Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab23309; 8 Nov 91 9:54 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01254 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 08:04:18 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18023 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 08:04:08 -0600 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 08:04:08 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111081404.AA18023@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #901 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Nov 91 08:03:22 CST Volume 11 : Issue 901 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Alliance Signal Quality (Jim Hickstein) Cell Service in Franklin Co, Mass. (Scott Reuben) AT&T is Just Like All the Rest (Rob Knauerhase) Electrical Specs Needed on WE Princess Rotary Phone (Ralph W. Hyre) Looking for BISYNC Source Code on PC's (Parag Rastogi) Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Les Mikesell) Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Sean Williams) Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done (Jack Decker) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 22:27:19 PST From: jxh@attain.ICD.Teradyne.COM (Jim Hickstein) Subject: AT&T Alliance Signal Quality I recently used AT&T's Alliance conferencing facility to make a call that connected points in Massachusetts, California (me), and Tokyo. I was very disappointed with the result. The trunk to Tokyo seemed not to go over the usual, high-quality path, and there was a very high level of background noise when someone in Tokyo talked (accents are bad enough in person ...). This could have been due to ambient noise in the room with a speakerphone on their end (the rest of us were using handsets), but it was still very distressing. Also, the "negotiation" involved, when changing the party doing the speaking, took a long time and seemed to get confused. Is this TASI trying too hard to reduce bandwidth? It seemed to switch rapidly between the two talkers for a while, like on the order of 20Hz, until one of them stopped talking. I called their customer service number and asked the simple question: Did this call use AT&T facilities, specifically the crystal-clear transPac fiber trunks, to Tokyo? The answer was Yes, but I somehow doubt it. Is Alliance an integral part of an AT&T tandem somewhere (it said it was in Reno), or is it a "service" that AT&T resells on behalf of a "provider" who may very well use other carriers. (This is ridiculous on the face of it, but at this stage I'm ready to disbelieve anything.) Could I have forced AT&T with an equal-access code (10288) in front of the 011+81 ...? What other, competing conferencing services do better in this regard? Does my use of Alliance count against our SDN volume? If so, it may be harder to go with someone else, but quality is my first consideration. Really, it was almost totally useless. Should I just bridge three calls into my PBX next time, or would that entail too much loss from one end to the other? I am originating the call from San Jose, the midpoint geographically, so maybe this wouldn't be too bad. Honestly, this can't be *that* hard! Haven't they been doing it for a hundred years? A Disgruntled Customer. P.S. To its credit, it did recognize that one of my parties didn't supervise, and it did the right thing (it said it didn't work, and that I should try again), so it can't be totally fly-by-night. Jim Hickstein, Teradyne/Attain, San Jose CA, (408) 434-0822 FAX -0252 jxh@attain.teradyne.com ...!{decwrl!teda,apple}!attain!jxh ------------------------------ Date: 8-NOV-1991 05:38:54.24 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Cell Service in Franklin Co, Mass For those driving on I-91: This past Monday, Franklin County (Mass) Cellular turned "on" their tower(s?), so that coverage on the "A" side in Western Mass on I-91 is now complete. (Although the rest of the county doesn't have service -- yet). You can drive from New Haven, CT, all the way to the Mass/VT border, and be continuously covered. Franklin Co. Cellular basically resells to Metro Mobile, and has the same SID (00119), so you don't really know you are not technically using Metro Mobile. All your features work, you can get calls, *711 yields a Metro Mobile roaming recording, *611 gets Metro Mobile custuner service, so that fact that the towers are owned by Franklin County Cellular is more or less academic. (Let's just hope they get the billing correct!) Also, Cell One/VT presently has service to just north of Brattleboro (about 15 miles north of the border), and by January should cover all the way down to Mass. Cell One/VT offers an economical $3/month plan ($.75 airtime) which is basically aimed at light callers who want to avoid roam charges. If you make calls on more than one day in VT, you will save money with this plan. (Barring special roam plans like SNET/CT's 60-cent-per-day-no-roam0-charge plan ... I think Rochester Tel offers something like this as well (?) ) Since both systems are run on Motorola EMXs, it shouldn't be any problem to have through-paging between Metro Mobile/CT-RI-Western Mass and Cell One/VT. This would be an impressive coverage area indeed! The "B" side is also making progress. SNET also seems to have service in Franklin County now (but not as clear in all places as Metro Mobile/Franklin County Cellular), and US Cellular in Keene, NH, is expanding to the Hanover area this winter. (Presently, they resell Cell One/VT, which covers White River Jct/Hanvover, while Cell One/VT resells US Cell for its customers who wish to roam into the Keene area.) Finally, in July I mentioned that all the switches in the Northeast that run on Motorollas will allow you to use your call-forwarding features in any other Motorola based system. A few new systems were "added" (software upgrades?), so here is the complete list: Cell One/Boston (00007) Metro Mobile/CT-RI-Western Mass-New Bedford Mass (00119) Cell One/South Jersey (00173/00575/01487) Metrophone/Philly (00029) Cell One/Wilmington (00123) Cell One/Atlantic City (forgot the SID) (note the absence of NY after the July switch change) There is also a new system is Jersey somewhere (not Ocean County Cellular), which is supposed to connect to Cell One (aka Metro One)/NY. I dunno if it is Ericsson or Motorola, so can't tell how it will be integrated (if it will) into the Northeast EMX system. They only have 54 customers, so they will be depending on a good deal of roamer traffic! :) Anyone know about this system? What's the SID? Is Cell One/DC Motorola based? If so, odd how Cell One/Wilmington doesn't link up with the DC-Baltimore system -- it seems to me like there would be a lot of cross-traffic, even though one STILL gets cut off crossing the river near Havre de Grace (sp?). Happy Roaming! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 23:05:58 -0600 From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest This evening I got a bright yellow glossy envelope, emblazoned with: "We really meant it when we said your check was in the mail." I was somewhat suspicious, especially since all the identification was a small mention of a PO Box in Roseland, NJ on the back of the envelope. There was even a _real_ (not pre-printed) 10-cent stamp on it. Imagine my surprise to see that inside was a $20 check from AT&T -- all I have to do to get the cash is switch to AT&T. So it seems the "big guys" aren't all that far ahead of the upstarts in marketing tactics. This offer is very similar to the MCI deal mentioned here before, except this check states on front and back that signing it means they can switch you, and it clearly states "Check void if altered." Unlike MCI, however, they don't promise to pay any local switchover fee. Is there a marketing school somewhere that's producing the people who think this up? MCI mails out checks if you switch, Sprint mailed me a $10 check in June that's only good after October 1, and now AT&T is in on the game. [Now off to the archives to see if anyone figured out a legal way to get the money without switching ... :-> Not really.] Rob Knauerhase University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign knauer@cs.uiuc.edu Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group ------------------------------ From: rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Subject: Electrical Specs Needed on WE Princess Rotary Phone Date: 7 Nov 91 23:00:06 GMT Reply-To: rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati Our local (CBT) phone center is selling the handset only for Princess phones with a rotary dial and switchook in the handset. Can anyone briefly explain the handset-base circuitry so I can asses whether to buy one to experiment with? (I have several applications where I can use a 500-style handset, but I'm worried the dial circuitry might interfere with the audio. This is for my old hobby of abusing communications and computer equipment.) My guess is that the handset has a hybrid circuit (2-4 wire converter), using the other two wires for the switchhook. Is this right? Does the device resemble a butt set, electrically? Mic == + 2-4 wire converter == Spkr == 4 wires from handset to base [base] phone line += Pulse Dialer/Swithhook ===+ Please reply by mail if you: 1) know the answer to the question or 2) have a trimline base you'd like a used handset for ($9.80) [There are two black ones and one red one left.] Thanks, - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. E-mail: rhyre@cinoss1.att.com Snail: Box 85, Milford OH 45150-0085 Phone: +1 513 629 7288 Radio: N3FGW ------------------------------ From: parag@cup.portal.com Subject: Looking for BISYNC Source Code on PC's Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 14:07:01 PST I am looking for bisync code. I am wondering if someone knows whether any public-domain source code for bisync protocol on PC's exist. I can modify it to run for my application. Any pointers in this regard are requested. Thanks. Parag Rastogi parag@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 19:00:26 GMT In article hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > Like yourself, I have yet to get anything from AT&T Mail on this, in > the mail or otherwise. I haven't seen anything other than the article here either, but I had been expecting some sort of rate structure change after the internet link became official. They only charge for messages sent, so for messages coming from the internet, they not only don't get paid but they lose mony on your 800-number call to pick them up. If you are on some internet mailing lists, there could be substantial traffic. I didn't expect the low-usage accounts to pick up the tab in the form of minimum monthy charges as the other message implied, though. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: sew7490@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.E. Williams ) Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 23:18:31 GMT In article hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > I have posted a message to !atthelp on AT&T Mail, scanned through all > of the !atthelp:news shared folder, asked several of my friends and > business associates who have AT&T Mail accounts, and in NONE of this > have I found even the remotest reference to a rate increase or > imposition of a monthly minimum. Is this just an unsubstantiated I wrote a note to AT&T Mail's Customer Service regarding the same thing, and here's what I got back in the mail (Captured directly from my buffer): >From atthelp@attmail.com Thu Nov 7 04:38:45 1991 Received: by ultb.isc.rit.edu (5.57/5.3 (Postmaster DPMSYS)) id AA19105; Thu, 7 Nov 91 04:38:43 -0500 Date: Thu Nov 7 04:37:58 EST 1991 Original-From: attmail!atthelp (Customer Assistance ) Phone: +1 800 624 5672 Subject: Help Ticket ID: 16594 To: internet!ultb.isc.rit.edu!sew7490@attmail.UUCP Your original message was: Dear AT&T, I just received your letter regarding the new billing structure in the mail today. Am I correct in assuming that AT&T mail now has a minimum monthly usage of $20.00? (or was that $25.00) If so, is AT&T doing this to get rid of its "little" customers? I can see no reason for staying with AT&T mail, since MCI mail has no such monthly fee. Regards, Sean E. Williams Telecommunications Technology Program Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY In Response: Sean, You may call 1-800-242-6005 regarding the new billing structure. Thank You, Tom !atthelp ---------- Well, that's it! I guess we'll have to call the number to find out. By the way, AT&T did return my original letter, and put in the "Your original message was:" and "In Response:" lines. I have not edited the letter. Regards, Sean E. Williams (sew7490@ultb.isc.rit.edu) Rochester Institute of Technology - Telecommunications Technology (ITFT) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 17:28:34 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How In a message dated 1 Nov 91 19:16:11 GMT, the Moderator interjects: > [Moderator's Note: Security wise, what solutions are there against > people who program their telephone number to one of the demo numbers > every carrier hands out to their dealers for testing and sales use? > For example, the RS dealer here has a number on which every cell phone > in his display case will function. On that particular phone number, > the cell carrier does not bother to check the ESN -- how could they > while still letting the dealer demo all his phones? Likewise, the > internal phone numbers used by the cell carrier are not ESN validated. > What prevents a typical user from programming his stolen phone to one > of those numbers so the ESN is no longer a concern? PAT] That is a REAL good question, Pat. I know that in the early days of Compu$erve (circa 1984-85 or thereabouts) they used to give demo accounts to Radio Shack stores. Of course, the employees soon found out about them and then friends of employees found out and pretty soon they were all over. I *THINK* that perhaps Compu$erve may have started restricting access for these accounts, so they would only be honored if the call came in from a certain node and then only during business hours. I suppose that a cellular operator COULD restrict access for a certain account to only one cell site (the one nearest the store) but for some reason, that's NOT the way I'd bet! But we don't even HAVE cellular service up here in the North Woods yet ... in fact, I live only about 40 miles from a place that has no telephone service at all, except that one resident purportedly has a cellular phone and is receiving service from Traverse City, which (even though most of the hop is over Lake Michigan) must set some sort of record for service distance ... it's almost exactly 100 miles from Traverse City to this location (East Lake in Mackinac County, about 10 to 15 miles east-southeast of Trout Lake, if anyone wants to look it up on a map). Does cellular service really "reach out" that far? Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 [Moderator's Note: Two points: The *really* early days of Compuserve came in the period 1980-82, and yes, they were eaten alive by fraud, hackerphreak style, during that period. I think the CB Simulator program started around 1981-82, and some of those guys would go to the local RS store, buy a Compuserve 'starter kit' which came with a $200 credit limit automatically in those days no questions asked, then stay online all all day and night until the system went down at 5 AM local time next morning. Phalse names and billing addresses provided for the signup information, of course. After polluting the account with a few days of being continuously online CB'ing, they'd ditch the account and go get a new starter kit the next weekend for more fun. The starter kits cost $20 as I recall, and could be milked for several hundred dollars in charges before CIS would cut them off. Regards cell service 'going the extra mile', I've found the service from Tulsa, OK can be used 50-60 miles away in southeastern Kansas with no hassle. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #901 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05375; 9 Nov 91 18:55 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31644 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 16:47:41 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30852 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 16:47:30 -0600 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 16:47:30 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111092247.AA30852@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #902 TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Nov 91 16:47:24 CST Volume 11 : Issue 902 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest (Mikel Manitius) Re: Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere (Rolf Meier) Re: Costs of Phreaking (Andy Sherman) Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone (Paul Cook) Re: Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst (Marcus Adams) Re: Economics of Dial-Out Only Lines (Andrew Klossner) Re: Question on Easments (Rich Greenberg) Re: CA Rate Increases and GTE Notifications (John Higdon) Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number (Steven J. Edwards) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 15:25:35 EST From: mikel@aaahq05.aaa.com (Mikel Manitius) Subject: Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest > [ ... ] There was even a _real_ (not pre-printed) 10-cent stamp on > it. Imagine my surprise to see that inside was a $20 check from AT&T > -- all I have to do to get the cash is switch to AT&T. I really thought it was funny when my friend received such a $20 check from MCI to switch -- she was already an MCI "Dial 1" customer! Are these things legally binding? I've often managed to desposit checks into my account without signing them by using an ATM. The problem is they'll probably switch you anyway, and the trouble of getting it fixed isn't worth the $20. Mikel Manitius mikel@aaa.com [Moderator's Note: We've covered this before here. The intent of the check is clear. When you deposit it, you agree to the terms involved. Alterations usually make the check void. PAT] ------------------------------ From: meier@SOFTWARE.MITEL.COM (Rolf Meier) Subject: Re: Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 15:32:35 -0500 Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article S_ZIEGLER@iravcl.ira.uka.de (|S| Juergen Ziegler) writes: > While watching the program I was quite stunned by poor audio quality > from most callers within the US as compared to a phone call from a > correspondent who was calling from Madrid, Spain. > What was the reason for this odd thing? You have several problems when talking between Europe and America. First, the digital encoding standards are different, and a conversion must be made. The American standard is called mu-law and the European is A-law. Not doing the conversion can certainly account for reduced speech quality, but even if it is done there will be some impairment. Second, there will be echo cancellation required due to the distance. This can result in some degradation as well because these circuits are not perfect. Third, the voices you heard may have been put on a speakerphone, which causes a "rain-barrel" effect. The combination of at least these three impairments (there may be others, such as impedance mismatches) account for what you heard. Each one will only make the other impairments sound that much worse. For example, a speakerphone might sound ok when everything else is perfect, but add some imperfect echo cancellation, and the effect is pretty bad. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 17:34:15 EST Subject: Re: Costs of Phreaking Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ In article you write: > I run into this line of argument over and over again, in discussions > of both telephone phraud and software piracy. Some Three Letter > Acronym (TLA) is said to have lost 7.4 jillion dollars in revenue and > therefore must pass this cost on to honest, hard-working, God-fearing, > apple-pie eating American customers. [ goes on to argue that phreakers didn't come close to using up the network, so there is no cost.] Toll fraud has become a major industry involving your "jillions" of dollars of lost revenue and expended costs by all of the major carriers, TLA or otherwise. This is not some "innocent" student fiddling with DTMF boxes. This is folks who found an easier bet than dealing drugs -- selling calling card numbers in the Port Authority bus terminal. There are very real costs associated with toll fraud. The calls generally get billed, and then get written off. There is a cost associated with that process. Also, a whole lot of the toll fraud industry centers around international calling. Something like half the price of an international call is paid out directly to the foreign PTT (usually == foreign treasury). That is a lot of money for even a TLA to have to eat. Half of a large fraction of the "jillions". If you think is is pocket change, I invite you to cover it. I could use a better raise this year. :^) Also, I find it very disturbing that your discussion of phreaking and software piracy is cast solely in terms of whether or not the victims can afford it. Does nobody think about simple honesty anymore? I must be naive. I actually have reported and paid tax on income that appeared on no W2 and no 1099, because it was the right thing to do. Paying for your phone calls and paying for your software is the right thing to do. Anything else is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Is that such a complicated concept? Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 22:13 GMT From: Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone "Ken J. Clark" writes: > I'm not sure when AT&T introduced Touchtone(R) to the market place. They came up with the scheme in the 1950s, but it wasn't brought to market until the mid-1960s. > Do they still hold it as a registered trade mark? Anyone? No. > However, I remember seeing a 1930s experimental phone in the > Smithsonian about five years ago. It had the ten numeric keys in one > row (like the number keys along the top of a typewrite keyboard) on a > very wide-based phone. I don't know what frequencies were used for > the signaling and I doubt that what has become the CCITT Q23 > allocation for the frequencies was used. I'm assuming that the 10 > linear keys implies 10 discrete tones, unlike the 4 X 4 combination > defined in Q23. I don't think this used tone signalling. I believe it was a mechanical device that put out rotary dial pulses. Back in the 1930s one would have to use vacuum tubes or vibrating reeds to generate tone signals. Paul Cook Proctor & Associates 3991080@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: madams@aludra.usc.edu (Marcus Adams) Subject: Re: Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst Date: 8 Nov 91 23:12:51 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA It's interesting that they are issuing PINs to the students for the touchtone registration system. Here at USC, they use your student ID # (your social security number if you have one) and your birthdate for access. I'm amazed that no one has complained about the obvious lack of security in this system around here. I guess people here are so happy not to have to wait in four hour lines to get their classes. I do know a guy who, in order to get even with an ex-girlfriend, called up the touchtone registration on the last day of drop/add (last day to make changes in your schedule without getting charged for it) and added 16 classes to her schedule for a total of 44 credit hours. She got a bill for it a couple weeks later, at $475 a credit hour, for over $20,000 over her normal tuition. [Moderator's Note: Gee, what a witty, brilliant and funny thing to do to someone. He must have been rolling on the floor with laughter after doing that, the same as I am now reading about it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Subject: Re: Economics of Dial-Out Only Lines Date: 8 Nov 91 23:19:51 GMT Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon TELECOM Moderator noted: > Specially treated lines of this nature which restrict one or > more types of calls from taking place are intended as a > security precaution, where you have people around who can't > keep their hands off the phone, ie, jail inmates or delinquent > children." They're also great for modem dial-out lines when you want to be sure that, when the modem goes off-hook, it isn't accidentally answering an incoming call from a cracker who is going to mimic the CO and collect a password. Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) [Moderator's Note: But I covered this category in "people who can't keep their hands off the phone" :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 14:07:57 -0800 From: Rich Greenberg From: richg@locus.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Question on Easements Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1991 22:05:56 GMT In article KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com writes: > I have a question as to how does LEC determine what a easment is > worth? [ LEC snuck in some cables] > tractors ripping up the ground to install a new fiber optic cable. We > say, "stop!" They say they now have a "perscriptive easement" for this > half mile strip down our property. We settle for about $3,500 dollars > in paving work done by one of their contractors. > My question is, since they intalled the cable without our permission > (we didn't even know it was there) and, then went to install new > cable, did they have a right "with the perscriptive easement" to do > that? And, were we suckered on what a half mile long easement is > worth? Any ideas? You have most likely gotten as much as you can expect out of them. They are wrong about the "perscriptive easement" provided that you truly didn't know about it. They get this easement only if you knew and didn't protest for some specfic length of time (may vary state-state). Keep in mind that they are "TPC", and they don't have to care. (And they have lots of lawyers on staff.) Disclaimer: The above writings are the ramblings of one human being and have nothing what-so-ever to do with Locus Computing Corp. ---> Rich Greenberg, richg@locus.com TinsleTown, USA 310-337-5904 Located in Inglewood, Ca, a small city completely contained within Los Angeles ------------------------------ Subject: Re: CA Rate Increases and GTE Notifications Date: 7 Nov 91 01:23:12 PST (Thu) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) singer@almaden.ibm.com (David Singer) writes: > Oh yes...there will be a new discount plan offering 9 cent/minute long > distance calling anywhere in the LATA for a mere $200/month fee. Aunt > Minnie should jump at that one! You can practically get that now. Simply order direct WATS (delivered on T1) from almost any major carrier and you will get a rate around $0.09/min. The monthly will be slightly more than $200/month, but then you can have up to twenty-four outbound circuits for your calls as a bonus. Then call to your heart's content anywhere in the country (including within the LATA) for about $0.09/minute, day and night. California regulations may prohibit carriers from claiming that they can carry intraLATA calls, but I can tell you that they can and do for many enlightened companies. GTE may be able to stop MCI, Sprint, et al from telling you how to save big time on your intraLATA calling, but they cannot stop me from giving you that information. And I will be more than happy to tell you all about it. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 15:38:39 EST From: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards) Subject: Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number Reply-To: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com Four months ago I obtained an unlisted telephone number by New England Telephone as part of the service for a new residence. I was told at the time that this number had not seen recent use and was not assigned to anyone else, nor was it present in the NET telephone directories or from NET directory assistance (555-1212). There was a fairly hefty tariff associated with installation (about US$50, just for a software entry; all hardware was in place). There was also a cost of about US$25 for a service request for getting an unpublished and unlisted number, along with a monthly tariff of about US$4 for the same. These expenses were justified at the time by an NET service representative as being necessary for "the high level of service traditionally supplied by New England Telephone". The number was to be used mostly for automated computer telecommunications, so I had no desire for unwanted incoming voice calls. After noting some problems with the computer connection over the first three months' usage, I installed a voice answering machine and recorder on the line. I set the outgoing tape to answer with the complete telephone number dialed so wrong number dialers would realize their mistake. Much to my surprise, I would come home after work and find a number of calls for people I did not know from people I did not know. Furthermore, a number of these calls surprisingly contained rather intimate details of people's business and private lives. The callers obviously thought they were dealing the correct number because of the outgoing message. I had been unable to track the origin of these calls until yesterday evening, as most of the callers thought that the party they were trying to call knew their return phone number. Finally, one caller did leave her return number (she was not at her regular number, I suppose). I contacted her and was able to get the correct spelling of the name of whom she thought she called. I was also told that she had gotten the number from NET directory assistance. A quick check of the new 1991-1992 Nynex White Pages phone book for my area found my "unlisted" number listed on page 164 under another person's name! Another entry with the same last name, but different first name, was located. Furthermore, a call to directory assistance proved that their computer was still supplying this false information. It took a nearly thirty minute long conversation with three different people at NET directory assistance to convince them that they were giving out false information. Because of my knowledge of the first names referenced in messages left on my recorder (along with other information inadvertently recorded), I correctly guessed that this was a husband and wife living at different addresses and they had recently moved into a single residence. I called the other (correct) number and confirmed that this was all a result of a big screw-up by NET. I also took the opportunity to relate several of the topics referenced in the supposed confidential calls. The intended recipients were quite surprised, to say the least. Fortunately for them, I am not a crook; however, if it had been a crook that had their old phone number, the opportunities for fraud may have been too tempting to resist. First moral of the story: if you ask for an unlisted number, don't assume that you'll get one that was not very recently in use by another party. Second moral of the story: if you change residences, make sure that your old listing is deleted by the directory provider and is correctly handled by directory assistance. Third moral of the story: never leave personal or otherwise confidential information on a recording answering machine unless you are absolutely certain that only the intended receiver will replay such recordings. [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.] == Steven J. Edwards Bull HN Information Systems Inc. == == (508) 294-3484 300 Concord Road MS 820A == == sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com Billerica, MA 01821 USA == ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #902 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06807; 9 Nov 91 19:43 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01763 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 18:04:27 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01523 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 18:04:18 -0600 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 18:04:18 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111100004.AA01523@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #903 TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Nov 91 18:04:12 CST Volume 11 : Issue 903 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Subject Index Updated Through Issue 900 (TELECOM Moderator) The Information Wars (John Higdon) Estonian Phone Net (Lars Aronsson) New Zealand Toll Price War (Pat Cain) Centrex Multiline Station Sets (Jeff Sicherman) Cellular Phone Rates (Popular Commuications via Steven M. Palm) Digital PABXs Vs BISDN Switches (Basic Question) (Krishnan Sakotai) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 15:57:32 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Subject Index Updated Through Issue 900 The TELECOM Digest subject index for volumes 9-10-11 in the archives has been updated to include subject lines through issue 900 of volume 11. At the end of the year, I will update it again to include the final issues for this year. The file 'index-vol.9-10-11.subj.Z' is compressed, and you will need to take it back to your site using ftp, and THEN uncompress it to use it. As before, I recommend you use grep -i for the best results in searching for subjects, author names, or file locations. The file is is strict alphabetical order, ignoring the 'Re:' which appears at the start of some messages. Within each subject, author names are in order by the *full* name, ie Fred Smith comes before John Higdon. The series of numbers at the left reference the volume and block of issues in the archives where the subject will be found. After locating which volume and block of issues is desired, you would then pull that file and again grep for the subject within that block. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 13:24 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: The Information Wars Tom Lantos, a VERY consumer-oriented (overly so, in my opinion) congressman from the Bay Area has come down four-square against the entry into the information business by the RBOCs. He succinctly stated his reasoning in an article written for the {San Francisco Chronicle} that appeared in today's paper and which I faxed to the EFF earlier today. Pacific Telesis' response has been a radio commercial which I just heard aired over a San Francisco classical radio station. Later today I will transcribe the spot, but for now let me tell you that it is typical of the underhanded tactics PacTel uses to ruthlessly get its own way. It attacks Lantos by name, accusing him of "siding with the newspaper interests" in "blocking your right to the free access of information". It goes on to claim that senior citizens and students will be particularly hurt by not allowing PacTel to enter into the information business. So here you have a government legislator actually looking out for his constituency for a change and he gets attacked by an expensive (this was a highly-produced spot) ad campaign. The advertisement concludes by saying that it was paid for by Pacific Telesis and not paid for by telephone customers. Oh, really? And where DOES Pacific Telesis get its money? Off of spaghetti trees? I will believe that line when I can examine a complete, certified audit of Pacific Telesis (in other words, never). This matter is even more serious than Pac*Bell's confiscatory ratepayer money-grab. Pacific Telesis' entry into the information providing business will give new meaning to the term "Orwellian". Some organizations, such as the EFF, seem to feel that letting the RBOCs get a foot in the door is essential to the emergence of the necessary technology to get a "universal", national data network launched. This is dangerous naivete, in that, as demonstrated by history, the telcos only offer that technology that serves their own immediate marketing benefits. For instance, Pacific Bell only offers a form of ISDN that is useful in the marketing of Centrex, its own counter-product to the vendor-provided PBX. Since the gains of offering general purpose ISDN are not immediately apparent, it is not available. Indeed, I asked a Pac*Bell spokesman about Pac*Bell's timetable in offering a residential ISDN and he responded with a sneer and told me that there was really no demand and that "there were no plans or timetables yet." If Pacific Telesis is allowed into the information business AND ISDN fits into those plans, then, yes, you will see an offering. But you can rest assured that the offering will only benefit Pac*Bell's marketing strategy and will not conform to the idyllic visions expressed in a recent newsletter from the EFF. Our pulp media is having difficulty staying awake through all of this. To most, this is a non-issue that deserves, if anything, space on page sixty-seven. However, PacTel has taken the gloves off with its political radio spots. Yes, you read that correctly, these are political spots and I am going to investigate the matter of "equal time". If PacTel wants to come out of the closet with its media attack on Tom Lantos, I will be very happy to join the fray. I may not have the financial resources commanded by Pacific Telesis (courtesy of millions of Pac*Bell ratepayers), but I have some history and some facts on my side. Shall we see what the people think? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: When telco says they (and not their rate payers) are paying for something, they mean the costs are being charged against profits paid to their stockholders. PAT] ------------------------------ From: aronsson@lysator.liu.se (Lars Aronsson) Subject: Estonian Phone Net Organization: Lysator Computer Club, Linkoping University, Sweden Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 17:23:28 GMT Sweden's Televerket Invests Billions in Estonia's Telephone Network The following is my translation of an article in ELTEKNIK, a Swedish magazine for electrical engineers. To reprint this further, you should obtain permission from ELTEKNIK's office in Stockholm, Sweden. I have translated to the best of my knowledge and any factual errors might very well be mine. Ref: Gote Andersson: "Televerket satsar miljarder i Estland", ELTEKNIK Aktuell Elektronik, No 19/1991, 31 Oct 1991, pp. 7-8, Copyright (C) ELTEKNIK Aktuell Elektronik, Published by Ekonomi och Teknik Forlag AB, Stockholm, Sweden, ISSN 1101-6965. For reprints and copyright information, contact Marianne Janskog, international phone no. +46-8-796-6660, postal address ELTEKNIK, 106 12 Stockholm, Sweden. First some explanations that might be useful. TELEVERKET is Sweden's governmental telephone company. Until recently it had a total monopoly on all kinds of telecommunication services, but in the last five or ten years that has started to change. Today, Televerket operates almost like a private company, although still whole-owned by the Swedish government. When Televerket makes investments like the one described below, it is done with money earned from selling services and not with taxpayers' money. Telefon AB L M ERICSSON is a Swedish telephone equipment manufacturing corporation since more than 100 years, and AXE is the name of Ericsson's family of automatic digital telephone exchanges. GOTLAND is the largest Swedish island in the Baltic Sea. The Swedish currency is KRONOR, and there are approximately 6 kronor to one US dollar. The abbrevation AB in Swedish company names means the same as British Ltd and US Inc. TELI is Televerket's whole-owned telephone equipment manufacturing company. One important part of Teli's operation is licensed assembly of Ericsson's AXE exchanges. As to my knowledge, Ericsson's factories only assemble for export. Now to the article: TELEVERKET TO INVEST BILLIONS IN ESTONIA Becomes part owners of the Baltic nation's telephone network. by Gote Andersson Televerket is now getting involved in our eastern neighbor Estonia, where the telephone network is to be modernized. When Televerket enters as a part-owner of its Estonian counterpart, this is the first deal of its kind in Europe. The Estonian telephone network will in the next few years be extended using AXE technology. A fiber optical cable is planned from Gotland to Estonia's capital Tallinn. Preliminary, half a billion Swedish kronor [500 thousand million, almost 100 million US dollars] will be invested each year. The modernization of Estonia's telecommunications network up to West European standards is expected to total between five and six billion Swedish kronor [about 1000 million US dollars]. - This is a long term investment. Only in ten years time can we see any profit. During the first period, all profits will be reinvested in Estonia, says Viesturs Vucins, CEO of Televerket's whole-owned corporation Swedish Telecom International AB (STI). A kind of agreement, a so called Memorandum of Understanding, has been signed by Televerket's head Tony Hagstrom and his Estonian counterpart Toomas Somera. Televerket got this agreement in tough competition with the US company AT&T. Right now, the Estonian telecommunication administration is negotiating with Televerket about the contents of the contract to be signed by the two. A joint-owned corporation will be founded and the Estonian government will keep at least 51 per cent of its shares. Estonia will [thus] get an all-new telephone company, preliminary called ESTELCOM. This company will own and operate Estonia's telephone network. The Estonian government will transfer its ownership of the nation's telephone network to Estelcom, while Televerket will add know-how and hard currency for the investments during the first years. STI will act as the Swedish part-owner of Estelcom. Estonia already today has a relatively widespread telephone network compared with other Soviet and East European areas. The nation has 1.6 million inhabitants and approximately 300 000 telephone subscribers. This corresponds to 20 per cent of the population, compared to the whole of the Soviet Union (14 per cent), Poland (8 per cent), and Hungaria (9 per cent). The modernization of the national telephone network among other things means that a digital network will be built in parallel with the existing analog network. Telephone traffic will then be moved part by part from the old analog network to the new digital one. Apart from a modernization of the domestic network, Estonia also needs more network capacity for international calls. This will be solved by the planned under-sea fiber optical cable to Gotland. The idea is that Estelcom will buy equipment from Televerket's traditional sources on an open market. This will benefit Ericsson and Teli, among other companies. Televerket's engineers will assist as experts in the modernization of Estonia's telephone network. The agreement between STI and the Estonian telecommunication administration is the first of its kind in Europe. But it is not unique in the world. Argentina, Chile, and New Zealand have already sold their governmental telecommunication administrations to foreign corporations. In Europe, private corporations have started new telecommunication operations like cellular (mobile) telephone networks. Televerket is presently discussing also with Latvia and hope to reach a similar agreement there, says Viesturs Vucins of STI to ELTEKNIK. End of translated article. Lars Aronsson, Lysator computer club, Linkoping University, Sweden Aronsson@Lysator.LiU.SE Voice phone at home +46-13-17 2143 ------------------------------ Subject: New Zealand Toll Price War From: Pat Cain Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 01:38:44 Y Organization: The Sideways Machine, Lower Hutt, New Zealand This weekend the two major New Zealand phone companies (which are primarily American owned) are having a price war. Telecom (Ameritech and Bell Atlantic), the ex-state owned company, 'own' the domestic and business market. Telecom also owns the cellular network. Clear Communications (MCI and Bell Canada), the new player on the scene, provide an alternative tolls service (by dialling 050). They offer slightly cheaper rates than Telecom, have discounts for prompt payment, and round calls to the nearest six seconds (Telecom round to 60 seconds). Recently Clear announced a move to attract new subscribers. A 'special weekend' with a maximum rate of 19c per minute for toll calls anywhere in the country. Normal rates are between two cents and $1.40 per minute. A couple of days after the Clear announcement, Telecom announced their maximum rate would be only 15c per minute. And Clear countered this by reducing their rate to 15c per minute also. Telecom are spending vast amounts on advertising, we see new TV adverts from them almost each night. It must be pretty hard for a new player like Clear to compete with them. Still, It's nice to see some competition like this that actually benefits the consumer. The Telecom chief, Peter Troughton, said that most toll rates were artificially high and that toll calls between most main centres could easily be halved. Though it remains to be seen whether this will happen. Pat Cain PO Box 2060, Wellington, NZ. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 16:34:56 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Centrex Multiline Station Sets Organization: Cal State Long Beach I would appreciate recommendations (brands, models, vendors, distributors) for Centrex compatible Multiline Station Sets - i.e. sets that allow you to see the status of lines (<5) on a Centrex system and access lines and features with one-touch controls. Speakerphone would also be nice. In general, would like it 'look and feel' similar to a key system from the users' point-of-view. Please no flames about the superiority of key systems in general or how bad centrex is. Email would probably be best as I doubt this has general interest. Thanks. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 19:19:32 CST From: "Steven M. Palm" Subject: Cellular Phone Rates I saw a reader's letter in a recent issue of {Popular Communications}, and it so piqued my interest that I just had to post it here to get some feedback on it. -------------- text of letter -------------- I found it fascinating to learn about the cost of cellular phone calls in your informative April issue. I'm in the U.S. Navy and after a recent trip to several nations in Asia, I have some information on the cost of using a cellular overseas. In Hong Kong, the monthly charge for having a cellular equals a few cents over US$6. Only international calls are billed. Why are cellulars in the U.S. so expensive? I could see why hardwire phones are expensive because of the costs of constantly maintaining and repairing the lines. But cellulars use radio frequencies, so there aren't any lines to maintain. Should be much cheaper. Why do people put up with such a ripoff? Troy L. Faulkner, KB9AZZ/NNN0FIC FP, San Fransisco, CA ---------------- smp@myamiga.mixcom.com Steven M. Palm ------------------------------ From: ksakotai@cs.ulowell.edu (Krishnan Sakotai ) Subject: Digital PABXs Vs BISDN Switches (Basic Question) Organization: University of Lowell Computer Science, Lowell MA Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 00:41:29 GMT I am trying to keep pace with the fascinating developments in the ISDN technology and have a few basic questions: 1. What are the exact differences between a Digital PABX and a "so called" BISDN switch? 2. If a company wants to have ISDN capability within its geographical boundaries can the Digital PABX be used as the central switch (with necessary s/w modifications) or should it install a special ISDN switch? We are talking of Video/voice/Data transfer. 3. With the advances in ATM technology and the like can we see the conventional PABX market dying a quick death? This is of course based on ** my understanding** that the ISDN switch technology is a superset of the Digital PABX. Is there anything wrong with my assumption? Thanks, Krishnan ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #903 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09091; 9 Nov 91 21:08 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05397 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 19:34:57 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03178 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 19:34:47 -0600 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 19:34:47 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111100134.AA03178@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #904 TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Nov 91 19:34:32 CST Volume 11 : Issue 904 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson VarTec Offers Long Distance Calls For One Cent! (James E. Hartman) Did I (Hopefully) Cause Trouble For a Telemarketer? (Felix Finch) Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman (John Higdon) Who is U. S. Long Distance? (John R. Levine) New Zealand Man Convicted in Coca Cola Phone Threat Case (Pat Cain) Information Needed on Bypass (Neil Kruse) Crank Call Traced to County Office (Jack Winslade) Books Wanted on Cellular Phones (Gary Deol) Re: Touch Tone on Old Switches (James Parkyn) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: VarTec Offers Long Distance Calls For One Cent! From: unkaphaed!phaedrus@cs.utexas.edu (James E. Hartman) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 19:23:06 GMT Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy On Friday, 8 November, I received a letter from VarTec Telecom, partially quoted below: RECEIVE 1 CENT LONG DISTANCE CALLS WITHOUT CANCELLING YOUR EXISTING LONG DISTANCE SERVICE! Dear Southwestern Bell Customer: We have some great news for you. Effective immediately, anyone within your Southwestern Bell service area is eligible to receive 1 cent long distance calls with the new FREQUENT CALLER program from VarTec Telecom(sm)! Simply use the new VarTec Telecom Toll-Saver(sm) number when you make long distance calls, and you will automatically be enrolled in the 1 cent FREQUENT CALLER program, the first of its kind anywhere. By using our Toll-Saver number, you'll save 15% to 21% on nearby Texas calls and up to 36% for other Texas calls. Interstate Toll-Saver rates are [bold on] GUARANTEED to be lower at all times than the lowest comparable 1+ rate [bold off] for either US Sprint, MCI, or AT&T. Plus, when you use our Toll-Saver number, you'll begin receiving long distance calls for just 1 cent!* [Paragraph stating there is no sign-up requirement and no minimum usage or service charge deleted.] HERE'S HOW IT WORKS: Simply use the VarTec Telecom Toll-Saver number when you make long distance calls by dialing [bold on] 10811 plus 1 and the area code (if required) and the number of the person you are calling. [bold off] For every ten U.S. long distance calls you make, you will receive another long distance call for only 1 cent! Your 1 cent calls can be up to 10 minutes in duration and can be made to anywhere within the continental U.S. (excluding Alaska). [Paragraphs stating calls over 34 miles are automatically discounted, calls will be billed on the SWB bill, and generic sales pitch deleted.] Yours sincerely, A. Joe Mitchell, Jr. President P.S. Be sure to put the enclosed Toll-Saver stickers on your telephone book cover and telephone(s) for handy reference! Please call us toll-free at 1 (800) 583-XXXX if you need additional Toll-Saver stickers or have any questions regarding this service or other VarTec Telecom long distance services. * The FREQUENT CALLER program is subject to certain rules and restrictions. Please call VarTec Telecom for details. Savings comparisons are based upon AT&T, MCI, and US Sprint intrastate/ interlata as well as Southwestern Bell intralata basic 1+ direct distance dialing tariffs in effect as of 7/1/91. International calls are billed at basic AT&T international direct distance dialing rates. (sm) VarTec Telecom and Toll-Saver are service marks of VarTec National, Inc. ----------------- A number of stickers were enclosed with the 10811 number printed on them. I tried calling 10811 1 700 555 1212, and I got a very bored male voice stating: Message 13, Dallas, Welcome to the VarTec Long Distance Network. Thank you for allowing us to be of service. Since my roommates and I make a considerable amount of in-state calls, and the propaganda suggests that I will have my calls "discounted, including all those expensive nearby Texas calls!", I figure I'll try a test -- calling a friend both on 1+ (routed through SWB) and through these guys and see. More info to come ... phaedrus@unkaphaed.UUCP (James E. Hartman) Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728 ------------------------------ From: crowfix.crowfix!felix@uunet.uu.net (Felix Finch) Subject: Did I (Hopefully) Cause Trouble For a Telemarketer? Organization: Scarecrow Repair, Dutch Flat. Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 03:50:12 GMT Last week I answered the phone to hear a recorded pitch for home equity loans. I swallowed my bile, kept my temper, and waited to give my name and phone number. Two days later, someone called back. I said it was a bad time to call, could I call him back later. After several rounds of No, I won't be in tomorrow night, or Saturday, It's hard to catch me at work, etc, he finally gave me one name (first or last? I don't know) and a phone number. No company name. I called Pac*Bell, and the rep was too new to really know what to do (I think). Rather than ask for a supervisor, I called the PUC. Amazement of all amazements, I got a live operator on the second ring, who transferred me directly to a very helpful live person. I told her about the call: no human at first, just the recording ("That's illegal!" she said gleefully), and when I hung up and waited ten seconds before lifting the receiver, the recording was still rattling away ("That's illegal too!" She sounded positively happy!). The telemarkedroid called back a day or two later, so I said I had turned him in to the PUC (wished I could have turned him into a frog :-). "Oh you did?" "Yes, you started with a recording, not a human ..." and he hung up before I could finish. Well, did I do good, huh? Did I, Huh? Aside from amazement at how simple everything was (two minutes total), what exactly happens in cases like this? Have I actually done him any harm, or will he just slip out of town, or what? Felix Finch, scarecrow repairer / uunet!crowfix!felix [Moderator's Note: *If* the PUC bothers to contact him (doubtful, since they act on a large number of complaints; not the complaint of any one individual), they will tell him of your complaint that the call began with a recorded message. He'll say there must have been some error in his call processing and that he is sorry for any inconvenience caused. They'll tell him not to do it again, and that, as they say, will be that. Then he'll continue on as always. If there are sufficient (several hundred ?) complaints, they may take further action against him. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 14:55 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman Here is a transcript of Pacific Telesis' radio message to the people. As an exercise, see if you can find anything misleading about it: (Hints follow quote) Sound Effects: Crowded courtroom and gavel striking. "Order, order" Announcer: On October 7th, 1991, The United States Court of Appeals issued an historic opinion. It granted Americans the right to receive a sweeping array of information services through the universal public telephone network. Sound Effects: "We Object -- We Object" Announcer: And yet some congressmen have joined America's largest newspapers and cable conglomerates in pushing special interest legislation that would take these rights away from the American public. Why is a pro-consumer congressman like Tom Lantos protecting the newspaper industry from full and fair competition, and at the expense of all consumers, including senior citizens, and students? If you agree that your rights to information should be protected, tell Tom Lantos. Tell him America's future is too important to leave on hold. This advertisement is brought to you by the people of Pacific Telesis and is not paid for by telephone customers. [End of Spot] For those of you who just tuned in, notice the first paragraph. The court did not grant any right to the American people. "The People" have always had this right. What it granted was the legality of RBOC conglomerates to barge their way into this already booming industry. I am unaware that keeping the medium out of the message business is taking "rights away from the American public". Pro-consumer Tom Lantos is not protecting anyone other than the consumer by opposing Pacific Telesis' entry into the information game. And of course, if you have no case, just bring up old people and students (whatever they may have to do with the issue). I don't think that keeping the RBOCs from monopolizing the information industry is exactly putting "America's future on hold". As for that final affront, again, let me see the audited figures. An awful lot of money mingles in that pocket. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Who is U. S. Long Distance? Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 18:31:20 EST From: John R. Levine A legal notice in the {Boston Globe} yesterday reports that an outfit from Texas called U.S. Long Distance is filing to do business as an interexchange carrier "including operator services." Are they a real long distance company or just an AOS? Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us or {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Subject: New Zealand Man Convicted in Coca Cola Phone Threat Case From: Pat Cain Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 01:38:44 Y Organization: The Sideways Machine, Lower Hutt, New Zealand Recently a man in Auckland was convicted for threatening Coca Cola NZ Limited. He threatened to poison Coke unless he was paid a large amount of gold. He managed to put a rust removal substance in bottles of coke 'further up in the supply chain'. Details of exactly how he did this were supressed by the court in order to stop others doing the same. Anyway, the first threat he made was from his own telephone. Although his phone was not being traced at the time, police were quickly able to find him by searching the call logs at the exchange. They monitored the man for several weeks and arrested him when he attempted to pick up the gold from the edge of a road. The 'Coca Cola crisis team' who flew out from the States to deal with the threat praised Telecom and the police for dealing with the matter so well. Apparently the police are solving more crimes and catching more nuisance callers by searching the call logs. I guess this will just force criminals to use payphones! Pat Cain PO Box 2060, Wellington, NZ. