Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa29713; 18 Oct 94 20:47 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA25118; Tue, 18 Oct 94 15:25:16 CDT Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA25111; Tue, 18 Oct 94 15:25:11 CDT Date: Tue, 18 Oct 94 15:25:11 CDT From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9410182025.AA25111@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #401 TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Oct 94 15:25:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 401 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (John Higdon) Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Steve Kass) Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Carl Moore) Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Tom Lowe) Re: MCI's 1-800 CALL INFO (Jonathan D. Loo) Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Phil Ritter) Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO (Steve Cogorno) Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO (Jeffrey A. Harper) Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO (Mark E. Daniel) Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO (Steve Cogorno) Charging For 800 Calls (was Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO) (Barry Margolin) Charges For Calling 800 Numbers (Jeff Buckingham) Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* (Lauren Weinstein) 800-Number Billing (Stephen Tihor) Re: Billable 800 Service (Dave Levenson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:01:30 -0700 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO bfbrown@teal.csn.org (Brian Brown) writes: > FYI, a LD carrier can provide two "information" digits in addition to > ANI via digital lines -- although, for some mysterious, unexplainable > reason (someone comment please), they must do this via MF, not DTMF. Any number of carriers, including MCI, will supply DNIS/ANI in FGD format via DTMF. If your particular carrier claims that it cannot be done, look at other carriers. > The two-digit code for payphones is "27". There are actually two payphone codes. One is for LEC payphones; the other for COCOTs. > I would be interested to know what happens when you call from a > payphone. The operator asks for billing information. But this has nothing to do with the status digits. It comes from a check of the screened call database. All payphones have collect and third-party billing blocked in a national database that is available on-line to any company that wants to pay for it. Residential and business telephones that have this screening in effect will get the same response when calling CALL-INFO. Otherwise, the billing is via the collect call mechanism. > Incidentally, the two MF digits make the ANI-DNIS string look like: > *AABBBCCCDDDD*EEEFFFF*, a total of 22 digits outpulsed!!! Question: what is a "*" in MF? Is it KP? KP2? Just wondering. > Is it possible that MF can outpulse faster than DTMF? It seems > strange that MF is necessary for this service, but it definitely is. I don't know how to break this to you, but I am getting FGD format (including status) delivered via DTMF. And it is a small reseller, to boot! > You may be able to get some employee at a carrier to agree to give > you this info via DTMF, but they will soon learn that they can't and > apologize to you. This is misinformation. The only carrier that promised it to me and could not deliver was MCI. I believe they now can do it. In any event there are a number of other carriers who will be happy to provide you with FGD format DNIS/ANI using DTMF. > One more thing -- these desription digits can also tell you when the > ANI represents a hotel, hospital, prison, cellular, business or > residential site, and who knows what else. Actually, they don't distinguish between residential and business POTS. And if the cellular company is using certain types of interconnectivity with the LEC, the status code returns "00" (POTS). > Please don't ask how I know all this. Judging from the holes, I don't think I want to know. I got my info from designing and writing software for such systems. 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, 18 Oct 1994 01:00:43 EDT From: SKASS@drew.edu Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO Patrick seems to be saying that charging 75 cents for 1-800-CALL-INFO is in line with using 800 numbers for Western Union or for charges to a credit card. I disagree. No other 1-800 number does (or should) result in a charge on the telephone bill without some verbal or other authorization from the caller, nor without some indication from the called party that a charge will apply. That was certainly the situation with Western Union the few times I used it. Patrick, do you propose that I could set up a phone number within my exchange, say 201-514-FOOD, to provide a recorded recipe at a $5 charge on the phone bill, offering no indication in the recording of the charge? Of course my advertisements would mention the charge. No. Calls within an exchange are free (*), though they can result in a transfer of money from the calling to called parties with a credit card number and verbal authorization. The same should be true for 800 numbers. (*)metered service aside Does MCI's service have a name? If you call 1-800-555-1212 and ask for the number, do you get a recording saying "The toll-free number is ..."? I agree with those who lament the devaluation of 800 service by MCI's practice, and I also agree with Patrick that nothing should be charged to a telephone bill beyond the cost of carrying the call. Steve Kass/ Math & CS/ Drew U/ Madison NJ/ skass@drew.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know how far the proprietor of such services should be required to go to make notification. Even though they mention it in their advertising, some people will later insist that they did not see it. The operator can mention it in the process of getting the customer's lookup request and yet later some people will still claim they did not know about the charge. One information provider gets around the later claims of ignorance on the part of users by tape recording the opening seconds of conversation where the intake operator advises the party of the charge and asks the person's permission to charge it. If the person later claims no permission was given, the IP need merely reference the index or location of the 20-30 second spot on a large reel of tape where that particular person consented and provide them with it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Oct 94 11:34:24 GMT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO So just what gets printed on the phone bill when a call to 1-800-CALL-INFO gets billed? ------------------------------ From: tomlowe@netcom.com (Tom Lowe) Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 13:40:05 EDT > FYI, a LD carrier can provide two "information" digits in addition to > ANI via digital lines -- although, for some mysterious, unexplainable > reason (someone comment please), they must do this via MF, not DTMF. > The two-digit code for payphones is "27". In fact, MCI can look at > the two ANI description digits before deciding to go off hook, and > simply not answer the call. I would be interested to know what > happens when you call from a payphone. > Incidentally, the two MF digits make the ANI-DNIS string look like: > *AABBBCCCDDDD*EEEFFFF*, a total of 22 digits outpulsed!!! Is it > possible that MF can outpulse faster than DTMF? It seems strange that > MF is necessary for this service, but it definitely is. You may be > able to get some employee at a carrier to agree to give you this info > via DTMF, but they will soon learn that they can't and apologize to > you. The INFO/ANI digits can also be sent via ISDN or SS7. I don't know why they can't be sent with the DTMF option. I'm converting some DTMF signalled trunks to MF trunks just so I can get the info digits. This should happen sometime this week, I hope. I don't think that MF is any faster than DTMF signalling. After listening to some MF circuits and DTMF circuits side by side, the MF almost sounded slower to me. The *AABBBCCCDDDD*EEEFFFF* string you mention is the signalling for DTMF, and it does not include the info digits (AA in your string). The MF signalling goes like this: DMS-250 PBX SEIZURE ------------------------> <------------------------ WINK KP + IINPANXXXXX + ST ----------> KP + DNIS + ST -----------------> <------------------------ WINK <------------------------ OFF HOOK (answer) Where the KP and ST are the MF "Key Pulse" and "Stop" signals II = Info Digits, NPANXXXXX is the ANI, and DNIS is the dialed number. The possible values for the Info digits are: 00 - Regular 01 - Multi Party line (ANI not delivered) 02 - ANI failure 06 - Hotel/Motel 07 - Prison 27 - Coin 61 - Cellular There are slight variations to the contents of the digits, depending on whether or not full ANI is available and/or configured on the trunk group and/or 800 number. If ANI is configured, the you get AT LEAST the area code. Also, at least with DTMF signaling, I've been getting the originating country code on ITFS (International Toll Free Service) numbers that are terminating on the switch. I got most of this information from the "Real Time ANI Training Booklet" that Sprint publishes. As far as making calls from cellular phones to 800-CALL-INFO, they didn't restrict me! That means that my cellular company got billed $0.75 for my call plus the toll charges, and all I'll pay for is airtime for an 800 call. I also tried it from one hotel and it went through with no problem (although the hotel tried to charge me $0.65 for that and all of my other 800 calls, but that's another story. ------------------------------ From: Jonathan D. Loo Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 01:59:01 -0400 Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > I went out yesterday afternoon and tried it also to see what payphones > around here would do. I got through and got the request to provide > billing information in the form of a credit card number or third party > phone number. When I asked why there was a charge for a call to an 800 > number the answer I got was that the call itself is free; what I would > be paying for was the information provided as a result. This is > basically the way all the information providers via 800 phrase their > answer: carriage itself is indeed 'free' or reverse charged. You pay > for the information we give you while chatting. So if you get a non-published number, then it should NOT be billed, because you get no information. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Certainly you get information. You were informed that the person you are trying to reach has chosen to not be listed. Or perhaps you were informed that the person you are trying to reach is not listed at all and (by implication) does not have phone service, at least in his name. The operator did not just ring off and tell you nothing at all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pritter@nit.AirTouch.COM (Phil Ritter) Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO Organization: AirTouch Cellular, Los Angeles Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 16:14:03 GMT All "800" services that reverse bill are a special problem for most cellular carriers (and, presumably, for some smaller telco's and CAPs that are providing line service) because there is generally no way to get a bill from the service provider and return it to our customers the way that the LECs do (it is a really long story, and kinda ugly, but true). In most cases, they just get billed back to the cellular carrier (who refuses to pay...). Its similar to the reason that most cellular carriers block all "900/976" calls from cell phones. Up 'till now, there have been very few of these that are actually likely to get called by cellular customers (but the ones that exist sure can be interesting ;-). MCIs 1-800-CALL-INFO service, however, is providing a "legitimate" service that is actually quite attractive to cellular users (no need to write down the number and re-dial, something that can be quite tricky while driving). It is also being heavily advertised in ways that I would say expressly target cellular (radio commercials ten to twelve times an hour on news stations in the LA area during rush-hour(s) [which are almost all day in LA]). During the first two or three days that MCI offered this service, I noticed that they were not blocking calls from cellular (I also noticed that their database includes, and they will connect call to, certain international numbers). This, of course, provides a massive hole for long-distance fraud (place your calls from a cellular phone, and never receive a bill for the LD -- better still if you are using a cloned cell phone, and we particularly dislike any service that might encourage the airtime bandits). Anyway, they assumed that they would receive correct ANI-II on all cellular originiations to identify and screen those calls. Guess what -- they don't. On the evening of 10/13 they implemented a "temporary" fix that forces them to use a LIDB dip on every call and screen based on the "no collect" class of call screening indicator (I think that they will be forced to leave this on forever, further crimping their profit marings with the cost of the LIDB dip [too bad...]). [On the topic of profit margins, unless their operators and/or directory database get faster, they'll never make money at $.75 -- they currently have too much "work time" per call. Of course, they could be counting on the un-discounted MCI LD for their profits. But this is really another topic altogether ...]. This, of course, also allows anyone else who wants to block the "800 reverse billing" feature of their service and force them to request a billing option by asking their LEC to mark their billing telephone numbers "no collect". For a PBX, you usually only have to mark your pilot number(s) and/or billing telephone number(s), since your calls normally all forward one ANI no matter what line origininated the call. You will also not be able to accept collect calls, but that may not be so bad after all ;-). And, for most organizations, that would be preferable to restricting all "800" calls. Phil Ritter pritter@la.airtouch.com ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: MCI's 1-800-CALL-INFO Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 09:57:56 PDT Dave Levenson said: > How about it MCI? AT&T? SPRINT? et al. You can't have it both ways. > Either go back to the original design and guarantee the calling party > that calls to 800 numbers are toll-free, or don't charge your 800 > customers a premium for using them. This might be a way to free up 800 numbers since there was mention of a shortage. 800 could be for no-way-could-there-possibly-be-a-charge-toll- free and 8xx could be for toll-free-but-information-costs-extra. Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Or just continue using 900/976 for that purpose. 900 is 'toll-free' to the caller (like 800 the carriage is charged to the IP who collects it with the charges for his service). ------------------------------ From: NetWerks@ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Harper) Subject: Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO Date: 18 Oct 1994 07:36:58 GMT Organization: Netcom In Les Reeves writes: > After giving the operator Pat's name and city, and waiting about 45 > seconds, I was told that there were two listings, one non-published > and one unlisted. Hmmm. I asked for another name and the operator > informed me that I had used up my two searches. If you have two numbers, it's still considered one search. Two searches consititutes the operator to clear the screen and input another name into the database. Sounds like you were taken advantage of from what you said. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Oct 94 16:22:16 EDT From: mark@legend.akron.oh.us (Mark E Daniel) Subject: Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO In article TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > operator requests it ... but then, how were *you* to know a call to > an 800 number costs you money? ... remember the astrologers I was at a COCOT payphone a few weeks ago and had the bright idea of wanting to call 1 800 555 1212 to find out the 800-number to Greyhound so I could find out where the local station was (I was in Downtown Cleveland BTW) and it wanted .75 for the first 3 minutes. I hung up and got an Ameritech operator to complete the call for me, which the phone was gracious enough to call. :) After I got the info, I called the 800 number. It let that go through without a problem. I HATE COCOTs! There should be a regulatory body for these people. Maybe someone in the know could meet with them once a month and tell them how to really handle phone calls. I've half thgought of typing up something to let people know that they won't be able to use their voicemail or pagers from these phones. But sometimes a COCOT is all there is in an area. It's depressing. mark@legend.akron.oh.us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is a regulatory body for 'those people'. It is called the Federal Communications Commission. How effective it is can be debated. In some matters, the FCC is ineffectual. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Testing 1-800-CALL-INFO Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 10:27:21 PDT > been different. I wonder if MCI is using any sort of legitimate data- > base from the local telcos or if they have strung together some sort > of outdated cross-reference books where half the entries are out of > date and a couple years old. Sounds like a ripoff to me; best limit > use of the service to coin phones (Genuine Bell or COCOT, I don't care) > and of course be prepared to deposit the 75 cents in coins when the > operator requests it ... but then, how were *you* to know a call to Would this work? I was under the impression that only AT&T had the equipment to handle coin calls. Could an 800 service request coins from a coin phone? Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No it cannot. I was only joking. AT&T is the only carrier with arrangements to collect coins in payphones, and that goes back to the relationship they had with the various Bell Companies for so many years until about a decade ago. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Charging for 800 Calls (was Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO) Date: 18 Oct 1994 18:38:59 GMT Organization: NEARnet, Cambridge, MA In article TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to kravitz@foxtail.com (Jody Kravitz): > When I asked why there was a charge for a call to an 800 number the > answer I got was that the call itself is free; what I would be paying > for was the information provided as a result. This is basically the > answer all the information providers via 800 phrase their answer: > carriage itself is indeed 'free' or reverse charged. You pay for the > information we give you while chatting. PAT] I suppose this makes some sense. Imagine a law office that provides an 800 number, to make it easier for clients to reach them from out of state. If I use that number to call my lawyer, I wouldn't be surprised to be billed later for the time that we spent on the phone. The kicker is that I would also expect to be billed for the time if I called their normal number. In fact, I would expect the bill to be the same in either case -- I'm paying for the lawyer's time, not the phone service. The giveaway that the charge in 800-CALL-INFO is for the information is that they charge by the query, not by the call or minutes. If you call and just chat with the operator (asking about the service, as several of the posters did, or negotiating payment options), you shouldn't be charged. Barry Margolin BBN Internet Services Corp. barmar@near.net ------------------------------ From: jbucking@pinot.callamer.com (Jeff Buckingham) Subject: Charges For Calling 800 Numbers Date: 18 Oct 1994 02:38:33 GMT Organization: Call America, San Luis Obispo CA USA Earth Sol I work in the long distance/operator services business and MCI does not have the right to charge people for calling 800 numbers. The FCC just clarified this within the last few weeks. My suggestion is not to block 800 but just refuse to pay any charges to 800 numbers wihen they appear on the local phone bill. The local phone company will not disconnect service for these types of charges. Jeff Buckingham (jbucking@callamerica.com) Call America 4251 South Higura Street, Suite 800, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-545-5100 (Voice) 805-541-7007 (Fax) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: MCI disputes that they are charging you for calling their number. They say they are charging you for providing information. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Oct 94 19:50 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* Greetings. The wave of publicity for the MCI 800-CALL-INFO nationwide directory assistance service is putting into sharp focus the utter stupidity of *any* 800 numbers being allowed to be charged to the caller. Even if one doesn't assume a rash of "caller pays services" being marketed behind 800 numbers, the mere existence of this one heavily advertised number will result in consumer confusion ("I thought 800 numbers were free?!") and many businesses being forced to program their phone systems to block 800 numbers as they currently do 900 numbers. (Many phone systems do not have the ability to block on other than a full area code basis -- and many businesses might well choose to block the entire code in any case out of fear of other charging 800 numbers popping up without warning). And of course, most people don't have phone systems with programmable area code/prefix blocking -- are the telcos going to offer free 800 number blocking now? And then what about the conventional "callee pays" 800 numbers that most people have to use on a frequent basis? How will they reach those and still block the chargeable 800 numbers, which might have any arbitrary charge associated with them? I had thought that recent FCC decisions (attempting to crack down on "adult conversation" lines using 800 recharging schemes) were requiring that a formal, pre-existing billing agreement (specifically accepting such charges) be in place before such charging could be done. How does 800-CALL-INFO fit into this? Having 800 numbers that charge the caller is far worse than 900 or 976 numbers! At least with the latter two you always knew that calls to those prefixes would cost the caller. But if 800 numbers start to charge callers, with no obvious way for the caller to know which calls will charge, how much they will cost (is there any limit?), and no generally available mechanism to block those charging calls, it's a blueprint for the demise of 800 service. As far as I can tell, caller charging 800 numbers are simply an attempt at an "end-run" around 900 blocking, and they should simply be banned. The carriers/telcos should not be permitted to use the one area code that has finally been firmly established in people's minds as "toll free" for chargeable calls. Businesses with conventional 800 numbers should be outraged that the value of their 800 numbers will be reduced by consumer confusion and possible blocking -- and they should make their feelings known to their local telcos and long distance carriers. The telcos, carriers, and the FCC should take action immediately to put a stop to the entire ill-conceived concept of 800 numbers that bill to the calling party. --Lauren-- P.S. I have a call in to MCI consumer affairs (800-695-4405) on this issue. I'll report back about what they have to say officially about this. The 102220 operator who gave me the number made a point of telling me (after we finished talking about 1-800-CALL-INFO) that at least the MCI consumer affairs number was still a *toll-free* 800 number. How wonderful. --LW-- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would you also ban 1-800-CALL-ATT? As memory serves, you can place long distance calls via that number and one of the options is 'press (x) to have this call billed to the number you are calling from ...' Would you ban all the long distance companies which use some 800 number as a way to reach their switch when other access is unavailable (such as 10xxx being blocked) under the same rationale, or is this National Pick On MCI Week? Unfortunatly, the established method of getting directory assistance (by dialing areacode-555-1212) is monopolized by AT&T and the telcos who properly suck up to them. No matter who you have as your presubscribed long distance carrier, what happens when you dial areacode-555-1212? Well, your call goes to AT&T and they charge you 75 cents! So MCI is charging 75 cents just like AT&T, for two requests just like AT&T, but how are they supposed to get access? I guess they could go on 900 and do it, but the trouble with 900 is its rotten reputation these days. Maybe they could use 700 (since all carriers get to use the entire 700 space as they wish). PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:14:20 EDT From: Stephen Tihor Subject: 800-Number Billing Given the numebr of toll restrictor schemes that can not easilly block 800 number calls I think what we wought to be petioning the FCC to establish is the principle that a caller to an 800 number can _not_ be presumed to have the autority to authorize billing to the calling number. If one wants to sell information that way get them to provide some other billing mechanism. The current scheme can not be blocked by a "reasonable man" without heroic efforts and is an unfair burden. ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Billable 800 Service Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 14:45:08 GMT 800 service was designed to allow a business to attract prospective customers by offering something free. Devices which attract prospective customers are called advertising. The called party is generally billed more for inbound 800 calls than for other calls of the same distance and duration. The premium is payment for advertising. Pat correctly points out that a toll-free call to an 800 number has often been used to buy something -- information, merchandise, or services, paid-for by out-of-band means such as credit cards. He also points out that Western Union Telegraph Company has, for many years, offered its services via 800 numbers, and used in-band billing to the calling telephone number. The advertising works! Today, when we dial a 900 or 976 number, the law requires the service-provider to announce the cost of the call and to offer the caller the opportunity to end the call before any service has been dispensed, to avoid being billed for it. On my test-call to 800-CALL-INFO, I was merely asked for a city, state, and name to be looked up. I was never told that a charge was being applied to my telephone bill. After I provided a city and name, and was given a telephone number, the operator offered to connect me, at MCI's "regular low rate" or something similar. Had I not listened to the radio commercials or read this Digest, I would very likely have had the impression that charges only applied if the connection offer was accepted. I propose that 800 service-providers which apply charges to the caller's phone bill be subject to the same regulations which apply to 900 and 976 service-providers. Warn the caller and offer a quick exit. Perhaps after a few years, and after the demise of the public expectation that 800 numbers are free calls, this regulation can be relaxed. At that time, the premium price paid by recipients of 800 calls should also dissappear -- the 800 number will lose its advertisement value. If it doesn't attract prospective customers, I'll discontinue advertising an 800 number and simply offer the 908 number which appears below. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For many, many years, calls to 555-1212 were also free. Do the operators there now announce the fact that your call to that number costs 75 cents? Local calls to 411 used to be free and there is no announcement made when dialing that there is now a charge ... and yes, in some places directory assistance offers to make the connection afterward for the low price of thirty cents or something like that. People, you can protest all you want and say you are not going to pay for a call to 800-CALL-INFO but in the case of 555-1212 the 75 cent charge is tariffed. If 800-CALL-INFO is also tariffed by MCI, and I have no reason to suspect it is not, then you *will* pay for that also or risk disconnection of service. The rule about being allowed to renege on payment to information providers only applies with 900/976 and probably with *non-tariffed* guys on the 800 side like the astrologers and the sex lines. Whenever a service is *tariffed* then the law says you pay. Ignorance is not an excuse, although it is probably sufficient one time for a goodwill writeoff. The only answer, as Lauren and others point out, is to disallow any so-called 'in-band' billing to telephone numbers via 800. You have to have a 900/976 number if you want telco to bill, or conversely, you must do credit card or open account or prepayment if you want to give information on 800 (or make no charge at all, such as airlines, etc). I would also require everyone who wishes to bill to a telephone number to subscribe to the national database of 'no collect' or 'billed number screening' subscribers, and require AT&T/MCI/Sprint (the three joint- proprietors of that database) to make it available fairly at arms-length to all subscribers. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #401 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa00236; 18 Oct 94 21:08 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA27605; Tue, 18 Oct 94 16:30:39 CDT Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA27595; Tue, 18 Oct 94 16:30:34 CDT Date: Tue, 18 Oct 94 16:30:34 CDT From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9410182130.AA27595@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #402 TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Oct 94 16:31:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 402 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Dynamic Negotiation in the Privacy Wars (Ross E. Mitchell) Virtual Phone Numbers Are Not the Same as Real Ones (Paul Robinson) Will Video Dial Tone Have the Same Old Vices? (John Robert Grout) Voice, Data, Video All at Once? (Greg Corson) A and B Boxes (Clive D.W. Feather) Cellular Local/Long Distance Problem (Jeff Bamford) MCI Local Service in Chicago? (Robert A. Book) Do I REALLY Need an EIR? (Mike Lyman) What Does *67 Do? (Robert Patterson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 00:46:06 EDT From: Ross E Mitchell Subject: Dynamic Negotiation in the Privacy Wars The following article, which I co-authored, has just appeared in the November/December 1994 issue of MIT's Technology Review. This article is distributed with permission of the publisher. The entire issue is available on the World Wid Web. The home page can be found at: http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena/org/t/techreview/www/tr.html If you would like to re-post this article elsewhere, please be sure to include the Copyright notice. Also, if you discuss "dynamic negotiation" in relation to electronic privacy issues, I would appreciate it if you would credit me as the source of the term/concept. ----------------------------------- Dynamic Negotiation in the Privacy Wars Ross E. Mitchell and Judith Wagner Decew New telecommunications technologies are undermining our ability to remain anonymous. The situation has inspired a sensible solution that would make privacy self-regulating. People want information about others but are reticent to divulge it about themselves. Nowhere is this conflict more apparent than in the telephone feature known as caller identification, or caller ID, which allows those receiving calls to see the telephone number and name of the caller before answering the phone. Telephone companies are promoting and installing caller ID throughout the country. Proponents of the technology argue that it provides a valuable service to those pestered by obscene or harassing phone calls or persistent telemarketing. But some privacy advocates vehemently disagree, maintaining that callers should be able to choose to remain anonymous. In a world of interlinked computer networks and massive data banks, they say, people already give away too much personal information without their knowledge and consent. They further worry that the prospect of identification will deter anonymous police tipsters and callers to hot lines for drug abusers, AIDS victims, or runaways. There is, however, a logical and intuitive way to implement this technology that should satisfy both camps. This new way of thinking about privacy regulation, which we call "dynamic negotiation," permits us to enjoy the benefits of new telecommunications technologies - including, but not limited to, caller ID - without sacrificing our right to privacy. Most caller ID systems automatically release the caller's phone number. To prevent this information from being divulged for a particular call, the caller must enter a code (typically *67) before dialing the number. In other words, callers must take an extra step to retain the privacy that they had taken for granted. They must learn how to block transmission of the data, and must remember to dial the code each time. This is known as "per-call" blocking. Some phone systems allow "per-line" blocking - the caller's number is kept private by default and is released only when the caller enters an "unblocking" code. But in rules scheduled to take effect next April, the Federal Communications Commission has decided that the potential public value of caller ID outweighs the privacy concerns of those who want automatic blocking of numbers. The commission stated that per-line blocking was "unduly burdensome" and ruled that on interstate calls, only per-call blocking is to be permitted -- preempting state regulations that allow per-line blocking. We propose an alternative - a system that allows people to dynamically negotiate the degree of privacy they wish to sacrifice or maintain. Here's how such a system would work with caller ID. Initially, all phone subscribers' lines would, by default, block the release of the caller's number. Subscribers could choose to release their number on a per-call basis by dialing an unblocking code (other than *67). So far, this is just per-line blocking. But in the system we suggest, phones with caller ID displays can also be set up to automatically refuse calls when the number has not been provided by the caller. When an anonymous call is attempted, the phone doesn't ring. The thwarted caller hears a short recorded message that to complete the call, the originating phone number must be furnished. This message then instructs the caller what code to dial to give out the number. Otherwise, the call is incomplete and the caller is not charged. Thus, a caller has the chance to decide whether a call is important enough that it is worth surrendering anonymity. This solution preserves choice and ensures privacy. Callers can control, through a dynamic and interactive process, when to give out their numbers; recipients can refuse anonymous calls. Most callers, of course, will want to release their number when calling friends and associates. And if such calls dominate their use of the phone, they might choose to change the default on their line so that it automatically releases their number unless they dial in a blocking code. Thus, a dynamic negotiation system may well lead many people to change from per-line to per-call blocking - precisely what the phone companies and the FCC favor. But when these customers change their default setting, they will know what they are choosing and why; they will be actively consenting to give out their numbers as a matter of course. Most businesses will want to take all calls, whether numbers are provided or not. But certain establishments might want to reject anonymous calls - for example, pizzerias that want incoming numbers for verification to avoid bogus orders. Most callers will happily unblock their numbers when such a business asks them to. Some display units that can be purchased for use with caller ID are already able to reject anonymous calls, but they are a far cry from the dynamic negotiation system that we propose. With these caller ID units, every call, whether accepted or not, is considered to have been answered - and charged to the caller. But a call that is rejected because of its anonymity should entail no charge. This requires that the call be intercepted by the phone company's central office switchboard before it reaches the recipient's line. Although inspired by the debate over caller ID, the concept of dynamic negotiation of privacy can apply to other telecommunications technologies. One likely candidate is electronic mail. With traditional paper mail, people have always had the right - and the ability - to send anonymous correspondence. Delivery of the envelope requires neither that a letter is signed nor that a return address is provided. On the receiving end, people have the right to discard anonymous mail unopened. Applying the principles of dynamic negotiation, senders of electronic mail would have the option to identify or not identify themselves. Recipients could reject as undeliverable any e-mail with an unidentified sender. The sender would then have the option to retransmit the message - this time with a return address. As with caller ID, the users negotiate among themselves. The system itself remains privacy neutral. Several criteria guide such an approach: the need to protect individual privacy for all parties to a communication, the importance of letting new technologies flourish, and the need for national guidelines to provide consistency in system use and privacy protection. Since technological innovation proceeds rapidly, we must continually examine how best to make possible new features while preserving or enhancing our existing level of privacy. The technology for implementing dynamic negotiation is already available. All that is needed is for the FCC to amend its recent ruling. If the FCC refuses, the House Telecommunications Subcommittee should propose legislation to require dynamic negotiation. With this system as the national norm, privacy concerns would become self-regulating. ----------------------------------- ROSS E. MITCHELL, based in Newton, Mass., is a designer of telecommunications software. JUDITH WAGNER DeCEW is a professor of philosophy at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.; she is working on a book on legal and ethical disputes over privacy protection, to be published by Princeton University Press. ------------------------------------ TECHNOLOGY REVIEW ON-LINE COPYRIGHT NOTICE Technology Review (ISSN 0040-1692) , Reg. U.S. Patent Office Copyright 1994, Technology Review, all rights reserved. Published eight times each year by the Association of Alumni and Alumnae of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The editors seek diverse views, and authors' opinions do not represent the official policies of their institutions or those of MIT. Articles may not under any circumstances be resold or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from Technology Review. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:51:03 EST Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA From: Paul Robinson Subject: Virtual Phone Numbers are Not the Same as Real Ones Due to new hardware and software, Bell Atlantic offers several new features for telephones including a "virtual telephone number" feature, which is marketed under the service mark "Identa-Ring". A virtual telephone number causes the ring cadence to change when that number is dialed in place of the "real" number, "real" being the one generated for ANI or Caller-Id when the line with a virtual number places a call. A real number will ring with "RING! (5 second pause) RING!", repeated until answered. A virtual phone number generates a ring similar to the one used in Great Britain, which consists of "RING-RING! (5 second pause) RING-RING!", repeated until answered. One day I was out of change at a pay phone and didn't want to try to find my credit cards which were back in my bag, so I decided to call my number collect. I dialed 0+301+ the virtual, Identa-Ring number and when the automated attendant asked me to dial my credit card or 11 for collect, I dialed 11 and got a recording saying the number did not accept collect calls. That's funny; I've never asked Bell Atlantic to refuse collect calls. I tried MCI's 1-800-COLLECT. It also told me that my number refuses collect calls as does AT&T's 1-800-32-10ATT. I walked back, got my credit card and placed the call. Once I got hone I tried some tests. I have three phone lines in my house. I used the restricted one to call the other line collect and it accepted it; the other way was refused. So I called repair service and explained the problem, giving them the main number all three lines are billed under (the one that a collect call works to). I had the repair service woman call me back so I could demonstrate the problem from my third line. I demonstrated that if I called my number collect it refuses it. If I call the number she had called me on, the call goes through for collect and is stopped because it is busy. So she suggested that maybe it has something to do with the identa-ring number. I had to go and find an old bill with the number on it; I don't even use the main number of that line (the only person who calls that number is my sister and the occasional telemarketer.) I tried calling that number collect and the system attempted to do so; I sheepishly admitted that this is the problem, e.g. that an identa-ring number can't be called collect. So this capability works either as a problem or as a feature; if you only give out a virtual telephone number, people can't call you collect on it, but neither can you. But you still have the main number if you can remember it. ------------------------------ From: jg2560@cesn7.cen.uiuc.edu (John Robert Grout) Subject: Will Video Dial Tone Have the Same Old Vices? Date: 18 Oct 1994 20:08:19 GMT Organization: U of I College of Engineering Workstations Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu Two incidents (one in the late 1980's near where I used to live in NJ, and one here in Illinois in 1994) have made me wonder about the role of the US Federal government in guaranteeing competition in the new, supposed Golden Age to come of "video dial tone" (telecom-carried television programming). In the late 1980's, a condo complex in Mahwah, NJ wanted to set up their own program delivery system which would act like a cable operator ... it would combine community antenna service and redistribution of cable networks fed to them through their own large satellite dish. When the complex tried to get zoning approval for the satellite dish, the township government fought them. During the ensuing legal proceedings, it was revealed that the township government was acting mostly to protect the exclusive cable franchise they had signed with the local cable operator ... and (if I remember correctly) they won. Earlier this year, the cities of Champaign and Urbana in Illinois signed a new, fifteen-year exclusive cable franchise with the local cable operator (Time-Warner of Champaign-Urbana), who promised a new system (the "Gateway System") to provide many channels at low cost ... but the catch involved did not become public knowledge until six weeks ago. To avoid stringing fiber-optic cable to households (which, admittedly, is expensive), Time-Warner will only string fiber-optic cable to whole neighborhoods and convert them all, en masse, to the "Gateway System". However, when a neighborhood is converted, the conventional cable into their homes will have only TWELVE unscrambled, uncompressed channels. Receiving any of the others must be done with a converter box which serves as a TV tuner for every TV, every VCR on which one wants to pick up a separate channel, and every "picture-in-picture" feature; and each one _must_ have a separate box. Because the boxes are brand-new, the FCC is allowing Time-Warner of C-U to charge $4 a month for them ... and, because they are descramblers (not just decompressors), they can't be purchased. To make things even worse, the initial software release for the stupid boxes wouldn't even change the channel at a preset time to allow recording of multiple programs on different channels ... but, in recent weeks, Time-Warner announced that a new version of the software will allow such things. Since a clear majority of Time-Warner's customers in Champaign-Urbana have expanded basic service (about 35 channels) without any premium channels which require a descrambler (e.g., HBO, Cinemax), this franchise agreement has become a political hot potato (e.g., a local attorney running for State Assembly is a law partner in the firm which represented Time-Warner during the franchise negotiations). In the discussion which has followed the announcement of the "converter box" requirement for the "Gateway System", people here are beginning to question the advisability of allowing municipalities to sign _any_ such exclusive franchise agreement for television programming. Picture the following scenario ... It's October 2004... Ameritech (our local telephone company) now provides "video dial tone" throughout Champaign and Urbana, and several different program providers (ITT/Cablevision, IBM and SunSoft, among others) offer their wares through Ameritech. Even though Federal law doesn't require a program provider whose programs are distributed through a common carrier to obtain a franchise agreement with a municipality [the result of a recent real-life court decision], program providers and municipalities are still allowed to negotiate such agreements voluntarily [are they? will they be?]. Since many residents have complained about the high cost of programming delivered through Ameritech, IBM offers the cities of Champaign and Urbana a wonderful deal ... they'll provide programs at a lower cost for everyone ... but there's a catch: Champaign and Urbana must sign a franchise agreement which will require Ameritech to unplug all rival program providers from its network in Champaign-Urbana. Back to the present ... I would like to see Federal laws enacted which will prevent consumers from being tied by their municipalities into the kind of provider-friendly practices we have endured here in Champaign-Urbana ... such as the Gateway System's converter box, Time-Warner of C-U's refusals (before the Gateway System) to carry Showtime (because their parent company owns rivals HBO and Cinemax), and the hypothetical right of program providers to voluntarily franchise themselves through municipalities. To borrow a slogan from the candidate running against the attorney mentioned above ... once common carriers provide "video dial tone" to an area, I believe that local municipalities should be "unplugged" from any power to make exclusive agreements with program providers. John R. Grout Center for Supercomputing R & D j-grout@uiuc.edu Coordinated Science Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why John, that would take all the fun out of local politics. Imagine the Chicago City Council for example, with one less source of bribe money. Nah, your idea will never work. PAT] ------------------------------ From: milo@mcs.com (Greg Corson) Subject: Voice, Data, Video All at Once? Date: 17 Oct 1994 23:36:36 CDT Organization: MCSNet Subscriber Account Chicagos First Public-Access Internet! Ok ...this is probably a question that's been done to death ... but here goes anyway. I'm trying to figure out how to setup a private "internet" between a number of locations scattered across the US. There is a fair amount of data, fax, telephone and videophone calling between these locations and we want to get it all onto a private network where we can consolidate all the data and have better control. Right now each site uses a combination of dedicated ISDN and analog lines/modems. What I'm looking for is some sort of "all in one" setup that works as a phone switch for analog, ISDN, PBX-style phones and can accept sync, async or ethernet as data inputs. On the phone company side would be something like PRImary rate ISDN, a frame relay cloud or something similar. Most of the suppliers I've talked to have offered only very expensive solutions that involve stringing together a lot of boxes from different companies. I'm thinking there must be a better, more integrated solution by now. Whatever the network is that connects all the sites together, within the site we need 10 voice phones, FAX, at least one routed ethernet and in some cases a switched async connection with another site running around 128kbps. An automated operator feature is also required to answer incomming calls and play messages about store hours and such. Any site must be able to contact any other site through the private network using voice, FAX, videophone, ethernet or by the async line. The sites must also be able to make and receive normal local/long distance telephone calls. If anyone knows of some kind of box that knows how to integrate all these functions, please contact me. As I've said, all the non-integrated systems I've looked at come out too expensive because of all the hardware needed to interface one communications "world" with another. Greg Corson Virtual World Entertainment Inc. (312) 243-6515 milo@mcs.com ------------------------------ Subject: A and B Boxes Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1994 14:04:06 GMT From: Clive D.W. Feather Pat: The following just appeared on uk.telecom. I'm sure your readers would be interested. From: flavell@v2.ph.gla.ac.uk (Alan J. Flavell) Subject: Re: Badly designed payphone Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 12:55:36 GMT I thought I would have a go at writing up the rudiments of the old button A/B boxes. I'm sure there are plenty of people on uk.telecom who can correct or expand any points. Are you sitting comfortably...? Remember that we are back in the days when only local calls could be dialled, all trunk calls had to be made through the operator. (Hmmm, well, that was the theory, eh Robin?). All coins referred to below are what we would now call "old" or "pre-decimal" coinage. And AFAICR local calls were always untimed. It its "normal state" the button A/B box had its handset active but the dial was inoperative, apart from digits 0 (for operator), 9 (for emergency) (and, I think, later on, 1 for transition to operator=100). The coin box accepted three different coins: the penny (1d), the sixpence (tanner) 6d, and the shilling (bob, 1/- , which was 12d for those who might not know that). When preparing for dialling a local call, one had to insert the correct fee, which at the time I remember was four pennies. Inserting the first coin had the effect of thrusting a bar aside, which disabled the handset microphone. The pennies collected in an internal bucket which acted as a kind of weighing machine - when four had been put in, the bucket dropped and enabled the dial to work. You then dialled the call and waited for the called party to answer, whereupon you would press button A. This deposited the contents of the internal bucket into the cash box, re-enabled the handset microphone, and brought the bar back across the coin slots and put the dial out of action again. As was remarked in an earlier posting, you could hear enough to recognise who had answered, and if you were not satisfied you could take the same action as you would if you got busy tone or no-one answered, namely to press button B. This caused the line to be disconnected and the contents of the internal bucket to be dropped into the coin-return chute, A noisy clockwork timer was then heard which kept the line disconnected for some tens of seconds, presumably to make utterly sure that the call had been disconnected before letting you try again. Just to remark that if you didn't have four pennies, you could not make a local call. No chance of inserting a sixpence or a shilling, and forgo the change, as they could not weigh down the bucket. In such a situation you might persuade the operator to do it for you. Now we come to operator connected calls. What I have not yet mentioned is that inside the coin box, the pennies passed a chime and the other coins passed a bell (single bong for sixpence, two bongs for a shilling), with a microphone inside the coin box to pick up the sounds. To make an operator call, you did NOT insert any money (otherwise the operator would not have been able to hear you), just dialled 0 and (after a sometimes considerable wait) got asked for the desired number. The operator would then tell you how much money to insert, and would count the jangles and bongs to see you had done it right. In the event of a disagreement you could not argue (your mike was dead after inserting the first coin, as I said) but had to press button B and start the whole thing again. The operator would then attempt to connect you and in the event of success would say the immortal words "Please press button A, caller" after which you had 3 minutes. You would then be offered the opportunity to insert a further 3 minutes worth or be disconnected. And so on. There were umpteen ways circulating amongst us schoolboys for getting local calls free. (Getting operator calls free was a matter of being able to make convincing jangles and dongs, I guess). This posting should not be read as a confession that I ever did any of these things ;-) The slotted pennies trick enabled pennies to be inserted without thrusting the bar aside and disabling the microphone. Five slotted pennies would be needed to get the right weight for the bucket to fall and enable the dial. After finishing the call, one pressed button B and recovered the slotted pennies. However, if discovered, there could be a prosecution for defacing coins of the realm, so it was better to use penny-sized disks, then the charge would only be misuse of the Postmaster General's electricity. (Is it really true that someone got off an earlier charge of "stealing the Postmaster General's electricity" on the grounds that it couldn't be theft because he hadn't actually taken any of it away with him?). Later models of box were designed to prevent the slotted pennies trick. Back-dialling was a reputed method of winding the dial up to the "free" positions 0 or 9 but only releasing it far enough to dial the desired number of pulses. One school friend claimed to have mastered the trick, but never successfully demonstrated it to me. There were several quite different designs of dial mechanism (as we assiduously read up in Atkinson in the local reference library) and this probably depended on getting a dial of a vulnerable type. I've forgotten the details. Briskly rattling the rest was another way to create dial pulses without needing a working dial. This was said to produce a characteristic irregular noise at the exchange, alerting the engineer and perhaps resulting in a call trace. As I said, 0 and 9 could be dialled freely, so a number such as 20109 would be a doddle. It's all a long while ago now... you can imagine the nostalgia seeing that Papa Stour box on the tv news. [Papa Stour 224 was apparently the last A&B box, and has just been replaced. Most went during the 1970s. Papa Stour 224 is +44 595 73 224.] Clive D.W. Feather Santa Cruz Operation clive@sco.com Croxley Centre Phone: +44 1923 813541 Hatters Lane, Watford Fax: +44 1923 813811 WD1 8YN, United Kingdom ------------------------------ From: jeffb@audiolab.uwaterloo.ca (Jeff Bamford) Subject: Cellular Local/Long Distance Problem Organization: Audio Research Group, University of Waterloo Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 10:24:42 -0400 Okay, here is the background: A couple weeks ago I went to Toronto, Ontario with a friend and brought along my Cell Phone. Since it was the weekend my air time was free, so I thought I'd use it. From Toronto I dialed back to Hamilton (a long distance call from a regular phone) calling my home phone number, I dialed as 905-570-xxxx. I got the message that "Long Distance Call, Dial 1 blah blah blah". I then tried calling the number to retrieve messages from the Telco's voice mail service, this number was 905-312-xxxx. This call went through as if it were a local call, i.e. there was no message to indicate that it was long distance. On the bill I was charged for the call to voice mail service. Cantel (Cellco) indicated that it would be Bell Canada's (Telco) that let it go through. They said they just put the call into Bell's network and whatever happens to it after that would be Bell's doing, i.e. In their mind, I dialed a number and it was long distance and since Bell accepted it I was dinged for the long distance charge. The Bell woman that I talked to was hopeless, she really didn't understand why it went through but wasn't willing to give me someone else to talk to about the problem. In this case I knew that Toronto-Hamilton was long distance but there could obviously be a time when I don't know that something is long distance. I had thought that maybe the 905-312 exchange was in a community between Toronto and Hamilton for billing purposed and hence local on a cell phone. This is the only time that this has ever happened. Any other time I call a long distance number the call does not go through unless I dial the 1 first. I always dial calls as 10 digits because outside of my home area code local calls don't go without the local area code, so that is not the problem. Anyone have ideas on this one? Jeff Bamford jsbamford@uwaterloo.ca -- NeXT Mail welcome Office/Lab: +1 519 885 1211 x3814 Fax: +1 519 746 8115 ------------------------------ From: rbook@Tezcat.Com (Robert A. Book) Subject: MCI Local Service in Chicago? Date: 18 Oct 1994 11:25:39 -0500 Organization: Tezcat.COM, Chicago I recently heard a news report on the radio that MCI will begin offering local telephone service in the Chicago area. As a Chicago resident intensly frustrated with the local provider (Ameritech), I want to be first in line for this. I called MCI and they said that they had planned to go on-line with this by the end of this year, but FCC regulatory problems were slowing things down, and they were hoping for the first half of next year. Does anyone know anything more about this? How will it work? In particular, (how) will MCI be able to provide the dialtone and local service on already existing wires? Robert Book rbook@tezcat.com (312) 465-8757 ------------------------------ From: Michael_Lyman@sat.mot.com (Mike Lyman) Subject: Do I REALLY Need an EIR? Reply-To: Michael_Lyman@sat.mot.com Organization: Motorola Satellite Communications Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 22:04:14 GMT Regarding the use of Equipment Identity checking in GSM or DCS1800 systems, I trust that those systems currently deployed are not using this mechanism ( since it's probably not available ? ). Has anyone working in any functioning GSM-type system really missed having an EIR? In general, I question the real usefullness or practicality of an EIR to prevent fraud. I'm wondering if the cost of purchase and maintaining this piece of equipment justifies it's existance? As a side issue, is the prevalence of fraud in GSM networks of the same magnitude as in traditional analog cellular networks (and can they be defeated by IMEI checking)? Michael Lyman Motorola S.E.D. ( Iridium ) Chandler, Az. lyman@sat.mot.com ------------------------------ From: rpatt@netcom.com (Robert Patterson) Subject: What Does *67 do? