remote Call Forwarding (Paul Robinson) Paging -> SW Bell Gives Up (Guy Hadsall) Wiring For CSU/DSU Units (Doug Barr) Looking For Portable X.25/Frame Relay Imformation (L. Tzeng via Seth Dobbs) Telecom Management Degrees (J.D. Delancy) Still 0 + 7D For Local Within 713? (Carl Moore) 313 Split Not Being Well Publicized (Jim Rees) Another Teee Heee :-)) (Rich Greenberg) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: elana@agora.rain.com (Elana Beach) Subject: Apartment Security Stupidity Organization: Open Communications Forum Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 16:32:05 GMT I live in an apartment building. This place uses a system called Entraguard that lets tenants screen visitors. The visitor punches a three number code on the panel outside the front door, the tenant's phone rings, and if it's someone they want, the tenant hits 9 on his/her touch-tone phone. The tone triggers the front door to unlock. All this was fine and dandy until one day when I came home, I was taken aside by the assistant manager and told to get a new answering machine or else. Turned out that the beep tone on my answering machine was the same frequency as the tone that opened the door. It also turned out that the management of my building traditionally forced tenants to get answering machines instead of getting this Entraguard company to fix the original problem. I talked to the head manager, who claimed the company had come three times and tried to fix it, and there was no fixing it at all. I was supposedly required to get a new answering machine because unsavory types had discovered that my answering machine would let them in. Well, that sure explained the small number of blank messages on my machine that sounded like they originated at the front door ... When I heard I had to replace MY machine because of THEIR problem, I got MAD. Off the the head manager's office I go. The main manager claimed that since this was not a fancy high-income building, I should not expect them to be able to afford a high-tech security system. At the time I knew very little phone tech. I decided to fake it. I told that manager (I was bluffing here) that all that Entraguard had to do was install a certain electronic chip which cost less than $2 which would allow the system to know the difference between an answering machine and a touch-tone. I really did not know what I was talking about, but THEY didn't know that. Within a month, the system seems to have been fixed. They have let me keep my answering machine, and some tests I have run recently show no effect of my beep tone on that door. Another positive effect: when I consulted the net for a place to ask about this, I was directed to the TELECOM Digest. I have enjoyed reading it ever since. I threatened the apartment management that if they ever give me trouble about this door problem again, I was going to bore them with some REAL technical details until it made their heads spin. They seem to be fairly tech-allergic, and they haven't bugged me since. ;-) [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell offers apartment front door security service to grandfathered customers who had it installed prior to about 1983. They use a sort of hybrid centrex from the central office to run it. The pairs from the CO to the phones in each apartment have to be dedicated without any possibility of multiples on those pairs. This is done for security reasons, and other security techniques include having the front door opening device camp-on the line *after* decisions are made by the software to hunt, call-forward, bridge to an answering service, etc. This prevents the place where you forwarded your calls to or your answering service from opening the front door of your building ... the answering service will never see the call, and even with call-forwarding turned on, a front door call will ring through with an easily identified ringing cadence of its own. Likewise, the CO can tell the difference between a digit punched at the phone (4 to open the door, 6 to deny entry and disconnect) and something similar fed to it from a foreign source like an answering machine or pocket tone sounder. IBT called this product 'Enterphone', following the divestiture in the early 1980's, new customers were referred to a company called 'Interphone', a division of GTE in Canada which makes customer premises equipment which does the same thing but instead of being in the CO is wired up at the demarc where telco's pairs meet up with building house pairs. I'll elaborate in more detail on both systems here if anyone is interested. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: OBT and Flat-Rate Service Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 10:17:34 CST From a local (to Ohio) news item: (COLUMBUS)--State Representative Mike Stinziano says he will introduce a bill prohibiting telephone companies from eliminating flat-rate service. The Columbus Democrat says he believes phone companies will try to force residential customers to pay based on a time, distance, length and number of calls formula. An Ohio Bell spokesman says the company will oppose such legislation. ---------------- I mailed an article here last Thanksgiving about Ohio Bell's sales pitches for their relatively new measured-service variants, commenting that my mother's phone bill listed an _increase_ if she switched to any of their new plans (based on her typical usage). Someone from this group mailed me privately warning that in Michigan there was now no option of flat-rate, and to watch out for the same thing in OBT-land. Well, from the above blurb, something appears to be going on. So far, Ohio's PUCO has been relatively good (or compared to CPUC reports here, stellar :) with respect to rates and features, so I assume (hope) that flat-rate pricing will not shoot up in the face of this legislation. Since OBT is guaranteed a profit (n'est-ce pas?), the Libertarian side of me has no trouble supporting the continuation of flat-rate service for those who choose it, even if some who so choose end up subsidizing high-usage families. Am I overlooking anything? As I am for the time being residing in central