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 91 12:45:00 -0800 From: KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com Subject: Information Needed on Bypass I am a graduate student majoring in Telecommunications Management. I am writing a paper on Bypass and in need information that you just can't find in books. I know about the various bypass technologies, what I need to know is why did you choose to implement bypass? Was the major reason cost? How was the LEC unable to accomodate your needs? Why did you choose a specific hardware vendor? Why did you choose a specific long distance carrier, or did you choose to bypass all common carriers? What I am really looking for is a "case study" on what factors played a role in your decision to bypass the LEC. I'll welcome any replies on the subject. (I have a SMTP interface to the network so I am unable to access any archives) Thanks in advance. Neil Kruse KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com Tandem Computers 10501 N Tantau Ave. (loc 201-02) Cupertino CA 95014 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 22:35:54 cst From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: Crank Call Traced to County Office Reply-To: jsw@drbbs.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha And now another Telecom Tidbit from Omaha, nestled on the bank of the great gray-green greasy Missouri River, all sought about with fever trees, home of Ma Bell's first panel office, and currently the junk phone call capital of the world ... :-( (Quoted and paraphrased [they talk faster than I can type] from television station WOWT.) 'If an obscene call was made from a private phone in the Douglas County Court House, who made it? It appears that question will never be answered, at least not enough to file any charges. A victim of an obscene phone call recorded the number on his call identifier. It was a private line in the office of an appointed public servant at the Court House, but after a police officer called that number and identified himself, the alleged obscene calls stopped. An official trace could not be made.' (A previous report stated that the officer responded to the initial complaint and did not recognize the number as one originating from the city-county office complex, a Centrex-CO installation.) 'Omaha Police say that the initial officer could have handled the case better. Still, detectives opened an investigation into the alleged call, but after two days they could not find sufficient evidence to prosecute anyone for harassing calls. Police interviewed the public official who denied any involvement.' JSW note (and opinion): It would have been much easier to key this in from a newspaper article, and I have been searching for one, but after three days now, our single remaining local paper hasn't taken the effort to run one. I find this strange, because when SOME officials misbehave, they are quick to jump. I guess they are too busy trying to decide whether to censor 'Doonesbury', as they did once with 'Cathy'. Good day! JSW ------------------------------ Subject: Books About Cellular Phones Wanted From: garyd@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Gary Deol) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 12:21:19 MST Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems, Edmonton, AB, Canada I was looking for some books on cellular phones (technical manuals etc). I was wondering if anyone could recommend some books, and places where I can purchase them (mail order). GaryD (My first Usenet msg (snif..snif) :^) Gary Deol garyd@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca Edmonton Remote Systems: Serving Northern Alberta since 1982 [Moderator' Note: Your first message? Welcome to the zoo. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: jparkyn@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (James Parkyn) Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 21:18:28 GMT I had a friend who was served by a rotary dial crossbar office in Santa Ana California that he knew would soon be updated to include T-T service that would be hardwired into every phone in the CO. He acquired a non-Bell System T-T phone and checked the line until his tones could break dial tone and then never used his rotary dial phone again. Not long after he received a call from a PacTel representative DEMANDING (emphasis meant to highlight PacTel's heavyhanded approach) that he pay for the service or she would disconnect him from the T-T service. He simply laughed at her and said "Go ahead and try!" and then hung up on her to really get her upset. They never did bill him. [Moderator's Note: Isn't this a little like saying that since every home is equipped with water faucets, you are entitled to use the water supply without paying ... and if they don't want you to use the water they can simply come out and dig up the pipes where they connect to your home or otherwise lock off the supply? They detected use of the touch tone service (like a water meter detects use of the water supply) and they asked your friend to pay for the service he was using. It is instances like this which make me wish I was a telco service rep. I would have called your friend back; apologized for us 'accidentally getting cut off'; reminded him that he had no property rights in his telephone number and that his number could be changed at anytime the Company found it expedient to do so in the conduct of its business; and that he was being moved to an exchange where the Company found it expedient to place his service: one on which his use of touch tone *could* be controlled; ie, an ESS. Almost as an afterthought I would ask if he had reconsidered his earlier position and was willing to either (a) use it and pay for it, or (b) refrain from using it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #904 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11968; 9 Nov 91 22:18 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03847 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 20:39:32 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08161 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 20:39:20 -0600 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 20:39:20 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111100239.AA08161@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #905 TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Nov 91 20:39:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 905 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Ethan Miller) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Linc Madison) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Charlie Mingo) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Eric Gasior) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (John R. Levine) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Gary Segal) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (709 is a Bad Idea) (Dave Leibold) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Bill Martens) Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (Bill Huttig) Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (ANSWER) (Carl Moore) Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (Tony Olekshy) Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced (Joe Isham) NYC Area Code Split (Was Area Code on Jeopardy) (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? (Joe Isham) Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? (Dave Leibold) Area Code Postings Should Stop Now! (Rolf Meier) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: elm@cs.berkeley.edu (ethan miller) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Date: 6 Nov 91 22:05:15 In article DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA writes: > Then again, with all > these area code splits, the area codes are getting very small land > areas. Metro Toronto, which will have 416 all to itself in 1994, > might win the geographically smallest area code award. Not likely. 202 (Washington DC) covers 63 square miles, and 212 (Bronx & Manhattan) covers 64 square miles. I'd guess those are the two smallest area codes in land area. If 212 splits and covers only Manhattan, it will cover just 22 square miles. Until then, I'd say 202 is the geographically smallest area code. ethan miller elm@cs.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 04:08:43 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article Stewart M. Clamen (clamen@cs.cum.edu) writes: > In article KATH MULLHOLAND writes: >> This area code is bordered by only one other, whether N/S/E/W > I believe 418 (Quebec City and environs) is totally surrounded by 819. Nope, 418 borders 819, 207, 506, and possibly 709 (Sherbrooke PQ, Maine, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland (Labrador), respectively). Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: Charlie.Mingo@p0.f716.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) Date: 07 Nov 91 07:54:29 Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy NETWRK@HARVARDA.HARVARD.EDU (Steve Thornton) writes: > Then there are 808, Hawaii, and 902, Nova Scotia/P.E.I., > which border nothing. I don't know about Hawaii, but Nova Scotia shares a sixty-mile border with New Brunswick (506). Perhaps you had New Brunswick in mind when you were typing "nothing"? ------------------------------ From: gasior@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Eric Gasior) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 14:35:22 GMT In article deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes: > New York Metro Area Codes: > 212: Manhattan and Bronx > 718: Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island > 516: Long Island (e.g. Nassau, Suffolk Co.) > 914: Upstate (e.g. Westchester Co.) > 917: New area code for NYC. My first information was that 212 would And don't forget: 201: Northern New Jersey 908: Most of Central Jersey (Part of it even borders on NYC (Staten Island) ???: Southwestern Connecticut (is it Fairfield Co.?) (Does Allentown, Pa. count as part of the NY Metropolitan area yet?) Eric Gasior ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 7 Nov 91 12:29:47 EST (Thu) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) In article is written: > Then there are 808, Hawaii, and 902, Nova Scotia/P.E.I., > which border nothing. Don't forget 709 Newfoundland ... Hmmn, I am dismayed to find that Canadians don't know their geography any better than Americans do. Residents of Nova Scotia will be surprised to learn that they live on an island, particularly considering how many of them drive across the border into 506, a/k/a New Brunswick, every day. Newfoundland is indeed an island, but Labrador isn't, and has a long border with Quebec, probably touching both 418 and 819, the World's Largest Area Code. The exact location of that border is the subject of a long running desultory argument between the Newfoundland and Quebec governments, but they both agree that there's definitely a border there somewhere. I cheerfully agree that Hawaii is surrounded by water. How about some suggestions for the geographically smallest area code? Will the 212/917 and 213/310 splits change your answer? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: motcid!segal@uunet.uu.net (Gary Segal) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Date: 7 Nov 91 19:18:08 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division Answer: This area code is home to the first ringer of freedom. Gary Segal Motorola Inc. segal@oscar.rtsg.mot.com Cellular Infrastructure Division ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 21:42:23 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (actually, 709 is a bad idea) Well, it looks like I had a few too many cold ones ... winter days that is ... 709 is not an island unto itself as it would include the Labrador area which in turn borders on Quebec (stuff like 418 and 819) ... so forget that after all. However, 800 and 900 don't seem to be surrounded by too many North American area codes :-) dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ From: billm@fujisan.info.com (Bill Martens) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Date: 9 Nov 91 02:10:49 GMT Reply-To: billm@fujisan.info.com (Bill Martens) Organization: Info Connections @ Mt. Fuji Well, having read ten of these messages so far, I am quite disturbed. I and others pay good money for these news groups to be transfered to us and yet when we start to read, expecting questions and answers to be technically oriented and informative, we find a bunch of moronic idiots playing games! (Nice job of moderation PAT!@!!@!!) Kill the riddle and let's get on to something a bit more useful to the rest of us who pay to have this stuff transfered around the world. [Moronic Idiot's Note: I'm sure the other moronic idiots here enjoyed reading your message as much as I enjoyed presenting it. Seriously, since the cost of moving the news around is a financial burden for you, let me know where to send payment so you can be compensated. I assume you have change for a dime? PAT] ------------------------------ From: wah@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) Subject: Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code Date: 7 Nov 91 14:13:44 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA writes: > Of course, if you think about it, the clear winners in the largest > area code sweepstakes have to be 800 and 900! :-) If I remember correctly from one of the files in the Digest archives it says that 700, 800 and 900 are not area codes but SAC's Specail Access Codes or somthing like that. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 9:31:00 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (ANSWER) NO, Alaska is 907, not 908! 