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 16:01:55 GMT I live in the San Francisco Bay Area under the auspices of PacBell. They do not offer CallerID. When I dial *67 (apparently the CallerID on/off signal) I get a couple of clicks and a dial tone. The switching department at PacBell vehemently claims that nothing is happening. Anyone with an idea? Bob Patterson (rpatt@netcom.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What's happening is that the local switch is accepting your command to 'do not pass calling number ID to call recipient' just as it is supposed to do. And then, it proceeds not to give out that information ... which it wouldn't do anyway under the present circumstances there, but that is beside the point. They are using a version of software which allows for *67 and it is probably easier for them to leave it as is rather than disable the use of that command (which does nothing anyway). For instance, in some exchanges in Chicago which were not Caller-ID equipped, meaning calls from phones in that area showed up as 'out of area' on caller identification boxes elsewhere, *67 still worked as you describe. I guess they figured soon enough it would have a purpose, so they just left it alone. I imagine PacBell feels the same way. Why bother to change/eliminate it everywhere then possibly have to go and put it back in at a future time. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #402 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa11150; 20 Oct 94 21:51 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA26371; Thu, 20 Oct 94 16:22:06 CDT Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA26361; Thu, 20 Oct 94 16:22:01 CDT Date: Thu, 20 Oct 94 16:22:01 CDT From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9410202122.AA26361@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #403 TELECOM Digest Thu, 20 Oct 94 16:22:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 403 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC Q & A on Broadband PCS Auctions (Bob Keller) "The Road to Banning Encryption" (Gordon Jacobson) AT&T 800 Directory Release (Monty Hoyt) Comparison of Missouri Intrastate Rates (Will Martin) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 13:37:54 EDT From: Bob Keller Subject: FCC Q & A on Broadband PCS Auctions ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING BROADBAND PCS AUCTIONS In late August, 1994, the Commission conducted a series of seminars to familiarize the public with the rules that will apply to the upcoming auctions of licenses to provide Personal Communications Services in the 2 GHz band (broadband PCS). Attendees were invited to submit written questions to the Commission, which many did. In addition, over the last several weeks the Commission has received numerous informal inquiries concerning our auction rules for broadband PCS. In this Public Notice, the Commission hopes to provide guidance to prospective bidders on broadband PCS licenses. Some issues regarding the Commission's broadband PCS auction rules are addressed in the recently released reconsideration order (see Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order in PP Docket No. 93-253, FCC 94-264 (released October 19, 1994)) while others are still subject to reconsideration. These issues are not treated in this Public Notice. Some of the inquiries we received have posed similar questions in slightly different ways that reflect the questioner's particular circumstances. Rather than provide specific guidance to some but not all questioners, the Commission has recast the questions in general language that incorporates the most commonly asked questions. Questions and answers are grouped in the following categories: general questions, questions pertaining to the auction process, and questions pertaining to designated entity applicants. General Questions Q: How will applicants be notified if there is a problem with their Form 175 short-form applications? A: Shortly after the deadline for submission of Form 175 applications, the Commission will issue a Public Notice informing applicants of their status. That Public Notice will identify applications that are accepted, those that contain minor defects that may be resubmitted, and those that are rejected. It is each applicant's responsibility to review that Public Notice to determine the status of its Form 175 application. The Commission will not individually notify applicants of defects that may be corrected through resubmission. Q: Can an individual participate in the auction? A: In the broadband PCS auction for licenses in frequency blocks A and B, which is scheduled to begin on December 5, 1994, individuals may participate freely as applicants or as investors in applicants. The same will be true of our third broadband PCS auction -- for licenses in frequency blocks D and E. However, in the second auction, for licenses in frequency blocks C and F, only individuals who meet the eligibility requirements set forth in our Rules may participate. Q: What is the FCC doing to ensure that businesses acquiring licenses have the capital necessary to provide service and that they do not fail? A: The FCC does not provide any guarantees of success in the marketplace to winning bidders. Applicants are required to certify as part of their Form 175 short-form applications that they are financially qualified. The FCC does not require that applicants make a showing of their financial qualifications; however we take all certifications very seriously, and penalties for a false certification could include loss of any auction payments made, loss of other licenses held by the applicant, disqualification from future auctions, and possible criminal prosecution. Q: Where can I obtain information and maps regarding what area is within each BTA and MTA? A: On September 22, 1994, the FCC issued a Public Notice listing of all of the counties contained in each BTA and all of the BTAs contained in each MTA. This Public Notice (Report No. CW-94-02) is accessible on the Internet through anonymous ftp@fcc.gov, and copies of the Public Notice can be obtained through the FCC's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, by calling (202) 857-3800. The information contained in the Public Notice is based on material copyrighted by Rand McNally and Company. Maps of BTAs and MTAs can be obtained from the Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) under a licensing agreement PCIA has entered with Rand McNally & Company. Q: How will bidders be able to submit bids on broadband PCS licenses? A: On-site bidding will take place at The Postal Square Building, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C. (adjacent to Union Station). Bidders will also be able to submit bids through bid assistants via telephone, with bid confirmation transmitted via facsimile. The Commission is considering whether to enable bidders also to participate in the auction through remote computer access via a value added network. In a future Public Notice, the Commission will inform prospective bidders of the procedures if the latter option is to be made available. Q: What happens to a PCS license after the 10-year license term? Will the licensee have to be subjected to another auction? A: The legislation authorizing the FCC to conduct auctions specifically limits this authority to "initial" licenses, so renewal applications will not be subject to auction. The Commission has not yet set forth standards for renewal of PCS licenses. In the cellular services, however, licensees who have operated cellular systems in the public interest, and who have met all applicable performance requirements, are entitled to a renewal expectancy at the expiration of their initial license term. Q: What does it mean when the FCC says that no one can have more than 40 MHz of PCS spectrum in one area? A: This restriction, contained in Section 24.229(c) of the Commission's Rules, provides that no entity may be licensed to provide PCS to any particular geographic area over more than 40 MHz of spectrum. In addition, no person or entity is permitted to hold an attributable interest in PCS licensees that, when considered together, are licensed to provide PCS on more than 40 MHz of spectrum. This rule was promulgated to further the development of a competitive post-auction PCS market structure by ensuring that no entity could, in effect, "corner the market" on PCS spectrum. Q: Will the FCC grant all PCS licenses at the same time or will licenses be issued in the order in which they are auctioned? A: The FCC currently does not plan to delay the grant of any PCS license so as to coincide with the grant of any other PCS license. To do so would contravene our stated policy designed to foster the rapid initiation of new competitive services to the public. The time that will be required to review an auction winner's long-form application for a license will vary depending on the complexity of the information submitted, the resources available to the Commission for processing, whether any petitions to deny have been filed against the application, and the complexity of the issues raised in any such petitions. Q: If an auction winner defaults on its payment obligation, what would be the procedure for someone else to acquire that license? A: If an auction winner to whom a license has been granted defaults, the license will automatically be cancelled. The license will then revert to the Commission, and the Commission will re-auction the license in a later auction event. The public would be informed through public notices if licenses are to be re-auctioned. Q: Many of the likely applications of PCS technology involve direct interconnection with local exchange equipment and switches. Does this create an advantage for the local exchange carriers who are bidding on PCS licenses in the wireline service areas? What is the FCC doing to address the interconnection issue? A: If a LEC also owns a cellular system in its wireline service area, it is ineligible to own more than 10 MHz of PCS spectrum in that area. Thus, as a PCS operator, it would not be in a position to benefit from its LEC status vis-a-vis a competing 30 MHz PCS operator. The FCC has instituted a proceeding in which we are asking whether interconnection rates should continue to be set by agreement or by tariff. The Commission will use its authority under Title II of the Communications Act to monitor what is happening to make sure that non-RBOC licensees will not be discriminated against and we will be vigilant in our efforts to prevent abuses from arising. Questions Pertaining to the Auction Process Q: Why did the FCC choose such a complex auction process? A: The simultaneous multiple round auction design the FCC is using for PCS auctions has a couple of important advantages over the simpler, sequential auction design. First, the simultaneous multiple round design conveys to bidders the most information about the true value of licenses during the course of the auction, thereby improving bidders' confidence and enabling them to minimize the "winner's curse" (i.e., the tendency to overbid). In addition, in a sequential auction, the results of later auctions will likely tell a bidder too late that it should have bid (or not bid) on an earlier-auctioned license. By offering all substantially identical or complementary licenses at the same time, bidders will be better able to effectuate their aggregation strategies. This will tend to result in the creation of more efficient service that will bring greater competition, better service and lower prices to consumers. Q: The activity rules force bidders to bid in each round. Why should this be required? A: If there were no requirement that bidders place bids in each round of the auction, bidders would naturally tend to hold back, waiting to see what others bid. If a substantial number of bidders adopt this strategy, the Auction might proceed exceedingly slowly, or it might close prematurely. Activity rules are necessary to ensure that auctions progress at a reasonable pace and that useful information about the value of licenses is conveyed to bidders throughout the auction. Q: How will the FCC determine what licenses I may bid on in the auction? A: Bidders will be allowed to place bids only on licenses for which they applied on their FCC Form 175 application, but the precise amount of bidding eligibility (i.e., the amount of bids, in terms of MHz-pops, that a bidder may place in any round) will be determined by the amount of upfront payment submitted by the bidder prior to the auction. The FCC will translate the dollar amount of the upfront payment into a MHz-pop figure, and the computer system will not allow a bidder to enter a set of bids if the total number of MHz-pops represented by the licenses on which bids are placed exceeds the number of MHz-pops to which its upfront payment translates. If the bidder's eligibility drops during the course of the auction (due to bidding below the required activity level), the revised eligibility will be applied by the computer system. Therefore, in order to avoid having its eligibility reduced, a bidder must pay attention to the number of MHz-pops associated with each license on which it places bids, and ensure that its bidding in each round of the auction exceeds its required activity. Q: Could you explain the activity rules in terms a layman can understand? A: As explained above, each bidder's upfront payment will determine its "required activity level." The term "required activity level" refers to the number of MHz-pops on which a bidder must be "active" (i.e., submit a valid bid or hold the high bid from the previous round) to avoid having its eligibility reduced in future rounds. In stage I of the auction, each bidder must be active on of the MHz-pops on which it is eligible to bid. In stage II of the auction, each bidder must be active on of the MHz-pops on which it is eligible to bid. In stage III, each bidder must be active on all of the MHz-pops on which it is eligible to bid. Unless an activity rule waiver is applied, the following eligibility reduction will occur if a bidder's activity falls below the required activity level in a round: Auction Stage I: Loss of 3 MHz-pops in eligibility for each MHz-pop below required level Auction Stage II: Loss of 1.5 MHz-pops in eligibility for each MHz-pop below required level Auction Stage III: Loss of 1 MHz-pop in eligibility for each MHz-pop below required level The Commission has retained the discretion to reduce the required Stage III activity level by Public Notice in advance of each auction, but in no event will a bidder's required activity level in Stage III be less than 95 percent of the MHz-pops on which it is eligible to bid. Q: How do activity rule waivers work? Can an activity rule waiver be submitted by the bidder, or is it only entered automatically by the FCC if a bidder does not bid or if its bids fall below its required activity level? A: When a bidder's activity in a round falls below its required activity level, a waiver will automatically be applied if the bidder has a waiver available. In this event, however, a bidder will be offered the option of overriding the automatic waiver mechanism, enabling it to intentionally reduce its eligibility and save the waiver for later use. Bidders also will be able to submit an activity rule waiver "proactively". A bidder may wish to do so if it is unable or does not desire to bid in a particular round of the auction and wishes to ensure that the auction will not close in that round. (Submission of a proactive waiver keeps the auction open even if no other valid bids are submitted, but application of an automatic waiver will not.) Q: Is a bidder who withdraws a high bid in a round considered to be "active" on that license in the next round? A: Yes. Withdrawal of a high bid does not negate the fact that the bid was made and that it was the high bid. Bidders should keep in mind, however, that they may be required to pay a penalty if they withdraw a high bid. Q: How will bidders know when a round is over? A: The FCC will announce at the beginning of each round when the bid submission period will end. After the round results from the bid submission period are posted, we will announce the bid withdrawal period. This information will be available both at the auction site and over any value added network created for remote bidding. A countdown clock also will be provided to inform bidders as to the time remaining in each period. Q: How will auction results be made public? A: Results from each round of the auction will made available 1) at the auction site, 2) on the Internet, and 3) to bidders over the FCC BIDDER ONLINE value added network, if the FCC decides to offer the option of remote electronic bidding. Prospective bidders interested in the remote electronic bidding option must register with Business Information Network by November 15, 1994 by calling (800) 336-9246. Charges of $200 for the Set-up Kit and software and $23 per hour of online access will apply. Results posted on the Internet can be accessed at the following Internet address: anonymous ftp@fcc.gov Questions Pertaining to Designated Entity Applicants Q: What provisions are available for small businesses, rural telephone companies and businesses owned by minorities and/or women (the "designated entities") in the auction for MTA licenses on frequency blocks A and B? A: The FCC did not adopt special payment provisions to benefit designated entities in the bidding itself in this first auction. Thus, the bidding credits and installment payment plans that will be available in the auction for licenses on frequency blocks C and F (the "Entrepreneurs' Blocks) are not available in the auction that begins on December 5, 1994. The Commission's tax certificate policy, however, will apply to sales of block A and B licenses and to investments in certain applicants for these licenses. In addition, the FCC's partitioning policy with respect to rural telephone companies will apply to the MTA license auction. Rural telephone companies will be able to be licensed for partitioned broadband PCS service areas in one of two ways: 1) they may form consortia to bid on MTA licenses, with the license to be partitioned among the consortia members in the post-auction licensing process; or 2) through private post-licensing negotiation with an MTA licensee, they may obtain licenses for partitioned areas that are reasonably related to their wireline service areas. A proceeding is currently pending to determine whether the partitioning policy should be extended to businesses owned by minorities and/or women. See Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in PP Docket No. 93-253, FCC 94-198 (released August 2, 1994). Q: What are tax certificates and how do they benefit designated entities? A: Under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, the Commission may upon request grant tax certificates. A tax certificate enables the grantee to defer recognition of gain For tax purposes on the sale of an investment in a communications property. With respect to designated entities bidding on PCS licenses, the tax certificate policy could work in two ways. First, an investor in a minority- or women-owned PCS licensee would be able to defer the payment of capital gains tax upon the sale of its investment, if it satisfies certain conditions regarding reinvestment of the gain. Second, a non- designated entity PCS licensee would be entitled to deferral of gain if it transfers its license to a business owned by minorities and/or women, again subject to reinvestment conditions. The tax certificate policy is intended to serve both to attract investment capital to entities that have historically faced discrimination in gaining access to capital, and to encourage sales to minority- and women-owned firms. Q: How can a designated entity licensee avoid having to pay penalties if its owner dies during the holding period, causing the licensee to lose its designated entity status? A: In the event of the death of a designated entity owner, the licensee could make a request with the Commission for a waiver of the holding rule requirements and the unjust enrichment provisions applicable to installment payments and bidding credits. Q: If a license obtained with a bidding credit is transferred more than 10 years from the date of the initial license grant, would the bidding credit have to be refunded? A: No. Q: Has the FCC prepared a Designated Entities FCC Auction Guidebook? If so, how can I obtain a copy? A: The FCC has not prepared such a document. Law firms or trade associations such as the Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) may have developed such guidebooks. Q: Are there any "designated" financial institutions that will provide/offer funding to designated entities? Are there qualified brokers and/or consultants who are reputable, who can assist with the process? A: The FCC is not in a position to recommend specific potential sources of financing to prospective bidders. However, our Office of Communications Business Opportunities (formerly the Office of Small Business Activities) is available to provide assistance to individuals or groups seeking to enter the PCS industry. OCBO's telephone number is (202) 418-0990. Q: Are advance payments also discounted like the actual bid? A: The upfront payment for all entities bidding in the entrepreneurs' blocks is $0.015 per MHz pop. That is a 25 percent discount from the $0.02 per MHz pop required in the other auctions. In addition, the down payment for small businesses and minority and women-owned businesses will be calculated based on the bid price after the bidding credit is subtracted. So, if a small minority-owned firm bid $1 million, its total payment would be $750,000 after subtraction of the 25 percent bidding credit. The 10 percent down payment would be $75,000, one-half payable five business days after close of the auction and the other half due five business days after grant of the license. Q: Does a university (a non-profit institution) which applies for an "Entrepreneurs' Block" license it intends to use in training students in the development and use of PCS technology qualify as a designated entity? A: If the university meets our gross revenue and total assets tests it may qualify as an entrepreneur or as a small business. The Commission has adopted no PCS rules specifically benefitting universities or entities that wish to acquire licenses for training purposes. Q: Does the FCC have any guidelines regarding the incorporation date or length of time a minority- or women-owned business must have been in existence in order to bid in an auction? A: There are no requirements regarding the length of time a designated entity business must have been in existence before the auction. All affiliates of a new business will be counted toward applicable financial caps, however. Q: Can a designated entity use a limited partnership or a limited liability company or any other lawful structure, so long as control mechanisms are equivalent and within FCC guidelines? A: Yes. In fact, in the Fifth Report and Order the Commission has specified various guidelines for limited partnership applicants. Q: Can a major telecommunications company provide debt in any amount to a designated entity? A: Debt is not attributable unless it appears to be equity disguised as debt. Factors such as the interest rate and length of the repayment period would have to be considered. Q: Can a major telecommunications company enter into agreements with a number of designated entity applicants around the country for bidding purposes, so long as each designated entity remains in control? A: The rules applicable to investment in designated entities would apply to each such investment, and assuming that none of the designated entity applicants had applied for licenses in any of the same markets, the rules do not restrict such arrangements. Q: Can designated entities bid at the A and B band PCS auction? If so, do they receive any special benefits? A: Designated entities are free to bid in any auction. The only benefit available in the non-entrepreneurs blocks, however, is the tax certificate program for businesses owned by minorities and women. Q: Is there minimum capitalization needed for a designated entity? A: No, although designated entities must be prepared to pay half of the 10 percent down payment five business days after the auction closes. - FCC - Robert J. Keller, P.C. (Federal Telecommunications Law) Tel: 301-229-5208 Fax: 301-229-6875 4200 Wisconsin Ave NW #106-261 Washington DC 20016-2146 finger me for info on F.C.C. Daily Digests and Releases ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 13:35:37 -0400 From: gaj@portman.com (Gordon Jacobson) Subject: The Road to Banning Encryption Pat - I got this from David Farber. It sure is a telling tale! Let me know what you can do about posting it. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, it is interesting. I thought the readers might enjoy seeing it today. PAT] CyberWire Dispatch // Copyright (c) 1994 // Jacking in from the "Sooner or Later" Port: Washington, DC -- If private encryption schemes interfere with the FBI's ability to wiretap, they could be outlawed, according to recent comments made by the agency's Director Louis Freeh. Freeh told attendees here at the recent conference on Global Cryptography that if the Administration's Escrowed Encryption System, otherwise known as the Clipper Chip, failed to gain acceptance, giving way to private encryption technologies, he would have no choice but to press Congress to pass legislation that provided law enforcement access to *all* encrypted communications. If, after having pushed Digital Telephony through Congress (which hadn't yet happened when Freeh spoke at this conference), all the Bureau ended up with during wiretaps were the scratchy hiss of digital one's and zeros being hurled back and forth, Freeh made it clear that he would seek a congressional mandate to solve the problem. In other words: Roll your own coded communications; go to jail. Freeh's comments, made during a question and answer session at the conference, are the first public statements made by an Administration official hinting at a future governmental policy that could result in the banning of non-governmental, unbreakable encryption methods. Freeh's remarks were first reported on the WELL by MacWorld writer and author Steven Levy. The FBI confirmed those statements to Dispatch. The Administration, however, continues to state that it has no plans to outlaw or place any restrictions on private encryption methods. A White House official said there are "absolutely no plans" on the table to regulate domestic encryption "at the present time." He wouldn't comment, however, as to whether the Administration would back an FBI attempt for such legislation. "Freeh doesn't seem to need a lot of White House support," to get things done, the official said. FBI sources said any moves to approach Congress about regulating private encryption are "so far out there" time wise, that the subject "doesn't merit much ink," as one FBI source put it. "We've got to make sure the telcos rig up their current networks according to the new [digital wiretap] law before we go worrying about private encryption stuff," he said. An FBI spokesman confirmed Freeh's position that the Bureau would aggressively seek to maintain what the spokesman called "law and order objectives." If that meant getting laws passed so that the Bureau's "authorized wiretap activities" couldn't be thwarted by "criminal elements using non-governmental" encryption schemes, "then that's what he [Freeh] would do," the spokesman said. When the Administration went public with its Clipper Chip policy, it stressed that the program would be mandatory. Many civil liberties groups wondered out loud how long it would be before private encryption was banned altogether. The White House, anxious for the public to buy into its one-trick pony the Clipper Chip, said that wouldn't happen. But the Administration hedged its bet. Buried in the background briefing papers of the original Clipper announcement, is a statement that the White House doesn't consider the public's right to use private encryption methods are protected anywhere in the Constitution. Meeks out ... ------------------- Regards, - GAJ Home Page: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~gaj1/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 09:28:11 GMT From: montyh@attmail.com (Monty Hoyt) Subject: AT&T 800 Directory Now on Internet Patrick, AT&T issued two Internet-related events yesterday. We announced AT&T's own World Wide Web Internet server, http://www.att.com/, that will be the primary "home page" for visitors to AT&T on the Web. This site will carry information about the company and its operations and will have hotlinks to AT&T business units, many of which will support their own home pages. AT&T also announced a separate Web site, http://att.net/dir800, and an initial offering of a service giving access to the AT&T 800 Directory. This site will be the primary AT&T location on the Web for customer services. The release for this directory service is attached. ******************************* Monty Hoyt 908-221-8789 (office) 908-953-9172 (home) Susan Reiche 908-221-4855(office) 908-233-4357 (home) AT&T INAUGURATES 800 DIRECTORY ON THE INTERNET FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, October 19, 1994 BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- Consumers and business people anxious to find toll-free 800 numbers for travel reservations, catalogs or other services can now locate that information easily on the Internet, thanks to a new directory source from AT&T. AT&T announced today that through the new AT&T 800 Directory on the Internet more than 150,000 listings from AT&T's business and consumer yellow-page 800 directories are now found on the Internet's World Wide Web. The Internet is the global information superhighway that links thousands of public and private computer networks. An estimated 30 million Internet users can look up numbers by company name or category, or browse through the directory alphabetically. With each free inquiry, users will receive the company name, 800 number and main corporate location. "While some companies have posted advertising and self-promotional materials on the Internet, AT&T has moved ahead with a practical, universal application -- a national directory source that enables millions of Internet users, for the first time, to look up 800 numbers for their favorite products and services," said Kathryn Sullivan, AT&T marketing vice president for new business services. "This directory is literally a gateway to the national marketplace. And this is just the beginning. In the near future, our electronic 800 directory on the Internet will contain display ads like those shown in the printed directories. These ads will provide valuable information on a myriad of products and services being offered by the business community -- and the toll-free numbers to reach them," Sullivan said. Early in 1995, the AT&T Internet directory will compensate for misspelled company names entered by users, and provide multiple choices on look-ups if there are several company listings with the same or similar names. To access the AT&T 800 Directory, which is situated on the Internet's World Wide Web, users should key in the address: "http://att.net/dir800" Users will then be able to conduct a company or category search for the appropriate 800 numbers. The 800 numbers listed are reachable only when dialed within the United States. Listings in the AT&T 800 Directory on the Internet are updated monthly, making it a convenient, up-to-date source for current national 800 number listings. Future versions of the service will enable AT&T Internet directory advertisers to update messages in their ads to reflect current promotions, sales or new business offerings. Consumers or advertisers with questions about the AT&T 800 Directory on the Internet should call 1-800-562-2255. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Oct 94 13:18:42 GMT From: Will Martin Subject: Comparison of Missouri Intrastate Rates I just did a little research and thought I'd share the results of it with the group. Recently, Southwestern Bell lost a battle with the Missouri PUC over a mandated rate reduction. (At least, that was the public front on it; I'm not privy to the back-room info that might show that they really didn't "lose" anything, since most telco-vs-PUC affairs are really stage shows and the results are probably orchestrated by the powers that be in any case ...) Anyway, I had just received a flyer from an alternative LD outfit called "Budget Call LD, Inc." (based in Rochester, NY) that uses 10368 as their prefix. The ad touted great savings over AT&T rates, but what we are interested in is savings over Southwestern Bell rates for the weekly long-duration intrastate call my wife makes from St. Louis to her aunt in Warrenton, MO. We've been using "Show-Me Long Distance" (prefix 10778) for that for over a year now and I've been wondering if the new reduced SW Bell rates would eliminate such savings. So I called SW Bell, Budget Call, and Show-Me for rate quotes. Here they are: For a call from 314-351-XXXX to 314-456-XXXX First minute Subsequent minutes SW Bell: Day $0.37 .23 Evening .296 .184 (80% of Day rate) Night .2405 .1495 (65% of Day rate) Budget Call LD: Day .3875 .225 Evening .3075 .18 Night .2525 .145 Show-Me LD: Day .3649 .2136 Evening .2919 .179 Night .2372 .1388 So you can see that not only are savings from the alternates rather slim, in some cases it looks like Budget Call is actually a smidge higher that SW Bell. Show-Me still comes out lowest, but there isn't much distinction any more. We call on Sunday so the Night rate applies. I called the MO PUC a while back and asked them if they were going to try to get these alternate LD providers to lower their intrastate rates at least by the same percentages as SW Bell has, but the person I spoke with didn't appear to know much about the issue and didn't indicate that such reductions would be likely. SW Bell is being required to give refunds to customers that made calls during the earlier part of this year, because the new rates are actually retroactive -- they had been ordered imposed a long while back and the telco fought a delaying battle, with monthly notices in the bills about the need for customers who left to provide addresses for the possible later mailing of refunds. I haven't seen any credits show up on the bill yet, though. It would be nice if the same thing could be done with the alternate carriers, but I have no idea what authority, if any, the Missouri PUC has over these companies, especially if they are based out-of-state. I do note that the advertising text NEVER claims a percentage savings over SW Bell rates -- only over AT&T rates, with side-references to Sprint & MCI. But if AT&T cannot carry the call (and that seems to be the case for these St. Louis <-> Warrenton intrastate calls), that comparison is meaningless. If anyone out there has any suggestions for alternate LD services that WOULD provide significant savings in this circumstance, I'd like to hear about it. We've even investigated the possibility of getting my wife's aunt a number that would be local to St. Louis, and paying for that premium charge above her regular phone-bill rate ourselves in lieu of paying for these LD calls, but it seems that isn't possible. One big hurdle is that Warrenton is in a GTE (I think) enclave within normally-SW-Bell territory. We don't make other LD calls to any extent, so we'd only be interested in intrastate savings. Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As happens so often, it appears the choice of carrier for your calls is an application-driven thing based in large part on the time of day/day of week the call is made. If you study the rates listed above, there can be some differences and possibly some savings based on the carrier if your calls are mostly at night and weekends. On the other hand, if you make mostly daytime calls during business hours, the best carrier might be totally different. Probably the most effecient and least expensive arrangement would be to use a computer program which examined the dialed digits then sent the call by one carrier or another depending on the time of day and the inter/intrastate destination, etc. But software and hardware designed to route calls like that is itself rather expensive, and I don't know at what point it would be amortized or justified. Pennies do add up to be sure, but I think for the average user these days, cost-comparisons on long distance are of little real value. Just pick a carrier and go with it. Make switches based on other things that matter (unless nothing but money matters to you!) such as customer service, reliability and political/social considerations (the presence/absence of a labor organization for workers, etc). PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #403 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa17668; 28 Oct 94 6:39 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA21285; Fri, 28 Oct 94 01:38:13 CDT Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA21277; Fri, 28 Oct 94 01:38:09 CDT Date: Fri, 28 Oct 94 01:38:09 CDT From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9410280638.AA21277@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #404 TELECOM Digest Fri, 28 Oct 94 01:38:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 404 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New Area Code for Georgia (Atlanta Constitution via Michael King) Services Available For a Small Fee :-) (Jonathan A. Solomon) LAA Operator Reference Data Base (Carl A. Wright) NPTN Policy on Free-Net/Commercial Conflicts (Monty Solomon) Duplicate Post-Split NXXes in Toronto (Dave Leibold) Wierd Experience With Payphone (John W. Barrus) FCC Rulemaking on Wireless E911 (Joe Hersey) Cellular Phone Fraud Operator Arrested (Washington Times via Paul Robinson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: an904@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael King) Subject: New Area Code for Georgia Date: 27 Oct 1994 17:57:42 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) According to a recent article in the {Atlanta Constitution}, Southern Bell has announced that area code 770 will be assigned to the Atlanta metropolitan area in October 1995. The article indicates that Southern Bell/Bell South has not decided the specific area for the new code yet ... there are three proposals: 1> Split 404/770 geographically with either one of the new codes taking up one side of the area or with the older 404 AC being relegated to the area inside the Perimeter (I-285) or 404 as the city of Atlanta proper. 2> Flat-out overlay 770 on top of 404 so that two houses next to each other could concievably have two different area codes (!?) 3> Use 770 as a cellular overlay much in the same fashion as other metropolitan areas around the US. (this is the form that is preferred by Southern Bell) The article indicates that the method of the split along with the boundaries of the split-area will be announced early next year. Michael King -- General Manager WIGO/AM - Atlanta Morning Talk Show Host & Chief Cook & Bottle Washer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 17:57:07 -0400 From: jsol@world.std.com (Jonathan A. Solomon) Subject: Services Available For a Small Fee :-) I offer help in setting up computers, fax machines, copiers, and also support in ordering residence and business telephone service including extra services and centrex/PBX service, and private telephone networks. Public and Private computer networks, as well. If you are interested in my services, you can send me mail as JSOL@WORLD.STD.COM. You will get a response even if you can't afford it. Say whether or not you will be able to pay before asking the questions ... your ability to pay will influence my ability to serve you. The fee is optional, if you can afford it, you can pay me. If you can't afford it, then it is free. I would say about $25.00/hour, but again that is optional. Cheers, JSol [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Jon Solomon was the founding moderator and editor of TELECOM Digest; he started this e-journal back in 1981 and maintained it for a few years prior to it being passed on to me in 1988. Like myself, Jon has seen his share of problems over the past few years and I would highly recommend his work to persons or firms seeking a highly qualified expert on telephone systems/networks and/or Unix computer systems. In fact, Jon arranged for me to get my first internet account many, many years ago. Please, don't anyone else ask me for a raw promotional plug like this, but in Jon's case he really does deserve it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wright@LAA.COM Subject: LAA Operator Reference Data Base Date: 27 Oct 1994 23:39:56 GMT Organization: Lynn-Arthur Associates, Ann Arbor, MI Reply-To: wright@LAA.COM Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. (LAA) announces its Operator Reference Data Base (ORDB) for the A.T.& T. 5ESS(R) telephone switch. The ORDB provides on-line access to a suite of databases used by telephone operators to answer caller questions and to handle emergency situations. The ORDB connects to the specialized telephone operator workstations through the A.T.& T. 5ESS(R). The ORDB will be delivered by year end to three telephone companies, Minnesota Equal Access Network Services (Plymouth, MN), Compania Dominicana de Telefonos (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic), and Brazoria Telephone Company (Brazoria, TX). Minnesota Equal Access is a network services company owned by more than sixty small telephone companies in Minnesota. Compania Dominicana de Telefonos is a GTE owned wireline telephone company which serves the entire Dominican Republic. Brazoria Telephone Company is a small family-run company located an hour's drive from Houston, TX. The ORDB is implemented in Objective-C in the NextStep operating system using distributed objects. It is available to run on Intel and Hewlett- Packard computers. The ORDB is a high-demand mission-critical applic- ation delivered on two redundant computer systems. The A.T.& T. 5ESS(R) switch is connected to the ORDB over a number of X.25 digital links. The number of links is dependent on the number of operators and expected transaction loads. LAA delivers the ORDB as a turn-key solution of hardware, software, tariff database, training, and installation support. Delivery takes approximately six weeks from contract signing. ORDB consists of five major software components. Three of these components run on NextStep and the fourth and fifth run in the DOS/Windows environment. 1. The "Operator Service" component receives all the queries from the operators connected to the 5ESS switch, processes them, and answers the transactions. All knowledge of the 5ESS switch is within. 2. The "TeleRate(tm) Rating" component performs all pricing of telephone services. All knowledge of telephone services, their costs, and the database of tariffs is within. This service provides rate information for customer queries. 3. The "ORDB Control" component is an application which communicates with the real-time process to stop, start, monitor, and modify the mission-critical ORDB application. 4. The "ORDB Data Control" is a Windows application for the operator service data clerks who control the data on which operator services are based. 5. The "RTRS Data Control" is a DOS/Windows suite of applications for the tariff analysts who control the data on which pricing is based. "TeleRate(tm) Rating" and "RTRS Data Control" components are used in our real-time rating product and act as servers when more than one applica- tion which use them is running. For more information, contact Mr. Carl Wright at +1 313 995-5590 or at "wright@laa.com". Mailing address: Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. 2350 Green Road, Suite 160 Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Fax phone: +1 313 995-5989 Immediate availability 5ESS(R) is a trademark of A.T.& T. Carl A. Wright Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. +1 313 995 5590 wright@laa.com Operations Support Systems +1 313 995 5989 (fax) 2350 Green Road Suite 160 Ann Arbor, MI, 48105 USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 13:08:04 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: NPTN Policy on Free-Net/Commercial Conflicts Passed along to the Digest FYI: Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 18:22:01 -0400 From: pfh@nptn.org (peter f. harter) To: action@eff.org (action mailing list) Subject: Policy <<< PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO RE-PRINT OR RE-POST THE FOLLOWING TO ANY MEDIUM, PROVIDED THE CONTENT IS IN NO WAY ALTERED. >>> NPTN POLICY ON POTENTIAL FREE-NET/COMMERCIAL CONFLICTS Recently several incidents have come up which have focused attention on the relationship between NPTN community computer systems and commercial providers. Rather than answer a zillion individual e.mail messages, I thought I'd outline our position in one official policy statement. THE FREE-NET MODEL There are a variety of approaches to community networking, the "Free-Net(R) model" being one of them. Under our model we see no conflict between the operation of our systems and ANY commercial provider. Indeed, it is quite the reverse. A Free-Net, properly run, is first and foremost a local system, run by local people, using local resources, to meet local needs. Our Internet connections are incidental to our primary mission and our net effect is to INCREASE the pool of telecomputing literate people to whom commercial services could eventually be sold. A Free-Net, properly run, does NOT simply dump people onto the Internet. We believe in building community networks that are locally-oriented "electronic cities," not simply "electronic bus stations." We believe that "cyberdumping" people--especially K-12 students--onto the raw Internet will NOT accomplish the goal of bringing this nation into the information age with equity. We believe what is needed is a national network not just for the people who are already on it, but for the people who are maybe two or three waves back -- factory workers, farmers, blue collar people and others. This will not be accomplished by offering them access to the card catalog at the University of Paris. It MIGHT be accomplished if we can create systems that allow them to find out what's going on at their kids school, or what's happening with the latest flu-bug going around town, or what's going on with their local pro sports team or, for that matter, their own local bowling league. This does not conflict with any reasonable commercial interest; and THIS is the heart and soul of Free-Netting. With regard to commercial providers who DO see a problem with our work, there are two ways we can approach a resolution. We can do it via conflict; or we can do it via cooperation. THE CONFLICT APPROACH Recently several small IP providers have threatened to bring legal action against a number of community networks including at least one of our organizing committees. Let me be absolutely clear on NPTN's position with regard to this: If anyone so much as touches one of our affiliates or organizing committees with this kind of action -- we will jump in with both feet. We have full-time legal council on staff; we have the money; we have the time; and most importantly we have the WILL to fight this kind of BS. NPTN will simply not put up with it -- not with OUR systems -- not now, not ever. We are not trying to be adversarial in taking this position. But this kind of thing is one of the reasons why it is so important that there BE an NPTN and why it's important for community networks to affiliate. Standing alone you can be picked-off and harassed into submission on any number of fronts -- not because you are in the wrong but because you simply do not have the resources to defend yourself. There is indeed something to be said for the notion of "strength in numbers" and NPTN represents that strength. THE COOPERATIVE MODEL In many ways all this is reminiscent of a hundred years ago when the free public library movement was gaining momentum. The people who were most in opposition were a handful of commercial bookstore operators. They argued that they would be "ruined" if public libraries were allowed to take hold, and that spending governmental funds represented unfair competition with them. Who would ever BUY a book, they argued, if you could get it from the library for FREE? I suspect everyone reading this document knows what actually happened -- a synergy formed. Public libraries introduced books, reading, and in some cases literacy itself to whole classes of people who would otherwise not have been exposed. These people then became customers of commercial bookstores, which made for a very healthy publishing industry, which allowed the libraries to offer an incredibly rich and diverse mixture of materials to their patrons, who then went out and purchased even more books. It is EXACTLY that kind of synergy we would like to see form between commercial providers of Internet and information-based services, and the Free-Nets. We seek a cooperative model, not a conflict-based one. How can this occur? In many ways, the answer to this question is limited only by the creativity of the people involved. To cite some current examples: * In some areas commercial companies are, in whole or in part, funding the development of local Free-Net systems -- because they understand the importance of systematically developing a customer-base for the future. * In other areas, commercial systems are purchasing NPTN cybercasting services which not only provides their system with some of the finest online content available anywhere in the world, but helps to support the work of NPTN in developing further systems. * We are currently actively working with several commercial companies on models which provide both free local Free-Net services and "on-ramp" services for which a fee could be charged. The Free-Net provides a critical mass of potential customers, the on-ramp provides the revenue stream necessary to operate the Free-Net in perpetuity. As mentioned above, our goal is cooperation with the commercial world and we think that can be attained. But we will not tolerate ANY of our affiliates or organizing committees being legally harassed by anyone. NPTN was there long before most of the commercial world knew there was a "there" there. We believe that calls for cooperation and support -- not conflict. Tom Grundner President, NPTN 10/17/94 Tom Grundner President, National Public Telecomputing Network Office Address: 34555 Chagrin Blvd. Moreland Hills, Ohio 44022 Mail Address: P.O. Box 1987 Cleveland, Ohio 44106 e.Mail: tmg@nptn.org Telephone: 216-247-5800 Fax: 216-247-3328 Peter F. Harter, Executive Director & General Counsel National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN) P.O. Box 1987, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-0187 E-mail: pfh@nptn.org Voice: 216/247-5800 Fax: 216/247-3328 *** "Free-Net" is a servicemark of NPTN registered in the U.S. and Canada. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have wanted, for such a long time, to see a FreeNet started in the Chicago area. If ever there was a need to be connected, it would be in the Chicago public schools and the Chicago Public Library system. Both have extremely urgent needs. I'd like to be able to install network access for every child and young person living in the ghettos here known as the Chicago Housing Authority. What is stopping me? Pure and simple, a lack of resources and funding; a lack of anyone willing to *feed and clothe me and my family* while I work to bring this medium to the masses of people who need it in our community. God knows I work cheap and live even cheaper, and a very generous grant to the Digest from the International Telecommunication Union has kept this part of my educational activities afloat. But when I think of the work that needs to be done, I get very depressed. We don't need anything fancy: a terminal and modem in each school with an internet connection; ditto in each library facility. Some short term assistance in training one or two people at each location in how to use the Internet so they can supervise the students and/or patrons who seek to be connected. Is that really so much to ask? Yet it seems such a long way down a very dark tunnel at this point. I won't take sides on the freenet vrs. commmercial provider argument. As the article writer points out, cooperation is the ONLY way to go, and I for one am not too proud to accept assistance from commercial providers and Freenet people alike if it means that sometime within my lifetime, I'll see my dream come true: a 'wired' Chicago. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 07:31:00 -0500 From: dave.leibold@superctl.tor250.org (Dave Leibold) Subject: Duplicate Post-Split NXXes in Toronto Reply-To: dave.leibold@superctl.tor250.org Looks like a milestone has been reached following the Toronto-area 416/905 area code split. The first verified duplicate post-split NXXes have been found (other than common or special cases like 555, 976 (premium charge), 210 (voice mail access), 310 (business office/ 7 digit 800# access), etc). 416-983 is a new Toronto NXX; 905-983 is Orono, northeast of (and long distance from) Toronto. 905-242 is a new Oshawa exchange (east of Toronto); 416-242 has been a Toronto NXX for some time. These were verified in the past day or so; no exact date of implementation is known. The 416/905 split was finalised in late March 1994. Thus, it seems at least six months was allowed before NXXes were duplicated in 416/905. The Durham Region phone books are out (area east of Toronto); 905-665 is claimed to be a new Whitby exchange, though no evidence of its activity has been found yet (416-665 is active in Toronto). Some anomalies between what Bell Canada prints in its directories, and what actually exists in the central offices, are to be expected. * Origin: The Super Continental - North York, Canada (1:250/730) ------------------------------ From: barrus@merl.com (John W. Barrus) Subject: Wierd Experience With Payphone Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 08:11:22 -0400 Organization: Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs When I was in Salt Lake City last month, I tried (at a payphone) to dial 102880 to use a calling card and when I dialed, I noticed that the 8's sounded different. I hung up and tried dialing 12222 or some similar sequence of numbers and noticed that the phone always gives out the same sequence of DTMF tones through the earpiece, even when different numbers are being dialed. Finally I got an operator and had her put the call through for me with my calling card number because none of the normal 800 or 10xxx0 access numbers would work. Is this typical for payphones now? I had the same trouble in a hotel where I could not use my 800 access number and finally dialed direct, only to find a $1 per minute charge on my hotel bill the next morning. I couldn't get them to take the charge off. What should I do in those circumstances? Any suggestions? John Barrus Research Scientist Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Inc. voice 1.617.621.7535 201 Broadway fax 1.617.621.7550 Cambridge, MA 02139 barrus@merl.com ------------------------------ From: gttm@cais2.cais.com (USCG TELECOMMS) Subject: FCC Rulemaking on Wireless E911 Date: 28 Oct 1994 00:32:51 GMT Organization: Capital Area Internet Service info@cais.com The FCC, at the request of the State of Texas and others (including the Coast Guard), has released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on requiring new wireless services (PCS, AMSC Regional Satellites, big LEO's etc) to provide similar emergency calling capability as wireline services. Although the ability of cellular users to call 911 has been a big benefit, there are problems which will worsen as more cellular-type systems become available. For example, the identity and location information Enhanced 911 centers receive from wireline calls are unavailable from cellular. Worse, you may be unabale to make a 911 call from a satellite provider (calls from portable Inmarsat terminals work like an overseas call to the U.S ... you simply cannot call 911). We are also interested in Caller ID capability ... most telephone calls to a Coast Guard rescue center go directly to the center, not through a 911 provider. Comments to the FCC are due January 9th. CC Docket 94-102 applies. We are interested in any comments you have in this matter, particularly those concerning system limitations from providing Caller ID and E911 capability, and the use of wireless (including cellular) for making distress calls from boats. JoeHersey COAST GUARD COMMUNICATIONS Telephone: (202) 267-2860 U.S. Coast Guard (G-TTM) Fax: (202) 267-4106 Washington DC 20593 Internet: CGComms/g-t07@cgsmtp.comdt.uscg.mil ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 20:37:55 EST Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA From: Paul Robinson Subject: Cellular Phone Fraud Operator Arrested {Washington (DC) Times} 19 Oct 1994 Front Page High-Tech sleuthing busts cellular phone fraud ring By Doug Abrahms, The Washington Times A Jesse James of the cellular telephone industry was nabbed this week in California in the latest episode of the high-tech war between cops and robbers being fought with electronics. Secret Service officials in San Jose arrested Clinton Watson and two other persons on Monday, charging them with a scheme in which they built counterfeit cellular phones and sent the bills to unsuspecting owners. In a raid on Mr. Watson's house, authorities seized 30 bogus phones, 16 altered memory chips and about 600 mobile phone identification numbers used to fool the phone companies' billing systems, according to the indictment filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose. The phone bandits employed integrated circuits, scanners that pick up cellular information and sophisticated software to build counterfeit phones that never received bills. These "lifetime" phones sold for $1,200 to $1,500 apiece and have been discovered all over the continent, said Ron Nessen, vice president of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA). Police and cellular companies have fought back with vans and helicopters with customized electronics to track illegal cellular signals. They also are testing a voiceprinting system that will match people's unique voice prints with their calling numbers. "This is the high tech crime of the 1990s," Mr. Nessen said, who estimates that phone fraud costs the nation about $1 million a day. "Every solution we come up with in our labs get attacked by the hackers." In many cases, cellular pirates stand outside parking lots, tunnels, and airports with scanning equipment that picks up the ID numbers of cellular users, Mr. Nessen said. Those ID numbers then can be programmed into other phone handsets for calls that get charged to the original customers, he said. Mr. Watson went one step further and installed up to a dozen ID numbers into one handset so the user wouldn't alert authorities that a barrage of calls was emanating from one phone number, said Michael Houghton, the CTIA's research director. Mr. Watson's phones would allow users to program in new numbers periodically so the phones could be used indefinitely, he said. "If he spreads them around, he can make a phone that doesn't create a calling pattern," he said. "This type of cloning is the next generation." The CTIA estimates Mr. Watson was responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in cellular fraud. He fases a $50,000 fine and 15 years in jail for each of the three counts against him, Mr. Nessen said. Mr. Watson was a computer programmer who created his own software and had ties to the criminal underground, he said. The cellular industry has been fighting phone bandits such as Mr. Watson, especially after last month's report that New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton each had their cellular phone numbers stolen six times this year. Nynex Mobile Communications in New York assigns personal identification numbers that must be entered before each call, said Kim Ancin, a spokeswoman. Other cellular companies analyze calling patterns and investigate major changes in users' phone behavior. TRW Wireless Communications of Santa Clara developed a system that records and stores a customer's voice print, which is as unique as a fingerprint, said Lynn Fisher, a TRW spokeswoman. On every call, the company's computer checks the ID number and caller's voice print against the customer's file and cuts off any call when they don't match, she said. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It must be remembered that in the United States, our constitution requires that Mr. Watson and his alleged associates be presumed innocent of the charges lodged against them until their guilt is proven by the government in a court of law before a judge and/or jury. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #404 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa17936; 28 Oct 94 7:06 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA22041; Fri, 28 Oct 94 02:35:03 CDT Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA22033; Fri, 28 Oct 94 02:35:00 CDT Date: Fri, 28 Oct 94 02:35:00 CDT From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9410280735.AA22033@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #405 TELECOM Digest Fri, 28 Oct 94 02:35:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 405 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell Canada Ends Messaging Trial (Dave Leibold) Mounties Join Video-on-Demand Test (Dave Leibold) Pac*Bell Touch-Tone Refunds (Linc Madison) Pac*Bell Info About New Dialing Procedures (Linc Madison) AT&T Launches WWW Server (Andrew B. Myers) T1 Costs and Specifications (Dan Kahn) RochesterTel Calling Cards Dump 10XXX Dialing (Rob Levandowski) AM Expanded Band Allotments (Monty Solomon) AT&T Throws in the Towel ... err Card (Paul Robinson) AT&T Takes Action Against MCI 800-CALLINFO (Will Martin) New List for Telecommunication Rules (David Devereaux-Weber) Phone Fun 800 (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold) Date: 28 Oct 94 00:03:20 -0500 Subject: Bell Canada Ends Messaging Trial Organization: FidoNet: The Super Continental - North York, Canada [from Bell News, 24 Oct 94; content is Bell Canada's; e&oe] Star Messenger to be withdrawn Our new Star Messenger[tm] service will be withdrawn at the end of the trial period ending October 31. "The disappointing trial results and the requirement for further technological development played a major part in the decision to remove the service," says Janet Garrod of Consumer Market Management. Star Messenger, a pay-per-use service, allowed customers to leave a one minute voice message when they received a busy signal or no answer on an alternately billed long distance call to most points in North America. A new trial to address the needs of local and direct distance dialing (1+ calls) messaging along with possible payphone messaging is being considered in selected locations during the first quarter of '95. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is interesting, since Illinois Bell is testing the same thing on a limited basis including a couple of exchanges here in Skokie, Illinois. I found out about it only by chance when using a payphone about a week ago at the bus station. I dialed a local number, it rang *only three times* and a recorded message popped on the line while the ringing continued in the background. It said, "your party did not answer. You may leave a one minute message which we will attempt to deliver every thirty minutes for the next eight hours by depositing 25 cents, then wait for instructions before beginning to speak your message; or if you prefer, stay on the line and continue to wait for your party to answer." I've never heard that before, and only hear it when I use payphones on the 708-675 exchange. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold) Date: 28 Oct 94 00:03:32 -0500 Subject: Mounties Join Video-on-Demand Test Organization: FidoNet: The Super Continental - North York, Canada [from Bell News, 24 Oct 94; content is Bell Canada's; e&oe] RCMP joins our Video on Demand trial in Ottawa RCMP staff and hundreds of Ottawa-based public school students have just gained access to a storehouse of educational and training videos through personal computers at on-site locations. The delivery of this information last Monday marked the beginning of Phase II of the Business Video on Demand Trial (VOD), involving programs in three RCMP locations in the Ottawa area and eight Ottawa-Carleton public schools in four school boards. The trial is part of the recently-announced Bell Canada and Stentor Beacon Initiative, a 10-year, $8 billion plan to build a coast-to-coast broadband infrastructure for the delivery of new multimedia services. Phase I of the trial, which tested the underlying technology and the design for users of VOD, offered video on demand from key locations at the University of Ottawa and Carleton University. Phase II expands on the earlier test by simulating a city-wide environment, serving more customers and testing operational methods and procedures and an enhanced user interface. The trial, scheduled to last until May 1995, connects a minimum of 14 sites in the Ottawa-Carleton area. Through computers in their school libraries, students have access to more than 70 video titles to complement their learning environment. Video content for the echools is provided by Magic Lantern Communications Limited. RCMP users are able to obtain easy access to the force's own wide range of training videos. The system offers full VCR-like controls such as rewind, fast-forward, pause, etc. There's great potential in new multimedia services as educational and business tools. Possible serving applications include training, product and service information, stock footage for advertising and public relations, as well as video clippings for educational, industrial and financial use. The trial is funded by Bell Canada and Stentor with technical assistance from Bell-Northern Research and MPR Teltech. The first VOD services for business customers should be available starting in late 1995. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 23:55:37 -0700 From: LincMad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Pac*Bell Touch-Tone Refunds In the insert with my monthly Pacific Bell bill is a notice that some customers who had Touch-Tone service between 5/4/87 and 5/3/90 may be due a refund of up to $66.20 (business) or $48.20 (residence), plus 12% interest. The affected customers are those who moved or discontinued Touch-Tone service during the time in question, in certain, mostly rural, prefixes. There is a complete list in the insert, but I'll just hit a few highlights: 209: Chowchilla, Coalinga, Lodi, Modesto, Turlock, Yosemite 408: Ben Lomond, Felton, Salinas 415: Crockett*, Moss Beach, Pescadero, Pittsburg* (* now in 510) 619: Borrego, Furnace Creek, Imperial, Shoshone 707: Arcata, Eureka, Napa, Ukiah 805: Bakersfield, Mojave, Morro Bay, Ventura 916: Mount Shasta, Placerville, Redding, Yreka For more information, contact Pacific Bell, Sacramento CA 95851. The same billing insert also has a form to remove your listing from the Street Address Telephone Directories, explaining that they are "sometimes used by businesses or emergency services to contact you when they don't know your last name. For example, lost children may know their addresses but not how to spell their last names." There are also blurbs about the statewide uniform dialing plan and the new 562 area code for Los Angeles; I'll include those in a separate message. Linc Madison * Oakland, California * LincMad@Netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 23:55:42 -0700 From: LincMad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Pac*Bell Info About New Dialing Procedures I got my Pacific Bell bill today, including an insert with information about several things, including the touch-tone refunds and the new area code 562. Here is the blurb about the dialing changes required for 1995: STATEWIDE UNIFORM DIALING IS ALMOST HERE! On October 11, 1994, dialing procedures will become standard throughout California. After that, you'll dial calls the same way, no matter where you are in the state. HERE'S HOW CALIFORNIANS WILL DIAL: -> Always dial "1" first when you call *outside* the area code you're in. -> Never dial "1" to begin a seven-digit call. -> *Always* dial the area code on any operator-assisted or Calling Card call (calls that begin by dialing "0"), whether you're calling long distance or not. OUR CHARGES FOR CALLS WILL REMAIN THE SAME. [map of California with 916, 209, 805, 310, 562, with middle digits emphasized, and a 1+ to the side] WHAT DO YOU NEED TO DO? If you have Speed Dialing or Call Forwarding, you *may* need to re-enter the numbers you programmed into your telephone. Also, if you have a PBX or other customer-provided equipment, you *may* need to make programming changes. Please contact your vendor if you need more information or assistance. WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? Telephone companies are running out of numbers for new area codes. In the past, either a zero or a one was used for the middle number of any area code. When the uniform dialing project is completed, new area codes will use any of the numbers two through nine as the middle number. This allows for 640 new number combinations for area codes throughout the United States, Canada and the Caribbean Islands. Linc Madison * Oakland, California * LincMad@Netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 10:53:54 EDT From: myers@hogpa.ho.att.com (Andrew B Myers) Subject: AT&T Launches WWW Server AT&T LAUNCHES WORLD WIDE WEB INTERNET SERVER CHICAGO, Oct. 19, 1994 -- AT&T is extending its commitment to global communications and computing with the launch of its own information site, or "home page," on the Internet. AT&T's new Internet site was described yesterday by William Holland, a technical manager at AT&T Bell Laboratories, in a talk at the Second International World Wide Web Conference here. Holland heads a group responsible for AT&T's electronic gateway services. The AT&T site, called "www.att.com," is situated on the Internet's World Wide Web -- often abbreviated as "the Web" or "WWW"--a fast-growing and user-friendly section of the Internet. Offering a range of information about AT&T, its products and services, a sampling of what's available includes: o Historical, current and financial information; o Descriptions of business units, joint ventures and global operations; o News releases; o Full text of the current annual report; o Product and service descriptions, including many color images; o Product and service customer contact numbers; o Product and service technical data and specifications; o Product and service monthly featured items; o Access to research and development activities at Bell Labs; o Access to the company's Customer Information Center; o AT&T's YOU WILL commercials (graphic, audio and video versions); o An AT&T Phone Center locator; o Offerings of AT&T Technical Education Center courses, with on-line registration, and other AT&T technical consulting services; and o Other features, data bases and pointers to additional resources in AT&T and elsewhere on the Internet. Visitors to the AT&T Web home page may also win T-shirts, books and other prizes that will be offered through random drawings and other promotional activities at the site. AT&T's home page has been designed for access by Internet users of all kinds, from those with multimedia (sound, graphics and video) capabilities to text-only browsers. The system offers a number of full-color images and sounds. In the near future the AT&T Web site will offer a number of leading edge "You Will" type technology demonstrations, lists of frequently asked questions (FAQs), and a self-guided electronic tour of AT&T and its global operations. "This is just the beginning for AT&T," said Ron Ponder, AT&T chief information officer. "We believe we have some interesting things to offer, but we want to listen to our readers and customers. In response, we will ensure that our site always carries information, capabilities, features and tools that people tell us they want." It is estimated that some 20 to 30 million people have access to the Internet, either directly or through various commercial on-line services, Internet access providers, and corporate and academic networks. The number of Internet users is also growing dramatically as more user friendly browsing software, such as National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) Mosaic, becomes widely available. (Mosaic is the most popular graphical browser for the Internet. More than two million copies of Mosaic are in use, and an additional 30,000 copies are being downloaded each month from the Internet.) The World Wide Web is based on "hypertext" documents and files linked to each other through key words or "pointers" so that readers may pursue whatever interests them by pointing and clicking on highlighted words with a computer mouse, or by moving their cursor to the highlighted text and hitting the ENTER key. The linked file or document may be located anywhere on the global Internet on any one of several thousand graphical, hyperlinked databases around the world. Users may download any information they are reading, or request the file or document to be sent via e-mail. Ponder said AT&T's home page on the Web is expected to expand as more AT&T business units and organizations join the company-wide project. He said the company envisions three primary uses for its World Wide Web Internet server: 1. Customers can have real-time access to products and services with video, graphical and audio support capabilities. 2. Customers can access distributed databases, such as information help line numbers, easily, quickly and on-line. 3. Customers can provide real-time feedback on their needs to enable AT&T to provide faster and better quality service. AT&T also expects to use the Web internally in various ways. For example, AT&T employees in one unit could use it to locate or identify resources or people in other AT&T organizations, faster and easier than they ever could before. Other internal applications may include database or resource sharing, collaboration on product and service development, and various other communications and data processing activities. As AT&T's Web server continues to evolve, the company will enable customers to place orders for products and services directly while on-line. Work is continuing on the development of processes and systems to facilitate on-line ordering, purchasing and other financial transactions. Internet users may access the AT&T site from various "What's New" pages and directories available on the Web, or they may connect directly by providing the proper Universal Resource Locator (URL) address of http://www.att.com/. CONTACTS: Andrew Myers, 908-221-2737 (office), 908-522-9485 (home) Jim Byrnes, 908-221-7876 (office), 908-689-6040 (home) ------------------------------ From: kahn@physics.unc.edu (Dan Kahn) Subject: T1 Costs and Specifications Date: 28 Oct 1994 00:17:32 GMT Organization: Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, UNC Hi, I'd like to get the answer to some questions -- which may not make much sense since I'm new to the telecom world. I'm trying to get some other folks interested in doing a more detailed study of getting T1 between our facilites (about 1/4 mile apart) so I only need to be armed with some ballpark figures and ideas about T1. I'd like to know what T1 services costs, and how it is billed. I'm interested in a connection within a small town, so only the local phone company would be involved. Is it billed monthly, per amount of data what does the equipment on the ends of the line run, etc. I'm also interested in installation costs, is in necessary to install special wires or are ordinary voice lines used (T1 is supposed to be equivilent of 24 voice lines, but does that mean one only needs 24 voice lines, or does coax need to be run?) The line would be used for data communications not voice communications, so if T1 would be less appropriate than something else please let me know. The project is short term (about a year) which means equipment could be rented, instead of purchased, so if anyone can give me ideas about the cost of renting necessary equipment I'd appreciate it. Thanks, dan ------------------------------ From: rlvd_cif@redshirt.cc.rochester.edu (Rob Levandowski) Subject: RochesterTel Calling Cards Dump 10XXX Dialing Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York Date: Fri, 28 Oct 94 00:40:55 GMT I got an interesting letter from Rochester Telephone the other day. They recently sent me a new (hideous purple) calling card, which had my old PIN imprinted (but not my phone number), along with instructions for dialing an 800 access number for RCI, RochesterTel's long-distance arm. The letter, which trailed the card by several months, explains that the Rochester Telephone calling card can no longer be used for 0+ dialing after November 15th. In order to use your standard RochesterTel calling card, and have the call billed to your local telephone bill, you must dial the access number and use RCI Long Distance. I called their customer service and asked: will I still be able to use 10XXX codes to select an alternative long-distance carrier for my calling- card calls? The answer is NO. Apparently they're taking their cards out of the database. The letter explains that this change is to help prevent calling-card fraud. I'm concerned ... how much fraud can an 800 access code prevent? Is the savings in fraudulent calls worth relinquishing the ability to choose which carrier your local-telco calling card calls are carried by? Is it even legal for RochesterTel to prohibit 10XXX dialing on their cards? I suppose I could just get an AT&T card for those times I want to use AT&T, or whoever ... I already have an RCI calling card, which is completely seperate from my RochesterTel calling card, because if I use RCI via my RochesterTel card, I don't get any of my plan discounts. The RCI Pronto card does. Two cards for one phone number is bad enough ... will I have to have accounts with any LD company I want to use in the future? I'm writing a letter of complaint to RochesterTel and the PSC and FCC, in hopes that someone else will see that forcing calling card users to use an affiliated division's LD service is kind of fishy. (Isn't this what Bell used to do before it was broken up?) If anyone else reading this is a RochesterTel customer, I urge them to do the same. The addresses are in every RochesterTel phone book. Most of all, I'm amazed at RochesterTel's hypocrisy. They've been patting themselves on the back for months now, in every billing and throughout the newspapers and TV, on their "Open Market Plan" that will, as of January 1, enable local telephone service to competition with recipocrity, etc. Now, they turn around and monopolize their customer's calling card service. This sounds more like lip service than phone service to me! :) Rob Levandowski Computer Interest Floor associate / University of Rochester macwhiz@cif.rochester.edu [Opinions expressed are mine, not UR's.] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My understanding is that independent telcos are under *no legal obligation* to offer 10xxx dialing or for that matter access to any long distance carrier other than whatever they choose. Certainly there are a large number of tiny little telco cooperatives and the like around the USA who still shunt all their long distance traffic to AT&T. Divestiture only applied to AT&T and the Bell Companies. GTE also implemented much of the same when it became common knowledge that the Justice Department was going to get after them next when it finished with AT&T if they did not voluntarily change their ways ... so they did. But as for Rochester and the other independents, I think they are still pretty much free to do as they please. Certainly where their own calling card -- thus, an extension of credit they are granting to you -- is concerned, they are perfectly free to say what the card (account) can and cannot be used for. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 13:10:18 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AM Expanded Band Allotments Forwarded to the Digest, FYI. Date: 19 Oct 1994 05:33:47 GMT From: fcclaw@cais2.cais.com (FCC World) Subject: AM Expanded Band Allotments Organization: Capital Area Internet Service Newsgroups: rec.radio.broadcasting FCC UPDATE October 18, 1994 An update on news from the Federal Communications Commission written by: Shaun A. Maher, Esq. Smithwick & Belendiuk, P.C. 1990 M Street, N.W. Suite 510 Washington, D.C. 20036 fcclaw@cais.com INTERNET E-MAIL (202) 785-2800 VOICE (202) 785-2804 FAX (202) 887-5718 FCC WORLD BBS FCC ANNOUNCES AM EXPANDED BAND ALLOTMENTS In its Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, 6 FCC Rcd 6273 (1991), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 8 FCC Rcd 3250 (1993)["AM improvement Order"], the Commission adopted measures to facilitate an overall improvement and revitalization of the AM broadcast band and to effectuate the necessary incorporation of new spectrum between 1605 and 1705 kHz into the AM broadcast band. The Commission concluded that the public interest would be best served by using the expanded AM band to improve the overall quality of the AM service by lessening interference and congestion in the existing band. On May 3, 1993, the Commission opened a filing window for existing AM stations to file petitions to migrate to the expanded band. On December 3, 1993, the Commission announced a ranking of all petitions to migrate in accordance with the priority groups and improvement factors described in the AM Improvement Order. This Public Notice announces the expanded band Allotment Plan, and identifies the stations that are eligible to apply for authorizations associated with specific allotments, based upon the previously announced ranking of the petitions. Stations not receiving an allotment were precluded by one or more of the following: the Canadian agreement, the Mexican agreement, the Region 2 agreement, Federal Travelers' Information Service Stations ("TIS"), harmonic frequency relationships with existing stations, or preclusion by stations of higher ranking. The Canadian agreement restricts the assignment of stations within 500 km of the common border to 1620, 1640, 1660, 1680, and 1700 kHz with a US priority on 1680 kHz and a Canadian priority on 1630 kHz. Stations on 1620, 1640, 1660, and 1700 kHz must be notified to Canada. A comparable restriction applies to Canadian stations. The Mexican agreement restricts assignments within 450 km of the common border to 21 specified frequencies at specific locations. If an expanded band proposal for a station was within 45 km of an allotment specified in the Mexican agreement it received an expanded band allotment provided it was not precluded by a station with a higher ranking or other factors. U.S. Government TIS facilities were protected in accordance with the guidelines of 47 C.F.F 90.242(a)(2)(i). Expanded band stations were not allotted within 30 km of an existing station if the frequency relationship being considered was twice the frequency of the existing station. The allotments also maintain a separation of 53 km from existing 1590 khz stations and 200 km from existing 1600 kHz stations. Finally a proposed station may have been precluded by the allotment of a frequency to a station(s) having a higher ranking. Stations not selected for migration will be afforded thirty (30) days to file for reconsideration of the Allotment Plan with arguments limited to addressing errors in the selection process. After the Allotment Plan has become final and no longer subject to Commission reconsideration, the Commission will enter the allotments into the Commission's AM Engineering Data Base. The Commission will issue a Public Notice of the finality of the Allotment Plan and call for applications to be filed. Stations selected for migration will be afforded sixty (60) days from the date the plan becomes final in which to file an application for construction permit on the allotted channel The application should be filed on Form 301 and must be accompanied by the normal filing fee for such application. After acceptance of the application for filing, the Commission will then put the application on a cut-off list. The application will then be subject to petitions to deny but not to competing applications. After grant of the construction permit application and construction of the authorized facilities, the expanded band permittee will then file a covering license application on FCC Form 302. Licenses for stations in the expanded band will be issued for a term that is concurrent with the existing license for operation in the 535-1605 khz band. For more information, contact Jim Buttle at (202) 418-2660. AM EXPANDED BAND ALLOTMENTS Pres.Ex.Bd. Call Licensed to State kHz kHz WEUP Huntsville AL 1600 1610 KFVR Cresent City CA 1310 1610 KECN Blackfoot ID 690 1610 KENN Farmington NM 1390 1610 KXBT Vallejo CA 1190 1620 KHMO Hannibal MO 1070 1620 WVMI Biloxi MS 570 1620 WLNC Laurinburg NC 1300 1620 KQWB West Fargo ND 1550 1620 WEHH Elmira Heights NY 1590 1620 KPAR Granbury TX 1420 1620 WGOD St. Thomas VI 1090 1620 KRIZ Renton WA 1420 1620 KSHY Fox Farm WY 1530 1620 KIDR Phoenix AZ 740 1630 WPGS Mims FL 840 1630 KCJJ Iowa City IA 1560 1630 KYUU Liberal KS 1470 1630 WSYD Mount Airy NC 1300 1630 KTMT Phoenix OR 880 1630 WTAW College StationTX 1150 1630 KTKK Sandy UT 630 1630 KLOQ Merced CA 1580 1640 KRKS Denver CO 990 1640 WAOK Atlanta GA 1380 1640 WIWO South Bend IN 1580 1640 KLXX Bismark/Mandan ND 1270 1640 WTRY Troy NY 980 1640 KTRT Claremore OK 1270 1640 KPHP Lake Oswego OR 1290 1640 KURV Edinburg TX 710 1640 KITA Little Rock AR 1440 1650 KFRN Long Beach CA 1280 1650 KNRO Redding CA 600 1650 WBIT Adel GA 1470 1650 KCFI Cedar Falls IA 1250 1650 KSVE El Paso TX 1150 1650 KSOS Brigham City UT 800 1650 WPMH Portsmouth VA 1010 1650 KBLU Yuma AZ 560 1660 KRCX Roseville CA 1110 1660 KCOL Ft. Collins CO 1410 1660 WCCF Punta Gorda FL 1580 1660 KAGY Port Sulphur LA 1510 1660 WRGC Sylva NC 680 1660 WJDM Elizabeth NJ 1530 1660 WPJC Adjuntas PR 1020 1660 KHVN Fort Worth TX 970 1660 KEYF Dishman WA 1050 1660 WNNO Wisconsin DellsWI 900 1660 KWHN Fort Smith AR 1320 1670 KECR El Cajon CA 910 1670 WRCC Warner Robins GA 1600 1670 WTGM Salisbury MD 960 1670 KKOJ Jackson MN 1190 1670 KKIS Concord CA 1480 1680 KQXI Arvada CO 1550 1680 WELX Callahan FL 1160 1680 WKCT Bowling Green KY 930 1680 WNSW Brewer ME 1200 1680 WEBC Duluth MN 560 1680 WNED Buffalo NY 970 1680 KDSX Denison-ShermanTX 950 1680 KPOZ Seattle WA 1590 1680 WKRG Mobile AL 710 1690 KFRE Fresno CA 940 1690 WBCI Normal IL 1440 1690 WGHB Farmville NC 1250 1690 KCRC Enid OK 1390 1690 WRRA Frederiksted VI 1290 1690 WFMH Cullman AL 1460 1700 KCEE Tuscon AZ 940 1700 KAHI Auburn CA 950 1700 WOKB Winter Garden FL 1600 1700 KRGI Grand Island NE 1430 1700 KAHZ Fort Worth TX 1360 1700 WAGE Leesburg VA 1200 1700 KCPL Olympia WA 920 1700 WKSH Sussex WI 1370 1700 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 20:09:00 EST Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA From: Paul Robinson Subject: AT&T Throws in the Towel ... err Card AT&T finally gave in and set up an 800 bypass number the way its competitors did. AT&T has finally caved in on another marketing concept. Visiting Staples, a discount office supply store today, I saw a display card and brochures for: THE AT&T PREPAID CARD It's a typical prepaid calling card in which you purchase telephone time on it in advance, and you dial a special 1-800 number (800 357 PAID) to use it. (They are also apparently trying to claim trademark rights on the term "PrePaid".) Here are some of the points from the brochure: {Where does it work} You can use the AT&T PrePaid Card to call anywhere in the U.S and to over 200 countries - from any touch tone phone. (And this one probably is accepted for calls to those countries that "don't accept AT&T's card". :) {How much is it worth} You can purchase PrePaid Cards in 10, 15, 25, 50 and 100 calling unit denominations. Calls within the continental U.S. cost just one unit per minute. Calls outside the continental U.S, are 3-5 units per minute, depending on destination. {Is it good for more than one call} You can use the PrePaid card for as many calls as you like, up to the face value of its calling units. After each call, you'll be told how many units remain on the card, And you'll get a 1-minute warning if the card is about to expire during a call. The two quoted prices at Staples were $11.99 for a 25-unit card (list price $14.99), and $7.99 for a 15-unit card (list price $8.99). As you can see, this translates to a "list" price of 60c per unit, Staples' price being 48c and 53c a unit for the 25 and 15 unit cards, respectively, about twice AT&T's highest interstate call, e.g. LA to DC or New York which is nominally about 26c, and 1 1/2 times their highest intrastate rate, usually 35 or 40c. About the only type of call this makes sense on is calls to very expensive overseas calls such as Israel or Russia, assuming they are the 5-unit per minute rate ($2.45) vs a credit card call to Israel at $6.94 for the first minute and $1.39 each additional. On a call to Moscow Russia, the prepaid card makes more sense with the credit card price being 7.25 for the 1st minute and 2.89 each additional, a 25-unit card costs less. I expect if this continues, that some of the higher overseas rates will come down or they will soon (if it doesn't already) bar the most expensive overseas calls via this prepaid card. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 9:31:47 GMT From: Will Martin Subject: AT&T Takes Action Against MCI 800-CALLINFO This was over on misc.consumers -- I don't think it appeared in Telecom yet: Topic: AT&T files with FCC challenging MCI on 800- calls WASHINGTON (Reuter) - AT&T Corp. said Wednesday it filed a formal complaint against MCI Communications Corp. over a new MCI charge for calling an MCI 800 phone number. The complaint, filed with the Federal Communications Commission, charges that MCI is billing customers for 800 calls without informing them beforehand. ATT said this violates federal legislation prohibiting phone companies and information providers from charging 800 call customers. Charges can only be imposed for 800 calls when the caller uses a credit card or calling card or has an established billing agreement with the provider before the call, it said. ATT said MCI's newly announced 1-800-CALL-INFO service would charge customers for directory assistance calls placed to an MCI 800 number. MCI had no immediate response. -------------- (There wasn't any reference pointer as to where this article came from.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 10:36:12 CDT From: David Devereaux-Weber Subject: New List for Telecommunication Rules Announcing TelecomDocs: An Internet Listserver for the distribution of telecommunications rules and regulations. This list is not limited to just the FCC or even the US. We also welcome submissions of telecommunications rules from local, state or international entities. You are welcome to subscribe. TelecomDocs is an electronic forum for the distribution of telecommunications rules, regulations and other official communications. It is operated on facilities provided by the University of Wisconsin - Madison Division of Information Technology (DoIT). TelecomDocs is moderated - messages are reviewed by the listowners before they are posted. Only messages pertaining to the purpose of the list will be posted. For discussion of telecommunications issues, we refer you to other related lists, like TelecomReg or Telecom Digest. Subscriptions are available to anyone, anywhere there is email (including people connected to the Internet, CompuServe, Prodigy, America On Line, BIX, Delphi, and so on). There is no charge for a subscription. TO SUBSCRIBE, send the message: subscribe telecomdocs firstname lastname to the host: listserver@relay.adp.wisc.edu (for example, I would send the message: subscribe telecomdocs David Devereaux-Weber to the listserver.) The listserver software will use the FROM address in your subscription message as the destination address for list messages so send the message from the system where you would like to receive messages. The listserver will attempt to interpret everything in the body of the email message as a command, including any "signature" text you may have set in your mail program, so turn off the signature for this message. The Listserver software include other features like archiving messages and collecting messages for delivery in groups (digest). For more information, send an email with the command HELP in the message section to LISTSERVER@RELAY.ADP.WISC.EDU. The listserver will email you back with a help message. The listowners help resolve problems of people attempting to subscribe, unsubscribe or post messages. Our address appears on every message (Errors to: owner-telecomdocs@facstaff.wisc.edu). If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Barry Orton Voice/fax: (608) 262-2394 Professor of Telecommunications Internet: borton@macc.wisc.edu University of Wisconsin-Madison 6l0 Langdon St. Madison, WI 53703 David Devereaux-Weber, P. E. Voice:(608)262-3584 The University of Wisconsin - Madison Internet: djdevere@facstaff.wisc.edu Division of Information Technology 1210 West Dayton St. Madison, WI 53706 22-October-1994 v1.01 David Devereaux-Weber, P.E. weberdd@doit.wisc.edu (Internet) The University of Wisconsin - Madison weberdd@wiscmacc.bitnet (Bitnet) Division of Information Technology djdevere@facstaff.wisc.edu (Internet) Network Engineering (608)262-3584(voice) (608)262-4679(FAX) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 13:06:10 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Phone Fun 800 Forwarded to the Digest, FYI. Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 15:30:52 -0700 From: "Brock N. Meeks" Subject: Phone Fun 800 CyberWire Dispatch// Copyright 1994 // Jacking in from the "There's No Free Lunch" Port: Washington, DC -- So you think that all calls to an 800 number are free? Think again. Not only are some calls to an 800 not free, you may be getting popped for the bill without knowing it. I know, I know. Where is the trust? A free call to an 800 number is one of the few remaining "free lunch" perks us ordinary Joe's and Jane's had going for us. Actually, the practice of allowing companies to charge for 800 number calls has been going for a while now. Funny how such rules slip into being without much fanfare, eh? Do you recall any of the long distance phone companies taking out ads to tell you this news? I mean, MCI could have taken their obnoxious Saturday Night Live frontman -- the one that does the insufferable 1-800-COLLECT ads -- and had him whine: "Hey, Phoners... not all 800 calls are FREE anymore. Get a Clue, Phone Dude." Although there are legitimate uses of "for fee" 800 services, the practice is still highly dubious. Why? Because it does run against a certain "trust" telephone companies have built up. Don't believe me? Try this. Ask the next 10 people you see this question: Are calls to an 800 number free? I'll bet 9 of 10 tell you "Yes." Of course, the Dial-A-Hard-On sex chat lines were the first to learn how to abuse the "right" of being able to bill for 800 calls. The sex chat folks would, in essence, issue an instant 'calling card' to some sweaty, heavy breather, creating an "business relationship" which was allowed under the for-fee 800 billing rules. The caller would get a PIN with his instant calling card. On subsequent "visits" the caller tapped in the PIN and the meter began ticking. The tricky part came in on the billing side. Businesses, hotels and college dorms routinely block calls to 900 numbers, afraid of the potential for untraceable and astronomical bills. But such isn't the case with calls to 800 numbers. "Why block calls to free 800 numbers?" goes the thinking. Here's another bit of "Inside Telco" info for you: Whenever you make an 800 number call, all sorts of information is "captured" by the service you're calling. Name, address, telephone number, etc. Neat trick, eh? It's done using a nifty piece of software called Advanced Intelligent Network or AIN or short. Well, these porn lines would issue an instant PIN tied to the AIN information off the original 800 number call. So, if you called a sex line using an 800 number from the Rectory of your local Catholic Church or the office of a congressman and were issued a PIN, any later calls you made would be *billed to the church or congressman's phone* because the porn line guys "captured" the billing address information from that phone. Suddenly, businesses, hotels and college dorms (don't know about churches or congressman's offices) were hit with tens of thousands of dollars in bogus billings, all tied to porn lines. The FCC and Federal Trade Commission hammered such loop holes last August after a hue and cry of public complaint. The trick for billing to an 800 number is that it can done if one of three criteria are met: (1) The call is billed to a credit card. (2) The call is billed to a pre-subscribed calling card. (3) An established billing agreement between caller and service provider is in place. For example, say an Internet service provider wants to establish nationwide service, but doesn't have local calling numbers in place in every city. The answer might be to buy a huge block of time from a long distance company to get cheap rates and then allow callers to connect via an 800 number that is billed to a credit card. Not perfect, but legitimate. AT&T To MCI: Hold The Phone ============================ But on Wednesday those madcap pranksters of the long distance market, AT&T, decided that MCI had pissed on their parade one too many times. So, AT&T, October 19, filed a formal complaint with the FCC against its closest competitor over a service it launched called 1-800-CALL-INFO. AT&T claims the service is illegal because it violates federal rules governing billable 800 calls. The MCI service connects the caller to an information operator. Anywhere, anytime, from any phone. It's an ingenious service, and one that, if left intact, is sure to eat into AT&T profits just as the brilliant 1-800-COLLECT service has kicked AT&T's ass in the collect calling market. But like the 1-800-COLLECT service, MCI has chosen not to "brand" the service. In other words, they don't tell you it's an MCI service. Are they embarrassed of their own brand? Some folks at AT&T think so, but they cherish their pension plan and wouldn't go on record saying it. So, having been embarrassed at the drubbing they've taken in collect calling market, AT&T's gone to the FCC complaining about the MCI's 800 directory service. AT&T's complaint says that MCI bills customers for the service without informing them beforehand of the cost. (Hey, AT&T ... it's right there in *really, tiny print* on the TV screen ...) Dispatch called MCI for comment; no calls were returned. 1-800-MEEKS-OUT... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The mail has been rolling in here on this very topic the past week and perhaps soon I should print another issue with some responses and commentaries. I don't think MCI will lose the case for the simple reason that like all the other information providers using 800 as their carriage, they are not billing for the call itself but for the information rendered as a result. You can see this for yourself if you call from a payphone: they won't give out the information without asking for alternate billing advice, yet I am sure the local telco is none-the-less billing MCI for that one minute call you made (from a payphone) which MCI declined to service. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #405 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa29412; 10 Nov 94 4:51 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA08758; Thu, 10 Nov 94 00:21:09 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA08745; Thu, 10 Nov 94 00:21:05 CST Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 00:21:05 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9411100621.AA08745@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #406 TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Nov 94 00:21:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 406 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson A Word of Thanks and Other Notes (TELECOM Digest Editor) IEEE Southeastcon 95: Call for Papers, Invitation to Exhibit (Benningfield) Enterprise Management Summit (emiinc@mcimail.com) ISLIP 94 Proceedings via WWW (R. Jagannathan) Burning Questions - AT&T, MCI, or Other? (Candice Bergman) Description of Pinout on Moto Flip Phone Wanted (Russ Latham) International Calling-Cards - Any Suggestions? (Bill Blum) How Do RBOCs Train Their Customers? (patrajones@aol.com) Canadian/US Hospital Telecom Contacts Wanted (David Payne) Caller ID and Privacy (Bill Wen) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 94 22:46:02 CST From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: A Word of Thanks and Other Notes This is just a quick word of thanks to everyone who sent cards, letters and flowers to me over the past week. There is no way a personal response can be given due to the high volume received. I have to go back to the hospital Friday for more testing and it is possible another short stay in the hospital may be required, but I hope not. Please recall that the Digest is funded in large part by the generosity of readers like yourself who send 'subscription donations' from time to time as they see fit. There is absolutely no obligation to do so, but the financial help received means a great deal and frankly has been the one reason this Digest has continued publication the past two or three years. Some of you did in fact send donations as you felt appropriate with your notes this past week, and to you, my special heartfelt thanks go out. If your company or organization would like to be a sponsor of the Digest, then your name will be included as such in the masthead of each issue if you wish. There is a HUGE backlog of subscription requests waiting to be processed and I will get to these as soon as possible. Right now I want to try and catch up on some of the telecom news items waiting for publication. Enough about me for now ... let's have a few letters from the readers and get back down to business. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: benningf@aur.alcatel.com (R. F. Benningfield) Subject: IEEE Southeastcon 1995: Call for Papers, Invitation to Exhibit Date: 10 Nov 1994 03:57:03 GMT Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh, NC. Reply-To: benningf@aur.alcatel.com IEEE Southeastcon '95 Visualizing the Future March 26-29, 1995, Raleigh, North Carolina Sponsored by Region 3 and the Eastern North Carolina Section Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers If your company is interested in being an exhibitor at Southeastcon '95 then please contact me. As Chair of the Southeastcon Exhibits Committee, I can fax you an Invitation to Exhibit flyer, or I can mail you a full exhibitor's kit (which includes registration, contract, booth layout in the Hilton's Grand Ballroom, etc.). Robert F. Benningfield Jr. {benningf@aur.alcatel.com} TSM Engineer, R&D Hardware Design & Development Engineering Alcatel Network Systems, 2912 Wake Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609, USA {NCSU Alumnus: MSEE '90, BSEE '89} Phone: 919/850-5569 (work) or 919/851-5562 (play), Fax: (919) 850-6590 ***************************************************************************** Announcement and Call for Papers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Southeastcon is the yearly IEEE Region 3 Technical Conference established to bring regional Electrical Engineering professionals, faculty and students together to share information, primarily by presentation of technical papers. It is the most influential outlet in Region 3 for promoting awareness of technical contributions made by our profession to the advancement of engineering science and society. Original papers, not previously published or presented elsewhere, are invited. Attendance and professional program paper presentation from areas outside IEEE Region 3 are encouraged and welcomed. Southeastcon '95 will be held in Raleigh, North Carolina. This year special emphasis will be given to a number of topics that have flourished in the Region. Computer Graphics, Visualization and Telecommunications, core technologies of the Research Triangle Park, have converged to produce Multimedia, Interactive Television and Virtual Reality. The program committee especially invites papers and tutorials exploring these and related topics of interest to Region 3 IEEE members. In addition to visualizing the future of technology, the program committee intends to give special attention to papers and presentations which explore social issues related to the use of technology. It is hoped that in this way we can better understand the impact of technology on our society and the role and responsibilities of engineers which shape the future. An abbreviated list of other suggested topics is given below; authors are invited to submit papers on all topics of interest to the IEEE Region 3 membership. Suggested Topics for Southeastcon '95: Visualization Interactive Television Acoustics ISDN Aerospace systems Lasers/Photonics Analog Systems Magnetics Artificial Intelligence Medical Electronics Audio Systems Microelectronics Bioengineering Microprocessors Biomedical Microwaves Cellular Radio Modeling and Simulation Circuits and Systems Multimedia Cogeneration Network Theory Communications Neural Networks Components Nuclear and Plasmas Computer Graphics Optical Computing Computers Pattern Recognition Consumer Electronics Power Electronics Control Systems Power Systems Design Automation Professional Activities Dielectrics/Insulation Radar Systems Digital Systems Reliability Education Robotics Electromagnetic Fields Sensors and Transducers Electro-Optics Signal Processing EMC/EMI Sonet/ATM Engineering and Society Superconductivity Engineering Ethics Systems Theory Expert Systems Telecommunications Fiber Optics Telemetry GaAs/SiGe Ultrasonics Image Processing Vehicular Technology Industrial Applications Virtual Reality Industrial Electronics VLSI/ULSI Information Systems Concise Papers Abstract & Summary DEADLINE - NOVEMBER 9, 1994 Full-Length Papers DEADLINE - NOVEMBER 15, 1994 Technical Program Chair: General Chair: Ralph Begun Charles Lord 9904 Darnell Ct. 108 Huntington Circle Raleigh, NC 27615-1514 Cary, NC 27513-3805 rbegun@vnet.ibm.com c.j.lord@ieee.org 919-558-6147 Vice Chair: Student Program Chair: Greg Old George Abbott Dept. of Electrical Engr. North Carloina State University North Carloina State University P.O Box 7914 P.O Box 7911 Raleigh, NC 27695-7914 Raleigh, NC 27695-7911 abbott @ecesis.ncsu.edu ghold@eos.ncsu.edu Instructions for Paper Submission 1. Full-length Papers (Refereed): Submit four copies of a paper not to exceed twenty (20) double- spaced, typewritten pages (including references and figures) to the Technical Program Chairman by November 15, 1994. these papers will be fully refereed. Author notification will be mailed by December 5, 1994 and the final camera-ready papers will be due on January 6, 1995. 2. Concise Papers (May be presented in oral or poster sessions): Submit four copies of a paper summary and separate abstract to the Technical Program Chairman by November 9, 1994. The abstract must be on a separated sheet and limited to one page. The summary should not exceed 500 words. The summary should be complete and should include (a) statement of problems or questions addressed, (b) objective of work with regards to the problem, (c) approach employed to achieve objective, (d) progress, work performed and (e) important results or conclusions. Since the summary will be the basis for selection, care should be taken in its preparation so that it is representative of the work to be reported. As an aid to the Papers Review Committee, please indicate which conference topic from the list above which most closely represents the subject area of your paper. Concise papers, not exceeding four (4) camera-ready Proceedings pages (including references and figures) will be published subject to acceptance by the Papers Review Committee and the author's fulfillment of additional requirements contained in the author's kit. Notification of acceptance and mailing of author's kit will be on or before December 5, 1994, and the camera-ready papers will be due on January 6, 1995. 3. Student Papers: Students should consult their Student Branch counselor for information on the Student Paper Contest. Student papers may be a separate program with a submission deadline of February 14, 1995. The Southeastcon '95 Student Conference Chairman will answer student program inquiries when local information is not available. Poster Sessions: Poster sessions will provide an alternative format for paper presentation that allows for greater flexibility and expanded audience interaction. Publication - All papers accepted for Southeastcon '95 will be published in the Proceedings provided they comply with the above deadline dates and requirements from the author's kit are fulfilled. The length of concise papers is restricted to four (4) Proceedings pages; a full-length paper is restricted to eight (8) pages; however more pages can be provided at an added cost that is explained in the author's kit. Tutorial/Workshop Program - Proposals for tutorial/workshop topics and organizers are invited. A Workshop/Tutorial description of 300-500 words should be submitted to the Technical Program Chairman no later than November 15, 1994. Include instructor biographies, etc. as relevant. Registration - Advance registration and hotel reservation forms will be mailed with the Advance Program described below. The Conference site is the North Raleigh Hilton and Convention Center, Raleigh, NC. Advance Program Mailing - The Advance Program will be mailed only to authors, co-authors and others (not associated with a technical paper) who make known to the Technical Program Chairman their wish to receive the Advance Program when published. It is anticipated that the advance Program will be mailed in early February 1995. Mr. Ralph M. Begun Southeastcon '95 Technical Chair 9904 Darnell Court Raleigh, NC 27615-1514 rbegun@vnet.ibm.com IEEE Southeastcon '95 Preliminary Announcement and Call for Papers ------------------------------ From: summit@ix.netcom.com (Summit '94) Subject: Enterprise Management Summit Date: 10 Nov 1994 02:05:42 GMT Organization: Netcom Enterprise Management Summit Phone 415.512.0801 or 800-340-2111 Fax 415.512.1325 E-Mail emiinc@mcimail.com Summit '94 November 14-18 Summit '94 is right around the corner! A Panel of Experts has been appointed for the Enterprise Management Summit '94. This panel will evaluate the vendor shoot-out in the Enterprise Management Center, located on the second floor of the Santa Clara Convention Center. The panel includes Warren Williams (Pacific Bell), Steve Waldbusser (Carnegie-Mellon), John McConnell (McConnell Consulting) and Randy Smith (UPS). The panel's evaluation will be made available at the end of the conference. Theater particpants include Computer Associates, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, DEC,and Bull. The Conference Starts Next Week! Don't miss out on this exciting event! Register today. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 94 10:49:08 PST From: R. Jagannathan Reply-To: jagan@csl.sri.com Subject: ISLIP 94 Proceedings via WWW See http://www.csl.sri.com/lucid/ISLIP94/electronic-proceedings.html for an electronic version of ISLIP 94 which was held at SRI in Menlo Park in September of this year. (It can also be accessed via http://www.csl.sri.com/Lucid.html). Jaggan ------------------------------ From: dchou@acs2.bu.edu (Candice Bergman) Subject: Burning Questions - AT&T, MCI, or Other Date: 8 Nov 1994 18:26:00 GMT Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA In the good old U.S. of A., capitalist media capital of the world that it is, we are constantly blitzed with commercial advertising from all angles- TV, telephone, periodicals, and of course, the old-fashioned personal solicitations. The influx of immigrant populations to the United States within the past generation has piqued the interest of advertising pundits, who have broadened their marketing focus to target what they PERCEIVE as "ethnic" advertising - READ: NOT White Middle Class Americans. This term is obviously a bit too broad to be useful, but it serves to paint a picture of what most definitely deserves further inquiry; thus, I ask for YOUR help in collecting as much relevant data in the hopes of extending this into a more comprehensive research project. More specifically, the question I have in mind is the relationship between LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANIES and the non-profit or for-profit ETHNIC organizations/businesses they focus on. As a related example, I was sitting home and tooling around the house one day and got a call (big deal for me; happens a few times a year). Anyway, I sprint to my phone (no pun intended), and am greeted by this Chinese-speaking lady, asking me whether or not I have considered switching to..."Blah Blah Blah." Note - she automatically assumed that because my last name sounds Chinese, I would prefer to speak in that language, and broached the subject of switching to her long-distance carrier with what I would label the "common countryman" approach. She didn't consider that I could have been adopted in a London orphanage by a couple of Chinese emigres studying there at the time and be this English speaking Caucasian. Which I'm not, but I diverge. Now, obviously, I have my perceptions of such relationships based upon my own experiences but they're not sufficient for making any kind of real quantitative analyses. Therefore, I ask you ... the ever expansive and experienced net: =========================================================================== 1. WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE LONG DISTANCE CARRIER INVOLVED? 2. WHAT IS THE NAME OF YOUR NON-PROFIT OR FOR-PROFIT COMPANY/ORGANIZATION/ AFFILIATION? (ie. Jewish National Fund, Asiani Airlines, etc.) 3. WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE OFFER TO YOU? (ie. sign up for "blah blah blah" and we will donate 5% of your long distance bill for the next 3 months to the Jewish National Fund.) 4. HOW WAS THE OFFER PUBLICIZED TO YOU? (ie. were you called up, were you bombed with junk mail, did some representative come knocking @ your door?) 5. HOW LONG AGO, APPROXIMATELY, DID THIS SOLICITATION OCCUR? ================================================================== The above, in essense, is the nature of my questionaire. I am not looking to use the above data in any statistical sampling or other analyses at this stage ... I'm just looking for as much raw, relevant data. Thus, if you have friends, co-workers, etc. in addition to yourself who might be able to help me out, I would greatly appreciate any information you could volunteer. My GREAT PREFERENCE (hint, hint :)) would be for you to e-mail your responses to me in private, since I don't always have access to the newsreader. If I can convince the Powers That Be that this is a worthwhile and feasible topic of pursuit, you would have my sincere gratitude :) Or maybe some cold hard cash :) Just kidding. Anyway, I look forward to your responses, and thanks very much for reading my circumlocutory posting. David Chou dchou@acs2.bu.