Illinois, I'd appreciate it if an interested party closer to Columbus would keep the Digest (and/or me) informed as to how (and if!) this legislation proceeds. Rob Knauerhase University of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign, Dept. of Computer Science [Moderator's Note: I've never understood why people had such a big objection to simply paying for the service they use. We've had no flat rate service in Chicago outside a very small local area for many years, and for most subscribers, the cost for phone service actually went *down* when they were no longer forced to pay for all the modem users who went through thousands of units a month at flat rate. Naturally, the guys who spent hours every night on a modem calling BBS lines on the other side of the area code (or even inter-area code; our old flat rate plans took in 312/708 and parts of 815/219/414) squealed like pigs when the change was announced; *they* had to start paying their way ... the 90 percent plus of our population which does not use modems or make hundreds (or thousands) of calls each month was very pleased to see a reduction in their bills. When IBT ditched almost all the flat rate stuff a few years ago, the biggest objections came in the form of countless articles on BBS message bases from people talking about the greedy and awful old telco. Count me as one who approves of 'pay for what you use'; I don't like paying subsidies for my neighbor's use of the phone. I don't do it for the electricity, water or gas they use, why should I for their phone calls via flat rate, averaged out pricing? But then again, I don't run war dialers against entire CO's or call computer chat lines in the outer fringes of 708/815. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tomw@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Tom Worthington) Subject: Free Publicity on Telecommunications Issues Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 07:36:36 GMT Toula Mantis is from the Australian Telecommunications Users Group. She is looking for telecommunications stories to write about in the ATUG column in each Monday's Australian newspaper (in the communica- tions section). Toula is currently preparing an overview of Australian R&D in telecommunications for next Monday's issue (her deadline is tomorrow afternoon). She would like input from the R&D community on topics like: "How does R&D in Australia compare with the rest of the world?". Information for good news stores (like what a wonderful research project you are on) or bad news stories (like "what happened to the $13M for AARnet?") would also be welcome. Contact: Toula Mantis Australian Telecommunications Users Group ph: +61 2 957 1333 fax: +61 2 925 0880 She has an "AAP mailbox" (number 9243). If anyone knows how to send to it from the Internet, we would all be impressed. Posted by request by Tom Worthington, Director of the Community Affairs Board, Australian Computer Society Incorporated, as a service to the community. [Moderator's Note: Bearing in mind that as I write this, it is already Saturday in Australia, I'm not sure if submissions will reach her in time, but perhaps she will do a followup soon. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 11:36:33 EST Subject: Calling Cards (was Calling 1-800 Can Cost You a Fortune) Organization: Salomon Inc, Rutherford NJ From: andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) On 12 Jan 93 00:37:11 GMT, sullivan@geom.umn.edu said: > The other thing that has always confused me is why alternative > long-distance companies (AOSs?) can charge things to an AT&T calling > card. I realize that Ma and the Baby Bells have some sort of > agreement to allow charges to each others' calling cards. And I > gather that this all has something to do with the fact that there is > some standard way to determine if a calling card number is valid. But > again, why does AT&T agree to provide billing service for these > people? I can't imagine if Sears suddenly decided to accept payments > by JCPenny credit cards that JCPenny would actually let them collect > on the bills. This should only be the case with the old-style AT&T Card numbers, the kind that contain your billing telephone number followed by a PIN. Those are not really AT&T numbers, and therein lies the problem. Those numbers belong the local carrier, and they will verify that number for any phone company. For the past year or more, AT&T has been issuing new cards with a private number (so-called CIID cards), and the AT&T Universal Card uses a CIID number also. A CIID card can *NOT* be billed by an AOS, and can *NOT* be billed by another carrier. As you note, AT&T has cross-verification agreements with virtually every local exchange carrier in the country, so that LEC cards can be used to bill AT&T calls and CIID cards can be used to bill LEC carried calls. If your AT&T card can be billed by the slime, then you need to call AT&T and get a new card. Andy Sherman Salomon Inc - Unix Systems Support - Rutherford, NJ (201) 896-7018 - andys@sbi.com or asherman@sbi.com "These opinions are mine, all *MINE*. My employer can't have them." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 15:44 GMT From: 0005066432@mcimail.com Subject: Voice Mail With Call Back If anyone is interested, I used to use a local area-code 202 voice mail service which had the option of adding an 800 number on it. Also, the service, which is run by an interexchange carrier, can be programmed (by you) to call you whenever a message comes in, anywhere in the U.S. The nice thing about this is you can also restrict the hours the system calls you. I had mine set up for the hours I was home, 10-2. So if I get any calls from 2:01 pm until 9:59 am, the system would hold them and then at 10:00 it would call me and announce I had messages. I could then enter my password and have the same access as if I had dialed in for messages. If a message comes in between 10 and 2, after the message is left, the system calls me and then announces I have a message. Also, since I can reprogram the number for it to call, if I have to go to a different location, I can take my messages with me. Apparently the only thing