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Description of Pinout on Moto flip Phone? Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 11:34:02 CST From: rlatham@mcdmail1.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Russ Latham) Can anyone tell me what the various lines are in the connector on the bottom of one of the Motorola flip phones? (not the three pin connector for the battery, but the one used with some chargers and used to connect a hands-free unit, etc.) What I'm interested in is finding the Audio Transmit and Receive connections. Thanks for any info.... Russ Latham rlatham@ftw.mot.com or latham@rtsg.mot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 01:21:44 GMT From: Bill Blum Subject: International Calling-Cards -- Any Suggestions? We have a researcher at this location that is visiting the Griffin, GA (U.S.) from Nigeria. He would like to be able to make cost-effective calls to Nigeria (we have a POTS number that is commonly used in the visitor housing here on our campus that this person can receive calls to). Are there cards that cater to International Dialing exclusively? My biggest problem may be in assuring the provider that this person, who is here for a short time, is responsible for possible debt. Any other foibles to watch out for? Is it possible to use something like TelePassport in reverse to access Nigeria? Any help is appreciated. ------------------------------ From: patrajones@aol.com (PatraJones) Subject: How Do RBOCs Train Their Customers? Date: 10 Nov 1994 00:44:02 GMT Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Please help!! I'm doing research on how RBOCs train their customers on network services that they have purchased (ie Centrex, voice mail). I need info on whether training is an additional cost on top of the price of installation. Who does it? Is it conducted at the customer site, or are customers whisked to the nearest RBOC office? Are brochures and computer disks utilized as "professors"? What products/services have you as the customer been trained on by an RBOC employee? Answers to any of these questions would be greatly appreciated. Please e-mail your response to me. Thanks for your help. ------------------------------ Subject: Canadian/US Hospital Telecom Contacts Wanted From: DPAYNE@vicwc01.is.vichosp.london.on.ca (DAVID PAYNE) Date: 10 Nov 94 00:28:20 EST I am interested in establishing some contacts with other Telecommunication and/or Information Departments in Canadian or American hospitals. I would like to start a "information exchange" on applications, problems and solutions specific to hospitals. Thank you, David Payne Analyst Telecommunications Victoria Hospital Box 5375 London, Ontario Canada, N6A 4G5 (519)685-8300 x5107. (519)685-8305 (fax) Internet: dpayne@vicwc01.is.vichosp.london.on.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 00:44:40 GMT From: Bill=Wen%OS=Quality%Sys=Hou@bangate.compaq.com Subject: Caller ID and Privacy The recent discussion on Caller ID and privacy (Ref: Ross E. Mitchell in "Dynamic Negotiation in the Privacy Wars", Telecom Vol 14, Issue 402) gave me a rather simple idea: Why not just add a feature on programmable phones so that it generates tones when the phone goes off-hook? Programmable phones already give you the ability to store phone numbers, accessible either through a dedicated set of buttons or through certain combinations of buttons. Why not add a another programming option on the phone that gets "dialed" each time you pick up the phone, like "*67"? The option would only kick in and "dial" this number if it detects dial tone, which would eliminate the problem of the phone dialing *67 if you're picking up to answer a call. Any phone gurus out there see a problem with this solution? I know, I know, this will mean you have to replace ALL the phones in your house/residence, but I would think that's even better incentive for phone-makers to include the feature. BillW [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, someone has experimeted with that, and I forget who it is. He sent me a prototype of his work about a year ago. It was a little box you plug in the phone line in series with the phone itself and when the phone goes off hook this little box blurts out *67 to the network as the first order of business. By the time you actually get the receiver to your ear and start dialing your number the *67 part has already been passed. It was smart enough to not sent the code when you answered an incoming call, and in the event you did want to pass your caller-ID information, there was a way to do it, I think by going off hook, flashing for a second then going off hook again and dialing the usual way. I don't know whatever happened to him and his project. It seemed like an interesting idea at the time and one that might make some money for its inventor. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #406 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa01665; 10 Nov 94 10:02 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA09650; Thu, 10 Nov 94 01:07:05 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA09642; Thu, 10 Nov 94 01:07:01 CST Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 01:07:01 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9411100707.AA09642@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #407 TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Nov 94 01:07:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 407 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Russian Satellite Conference Proceedings (mchenry@misvms.boa.arizona.edu) Re: Dynamic Negotiation and Caller-ID (A. Padgett Peterson) Medical Multimedia: MEDIMM (Jean-Bernard Condat) AT&T Personal Term 510/510a Help Needed (Alex Jeannopoulos) GeoPort Technology (Monty Solomon) Summit '94: Sponsors & Exhibitors (emiinc@mcimail.com) Re: I'm Back - At Least Part Time (bkron@netcom.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mchenry@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu Subject: Russian Satellite Conference Proceedings Date: 09 Nov 1994 07:00:00 MST Organization: University of Arizona (BPA) Conference Summary: THE REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS - ICSC'94 October 18-21, Moscow, Russia The conference was organized by: * Russian A.S.Popov Society for Radioengineering, Electronics and Communications * Institute of Radioengineering & Electronics, Russian Academy of Sciences * International Centre for Scientific and Technical Information * Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) * IEEE Russia Section * IEEE Region 8 (Europe, Africa and Middle East) * IEEE Communications Society * IEEE Communications Society Russia Chapter * IEEE Professional Communication Society Russia Chapter * Centro Studi E Laboratori Telecommunicazioni (CSELT, Italy) * "TELESPAZIO" (Italy) The participants from Russia, Ukraine, UK, France, Italy, USA, Israel, Georgia - total number 250 - have been gathered at the conference venue - International Centre for Scientific and Technical Information, Moscow. Some important organisations acting in satellite communications research and developments participated with papers and technical discussion. Among them Inmarsat, Eutelsat, Intersputnik, United Nations Office for Outer Space and others. More than 70 papers, 5 plenary talks and about 15 posters have been presented at plenary and topical sessions: Session 1: Satellite communication systems and broadcasting Session 2: Platform launchers, space complex and equipment for satellite communications Session 3: Satellite based systems with high elliptical and low Earth orbits, VSAT networking and data transmission Session 4: Satellite based systems for ecological monitoring and navigation The conference proceedings in two volumes were published at the beginning of the conference. The special feature of the proceedings is the first time publication of detailed technical description of many Russia-originated satellite communications projects - Express Marathon, Gonets, Coupon, Gals and others. Contents of the Conference Proceedings is following: OUTLOOK FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE SATELLITE COMMUNICATION IN RUSSIA Yu.G. Milov, Russian Space Agency, Moscow INTERSPUTNIK'S ROLE IN EASTERN EUROPE Neil Bakmann, Intersputnik, Russia INMARSAT SYSTEM AND SERVICES Vladimir V. Spiridonov, International Satellite Organisation Inmarsat, London SOVCAN STAR SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM M.Reshetnev, A.Kozlov, E.Korchagin, NPO PM, Krasnoyarsk-26 V.Bellini, G.Lewis, SCS, Canada THE ROLE OF VSAT AND OTHER SMALL SATELLITE TERMINALS IN EVOLVING THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT Paolo Amadesi, EUTELSAT, France SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS IN RUSSIA Dr. V.I. Khokhlov President, Joint Stock Company "Telecom" THE JOINT STOCK COMPANY TELECOM AND PERSPECTIVES OF BUSINESS COOPERATION OUTLOOK FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE SATELLITE COMMUNICATION IN RUSSIA Yu.G. Milov Russian Space Agency, Moscow INTERSPUTNIK'S ROLE IN EASTERN EUROPE Neil Bakmann Intersputnik, Russia INMARSAT SYSTEM AND SERVICES Vladimir V. Spiridonov International Satellite Organisation Inmarsat, London SOVCAN STAR SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM M.Reshetnev, A.Kozlov, E.Korchagin NPO PM, Krasnoyarsk-26 V.Bellini, G.Lewis SCS, Canada THE ROLE OF VSAT AND OTHER SMALL SATELLITE TERMINALS IN EVOLVING THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT Paolo Amadesi EUTELSAT, France ON CONSTRUCTION OF GLOBAL SATELLITE MULTIPROGRAM HIGH DEFINITION TELEVISION AND HIGH QUALITY SOUND BROADCASTING SYSTEM Y.B. Zoubarev, M.I. Krivosheev, I.S. Tsyrlin, Y.P. Semenov, V.G. Kravets State Radio Research and Development Institute, JSC "Informcosmos", NPO "Energy", Russia "EXPRESS" SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM I. Tsirlin, L. Kantor, A. Karutin, I. Povolotski, A. Kozlov JSC "Inforcosmos", State Radio Research and Development Institute, NPO PM, Russia DIRECT TV BROADCASTING SYSTEM BASED ON GALS AND GALS-R SATELLITES Yu. Zoubarev, I. Tsirlin, L. Kantor, A. Kozlov, E. Koumysh, D. Zaytsev State Radio Research and Development Institute NPO PM, JSC "Informcosmos", Russia THE PERSPECTIVE OF SATELLITE TELEVISION DEVELOPMENT IN RUSSIA A.Kozlov, V.Radaikin, A.Belobrov Research and Production Association "Applied Mechanics" (NPO PM), Krasnoyarsk-26, Russia INTEGRATED MULTIPURPOSE MULTILEVEL SPACE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM G.Ya. Guskov, A.I. Abolite, B.N. Vinogradov NPO "ELAS", Moscow, Russia "COMBINED SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS" K.I. Kukk Joint Stock Company "TELECOM", MOSCOW, RUSSIA SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM USING VSAT'S AND POTOK SATELLITE- TRANSPONDEN V.A. Bakursky, G.J. Guskov, R.A. Setdikov, V.N. Chetverik NPO "ELAS", Moscow, Russia DUBNA-INTERCOSMOS INTERNATIONAL EXPERIMENTAL SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS CENTRE V.L. Bykov, D.M. Federov, A.L. Sandomirsky, V.S. Rabinovich State Radio Research and Development Institute, Moscow, Russia THE COMMUNICATION SATELLITE "YAMAL": THE NEW TECHNOLOGICAL APPROACH IN CREATING THE COMMUNICATION SATELLITES IN RUSSIA Yu.S. Denisov, A.V.Shestakov, E.F. Zemskov Joint Stock Company "Gazcom", Russia THE NEW SATELLITE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM FOR RUSSIA "YAMAL" Victor A. Blinov, Nikolay N. Sevastyanov, Andrey V. Shestakov Joint Stock Company "Gazcom", Russia LOW AVAILABILITY SYSTEM DESIGN FOR SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS F. Barbaloscia, E. Russo Fondazione Ugo Borgoni (FUB), Rome, Italy INTERSATELLITE OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS I.V. Krukova, A.S. Tcherkasov, N.N. Tchukovsky Moscow Radiocommunication Research Institute, Moscow State Bauman Technical Universiti, Russia AMRUSSCOM - DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS IN RUSSIA R. Hunt, V. Yevdin AmRusCom - American Corporation of Satellite Communications, USA and Russia "CONDOR" - SATELLITE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WITH MOBILE OBJECTS V.N. Bondarick, U.G. Burlakov, V.A. Kukhtevich, S.P. Lopatin Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Centre, Moscow, Russia THE ROLE OF SATELLITE COMMUNICATION IN NETWORK RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT Igor. G. Baklanov, Victor A. Netes Joint Stock Company "Gazcom", Institute for Problems of Information Transmission, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia ELECON-STIR MULTI-PURPOSES SATELLITE SYSTEM V. Cheremisin, B. Koerber, P. Sivirin, W. Griethe, V. Zvonar NPO PM, Krasnoyarsk-26, Russia DATA TRANSMISSION SPACE SYSTEM FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IN RUSSIA M. Reshetnew, V. Cheremisin, V. Karnaukhov, M. Tchmykh, S. Kratov, V. Kozenko, V. Chebotarev, P. Shaklein, V. Pushkarev NPO PM, Krasnoyarsk State Technical University, Russia UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL SATELLITE COMMUNICATION NETWORK Viktor Kotelnikov United Nations office for Outer Space Affairs, Vienna ON NEW APPROACHES TO COMPLEX INTERACTIVE TV SYSTEM M.I. Krivosheev, A.I. Kouchtouev, V.G. Fedunin State Radio Research and Development Institute, Moscow, Russia DIGITAL COMPRESSION OF TV IMAGES FOR THE TRANSMISSION THROUGH THE SATELLITE CHANNELS V.P. Dvorkovich, V.V. Nechepaev, G.N. Mokhin, A.V. Dvorkovich State Radio Research and Development Institute, Moscow, Russia DATE COMPRESSION IN THE DIGITAL TV. B.A.Michailov, B.K.Istomin, A.I.Koyokin. Research Institute of Microdevices, Moscow, Russia COMBINED SIGNAL PROCESSING IN SATELLITE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS V.A. Grigorjev A.F. Mozhaisky Military Engineering Space Academy, St. Petersburg, Russia GLOBAL SATELLITE BACKBONE NETWORK FOR INTERCONNECTIONS BETWEEN HIGH SPEED LANS, MANS Sergey V. Zakurdaev HINFONET Company, Moscow, Russia INMARSAT-P. THE WORLD IN YOUR HAND Peter Berlin Inmarsat, London COMMUNICATION SATELLITIE BUSES UNIIFIED - PERSPECTIVES AND CAPABILITIES E.Ashurcov, E.Korchagin, V.Popov, V.Kravchenko NPO PM, Krasnoyarsk-26, Russia FAIL - SAFE GYROMOMENT ATTITUDE CONTROL SYSTEMS OF COMMUNICATION, NAVIGATION, AND LAND-SURVEY SATELLITES Mikhail F. Reshetnev, Valentin A. Rayevsky, Gennady P. Titov, V.M. Matrosov, Ye.I. Somov NPO PM, Krasnoyarsk-26, Russia PRECISION GYROMOMENT ATTITUDE CONTROL SYSTEMS OF RAPID MANOEUVRING SPACECRAFTS FOR REMOTE SENSING AND LAND - SURVEY Gennady P. Anshakov, Yuri G. Antonov, Valentin P. Makarov, V.M. Matrosov, Ye.I. Somov Central Specialized Design Bureau (TsSKB) NEW TECHNOLOGY OF THE AIRBORNE SYSTEM SATELLITE CONTROL G.Ya. Guskov, G.A. Blinov NPO "ELAS", NPS "SPURT", Research Institute of Microdevices, Moscow, Russia ADVANCED MICROSTRIP NETWORKS FOR INTEGRATED MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS A. Angelucci, P. Audagnotto, P. Corda, F. Piarulli, B. Piovano CSELT, Torino, Italy SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM ACTIVE PHASED ARRAYS (APA) G.Ya. Gus'kov, Ye.N. Yegorov, G.V. Slitnev, V.Gr. Concharov NPO "ELAS", NPS "SPURT", Research Institute of Microdevices, Moscow, Russia AIRBORN RELAY COMPLEX OF THE 14/11 BAND FIXED SATELLITE SYSTEM V.V. Likhtenvald, S.V. Mayorov NPO "ISTOK", Moscow, Russia SMALL SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS STATION V.N. Dyachkov, O.A. Kolenikov, G.D. Starh NPO "ELAS", Moscow, Russia UNIFIED TRANSIVERS "OKTANT" IN 4/6 AND 11/14 GHZ RANGE FOR SMALL COMMUNICATION - SATELLITE EARTH STATIONS AND DATA-SENDING STATIONS I. Levitin, C. Rabinovich, I. Dutychev, A. Yakovlev Research and Production Corporation "Istok", Fryasino, Moscow Region, Russia C-BAND POWER AMPLIFIER MIC Alex Busurin, Igor M. Abolduyev SRI "Pulsar", Moscow, Russia KU-BAND POWER AMPLIFER MIC T.E. Bryntseva, I.M. Abolduyev SRI "Pulsar", Moscow, Russia KA-BAND LOW NOISE AMPLIFIER Vadim Minnebayev SRI "Pulsar", Moscow, Russia SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS WITH THE USE OF LONG DURATION SATELLITES UNTENDED FOR OPERATION IN HIGHLY ELLIPTIC ORBIT E.Ashurkov, V.Bartenev, E.Korchagin, V.Malyshev, V.Shilov, V.Evenov NPO PM, Krasnoyarsk-26, Russia VERSIONS OF LOW EARTH ORBIT SATELLITE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS DESIGN V.V. Sokolov, V.A. Pyltsov Stock Company "Moscow Radiocommunication Research Institute", Russia LOW EARTH ORBIT SATELLITE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM COURIER 1 G.Guskov, Y.Rybalchenko, Y.Solomonov NPO "ELAS", Moscow, Russia "GLOBSAT" LOW-ORBIT COMMUNICATION SYSTEM R.V. Alimov, V.N. Bondarik, U.G. Burlakov, V.A. Kukhtevich, O.N. Shipulya, S.N. Yurin Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Centre, Moscow, Russia THE EFFICIENCY ENHANCEMENT OF THE SPACE LOW-ORBIT SYSTEM GONETS V. Arbuzov, E. Korchagin, A. Deev, G. Phaleev Research and Production Association "Applied Mechanics" (NPO PM) ON-BOARD SIGNAL PROCESSING IN SPREAD-SPECTRUM LOW ORBIT BY ACOUSTOELECTRONIC DEVICES A.M.Anosov, A.V.Kuzichkin, S.E.Kondakov, P.G.Tereshchenko, M.I.Chumakov CNIIMASh, Pushkin Military Radioelectronics College, St.-Petersburg, Russia A.F.Mozhaisky Military Engineering-Space Academy, St.-Petersburg, Russia UPDATED DISCUSSION OF MULTIPLE ACCESS TECHNIQUES AND SPECTRUM UTILIZATION OF THE GLOBALSTAR MOBILE SATELLITE SYSTEM Joel Schindall GlobalStar Mobile Satellite System, USA DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF THE MULTIPURPOSE SYSTEM OF THE LOW ORBITAL SMALL SIZE OF SATELLITES G. Malyshev, V. Kulkov, V. Lomzin, I. Maglinov Moscow State Aviation Institute, Lavochkin Scientific and Production Association, Moscow, Russia MOBILE SATELLITE SYSTEM WITH LEO-HEO SWITCHED INTERLINK M.A. Polyantsev NPO "ELAS", Moscow, Russia ARCHITECTURE OF A MODELLING PROGRAM COMPLEX FOR SATELLITE DATA NETWORK WITH DYNAMICALLY VARIABLE TOPOLOGY INVESTIGATION N.A.Vazhenin Moscow State Aviation institute, Russia CHARACTERISTIC INVESTIGATION OF AVAILABILITY OF SURFACE AD COSMIC ABONENTS IN SATELLITE INFORMATION NETWORK. ON THE BASIS OF LOW-ORBIT ARTIFICIAL EARTH SATELLITES. N.A. Vazhenin, Yu.M. Galanternik, S.V. Lyarsky Moscow State Aviation Institute, Russia RESEARCH OF LIMIT PROBABILITY-TIME CHARACTERISTICS OF RELIABILITY OF SATELLITE CONNECTION NETWORKS WITH DYNAMICALLY VARIABLE TOPOLOGY N.A. Vazhenin, S.V. Lyarskiy Moscow State Aviation institute, Russia SYSTEM OF OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION WITH USE OF SECOND TRANSPONDER OF DIRECT TELEVISION BROADCAST SATELLITE V. Kukhtin, E. Nizamutdinowa, V.Radaykin NPO PM, Krasnoyarsk-26, Russia THE PULS RADIO NETWORK Marui Stutterheim USA ANALYSIS OF LOW ORBIT SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ALTERNATE DESIGN U.G. Burlakov, V.M. Bondarik, V.A. Kukhtevich, E.V. Makeyev Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Centre, Moscow, Russia MODERN SMALL SATELLITES PROJECTS M.Yu. Ovchinnikov, A.I. Dyachenko Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences ACOUSTOOPTICS POSSIBILITIES FOR INCREASING OF OPERATION EFFICIENCY OF LOW-EARTH ORBIT SATELLITE ON-BOARD ADAPTIVE ARRAYS V.G.Lopatin A.F.Mozhaisky Military Engineering-Space Academy, St.-Petersburg, Russia PROJECT SIBNET L.V.Chemkov, V.Mostovoj, M.J.Gunn, J.V.Kovalenko, G.S.Sharygin Science-Technology Firm "Horizont", Krasnoyarsk, Russia Datron Telecommunications International Inc., USA Tomsk State Academy of Control Systems and Radioelectronics, Russia INFORMATION SATELLITE SYSTEMS FOR THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY ORGANIZATIONS G.Ya. Guskov NPO "ELAS", Moscow, Russia INFORMSVIAZ: LARGE-SCALE INTEGRATED SERVICES COMMUNICATION NETWORK (ISCN). ISCN OF A BANK BEING TAKEN AS AN EXAMPLE A. Shvedov "INFORMSVIAZ", Moscow, Russia "BANKIR" SATELLITE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM V. Koutoukov, D. Stolyar Global Information Systems Inc., Moscow, Russia SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATION IN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY N.N. Yevtikhiev, M.I. Mysuankov, G.M. Chernuavsky, A.F. Mevis Moscow Institute of Radioengineering, Electronics and Automatic, Russia SPACE SYSTEMS FOR THE EXPLORATION OF THE LAND AND OCEAN NATURAL RESOURCES AND PROPOSALS FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT Yu.V. Trifonov, A. S. Selivanov Russian Scientific and Research Institute of Electromechanics, Moscow, Russia Research Institute of Space Device Building, Moscow, Russia LOCSS - SYSTEM FOR EARTH MONITORING WITH THE DIRECT ACCESS TO SPACE INFORMATION G.A. Avanesov, E.B. Krasnopevtseva, I.V. Polyansky Space Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia GLOBAL INFORMATION SYSTEM USING "STORM" WARNING SIGNALS G.A. Avanesov, Y.M. Bolovintsev, Y.B. Zoubarev, M.I. Krivosheev, Y.D. Shavdiya Space Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Radio Research Institute, Moscow, Russia "TSIKADA-M-UTTH" - MULTIPURPOSES SATELLITE SYSTEM V. Cheremisin, V. Kosenko, V. Zvonar, V. Chebotarev NPO PM, Krasnoyarsk-26, Russia OVERVIEW AND DESIGN OF THE "GLONASS" SYSTEM V.N. Kazantsev, M.F. Reshetnev, A.G. Kozlov, V.F. Cheremisin NPO PM, Krasnoyarsk-26, Russia SYSTEM OF SPACE OPTO-ELECTRONIC COMPLEXES AND THEIR GROUND-BASED SUPPORT G.Ya. Gus'kov, G.A. Yefremov, V.I. Karasyov, V.M. Kovtunenko, A.I. Koyokin, D.I. Kozlov, T.V. Kondranin, V.V. Nekrasov, N.M. Sinodkin Moscow Physical-Technical Institute, Russia, NPO "ELAS" DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF THE ECOMONITORING, USING SMALL SATELLITES AND GROUND STATION NETWORK E.V. Dmitriev, V.M. Egorov, T.V. Kondranin, M.G. Mazur, V.D. Starlychanov, A.I. Unack NPC "OPTEKC", Research Institute of Microdevices, Moscow, Russia IMPROVEMENT TRENDS OF THE SPACE OBSERVATION SYSTEMS G.Ya. Guskov, A.I. Koyokin, V.T. Panasenko, N.M. Sinodkin NPO "ELAS", Moscow, Russia THE MONITORING SYSTEM BASED ON DATE SPACE BORN PHOTOES TERRITORY Igor Egorov, Anatoly Korikov, Lydmila Volkotrub Control Systems and Radioelectronics Academy, Tomsk, Russia ON THE PROBLEM OF COORDINATION OF ARCHITECTURAL DECISIONS FOR SATELLITE SYSTEMS FOR REMOTE SENSING OF EARTH AND AUTOMATED ECOLOGICAL MONITORING WITH APPROPRIATE GEOPHYSICAL AND ECOLOGICAL MODELS A. Kurkovsky Institute of Radioengineering and Electronics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia ALGORITHMS OF MEASURING THE ANGULAR COORDINATES OF OBJECTS WITH AN UKNOWN BASELINE ON THE BASIS OF GLOBALSATELLITE NAVIGATION SYSTEMS V.A. Karnaukhov, Yu.L. Fateyev, V.F. Cheremisin, M.K. Chmykh Krasnoyarsk State Technical University, NPO PM, Krasnoyarsk, Russia IMPROVEMENT OF THE NAVIGATIONAL POSITION DETERMINATION STABILITY THROUGH THE NAVIGATION SYSTEM MEMORY S.D. Sylvestrov, O.A. Alekseev, V.V. Betanov Military Academy of F.Dzerginsky, Moscow, Russia SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LINKS' ENERGY CAPACITIES REQUIRED TO PROVIDE INTERFERENCE IMMUNITY RECEIVING OF PHASE SHIFT KEYED SIGNALS IN CASE OF NON-LINEAR TRANSPONDER N. Kobin, A. Seryoghin, D. Matiukhin Satellite Communication Engineering Centre, Moscow, Russia DESIGN OF A RAPIDLY ACQUIRING AND NOISE IMMUNE PLL FOR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS M.G. Bakulin, A.M. Shloma Moscow Technical University of Telecommunications and Informatics, Mezhkombank, Moscow, Russia TV SIGNALS EFFECTIVE CODING FOR THE SATELLITE VIDEOCONFERENCING SYSTEMS N. Kharatishvili, O. Zumburidze, I. Tcheidze Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Republik of Georgia STABILITY OF SATELLITE COMMUNICATION NETWORKS WITH DEMAND ASSIGNMENT MULTIPLE ACCESS Michael Fishman Center Control Systems of Academician A.L.Mints Radiotechnocal Institute, Moscow, Russia COMMUNICATION SATELLITES: ORBITAL INFORMATION EFFICIENCY Arkady Abolits VNII Geosystem, Moscow, Russia PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF OSMAN NURI UCAN (ONU) - RECEIVER FOR TRELLIS CODED QAM SCHEMES IN PORTIAL RESPONSE CHANNELS Osman Nuri Ucan Istanbul Technical University, Turkey FAST COMPUTER PREDICTION OF RADIATED FIELDS OF MODERN ANTENNAS FOR EARTH AND AIR/SPACE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS AND RADARS Dimitry M. Sazonov, Mikhail D. Sazonov Moscow Power Engineering Institute, Moscow, Russia ON ANTENN LEAD SYSTEM FOR THE MICROWAVE SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS EARTH STATION A.V. Khevroline State Research Radio Institute, Moscow, Russia OMNIDIRECTIONAL SATELLITE ANTENNA SUPPLYING REJECTION IN DIRECTION NEEDED D.D. Gabrielyan, S.E. Mischenko, V.V. Shatskiy, M.A. Polyancev Rostov Rocket Higher Military College, Rostov-on-Don Automatised Systems Research Center of Joint Stock Company "ELAS", Zelenograd, Moscow Region RADIO HOLOGRAPHIC ANTENNA FOR IONOSPHERIC RETRAYSECTION IN BROADCASTING AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS D.M. Sazonov, V.I. Sergeev Moscow Power Engineering Institute, Russia THE CONTROLLED FLAT-LAYERED MEDIUM AS A BASIS FOR NEW METHODS AND AIRBORNE COMMUNICATION DEVICES DEVELOPMENT A.A. Golovkov "Signal" plant, Voronezh, Russia SATELLITE PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEM "SPS-SPUTNIK" Alexander Burlaka, Pavel Petrov, Victor Sudarev State Rocket Centre "Academian V.P. Makeev, Design Bureau, Miass, Russia MICROSPUTNIKS OF PACKET RADIO TO 4 KGS - THE WARRANTY OF DECREASE OF COSTS IN 20 TIME V.A. Batuhtin, S.V. Strekalovskaya, Moscow, Russia Enterprise "SVL", Moscow, Russia SATELLITE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM IN RADIO AMATEUR FREQUENCY BAND "RADIO-M" R.V. Alimov, A.M. Anosov, V.N. Bondarik, A.N. Zaitsev, O.N. Shipulya Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Centre, Moscow, Russia The ICSC'94 proceedings (vol. I, 245 p.p., vol. II, 239 p.p.) published in English can be ordered from: ICSTI Kuusinen str., 21-B 125252, Moscow, Russia Dr. Juri Gornostaev Fax: 7-095-943-0089 Phone: 7-095-198-7691 E-mail: enir@ccic.icsti.msk.su ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Nov 94 11:16:39 -0400 From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson) Subject: Re: Dynamic Negotiation and Caller-ID > From: Ross E Mitchell > The following article, which I co-authored, has just appeared in the > November/December 1994 issue of MIT's Technology Review. --lots skipped -- > But in the system we suggest, > phones with caller ID displays can also be set up to automatically > refuse calls when the number has not been provided by the caller. Gee. wonder if they saw my Procomm + Caller-ID .ASP (freeware in the TELECOM achives) from two years ago. This is exactly what I was talking about. Particularly nice for dial-up connections to computers > Applying the principles of dynamic negotiation, senders of electronic > mail would have the option to identify or not identify themselves. > Recipients could reject as undeliverable any e-mail with an > unidentified sender. E-Mail does not work the same way: to send mail a dynamic negotiation must take place (can be done in relays). The recipient service *always* knows at least the last node that processed the mail. Further a *feature* of E-Mail (at least SMTP) is that the return address can be made other than the sending address. If I want to make the return address sandy_claws@north.pole, current implementations will happily accept it. However, properly implimented systems always provide the return path - the "Received: from" line(s) in SMTP and the "PATH" line(s) in NNTP. This is not to say that an uneducated user cannot be fooled, just that it is possible to set up a system that cannot be easily fooled. Internet "Caller-ID" already exists and is being used by some government agencies (facinating subject in itself). It is interesting to note that MIT is catching up in theory to where hobbyists were in practise two years ago 8*). Warmly, Padgett ------------------------------ Date: 09 Nov 1994 09:08:11 GMT From: JeanBernard_Condat@Email.FranceNet.fr (JeanBernard Condat) Organization: FranceNet Reply-To: JeanBernard_Condat@Email.FranceNet.fr Subject: Medical Multimedia: MEDIMM MEDICAL MULTIMEDIA 1st global forum on instantaneous medical communication Jerusalem (Israel) -- from 14 to 18 May 1995 This first global forum on medical multimedia, initiated and organised by the International Association for Medical Communication, proposes three essential events: THE FESTIVAL This is the first call for entries to our world-wide competition, for the best media used in medical communication. Many different categories are open to you: CD-Rom, photo CD, CDI, CD video, video, videodiscs, software, simulation mankins, TV programs, telemedicine, health networks, etc. The closing date is March 15th. Please contact us for more information and the rules of procedure. THE CONGRESS The geatest specialists in the world will talk about the following themes: - telemedicine: teleradiology, telediagnosis, etc. - teleinformation: instantaneous information networks (Internet, Jerusalem 1); - medical identity cards containing chips with the person's medical record. Legislation on the use and confidentiality of those informations. Possibility to normalize the medical informations and to create an international medical identify card. THE EXHIBITION and presentation of all the latest medical communications' technology. You will discover our stands and workshops on the most revolutionary products and techniques of medical communication: - ll latest hard- and software, - all applications, like telephone technology, "telematique", visioconferences, videotransmission, cable- or satellite broadcasting. We will be happy to welcome you and give you more information about this extraordinary event at: A.I.C.S., 9 villa Wagram, 75008 Paris, France Phone: +33 1 44090707, Fax: +33 1 44090321 Internet: JeanBernard_Condat@email.FranceNet.fr ------------------------------ From: jeannopo@panix.com (Alex Jeannopoulos) Subject: AT&T Personal Term 510/510a Help Needed Date: 09 Nov 1994 15:11:24 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC I am looking for any sort of manual for the AT&T Info System Personal Terminal 510. I would like to find out what sort of jack these use and if there is some sort of adapter which can be used for home phone lines. Any info on either of these phones would be great. Also if anyone has these for sale I am interested. Thanks. Alex Jeannopoulos ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1994 03:11:44 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: GeoPort Technology Passed along FYI to the Digest - Strong Support for GeoPort Technology Paves Way for Development of Standard Link Between Computers and Telephones CUPERTINO, CA--October 19, 1994--Apple Computer, Inc., together with leading computer and telephony vendors, today announced the emergence of GeoPort as their preferred cross-platform computer telephony interconnect standard. Vendors participating in the announcement include: AOX, Inc., AT&T Corp., Crystal Semiconductor Corp., Cypress Research Corp., IBM Corp., Motorola, Inc., SAT Groupe SAGEM, Siemens PN, Siemens Rolm Communications, Inc., and Zilog, Inc. GeoPort, developed by Apple Computer, is a plug-and-play serial interface which is backward compatible with the serial ports used in most personal computers, but offers over 200 times the bandwidth. Beyond just providing a physical connection, it also hides the differences between differing computer platforms and communications systems, while allowing any kind of data to pass between them. Apple first introduced GeoPort in August 1993. Later that year, it began working with the major telephony and computer vendors including AT&T, IBM, and Siemens Rolm, to refine GeoPort to fully meet the needs of both communities. Today's announcement reflects the results of that joint effort. "With GeoPort, we are working to eliminate the technical and economic barriers which have constrained the development and adoption of personal communication products," said Rick Shriner, vice president of Apple's core technologies group. "With the support of both the telephony and computer industries, we believe we are developing a powerful building block for global communications and collaboration." GeoPort offers a powerful solution for both the computer and telephony markets. Telephone and computer customers will be able to communicate and collaborate more easily and effectively than ever before. They will be able to talk to each other, send faxes and computer data to each other, see each other, and share common information, without having to worry about what kind of telephone, telephone line, or computer happens to be present at each point of the connection. Apple Computer, Inc., a recognized pioneer and innovator in the information industry, creates powerful solutions based on easy to use personal computers, servers, peripherals, software, online services, and personal digital assistants. Headquartered in Cupertino, California, Apple (NASDAQ: APPL) develops, manufactures, licenses and markets products, technologies and services for the business, education, consumer, scientific & engineering and government markets in over 140 countries. Apple, the Apple logo and Macintosh are registered trademarks, and GeoPort is a trademark of Apple Computer, Inc. ATTACHMENT Fact Sheet GeoPort Technology GeoPort , developed by Apple Computer, is a plug-and-play serial interface which is backward compatible with the serial ports used in most personal computers, but offers over 200 times the bandwidth. The serial communications architecture of GeoPort is optimized for computer-telephony integration: - It allows any telephone (or telephone line, up to T1/E1 rates) to be connected to any computer, in any country in the world. - It supports any set of Telephony APIs (application programmatic interfaces) such as AT&T/Novell's TSAPI, IBM's CallPath, Microsoft's TAPI, or Apple's Telephone Manager. - It allows any telephone to take full advantage of the services provided by the computer, and vice versa. - It is inexpensive to implement, and uses existing technology. - It supports any type of information: computer data, voice, fax, modem, voice, video. - It allows multiple simultaneous streams of informationQincluding real time information like voice and videoQto pass through a telephone connection in order to be processed by the computer. These services will allow vendors and developers the opportunity to offer such features as: - An integrated mail-box for voice mail, email, and facsimiles. - Fax and modem capability over a digital telephone connection, like that found in an ISDN line or in many PBX environments. - Document sharing or other simultaneous voice and data applications over conventional phone lines. - Video conferencing over a PBX or ISDN connection. - Telephone assistant services, like automated call screening, call forwarding, and call tracking. Apple, the Apple logo and Macintosh are registered trademarks and GeoPort is a trademark of Apple Computer, Inc. ------------------------------ From: summit@ix.netcom.com (Summit '94) Subject: Summit '94: Sponsors & Exhibitors Date: 10 Nov 1994 04:53:27 GMT Organization: Netcom Summit '94 Sponsors Bridgeway Corporation Bull Chipcom Corporation Computer Associates International Computer Measurement Group Desktop Management Task Force Digital Equipment Corporation Hewlett-Packard IBM Intel Corporation Interex LEGENT Corporation NetLabs Network Management Forum Objective Systems Integrators SunSoft Summit '94 Exhibitors Accugraph Acronym API International Armon Networking Auto-trol Technology AXON Networks Boole & Babbage Bridgeway Corporation Bull Cabletron Systems Chipcom Corporation Cisco Systems Computer Associates International Digital Equipment Corporation DeskTalk Systems Epilogue Evolving Systems Frontier Software Hewlett-Packard IBM Intel Corporation ISICAD LEGENT Corporation NetLabs Network Computing Network General Corporation Network Management Forum Novell Objective Systems Integrators Remedy Corporation SNMP Research SSDS SunSoft Synoptics Telamon Wandel & Goltermann Summit '94 Publication Sponsors Best Practices Report Communications Week Data Communications Magazine Info World LAN Times Open Systems Today SQL Forum Journal The Enterprise Management Summit '94 will be held November 14-18 at the Santa Clara Convention Center, Santa Clara, California. For more information: Phone:800-340-2111 or 415-512-0801 Fax:415-512-1325 EMail:emiinc@mcimail.com or summit@ix.netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If any of our readers go to see this event in person, *please* send a detailed message to the Digest about it afterward. Admittedly, I've been plugging this a lot lately, but to me it seems to be a rather fantastic idea: bring the vendors all together, tell them in essence to can their press release nonsense and show that they know what they are talking about. It should have been done years ago. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bkron@netcom.com (Kronos) Subject: Re: I'm Back -- At Least Part Time Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 06:42:40 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor writes: > when I tried 800-CALL-INFO they would not accept the hospital number > for billing either. WOW! The things people go through just to test an 800 number! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Smart aleck! I did not fake that heart attack just to get in there and test whether or not I could stick them with a few directory assistance calls. I did it to get a chance to check out the phone room in general. Also, I wanted to see what the 708-933 prefix was all about and its connection to 708-677. 677 comes as no big surprise; we have had ORChard (672) and ORchard (673 thru 677) as long as I can remember. 'Orchard' is a popular word here in Skokie; lots of things use it in their name here such as the Old Orchard Shopping Mall, the Old Orchard Theatre, etc. I think it has to do with a long time ago when there were actually lots of apple orchards around here. Apples, they say, are good for your heart, but that's no reason for me not to quit for tonight and go upstairs and eat the rest of that lasagna in the fridge left over from dinner. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #407 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa05254; 8 Dec 94 6:12 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA10348; Thu, 10 Nov 94 01:57:05 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA10341; Thu, 10 Nov 94 01:57:03 CST Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 01:57:03 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9411100757.AA10341@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #408 TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Nov 94 01:57:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 408 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* (Wes Leatherock) Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* (Mike King) MCI's 1-800-CALL-GOD (Steve Kass) Re: Charging for 800 Calls (was Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO) (Andrew Laurence) Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* (jwm) Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO (Eric Paulak) Re: Caller Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* (Lauren Weinstein) Re: T-1 is Much Better Than Frame Relay (Matthew P. Downs) Re: What Does *67 do? (Matthew P. Downs) Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232 (Robert Mah) Re: Need Amp to Boost DTMF Strength (Dave Levenson) Re: Help With Ring Detector Circuit (John Lundgren) Re: NANP Nightmare (Bob Schwartz) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu Date: Tue, 09 Nov 94 06:44:12 GMT Subject: Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... [text deleted] ... > Unfortunatly, the established method of getting directory assistance > (by dialing areacode-555-1212) is monopolized by AT&T and the telcos > who properly suck up to them. No matter who you have as your > presubscribed long distance carrier, what happens when you dial > areacode-555-1212? Well, your call goes to AT&T and they charge you > 75 cents! So MCI is charging 75 cents just like AT&T, for two > requests just like AT&T, but how are they supposed to get access? I > guess they could go on 900 and do it, but the trouble with 900 is its > rotten reputation these days. Maybe they could use 700 (since all > carriers get to use the entire 700 space as they wish). PAT] Pat, I'm puzzled by your statement that directory assistance calls all go by AT&T. As a retired Southwestern Bell employee who fielded many complaints when charging for toll directory assistance began, I believe I became pretty familiar with calls to NPA-555-1212 and how they work. The directory assistance base is maintained by the LEC. A call to NPA-555-1212 is switched by any carrier just like any other call to a seven-digit number, and routes at the terminating area code to an LEC directory assistance operator. The LEC charges the IXC a fixed amount (I believe it used to be 45 or 50 cents, but I don't recall for sure and it may have changed in the last two or three years). The IXC can charge their customers whatever they wish or have tariffed, or can waive the charge if the customer then completes a call to the same area code. I have a various times been PIC'd to AT&T, MCI and Sprint, as well as carrying their credit cards. I have also been a user of 10XXX codes, for comparative purposes or just for the heck of it. The billing for NPA-555-1212 calls has always been from the carrier I was using at the time, whether the PIC'd carrier or the 10XXX carrier or the credit card carrier. In fact, I remember my last Sprint credit card bill had an entry for a call from Tulsa (area code 918) to 405-555-1212, immediately followed by a call to a number in Enid, Oklahoma (also in the 405 area and, as a matter of fact, the number I had just gotten by calling 405-555-1212.) As I say, the call to 405-555-1212 showed on my Sprint bill with a charge of ".00". I've never had an AT&T charge for a call to NPA-555-1212 unless AT&T was the carrier I was using at the time; in fact, I first started using MCI experimentally because their charge for a call to NPA-555-1212 was marginally less than AT&T's (5 cents cheaper, I believe). Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But *what company* actually serviced the call? What company responded to you? Whose operators were talking to you? In other words, if there is a telephone sitting somewhere with the number 555-1212 on the front of it, who is sitting there answering the calls? I believe it is AT&T in most or all cases. Have you forgotten how in the early days of competition MCI used to advise its customers to 'use AC-555-1212 for directory because it is free, then after you get the number place your call via MCI' ? Have you forgotten how the main reason AT&T quit giving free directory assistance -- a tradition for many, many years since the beginning of the phone itself -- was because all the come-latelys were getting AT&T to do the lookups for free while they in turn got the revenue for the call itself? Certainly, if you subscribe to MCI/Sprint/whoever you get billed by whoever ... but that is because the prime source of the information, that is, AT&T bills *them* just like it bills its own customers, and they in turn pass along the charge. That's all that's happening. So I still maintain that 555-1212 is still an AT&T monopoly: you can purchase the information direct from them (by default if their customer) or you can purchase the information *resold to you* by one of their competitors who obtains it for you transparently when you dial 555-1212 via one of the competitors. If some other carrier wants to run their own database -- not just buy and immediatly resell AT&T to you, they have to use some other number to do it on, since 555-1212 latches right into the AT&T centers. Did you think that somehow MCI and the others intercept calls to 555-1212 and do their own thing with it? Not hardly ... so if MCI wants to collect its own data from whatever sources and sell its own data -- not just resell AT&T -- what telephone number should they use? PAT] ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1994 00:52:27 GMT In TELECOM Digest V14 #401, Pat wrote: > Unfortunatly, the established method of getting directory assistance > (by dialing areacode-555-1212) is monopolized by AT&T and the telcos > who properly suck up to them. No matter who you have as your presubscribed > long distance carrier, what happens when you dial areacode-555-1212? > Well, your call goes to AT&T and they charge you 75 cents! So MCI is Um, Pat, I'm presubscribed to Sprint, and if I dial 1+NPA+555-1212, as 1long as the NPA is outside my LATA, the call is completed and billed by Sprint. It has worked that way for me ever since Equal Access, with service in three different RBOCS. At one time, AT&T would "forgive" up to two inter-LATA 555 calls a month, as long as two or more inter-LATA calls were placed via AT&T. I don't know if that's still true. I remember that for a long time, 1+NPA+555 calls could be made for free from public (LEC) pay phones, presumably because charged calls were also being completed from those phones. I never bothered to try from a COCOT. Mike King mk@tfs.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Read my earlier reply. You dial 555-1212 and Sprint connects to an *AT&T directory assistance center somewhere* and you get your information. AT&T bills Sprint, Sprint bills you. As an experiment try dialing various AC-555-1212 and see how, as often as not the call is picked up with 'AT&T' as part of the answer phrase, regardless of which carrier you used to get there. Correct me if I am wrong. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1994 00:09:55 EST From: SKASS@drew.edu Subject: MCI's 1-800-CALL-GOD > From page 20 of my Bell Atlantic Morris County July 1994 -June 1995 telephone directory: "800 Service" There is no charge to you when you call "800" telephone numbers - - - - - - - To call an "800" number, dial 1 + 800 + 7-digit number Something is indeed wrong when "900" service providers must disclose phone-bill charges in the call, but not "800" providers. Steve Kass/ Drew U/ skass@drew.edu ------------------------------ From: laurence@netcom.com (Andrew Laurence) Subject: Re: Charging for 800 Calls (was Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO) Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1994 05:44:34 GMT Barry Margolin writes: > Imagine a law office that provides an 800 number, to make it easier > for clients to reach them from out of state. If I use that number to > call my lawyer, I wouldn't be surprised to be billed later for the > time that we spent on the phone. > The kicker is that I would also expect to be billed for the time if I > called their normal number. In fact, I would expect the bill to be > the same in either case -- I'm paying for the lawyer's time, not the > phone service. But most law firms attempt to capture long-distance calls made on behalf of a client and bill them to the client as case expenses (distinct from legal fees). If you called the 800 number, the law firm advanced those costs on your behalf and would likely bill you for them, whereas if you called the regular number, YOU paid those charges out of your own pocket. So while the LEGAL FEES for either situation would be the same, the billable COSTS would not be. Andrew Laurence Oakland, California USA laurence@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1994 01:55:30 GMT From: marya@titan.ucs.umass.edu (jwm) Subject: Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst Our Moderator writes: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would you also ban 1-800-CALL-ATT? As > memory serves, you can place long distance calls via that number and > one of the options is 'press (x) to have this call billed to the number > you are calling from ...' 1-800-CALL-ATT offers collect, third-party, person-to-person, calling card, and Visa/MasterCard billing. I have used the number for years, and I have never heard the prompt you describe. EasyReach 700 offers the bill-to-calling-number option, though. Perhaps this is the prompt you were thinking of. > Would you ban all the long distance companies > which use some 800 number as a way to reach their switch when other > access is unavailable (such as 10xxx being blocked) under the same > rationale, or is this National Pick On MCI Week? I wouldn't ban such services, but I would restrict them from billing calls to the calling number. I have both 3rd party and collect screening on my line, yet MCI (whose 1-800-COLLECT properly rejects calls to my number) accepted a 1-800-CALL-INFO call without requesting alternative billing arrangements. > Unfortunatly, the established method of getting directory assistance > (by dialing areacode-555-1212) is monopolized by AT&T and the telcos > who properly suck up to them. No matter who you have as your presubscribed > long distance carrier, what happens when you dial areacode-555-1212? > Well, your call goes to AT&T and they charge you 75 cents! So MCI is > charging 75 cents just like AT&T, for two requests just like AT&T, but > how are they supposed to get access? These are the people who helped bring down the mighty Bell System. Why couldn't they seek an extension of the equal access requirement for interLATA DA? It's simple: 1-NPA-555-1212 is routed to the presubscribed carrier. That carrier has facilities set up to handle such calls, and the RBOCs are required to provide each IXC with database access and operator services under the same agreement these companies have with AT&T. This would eliminate the scavenger hunt methodology MCI seems to be using in number collection, thereby improving the quality of service. 800 numbers could be maintained as strictly free of bill-to-calling-number charges, and all carriers would have the opportunity for an equal slice of the DA market. (Or at least a slice proportional to their presubscribed market share.) I'm surprised that such an arrangement wasn't worked out in the early 80's. No matter how you slice it, this "free call, charge for info" scheme smacks of deception. 800-based calling services that accept calling cards, credit cards, or require 3rd party or collect arrangements, and 800-based mail order lines require the caller to take a proactive step in order to be billed. If I give out a calling card number, or give an operator voice authorization to bill to my line, or charge merchandise, I *know* that I'm being charged, and there is relatively little danger of my casually or mistakenly approving charges to my account. 1-800-CALL-INFO and services of its kind make this kind of billing very likely, and to some extent rely on public ignorance about the intricacies of modern telephony. Jeffrey W. McKeough marya@titan.ucs.umass.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 94 00:20:00 EDT From: ccmi@clark.net (Eric Paulak) Subject: Re: 1-800-CALL-INFO Due to some well thought-out lobbying on the part of both long distance and local carriers, directory assistance services were given an exemption to the regulations that govern 800 pay-per-call services. So, even though 1-800-CALL-INFO is in all sense of the word an 800 pay-per-call service, it does not have to list its rates during the call, it does not have to print its rates at a certain size in ralationship to the rest of its ads, it does not require presubscription and the person calling does not have to be the person under whose name the phone is listed. As a result, even though Nynex, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth and Ameritech will not currently bill for 800 pay-per-call services, they will pass the bills through for 1-800-CALL-INFO. Pat, the attatched article is to be printed as my weekly column in Network World magazine on Oct. 24th. Because of copyright, it must have the Network World name and date published with it. ------------------ Rate & Tariff Monitor 1-800-CALL-INFO: Just Another Pay-Per-Call Number by Eric Paulak 1-800-COLLECT was a marketing coup for MCI. It took an overlooked service -- collect calling -- that AT&T controlled and turned it on its head, saving callers money and earning MCI a bundle at the same time. But now the carrier has gone to far. In a new attempt to take over an AT&T-controlled fringe market -- long distance directory assistance -- MCI has launched 1-800-CALL-INFO. The national directory service does offer some benefits over standard directory service -- it gives you two numbers for the price of one -- but there's some question as to how accurate the service is, plus it could ultimately cost businesses more. In addition, 1-800-CALL-INFO gives all the appearances of an 800 pay-per-call number, which has many users irate. The way 1-800-CALL-INFO works is that a caller dials the number -- 1- 800-225-5463 -- and tells the operator a city and state or country and the person's name. Callers are allowed to get two numbers with each call for $.75, compared to $.75/number with standard directory assistance. That charge is then billed back on your local bill. In addition, after the operator gives you the numbers, you also get the option of having your call placed over MCI's network and billed at MCI's Residential Dial 1 rates or international Direct Distance Dial rates. If you're an MCI residential customer, this is actually a good deal for you. The calls count toward any savings plan you have, and you get two directory assistance numbers for the price of one. If you're a business user -- whether with MCI or any other carrier -- this service is nothing but bad news. You would get hit with the $.75 charge no matter what DA service someone called. But with the option to have the call placed at MCI's Residential Dial 1 rates, you'll end up with callers bypassing your cheaper businesses rates. How much could it cost you? MCI's Residential Dial 1 rates are $.2299 to $.3299/minute, depending on mileage. Whereas, MCI's most expensive Vnet rates are $.203 to $.262/minute, also depending on mileage. MCI says they eventually will make 1-800-CALL-INFO part of its businesses services, but when specifically, they won't say. The lower business rates aren't the only thing you lose by dialing 1- 800-CALL-INFO; you also lose the added volume towards your volume discounts. Miss a volume commitment, and you could end up paying hefty penalties. And while you're paying the higher rates, you may not even be getting the right phone numbers. When checking out the service, I asked for numbers for two people -- one in Omaha and one in Shepherdstown, W.V. -- both of whom moved to new locations about six months ago. MCI's operators gave me their old numbers. Calls to the NPA-555-1212 operator yielded the correct numbers. About a dozen subscribers to an Internet list-serve called the Telecom Digest had the same problem. MCI has its own proprietary database of phone numbers that it uses and admits that there may be a few errors. But as the service matures, the number of errors will be reduced. In the meantime, if MCI does give you a wrong number, you can get the $.75 credited back to you. People shouldn't be surprised that MCI has come out with 1-800-CALL-INFO. After all, MCI does provide service to about two-thirds of all the dial- a-porn services that are out there, according to a list of 800 pay-per-call numbers CCMI has compiled. The only difference between this service and a sex line is that as a directory assistance service, 1-800-CALL-INFO is exempt from having to get prior approval before billing you. MCI also doesn't have to tell you the cost of the call upfront. To avoid getting hit with these charges, you have two options; you can block (800) 225-5463 in your PBX; or you can have MCI screen the call for you. To have the calls screened, you have to call MCI at (800) 677-6580, or fax a list of phone numbers on company letterhead you want screened to (904) 857-4079. With the screening service, users would still be able to call from your business, but they would have to bill it to a credit card or a third party. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Nov 94 20:09:00 PST From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Re: Caller Charging 800 Numbers Should Be *Banned* As Pat mentioned in a comment to a previous message, I feel that it is not appropriate for charges to be applied to the caller's phone bill (for any reason) as the result of an 800 call. I don't care if the callee says they are charging for the information and not the call -- the bottom line is that you make the call, and an arbitrary charge shows up on your bill. You have no warning that it is a charging call, and you have no reasonable way to block such calls. Pat's right of course that (area code)+555-1212 was once a free call. But there's a big difference between changing the status of a single set of seven digits that (as far as most people are concerned) "lives" all by itself, versus suddenly facing the prospect that any random 800 number -- an entire area code we've come to expect to be non-charging to the caller -- might now (surprise) charge the caller! I also agree with the suggestion that the most reasonable solution is to move *all* 800 calls that have the potential of placing a charge on the caller's phone bill to some other area code. If a service is offered via an 800 number, they can make other billing arrangements with the caller. But make the phone bill chargers and alternate carrier access numbers move over to 700, or 500, or some other area code -- the technology is now in place to allow plenty of new code assignments, especially with the removal of the second digit 0/1 area code restrictions. Pat mentioned that such services could move over to 900, but then suggested that 900 has a pretty bad reputation these days. In fact, I can't see any difference between charging the caller to an 800 number and charging the caller to a 900 number -- except that in the case of 800 numbers there's no subscriber-based blocking, there are non-caller-charging calls you still want to reach, there's no warning of charges, and apparently no established mechanisms to dispute such charges. I would submit that if caller-charging 800 numbers continue to be allowed and expand, and continue to become the obvious 900-blocking workaround that they are, it won't be long at all before 800 numbers cause the same concerns to callers that 900 numbers do now. That could be devastating to the conventional users of 800 numbers who just want a mechanism for their customers to use that doesn't charge the caller. The whole concept of caller-charging 800 numbers needs to be reconsidered -- and the faster the better. --Lauren-- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to several other writers who commented on this topic but have not been included here. And to the several of you (also not included here) who mentioned that you subscribe to carrier 'X' and get your DA calls billed by carrier 'X', all I can say is ask your carrier who *they* purchase the information from which they immediatly and transparently resell to you. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mpd@adc.com (Matthew P. Downs) Subject: Re: T-1 is Much Better Than Frame Relay Date: 10 Nov 1994 00:31:29 GMT Organization: ADC Telecommunications jbucking@pinot.callamer.com (Jeff Buckingham) writes: > We had an interesting experience at Call America triing to buy Frame > Relay. We needed to connect offices in Salinas, Fresno, Bakersfield, > and Santa Barbara with our Main office in San Luis Obispo. We had > planned to connect to frame relay at the T-1 level from San Luis > Obispo. The other offices were going to be connected at the 56k level. > The bids we got from AT&T, MCI, and Sprint were about $6700.00 per > month. > We then discovered that we can purchase T-1's to each office for about > $2000.00 per month. This was very interesting because we were able to > buy 24 times the bandwidth for 1/3 of the price. > We are a long distance carrier and we do purchase T-1's for about 7-15 > cents per circuit mile (each T-1 has 24 circuit miles per mile of > distance) so our situation may be different from some end users but I > really think that the whole frame relay thing is vastly over hyped and > many companies are being sold frame relay who do not really need it. I was always under the impression that the advantages for Frame Relay was realized when full T1 utilization was not needed. Therefore, it makes sense to me that it would cost more for what you described. Or alternatively, it was tarrifed that way in order to catch people that don't understand and get full T1 frame relay set-up. Of course, justifying it to the PUC by saying we have to recover the cost of the equipment. 8^) ... Matt ------------------------------ From: mpd@adc.com (Matthew P. Downs) Subject: Re: What Does *67 do? Date: 09 Nov 1994 22:33:10 GMT Organization: ADC Telecommunications rpatt@netcom.com (Robert Patterson) writes: > I live in the San Francisco Bay Area under the auspices of PacBell. > They do not offer CallerID. When I dial *67 (apparently the CallerID > on/off signal) I get a couple of clicks and a dial tone. The > switching department at PacBell vehemently claims that nothing is > happening. Anyone with an idea? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What's happening is that the local > switch is accepting your command to 'do not pass calling number ID > to call recipient' just as it is supposed to do. And then, it proceeds > not to give out that information ... which it wouldn't do anyway > under the present circumstances there, but that is beside the point. > They are using a version of software which allows for *67 and it > is probably easier for them to leave it as is rather than disable > the use of that command (which does nothing anyway). For instance, > in some exchanges in Chicago which were not Caller-ID equipped, meaning > calls from phones in that area showed up as 'out of area' on caller > identification boxes elsewhere, *67 still worked as you describe. I > guess they figured soon enough it would have a purpose, so they just > left it alone. I imagine PacBell feels the same way. Why bother to > change/eliminate it everywhere then possibly have to go and put it > back in at a future time. PAT] I have had different meanings for *67, like auto redial last person who called me, etc. The numbers depend upon which local carrier you have ... Matt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Umm ... I think *60 and *65 have some meaning here for 'last number redial' and things like that. I no longer subscribe to any of those things. Does anyone have a complete list of the 'star codes' as they relate to all the new features? PAT] ------------------------------ From: rmah@panix.com (Robert Mah) Subject: Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232 Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1994 10:52:07 -0500 Organization: One Step Beyond Lance Ellinghaus wrote: > A company called Primary Access has a product that will take a T1 (24 > VOICE channels) and interpret the DS0 channels as modem connections > (v.32, v.42bis, etc..) and output standard RS232 to hook to a system. > What other companies have something like this? Comments on their > products? Contacts to get more information? Well, their domain name is PRIACC.COM, but they only seem to have e-mail connectivity at the moment (no WWW, FTP, etc.). If you get any pricing info on this product/service, I would be interested as a normal channel bank costs mucho money. Cheers, Robert S. Mah Software Development +1.212.947.6507 One Step Beyond and Network Consulting rmah@panix.com ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Need Amp to Boost DTMF Strength Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1994 17:14:15 GMT Les Reeves (lreeves@crl.com) wrote: > WATS resellers used the R-TEC (Reliance Comm/Tec) VFR5050 2-Wire to > 2-Wire repeater for boosting signals. The repeater is easy to set up, > and unconditionally stable. It automatically disables itself when > data carriers of any sort are detected. I use one of these on an OPX line between a Panasonic PBX and an off-premises station. I don't particularly like it, however. It is half-duplex, like a speakerphone. You can't interrupt a long-talking far-end speaker, and you can't hear the far end at all if there is a significant background noise level at the near end. But, can anybody suggest a better solution? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren) Subject: Re: Help With Ring Detector Circuit Date: 09 Nov 1994 21:22:58 GMT Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network Tyson Norris (tyson@mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu) wrote: > I am trying to build some sort of ring dectection circuit for > an answering machine. Basically I just need the lines to be connected to > the machine when the voltage goes above 90 (ring) and disconnected when > the voltage drops to 8 (calling party hangs up). I know I'm going to have > to use some sort of relays etc. but have little experience and would > appreciate any pointers anyone would offer. I've used NE-2H neon bulbs for a ring detector. They're available at Radio Snack. I put one in series with a 22K resistor across the incoming line. Polarity isn't important. The bulb is put next to a photocell inside a small bottle cap or other dark opaque container, and some black silicone seal to hold it in place and keep out the light. The leads of the photocell are run to the plus voltage and the base of a transistor, with enough current capacity to drive a relay. Put a .1 uF capacitor across the photocell to keei transients from activating the relay. Depending on the current, you might need two transistors connected in Darlington fashion. Again, the polarity of the photocell isn't important. John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs Rancho Santiago Community College District 17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706 jlundgre@pop.rancho.cc.ca.us\jlundgr@eis.calstate.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: NANP Nightmare From: bob@bci.nbn.com (Bob Schwartz) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 94 16:02:33 PDT Organization: Bill Correctors, Inc., Marin County, California ganek@apollo.hp.com (Daniel E. Ganek) writes: > In article vantek@sequoia.northcoast. > com (Van Hefner) writes: >> Boston Business Misses Phone Calls Due to Bungled Exchange >> Oct. 8 -- Lori Moretti lives to hear the phone ring. But since she >> recently moved her public relations firm to its new Boston locale near >> Fort Point Channel, the lines have been unusually quiet. > [ Story about a company losing business because of a new phobe exchange] >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: NYNEX cannot really be blamed because >> the proprietors of some private phone systems at large companies, >> universities, etc are klutzes. People wanted a telephone network where >> everyone did thier own thing, so that's what they got now over ten >> years ago. I used to work for a large department store downtown on a >> part time basis trying to straighten out the mess that predecessors >> had made of the Rolm PBX there. It was a mess! There were lots of > Question: Why do private systems require such programming at all? > If I dial an unused exchange NYNEX tells me. Why don't private systems > just put the call thru and let the CO handle it?? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They rarely 'require' such programming and > can in fact be configured to just let everything past unchecked. The reason > this is not often done is because the owner of the private system has no > convenient method of collecting the charges from his users, so rather than > lose large amounts of money from users who would otherwise get a free ride > on his phone system, all sorts of obstacles are programmed into the switch > to make 'unauthorized' calls difficult or impossible to complete. Where > the problem comes in is that telco can't (usually) be counted on to refuse > to complete calls with toll charges attached. Usually whatever protection > the PBX has against fraud and misuse has to come as a result of the owner > installing it. Deciding which outgoing calls are going to result in > simply reaching a telco intercept and which are going to result in big $$ > billed to the owner is difficult; thus the owner has to take on the > burden of sorting it all out. PAT] Pat, If I am a LARGE user, the type that tends to have a PBX in the first place, then I need this information on new prefixes and area codes for my ARS (Automatic Route Selection) or FRS (foreign route selection, or LCR (least cost routing) tables in order to take advantage of FEX circuits, tie lines, feature group connections, intra company off premises routing via centrex lines or a myriad of other factors that have little or nothing to do with fraud or collecting from users. It has everything to do with keeping costs down. Financial Telecommunications Management, our specialty. Regards, Bob Schwartz bob@bci.nbn.com Bill Correctors, Inc. +1 415 488 9000 Marin County, California ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #408 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa09388; 11 Nov 94 0:26 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA03550; Thu, 10 Nov 94 19:29:39 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA03543; Thu, 10 Nov 94 19:29:36 CST Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 19:29:36 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9411110129.AA03543@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #409 TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Nov 94 19:28:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 409 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ACM SIGCOMM'95 Call For Papers (Srinivasan Keshav) Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* (Wes Leatherock) Who Provides DA? (John R. Levine) Local Telcos Provide DA to Carriers (Tom Smith) Forgiving Directory Assistance Charges (Andrew A. Poe) Star Codes On Most Telco Systems (Dale Dulberger) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: keshav@research.att.com (srinivasan keshav) Subject: ACM SIGCOMM'95 Call For Papers Organization: Info. Sci. Div., AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 21:29:59 GMT Call for Papers ACM SIGCOMM'95 CONFERENCE Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA August 30 to September 1, 1995 (Tutorials and Workshop, August 28 and 29) An international forum on computer communication network applications and technologies, architectures, protocols, and algorithms. SIGCOMM'95 seeks papers about significant contributions to the broad field of computer and data communication networks. Authors are invited to submit full papers concerned with both theory and practice. Papers specifically focused on "higher- layer" issues of network infrastructure, management, and distributed application services are particularly encouraged. The areas of interest include, but are not limited to: * Distributed application infrastructure paradigms; * Distributed common application services, middleware protocols; * Resource sharing, quality of service, multi-media networks; * Heterogeneous interworking, large scale networks; * Network management; * Important experimental results from operational networks; * High-speed networks, routing and addressing; * Wireless networking, support for mobile hosts; * Analysis and design of computer network architectures and algorithms; and * Protocol specification, verification, and analysis. SIGCOMM'95 is a single-track, highly selective conference where successful submissions typically report results firmly substantiated by experiment, implementation, simulation, or mathematical analysis. The SIGCOMM'95 committee is planning both an excellent technical program and related activities. In addition to the presentation of papers and results, SIGCOMM'95 will offer tutorials and workshops by noted instructors on the two days preceding the actual conference. We also plan an evening session where speculative results and outrageous opinions can be presented and discussed. Papers must be less than 20 double-spaced pages long (formatted for printing in the Proceedings, papers may not be longer than 12 pages), have an abstract of 100-150 words, and be original material that has not been previously published nor is currently under review by another conference or journal. Important Dates: Paper submissions: 30 January 1995 Tutorial/workshop proposals: 30 January 1995 Notification of acceptance: 17 April 1995 Camera ready papers due: 22 May 1995 All submitted papers will be judged based on their quality and relevance through double-blind reviewing where the identities of the authors are withheld from the reviewers. Authors names should not appear on the paper or in the postscript file for electronic submissions. A cover letter is required that identifies the paper title and lists the name, affiliation, telephone/fax numbers, and e-mail address of all authors. Authors of accepted papers need to sign an ACM copyright release form. The Proceedings of the conference will be published as a special issue of ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review. The program committee may also select a few papers for possible publication in the IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking. Paper submissions should be sent to: David Clark/Karen Sollins, Program Chairs at address below OR electronic submissions to: sc95@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Five copies are required for paper submissions. Electronic submissions (preferred) should be uuencoded, compressed postscript. Authors should separately e-mail the title, author names and abstract of their paper to the program chairs and identify any special equipment that will be required during its presentation. Due to the high number of anticipated submissions, authors are encouraged to strictly adhere to the submission date. SIGCOMM'95 will begin with two days of tutorials/workshops, each of which is intended to cover a single topic in detail. Proposals are solicited from individuals willing to give tutorials, which may be either a half day (4 hours) or a full day in length and cover topics at an introductory or advanced level. Tutorial and workshop submissions should be made to the Tutorial Chair noted below and include an extended abstract and outline (2-4 pages), and an indication of length, objectives, and intended audience. Student Paper Award: Papers submitted by students will enter a student-paper award contest. Among the accepted papers, a maximum of four outstanding papers will be awarded full conference registration and a travel grant of $500 US dollars. To be eligible the student must be the sole author of the paper, or the first author and primary contributor. A cover letter must identify the paper as a candidate for this competition. General Chair: Stuart Wecker Symmetrix, Inc. One Cranberry Hill Lexington, MA 02173 U.S.A. Ph: +1 617 862 3200 Fax: +1 508 443 8117 E-mail: wecker@symmetrix.com Program Co-Chairs: David Clark and Karen Sollins M.I.T. Laboratory for Computer Science 545 Technology Square Cambridge, MA 02139 U.S.A. David Clark: +1 617 253 6003 Karen Sollins: +1 617 253 6006 Fax: +1 617 253 2673 E-mail: sc95pc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Treasurer: Julio Escobar, BBN Ph: +1 617 873 4579 jescobar@bbn.com Publicity Chair: S. Keshav, Bell Labs Ph: +1 908 582 3384 E-mail: keshav@research.att.com Tutorial Chair: William Hawe, DEC Ph: +1 508 486 7666 E-mail: hawe@lkg.dec.com Registration Chair: Liann DiMare, Mitre Corp. Ph: +1 617 271 2567 E-mail: ldimare@mitre.org Publications Chair: Abhaya Asthana, Bell Labs Ph: +1 908 582 6687 E-mail: abhaya@research.att.com Program Committee: Ian Akyildiz Georgia Inst of Tech, USA Ernst Biersack Institut EURECOM, France Jean-Chrysostome Bolot INRIA, France Lillian Cassel Villanova Univ, USA Lyman Chapin BBN, USA Jon Crowcroft Univ College London, UK Peter Danzig USC, USA Bruce Davie Bellcore, USA Stephen Deering Xerox, USA Gary Delp IBM, USA Deborah Estrin USC, USA Sally Floyd LBL, USA Paul Francis NTT, Japan Inder Gopal IBM, USA David Greaves U of Cambridge, UK Hemant Kanakia AT&T, USA Jim Kurose U of Massachusetts, USA Lawrence Landweber U of Wisconsin, USA Will Leland Bellcore, USA Larry Masinter Xerox, USA Derek McAuley U of Cambridge, UK David Mills U of Delaware, USA Jeffrey Mogul DEC, USA Gerald Neufeld U of British Columbia, Can Craig Partridge BBN, USA Joseph Pasquale U of Cal, San Diego, USA Krzystztof Pawlikowski U of Canterbury, New Zealand Larry Peterson U of Arizona, USA Stephen Pink SICS, Sweden Bernhard Plattner ETH, Zurich, Switzerland Michael Schwartz U of Colorado, USA Scott Shenker Xerox, USA Ellen Siegel Xerox, USA Jonathan Smith U of Penn, USA Martha Steenstrup BBN, USA James Sterbenz GTE, USA Jonathan Turner Washington U, St. Louis, USA Greg Watson Hewlett Packard, USA Lixia Zhang Xerox, USA ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 15:54:42 Subject: Re: Caller-Charging 800 Numbers Should be *Banned* ... [much text deleted about billing for XXX-555-1212 calls] ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But *what company* actually serviced > the call? What company responded to you? Whose operators were > talking to you? In other words, if there is a telephone sitting > somewhere with the number 555-1212 on the front of it, who is > sitting there answering the calls? I believe it is AT&T in most or > all cases. ... [more text deleted] ... Pat, I never heard of an AT&T Directory Assistance operator. Toll operators, yes, but not Directory Assistance. Even in the days when the Bell System was part of AT&T, all Directory Assistance operators, at least in Southwestern Bell, were Southwestern Bell operators (except for independent company exchanges, which had and have their own DA operators in some cases). There isn't a "telephone" with 555-1212 -- there are a row (or entire floors or more) of operator positions served by some form of Automatic Call Distributor. Nowadays they sit at terminals and press keys with designations like "business" or "residence" or other specialized designations, and type perhaps the first four letters of the name desired. Other keys scroll, etc., and perform other specialized functions. There are indicators -- they used to be light signals but may be indications on the screen now -- as to the class of call, where it is a local DA call or an incoming call from the network or whatever. Where would AT&T get a database to handle 555-1212 calls? The directory assistance database is generated as part of the service order activity when an access line is installed, moved or disconnected. This has always been done only by the RBOC. In the days when this database was on paper, this was on loose leaf pages in the same format as the public directory. During the night a printer typeset and printed the "daily addenda", also in loose leaf format, with the service order activity for the previous day, and delivered it to the DA office early in the morning in sufficient quantity for all positions. (One copy of the service order was physically delivered to the printer, and the printer had to be able to read and understand all the entries on the order which related to directory activity ... not a simple thing where indents and double indents and changes in main listings and so forth were involved. The contract with the printer called for a pretty close relationship, and was for a considerable term to make it worthwhile for the printer to make all these arrangements, train his people, and arrange to get the daily addenda to each DA office.) The listings were set physically on Linotype or Intertype lead slugs, which after use in the daily addenda were moved to the galleys from which the reprint would be printed, and later the public directory was printed from the same slugs. In the days before computer manipulation could be done, this was by far the fastest and most convenient arrangement for moving and placing the listings in the proper order. Directory printing is a huge operation, and in those days the printer maintained all the listings on lead slugs. As I recall, the daily addenda was cumulative, i.e., all the changes were worked into the previous day's work so that the only references which needed to be consulted were the main listings and the daily addenda. At intervals (I believe for Oklahoma City it was every six weeks) all the changes were worked into the main galleys and the entire directory was reprinted in the looseleaf format for the DA operators. The interval was determined by how soon the daily addenda became too cumbersome to use as a separate item. (Incidentally, considerable security surrounded the printing and transport of the daily addenda, and the reprints for that matter, since there are many firms eager for all the current new connects, etc., and there were cases where copies were sold by a dishonest person for amounts in the thousands of dollars.) Now, of course, the database is created electronically as part of the service order system, but there is no way for AT&T to get their hands on this, since service orders are created and completed by the RBOC. AT&T has no more right to access this database than anyone else, and all the IXCs have always had to get DA service from the RBOC. Neither AT&T, nor any of the other IXCs, have any way to get this information except from the RBOCs, since all the activity is created by the RBOCs. Jeffrey W. McKeough also addresses the mechanics in his posting that you included in the same issue: ... [text deleted] ... > These are the people who helped bring down the mighty Bell System. > Why couldn't they seek an extension of the equal access requirement > for interLATA DA? It's simple: 1-NPA-555-1212 is routed to the > presubscribed carrier. That carrier has facilities set up to > handle such calls, and the RBOCs are required to provide each IXC > with database access and operator services under the same agreement > these companies have with AT&T. And to answer another part of Pat's comments: > Have you forgotten how in the early days of competition MCI used to > advise its customers to 'use AC-555-1212 for directory because it > is free, then after you get the number place your call via MCI' ? > Have you forgotten how the main reason AT&T quit giving free > directory assistance -- a tradition for many, many years since the > beginning of the phone itself -- was because all the come-latelys > were getting AT&T to do the lookups for free while they in turn got > the revenue for the call itself? I have to disagree with you again that directory assistance to anywhere but the local exchange was always free. In the days when calls were placed with a toll operator, whether she (very rarely he in those days) would advance the call by plugging into a jack on the switchboard or dialing on a trunk, there was basically no customer access to distant directory assistance records (called "Information" then, rather than directory assistance). You gave the information you had to the toll operator, who then went about reaching an Information operator at the distant place and asked for the number, which she then entered on the ticket and proceeded to place the call. The only way to get a distant number was to place a call to the number listed that way. With the advent of DDD, the customer needed to have a way to reach distant DA, and also it was cheaper in that less operator time was involved. At first there was apprehension that customers would abuse this service, and in fact some did, but in general it was still felt to be less expensive as well as promoting the use of DDD. I don't remember MCI saying to use AT&T to call distant directory assistance. Has that been since equal access and the breakup of the Bell System? Of course, when MCI was a minor entity which had to be dialed using a local or toll access code, I'm not sure if a customer could have dialed a distant DA office over MCI. But with the breakup, and equal access, all customers had to have a way to reach the DA records, which necessarily have to be maintained by the RBOCs since they have the only access to the information from which the database is compiled. As I noted earlier, some independent companies still provide their own DA service. This meant that an additional feature had to be added to DA offices when DA records were centralized by the RBOC for an entire area code -- the ability for the DA operator to extend the call if the request is for a place whose DA records are maintained by the independent company. If you ask the 555-1212 operator for a listing in such a place, she/he will say "just a moment," or similar wording, and extend the call to the DA office in the independent exchange. That's one reason the DA operator asks "What city, please?" Many independent companies, especially the smaller ones, contract with the RBOC (or in some cases a large independent) to handle their DA records and calls, but as noted some of the large independents do still maintain their own DA operations. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your mention of the independent telcos which still maintain their own information database -- and I think there must be dozens of them in the Carolinas; I seldom ever called DA over there without gettting the forwarding routine you mentioned. One of my favorite memories of this was several years ago when I called 555-1212; the answering operator had to pass me along to the little telco somewhere -- which still had a manual switchboard!! -- and when the operator (at that telco) answered I recall the Bell operator saying to her 'operator, this call is for information only; do not ring, do not connect the party'. Apparently some people had figured out that you could go through Bell's front-end DA in that state and get connected with some hick operator in some hick town somewhere ostensibly for directory assistance and trick her into extending you by making her think it was 'paid'. When there was still a reasonable mix of manual and dial exchanges around the USA I think the rule was if the customer called 555-1212 and asked for information off of a manual exchange, the DA operator was supposed to decline it and refer the caller back to his own long distance operator to get it handled intra-operator through 'inward'. Strictly speaking, a town was not part of the area code in which it was located until it was equipped for dialing, but the operators seemed to do it both ways. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 14:54 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Who Provides DA? Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But *what company* actually serviced the > call? I believe that you'll find that it's the RBOC that provides directory assistance, i.e. if you call 212-555-1212 you'll be talking to a NYNEX operator. It's anyone's guess if or how the operator will identify him or herself, since it's easy and common to have custom greetings depending on what trunk a call comes in on. My impression is that back in olden days MCI et al. didn't provide DA due to technical peculiarities of connecting to DA centers. (For example, if you call 802-555-1212 late at night for Vermont numbers, you'll be talking to an operator in Boston, since NYNEX only keeps one DA bureau open at night for all of their ex-NET territory.) Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 16:56:51 -0500 From: tom@ulysses.att.com (Tom Smith) Subject: Local Telcos Provide DA to Carriers Organization: AT&T Consumer Laboratory > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But *what company* actually serviced the > call? What company responded to you? Whose operators were talking to > you? In other words, if there is a telephone sitting somewhere with the > number 555-1212 on the front of it, who is sitting there answering the > calls? I believe it is AT&T in most or all cases. Have you forgotten ^ ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ PAT: I think you have outdated info. It is my understanding that you are speaking with representatives of the local LEC. IXCs contract with the LECs to provide DA services ... so if you call 1-501-555-1212 from Illinois, your IXC will bill you, but a Southwestern Bell employee will service your call. No matter whether you call over AT&T, Sprint, or MCI. It hasn't always been this way, but this is my current understanding. Speaking for myself, not for my company... Tom Smith tom@ulysses.att.com ------------------------------ From: Andrew A. Poe Subject: Forgiving Directory Assistance Charges Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 15:01:05 EST Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept. Reply-To: andrew.poe@umich.edu On Wed, 10 Nov 1994, Mike King wrote: > At one time, AT&T would "forgive" up to two inter-LATA 555 calls a > month, as long as two or more inter-LATA calls were placed via AT&T. > I don't know if that's still true. I remember that for a long time, > 1+NPA+555 calls could be made for free from public (LEC) pay phones, > presumably because charged calls were also being completed from those > phones. I never bothered to try from a COCOT. AT&T forgave two of my inter-LATA 555 calls this last month. I called to inquire if the $.75 cent charge was for actual information, or if the $.75 was just for the connection to Directory Assistance. My concern was that two of my inter-LATA Directory Assistance charges did not give me a phone number. One of those two was a "I can't find an entry for this person." and the other was a request for Rodriguez in San Juan. Although I knew the address of the Rodriguez I wanted, the very large number of Rodriguez's in the San Juan area (San Juan is in Puerto Rico, NPA 809) prompted her to deny my request for Information. Anyway, what I was told was that the charge for Directory Assistance is just for calling them, regardless of whether you actually received Information. (In my first case, one could argue that I did receive Information, Information that they have no listing for her. But since I know the address was right, I could have used either a phone number, the knowledge that she had a phone but was unlisted, or the knowledge that there was no entry for her, period, and this distinction was never given. In the second case, I received Information that there were a large number of Rodriguez's in San Juan. But I already knew that. In either case, I did receive Information, but not the Information I requested.) But, she said, she would credit my account with $1.50 anyway. Why, I asked? I'm not disputing the bill, just questioning it. She said I might as well dispute it, since AT&T will "forgive" up to $5.00 on any phone bill without looking into it. So, being an honest man, I took the $1.50 and did not dispute an additional $3.50. Andrew A. Poe 522 HILL ST ANN ARBOR MI 48104-3223 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA +1 313 665-4920 andrew.poe@umich.edu ------------------------------ From: dulberge@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dale Dulberger) Subject: Star Codes On Most Telco Systems Date: 11 Nov 1994 00:03:08 GMT Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee A few messages back there was a post asking about current * codes like *67 and *69 etc. Here's a list I've had for a while that tells most of them. I wouldn't be surprised if it's outdated in some areas, but I know that around here (414) it's still pretty accurate. *57 - call tracing request (some systems use this for call back) *60 - call blocking activated *61 - priority ring activated *63 - select call forwarding activated *66 - repeat dialing activated *67 - call number ID blocking (must be dialed before each call) *69 - call return activated *70 - disable call waiting *71 - three-way calling according to usage *72 - enable call forwarding *73 - disable call forwarding *74 - modify speed calling directory entry (for 8 # service) *75 - modify speed calling directory entry (for 30 # service) *76 - call pickup *79 - ring again *80 - call blocking disabled *81 - priority ring disabled *83 - select call forwarding activated *86 - repeat dialing disabled *89 - call return disabled Hope this is useful to someone! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is useful, and thank you for sending it in. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #409 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa09935; 11 Nov 94 1:38 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA04644; Thu, 10 Nov 94 20:30:12 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA04635; Thu, 10 Nov 94 20:30:07 CST Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 20:30:07 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9411110230.AA04635@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #410 TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Nov 94 20:30:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 410 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telephone Risks (comp.risks via Clive D.W. Feather) Public Access Points Virtual Conference (Greg Monti) 900 Billing, When Does it Start? (Andy Spitzer) Nitsuko NVM 2000 Problems (Ian Cochrane) Inquiry on Bellcore (Victorio O. Ochave) Any Way to Use Call Waiting to Avoid Second Phone Line? (M. K. Smith) Town Considers Taxing Cell Phones (Greg Monti) Turn Fax Machine to Scanner and More!! (Brian Gilner) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Telephone Risks Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 12:05:59 GMT From: Clive D.W. Feather The following just appeared in comp.risks. You might like to run it in the Digest. ==== BEGIN EXTRACT from RISKS Digest edition 16.54 ==== Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 01:48:00 -0800 (PST) From: javilk@netcom.com (Javilk) Subject: Tele-Phoney Troubles with Tele-Phoney Systems Getting a wrong-number call in the middle of the night from another human can be irritating. We may hope that future telephone numbers incorporate a check digit to reduce these errors, but I doubt they will. But let us first look at our "Telephone Neighborhood". Do you have any idea who or what exists in the 62 or so valid telephone numbers only a slip of the digit away from yours? (Area codes brings it up to about 80, but they are less often dialed. Another problem.) Apparently I have several interesting entities in my telephone neighborhood. And with most calls being dialed by embedded microprocessors and computers these days... What prompts this observation? Funny you should ask that... On Friday, after the close of business for the weekend, (as in, when else?!) I began receiving a strange series of persistent wrong number calls from one gentleman in my area code. As I answered, I would hear the "musique de telephon" of another ten-digit number being dialed. Although apologetic, the caller insisted he was trying to reach several very different numbers in two adjacent area codes. Soon others joined him in reaching out and touching me with a number of different touchy toney loony tunes, complaining that I was not the party of their choice; then retrying the process with more diligence, and sometimes more stridence. But no matter the area code or number they dialed, they all rang my phone. Some investigation on my part revealed they all originated from the same place, an apartment complex in a nearby city with a new PBX (Private Branch Exchange,) telephone system. To save the dwellers money, (or to line their coffers some more,) management had contracted with a private (discount) telephone and cable company called "Western Telephone and Television" (WTT) for a PBX with a feature called "least cost call routing." The physical PBX is a 6 x 4 x 2.5-foot box containing twin 680x0 processors for redundancy, each with its own hard drive, and each running a proprietary operating system called CORTELCO. The box can handle up to 500 telephone lines, although only approximately 300 lines were hooked up at that particular site. Under normal circumstances, this PBX is programmed to quietly intercept the dialed number, dial a five-digit access code (a 10-xxx number) on one of several outgoing lines, and when the access number goes off hook (answers), echo the number that the customer dialed; whereupon the long distance service provider takes over. However at this particular location, a five-digit access code was not available, and so a full seven-digit access code had to be used. In other words, the system simply forwarded all calls to another ordinary-looking phone number. Unfortunately, the technician inadvertently entered _my_ phone number while correcting a previously(!) erroneous number. Hence, all long distance calls placed from that apartment complex rang through to my number starting at 6pm Friday evening. This prompts some interesting observations: 1. No caller ID is transmitted with the call, 2. There is no handshaking between PBX and the service provider. 3. Audio is immediately enabled upon completion of number dialed. Speculations: 1. All accounting probably resides in the PBX 2. Most billing info and programming is done via modem. 3. Anyone with the seven digit access code... ...has unlimited free telephone service. Kind of makes you wonder what the fraud rate is in this industry, and how much is added to the average telephone bill to offset it. (No, I did not ask what number the computers were trying to call or I'd be their prime suspect!) Of course, once awakened, Murphy did not stop there. WTT's emergency pager number had been _Disconnected_. Nor could Pacific Bell Information find any local phone number for WTT. When I finally got the correct number from the apartment manager and called WTT, their automated attendant / voice mail system kept telling me to dial 0 for their operator (receptionist), then complained this and other automatically suggested extension numbers, were not valid. Whereupon the default error message, of course, again instructed me to dial 0 for the operator. (This kind of looping appears rather common in corporate automated attendant systems.) Eventually some error count was exceeded and at least _this_ computer had the sense to hang up. The RISK of not checking your telephony systems for message loops, old numbers, etc. is looking like a corporation of idiots. Not to mention a telephone company not having a publicly listed telephone number! [I think we now might understand WHY! PGN] (My favorite ploy in the case of such loops and lockouts, is to look for a Smith or Jones in their audio telephone directory, and inform him that his company is losing thousands of dollars in sales because the telephone system will not let callers speak to a human being; then ask he pass my number on to an appropriate party. Few ever bother. They must think it's not their job to help their company be profitable.) Finally, The local Bell Systems affiliate repair service (good old 611) told me that the RISK of harassing innocent telephone subscribers, as they agreed WTT's automated equipment was clearly doing, was having telephone service to their equipment, and thus the entire apartment complex, disconnected. (Probably by Monday...) But of course, Murphy being who he is, Repair could do nothing right now. And in retrospect, they really could not do much. Repair directed me to several different Pacific Bell departments, each with its own 800 number, but all of which had an identical automated voice issuing identical instructions. The RISK of using identical messages (computer voice screens?) is having customers think they are reaching the SAME number. For all I know, I may have been! Eventually, the chain of "if you have... then call 1-800-..." messages, which are heard after one finds one's situation is not on the menu, reached a recorded message informing me to call the local police to handle the situation. Is the RISK of having electronic equipment becoming deranged, with no obvious "OFF" switch, having it SHOT by law enforcement officials? Something equipment designers really ought to think about! After numerous complaint calls to the apartment manager, WTT, and Pacific Bell by apartment residents, Pacific Bell, the apartment manager, and myself, a WTT technician entered another set of access codes into the system. The calls ceased shortly before noon, Saturday. I received a long and very apologetic call from the technician. We ended up discussing the operational details of the PBX. The technician also checked the voice-mail looping problem and reports they will have to completely reconfigure their company office's automated attendant system to avoid the "dial operator" loop problem. The RISKS of Busy Telephone Neighborhoods The people at the Misdialing Gardens Apartments were more polite than those involved when Coca Cola published my number as their in-warranty emergency repair number three years back. Now I say that I can fix almost anything (and often do), but those people insisted I fix their Coca Cola machines _Right_NOW_For_FREE since soda was usually spewing forth onto the carpet, etc. Complaints to Coca Cola Corp.'s headquarters met with Persistent Insistence that my number was Indeed _The_Correct_Number_ for their in-warranty repair service. They kept looking it up in their corporate directory and their computers, and telling me it "The computer says that _IS_ The Correct Number, so stop bothering us!" (I couldn't seem to get a VP's secretary to understand the true nature of the problem. And of course, she would NOT pass me on up the line because _I_ was _Obviously_Wrong_.) After a few go-arounds like that with Coca Cola's Headquarters, I just gave up and chanced my number to an unlisted number without a forwarding reference. It only cost me several hundred dollars to change stationary and notify all my clients... ... Some of whom had recently changed their fax numbers... And since I usually set up a computer to send these overnight... Well, I guess I just had all those "favors" returned this past week end! The ADVANTAGE of Call Return I still get calls at all hours, but not as often; the present phoney phone callers all hang up when they hear a human answer, making one think of burglars trying to see who is home, or the odd former acquaintance, ex-spouse, or ex-employee who might have traded a few marbles for some lead pellets. When I ordered call return to investigate this problem, the Pacific Bell representative told me to call these phoney callers back and say "I am working with" (not for) "the telephone company to determine why people call this number." The responses revealed that my current number in the slipped digit neighborhood of a touch-tone-based Automatic Bank Information system. If I politely return those phoney phone calls, I can keep the number of calls down to two or three a month as opposed to the original three or four a week. (Not to mention retain my peace of mind!) I guess people do learn. Don't call me, I won't call you! Please! Several individuals have commented that someone less ethical might have set up one of those $95.99 voice mail cards to ask for the caller's account and PIN numbers, then apologize for the rest of the computers being unavailable. In effect, a telephonic analog of a terminal with a phony login screen. ==== END EXTRACT ==== Clive D.W. Feather | Santa Cruz Operation clive@sco.com | Croxley Centre Phone: +44 1923 813541 | Hatters Lane, Watford Fax: +44 1923 813811 | WD1 8YN, United Kingdom ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 14:50:14 EST From: Greg Monti Subject: Public Access Points Virtual Conference The following press release was sent out by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the U.S. Department of Commerce: THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (NTIA) and the UNIVERSAL SERVICE WORKING GROUP OF THE INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE TASK FORCE (IITF) announce a VIRTUAL PUBLIC CONFERENCE ON "UNIVERSAL SERVICE AND OPEN ACCESS TO THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK" November 14-18, 1994 Background In a landmark effort to broaden participation in the development of the nation's telecommunication policies and demonstrate the power of networking technology, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Universal Service Working Group of the Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) will host an electronic, Virtual Conference the week of November 14-18, 1994. The Virtual Conference will culminate a year-long effort by the Administration to gather information and opinions about the issue of universal service and open access as it relates to telecommunications and information resources. Building upon previous field hearings conducted by NTIA and the Universal Service Working Group on this subject, the Conference will allow public input to be expanded beyond geographic constraints. The Conference also is part of the Clinton Administration's initiative to promote the development of a National Information Infrastructure (NII). The Administration's document entitled the National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action, released on September 15, 1993, describes the benefits of networking technology and the potential for using the NII to create an electronic commons. The report includes the Administration's goals of extending universal service to the telecommunications network and using the NII to conduct government business. To demonstrate these concepts, this conference is being conducted entirely through electronic networks -- using the Internet, dial-up bulletin board access, public information service providers, and commercial service providers. Although most attendees will use their own computers, NTIA and the Universal Service Working Group are providing nationwide access by encouraging public institutions to make their computer facilities available to the public during the week of the conference. Information collected during this conference and all of the previous field hearings is being incorporated into the Administration's on-going policy deliberations and may result in a report to Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). How the Conference Will Be Conducted During the week of November 14-18, 1994, NTIA will create a series of electronic mail discussion groups. Each topic will have an Internet mailing list and USENET newsgroup devoted specifically to discussion of each relatively narrow area. Each topic will be hosted by an expert in the field, who will begin each day's discussion. Attendees will be able to participate in two ways: by replying to the host in a short response that will be included in the formal proceedings of the conference, and by engaging in unmoderated discussion on the mailing list and newsgroup. This two-tiered system will promote an active discussion by not moderating or summarizing what anyone has to contribute, while still creating a shorter precis of the overall debate. Topics will include: -- Redefining Universal Service and Open Access: What is the minimum "basket" of basic services or capabilities that all Americans should be able to obtain today? Which services or capabilities, if any, should be available to all Americans on an optional basis? What is the proper relationship between universal service and open access? -- Affordability and Availability: Who lacks basic telecommunications service, and why? For more advanced services, should training be available to all who wish it? Who should pay for such training? How can rural concerns and inner city concerns be balanced by a modern concept of universal service? How can government balance the need to provide universal service with the need to allow a competitive environment for the telecommunications industry? -- Intellectual Property: Does the traditional legal framework for intellectual property work with digital technology? What are the respective roles of the government and the private sector in determining how creators are reimbursed? Does the current legal framework of intellectual property help or hinder the goal of open access to the telecommunications network? -- Privacy: What potential is there for the telecommunications network to compromise personal privacy? To what extent will perceptions of reduced privacy hinder open access to the telecommunications network? -- Interoperability: How important is the concept of interoperability to the goals of universal service and open access? What is the respective role of the market and the government in determining standards and protocols for interoperability? What lessons can we learn from past efforts at standards setting, both domestically and internationally? -- Universal Service and Open Access for Individuals with Disabilities: What is the current state of access and service for the disabled? How can telecommunications help the disabled participate more fully in society? What design concepts for the disabled are transferable to all users to improve overall network functionality? Additional information about the Virtual Conference, including instructions on how to join a topic, may be found on the Conference Gopher: gopher-virtconf.ntia.doc.gov. This information can also be e-mailed directly to you; send a message to info@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov and you will receive an automatic reply. Participants are encouraged to review the NTIA/Universal Service Working Group's relevant documents and post comments and suggestions. These documents include: NII Field Hearings on Universal Service and Open Access: America Speaks Out; and Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on Universal Service and Open Access Issues (written comments in response to this NOI are being received by NTIA and should be filed on or before December 14, 1994, to receive full consideration). These documents already are available through NTIA's IITF Gopher Server at iitf.doc.gov, dial in to (202) 501-1920, and NTIA's Bulletin Board Service at (202) 482-1199, ntiabbs.ntia.doc.gov (telnet, gopher or world- wide web). Call for "Public Access Points" The Administration recognizes that not all citizens have access to, or experience using, computers and the Internet. Therefore, libraries and universities, as well as state and local governments, are encouraged to make their facilities available to the public. Providing these public gateways will demonstrate the power of networking and allow access to those who might not otherwise be able to participate. If your institution is interested in participating as a "public access point," please see the attached registration form. For Further Information For technical assistance, please contact Charles Franz at (202) 482-1835 (cfranz@ntia.doc.gov). For general information, please contact Roanne Robinson at (202) 482-1551 (rrobinson@ntia.doc.gov). Fax inquiries should be directed to (202) 482-1635. ***************************************************************** Registration Form for "Public Access Points" The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Universal Service Working Group on the Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) are hosting an electronic Virtual Conference on the topics of universal service and open access to the telecommunications network. The Conference will be accessible by the public via Internet mailing lists and network newsgroups. To broaden the reach of the Conference, the Administration is encouraging public institutions to provide the general public a generic e-mail or newsgroup account to access the Conference Internet mailing lists. This will allow citizens to read and respond to on-going discussions on various topics. Site Responsibilities While every attempt will be made to make the general public aware of this conference, "public access points" (sites) will be responsible for all local publicity, as well as technical and logistical support. Sites are encouraged to display the conference announcement and make copies available to the public. Sites may wish to develop an additional announcement stating their intent to serve as a public access point, hours of operation and a local contact person, who can instruct local citizens on how to participate. Sites are encouraged to download the relevant documents outlined in the announcement and make hard copies available for the public to review prior to the conference. In addition, since sites will be providing NTIA with anonymous e- mail accounts, sites may wish to encourage individual conference participants to provide their name, organization, and address at the end of their comments. Site Registration Please complete the registration form and e-mail the form to rrobinson@ntia.doc.gov by November 4, 1994. Registration will allow us to contact you with updated conference information. ***************************************************************** "PUBLIC ACCESS POINTS" REGISTRATION FORM Contact Name: Organization: Address: City: State, Zip: Phone & Fax: E-mail Address: ---------- I'm just the messenger: Greg Monti, Tech Mgr, FISPO, Distribution Division National Public Radio Phone: +1 202 414-3343 635 Massachusetts Av NW Fax: +1 202 414-3036 Washington, DC 20001-3753 Internet: gmonti@npr.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Nov 94 17:12:58 EST From: woof@telecnnct.com (Andy Spitzer) Subject: 900 Billing; When Does it Start? Oh Telecom Gurus, Please settle an argument we are having here, about when Billing for a 900 call starts. We are talking about 900 delivered over T1, with ANI and DNIS information. The particular LD provider is Sprint. The usual call progress is as follows: From 900 Seize ANI+DNIS DTMF digits Hangup To 900 Wink RING----RING Pickup "Hello!" t0 t1 t2 t3 t4 An alternate call might progress as follows From 900 Seize ANI+DNIS DTMF digits Hangup To 900 Wink BUSY--BUSY--BUSY--BUSY--BUSY t0 t1 t2 t4 At time t0, the line is Seized, indicating a new call. At time t1, the PBX winks to alert the CO to spill ANI & DNIS information. At time t2, the digits are complete, and the PBX knows where to route the call. At time t3, an agent picks up the phone At time t4, the caller hangs up. Some of us think that the duration of the call is timed from t3 to t4, as it would be on a regular 800 call. In other words, billing doesn't start until you return answer supervision (Pickup the phone). If you don't Pickup (due to busy), nothing is billed. Some of us think that the duration of the call is timed from t1 to t4, in other words the clock starts the moment you Wink. If this is true, then if the call wasn't answered, or was played a busy signal by the PBX, then the call would still "count". The question, who is right? Is it possible that Sprint bills from the wink? If so, is this "normal" in the 900 biz? Andy Spitzer The Telephone Connection 301-417-0700 woof@telecnnt.com ------------------------------ From: Cochrane@world.std.com (Ian Cochrane) Subject: Nitsuko NVM 2000 Problems Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 13:56:39 GMT I'm having a problem with the Nitsuko NVM 2000 auto attendant/voice mail. Callers get lost in the unit because, I presume, the unit doesn't recognize the digits they dial. People calling from cellular phones, residential phones and other PBX phones have had this happen. They get into the auto attendant and after being prompted, they dial the three digit extension they want. After several minutes, the auto attendant repeats its request to dial an extension. Our vendor has tried a few solutions, none of which have worked. They have now become very unresponsive to our requests for assistance with this problem. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Ian Cochrane Cochrane@world.std.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 17:50:49 +0800 From: Victorio O. Ochave Subject: Inquiry on Bellcore I need information on how to order technical documents from BELLCORE; can anyone provide me with email address, fax number, contact person information? TNX in advance. Victorio A. Ochave, Jr. Communications Engineering Division Advanced Science and Technology Institute (ASTI) Department of Science and Technology (DOST) 4/F NEC Bldg., University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, PHILIPPINES 1101 voice: 632 995071-9 loc.5106 fax: 632 9224714 Internet: jojo@asti.dost.gov.ph victorio.ochave@itu.ch X.400: G=victorio; S=ochave; P=itu; A=arcom; C=ch [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: From time to time I run messages here about Bellcore and the documents it has available, but there always seem to be new readers who do not go back to read the old messages. Perhaps someone will respond directly to this correspondent for me. Perhaps we need a message publicizing Bellcore once again here also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mksmith@prairienet.org (M. K. Smith) Subject: Any Way to Use Call Waiting to Avoid Second Phone Line? Date: 9 Nov 1994 20:33:30 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana I was just wondering if there is any software available that can recognize a call waiting signal and prevent the current modem connection from being dropped? I am trying to avoid a second phone line (~15/month); however, I need to know when people are trying to reach me by phone. I know voice mail through the local phone company is available (~$7/month), but call waiting is much cheaper (~2-3/month). Any ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Mark [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On most modems now-a-days you can set one of the S-Registers high enough to do what you are seeking; i.e. the call waiting signal will cause you to get a lot of garbage on the screen but the modem will physically hang in there and stay connected. There now arises a couple of problems: Can you live with the garbage as a result? I guess if you are just working on text files the garbage does not matter too much, but I can't imagine you would want to taint some binaries you were downloading (as one example) with some nonsense buried deep in the file the modem passed along. If you are down/uploading some customer account information, can you live with the errors caused by a call-waiting signal hitting in the middle of it? The second problem as I see it is this: Okay, now you have been given notice of a call waiting. Do you hang up and take the call, not knowing who it is, and whether you even want your online session interuppted as a result? Do you simply flash, putting the modem connection on hold while you see who is on the other side of the call-waiting? A lot of good that will do! You might as well have hung up since when the distant modem fails to hear you any longer it is gonna say bye-bye anyway and disconnect for loss of carrier *if it did not disconnect in the half- second or so when the connection was split while your central office passed you the call waiting tone anyway*. Or do you install this 'software' you are asking about (or set the appropriate S-Register high enough) on both ends of the line so you can keep the other end up also during the interim? I know if I were a sysadmin I sure would not let you get near my modem settings; after all, suppose the connection was dropped for any number of reasons and my modem stayed off hook the rest of the night, not having enough wits to hang up the line on account of your adjustments so *your session could stay intact*. For all the things it is *possible* to do to prevent disconnection (such as adjusting that one S-Register -- I forget which one -- to 255 or some such high value), NOTHING takes the place of having a *dedicated* modem line which stands alone. No matter what you tell people about the hours in which your modem will answer and the hours in which you will answer personally, there will always be calls from modems to your phone at inappropriate times. There will always be interuptions and people who do not understand what is going on. You are always going to get hassled and annoyed by disruptions, etc. Call waiting on a phone line and modems do not mix. Get a second phone line as cheap as possible. That's the only way to go. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 17:09:21 EST From: Greg Monti Subject: Town Considers Taxing Cell Phones A story in the November 7, 1994, editions of the {Washington Times}, page A1, says that the Town of Vienna, Virginia, is considering putting a tax of $3 per month on all cellular phone accounts with Vienna billing addresses. Vienna is a town of about 10,000 residents in Fairfax County, Virginia, about 12 miles west of Washington, DC. The Virginia General Assembly passed a law earlier this year allowing jursidictions within the state to levy cell phone taxes up to $3 per month. Two other Virginia cities, Charlottesville and Lynchburg, already tax cell phone accounts. Counties and municipalities see taxing cell phones as a way to avoid taxpayer complaints over increased property taxes. Vienna already taxes *landline* phone customers $3 per month. The town wanted to be "fair" and tax all phone users alike. The article notes that there are 19 million cell phones in the US, growing at a rate of 17,000 a day. If all such phones were taxed at the $3 a month rate, $684,000,000 would be raised per year by taxing authorities. I estimate that Vienna's share of that would be about $25,000 per year. The article notes that California cities of Inglewood and Culver City also tax cellular phones. Cellular companies put up with the taxes, which they pass through from subscribers, because they are not high. Greg Monti, Tech Mgr, FISPO, Distribution Division National Public Radio Phone: +1 202 414-3343 635 Massachusetts Av NW Fax: +1 202 414-3036 Washington, DC 20001-3753 Internet: gmonti@npr.org ------------------------------ From: gilner@cs.tulane.edu (Brian Gilner) Subject: Turn Fax Machine to Scanner and More! Date: 10 Nov 1994 05:16:41 GMT Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA For you telecommunication and fax freaks: I got this cool device that turns a stand alone fax machine into a full-page scanner. I saw the ad in the November issue of Windows magazine, and it costs $69.95. I use it with WinFax Pro to perform OCR on my scanned documents. Check it out! The number is 1-800-367-1427. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know if this was sent to me in a sneaky way to be an advertisement for the product described or if the correspondent is merely a satisfied customer. Anyway, I pass it along for whoever wants to investigate further. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #410 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa10437; 11 Nov 94 2:39 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA05862; Thu, 10 Nov 94 21:42:22 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA05854; Thu, 10 Nov 94 21:42:18 CST Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 21:42:18 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9411110342.AA05854@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #411 TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Nov 94 21:42:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 411 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Airwaves Journal Moderator in Car Crash! (TELECOM Digest Editor) FCC Q & A on Broadband PCS Auctions (Bob Keller) FBI Director May Pursue Outlawing Non-snoopable Crypto! (Bill Sohl) How is Japan's Phone System Different Than USA? (Larry Lee) Re: T-1 is Much Better Than Frame Relay (Douglas Hartung) Various News Tidbits (Dave Leibold) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Airwaves Journal Moderator in Car Crash! Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 20:00:00 CST It was just about a week ago that Bill Pfieffer took over this journal on an emergency basis to tell you of my hospitilization, and now it is my unfortunate turn to tell you of a crisis which has visited him in the past 24 hours. Bill resides with his mother in Springfield, Missouri. On Wednesday night, November 9 in the late evening, he and his mother were riding in their car on a narrow two-lane highway just outside of Springfield. As they rounded a curve in the darkness, they were met head-on by a motorist in the other direction. Bill swerved to miss the other car and did miss a collision only to instead drive off the road and into a very deep ditch on the embankment as he applied his brakes. Their car completely turned over a couple times, and came to a halt *upside down with Bill and his mother trapped inside*. The front window was totally smashed and they both were cut up by the flying glass. Bill's mother is 80 years old and sustained several broken bones and perhaps some internal injuries. She is in the hospital. Bill got banged up pretty bad but after examination and treatment by emergency room personnel he was permitted to go home, with no broken bones but apparently a few sprained and torn muscles. He had a sliver of glass in his eye which the emergency room people took care of. He is resting at home. Bill was able to get out of the car first and after getting his mother out to relative safety he then got a passing motorist to go for help at a nearby farmhouse. Calling 911 there brings the sheriff and the Volunteer Fire Rescue Squad to the location. Bill and his mother were then rushed by ambulance to the hospital. I feel just terrible about this. Bill and I have been friends for nearly twenty years and he has had his share of problems in the past. Like my family and myself, Bill and his mom are evacuees from Chicago. Their neighborhood, like where we lived for many years had become so *awful* -- there is really no other word for it -- that they sold their house and moved as far away as they could. They've been in Springfield, Missouri now for several months -- a decent, pleasant and safe community -- and although times have been tough for him he has made it pretty well ... now this! Some of you are probably subscribers to his AIRWAVES Journal or read his efforts on Usenet in rec.radio.broadcasting. May we take a moment to wish him and his mother the best as they recover. Write him at wdp@airwaves.com to send your thoughts, and please let others know who might not have heard about this. Copy this to appropriate newsgroups. Godspeed, Bill. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 13:37:54 EST From: Bob Keller Subject: FCC Q & A on Broadband PCS Auctions October 20, 1994 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING BROADBAND PCS AUCTIONS In late August, 1994, the Commission conducted a series of seminars to familiarize the public with the rules that will apply to the upcoming auctions of licenses to provide Personal Communications Services in the 2 GHz band (broadband PCS). Attendees were invited to submit written questions to the Commission, which many did. In addition, over the last several weeks the Commission has received numerous informal inquiries concerning our auction rules for broadband PCS. In this Public Notice, the Commission hopes to provide guidance to prospective bidders on broadband PCS licenses. Some issues regarding the Commission's broadband PCS auction rules are addressed in the recently released reconsideration order (see Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order in PP Docket No. 93-253, FCC 94-264 (released October 19, 1994)) while others are still subject to reconsideration. These issues are not treated in this Public Notice. Some of the inquiries we received have posed similar questions in slightly different ways that reflect the questioner's particular circumstances. Rather than provide specific guidance to some but not all questioners, the Commission has recast the questions in general language that incorporates the most commonly asked questions. Questions and answers are grouped in the following categories: general questions, questions pertaining to the auction process, and questions pertaining to designated entity applicants. General Questions Q: How will applicants be notified if there is a problem with their Form 175 short-form applications? A: Shortly after the deadline for submission of Form 175 applications, the Commission will issue a Public Notice informing applicants of their status. That Public Notice will identify applications that are accepted, those that contain minor defects that may be resubmitted, and those that are rejected. It is each applicant's responsibility to review that Public Notice to determine the status of its Form 175 application. The Commission will not individually notify applicants of defects that may be corrected through resubmission. Q: Can an individual participate in the auction? A: In the broadband PCS auction for licenses in frequency blocks A and B, which is scheduled to begin on December 5, 1994, individuals may participate freely as applicants or as investors in applicants. The same will be true of our third broadband PCS auction -- for licenses in frequency blocks D and E. However, in the second auction, for licenses in frequency blocks C and F, only individuals who meet the eligibility requirements set forth in our Rules may participate. Q: What is the FCC doing to ensure that businesses acquiring licenses have the capital necessary to provide service and that they do not fail? A: The FCC does not provide any guarantees of success in the marketplace to winning bidders. Applicants are required to certify as part of their Form 175 short-form applications that they are financially qualified. The FCC does not require that applicants make a showing of their financial qualifications; however we take all certifications very seriously, and penalties for a false certification could include loss of any auction payments made, loss of other licenses held by the applicant, disqualification from future auctions, and possible criminal prosecution. Q: Where can I obtain information and maps regarding what area is within each BTA and MTA? A: On September 22, 1994, the FCC issued a Public Notice listing of all of the counties contained in each BTA and all of the BTAs contained in each MTA. This Public Notice (Report No. CW-94-02) is accessible on the Internet through anonymous ftp@fcc.gov, and copies of the Public Notice can be obtained through the FCC's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, by calling (202) 857-3800. The information contained in the Public Notice is based on material copyrighted by Rand McNally and Company. Maps of BTAs and MTAs can be obtained from the Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) under a licensing agreement PCIA has entered with Rand McNally & Company. Q: How will bidders be able to submit bids on broadband PCS licenses? A: On-site bidding will take place at The Postal Square Building, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C. (adjacent to Union Station). Bidders will also be able to submit bids through bid assistants via telephone, with bid confirmation transmitted via facsimile. The Commission is considering whether to enable bidders also to participate in the auction through remote computer access via a value added network. In a future Public Notice, the Commission will inform prospective bidders of the procedures if the latter option is to be made available. Q: What happens to a PCS license after the 10-year license term? Will the licensee have to be subjected to another auction? A: The legislation authorizing the FCC to conduct auctions specifically limits this authority to "initial" licenses, so renewal applications will not be subject to auction. The Commission has not yet set forth standards for renewal of PCS licenses. In the cellular services, however, licensees who have operated cellular systems in the public interest, and who have met all applicable performance requirements, are entitled to a renewal expectancy at the expiration of their initial license term. Q: What does it mean when the FCC says that no one can have more than 40 MHz of PCS spectrum in one area? A: This restriction, contained in Section 24.229(c) of the Commission's Rules, provides that no entity may be licensed to provide PCS to any particular geographic area over more than 40 MHz of spectrum. In addition, no person or entity is permitted to hold an attributable interest in PCS licensees that, when considered together, are licensed to provide PCS on more than 40 MHz of spectrum. This rule was promulgated to further the development of a competitive post-auction PCS market structure by ensuring that no entity could, in effect, "corner the market" on PCS spectrum. Q: Will the FCC grant all PCS licenses at the same time or will licenses be issued in the order in which they are auctioned? A: The FCC currently does not plan to delay the grant of any PCS license so as to coincide with the grant of any other PCS license. To do so would contravene our stated policy designed to foster the rapid initiation of new competitive services to the public. The time that will be required to review an auction winner's long-form application for a license will vary depending on the complexity of the information submitted, the resources available to the Commission for processing, whether any petitions to deny have been filed against the application, and the complexity of the issues raised in any such petitions. Q: If an auction winner defaults on its payment obligation, what would be the procedure for someone else to acquire that license? A: If an auction winner to whom a license has been granted defaults, the license will automatically be cancelled. The license will then revert to the Commission, and the Commission will re-auction the license in a later auction event. The public would be informed through public notices if licenses are to be re-auctioned. Q: Many of the likely applications of PCS technology involve direct interconnection with local exchange equipment and switches. Does this create an advantage for the local exchange carriers who are bidding on PCS licenses in the wireline service areas? What is the FCC doing to address the interconnection issue? A: If a LEC also owns a cellular system in its wireline service area, it is ineligible to own more than 10 MHz of PCS spectrum in that area. Thus, as a PCS operator, it would not be in a position to benefit from its LEC status vis-a-vis a competing 30 MHz PCS operator. The FCC has instituted a proceeding in which we are asking whether interconnection rates should continue to be set by agreement or by tariff. The Commission will use its authority under Title II of the Communications Act to monitor what is happening to make sure that non-RBOC licensees will not be discriminated against and we will be vigilant in our efforts to prevent abuses from arising. Questions Pertaining to the Auction Process Q: Why did the FCC choose such a complex auction process? A: The simultaneous multiple round auction design the FCC is using for PCS auctions has a couple of important advantages over the simpler, sequential auction design. First, the simultaneous multiple round design conveys to bidders the most information about the true value of licenses during the course of the auction, thereby improving bidders' confidence and enabling them to minimize the "winner's curse" (i.e., the tendency to overbid). In addition, in a sequential auction, the results of later auctions will likely tell a bidder too late that it should have bid (or not bid) on an earlier-auctioned license. By offering all substantially identical or complementary licenses at the same time, bidders will be better able to effectuate their aggregation strategies. This will tend to result in the creation of more efficient service that will bring greater competition, better service and lower prices to consumers. Q: The activity rules force bidders to bid in each round. Why should this be required? A: If there were no requirement that bidders place bids in each round of the auction, bidders would naturally tend to hold back, waiting to see what others bid. If a substantial number of bidders adopt this strategy, the Auction might proceed exceedingly slowly, or it might close prematurely. Activity rules are necessary to ensure that auctions progress at a reasonable pace and that useful information about the value of licenses is conveyed to bidders throughout the auction. Q: How will the FCC determine what licenses I may bid on in the auction? A: Bidders will be allowed to place bids only on licenses for which they applied on their FCC Form 175 application, but the precise amount of bidding eligibility (i.e., the amount of bids, in terms of MHz-pops, that a bidder may place in any round) will be determined by the amount of upfront payment submitted by the bidder prior to the auction. The FCC will translate the dollar amount of the upfront payment into a MHz-pop figure, and the computer system will not allow a bidder to enter a set of bids if the total number of MHz-pops represented by the licenses on which bids are placed exceeds the number of MHz-pops to which its upfront payment translates. If the bidder's eligibility drops during the course of the auction (due to bidding below the required activity level), the revised eligibility will be applied by the computer system. Therefore, in order to avoid having its eligibility reduced, a bidder must pay attention to the number of MHz-pops associated with each license on which it places bids, and ensure that its bidding in each round of the auction exceeds its required activity. Q: Could you explain the activity rules in terms a layman can understand? A: As explained above, each bidder's upfront payment will determine its "required activity level." The term "required activity level" refers to the number of MHz-pops on which a bidder must be "active" (i.e., submit a valid bid or hold the high bid from the previous round) to avoid having its eligibility reduced in future rounds. In stage I of the auction, each bidder must be active on of the MHz-pops on which it is eligible to bid. In stage II of the auction, each bidder must be active on of the MHz-pops on which it is eligible to bid. In stage III, each bidder must be active on all of the MHz-pops on which it is eligible to bid. Unless an activity rule waiver is applied, the following eligibility reduction will occur if a bidder's activity falls below the required activity level in a round: Auction Stage I: Loss of 3 MHz-pops in eligibility for each MHz-pop below required level Auction Stage II: Loss of 1.5 MHz-pops in eligibility for each MHz-pop below required level Auction Stage III: Loss of 1 MHz-pop in eligibility for each MHz-pop below required level The Commission has retained the discretion to reduce the required Stage III activity level by Public Notice in advance of each auction, but in no event will a bidder's required activity level in Stage III be less than 95 percent of the MHz-pops on which it is eligible to bid. Q: How do activity rule waivers work? Can an activity rule waiver be submitted by the bidder, or is it only entered automatically by the FCC if a bidder does not bid or if its bids fall below its required activity level? A: When a bidder's activity in a round falls below its required activity level, a waiver will automatically be applied if the bidder has a waiver available. In this event, however, a bidder will be offered the option of overriding the automatic waiver mechanism, enabling it to intentionally reduce its eligibility and save the waiver for later use. Bidders also will be able to submit an activity rule waiver "proactively". A bidder may wish to do so if it is unable or does not desire to bid in a particular round of the auction and wishes to ensure that the auction will not close in that round. (Submission of a proactive waiver keeps the auction open even if no other valid bids are submitted, but application of an automatic waiver will not.) Q: Is a bidder who withdraws a high bid in a round considered to be "active" on that license in the next round? A: Yes. Withdrawal of a high bid does not negate the fact that the bid was made and that it was the high bid. Bidders should keep in mind, however, that they may be required to pay a penalty if they withdraw a high bid. Q: How will bidders know when a round is over? A: The FCC will announce at the beginning of each round when the bid submission period will end. After the round results from the bid submission period are posted, we will announce the bid withdrawal period. This information will be available both at the auction site and over any value added network created for remote bidding. A countdown clock also will be provided to inform bidders as to the time remaining in each period. Q: How will auction results be made public? A: Results from each round of the auction will made available 1) at the auction site, 2) on the Internet, and 3) to bidders over the FCC BIDDER ONLINE value added network, if the FCC decides to offer the option of remote electronic bidding. Prospective bidders interested in the remote electronic bidding option must register with Business Information Network by November 15, 1994 by calling (800) 336-9246. Charges of $200 for the Set-up Kit and software and $23 per hour of online access will apply. Results posted on the Internet can be accessed at the following Internet address: anonymous ftp@fcc.gov Questions Pertaining to Designated Entity Applicants Q: What provisions are available for small businesses, rural telephone companies and businesses owned by minorities and/or women (the "designated entities") in the auction for MTA licenses on frequency blocks A and B? A: The FCC did not adopt special payment provisions to benefit designated entities in the bidding itself in this first auction. Thus, the bidding credits and installment payment plans that will be available in the auction for licenses on frequency blocks C and F (the "Entrepreneurs' Blocks) are not available in the auction that begins on December 5, 1994. The Commission's tax certificate policy, however, will apply to sales of block A and B licenses and to investments in certain applicants for these licenses. In addition, the FCC's partitioning policy with respect to rural telephone companies will apply to the MTA license auction. Rural telephone companies will be able to be licensed for partitioned broadband PCS service areas in one of two ways: 1) they may form consortia to bid on MTA licenses, with the license to be partitioned among the consortia members in the post-auction licensing process; or 2) through private post-licensing negotiation with an MTA licensee, they may obtain licenses for partitioned areas that are reasonably related to their wireline service areas. A proceeding is currently pending to determine whether the partitioning policy should be extended to businesses owned by minorities and/or women. See Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in PP Docket No. 93-253, FCC 94-198 (released August 2, 1994). Q: What are tax certificates and how do they benefit designated entities? A: Under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, the Commission may upon request grant tax certificates. A tax certificate enables the grantee to defer recognition of gain For tax purposes on the sale of an investment in a communications property. With respect to designated entities bidding on PCS licenses, the tax certificate policy could work in two ways. First, an investor in a minority- or women-owned PCS licensee would be able to defer the payment of capital gains tax upon the sale of its investment, if it satisfies certain conditions regarding reinvestment of the gain. Second, a non- designated entity PCS licensee would be entitled to deferral of gain if it transfers its license to a business owned by minorities and/or women, again subject to reinvestment conditions. The tax certificate policy is intended to serve both to attract investment capital to entities that have historically faced discrimination in gaining access to capital, and to encourage sales to minority- and women-owned firms. Q: How can a designated entity licensee avoid having to pay penalties if its owner dies during the holding period, causing the licensee to lose its designated entity status? A: In the event of the death of a designated entity owner, the licensee could make a request with the Commission for a waiver of the holding rule requirements and the unjust enrichment provisions applicable to installment payments and bidding credits. Q: If a license obtained with a bidding credit is transferred more than 10 years from the date of the initial license grant, would the bidding credit have to be refunded? A: No. Q: Has the FCC prepared a Designated Entities FCC Auction Guidebook? If so, how can I obtain a copy? A: The FCC has not prepared such a document. Law firms or trade associations such as the Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) may have developed such guidebooks. Q: Are there any "designated" financial institutions that will provide/offer funding to designated entities? Are there qualified brokers and/or consultants who are reputable, who can assist with the process? A: The FCC is not in a position to recommend specific potential sources of financing to prospective bidders. However, our Office of Communications Business Opportunities (formerly the Office of Small Business Activities) is available to provide assistance to individuals or groups seeking to enter the PCS industry. OCBO's telephone number is (202) 418-0990. Q: Are advance payments also discounted like the actual bid? A: The upfront payment for all entities bidding in the entrepreneurs' blocks is $0.015 per MHz pop. That is a 25 percent discount from the $0.02 per MHz pop required in the other auctions. In addition, the down payment for small businesses and minority and women-owned businesses will be calculated based on the bid price after the bidding credit is subtracted. So, if a small minority-owned firm bid $1 million, its total payment would be $750,000 after subtraction of the 25 percent bidding credit. The 10 percent down payment would be $75,000, one-half payable five business days after close of the auction and the other half due five business days after grant of the license. Q: Does a university (a non-profit institution) which applies for an "Entrepreneurs' Block" license it intends to use in training students in the development and use of PCS technology qualify as a designated entity? A: If the university meets our gross revenue and total assets tests it may qualify as an entrepreneur or as a small business. The Commission has adopted no PCS rules specifically benefitting universities or entities that wish to acquire licenses for training purposes. Q: Does the FCC have any guidelines regarding the incorporation date or length of time a minority- or women-owned business must have been in existence in order to bid in an auction? A: There are no requirements regarding the length of time a designated entity business must have been in existence before the auction. All affiliates of a new business will be counted toward applicable financial caps, however. Q: Can a designated entity use a limited partnership or a limited liability company or any other lawful structure, so long as control mechanisms are equivalent and within FCC guidelines? A: Yes. In fact, in the Fifth Report and Order the Commission has specified various guidelines for limited partnership applicants. Q: Can a major telecommunications company provide debt in any amount to a designated entity? A: Debt is not attributable unless it appears to be equity disguised as debt. Factors such as the interest rate and length of the repayment period would have to be considered. Q: Can a major telecommunications company enter into agreements with a number of designated entity applicants around the country for bidding purposes, so long as each designated entity remains in control? A: The rules applicable to investment in designated entities would apply to each such investment, and assuming that none of the designated entity applicants had applied for licenses in any of the same markets, the rules do not restrict such arrangements. Q: Can designated entities bid at the A and B band PCS auction? If so, do they receive any special benefits? A: Designated entities are free to bid in any auction. The only benefit available in the non-entrepreneurs blocks, however, is the tax certificate program for businesses owned by minorities and women. Q: Is there minimum capitalization needed for a designated entity? A: No, although designated entities must be prepared to pay half of the 10 percent down payment five business days after the auction closes. - FCC - Robert J. Keller, P.C. (Federal Telecommunications Law) Tel: 301-229-5208 Fax: 301-229-6875 4200 Wisconsin Ave NW #106-261 Washington DC 20016-2146 finger me for info on F.C.C. Daily Digests and Releases ------------------------------ From: billsohl@earth.planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: FBI Director May Pursue Putlawing Non-snoopable Crypto! Date: 10 Nov 1994 03:50:52 GMT Organization: Planet Access Networks - Stanhope, NJ Of interest to comp.dcom.telecom readers is this post from the radio newsgroups. Richard Crisp (crisp@netcom.com) wrote: We all knew it was coming, here it is: Washington, DC -- If private encryption schemes interfere with the FBI's ability to wiretap, they could be outlawed, according to recent comments made by the agency's Director Louis Freeh. Freeh told attendees here at the recent conference on Global Cryptography that if the Administration's Escrowed Encryption System, otherwise known as the Clipper Chip, failed to gain acceptance, giving way to private encryption technologies, he would have no choice but to press Congress to pass legislation that provided law enforcement access to *all* encrypted communications. If, after having pushed Digital Telephony through Congress (which hadn't yet happened when Freeh spoke at this conference), all the Bureau ended up with during wiretaps were the scratchy hiss of digital one's and zeros being hurled back and forth, Freeh made it clear that he would seek a congressional mandate to solve the problem. In other words: Roll your own coded communications; go to jail. Freeh's comments, made during a question and answer session at the conference, are the first public statements made by an Administration official hinting at a future governmental policy that could result in the banning of non-governmental, unbreakable encryption methods. Freeh's remarks were first reported on the WELL by MacWorld writer and author Steven Levy. The FBI confirmed those statements to Dispatch. The Administration, however, continues to state that it has no plans to outlaw or place any restrictions on private encryption methods. A White House official said there are "absolutely no plans" on the table to regulate domestic encryption "at the present time." He wouldn't comment, however, as to whether the Administration would back an FBI attempt for such legislation. "Freeh doesn't seem to need a lot of White House support," to get things done, the official said. FBI sources said any moves to approach Congress about regulating private encryption are "so far out there" time wise, that the subject "doesn't merit much ink," as one FBI source put it. "We've got to make sure the telcos rig up their current networks according to the new [digital wiretap] law before we go worrying about private encryption stuff," he said. An FBI spokesman confirmed Freeh's position that the Bureau would aggressively seek to maintain what the spokesman called "law and order objectives." If that meant getting laws passed so that the Bureau's "authorized wiretap activities" couldn't be thwarted by "criminal elements using non-governmental" encryption schemes, "then that's what he [Freeh] would do," the spokesman said. When the Administration went public with its Clipper Chip policy, it stressed that the program would be mandatory. Many civil liberties groups wondered out loud how long it would be before private encryption was banned altogether. The White House, anxious for the public to buy into its one-trick pony the Clipper Chip, said that wouldn't happen. But the Administration hedged its bet. Buried in the background briefing papers of the original Clipper announcement, is a statement that the White House doesn't consider the public's right to use private encryption methods are protected anywhere in the Constitution. : Richard Crisp Cupertino, Ca. crisp@netcom.com : (415) 903-3832 wk (408) 253 4541 fax : For PGP Public Key, type finger crisp@netcom.com Bill Sohl K2UNK (billsohl@planet.net) Budd Lake, New Jersey ------------------------------ From: lclee@twinsun.com (Larry Lee) Subject: How is Japan's Phone System Different Than USA? Date: 10 Nov 1994 15:24:18 -0700 Organization: Twin Sun Inc, El Segundo, CA, USA How does the Japanese phone network differ from the phone system in the US? I have successfully used Zoom modems and Intel modems (both V32bis) with a minimal amount of trouble. However the ZyXel modems refused to recognize a ring until they were configured for Japan. ZyXel refuses to discuss the differences between Japan and the US or the configuration feature of their modem that relates to the country specific feature. If anyone know and can explain what the differences are, or can point me to an authoritative reference that describes these differences I would be grateful. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 13:12:00 -0400 From: DOUGLAS.HARTUNG@sprint.sprint.com Subject: Re: T-1 is Much Better Than Frame Relay From Mr. Jeff Buckingham, Call America, discussing Frame Relay vs. Private Line: > I really think that the whole frame relay thing is vastly over hyped and > many companies are being sold frame relay who do not really need it. Mr. Jeff Buckingham of Call America should not be surprised that private lines may be a more cost effective solution than Frame Relay service in some instances. He describes a frame relay network configuration with four remote sites with 56kbps access ports , and permanent virtual circuits established back to a central HQ which has a T-1 access port. A few comments: - There are three pricing components for Frame Relay service; (1) local access, (2) frame relay access port charges, and (2) permanent virtual circuits. Note that Frame Relay pricing is not distance sensitive (except for the local loop; i.e. from the customer premises to the service provider point of presence). Private line pricing is composed of (1) local access, and (2) per mile IXC circuit charges. - When comparing Frame Relay to Private Line, the relevant comparison is therefore between (1) the IXC circuit charges and (2) Frame Relay port and PVC charges. Since the Call Net locations are within fairly close proximity (all central California), it is not surprising that Frame relay is more expensive. - Mr. Buckingham's network description points out some common misconceptions in the marketplace. If only four 56kbs access ports are pointed towards the HQ location, there is no reason to pay for more that a 4x56kbps access port at the HQ location (Even if all four remote sites burst up to the port speed at exactly the same time, all packets should get through). Just as many customers are not familiar with when Frame Relay should be used, it should not be surprising that many industry representatives are not completely up to speed with this relatively new technology. A few points as to when Frame Relay may be an appropriate solution: - Many to Many connectivity is required. - Three or more locations require connectivity. - Traffic is "bursty" in nature rather than a continuous stream. Otherwise, private line service may be more appropriate. - Traffic bursts occur frequently throughout the day. Otherwise, Switched 56 service may be more appropriate. - When delay sensitivity is a factor. If traffic is not highly time sensitive, dial up via 14.4bps modem can be more cost effective. - There is no requirement for protocol conversion, logical addressing, or network-based error correction. Otherwise, X.25 may be more appropriate. - Locations are geographically dispersed. Douglas Hartung | douglas.hartung@sprint.sprint.com Strategic Business Analysis | (714) 435-3200 x492 Sprint Business | (714) 435-3444 fax ------------------------------ From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold) Date: 10 Nov 94 00:03:10 -0500 Subject: Various News Tidbits Organization: FidoNet Nameserver/Gateway [from Bell News, 24 Oct 94; these news and views are from Bell Canada] On the competitive front *** Sprint to invest $100 million in a Canadian network Sprint Canada plans to invest $100-million in a telecommunications network that will effectively position it as a major carrier, rather than a reseller, in Canada. First phase of its plan is a 600-km fiber optic network linking Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto, to be completed in 1995. Another major installation is planned for western Canada by 1997. The third largest telco in the U.S., Sprint entered Canada in 1993 when it bought a 25 per cent stake in Call-Net Enterprises, one of the first Canadian resellers. *** TelRoute connects to U.S. by microwave TelRoute Communications Inc. joined the ranks of Canadian facilities-based long distance carriers with the completion of a digital microwave long distance network between Toronto and Buffalo, New York. What sets TelRoute apart from its competitors, including Bell and Unitel, is that it has created its link to the U.S. with digital microwave technology rather than fiber optic technology. TelRoute has followed Bell's lead in partnering with U.S. long distance carrier, MCI Communications Corp. of Washington. MCI will carry TelRoute's traffic to its U.S. destinations. *** MCI aims to go "local" MCI Communications Corp. of Washington, our long distance carrier partner in the U.S., has its sights set on offering local telephone service. MCI Metro, a subsidiary of the nation-wide facilities-based LD carrier, has filed requests with state regulators in Washington, Maryland, Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania, to provide residential and business services. *** AT&T "hung-up" about impending alliance Just after its $11.5 billion acquisition of McCaw Cellular, AT&T Corp. badmouthed another mega-deal that is awaiting regulatory approval. Target of its criticism is the foreign alliance planned by LD carrier, Sprint Corp. The state-owned telephone monopolies of France and Germany intent to pay $4 billion for a 20 per cent stake in Sprint, therby giving them access to the U.S. LD market. *** Nortel wins major Israeli contract Within days of announcing that it had won final approval to build a $100 million digital cellular phone system for the government-owned telephone administration of Taiwan, Northern Telecom announced a similar contract with CellCom Israel Ltd. of Israel. Northern will install a turnkey digital network based on the company's time division multiple access (TDMA) technology. The network will comprise three DMS-MTX SuperNode digital cellular switching systems, each of which can accomodate 50,000 to 200,000 subscribers, depending on the numbers of services each customer requires. Northern, which expects its wireless division to generate close to $1-billion in revenues this year, reveals that the wireless market is now growing at a rate of 30 to 40 per cent annually. *** Governments to fight cross-border telemarketing fraud The governments of Canada and the U.S. have agreed to find ways of working together to fight the increasing incidence of cross-border telemarketing deception and fraud. The decision comes on the heels of a joint session which included Canada's Bureau of Competition Policy, a delegation from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, and representatives of several Canadian legal agencies. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #411 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa11842; 11 Nov 94 3:09 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA07237; Thu, 10 Nov 94 22:55:03 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA07230; Thu, 10 Nov 94 22:55:01 CST Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 22:55:01 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9411110455.AA07230@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #412 TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Nov 94 22:55:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 412 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Phone Company Telemarketing (John Murray) EDI Security (Seth B. Rothenberg) Old Card Dialer Cards (Bill Garfield) List of Exchange Households-Pops Wanted (pp00539@interramp.com) OC-XX Standards (Christopher Wolf) Which LD Company Has BEST Sign-up Bonuses? (krazykev@panix.com) Custom Ringing Detection (John Keith) Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission (Gary Fung) The Blackbox Company and Its Catalog (Jeffrey Bronchick) Re: Need Amp to Boost DTMF Strength (satyr@bpd.harris.com) Frac T1, sw 56k, or Some Scalable Internet Access (Bruce K. Hubbert) BCH Algorithm Wanted (John Unekis) FTS-2000 Database "A" and "B" (Prakash Thatte) Meckler VR'94 Expo, NYC, Nov 28-Dec 2, 1994 - Overview (Robert Jacobson) Enterprise Management Summit '94 - New Product Announcements (emiinc@mci) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jxm@engin.umich.edu (John Murray) Subject: Phone Company Telemarketing Date: 11 Nov 1994 00:29:27 GMT Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor Several months ago, I posted to this group asking for information about cases of legal action against telemarketers, specifically concerning the selling of telephone services by that means. No-one actually reported any legal cases; however, I did receive several messages of support and requests for more details. In response to those who asked -- and for everyone's benefit -- here's a summary of events. * I received three telemarketing calls over a six-month period from representatives of a telecommunications company (of which I was already a customer). In each case, they initially claimed to be clarifying some detail about my residential service before going into a routine sales pitch. Each time, they were told not to call again. * Using information from CSC (address below), I submitted an affidavit to my local small claims court requesting damages for each of the latter two calls, since the company had failed to obey the do-not- call requests. (Legislation permits claims of up to $500 for each case, when no wilful violation was intended, otherwise more.) * After some negotiation with the corporate lawyers, I dismissed the case and received monetary compensation in return. The agreement we signed limits my ability to discuss the particular details of this case; however, I am at liberty to address the general nature of such cases in an educational context. There's a discussion document on the Web covering this topic in more detail; it's URL is http://www.engin.umich.edu/~jxm/tlmkting1.html I probably won't be able to address any queries about this case, but information on how to go about restricting persistent telemarketers is available from the Center for Study of Commercialism (CSC) at 1875 Connecticut Av NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20009. Send $3 for the "Stop The Calls" kit, or phone them at 1-202-332-9110. John Murray, HCILab, University of Michigan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An organization here in the Chicago area called 'Private Citizen' employs tactics similar to yours to stop the receipt of unwanted telemarketing calls, and they also seem to be very successful. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rothen+@pitt.edu (Seth B Rothenberg) Subject: EDI Security Date: 10 Nov 1994 13:28:46 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh My current project is to expand the concept of our in-house "message router" so that sources and targets need not be on the internet. I am to write an Application Programming Interface (API) that will dial out and forward messages over a modem link, just the way other APIs use write() and read() to send messages and get acknowledgements via TCP. That part should not be hard. The part that concerns me is security. The goal is that my API should be able to accept incoming calls. If we do that, how do we handle security? Do we just use a system of "userids" and "passwords" that is table-driven, and we count on our database security so unauthorizd people don't find out "passwords"? One proposal (mine:-) was to make the incoming calls come though regular user dial-ups. They use a special login id and password, which they run my API. This proposal has been shot down so far, though I like it. (Sort of based on the idea of uucp, though our protocol is probably HL7 and the host is likely to be a VAX/VMS.) If we don't use System Security, what kind of login/password-passing scheme do we use? Is there any kind of standard? We really can't make many assumptions about the client. Thanks, Seth PS. Is there such a thing as an ANI modem? That would be a form of security. ------------------------------ Subject: Old card dialer cards From: bill.garfield@yob.com (Bill Garfield) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 21:08:00 -0600 Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569 Reply-To: bill.garfield@yob.com (Bill Garfield) I have one of the (apparently rare) Western Elect 2660A card dialer telephones (circa early '70s). It appears to be in perfect working order, tho I have no "new" cards for it. There is a collection of already punched cards with it, but of course the numbers are no good to me and naturally the punched cards are not re-punchable. Are new cards still available from Ma Bell? I asked at an AT&T Phone Center Store and drew a blank expression from the sales clerk ... "You've a WHAT?" was the response. Also does anyone know if there was ever a multi-line keyset (1A2) version of the card dialer phone? Ye Olde Bailey BBS Zyxel 713-520-1569(V.32bis) Hayes 713-520-9566 (V.FC) Houston,Texas yob.com Home of alt.cosuard ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 23:17:17 PDT From: Jennings Subject: List of Exchange Households-Pops Wanted Does anyone know of a source (a database) of Exchange area boundaries and/or household - population data for those exchanges ... like a listing of the exchanges by City, Exchange, population, household. I know there will obviously be several exchanges per city, but a simple listing of this information would be very helpful ... is there a Government source? ------------------------------ From: cmwolf@cs.mtu.edu (Wolf) Subject: OC-XX Standards Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 23:33:47 EDT Reply-To: cmwolf@cs.mtu.edu I was wondering if anyone here at the TELECOM Digest could explain or point me towards literature explaining the meaning of the OC-# specifications used in ATM and SONET. I've checked places such as http://www.ipps.lsa.umich.edu/telecom-info.html and gopher://cell-relay.indiana.edu/11/docs and have not found references. I have also utilized the electronic document abstract searches available at the University library, and have been unable to find more than a mention of the terms. Christopher Wolf, consumer of time, occupier of space. ------------------------------ From: krazykev@panix.com (krazykev@panix.com) Subject: Which LD Company Has BEST Sign-up Bonuses? Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 02:36:55 -0500 Which long distance has the best sign-up bonuses -- ie. free generous month of usage at the outset or a few months into the usage? Would appreciate any feedback. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: keith@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (John Keith) Subject: Custom Ringing Detection Date: 10 Nov 1994 11:56:06 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site I am looking for devices that can do custom ringing detrection and route the call to an appropriate device. Particularly useful would be the new breed of voice/fax cards for PCs that would have this capability. Can somepone point me in the right direction? John Keith keith@fc.hp.com ------------------------------ From: garyfung@interlog.com (Gary Fung) Subject: Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission Date: 10 Nov 1994 11:50:36 -0400 Organization: InterLog Internet Services (416) 975-2655 internet@interlog.com Greetings, Does anyone know if there is any online link or electronic feed to Canadian tariffs filings by the Telcos to the CRTC? Please email me at garyfung@interlog.com Thanks, Gary 8^) ------------------------------ From: jb@ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey bronchick) Subject: The Blackbox Company and its Catalog Date: 11 Nov 1994 03:53:42 GMT Organization: Netcom I am interested in any feedback from people familiar with the Blackbox catalog: Good, bad, indifferent, service? Pricing? Why them versus others, Merisel, etc? Thanks, jb [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have never had to order much from them but when I did I found them to be very reliable, prompt and courteous. Once I ordered a 64 K buffer from them to go on my old printer. It arrived but without the proper connector. With a day they sent me the correct item at no additional cost by special delivery. I liked that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: satyr@bpd.harris.com Subject: Re: Need Amp to Boost DTMF Strength Organization: bpd.harris.com Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 13:25:28 GMT In article dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > I use one of these on an OPX line between a Panasonic PBX and an > off-premises station. I don't particularly like it, however. It is > half-duplex, like a speakerphone. You can't interrupt a long-talking > far-end speaker, and you can't hear the far end at all if there is a > significant background noise level at the near end. > But, can anybody suggest a better solution? If the signal level is not within spec, get your carrier to correct the problem. ------------------------------ From: Bruce K. Hubbert Subject: Frac T1, sw 56k, or Some Scalable Internet Access Date: 9 Nov 1994 19:05:18 GMT Organization: I-3 Telecom I am looking for access to the internet at any of the above speeds or greater but have found that most providers' rates are outrageous. I did find a group in San Francisco called the "Little Garden" that offers great rates; the only problem is that they are in SF and I am in NY. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Please respond by E-Mail to pp001387@interramp.com Thanks, Bruce K. Hubbert I-3 Telecom pp001387@interramp.com "ISDN Made Easy" hubbert@phantom.com 150 5th ave, ste 407 hubbert@aol.com New York, NY 10011 hubbert@eworld.com VOX 212/228-7900 75061.2577@compuserve.com FAX 212/228-1152 hubbert@i3tele.phantom.com ------------------------------ From: unekis@edcserver1.cr.usgs.gov (John_Unekis) Subject: BCH Algorithm Wanted Organization: U.S. Geological Survey Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 15:58:04 GMT I am working on a ground receiving system for the Landsat 7 satellite, and as part of the development we have to handle the CCSDS protocol from the satellite which uses a BCH error detection.correction code to protect data packets. Does anyone have a source for a BCH algorithm that is in the public domain? I have already tried Archie/Veronica. Thanks, Bunches. ------------------------------ From: primeperf@aol.com (Prime perf) Subject: FTS-2000 Database "A" and "B" Date: 8 Nov 1994 20:45:17 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) 1. Is such a database available in the public domain? 2. How does one become a subscriber? Thanks in advance for your assistance. Prakash Thatte Prime Performance Technologies, Inc. 703-318-0800 ------------------------------ From: cyberoid@u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) Subject: Meckler VR'94 Expo, NYC, Nov 28-Dec 2, 1994 - Overview Date: 10 Nov 1994 22:41:22 GMT Organization: University of Washington Reply-To: vr@mecklermedia.com MECKLERMEDIA'S NEW YORK VR'94 EXPO NOVEMBER 28-DECEMBER 2, 1994 CONFERENCE OVERVIEW Tracks include: 1) Consumer Markets, 2) VR in Museum Settings; 3) Legal Issues; 4) Televirtuality and Networking; 5) VR in the Art and Cultural Communities; 6) Technology Update; 7) Design Projects; 8) Design Products; 9) Industrial Design in Europe; 10: Out-of-Home Entertainment Market Discussion; 11) Out-of-Home Entertainment Products and Experiences; 12) Component Technologies; 13) Virtual Characters; 14) Emerging Markets. Mecklermedia's New York Virtual Reality Expo was launched last year, becoming the East Coast's premiere conference and exhibition for the virtual reality industry. This year's conference program builds on the success of the inaugural event and is designed to express the current state of the VR market as well as to project the potential applications both near- and long-term. Recent market estimates from 4th Wave, Inc. indicate that 1998 sales of products or services directly related to virtual reality will be five times the 1994 total and will reach $370 million (not including government spending). Until very recently, location-based entertainment (LBE) was the acknowledged marketplace leader in terms of sales for the virtual reality industry. Also, VR was a community of developers selling to developers. Now, however, developments in the fields of consumer entertainment, design, medicine, and networking (televirtuality) offer substantial new markets for development and investments. As the major Virtual Reality industry trade show for the East Coast, this conference program will address the full spectrum of VR markets and applications. Conference Program Overview PreConference Tutorials, November 29 A special workshop tutorial day opens the conference on November 29 with. A day-long Introduction ("VR 101") is scheduled for those who are attending a Virtual Reality Conference for the first time. Introductory sessions are also included for those who are setting up a VR laboratory or who are in the process of choosing HeadMounted Display Technology. Specialized software workshops from leading vendors are also available during this day. General Conference Program, November 30 and December 1 The general conference program encompasses the leading market areas of the Virtual Reality Industry: disabilities, medicine, design, networking, consumer entertainment, out-of-home entertainment, museums. Session speakers are the leading thinkers and developers in their respective fields. Analysts from various market arenas are also scheduled throughout the program to provide business perspectives on the product development cycle. Dr. Joel Orr will present the Keynote speech Thursday, December 1. Renowned and respected in the CAD field and founder of the Virtual Worlds Society, Orr offers special insight into the use of virtual worlds within the design professions. Virtual Reality Video Festival, November 30 Mecklermedia's East Coast "Virtual Reality Video" festival will be the highlight of Wednesday evening. Videos from selected virtual reality projects from around the world will be shown theater-style. Venture Capital Forum, December 1 The day-long Venture Capital Forum is designed to provide a setting in which Virtual Reality businesses can introduce themselves to members of the financial community who are interested in the investment potentials of the VR industry. Venture capitalists and financiers will hear presentations from a number of VR organizations seeking sources of working capital. Post-Conference Tutorial, December 2 A one-day Post Conference tutorial offers Beginning and Advanced software workshops for two major software packages. Also, for the first time, a special one-day "VR Startups and Entrepreneurship" workshop is scheduled. WHO SHOULD ATTEND o Businesses and organizations currently developing or researching Virtual Reality products. o Organizations that are planning the development or Virtual Reality products or services. o Representatives of the investment community who are interested in high growth, high-technology for both early and late stage deals. o Professionals who are interested in applying Virtual Reality to their specific disciplines: handicapped, medicine, networking, consumer and out-of-home entertainment, architecture, design, training, museums. Registration Fees Full Conference: Wednesday, November 30 & Thursday December 1: $645 One Day Only: Wednesday, November 30 or Thursday, December 1 $365 FOR MORE INFORMATION... For the full conference brochure, contact Mecklermedia by email at: vr@mecklermedia.com or mail at Mecklermedia; 20 Ketchum Street, Westport, CT 06880 or by telephone at 1-800-MECKLER (listen for registration information). Fax, phone, or mail for additional information or for registration: Phone: 1-800-Meckler or 203-226-6967 Fax: 1-203-226-6976 Email: vr@mecklermedia.com Mecklermedia Inc. 20 Ketchum Street Westport, CT 06880 ------------------------------ From: summit@ix.netcom.com (Summit '94) Subject: Enterprise Management Summit '94 - New Product Announcements Date: 11 Nov 1994 01:09:59 GMT Organization: Netcom Enterprise Management Summit '94 Santa Clara Convention Center November 14-18 Phone:800.340.2111 415.512.0801 Fax:415.512.1325 EMail:emiinc@mcimail.com summit@ix.netcom.com --------------------------------------- New Product Announcements --------------------------------------- Digital Equipment Corporation At Summit '94, Digital will be demonstrating the first integrated system and network management platform for Windows NT. POLYCENTER AssetWORKS, in conjunction with Microsoft's Systems Management Server, combines UNIX robustness with Windows NT ease-of-use to provide configuration management for the vast majority of open client/server systems. POLYCENTER Manager on NetView brings the power of industry leadership UNIX management capabilities to Windows NT on Alpha AXP and Intel platforms. Together, POLYCENTER AssetWORKS and POLYCENTER Manager on NetView provide powerful functionality for both system and network management. Intel Will Preview LANDesk Manager V2.0 LANDesk Manager V2.0 will fully support the DMTF DMI standard as well as feature new task management orientation. DMI will allow information from PC sub-systems to be gathered through a standard interface (a standard System MIF) thereby providing the basic building blocks for asset management. Hewlett-Packard Hewlett-Packard will demo the first DMI enabled Vectra at Summit '94 which can manage all 33 standard groups plus 6 HP extended groups with over 250 attributes. The DMI enabled Vectras will also be used to demo Intel's LANDesk and OpenView running together. HP's DMI MIF Browser will also be on display. Bridgeway Corporation Will Unveil EventIX Version 2.0 Features EventIX is a network management solution that bridges the gap between legacy systems and SNMP systems. Network managers can now support non-SNMP devices from SNMP management systems. EventIX provides a set of tools and applications for event processing (recognition, filtering, and correlation) and task automation. Enhancements in EventIX version 2.0 include * Bubble Interface - A GUI for developing, debugging, and implementing EventIX applications * Support for SNMPv2. * Improved NetView Interface - Allows data from the SNMP manager to be sent to multiple IBM hosts simultaneously. * Sybase Database Management - Intelligent agent for managing Sybase databases Network Computing, Inc. Will Announce the LANAlert Console LAN Alert Console will integrate the LANAlert NetWare management system with Hewlett- Packard OpenView/UX. LANAlert uses intelligent agents running as NLMs on NetWare file servers to periodically interrogate up to 200 essential NetWare file server events and over 135 NetWare workstation inventory and performance events. Returned values are compared to 3 customer-configurable thresholds with 5 associated priority levels and alerts are generated when thresholds are crossed. LEGENT Corporation Will Unveil Paradigm/XP LEGENT will be demonstrating newly released Paradigm/XP, a comprehensive problem management application designed to automate the help or service desk and simplify the management of networks and distributed systems. LEGENT will also be demonstrating their upcoming new technology which allows mainframes and UNIX machines to share problem management information. DeskTalk Systems, Inc. DeskTalk will announce TRENDsnmp 3.0 at Summit '94. TRENDsnmp is the world's first true client/server, scalable SNMP application for enterprise network management. MIBwalker is the primary data collection tool for TRENDsnmp. The main MIBwalker screen displays the actual tree structure of loaded MIB together with object description and definition fields. TRENDbuild lets the user create meaningful graphs and table reports without using SQL. TRENDsnmp's tabular report format displays rows and columns of information selected from the data repository or calculated from stored values. TRENDsnmp graph reports provide time based plots of information selected from the data repository or calculated from stored values. ISICAD At Summit '94, ISICAD will demonstrate its new InfoManager software, an object-oriented database application builder which allows simultaneous update access and reporting from multiple relational databases. InfoManager functions as a point-and-click application builder which allows the network manager and technician to get the data they need, from wherever it is stored, ad easily structure it into a useful format. InfoManager is a true "drag and drop" environment that transparently handles all interaction with relational databases. It lets the user access multiple databases simultaneously, allowing the user to obtain the information that is required for the task at hand, without having to worry about which database it is stored in or where it is located on the network. InfoManager will complement other database repository strategies, such as those being suggested by Hewlett-Packard and the Management Integration Consortium. Network Management Forum (NMF) At Summit '94, the Network Management Forum will be providing details on its newest working team -- SMART (Service Management Automation & Re-engineering Team). SMART is comprised of users looking to cut costs, streamline operations and improve the quality and delivery of networked information services. The objective of SMART is to understand, prioritize, and meet all of the most pressing automation needs of these network operators for which industry agreements are required. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #412 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa14043; 14 Nov 94 17:10 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA09870; Mon, 14 Nov 94 09:31:22 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA09862; Mon, 14 Nov 94 09:31:19 CST Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 09:31:19 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9411141531.AA09862@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #413 TELECOM Digest Mon, 14 Nov 94 09:31:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 413 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: 900 Billing; When Does it Start? (Paul Robinson) Re: 900 Billing; When Does it Start? (Dave Levenson) SS7 vs. CCIS (Alan Bishoff) Re: Need Amp to Boost DTMF Strength (Pat Trimble) DSU/CSU For T1 (Marc Collins) Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232 (Jody Kravitz) Telecommunications Terminology Quiz (Computer Software Solutions) Re: Town Considers Taxing Cell Phones (Jeff Hibbard) Re: Town Considers Taxing Cell Phones (Carl Jones) Re: OC-XX Standards (Gordon Croft) Re: How is Japan's Phone System Different Than USA? (Jerry Skene) Additional Star Codes Used (Keith Knipschild) Re: Additional Start Codes Used (Bruce Brothers) Goodbye 'scope (Joe Harrison) Gopher - Literally!! Not What You Are Thinking, Though (Danny Burstein) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 11:55:47 EST From: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: 900 Billing; When Does it Start? Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA Andy Spitzer , writes: > Please settle an argument we are having here, about when Billing for a > 900 call starts. > Some of us think that the duration of the call is timed from t3 [call > pickup] to t4 [call hangup], as it would be on a regular 800 call. In > other words, billing doesn't start until you return answer supervision > (Pickup the phone). If you don't Pickup (due to busy), nothing is billed. > Some of us think that the duration of the call is timed from t1 [wink > start] to t4, in other words the clock starts the moment you Wink. If > this is true, then if the call wasn't answered, or was played a busy > signal by the PBX, then the call would still "count". Your message fails to indicate exactly *who* is being charged in this case, whether you are referring to the 900 provider being charged (for call carrying) or the 900 caller being charged. If I remember correctly, the caller isn't supposed to be charged for a call to a 900 number for at least long enough to tell them the price of the call and give them the opportunity to hang up; this means that at least the first ten seconds should be noncharged to the caller. (The called party will still have to pay for whatever termination charges are imposed.) Second, 900 numbers are generally supposed to be outgoing only since they usually are announcements, as I understand there is no incoming voice path unless you (the IP provider) pay a very high rate for specific incoming trunks and pay $3 for each incoming call that is answered "live". Now with other companies they may be doing things differently, but this was the way it worked before. I would suspect that since the carrier has to pay for the charge from the person dialing from the local telephone company, and the charge for termination at the distant end, that they will probably charge from wink to disconnect. (If your incoming lines are directly terminated at the carrier's POP for your area, then they don't pay the termination charge to the local phone company and probably can reduce your rate slightly.) Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM Reports on Security Problems: To Subscribe write PROBLEMS-REQUEST@TDR.COM Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: 900 Billing; When Does it Start? Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 01:51:25 GMT Andy Spitzer (woof@telecnnct.com) wrote: > Please settle an argument we are having here, about when Billing for a > 900 call starts. The clock starts when/if the called party returns off-hook supervision, not at the start of ANI/DNIS spill. The clock stops when either party goes on-hook. Note, however, that before the called party begins to provide information (e.g. connects a live agent) they are usually required to voice a disclaimer message, identifying the service provider, stating the price of the call (or the method for computing the price: e.g. "this call costs $1.75 per minute") and advising the caller that they may avoid the charge by disconnecting NOW. If the total time is less than 24 seconds, the calling party is not billed, but the called party is. On our audiotex package, if a DNIS code is administered to be a premium-billed number (such as 976, 900, or 212-540), the system will play its disclaimer message and avoid giving out useful information until the caller has stayed on the line long enough to be paying for the call. If the ANI spill indicates the the caller is blacklisted (has previously called the same service and later refused to pay) then answer supervision is never returned, and the caller given ring-no-answer treatment. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: alanb@interaccess.com (Alan Bishoff) Subject: SS7 vs. CCIS Date: 14 Nov 1994 02:43:16 GMT Organization: IAC Reply-To: alanb@interaccess.com Does anyone know the difference between SS7 and CCIS? What info do they pass? What speed are they? What format is the data? ------------------------------ From: PKT@ix.netcom.com (Pat Trimble) Subject: Re: Need Amp to Boost DTMF Strength Date: 13 Nov 1994 19:38:31 GMT Organization: Netcom In satyr@bpd.harris.com writes: > In article dave@westmark.com (Dave > Levenson) writes: >> I use one of these on an OPX line between a Panasonic PBX and an >> off-premises station. I don't particularly like it, however. It is >> half-duplex, like a speakerphone. You can't interrupt a long-talking >> far-end speaker, and you can't hear the far end at all if there is a >> significant background noise level at the near end. >> But, can anybody suggest a better solution? > If the signal level is not within spec, get your carrier to correct > the problem. Voice lines are not half-duplex; it sounds like there could be a level problem. You need some test equipment: HP 3551 is a good one. Find where your level adjustments are. If it's on T-1 carrier between the PBX and the station, there will be level adjustments in the channel cards. I'd recommend you put 2.0 db of loss in both the transmit and receive sections of both the FXO (PBX side) and the FXS (Station side) channel cards. Check the impedance setting on the FXS card, I'd recommend 900 Ohms. If there is a BOC (Build-out Capacitance) adjustment on the FXS card, try taking all capacitance out if the station is within 100 feet of the channel bank. Let me know if this helps or not. Pat ------------------------------ From: Marc Collins Subject: DSU/CSU For T1 Date: 13 Nov 1994 17:46:01 -0500 Organization: Medical Computer Systems I'm installing a T1 line and I ordered a 56k DSU/CSU for the line. I'm now concerned, can I use this DSU/CSU with this line or do I need to order a higher speed unit. I'm having the line installed this comming Thursday and would appreciate any comments or suggestions! Thanks so much!! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Nov 94 17:57:42 PST From: kravitz@foxtail.com (Jody Kravitz) Subject: Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232 rmah@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes: > Lance Ellinghaus wrote: >> A company called Primary Access has a product that will take a T1 (24 >> VOICE channels) and interpret the DS0 channels as modem connections >> (v.32, v.42bis, etc..) and output standard RS232 to hook to a system. >> What other companies have something like this? Comments on their >> products? Contacts to get more information? > Well, their domain name is PRIACC.COM, but they only seem to have > e-mail connectivity at the moment (no WWW, FTP, etc.). > If you get any pricing info on this product/service, I would be > interested as a normal channel bank costs mucho money. Mail addresed to "info@priacc.com" will get you an automated response on their product line. In addition, the mail is read later by a human so that an appropriate follow-up will occur if the mail indicates that it is appropriate. Jody ------------------------------ From: css@pacifier.com (Computer Software Solutions) Subject: Telecommunications Terminology Quiz Date: 14 Nov 1994 06:45:04 GMT Organization: Computer Software Solutions Can anyone out there help me define the following terms? I need help getting 100% in my next exam! 1) Explain syncronizing switching equipment to carrier T1 lines. 2) What "reference timing" and "loop timing" is and the differences between the two? 3) "Tip" vs "Ring" on a T1 span? 4) What is a "primary rate span"? 5) What is a "PCM highway"? 6) What is a "Backplane"? 7) What are "E1" lines? 8) What are "CEPT facilities"? 9) Explain the difference between "D" and "B" type channels. 10) Explain asyncronous transmissions using only two active pins in an RS232? Thanks in advance, Rob ------------------------------ From: jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) Subject: Re: Town Considers Taxing Cell Phones Date: 14 Nov 1994 12:48:33 GMT Organization: Bradley University Greg Monti writes: > A story in the November 7, 1994, editions of the {Washington Times}, > page A1, says that the Town of Vienna, Virginia, is considering > putting a tax of $3 per month on all cellular phone accounts with > Vienna billing addresses. ^^^^^^^ That's nice of them, compared to what I'm used to. The city of Peoria IL taxes all phone service at 2% (soon to be 3%). I don't live in Peoria; my billing address is not in Peoria; and most usage of my cellular phone involves cell sites outside the city of Peoria. Still, since my cellular company has its office (and presumably switch) in Peoria, I pay these taxes to Peoria. Granted, it's only $2-$3 per month, but it annoys me. Not being a Peoria resident, I cannot vote against the clowns who passed this (and who have publically announced their intent to raise it). Isn't "taxation without representation" one of the things our forefathers rebelled against in 1776? How can the city get away with this? I have noticed that the City of Peoria tax is not applied to roaming charges, and to toll charges for out-of-state calls, so the city must recognize some limit to their taxing power. ------------------------------ From: cajones@uswnvg.com (Carl Jones) Subject: Re: Town Considers Taxing Cell Phones Date: 13 Nov 1994 19:25:15 GMT Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc. Greg Monti (GMONTI@npr.org) wrote: > The article notes that California cities of Inglewood and Culver City > also tax cellular phones. Cellular companies put up with the taxes, > which they pass through from subscribers, because they are not high. Taxes on cellular phone bills easily reach in the double digit percentages so these new taxes are not going to be very welcome on cellular bills. For example, a cell bill from Seattle includes 3% Federal, 8.2% State and 6.383% Municipal taxes. Cell bills can also have E911, TDD and other charges on them so adding a $3.00 a month surcharge, combined with the other taxes, suddenly doesn't seem so small. cajones@uswnvg.com ------------------------------ From: Gordon_Croft@mindlink.bc.ca (Gordon Croft) Subject: Re: OC-XX Standards Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 10:36:22 GMT Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada In article , cmwolf@cs.mtu.edu (Wolf) writes: > I was wondering if anyone here at the TELECOM Digest could explain or > point me towards literature explaining the meaning of the OC-# > specifications used in ATM and SONET. I've checked places such as > http://www.ipps.lsa.umich.edu/telecom-info.html and > gopher://cell-relay.indiana.edu/11/docs and have not found references. > I have also utilized the electronic document abstract searches > available at the University library, and have been unable to find more > than a mention of the terms. Well I can't, off the top of my head, give you an in depth answer but maybe this will get you started ... OC stands for Optical Carrier and the numbers behind that represent the different speeds of the systems. I.E. OC1 is approx. 45 meg. bits per second (DS-3) and OC 48 is 48 times 45 meg. Hope this helps, Gord ------------------------------ From: Jerry Skene Subject: Re: How is Japan's Phone System Different Than USA? Date: 13 Nov 1994 18:56:34 GMT Organization: Digital Gateway Systems > How does the Japanese phone network differ from the phone system in > the US? One difference is the impedance of the phone line. The Japanese system has a higher characteristic impedance, about 900 ohms, compared to the US's 600 ohms. It is also much more restictive on echo return loss. ------------------------------ From: keith.knipschild@asb.com Organization: America's Suggestion Box - BBS (516) 471-8625 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 00:54:43 Subject: Additional Star Codes Used Star Codes on most Telco Systems: Here are some more STAR Codes that are used in my area of NYNEX 516 Areacode: *20 -> *49 === Speed Calling 30 Dialing *98 =========== Voice Dialing Delayed Beep (for FAX or Modems) *99 =========== Voice Dialing Instructions *82 =========== UNKNOWN (it does something though) *65 =========== Computer says "Your call cannot be completed" *85 =========== Computer says "Your call cannot be completed" All others that were not on the list give me a FAST Buzzy Signal. Enjoy, Keith.Knipschild@asb.com ------------------------------ From: Bruce Brothers Date: 14 Nov 94 13:38:50 GMT Subject: Re: Additional Star Codes Used I would also add the following (for NYNEX in Massachusetts, anyway): *99 - voice dialing maintenance menu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, that's a new one on me. I've never heard of it before. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 00:34:47 GMT From: J.Harrison@bra0112.wins.icl.co.uk Subject: Goodbye 'scope For years now I've been calling +1-212-976-5353 to get a recorded horoscope (well actually until about 5 years ago it used to be 936-5353). Today I tried it and got a recording saying that the number is now 900- .... Since I'm calling from outside the US I can't dial 900 so I guess that's it for the horoscopes from now on. Well Mr. Service Provider if you're reading this I don't know whether to flame you for getting greedy and cutting me off, or maybe I should say "thanks for all those years of regular rates". I guess it's the latter. The particularly gloomy thing about this is that I called the Mercury international operator to enquire if I could be connected to this new number (although I guessed not, at those rates) and she said "strange, I don't have +1-900 on my screen". She allowed me to listen in while she called AT&T Inward; the foreign operator was so abrupt and didn't even try to explain "hey you can't call that internationally". I felt rather ashamed I'd asked her to try it in fact. I always had this romantic idea of international operators worldwide all treating each other right. That's the new and better world I guess. Joe ICL Ltd. Bracknell Berkshire RG12 8SN UK (+44-1344-473424) * J.Harrison@bra0112.wins.icl.co.uk * * S=Harrison/I=J/OU1=bra0112/O=icl/P=icl/A=gold 400/C=GB * [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Years and years ago, operators were a lot more courteous to each other. Operators in other countries still seem at times to be a lot more courteous and informed than those in the USA. It is sometimes quite painful to place an international call requiring assistance from a USA operator (such as directory assistance somewhere) and listen to the USA operator not only mispronounce the place name but then refuse to accept instruction or correction from the caller in an effort to assist the foreign operator in locating the number or extending the call. Regards 976/900, actually I am surprised you've been able to get through to anything-976-anything in the USA for quite awhile now. It does not surprise me that you cannot reach 900 numbers (like 800, they are for internal use only in the USA), but we here have been restricted from calling 976 when outside our own area code for about three or four years. It used to be quite a scam here to avoid local 976 premium charges by calling instead a similar service in some other area code and getting billed for toll charges only. The deal was that local telcos had a method in place for billing on 976, but when the call came from elsewhere via a long distance carrier we only paid the toll, which often times was as little as 11-13 cents per minute during overnight hours. So if you wanted to hook up for hot chat via the long distance telephone at 2:00 AM your options were to call local-976 and pay three or four dollars to get on someone's conference bridge and meet someone, or call across the country and get on that bridge for 12 cents per minute instead! Guess which option most users chose. After all, the end result was the same: you met the person you wished to chat with on the bridge and then one or the other of you called direct long distance to the other one to talk about whatever it was you wanted to talk about. The bridge was just the common meeting place. One well-known conference bridge for many years was out of San Fransisco on 415-976-4297. A disclaimer message played out at the start of each connection, "You've called the San Fransisco Hot Conference Line. In just a few seconds, you'll be connected to lively adult conversations in progress; its just two dollars for three minutes! Enjoy!" Then you were tossed over to the bridge. The trouble was, from the bridgetender's point of view, the only people paying the two dollars were callers in the 415/408 area codes *who were not smart enough to dial the same service in Chicago or New York instead, and pay 12 cents for their connection also*! Some nights the San Fransisco line was full of guys from all over the world looking to hookup. All were paying straight toll -- non-commissionable to the bridgetender -- without a single California guy anywhere to be found. If a 415/408 user did try to call in, he was returned busy signal with all trunks engaged by out-of-towners. The bridgetenders finally got telcos interested in their dilemma of everyone on the bridge for free, and telcos responded by blocking 976 from outside their area code. Back in the days when MCI access codes were king, some cheapskates did not even pay the 12 cents if you get my drift, and it was a rude awakening early one morning when calls began getting intercepted with the announcement "MCI does not complete calls to 976 at this time." Then within several months most of the local telcos had followed suit, with calls to any 976 other than your own getting headed off at the switch and bounced right back to you. I was not aware that international calls were still being allowed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: Gopher - Literally!! But Not What You Were Thinking Though Date: 14 Nov 1994 02:16:29 -0500 x-posted, but it's humorous... /dannyb@panix.com In yves.blondeel@fundp.ac.be (Yves Blondeel) writes: Hello, I spotted the following press release on AT&Ts WWW site http://www.att.com Yves Blondeel yves .blondeel@fundp.ac.be ______________________________________________ Statement on protest over using gophers in cable research KEYWORDS: pocket_gopher, gopher, cable, PETA, protest Donna Cunningham - AT&T Bell Laboratories 802-482-3748 (office) 802-482-2933 (home) donnac@attmail.com Jeanne Snell - AT&T PR, Denver 303-290-5652 (office) 303-779-0873 (home) jsnell@attmail.com FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1994 STATEMENT ON PROTEST OVER USING GOPHERS IN CABLE RESEARCH DENVER -- The activist group called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) issued a news release Thursday, announcing a protest demonstration scheduled for Friday to dramatize their opposition to the use of pocket gophers to test telecommunications cable. The group opposes testing conducted by the Denver Wildlife Research Center for AT&T and other companies that involve the use of wild-caught pocket gophers. AT&T issued the following statement in response to the planned protest: AT&T is a leading supplier of cable to the telecommunications industry--to its own business units and to other long-distance and local telecommunications companies. We are obliged by our customers to build cable systems according to industry standards set forth in specifications described by Bellcore in technical reference TRNW000020. Regarding gopher/cable research, TRNW000020 says, "The gopher resistance of a buried cable design is verified in the seven-day gopher test developed at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." It then describes the test in detail. Bellcore is the research consortium that provides technical suport to most U.S. local telecommunications companies. Along with 58 other telecommunications companies, power companies and duct manufacturers, AT&T has funded gopher/cable research conducted by the Denver Wildlife Research Center, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This research has been conducted for AT&T, on and off, over the past 25 years. We learned today that the Wildlife Research Center had discontinued this research at the end of September. No gopher/cable research was being conducted for AT&T at that time. We understand the Center's official announcement that it had ceased doing this research was made Oct. 1 in a notice to the Commerce Business Journal. The Center had conducted its tests in an environment set up to replicate the gophers' burrow environment, according to protocols scrutinized by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and subject to inspections by the Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care arm of the Department of Agriculture. Mechanical testing devices have limited usefulness because resistance to rodent gnawing cannot be simulated by mechanical tests of hardness or biting pressure; behavior parameters, which cannot be identified with mechanical tests, are also important in determining cable resistance. A flexible plastic web tubing, for example, may deter gophers not because of mechanical strength but because of a behavioral reluctance of pocket gophers to chew on the webbing. AT&T cares about the environment and all living things in it. ________________________________ dannyb@panix.com (or dburstein@mcimail.com) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #413 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa14476; 14 Nov 94 17:43 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA10508; Mon, 14 Nov 94 09:49:07 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA10482; Mon, 14 Nov 94 09:49:03 CST Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 09:49:03 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9411141549.AA10482@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #414 TELECOM Digest Mon, 14 Nov 94 09:49:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 414 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Federal Job Posting: ADP/Telecommunications Analyst (Mike Dolak) Federal Job Posting: Information Systems Analyst (Mike Dolak) Computer <--> Modem <--> Modem <--> TNC (Jeff Okleberry) How to Make "Wireless IEEE802.3" Connections Between PC's (Ewald Beekman) Re: Inquiry on Bellcore (William H. Sohl) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mjdolak@access1.digex.net (Mike Dolak) Subject: Federal Job Posting: ADP/Telecommunications Analyst Date: 14 Nov 1994 12:43:05 GMT Organization: Digex Net The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) seeks experienced professionals in the following areas: -- ADP/Telecommunications Analyst: provide expertise on design, development, and operation of computer and telecommunications technologies. -- Information Systems Analyst: Assess the planning development and operation of information systems. -- Business Process Reengineering Analyst: Assess business planning, process analysis, and supporting technologies. Requirements: Undergraduate/graduate degree in computer science, mathematics, electrical engineering, industrial engineering, or operations research and directly related professional experience. Positions may be located in : Washington, DC, Atlanta, Boston, Denver, Kansas City, or Los Angeles. GAO offers a comprehensive compensation and benefits package. Listing of available positions (ADP/Telecommunications Analyst-- OR-AIMD-95-ADP-001, OR-AIMD-95-ADP-002, and OR-AIMD-95-ADP-003-- follows. ------------------------------------------ United States General Accounting Office GAO Career opportunities Announcement Number: OR-AIMD-95-ADP-001 ADP/Telecommunications Analyst (Computer Science) ADP/Telecommunications Analyst (Mathematics) ADP/Telecommunications Analyst (Electrical Engineering) Opens: September 19, 1994 Closes: November 18, 1994 More than one position may be filled. Selections may be made at any time. Location: U.S. General Accounting Office Accounting and Information Management Division Positions may be located in: Washington, DC; Atlanta, GA; Boston, MA; Denver, CO; Kansas City, KS; Los Angeles, CA Salary: Base Salary: $40,383 to $52,532. Salary is increased by the percentage shown for the locations below: Washington - 4.23% Denver- 4.54% Atlanta- 3.86% Kansas City - 3.3()% Boston - 5.47% Los Angeles - 5.69% Description of Work: At the staff level, ADP/Telecommunications analysts support GAO's mission by providing technical expertise associated with the organization, design, development, acquisition, operation, maintenance, and management of computer and telecommunications technologies. Incumbents address a broad range of applications that may include data processing for business and scientific applications which typically use commercial, general purpose computers in a wide variety of sizes, configurations, and complexities, including stand- alone and networked computers and telecommunications systems. Also included are tactical and weapons systems applications which typically use general or special purpose computer adapted for military uses. Qualifications: you must have a bachelor's or graduate degree in computer science, mathematics, or electrical engineering and one year of professional experience equivalent to the GS-11 level that demonstrates the ability to analyze aspects of computer and telecommunications systems. appointments will be subject to a favorable background investigation. Some positions require a "Top Secret" security clearance. To apply submit: SF-171, Application for Federal Employment, or resume. A separate and complete application package must be submitted for each location for which you wish to be considered. If you do not designate a location preference, you will only receive consideration for Washington, DC. Narrative Statements addressing the ranking factors. SF-15, Application for 10-Point Veterans Preference, and proof (if applicable). GAO Form 74, Applicant Questionnaire (optional). Send completed forms to: U.S. General Accounting Office Attention: OR-AIMD-95-ADP-001 441 G Street, NW, Room 6105 Washington, DC 20548 Your application package must be received by the close of business on the closing date of this announcement. Please do not include material that is not requested a~ part of the application package because these items cannot be forwarded to the selecting official or returned to you. Other Information: GAO offers a full range of federal employment benefits, including paid sick and vacation leave, health and life insurance, the Thrift Savings Plan, and flexible work hours. Also available in the GAO headquarters building are on-site child care and an employee fitness center. The office environment is smoke-free, although designated smoking areas are available. Moving expenses are generally not paid. For additional information, call 202-512-5657. Announcement Number: OR-AIMD-95-ADP-001 Ranking Factors for ADP/Telecommunications Analyst (Computer Science/Mathematics/Engineering): These ranking factors constitute a competitive examination which will determine whether you are referred for selection. You must submit narrative statements addressing the complexity, nature, and extent of your experience related to each of the following factors: 1. Knowledge and experience in planning, designing, operating, developing, and evaluating major computer or telecommunications projects. 2. In depth knowledge of current computer and telecommunications technologies and applications. 3. Experience in conducting in-depth analyses of selected aspects of computer and telecommunications systems, such as security risk assessments, network and data management analyses, and computer performance evaluations. GAO is an Equal Opportunity Employer. U.S. Citizenship is required. ------------------------------------------- United States General Accounting Office GAO Career Opportunities Announcement Number: OR-AIMD-95-ADP-002 ADP/Telecommunications Analyst (Computer Science) ADP/Telecommunications Analyst (Mathematics) ADP/Telecommunications Analyst (Electrical Engineering) Opens: September 19, 1994 Closes: November 18, 1994 More than one position may be filled. Selections may be made at any time. Location: U.S. General Accounting Office Accounting and Information Management Division Positions may be located in: Washington, DC; Atlanta, GA; Boston, MA; Denver, CO; Kansas City, KS; Los Angeles, CA Salary: Base Salary: $48,032 to $73,679. Salary is increased by the percentage shown for the locations below: Washington - 4.23% Denver - 4.54% Atlanta - 3.86% Kansas City - 3.3()% Boston - 5.47% Los Angeles - 5.69% Description of Work: At the senior level, ADP/Telecommunications analysts support GAO's mission by providing technical expertise associated with the organization, design, development. acquisition, operation, maintenance, and management of computer and telecommunications technologies. Incumbents address a broad range of applications that may include data processing for business and scientific applications which typically use commercial, general purpose computers in a wide variety of sizes. Configurations, and complexities, including stand-alone and networked computers a telecommunications systems. Also included are tactical and weapons systems applications which typically use general or special purpose computer adapted for military uses. Qualifications: You must have a bachelor's or graduate degree in computer science, mathematics, or electrical engineering and one year of professional experience equivalent to the GS-12 level that demonstrates the ability to analyze aspects of computer art telecommunications systems. Appointments will be subject to a favorable background investigation. Some positions require a "Top Secret" security clearance. To apply submit: SF-171, Application for Federal Employment, or resume. A separate and complete application package must be submitted for each location for which you wish to be considered. If you do not designate a location preference, you will only receive consideration for Washington, DC. Narrative Statements addressing the ranking factors. SF-15, Application for 10-Point Veterans Preference, and proof (if applicable). GAO Form 74, Applicant Questionnaire (optional). Send completed forms to: U.S. General Accounting Office Attention: OR-AIMD-95-ADP-002 441 G Street, NW, Room 6105 Washington, DC 20548 Your application package must be received by the close of business on the closing date of this announcement. Please do not include material that is not requested as part of the application package because these items cannot be forwarded to the selecting official or returned to you. Other Information: GAO offers a full range of federal employment benefits, including paid sick and vacation leave, health and life insurance, the Thrift Savings Plan, and flexible work hours. Also available in the GAO headquarters building are on-site child care and an employee fitness center. The office environment is smoke-free, although designated smoking areas are available. Moving expenses are generally not paid. For additional information, call 202-512-5657. Announcement Number: OR-AIMD-95-ADP-002 Ranking Factors for ADP/Telecommunications Analyst (Computer Science/Mathematics/Engineering): These ranking factors constitute a competitive examination which will determine whether you are referred for selection. You must submit narrative statements addressing the complexity, nature, and extent of your experience related to each of the following factors: 1. Knowledge and experience in planning, designing, operating, developing, and evaluating major computer or telecommunications projects. 2. In depth knowledge of current computer and telecommunications technologies and applications. 3. Experience in conducting in-depth analyses of selected aspects of computer and telecommunications systems, such as security risk assessments, network and data management analyses, and computer performance evaluations. GAO is an equal opportunity employer. U.S. Citizenship is required. ---------------------------------------- United States General Accounting Office GAO Career Opportunities Announcement Number: OR-AIMD-95-ADP-003 ADP/Telecommunications Analyst (Computer Science) ADP/Telecommunications Analyst (Mathematics) ADP/Telecommunications Analyst (Electrical Engineering) Opens: October 17, 1994 Closes: December 9, 1994 More than one position may be filled. Selections may be made at any time. Location: U.S. General Accounting Office Accounting and Information Management Division Washington, DC Salary: $66,704 to $86,589 (plus 4.23% locality pay) Description of Work: At the management level, ADP/Telecommunications analysts support GAO's mission by providing technical expertise associated with the organization, design, development, acquisition, operation, maintenance, and management of computer and telecommunications technologies. Incumbents address a broad range of applications that may include data processing for business and scientific applications which typically use commercial, general purpose computers in a wide variety of sizes, configurations, and complexities, including stand- alone and networked computers and telecommunications systems. Also included are tactical and weapons systems applications which typically use general or special purpose computer adapted for military uses. Qualifications: You must have a bachelor's or graduate degree in computer science, mathematics, or electrical engineering and one year of professional experience equivalent to the GS-14 level that demonstrates the ability to analyze aspects of computer and telecommunications systems. Appointments will be subject to a favorable background investigation. To apply submit: SF-171, Application for Federal Employment, or resume. Narrative Statements addressing the ranking factors. SF-15, Application for 10-Point Veterans Preference, and proof (if applicable). GAO Form 74, Applicant Questionnaire (optional). Send completed forms to: U.S. General Accounting Office Attention: OR-AIMD-95-ADP-003 441 G Street, NW, Room 6105 Washington, DC 20548 Your application package must be received by the close of business on the closing date of this announcement. Please do not include material that is not requested as part of the application package because these items cannot be forwarded to the selecting official or returned to you. Other Information: This position may be a supervisory position and the selectee may be required to serve a one-year supervisory trial period. GAO offers a full range of federal employment benefits, including paid sick and vacation leave, health and life insurance, the Thrift Savings Plan, and flexible work hours. Also available in the GAO headquarters building are on- site child care and an employee fitness center. The office environment is smoke-free, although designated smoking areas are available. Moving expenses are generally not paid. For additional information, call 202-512-5657. Ranking Factors: These ranking factors and the information you provide in your application constitute a competitive examination which will determine whether you are referred for selection. You must submit narrative statements addressing the complexity, nature, and extent of your experience, education, and training related to each of the following factors: 1. Knowledge and experience in planning, designing, operating, developing, and evaluating major computer or telecommunications projects. 2. In-depth knowledge of current computer and telecommunications technologies and applications. 3. Experience in conducting in-depth analyses of selected aspects of computer and telecommunications systems, such as security risk assessments, network and data management analyses, and computer performance evaluations. Some positions require a "Top Secret" security clearance. GAO is an equal opportunity employer. U.S Citizenship is required. ------------------------------ From: mjdolak@access1.digex.net (Mike Dolak) Subject: Federal Job Posting: Information Systems Analyst Date: 14 Nov 1994 12:43:51 GMT Organization: Digex Net The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) seeks experienced professionals in the following areas: -- ADP/Telecommunications Analyst: provide expertise on design, development, and operation of computer and telecommunications technologies. -- Information Systems Analyst: Assess the planning development and operation of information systems. -- Business Process Reengineering Analyst: Assess business planning, process analysis, and supporting technologies. Requirements: Undergraduate/graduate degree in computer science, mathematics, electrical engineering, industrial engineering, or operations research and directly related professional experience. Positions may be located in : Washington, DC, Atlanta, Boston, Denver, Kansas City, or Los Angeles. GAO offers a comprehensive compensation and benefits package. Listing of available positions (Information Systems Analyst-- OR-AIMD-95-ISA-001, OR-AIMD-95-ISA-002, and OR-AIMD-95-ISA-003-- follows. --------------------------------------------- United States General Accounting Office GAO Career Opportunities Announcement Number: OR-AIMD-95-ISA-001 Information Systems Analyst (Computer Science) Information Systems Analyst (Mathematics) Opens: September 19, 1994 Closes: November 18, 1994 More than one position may be filled. Selections may be made at any time. Location: U.S. General Accounting Office Accounting and Information Management Division Positions may be located in: Washington, DC; Atlanta, GA; Boston, MA; Denver, CO; Kansas City, KS; Los Angeles, CA Salary: Base salary: $40,383 to $52,532. Salary is increased by the percentage shown for the locations below: Washington - 4.23% Denver- 4.54% Atlanta- 3.86% Kansas City - 3.30% Boston - 5.47% Los Angeles - 5.69% Description of Work: At the staff level, information systems analysts support GAO's mission by performing a wide range of analytical and evaluative work associated with the planning, design, development, installation, operation, and maintenance of information systems supporting agency programs and management activities. Qualifications: You must have a bachelor's or graduate degree in computer science or mathematics and one year of professional experience equivalent to the GS- 11 level that demonstrates the ability to evaluate the planning, design, development, and operation of automated information systems. Appointments will be subject to a favorable background investigation. Some positions require a "Top Secret" security clearance. To apply submit: SF-171, Application for Federal Employment, or resume. A separate and complete application package must be submitted for each location for which you wish to e considered. If you do not designate a location preference, you will only receive consideration for Washington, DC. Narrative Statements addressing the ranking factors. SF-15, Application for 10-Point Veterans Preference, and proof (if applicable). GAO Form 74, Applicant Questionnaire (optional). Send completed forms to: U.S. General Accounting Office Attention: OR-AIMD-95-ISA-001 441 G Street, NW, Room 6105 Washington, DC 20548 Your application package must be received by close of business on the closing date of this announcement. Please do not include material that is not requested as part of the application package because theses items cannot be forwarded to the selecting official or returned to you. Other Information: GAO offers a full range of federal employment benefits, including paid sick and vacation leave, health and life insurance, the Thrift Savings Plan, and flexible work hours. Also available in the GAO headquarters building are on-site child-care and an employee fitness center. The office environment is smoke-free, although designated smoking areas are available. Moving expenses are generally not paid. For additional information, call 202-512-5657. Announcement Number: OR-AIMD-95-ISA-001 Ranking Factors for Information Systems Analyst (Computer Science/Mathematics): These ranking factors constitute a competitive examination which will determine whether you are referred for selection. You must submit narrative statements addressing the complexity, nature, and extent of your background related to each of the following factors: 1. Experience in evaluating or participating in the planning, design, development, and/or operation of major automated information systems supporting federal, state, local, or private industry programs. 2. Experience in evaluating or participating in the development and application of the policies, procedures, practices, and controls for information resources management functions and activities such as software risk assessments, information systems security, information systems design and development approaches. 3. Experience in the development or evaluation of strategic business, IRM, and information technology plans (e.g., ISP's) and information management, organizational, and decision making processes against current leading practices. GAO is an Equal Opportunity Employer. U.S. Citizenship is required. ------------------------------------------- United States General Accounting Office Career Opportunities Announcement Number OR-AIMD-95-ISA-002 Information Systems Analyst (Computer Science) Information Systems Analyst (Mathematics) Opens: September 19, 1994 Closes: November 18, 1994 More than one position may be filled. Selections may be made at any time. Location: U.S. General Accounting Office Accounting and Information Management Division Positions may be located in: Washington, DC; Atlanta, GA; Boston, MA; Denver, CO; Kansas City, KS; Los Angeles, CA Salary: Base salary: $48,032 to $73,679. Salary is increased by the percentage shown for the locations below: Washington - 4.23% Denver - 4.54% Atlanta - 3.86% Kansas City - 3.30% Boston - 5.47% Los Angeles - 5.69% Description of Work: At the senior level, information systems analysts support GAO's mission by performing a wide range of analytical and evaluative work associated with the planning, design, development, installation, operation, and maintenance of information systems supporting agency programs and management activities. Qualifications: You must have a bachelor's or graduate degree in computer science or mathematics and one year of professional experience equivalent to the GS-12 level that demonstrates the ability to evaluate the planning, design, development, and operation of automated information systems. Appointments will be subject to a favorable background investigation. Some positions require a "Top Secret" security clearance. To apply submit: SF-171, Application for Federal Employment or resume. A separate and complete application package must be submitted for each location for which you wish to be considered. If you do not designate a location preference, you will only receive consideration for Washington, DC. Narrative Statements addressing the ranking factors. SF-15, Application for 10 Point Veterans Preference, and proof (if applicable). GAO Form 74, Applicant Questionnaire (optional). Send completed forms to: U.S. General Accounting Office Attention: OR-AIMD-95-ISA-002 441 G Street, NW, Room 6105 Washington, DC 20548 Your application package must be received by the close of business on the closing date of this announcement. Please do not include material that is not requested as part of the application package because these items cannot be forwarded to the selecting official or returned to you. Other Information: GAO offers a full range of federal employment benefits, including paid sick and vacation leave, health and life insurance, the Thrift Savings Plan, and flexible work hours. Also available in the GAO headquarters building are on-site child care and an employee fitness center. The office environment is smoke-free, although designated smoking areas are available. Moving expenses are generally not paid. For additional information, call 202-512-5657. Announcement Number: OR-AIMD-95-ISA-002 Ranking Factors for Information Systems Analyst (Computer Science/Mathematics): These ranking factors constitute a competitive examination which will determine whether you are referred for selection. You must submit narrative statements addressing the complexity, nature, and extent of your experience related to each of the following factors: 1. Experience in managing, evaluating or participating in the planning, design, development, and/or operation of major automated information systems supporting federal, state, local, or private industry programs. 2. Experience in managing, evaluating or participating in the development and application of the policies, procedures, practices, and controls for information resources management functions and activities such as software risk assessments, information systems security, information systems design and development approaches. 3. Experience in managing and evaluating strategic business and information technology plans, and information management, organizational, and decision making processes against current leading practices. GAO is an Equal Opportunity Employer. U.S. Citizenship is required. ------------------------------ From: jeffo@syseng.slc.unisysgsg.com (Jeff Okleberry) Subject: Computer <--> Modem <--> Modem <--> TNC Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 13:24:14 GMT I have a couple questions about using modems to commuicate between computers that I hope somebody on the net can help me with. Here is my problem. I have a ham radio TNC which runs on a RS-232 port (Figure 1). ____________ _______ | | RS-232 | | | Computer |-----------------------------------------------| TNC | |____________| |_______| Figure 1 I have a new computer which does not have any free modem ports, but does have an internal modem. I have an extra stand alone modem and I was wondering if it is possible to use the modems so I can commuicate with my TNC (Figure 2). ____________ _____ _____ _______ | | RS-232 | | Telephone | | RS-232 | | | Computer |----------|Modem|-------------|Modem|----------| TNC | |____________| |_____| |_____| |_______| Figure 2 My second question is it possible to do the same thing in Figure 2 with two computers? A follow-on question is can I use my house's internal telephone wiring or do I need to run a direct link between the two modems? Thank you, Jeff Okleberry jeffo@syseng.slc.unisysgsg.com ------------------------------ From: Beekman@fel.tno.nl (Ewald Beekman) Subject: How to Make "Wireless IEEE802.3" Connections Between PC's Organization: TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 08:48:22 GMT We want to have "wireless IEEE 802.3" communication between three PC's, with minimum adjustment of the IEEE 802.3 equipment. We have three shortrange radio transceivers with a data transfer capacity of 10 MBps. Important transceiver characteristics are: - only half duplex connections are possible, because at one moment a transceiver can only receive or transmit; - the tranceiver has no software control port: the only control function is a hardware signal for selecting the transmit or receive mode (so-called send key); - a transmitter is ready to send data after about 10 msec from the moment that a "send" command is given. Each of our three PC's is equipped with an IEEE 802.3 10BASE-T LAN-interface card. Finally, we assume a channel quality similar to that of twisted pair medium, due to the very short ranges (50 metres). Our question is: "How must we configer such a wireless system with minimum adjustment and/or enhancement of the current equipment?" Hence, we very much prefer a solution without using (expensive) routers. In particular, we are interested to know if an output signal of the 10BASE-T interface card can be used to generate the "send" command. Does anybody have a suggestion? Suggestions may apply to: additional hardware circuits and/or commercially attainable interface equipment, software adjustments to control the LAN cards, etc. Please send any replies to: Overduin@fel.tno.nl TIA, Ruud Overduin TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory P.O.Box 96864 +31 70 3264221 (voice) 2509JG The Hague +31 70 3280961 (fax) The Netherlands Overduin@fel.tno.nl (email) ------------------------------ From: whs70@cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) Subject: Re: Inquiry on Bellcore Date: 14 Nov 1994 10:30:35 -0500 Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore) In article , Victorio O. Ochave wrote: > I need information on how to order technical documents from BELLCORE; > can anyone provide me with email address, fax number, contact person > information? TNX in advance. Bellcore documents can be ordered by calling the following: Toll free in North America - 1-800-521-2673 International Callers: 1-908-699-5800 Hope that helps, Bill Sohl, Bellcore NISDN Hotline Technical Consultant (1-800-992-ISDN) Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.) Morristown, NJ 201-829-2879 Weekdays whs70@cc.bellcore.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #414 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa24999; 15 Nov 94 15:23 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA03683; Tue, 15 Nov 94 07:50:05 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA03673; Tue, 15 Nov 94 07:50:01 CST Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 07:50:01 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9411151350.AA03673@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #415 TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Nov 94 07:50:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 415 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232 (John LaCour) Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232 (Chris Whittenburg) Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232 (Dan J. Declerck) Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232 (Russ Bryant) Re: Frac T1, sw 56k, or Some Scalable Internet Access (Jack Pestaner) Re: Computer <--> Modem <--> Modem <--> TNC (Jeff Regan) Re: Computer <--> Modem <--> Modem <--> TNC (Brendan Dowling) Re: Computer <--> Modem <--> Modem <--> TNC (Gary Breuckman) Re: FTS-2000 Database "A" and "B" (Paul Robinson) Re: Custom Ringing Detection (James Baker) Re: Additional Star Codes Used (David Leibold) Re: Town Considers Taxing Cell Phones (Chandler Heath) Re: EDI Security (Paul Robinson) IEEE 802.9 Standard (Rick Pannekoek) AT&T's Primitive Animal Tests (Douglas A. Percival) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jlacour@usr.com (John LaCour) Subject: Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 10:39:46 Organization: U.S. Robotics, Inc. > Lance Ellinghaus wrote: >> A company called Primary Access has a product that will take a T1 (24 >> VOICE channels) and interpret the DS0 channels as modem connections >> (v.32, v.42bis, etc..) and output standard RS232 to hook to a system. >> What other companies have something like this? Comments on their >> products? Contacts to get more information? USRobotics also has a similiar product, the USR D-WAN Hub. One or two T1s can be plugged into a rack of digital modems. The modems and T1 card will convert the PCM of each DS0 into an RS232 datastream. DNIS and ANI information can be used to configure the modems dynamically. Other features are supported as well. You can write me for more info or check out: 1 800 USR CORP ftp.usr.com sales@usr.com. Regards, John LaCour +1 708 982 5252 USRobotics, Inc. +1 708 982 0823 FAX Systems Product Support jlacour@usr.com ------------------------------ From: chris_whittenburg@wiltel.com (Chris Whittenburg) Subject: Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232 Date: 14 Nov 1994 17:12:23 GMT Organization: WilTel Reply-To: chris_whittenburg@wiltel.com Lance Ellinghaus wrote: > A company called Primary Access has a product that will take a T1 (24 > VOICE channels) and interpret the DS0 channels as modem connections > (v.32, v.42bis, etc..) and output standard RS232 to hook to a system. > What other companies have something like this? Comments on their > products? Contacts to get more information? Primary Access is probably best known for using their box for credit card transaction processing. They can configure their box to accept calls on the T1 and make X.25 calls out the other side to a server to verify the card. Their product is pretty expensive. I would check also with U.S. Robotics. They have a box called Enterprise Total Control or something like that which does what you want. A better solution is to use their box, and put their ethernet card in it, and use that to connect to your host rather that 24 rs-232 connections. Chris Whittenburg Telecom Engineer (918) 588-5845 WilTel Network Services chris_whittenburg@wiltel.com ------------------------------ From: declrckd@rtsg.mot.com (Dan J. Declerck) Subject: Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232 Date: 14 Nov 1994 14:37:17 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group > What other companies have something like this? Comments on their > products? Contacts to get more information? Try D.C. Hayes, Practical Peripherals, and US Robotics. They also sell such animals. I've seen Primary Access's stuff (I've never used it) and it looks pretty good. Dan DeClerck EMAIL: declrckd@cig.mot.com Motorola Cellular APD Phone: (708) 632-4596 ------------------------------ From: russb@xmission.com (russb) Subject: Re: T1 -> 24 x v.32 -> RS232 Date: 15 Nov 1994 09:48:59 GMT Organization: XMission Public Access Internet (801-539-0900) Many companies manufacture products as described. I work for Txport Inc., and we manufacture a product line called the Prism Series. The Prism T1 CSU/DSU will break out the T1 from the network and allow you to incorporate several applications, high speed data (V.35, EIA530), low speed data (RS232), voice and a fractional T1 for PBX DS-1 connectivity. Prices start at $2500. If your interested, I can mail you spec sheets, etc. for your perusal. Russ Bryant russb@xmission.com ------------------------------ From: jackp@telecomm.cse.ogi.edu (Jack Pestaner) Subject: Re: Frac T1, sw 56k, or Some Scalable Internet Access Date: 15 Nov 1994 03:58:59 GMT Organization: Oregon Grad. Inst. Computer Science and Eng., Beaverton As an internet provider in a specific area, I cannot offer you service, but I can offer some suggestions: 1. All internet access is not the same. Many resellers have a provider between them and the NSF backbone, typically Sprint. You can do a traceroute on their DNS server or net address to see how they (and you) are connected to the ans backbone. Note that if you buy a 56k service, but the provider has 100 other customers piped to the net with a T1, it is likely your service will be VERY slow. Unfortunately, I dont know how you can find this out. 1a. Check with your regional Internet provider, probably suranet in your area. They wont be the cheapest, but surely the best in connectivity. 2. Dont forget to add DNS and newsgroup service costs in the equation. Most providers charge extra for them. 3. Find out the telco circuit cost. Some providers may have POPs in more expensive areas relative to you than others. This is never quoted in their price so you need to be sure you understand this significant cost. 4. Current observations -- Sprint and Alternet are very slow these days. A whole other level of concern should be noted regarding the privatization of the Internet backbone. In a few short months, ANS, Sprint and MCI will be providing backbones, and net providers at this level will need to provide their own interconnections between the on-ramps. This will be expensive, and I will be fascinated to see how this is done, and what cost ramifications it will have. Good luck, Jack ------------------------------ From: Jeff Regan Subject: Computer <--> Modem <--> Modem <--> TNC Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 13:24:14 GMT > I have a couple questions about using modems to commuicate between > computers that I hope somebody on the net can help me with. > Here is my problem. I have a ham radio TNC which runs on a RS-232 port > (Figure 1). > ____________ _______ > | | RS-232 | | > | Computer |-----------------------------------------------| TNC | > |____________| |_______| > > Figure 1 > I have a new computer which does not have any free modem ports, but > does have an internal modem. I have an extra stand alone modem and I > was wondering if it is possible to use the modems so I can commuicate > with my TNC (Figure 2). > > ____________ _____ _____ _______ > | | RS-232 | | Telephone | | RS-232 | | > | Computer |----------|Modem|-------------|Modem|----------| TNC | > |____________| |_____| |_____| |_______| The 2nd modem to TNC can be setup using a null-modem cable available at most computer stores. It should have the correct connectors on it (in your case, a male on each end I believe). You will need to tell the second modem not to echo (ate0) not to return result codes (I forget its 'AT' code) and store it in the modems normal memory ... then put the modem in auto answer mode. You would have to do that over a phone line, but the problem with this is that the TNC has no security, so if a deamon-dialer found your modem, the 'hacker' could use your TNC and any damage (email etc) sent over the packet network would be your responsibility. You could not just hook the modems together unless your modem (on the TNC side) has a switch to 'answer the phone' or go offhook in answer mode. There are many other alternatives though. If you have an extra slot in your machine, find a serial card ($20 or so) that supports address 2f8 or 3f8 and IRQ 5 or 7 then use it instead. Good luck! Jeff Regan Internet: JEREGAN@FLASH.LAKEHEADU.CA - Bell IIS: Ham Packet: VE3XJR@VE3MGQ.#SWO.ON.CAN.NA - JEREGAN1 ------------------------------ From: umhatter@mcl.ucsb.edu (Brendan Dowling) Subject: Re: Computer <--> Modem <--> Modem <--> TNC Date: 15 Nov 1994 00:24:47 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara In jeffo@syseng.slc.unisysgsg.com (Jeff Okleberry) writes: > I have a couple questions about using modems to commuicate between > computers that I hope somebody on the net can help me with. > Here is my problem. I have a ham radio TNC which runs on a RS-232 port > (Figure 1). > ____________ _______ >| | RS-232 | | >| Computer |-----------------------------------------------| TNC | >|____________| |_______| > Figure 1 > I have a new computer which does not have any free modem ports, but > does have an internal modem. I have an extra stand alone modem and I > was wondering if it is possible to use the modems so I can commuicate > with my TNC (Figure 2). > ____________ _____ _____ _______ >| | RS-232 | | Telephone | | RS-232 | | >| Computer |----------|Modem|-------------|Modem|----------| TNC | >|____________| |_____| |_____| |_______| > Figure 2 > My second question is it possible to do the same thing in Figure 2 > with two computers? A follow-on question is can I use my house's > internal telephone wiring or do I need to run a direct link between > the two modems? You can probably just hook up the modem to the TNC and set the modem to auto-answer. Then you should be able to call in and talk to the TNC over the fone line. I guess if you wanted to, you could put a computer between the modem and the TNC, but if all it's doing is receiving from the modem and sending what it receives out to the TNC, there's no reason for it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:17:16 PST From: Gary Breuckman Subject: Re: Computer <--> Modem <--> Modem <--> TNC The first case, using a telephone line, should work fine. The modem needs to be configured for auto-answer and if the TNC does not provide handshaking you will need to take that into account with regard to the speed settings on the equipment and error correction. However, for connecting the units directly, you need to take into account how the TNC's modem will be made to answer. Folks have connected two computers in this fashion by entering commands on both ends, ATX0D on the 'originate' end and ATA on the 'answer' end. If the TNC is not capable of generating commands, you will need to configure the modem if possible in some sort of 'leased line' mode. Some modems have this feature, where they effectively stay 'off-hook' all the time. The only other possibility would be some sort of ring generator, they are available. It would likely be less expensive to just add another serial port to the computer. puma@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 07:20:35 EST From: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: FTS-2000 Database "A" and "B" Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA primeperf@aol.com (Prime perf), writes: > 1. Is such a database available in the public domain? > 2. How does one become a subscriber? FTS-2000 is the internal long distance telephone network for U.S. federal government agencies. The network is split among two carriers, the "A" carrier being AT&T and the "B" carrier being Sprint. His question does not fairly indicate exactly what he wants to know, e.g. does he want to know which carrier serves which agency, does he want the conversion table as to which old seven-digit FTS 2000 numbers convert to commercial numbers, does he want a complete list of every service available, or what exactly? GSA handles some provisions of FTS-2000; he might try calling them or issuing an FOIA request to them for a list of which agencies are assigned to which carrier, or whatever he is trying to find out. GSA's National Capital Area office is at 7th & D Streets, SW in Washington, he can probably start by calling or writing there. Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM Reports on Security Problems: To Subscribe write PROBLEMS-REQUEST@TDR.COM Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush ------------------------------ From: jbaker@halcyon.com (James Baker) Subject: Re: Custom Ringing Detection Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:41:39 -0800 Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , keith@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (John Keith) wrote: > I am looking for devices that can do custom ringing detrection and > route the call to an appropriate device. Particularly useful would be > the new breed of voice/fax cards for PCs that would have this > capability. Can somepone point me in the right direction? Telephone Products at 1-800-829-5960 makes a box that routes custom ringing to seperate devices. It is called Switchboard. Cost is $89.95. Also it is line powered so there is no power cord or wall charger. James Baker Seattle, WA jbaker@halcyon.com ------------------------------ From: djcl@io.org (woody) Subject: Re: Additional Star Codes Used Date: 14 Nov 1994 22:54:14 -0500 Organization: Internex Online (io.org) Data: 416-363-4151 Voice: 416-363-8676 In article , Bruce Brothers wrote: > I would also add the following (for NYNEX in Massachusetts, anyway): > *99 - voice dialing maintenance menu *99 has been spotted in Canada for voice mail maintenance functions, rather than voice dialing. This can be found on NBTel's Talk Mail service, for instance. djcl@io.org ------------------------------ From: chandler@winternet.com (Chandler Heath) Subject: Re: Town Considers Taxing Cell Phones Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 22:44:02 -0600 Organization: Netcore In article , Greg Monti wrote: > A story in the November 7, 1994, editions of the {Washington Times}, > page A1, says that the Town of Vienna, Virginia, is considering > putting a tax of $3 per month on all cellular phone accounts with > Vienna billing addresses. Vienna is a town of about 10,000 residents > in Fairfax County, Virginia, about 12 miles west of Washington, DC. I guess this means that the next step will be to require all cars that have cellular phones, buy a "TAX DECAL" proving payment of the tax. Just what they need, another sticker for the windshield.;-) Being a FORMER resident of Fairfax County I do not miss the tax hassles a bit. Chandler ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 07:27:52 EST From: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: EDI Security Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA > My current project is to expand the concept of our in-house > "message router" so that sources and targets need not be on > the Internet...The part that concerns me is security. The goal is > that my API should be able to accept incoming calls. If we do that, > how do we handle security? Do we just use a system of "userids" and > "passwords"?...One proposal... [was] special login... [and] run my > API...This proposal has been shot down... > If we don't use System Security, what kind of login/password-passing > scheme do we use? Is there any kind of standard? We really can't > make many assumptions about the client. What we need to ask is, "How secure is the host and what services does the host have available to it?" If your host is secure from someone raiding its password file, then you could use the POP mail transfer method outlined in Internet RFC 1460, in which the host sends its name, the date and the time to the user; the user's software should then internally tack on the user's password to what it just received, creating a new text string, and then return back to the host the MD5 message digest of that new string. Passwords are never transfered at all. RFC 1321 documents the means to do MD5 including a source program in C to create a message digest. RFCs may be obtained via ftp from ds.internic.net:/rfc/rfcnnnn.txt where nnnn is the 4 digit rfc number. Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM Reports on Security Problems: To Subscribe write PROBLEMS-REQUEST@TDR.COM Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush ------------------------------ From: rickp@ebs.eb.ele.tue.nl (Rick Pannekoek) Subject: IEEE 802.9 Standard Date: 14 Nov 1994 10:55:08 GMT Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Can anyone provide me with information about the (draft) IEEE 802.9 standard concerning Integrated Voice Data LANs (IVDLANs)? I'm interested in solutions for integrating telephony and data networks. As I understand, isoEthernet (one of those solutions) is part of the 802.9 standard. Thanks in advance. Rick Pannekoek Faculty of Electronics Engineering Technical University of Eindhoven The Netherlands ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 06:07:38 -0800 From: Douglas A. Percival Subject: AT&T's Primitive Animal Tests [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In my haste to clean up a backlog of stuff here over the past few days, I inadvertently ran AT&T's *answer* to the comment which follows prior to running the comment itself which came in a couple weeks ago. See the Digest on Monday and the response entitled "Gopher -- Literally!" for the reply to the following, then see my added comments below. PAT] PETA ACTION ALERT: AT&T CAUSES ANIMALS TO SUFFER Animals in cruel and primitive experiments funded by AT&T need our help. AT&T pays government experimenters to trap pocket gophers in the wild, confine them in tiny cages for the rest of their lives, and make them gnaw on cable samples. It is easy to design a machine to simulate rodent gnawing, and PETA has repeatedly urged AT&T to use modern mechanical testing methods instead of animals, but AT&T has not agreed to end its inhumane experiments. Please urge AT&T to stop exploiting animals and replace these barbaric experiments with high-tech mechanical alternatives. Don't use AT&T's long-distance service as long as the experiments continue. Write to: Robert Allen, CEO AT&T 295 North Maple Avenue Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 Fax: 908-204-2186 or 908-221-1211 Or call AT&T's Executive Response Center, collect, at 908-221-4191. Thank you for your concern and your help for the animals. For more information, contact: PETA P.O. Box 42516 Washington, DC 20015 301-770-7444 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Read "Gopher - Literally!" in the Monday edition of this journal for AT&T's reply forwarded here. My own opinion (you did not think you would get by without that, did you!) is that PETA is too far out of touch with reality in most issues to have any real credence given to their complaint. They are far outside the mainstream animal welfare movement. I do not believe in cruelty to animals. I believe all animals should be treated humanely. They have just as much right to be here as human beings. On the other hand, I am not ashamed to be at the top of the food and survival chain, as members of PETA seem to be. Animals do *NOT* have rights. Human beings have rights. 'Rights' implies to me certain ethical and moral requirements; it implies to me having a 'conscience' -- something animals do not have. Animals respond to one another like ... well, animals. Human beings make choices in the way they respond to one another. Therein lies the difference where 'rights' are concerned. If it is wrong for people to kill animals for the purposes of survival, and if animals are like people, as some in PETA would claim, then it should likewise be 'wrong' for animals to kill other animals for their survival. We don't punish animals for their behavior toward other animals as we do people toward other people. I am not a sportsman. I do not hunt animals or birds for the 'fun' of it. I don't see any 'fun' in taking lives needlessly, be they the lives of animals or people. Ditto the restricting of an animal or another person's freedom to roam at will. On the other hand, I will do what is necessary for my own survival, and not feel guilty at all. Remember though that because of our unique place in the scheme of things, we do have a tremendous and very special responsibility -- or custodial relationship perhaps -- to the many forms of life around us. Perhaps some of my attitudes are illogical: I see no reason to wear fur in the winter for warmth when cloth will do just as nicely. On the other hand I've no objection to leather shoes or a steak for dinner. I see no reason for continued use of animals in research for cosmetics, but I am very mindful and appreciative of the animals which have been sacrificed for purposes of medical research. Of course, where cosmetics are concerned, I don't need any: I'm already beautiful. :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #415 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa22001; 16 Nov 94 9:42 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA11469; Tue, 15 Nov 94 12:59:13 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA11461; Tue, 15 Nov 94 12:59:08 CST Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 12:59:08 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9411151859.AA11461@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #416 TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Nov 94 12:59:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 416 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Strategic Alliances and Interconnection (J.A. Fielden) Freestanding Fax Modem/Printerless Fax Machine? (Anthony E. Siegman) Re: ANI Modem (Paul Robinson) Looking for V.34 Technical Info (John Desmond) Looking for Info on FAX-on-Demand Systems (John Desmond) Hollings Bill (Andrew Matters) Device Wanted For Logging Phone Calls (Thommy Gyorog) Exchange Codes Table Wanted (Wilson P. Snyder II) Motorola Micro TAC 5200 Phone Socket Specifications (Diomidis Spinellis) Ameritech Effeciency and Caller-ID (TELECOM Digest Editor) Update, and More Thanks (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fielden@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (j.a. fielden) Subject: Strategic Alliances and Interconnection Date: 14 Nov 1994 19:16:26 GMT Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder STRATEGIC ALLIANCES & INTERCONNECTION: CONTRIBUTIONS OF GAME THEORY TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS January 9 - 11, 1995 International Telecommunications Society & University of Colorado Symposium Strategic alliances are playing an increasingly prominent role in emerging telecommunications, information processing and entertainment markets. These alliances promise to drastically alter the technological, regulatory, and market landscapes throughout the world. The transformation of the telecommunications marketplace is unique in that it represents the merging of traditionally regulated firms (i.e., telephone and cable) with industries which have never been regulated such as publishing, entertainment, and the computer industry. Although players perceive numerous synergies among existing firms in these sectors, it is not obvious, a priori, which alliances will prove to be stable and beneficial to the firms involved, and to the public at large. Oligopoly theory and game theory in particular, is the systematic study of strategic behavior. Game theory is no longer a branch of pure mathematics, and it pervades modern economic thinking and analysis. The informal insights it provides are increasingly used in business school case studies, theoretical and empirical research by telecommunications specialists and by strategic planners within the industry. Game theoretic reasoning can be applied to practical decision-making by corporations. In a business environment, those who think strategically not only attempt to outplay their adversaries, but in addition realize that their adversaries will attempt to outplay them. An understanding of good competitive strategy can be essential for survival. In order to explore the informal, largely non-technical, insights that theory can contribute to questions of current importance in the telecommunications industry, industry representatives, regulators and academics are invited to take part in this symposium. The objective is to provide an environment in which decision-makers will gain new insights into game theoretic reasoning and academic participants will gain new insights from the experiences of business leaders who have been involved in the formation of telecommunications alliances and the management of telecommunications firms. The Symposium will consist of five half day sessions. Each session will be coordinated by an academic or an industry representative. The industry representative will introduce each topic and develop the key issues which need to be considered. Approximately one half of the papers will be presented by academic specialists, while the other half will be applied papers presented by academics or industry representatives. Presenters and discussants will be urged to elicit an active participation from all of those in attendance. Issues to be addressed will include (i) the theoretic framework for examining the role of strategic alliances. Examples will be drawn from firms attempting to position themselves to maximum advantage in emerging communications, information processing, and entertainment markets, (ii) the convergence of technologies or the delivery of new services, for example competition for video and multimedia delivery and among network providers, (iii) spectrum auctions role in business strategies in the emerging telecommunications structure, and (iv) interconnection and vertical integration as in the case of the simultaneous provision of local distribution and competitive services, and the negotiation of interconnection agreements and the appeal process. Presentation of theoretical and applied papers will address these issues in a non-technical manner with the aim of being informative and provocative. They will be used to provide a structure which will then be expanded upon through an active participation by all in attendance. 1. Strategic Alliances This theme will develop the economic framework for the symposium. It will consider how telecommunications carriers approach strategic alliances to improve their position in emerging communications, information processing, and entertainment markets in a economic/game-theoretic framework. Issues of interest include international alliances (e.g., Telefnica's strategy in Latin America or Cable & Wireless' global network), inter-industry alliances (e.g. the failed merger of Bell Atlantic and TCI), the provision of end-to-end services (Syncordia), and vertical integration into information services (Ameritech's investment in GEIS). 2. Convergent Technologies The convergence of technologies bringing together, in direct competition or in strategic alliances, telephone companies, cable television operators and content providers. Decision-makers are challenged to establish boundaries to their business and position it in an increasingly complex production chain in the rapidly evolving technical and business environment. The object of this theme is to use the experience of multimedia to address the complex set of issues concerning horizontal and vertical integration. 3. Competition for Spectrum: Auctions Spectrum auctions are now a required component of the strategic planning process. The recent auctions have indicated the value of the spectrum, and its importance in the coming competition in the wireless market. As competition expands, technologies converge, and we move to a world characterized by a network of networks, spectrum and its cost will become even more important than today, and its strategic implications will be of a greater importance to the various players. The FCC is about to begin auctions for broadband PCS licenses. Preliminary estimates are for the auction proceeds to exceed $10 billion. These auctions pose numerous auction design problems for the FCC, and strategic bidding problems for bidders. This session will discuss both relevant auction theory and how the auctions are proceeding. 4. Interconnection The objective of the next two sessions will be to cover interconnection in the context of vertical integration and market dominance. Exchange telephone companies currently are dominant players in the local loop, which is an input into the provision of their own interexchange services and those of their competitors. One of the key issues of interconnection policy is the set of rules under which interconnection is negotiated. For example, when interconnection involves a co-location agreement, what is the power of the government to impose conditions on a regulated firm? What is the proper role of antitrust legislation to provide a framework for interconnection negotiations? The Court fight between Telecom New Zealand and Clear Communications illustrates a fundamental problem with interconnection whenever it is not mandated by the regulator. In Mexico, regulators from the Communications and Transportation Ministry recently rejected the Telmex plan for ten interconnection points. Instead, the regulators approved a plan for 200 such points, to be available by the year 2000. The issue is the terms under which the privatized Telmex will face competition. Are standards requires for interconnection? If so, how are the rules and obligations impacted by the standards set? How do co-location, divestiture strategies (e.g., proposals made by companies such as Rochester Telephone and Ameritech to trade greater access to the local loop for greater regulatory freedom) enter the picture? At the other end of the spectrum, the access charges which were imposed by the FCC at the divestiture of the Bell System illustrate the problems with solutions which are unilaterally mandated by the regulator without proper attention to market conditions and alternative delivery technologies. Pricing of interconnection as an intermediate or "bottleneck" facility should ensure neither the incumbent nor the entrant is disadvantaged by the pricing structure. Moreover, in the context of alternative delivery systems, such as the AT&T/McCaw Communications alliance or the bypass of the exchange carriers by companies such as TeleCommunications Inc. subsidiaries, the correct access prices become vital to insure efficiency of the total system. The worldwide trend toward privatization and deregulation of public carriers raises these issues in a broader context. _____________________ Boulder The University of Colorado at Boulder is situated in a lovely natural setting about 30 miles northwest of Denver. The Front Range of the Rocky Mountains is visible from the 786-acre campus, located in a scenic valley 5,400 feet (1645 m) above sea level. The campus is less than 45 minutes form the Denver airport by car or shuttle service. (Limited lodging is available on campus.) Boulder, a community of 84,000 people, averages over 300 days of sunshine each year. Within its mountain setting of great natural beauty, Boulder provides a rich array of recreation and cultural opportunities. World-class skiing is a short drive away. ________________ Registration Information Name Title Company Address City State/Province Country Telephone Facsimile E-Mail Payment Method ($400): Enclosed [ ] Credit Card: Visa [ ] Mastercard [ ] Credit Card Number Expiration date Signature: Attendees should respond by mail, facsimile, or phone, forwarding check or credit card authorizations to: Strategic Alliance Symposium Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program Campus Box 530 Engineering Center University of Colorado Boulder, Colorado 80309-0530, USA Telephone: + 1 303 492 - 8717 Facilmile: + 1 303 492 - 1112 E-mail: alleman@spot.colorado.edu Registration Fees: (includes lunches, dinner and receptions) Early Registration: $400.00 (before December 12, 1994) Registration Fee: $500.00 Provisional Program Sunday, January 8, 1995 Registration, 1:00 - 5:00 PM Social Hour: 6:30 - 7:30 PM Monday, January 9, 1995 Strategic Alliances: Overview, 9:00 - 10:30 AM Chair: Ambassador Diana Lady Dougan, Center for Strategic & International Studies Robert Crandall, Brooking Institute Jonathan D. Aronson, University of Southern California William Sharkey, Institut D'Economie Industrielle Discussant: Francois Prothais, France Telecom Strategic Alliances: Theory & Practice I, 11:00 - 12:30 PM Chair: Larry Singell, University of Colorado Andres Baude, Ameritech International, Inc. Peter Strapp, Tele-Communications Inc. Susan C. Simon, Simon & Simon Discussant: Daniel O'Brien, Department of Justice Lunch, 12:45 - 1:45 Gary Hart, Coudert Brothers Strategic Alliances: Vertical Integration, 2:00 - 3:30 Chair: Mark Cronshaw, University of Colorado Martin Perry, Rutgers University Yossi Spiegel, Tel Aviv University Nicholas Economides, New York University Discussant: Ferid Gasmi, Institut D'Economie Industrielle Strategic Alliances: Theory and Practice II, 4:00 - 5:30 Chair: Gary Hart, Coudert Brothers Mark Porrat, General Magic * Koichiro Hayashi, NTT America Keisuke Nakasaki, Thai Telecommunications Marc Ivaldi, Institut D'Economie Industrielle Discussant: John Vondrus, US West Communications Reception, 6:00 - 8:00 PM Tuesday, January 10, 1995 Competition for Video Delivery, 9:00 - 10:30 Chair: Joseph Pelton, University of Colorado Lorenzo Pupillo, Itlia Telecom * Thomas Hazlett, University of California, Davis * Glenn Woroch, University of California, Berkeley Discussant: David Reed, Cable Laboratories * Competition for Spectrum: Auctions, 11:00 - 12:30 Chair: James Alleman, University of Colorado Mark Bykowsky, National Telecommunications and Information Agency Simon Wilkie, California Institute of Technology Yeon Koo Che, University of Wisconsin Discussant: Robert Pepper Lunch, 12:45 - 1:45 Convergence of Media, 2:00 - 3:30 Chair: Randall Lowe, Piper & Marburry Larry J. Yokell, Convergence Industry Associates Shane Greenstein, University of Illinois / Stanford University David Sevy, France Telecom, CNET Discussant: Glenn Woroch, University of California, Berkeley Interconnection, 4:00 - 5:30 Chair: Robert Pepper, Federal Communications Commission * P. Srinagesh; Bellcore Oz Shy, Tel Aviv University Eli Noam, CICT, Columbia University Discussant: Dale Hatfield, Hatfield Associates, Inc. Receptions and Dinner, 7:00 Ambassador Vonya McCann, United States Department of State * Wednesday, January 11, 1995 Joint Ventures & Privatization I, 9:00 - 10:30 Chair: Mark Schankerman, LSE & European Bank for Reconstruction and Development George Yarrow, Oxford University * John Vondrus, USWest Communications Leland W. Schmidt, GTE Telephone Services Discussant: Santiago Levy Algazi, National Commission on Competition Telmex, Mexico * Strategic Alliances & Capital Markets, 11:00 - 12:30 PM Chair: Larry J. Yokell, Convergence Industry Associates Larry Darby, Darby Associates Scott Meade, Goldman Sachs, United Kingdom * John Chapman, Strategic Research Inc. Discussant: David Rush, University of Colorado ____________________________________ Participants James Alleman, University of Colorado Santiago Levy Algazi, National Commission on Competition Telmex, Mexico * Jonathan D. Aronson, University of Southern California * Andres Baude, Ameritech International, Inc. Mark Bykowsky, National Telecommunications & Information Agency Larry Cole, GTE Labortories John Chapman, Strategic Research Inc. Yeon Koo Che, University of Wisconsin Robert Crandall, Brookings Institute Mark B. Cronshaw, University of Colorado Larry Darby, Darby Associates Micheal Davies, BellSouth New Zealand * Hugo Dixon, The Financial Times * Ambassador Diana Lady Dougan, Center for Strategic and International Studies Jerry Duval, Federal Communication Commission Nicholas Economides, Stern Business School, New York University Michal Even-Chen, BEZEQ, Israel * Ferid Gasmi, Institut D'Economie Industrielle Michel Gensollen, France Telecom * Shane Greenstein, University of Illinois / Stanford University Gary Hart, Coudert Brothers Koichiro Hayashi, NTT America Thomas Hazlett, University of California, Davis * Larry Irving, National Telecommunications & Information Agency * Marc Ivaldi, Institut D'Economie Industrielle Mike Katz, University of California, Berkeley and Federal Communications Commission * Frank Kiss, MATAV * Jose Alberto Blanco Losada, Telefnica de Espaa * Randall Lowe, Piper & Marburry Scott Meade, Goldman Sachs, United Kingdom * Patrick McCabe, Ministry of Commerce, New Zealand Vonya McCann, Ambassador, United States Department of State * Bridger Michell, Charles Rivers Associates * Milton Mueller, Rutgers University Keisuke Nakasaki, Thai Telecommunications Eli Noam, CITI, Columbia University Daniel O'Brien, Department of Justice Hajime Oniki, Osaka University * Joseph Pelton, University of Colorado Robert Pepper, Federal Communications Commission * Mark Porrat, General Magic * Francois Prothais, France Telecom Lorenzo Pupillo, Itlia Telecom Patrick Rey, ENSEA/INSEE * David Reed, Cable Laboratories * David Rush, University of Colorado David Salant, GTE Laboratories Mark Schankerman, London School of Economics & European Bank for Reconstruction and Development David Sevy, France Telecom, CNET William Sharkey, Institut D'Economie Industrielle Oz Shy, Tel Aviv University * Susan C. Simon, Simon & Simon Larry Singell, University of Colorado * Ray Smith, Director, BT Carrier Services * Yossi Spiegel, Tel Aviv University Peter Strapp, Tele-Communications Inc. Pablo Spiller, University of California, Berkeley P. Srinagesh; Bellcore Marty Taschjian, US West Communications John Vondrus, US West Communications * Simon Wilkie, California Institute of Technology Glenn Woroch, University of California, Berkeley Larry J. Yokell, Convergence Industry Associates * Invited Sponsors AGT (formerly Alberta Government Telephone) France Telecom GTE Telephone Operations GTE Laboratories Italia Telecom NTT America Hellenic Telecommunications Organization (OTE) TELA Group Telefnica de Espaa Telia (formerly Swedish Telecom) University of Colorado Program Committee James Alleman, University of Colorado Mark B. Cronshaw, University of Colorado Nicolas Curien, Ecole Polytechnique Nicholas Economides, New York University Alain de Fontenay, TELA Group Koichiro Hayashi, NTT America Milton Mueller, Rutgers University Mark A. Schankerman, London School of Economic & European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Leland W. Schmidt, GTE Telephone Operations William W. Sharkey, Institut D'Economie Industrielle David Salant, GTE Laboratories Glenn Woroch, University of California, Berkeley _________________________ Jim Alleman, alleman@spot.Colorado.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 94 8:47:42 GMT From: Anthony E. Siegman Subject: Freestanding Fax Modem/Printerless Fax Machine? Is there such a thing as a "free standing" fax modem with a modest amount of memory, or a small fax machine with no scanning or printing engine, that can receive (small) faxes and store them until one turns on a computer and pulls off the received data? I have a TelePort Gold fax modem on my Mac at home which works fine for sending and receiving very occasional faxes; but I don't like to have to leave the Mac powered up and the HDs spinning all the time. siegman@ee.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 07:47:00 EST From: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: ANI Modem Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA In a prior message that I missed the last line of, rothen+@pitt.edu asked: > PS. Is there such a thing as an ANI modem? That would be a form > of security. The Practical Peripherals PP14400FX is an internal fax modem for MSDos PCs, and I believe it also comes in an external model for other machines. It supports Caller-ID, and can provide it in either the raw ASCII, or in a display format, with the ability to ask it to replay the last Caller-ID string received, in either format. I know it handles numeric Caller-ID, as I had it for a while to test it; we won't be getting caller-id with name until later this month. I intend to try that service once we get it and see if it does. Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 13:22:10 CST From: desmond@astro.spa.umn.edu (John Desmond) Subject: Looking for V.34 Technical Info I recently picked up some v.34 modems for myself. It appears that I have a line problem. The problem is not noise on the line, but what I suspect to be a problem with bandwidth available on the line. Many times the modems will connect at 26.4 and work fine, but other times it will fallback to 19.2. I am looking for any information on the requirements for the telco cable side of the connection. Ie, the C.O to the subscriber. I am particularly interested in any information about cable make-up. This would be info on gauge of cable and the use of loads and bridge-taps. I had asked one modem manufacturer to look in their spec, but he did not see anything that covered that part of the spec for v.34. I suspect that this is pretty well covered by the manufacturer of the chip sets that the modem manufacturer uses. Any info would be greatly appreciated. John Desmond K0TG Saint Paul, MN k0tg@amsat.org -or- jdesmon@mn2.uswc.uswest.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 13:23:31 CST From: desmond@astro.spa.umn.edu (John Desmond) Subject: Looking for Info on FAX-on-Demand Systems A friend of mine is looking for a FAX-on-demand system to replace a single line system they have at this time. They are looking for a system that can handle more than line for incomming and outgoing FAXes and requests. It would be ideal if the system could do the following: - Handle 2 or more outgoing FAX lines and at least one incomming request line. - Have the ability to allow recording of their own voice prompts/greetings. - Be easily expandable I myself am looking for a much smaller system. I would like one that is PC based and would prefer that it be able to operate in a DOS/Desqview environment. I will not rule out any Windows based products though. My needs are for a single line system sharing the same line for inbound and outbound FAXes. Basically, I am interested in any info others may have. Thanks in advance! John Desmond K0TG Saint Paul, MN k0tg@amsat.org -or- jdesmon@mn2.uswc.uswest.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 06:08:02 CST Subject: Hollings Bill From: Andrew=Matters%Exec%PandREV@smtpgate.dotc.gov.au Hi Patrick, It is good to see you back on deck again! I am unsure who to direct this enquiry to, so apologies if this should have been directed elsewhere ... I am interested in locating a copy of Senator Hollings Bill, and the reasons it was dropped. Were there any 'line of business' (cross media ownership) issues raised? Unfortunately I only have email access to the internet at the moment, but may be able to gain more extensive access (with some luck) if necessary to access this information. Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. Andrew Matters Telecommunications Policy Review Department of Communications and the Arts Canberra, Australia. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If any readers care to respond to the writer on this topic, please do so and send a copy of your reply to the Digest for publication here. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 1994 18:38:01 GMT From: thgy@magnet.at (Thommy Gyorog) Organization: The Personal Online Source Reply-To: thgy@magnet.at Subject: Device Wanted For Logging Phone Calls Since detailed phone-bills are even more expensive than the phone calls here in Austria, I am looking for a "special" device, which monitors my phone-line and logs the phone calls (incoming calls: start date and time, end date and time; outgoing calls: start date and time, end date and time + dialed phone number) The data should be printed out on a serial printer/transmitted to a PC (serial/parallel),... I know, PBXs offer this or a similar function. Do you have an idea, if such a device is out already? Where can I get it? Did someone build such a box by himself? (It shouldn't be too hard ...) Thanks for any info! Thommy Gyoeroeg thgy@magnet.at sent via m a g n e t / +43-1-522-7-225 / info@magnet.at ------------------------------ From: snyder%ricks.dnet.dec.com@mrnews.mro.dec.com (Wilson P. Snyder II) Subject: Exchange Codes Table Wanted Date: 14 Nov 1994 17:59:52 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp, Hudson MA Does anyone know of a WWW or plain text file which can translate US exchange codes to locations? For example: ? 802-658-xxxx = Burlington, VT Thanks!! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You need to correspond with Carl Moore who keeps exactly the information you are seeking in a quite detailed format. He is a regular participant here. Write cmoore@brl.mil. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dds@doc.ic.ac.uk (Diomidis Spinellis) Subject: Motorola Micro TAC 5200 phone socket specifications Date: 15 Nov 1994 09:50:06 GMT Organization: Dept of Computing, Imperial College, England I am trying to integrate a modem on a Motorola Micro TAC International 5200 celular GSM phone. Does anyone know where I can find a connector plug for that socket, and - more importantly - the pin specifications for the socket? The socket has 8 pins and is used to interface the phone to car kits and battery economizers. Many thanks, Diomidis Spinellis Internet: UUCP: ...!uknet!icdoc!dds Department of Computing, Imperial College, London SW7 #include "/dev/tty" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 11:55:00 CST From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Ameritech Effeciency and Caller-ID Although all of Chicago (312) and quite a bit of suburban 708 has been equipped with enhanced custom calling features for some time now, here in Skokie the new features including Caller-ID, Call Screening and the others became available just yesterday. I called the business office at about 9:05 AM this morning to have Caller-ID turned on. I told her I still had my Caller-ID equipped phones from a few years ago when I lived in Rogers Park (Chicago) and would not need to purchase any equipment. All I needed was to have the service turned on. She wrote up the order to put it on my two main lines (I did not bother getting it for my fax line) and said there would be a fifteen dollar fee for the order in addition to the normal $6.50 per line/month charge for the feature. Regards the installation fee, I asked her, why don't you do me a favor and write it off ... she thought about it for a minute and said okay, she would do that since this is the first week of service and I was the first person she had dealt with in Skokie who ordered Caller-ID. She assured me she would get it turned on as soon as possible. She told me to go ahead and hook up my phones and 'sometime later today or else tomorrow morning' Caller-ID would be working. It took me about ten minutes to install the ID boxes at a couple locations here and put a fresh battery in them. I no sooner had this done than the phone rang, with a call for my brother ... and I'll be damned if the Caller-ID was not displayed! Now that's fast turn-around on a telco work order! I've never seen a work order started and completed in 10-15 minutes. I was so impressed in fact that I called her back and told her about it. She likewise was astounded, and said her screen did not show the order as yet being completed. That got me to thinking, I wonder if somehow by accident when the software was turned on over the past few days they somehow defaulted it to everyone by accident ... had I not placed the order but merely plugged in my box would I have gotten it anyway? I tried other lines with my ID box and did not get the information; therefore they actually processed my order in a rather incredible 10-15 minutes! Good work, Ameritech! ----------------------- I only have two display units; one is built into a single line phone and the other is a stand-alone box you can plug in series to the phone line or parallel if desired. I wanted one display unit where my brother could see it so I put the single line phone on my main line in our living room. I did a little trick with the stand-alone unit and this might be helpful information to someone else with Caller-ID on more than one line who does not want to purchase additional ID boxes: I have an old Radio Shack Duofone Two Line Auto-Controller (part 43-381) I was not using for anything else. I plugged that into the two-line jack behind the desk in my basement office in parallel with the two line phone that sits on my desk. (I can answer my business line [if busy it hunts to my personal line] and my personal line [it has call-waiting, direct, or hunt/rolled-over calls from 0571] from my office downstairs or my bedroom on the second floor. My brother and his wife merely have the personal line in our living room, their bedroom and the kitchen.) This auto-controller from Radio Shack was originally intended to allow a single line phone to make calls on either of two lines or receive calls from either line with incoming calls automatically forwarded out to the phone regardless of the setting on the line switch. Instead of a phone output, I plugged the ID box into it. Now, either line which gets an incoming call (personal or business line) tickles the controller box and it tosses the output (i.e. caller-ID info) to the display unit. There are a couple minor flaws: About one call out of every twenty or so (I tested it about a hundred times) a call to the line *opposite* the position the controller box was last used in has its ID lost when the ID is passed sooner than the box wakes up and toggles to that line. Usually it toggles promptly during the first ring and the ID is passed just after the first ring ends, so it is not a problem. If it is slow in toggling -- and then only if the call in question is on the line it it not resting on -- the ID may get lost. The other flaw is that when used in auto-select mode, one of the two line selector keys MUST be depressed as a 'default line' for outgoing calls. If neither key is left depressed at all times, then both lines are in a conference mode. If I am on any phone in our house which is attached to the 'default line' (whichever key was artibrarily left depressed on the auto-controller box) then the auto-controller won't pass Caller-ID for the other line should it happen to ring. The reason for this is that as originally intended, Radio Shack did not want ringing voltage from your second line to get tossed onto your phone while it was off hook and up to your ear on the other line. If I am on neither line then it works fine. Either ringing line triggers the auto- controller, gets its attention and the incoming ID is sent to the display unit. To compromise on this, I left the auto-controller 'defaulted' to my business line. If it is busy, then incoming calls would roll over to the other line anyway and the ID would get through. If it is not busy then it gets the ID as it would anyway. On the rare occassions when my personal line is in use and a call happens to come in on the business line, then the ID is lost since the auto-controller won't switch over to accept the call ... just as Radio Shack intended it should not. Ameritech offers name/number for $8.50 per month or number only for $6.50 per month. I don't think my units will work with names since they were made a few years ago before that additional feature was available. Overall, I am *very pleased* with how quickly Ameritech processed the order ... and Caller-ID does truly put one in control of one's phones. My early testing shows that Caller-ID is being sent long distance as well ... Caller-ID was shown on three long distance calls received this morning. It looks like it will soon be natiowide. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 08:04:57 CST From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Update, and More Thanks This is just a short note to let everyone know what is going on over here with regards to my medical condition. I'm taking some pills twice a day (a collection of pills, actually -- one taken once daily, another type of pill taken twice daily, and a third I don't take but must carry with me at all times in the event 'something' happens at an inopportune time, but then, heart attacks always happen at inopportune moments, don't they?). I've got to return to the hospital for a few more tests on an outpatient basis, and that is going to keep me busy for a couple days this week. Overall, I am feeling much better, but still get very tired and begin to hurt a little when I walk more than about half a mile at a time. The doctors want me to walk as much as possible, and I am trying to get in a half-mile to a mile daily. Meanwhile, cards, letters, flowers, generous tokens of financial assistance and other things continue to arrive in the mail daily. At last count, about 4000 letters and cards have arrived in the mail as of yesterday. I want to extend my very sincere thanks to all of you who have written either in email or via the postal service. Personal notes of thanks are impossible. There remains a huge backlog of subscription requests for the mailing list. Admittedly, I have pushed these to the side, preferring to get the editorial stuff out as promptly as possible, and I will begin to make the list changes later this week as time and my strength permit. If you have requested addition to the mailing list in the past three weeks or so, I *will* get back to you soon with the 'new reader' and 'help' files and other confirmation. Again, thanks to all who have written and offered encouragement. My work with the Digest is almost entirely reader-supported at this time and your efforts mean a lot. Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Editor ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #416 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa22191; 16 Nov 94 9:45 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA14922; Tue, 15 Nov 94 14:41:05 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA14911; Tue, 15 Nov 94 14:41:01 CST Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 14:41:01 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9411152041.AA14911@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #417 TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Nov 94 14:41:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 417 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telus Presents Offer to Purchase Ed Tel (Cole Cooper) Caller ID in Sweden, Europe (Robert Lindh) 1-800-CALL-INFO _is_ Tariffed (Paul Robinson) Local Phone Companies Capable of... (David Crawford) PC-Based Voice Mail Systems (Pat Barron) Enterprise Management Summit '94 - Summit Week (summit@ix.netcom.com) Collaborators and Contributors Behind the NII Project (Maria F. Delgado) Re: Old Card Dialer Cards (Wes Leatherock) Re: AT&T Personal Term 510/510a Help Needed (Gene Retske) Re: DSU/CSU For T1 (Jack Pestaner) Can a Customer Choose Their ANI? (Peter M. Weiss) Re: The Blackbox Company and its Catalog (John S. Wylie) Re: The Blackbox Company and its Catalog (Michael Stanford) Store-to-Store Link (Christopher Zguris) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cole Cooper Date: 15 Nov 94 10:53:19 EDT Subject: Telus Presents Offer to Purchase Ed Tel Telus corporation is the owner of AGT Limited, Canada's third largest telephone company. EDTEL is Canada's largest municipally owned telephone company. This release is made avialable to all AGT Limited employees and interested parties. TELUS PRESENTS OFFER TO PURCHASE ED TEL TELUS representatives presented our offer to purchase ED TEL to Edmonton City Council this morning. The offer states that TELUS wants to join forces with ED TEL to create an Alberta-based group of companies with the expertise and resources to expand beyond Alberta to new global markets. "Our industry faces a rapidly changing future," says George Petty, president and chief executive officer, TELUS Corporation. "We have a choice of maintaining the status quo or joining forces to become an unbeatable combination. Looking at our customer needs and our competition, joining together is clearly in the best interests of all concerned." The offer includes a net cash offer of $465 million to the City, plus a commitment to cover the City's obligation for ED TEL debt of $170 million. The full value of the total package is $720 million, including: - TELUS covers debt: $170 million; - Research and development investment: $12 million; - Eliminate the cost of a public share offering: $27 million; - Additional financial elements: $46 million; - Cash proceeds: $465 million; A joint City - ED TEL steering committee has already studied the offer and will recommend either the TELUS offer or a public share offering to City Council. City Council will vote on that recommendation Friday, Nov. 18. If the TELUS offer is accepted, TELUS hopes to reach a final agreement by Dec. 19, 1994. The offer includes a number of commitments to ED TEL employees and customers, and the City of Edmonton. For EDTEL employees: -- TELUS will honor all existing union collective agreements and employee and management compensation plans. -- TELUS will recognize the seniority of ED TEL employees. -- ED TEL management will continue to be responsible for staffing levels of ED TEL as part of their business decisions. -- ED TEL employees, as part of TELUS, will be eligible for the TELUS employee share purchase plan. All TELUS employees may be offered a one time special offer to purchase (subject to regulatory approval). -- ED TEL employees will have expanded career options as part of a group of companies with global market opportunities. For ED TEL customers: -- All existing customer contracts will be honored. -- Current levels of ED TEL customer service will be maintained. -- Customers will get faster access to leading edge telecommunications. -- Businesses across the province will have access to similar services and benefits. For the City of Edmonton: -- Control of ED TEL will remain in Edmonton. -- ED TEL will continue to operate as a separate company with its own management and board of directors. -- TELUS will expand Edmonton investment, spending more than $12 million in 1995 to exploit leading edge technologies and develop new products and services targeted at key customer segments in health care, education and home service areas. -- Combined research and development activities of ED TEL, TELUS, TRLabs sponsorship and the University of Alberta will make Edmonton a significant research and development centre of excellence, helping to attract technology professionals and knowledge workers to Edmonton. -- TELUS will make the expected investments required to ensure modern world class telecommunications systems for Edmonton. That investment has been estimated by City financial advisors at more than $1 billion over the next decade. There will be a high level of media interest in the TELUS - City negotiations over the next few days. TELUS is committed to keeping our employees informed as soon as events unfold. If you have questions or comments, please contact Susan Tinker, TELUS internal communications at 403-498-7324. Any media inquiries should be directed to Rick Preston, TELUS public affairs at 403-498-7320. ------------------------------ From: etxlndh@eos99.ericsson.se (Robert Lindh) Subject: Caller ID in Sweden, Europe Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 07:41:37 GMT I today picked up a leaflet from the Swedish Telecom operator (Telia), concerning their scheduled offering of the service "Caller ID". The leaflet that I quote below is "LZTA 8046138 (October 1994)". All translation faults