908 was implemented only this year, by splitting 201 in New Jersey. ------------------------------ From: tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) Subject: Re: Largest North-South Area Code Date: 8 Nov 91 05:11:10 GMT Organization: Olekshy Hoover & Associates Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The problem is that 819 ends part-way up Quebec, then restarts at the North West Territories. Since the intermediate space can hardly be counted as part of the run ;-), 403 still wins. Furthermore, 403 is clearly the largest area code in terms of land surface area (even though that wasn't original question). Finally first at something, writing happily from 403-land, now part of the world's largest country, by some accounts. Yours etc, Tony Olekshy. Internet: tony%oha@CS.UAlberta.CA BITNET: tony%oha.uucp@UALTAMTS.BITNET uucp: alberta!oha!tony or tony@oha.uucp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 19:31 CST From: joeisham@chinet.chi.il.us (Joe Isham) Subject: Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX In article is written: > In article I wrote: >> 512 will remain in use in an area stretching from Lampasas >> through Austin, San Marcos, Victoria and Corpus Christi to south of >> Kingsville. Cities to be switched to 210 include San Antonio, New >> Braunfels, Seguin, Eagle Pass, Laredo, Zapata, McAllen, Harlingen and >> Brownsville. > Anyhoo, that's a pretty convoluted boundary, leaving 512 as a narrow > stripe about 75 miles wide and about 300 miles long, kind of like 908 > only bigger. From my limited knowledge of the subject, though, it > does sound like they kept to LATA lines pretty closely -- is that the > case? It looks like the Corpus Christi LATA was split, with most of the area switching to 210; there's a small area along the Rio Grande north of Zapata that's in the Corpus Christi LATA which appears to stay in 512. Here's a crude approximation, as best I can gather from the news release. Map is *not* to scale: ---- | * \ <-- Lampasas | \ | \_____ _________----------+ \ | \ * Austin \ | \* San Marcos \__ | New Bruanfels *\ \ | \_____ \ | San Antonio * * Seguin\ [ 512 ] \ | \ \ |_ / | \ * Del Rio / Victoria / \ / * / \ [ 210 ] / / \ | / \ | * / Corpus Christi \ / / \ | / \ | * / Kingsville \ | / \ * Seguin \____/ \ | \ | \____________*| Brownsville > I'm just a bit surprised that they split it in the direction they did > -- I would've expected San Antonio to keep 512 and Austin and/or > Corpus to get the new area code. My mother's home town of Goliad > won't have to change after all! I suppose they split the NPA the way they did to keep the number of exchanges in each new area more or less the same. Austin is growing a lot faster than San Antonio, though, so it'd make sense for the new 210 to start off with fewer exchanges. Joe Isham - joeisham@montagar.lonestar.org, joeisham@chinet.chi.il.us ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 7:26:47 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: NYC Area Code Split (Was Area Code on Jeopardy) In article kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey) writes: > 917: New area code for NYC. My first information was that 212 would > be split, with the Bronx going into 917, and with new exchange codes > added in Manhattan for other than standard lines (e.g. for pager > company, cellular, and possibly DID trunks?) going into 917. I've > since heard that 917 will be an overlay on 212, not a split. I don't > know which is correct. Hello Bellcore? From what I understand, AC 212 will be Manhattan only, Bronx going to 718 and 917 will be for cellular and pager service. This was noted in the newspapers a few months ago, and the Telco could change this. It appears that 917 will overlay the whole city but I don't want to be held to that. I don't have my phone book handy but I seem to remember seeing something about the split mentioned (if my little grey cells are working correctly, I'm still not fully awake). Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 19:37 CST From: joeisham@chinet.chi.il.us (Joe Isham) Subject: Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX In article martin@cod.nosc.mil wrote: > Also, I hope someone will explain 710 (Government Special > Services), else explain why no information is forthcoming regarding > 710. Is it classified information or something? I've tried dialing > many numbers in 710, and I always get the intercept: "Your call cannot > be completed as dialed." and the Moderator noted: > I've been asking for a couple years for someone to explain 710. No > information has ever been given out. Hmmm ... If the government were to go public with this information, it might provide a valuable public service: unified phone numbers for all government agencies around the country. Social Security might be assigned the phone number 710-SSA-1000 (772-1000), and a customer dialing that number would be connected to the nearest Social Security office. Well, it makes sense so the government probably won't do it. :) Joe Isham - joeisham@montagar.lonestar.org, joeisham@chinet.chi.il.us ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 15:23:38 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? From my previous readings on the "Notes on the Network" publications, it seems that Bellcore (and its predecessor(s)) considers the N00 codes to be Special Area Codes, or SAC's, which they do not want to give out for normal telephone service. SAC's are intended for such things as 800 (toll-free), 900 (tolled/premium) and 700 (special long distance carrier uses). 200 as you mention is used for testing in many places, but this is up to individual telephone companies to set up and does not seem to be an officially-assigned code as such. > Also, I hope someone will explain 710 (Government Special > Services). All I can think of are the Autovon or FTS services, but Autovon actually used its own set of area codes like 312, 313 (or 712, 713 for data). Others in the N10 series (810, 910) were used as TWX teletypewriter codes, and it could be that Canadian TWX operations are holdouts on the 610 code (which could really be better transferred to the regular telephone system or made obsolete by faster data services). But there are a number of area code issues that have been bugging the Digest and are FAQs for which I have no easy FGAs (Frequently Given Answers). Perhaps someone should get the address of Bellcore's NPA Assignment person (I don't have the information handy, and the nearest copy of "Notes on the Network" I can find is several hundred km away from me). Perhaps the NPA Assignment person should be formally asked (by the Moderator, or someone on the Digest with formal telecom ties, etc) about what 710 is, and perhaps deal with some other questions such as how the original set of area codes was assigned (ie. the rhyme and reasons). As a start, could someone with access to the "Notes" please find an address for the appropriate contact? Then, things can be taken from there. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) Subject: Area Code Postings Should Stop Now! Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 10:08:07 -0500 Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. These endless area code postings should be reduced. This information is available in any phonebook or even in some desktop diaries. The moderator reduces signatures to a single line in order to save bandwidth, and yet posts arguments about which area code belongs in which city. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation [Moronic Idiot's Rambling: We are getting carried away with this! One last riddle, then we will stop. Which area code is the most underused of all? Only a small percentage of available prefixes in it are used, yet the others aren't likely to be assigned elsewhere. Geographically, it is pretty tiny also. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #905 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13246; 9 Nov 91 23:09 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09261 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 21:32:43 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09754 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 21:32:31 -0600 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 21:32:31 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111100332.AA09754@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #906 TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Nov 91 21:32:24 CST Volume 11 : Issue 906 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements (John Higdon) Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements (Patton M. Turner) Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea (Robert J. Stratton III) More on LEC Competition (David W. Barts) Re: British Telecom Figures (Steve Thornton) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements Date: 7 Nov 91 01:05:14 PST (Thu) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) kirkd@ism.isc.com (kirk davis) writes: > Considering the fact that Pacbell didn't run conduit in the first > place, I feel it's unreasonable for me to have to pay to have it done > correctly now. Any one ran across this before? Any suggestions on how > to pursue getting them to do it? Pac*Bell's only responsibility was to drop direct-bury cable into a trench that was open during the initial construction. Pac*Bell does not trench on private property for drop purposes, period. Pac*Bell DID do it correctly in the first place. Sorry, but this IS the drill. Just recently, an associate had to provide a trench to the edge of his property so that a 25 pair cable could be dropped by Pac*Bell. BTW, drop cable is almost never put in conduit. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 11:14:27 CST From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements kirkd@ism.isc.com (kirk davis) writes about Pacbell wiring a house for six pair, but only installing a two pair buried drop. Now he wants a third line. > Considering the fact that Pacbell didn't run conduit in the first > place, I feel it's unreasonable for me to have to pay to have it done > correctly now. Any one ran across this before? Any suggestions on how > to pursue getting them to do it? Most likely they didn't run conduit because there was never a trench; instead they installed the cable with a vibratory lawn plow. This uses a vibrating ripper to burry the cable with minimal surface degradation, and at a lower cost than trenching. Even fiber is now often installed in rural areas with vibe plows pulled by D6's and the like. Around here (South Central Bell), you pay for most any drop. It might not be as expensive as you think, though. Vibe plows are relatively fast, clean, and your roots will not be a problem. Last year I got 600 feet of C wire plowed in for about $150 including the network interface and a phone jack (free), and this was about 15 miles from the CO. What ever you do be sure to have enough pairs run for future use. Pat Turner pturner@eng.auburn.edu KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA ------------------------------ From: "Robert J. Stratton III" Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea Organization: Express Access, Greenbelt, Maryland USA Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 13:37:17 GMT In article davidb@zeus.ce.washington. edu (David W. Barts) writes: > Like it or not, local telephone service is, has always been, and > probably always will be a natural monopoly. This is a result of the > high cost of stringing (or burying) cable through an area, and also of > the fact that one properly-maintained cable system can serve an area > as well (actually better than, since there are less connectivity > problems) as two or three, but without the added labor and > inconvenience of the extra systems. I question your use of the term "natural monopoly". By definition, any monopoly created through government fiat is NOT a natural monopoly. I strongly suggest that you take a look at larger cities where LEC bypass is beginning to thrive (Metropolitan Fiber in NYC might be a good example), and tell the LEC bypass customers that they would be served better by waiting significantly longer for orders, and having service delivered by copper rather than fiber. Your conjectures about cabling costs apply pretty well to CATV as well as telephone service, and I would direct you to look at the (regrettably) few municipalities which have allowed competition between CATV systems. The consistent result has been better service and cheaper rates for subscribers. When one or another of the competitors has died in these circumstances, it was because they didn't serve the consumers' needs. The resulting situation is a natural monopoly. The important factor to consider is that the field is always open to a young upstart coming in to do battle again, usually to customers' benefit. [long explanation of the "impracticality" of RF-delivered telephone service deleted -- I'm inclined to agree in part ...] > Then, of course, there's the problem of ensuring that the networks > be well-interconnected. Do _you_ want to pay long-distance changes to > call your neighbor across the street, just because they use TCI Cable > phone service and you use US West? Do small businessmen, already > operating at a meager profit margin, want to be forced to pay for > _two_ phone lines, not for any additional service, but just to > maintain the customer contact they already have? Do you want your > call to 911 be answered by a fast busy because your telco pulled the > plug on the telco serving 911 because of a billing dispute? Or will > the 911 call be answered with "Do-da-deeeee, The number you have > dialed, 9 1 1, is incorrect. The correct number is 9 9 9. Please > hang up and try your call again." With all due respect, this is a complete canard. The idea of competition is that customers have a CHOICE. They should be able to select the company that best fills their need from a variety of providers, and those companies which disregard the customers' needs will die off. I know we've suffered under government-mandated monopolies for a long time, but I had no idea people had been so conditioned to forget what competition is. Any provider expecting to gain any subscribers would have to have gateways to the other companies. The company with the best rates/connectivity would undoubtedly gain the lion's share of the market. As regards your emotional conjecture involving denials of 911 service -- Nice try. It didn't work when the government tried it with Craig Neidorf's trial, and I suspect it won't work here either. > If the answer to any of the above questions is "no", then clearly some > form of regulation is required to ensure some standards of > connectivity (and sanity at the user interface level). Those standards do not have to be promulgated by governmental bodies. Technical fora have proven time and time again to be superior in this regard. > Now,as numerous posters have detailed over and over in this forum, state > PUC's have enough trouble keeping one big telco and many small ones > in line. [M-x sarcasm-mode-on] WHY do you think this is?? Could it perhaps be that customers can't use their dollars to vote for the people who best serve their needs?? [M-x sarcasm-mode-off] > With several big telcos, and oodles of tiny ones, there will be > even more firms to police, so even more regulators will be hired. The > end result: more bureaucracy, higher taxes, and telephone service > won't improve much (and it may even get worse). The major obstacle to be overcome is not in the companies, but in the lazy consumers who are unwilling to take any responsibility for choosing products and services appropriate to them, as opposed to begging for Uncle Sam to make their decisions for them. I, for one am willing to take that responsibility, and view those who won't with contempt. > Local dialtone competition just doesn't make sense to me. You're welcome to keep whichever provider you want, but don't force your choice on those of us who'd like to receive services that fill our needs. [Author's note: I'll be surprised if PAT publishes this, knowing his love of Mother, and his contempt of Judge Greene. C'mon PAT, prove me wrong!] Bob Stratton | SMTP: strat@ai.mit.edu, strat@access.digex.com Express Access | PSTN: +1 301 409 2703 Greenbelt, Maryland | For info on Express Access, write "info@digex.com". [Moderator's Note: You obviously do not read the Digest very well or you would realize I rarely reject articles simply because I do not agree with them. I think you have me confused with my competitor, {The Washington Post}. Display any *real* disagreement with Kay Graham and see how often she lets you say anything in her publication, or its companion rag, {News Weak} magazine. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 23:57:35 -0800 From: David W. Barts Subject: More on LEC Competition My! I certainly stirred up a hornet's nest, didn't I? So far, I have read about a dozen replies to my initial posting on this subject, plus another one or two that touch on it tangentially. There are doubtless others sitting in PAT's mailbox being considered for posting as I write this; my decision to reply at this time is is a compromise between my desire to respond to as many postings as possible at a single time, and the desire to respond in a timely fashion. First off, a number of respondents posted that a fiber optic cable plant, owned by a third party (the LEC and the customer being the first two parties), could be used to implement LEC competition. This is an interesting possibility I hadn't thought of (though I should have as US West is busy stringing fiber in my neighborhood). But the possibility of LEC competition and its desirability are two different things, as we shall see later. There is evidentially some confusion over the term "natural monopoly" in some responses to my posting. This is understandable, as the term is used to signify two different things. One is where a single supplier controls virtually all of a resource or good in a given market for that good (e.g. De Beers and gem-quality diamonds). The other is where one supplier can supply a good or service better or at less cost than multiple suppliers. It is this second sense of the term that I am referring to. Notice that this definition does not preclude competition in a natural monopoly; it simply states that a competitive market will supply a more costly or less superior good than a single supplier will (and this will be the case no matter which supplier you pick in the competitive market). On the subject of competitive markets, at least one contributor (Hi, John!) has stated that the marketplace is "the most effective regulator of them all." Markets do indeed propel society towards a goal, but this goal is the profit maximization of individual firms, which, alas, does not always mean what is best for society as a whole. To take an example from this Digest, when pay phone customers began to recognize most COCOTS for the rip-offs that they are, the market responded. But it did not respond by directing resources into ensuring properly-operating pay phones charging fair prices. It responded instead by channeling resources into developing the closest possible legal mimicry of a legitimate pay phone. Why? Because the latter realizes higher short-term profits for the COCOT owners than the former. Another interesting fact about markets and competition is that they are not free. They incur costs. Yes, they also incur benefits. I agree that in many cases, the benefits exceed the costs, but in this respect the telephone network presents a special case. This is because size, _in and of itself_, is a desirable attribute in a telephone network. The more people I can talk to with my phone, the more useful it is to me. There are not many industries in which this can be said -- usually size affects efficiency of production in some indirect manner (usually related to management structures or local availability of a raw material). The fact that I am wearing shoes made in a big factory does not in and of itself make them better than ones made in a small or medium-sized one. Sure, steps can be taken to ensure connectivity between systems. But now what we're doing is: 1) spending much effort breaking the whole into pieces, then 2) spending more effort and resources to make the system that resulted from (1) look essentially the same as before (1) was applied. And this is supposed to be better and more efficient. I now propose a humble solution to the traffic problem in our cities: Build walls across the streets. Then, establish a Bureau of Gates and Overpasses to ensure people can get across these walls. The street system is now much improved. Is it just me or does this logic sound a little silly? Several posters have mentioned the undesirability of subsidies for various components of the telephone network. But such revenue transfers are a fact of life no matter what we do. Right now, if I decide to purchase a Sony TV, Sony can use the profit it earned from this sale to support research and development of a new line of computers. Revenue has been transferred from the TV sector to the computer research sector. Or perhaps Sony deposits the money in a bank that lends the money to a factory in Hong Kong that makes dolls. Now the revenue hasn't even stayed within the same company. The real issue is not: "do we have revenue transfers or don't we," but "will all revenue transfers be directed by market forces (maximization of private profits) or won't they?" And as we have seen earlier, market forces do not always act in the best social interest. But I digress. Returning to the subject at hand, the issue has been raised that sure, the idea of "cream-skimming" is a bad scenario, but, the fact that it is occurring at the present time shows that regulated monopoly does not prevent it, and therefore the argument that competition would cause cream-skimming is invalid. Sure, there's cream-skimming going on right now, and it disgusts me. But LEC competition would just create more cream skimming. The solution to some of a bad thing is to have _more_ of it? Somehow this doesn't make sense to me. Cream-skimming, of course, is but one of the plethora of assorted little nasties that regulated LEC's subject their customers to, and a number of respondents have asked (or implied) "Why do you want _this_." I don't. I can't step inside John Higdon's head and precisely measure his level of disgust, but I suspect mine is about the same as his. Just last spring, US West decided it was in my best interest to spend some of the revenue it had earned from my phone bill and spend it in a lobbying effort sneaking a bill I didn't want through the state legislature. The old "We're The Phone Company(R), and we know what's Best for You(TM), so shut up and obey" attitude. But it is nothing new that under the present system, monied interests can use their influence to corrupt the legislative process in order to warp the laws to their own benefit. However, discussions on how to deal with this problem are probably more appropriate subjects for another newsgroup. David Barts N5JRN UW Civil Engineering, FX-10 davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu Seattle, WA 98195 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 00:32:14 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures Adam Ashby wrote: > British Telecom released its half-yearly figures recently and > announced a profit of L1.7 billion (1.7 billion pounds) for the six > month period, that comes out to about L100 every second. Nearly US$ 3 billion. Seems like rather a lot, wouldn't you say? Not bad for a company that was described in a recent issue of {The Economist} as "the least efficient large corporation in the world". I can't find the article but I recall they were referring to the fact that BT has over ten times as many employees per line as any other Western telecom outfit. This suggests that our poor English friends must be paying some kind of rates. Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / +1 617 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #906 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16648; 10 Nov 91 1:19 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12118 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 23:17:50 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08912 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 23:17:38 -0600 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 23:17:38 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111100517.AA08912@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #907 TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Nov 91 23:17:35 CST Volume 11 : Issue 907 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Dave Levenson) Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Steve M. Kile) Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Fred Linton) Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption (Seth Breidbart) Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption (Jay Ashworth) Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 (Bob Frankston) Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 (Steve Elias) Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 (Barton F. Bruce) Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Thing (Tim Gorman) Re: MCI and FAX Detection (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dave@westmark.WESTMARK.COM (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? Date: 8 Nov 91 15:30:35 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > ... Is this just an unsubstantiated > rumor, speculation based upon the integration of EasyLink? > [Moderator's Note: Thus far we have only the original note posted here > in the Digest (Issue 866) by Fred Linton > on October 29... We received a one-page paper letter from AT&T EasyLink Services/AT&T Mail. It was sent first class mail, and it was received on or about October 28. It contained a list of rate adjustments for a variety of services. Buried in the third or fourth paragraph was the notice of the minimum monthly billing amount of $25, applicable to all user accounts. It was worded so as to suggest that we were somehow getting 'even more' for our money. I called AT&T Mail on Friday, November 1, and asked if our monthly billing for the UUCP connection would now be subject to a $25 minimum. I was told that it would. I then audited our usage and billing for the last 12 months, and made a business decision -- I called again, and canceled the service effective Nov 1 (probably subjecting this company to a $25 bill for November for nothing!). If anybody cares, I'll type in the text of the letter. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [Moderator's Note: Why don't you do that ... it appears many people have not yet received the formal notice. I know it has not showed up in my mailbox yet. The many small users of the service need to be notified in time to cancel their accounts if they wish to do so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve_M_Kile@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 15:00:46 PST Several weeks ago I received a letter and AT&T Mail Rate Summary sheet in the U.S. Mail. The letter announced "several important changes to the rate structure for the AT&T EasyLink Services product suite will take effect on December 1, 1991 ..." In the section "Core Services" two items caught my interest. Monthly Usage minimum $25.00 and Monthly Service Fee $3.00 per user ID. The letter further advises "if you have any questions, please contact your Account Representative or a Customer Service Representative on 1-800-242-6005. steve_m_kile@cup.portal.com stevek@netcom.com steve@biomed.vware.mn.org ------------------------------ From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? Date: 8-NOV-1991 12:40:13 Toby (and other TELECOM readers), The "rumor" of an impending AT&T Mail rate change came to me in the form of a mailing from AT&T Easylink in Georgia, posted late in October, and arriving at the end of October, containing one sheet entitled (approximately) "New rates beginning December 1, 1991" (sorry, I'm at work and that sheet's at home). Towards the middle of that sheet, under the rubric "Core Services", is listed the $25 per month service minimum. Not quite certain whether that was a charge to be applied to my attmail account, or perhaps only to EasyLink accounts, I checked (several times) with the AT&T Mail CAC and with the EasyLink billing folks to whom the attmail CAC referred me, and was on every occasion assured that, yes indeed, in the consolidation of AT&T Mail with EasyLink (which, you will recall, AT&T had acquired from Western Union), a unification of billing rates and procedures was going to be undertaken, in the course of which that monthly minimum requirement would be imposed beginning December 1 (but read on, for a bit of a reprieve on that). I posted, after at least three such confirmations, what I had thus learned. Since then, in the course of attempting to learn whether AT&T might perhaps exempt participants in their Moving Ahead Program from that (rather hefty) new-to-attmail minimum usage requirement, I was urged to phone the toll free EasyLink numbers 1 800 242 6005 and 1 800 328 8268 for more uptodate information, as the AT&T Moving Ahead agent I spoke with claimed total ignorance of both AT&T Mail and EasyLink. From the first of these numbers, I learned that quite a few attmail subscribers were so upset by the new rates that they had already cancelled their service, and that "upper management" was now collecting the names, phone numbers, and attmail ID's of all callers (to that first phone number) who wished to register their disapproval of the new rates in general, and of the new monthly minimum in particular. From the second of these numbers (which had been given me by the voice I had spoken with at the first), I learned that: 1 (Here's that reprieve): Under current plans, the new rates will only go into effect for any given attmail user with the month in which attmail used to bill the former Annual Fee, and in no event before December 1991; 2: Communication of customer concern direct to EasyLink "upper management" might prove fruitful in aborting the new-to-attmail (but old-to-EasyLink) monthly minimum -- the following addresses (and addressees) were suggested (and I sought and received assurance over the phone that my making these names available to TELECOM's readers would not be frowned upon): Mr. Terry Miller 56 Marietta Street Atlanta, GA 30335 FAXno: 1 404 653 8200 ...!attmail!helpbilling Steve Graham Phone: 1 800 242 6005 3: distinctly to be DISCOURAGED -- any mass communication of customer concern either to the AT&T CEO (whom I therefore won't name here) or to the EasyLink CEO (whom I will likewise not name here). Toby, if you haven't received such a "Rate Changes Effective Dec. 1 1991" sheet from AT&T Mail yet, I'll be glad to send you a photocopy of mine. Fortunately, my attmail "billing aniversary month" is February, so there's still a few months in which AT&T may decide to waive that minimum billing component, if they discover that it is driving enough "little users" like me reluctantly away from their service. Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06459 E-mail: ( or ) Tel.: + 1 203 776 2210 (home) or + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work) [Moderator's Note: For $25 a month, subscribers have to fax each other copies of the letter? Call and have them send you your own copy. And answer this for me, Fred: *Who* told you correspondence with the Chairman's office was to be discouraged? One of those two people you mentioned above? They are to function as /dev/null to keep the Chairman from having to view uncomplimentary comments about the new rates, is that it? His duties are far too important to include reading mail or having actual contact with customers, eh? I think not. If Robert Allen (who is by the way listed in the AT&T Mail online directory) can't deal with email from his customers, that's his problem; but honestly I don't think he has any problem with email at all. I think it is the little Napoleans under him who get their underwear in knots when customers ignore them and go to the top decision maker. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sethb@fid.Morgan.COM (Seth Breidbart) Subject: Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 21:41:39 GMT In article jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) writes: > Illinois Bell encodes the MICR dollar > amount on checks themselves, and has a tendency to encode it for the > amount shown on the bill, rather than the amount the check is actually > written for. Once encoded, no bank handling the check looks at the > hand-written written amount, so Illinois Bell gets whatever amount of > money they feel like taking from you, and you end up wondering why all > your other checks are bouncing. Some years ago, when I lived in New Haven, a local utility (I don't remember exactly which one) got into serious trouble for altering the amounts on checks when people underpaid their bills. I believe the technical name for this is fraud. In my opinion, the situation here is the same. Seth ------------------------------ From: Jay.Ashworth@psycho.fidonet.org (Jay Ashworth) Subject: Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 23:05:55 PDT Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida If they really mis-encode your bill, I expect you can sue them. If they do it to enough people, (and get caught enough times), perhaps their bank will yell at them for you. Cheers, Internet: Jay.Ashworth@psycho.fidonet.org UUCP: ...!uunet!ndcc!tct!psycho!Jay.Ashworth Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write root. ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 Date: 8 Nov 1991 09:54 -0500 No new details on the outage except to note that I did get a good view of New York. And another one. And another one. Seems to plane was circling over NY/NJ instead of closer to Logan. I suspected something unusual when circling that far away. It was a Tuesday night and that was no reason for really massive congestion. Is it just that they couldn't talk beyond NY so stayed there until they were in contact with Logan? The flight attendant said that there was a power outage but the captain's announcement was simply that there was congestion. At least it was a clear night with a great view, especially the final time we flow right over the city at a relatively low altitude. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 12:03:06 PST From: eli@cisco.com This ATT outage write-up was in the {Wall Street Journal}. A transmission system was being fitted with new hardware "to correct a potential problem with overheating," an ATT spokesman said. However, an investigation showed that the technicians "missed a step" in the maintenance procedure, causing the system to fail, he said. eli ------------------------------ From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 Date: 9 Nov 91 07:14:58 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , eli@cisco.com (Steve Elias) writes: > CBS radio news reported another ATT outage in the New England area > some time on 11/5. Does anyone have more info on this outage? CBS We lost the data line to our NY office, and so I called it in and got a ticket number. She said it probably was due to the 360 T3s that were out due to a DACS failure in Blackstone MA. She also said something like the following as she read from a status report: "Two disk drives are on site to be replaced but that may not solve the problem. A team from Bell Labs is enroute". There was also something about: "patched overhead to bypass problem for some circuits". I called somewhat later for status and was told everything was restored. I informed them that OUR line was not. 1/2 hour later it came back up and I called in to cancel the trouble ticket so they wouldn't kill the circuit again. It had been out for about four hours. ------------------------------ Date: 07 Nov 91 10:05:32 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Thing roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch (Frederick G.M. Roeber) writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #894: > In short: living in the boonies has costs. > But why should someone who is willing to live in the middle of a city > subsidize someone who would rather incur the cost of a country life? From a macro viewpoint, one of the major values of the phone is being able to call people. Anything which decreases the number of subscribers on the network decreases the value of the phone to everyone. If urban subscribers never called suburban or rural customers (or vice versa), this would make sense. That is not a valid assumption, however. From a practical viewpoint, agriculture (in other words rural subscribers) has gone very high tech in the past several years. Those farms who want to maximize revenue depend heavily on telephone access to market data as well as to market buyers/sellers. This includes telecommunications options such as modem and fax usage. Since these high tech operations are also the ones that provide most of the food for the world, anything that increases their costs also increases the cost of food to everyone. It is, therefore, quite practical from my viewpoint to keep their costs as low as possible. Now, again from a practical viewpoint, how do you differentiate between rural subscribers who are involved in agriculture and those who are not? Will we put in place acreage ownership restrictions in order to obtain subsidized telephone service? Will it have to be full ownership or will participation in a partnership suffice? What impacts will this have on the plight of the family farm in todays society? Tim Gorman - SWBT * opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ Subject: Re: MCI and FAX Detection Date: 7 Nov 91 01:44:38 PST (Thu) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> writes: > Brian Crawford writes in TELECOM Digest > V11 #889: >> I have just received what appears to be quite a juicy offer from MCI- >> sign up for their MCI fax service and receive $100 worth of free fax the >> first full billing period in effect. > I also have my doubts that they are monitoring every call handled by > their switching network for fax carrier tone. Not that it isn't > possible, but it would probably take a significant investment to > perform this task. Be very wary of the MCI "fax service". Clients are coming out of the woodwork lately complaining about a sharp increase in fax transmission failures, overly long transmission times, etc., etc. and a resultant increase in overall costs of fax usage as a result. Upon investigation, I have, in an overwhelmingly high percentage of cases, found that the customer was previously sold on "MCI Fax Service", which is nothing more than establishing MCI as the PIC on the fax machine line. For some reason, yet to be determined, MCI seems incapable of delivering fax data properly. I am aware of no particular problems in transmitting fax over normal MCI connections, however this "fax service" seems particularly troublesome. What I generally recommend to a sizable customer is to put the fax machine on a PBX extension (as I do at home) and allow the fax to use whatever routing is used by the voice callers. If there is DID, it even saves the cost of a separate outside line! John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #907 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08193; 10 Nov 91 10:01 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23854 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:23:08 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24582 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:22:59 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:22:59 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111101422.AA24582@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #908 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 08:22:47 CST Volume 11 : Issue 908 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Faircharge: Answer to VAN Surcharge? (David G. Lewis) Re: Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers (Bob Clements) Re: Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers (John Higdon) Re: 5ESS Audio Quality (Andy Sherman) Re: 5ESS Audio Quality (Martin McCormick) Re: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot? (Jack Decker) Re: Maximum Output for Canadian Handheld Phones? (John R. Covert) Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls (Greg Porter) Re: PacBell Proposed Increases (Ethan Miller) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Faircharge: Answer to VAN Surcharge? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 18:04:11 GMT In article powers@almaden.ibm.com writes: > However, > the amount of the surcharge should be based on the bandwidth actually > used, and even *very conservative* estimates of that yield much lower > surcharges than those for voice calls. For example, assuming the > connection were 100% busy in both directions, a 1200 bps data call > should only bear 1.5% of the surcharge imposed on a voice call. > Higher rates would pay in proportion. It all depends on the method used to get access to the VAN provider. If you're talking about a subrate DDS line (and I don't even know if switched subrate DDS exists ...) or a packet switched access connection to the VAN, I agree. However, if you're talking about putting a modem on your voice line and dialing up a VAN, which provides a modem on the far end and handles the PAD function internally, I disagree. In this case, your modem is using the same 64kbps (if the call is carried digitally by the network) as is a voice call. You're modulating (say) 2400 bps data onto an analog access line. The local switch samples this analog signal and digitizes it at a rate of 64kbps. The fact that the "capacity" as *you* see it is 2400 bps is irrelevant to the network -- the analog signal you send is digitized into 64kbps. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 14:04:59 EST From: clements@BBN.COM In article linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU writes: > The radio station is > paying loads of money for their 800 number, which only marginally > improves service for some listeners and makes things worse for many > others. Just not real bright, if you ask me. But what else do they get by switching to an 800 number? They get the phone numbers of all the people who call them. Then a quick pass through a database gets them the names and addresses. That's ready-made, salable marketing information, keyed by interests (by the type of program that was on when the call was made or the product being advertised). This probably pays for the added cost of the 800 number. Of course, they never mention that calling them will give them your number ... Readers (and, I believe, the Moderator) of this list have stated that the provision of caller billing number data is one of the important reasons they have 800 service. [Disclaimer: Of course, I don't KNOW for a fact that your particular radio station is doing this.] Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com [Moderator's Note: With or without the availability of billing number data I would still want to have my 800 lines. But having the ID of the caller available to me is an added plus. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 00:29 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) writes: > but has always had a separate number for San Jose area > listeners to call for requests, contest entries, etc. The two numbers > are in the 415-478 and 408-986 exchanges, both of which I believe are > choke exchanges. So far so good. 408/986 is not a choke exchange (I ought to know; I have some numbers in that prefix), but it was an RCF to the San Francisco number. I'm also glad they got rid of it; it was close to my DISA number and I think it caused me some headaches! But anyway ... > Just a couple of weeks ago, they eliminated the South Bay 408-986 > number and replaced it with an 800-696 number, dialable (at least > according to their ads) only from the 408 area. They probably got tired of paying international-sized rates for each and every call that was forwarded to the city. They might have done one of two things here. Either they got a "Pacific Bell Custom 800 Number" (dumb move) or they got an MCI (or other carrier's) 800 number and are using it for intraLATA traffic (very smart move). I know of another station in the state that did the latter and has saved beaucoup bucks on listener calls. Either way, it is possible to limit the area code accessability. > The radio station is paying loads of money for their 800 number, > which only marginally improves service for some listeners and makes > things worse for many others. Not if it is from an OCC. If it is bundled in a T1 package with other WATS trunks, then it basically costs them nothing except for about $0.10 per minute usage (billed in six-second increments, no less). This is one hell of a lot cheaper than what they were paying for that RCF from Santa Clara, which forwarded calls at the full-screw-um dial rate. Even if they fell for the PBC800 number, they are still paying less -- less per month and less per call. Frankly, I always thought the station was very dumb for having that 986 RCF. It really wasn't very creative (or cheap). And as I said, it was very close to one of my numbers. Good riddance :-) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 10:12:56 EST Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ In article Floyd Davidson writes: > Clock slips. Actually poor syncronization between the transmit end > and the receive end of any T1 digital path, even if it is not a > switch, will cause the problem. The receive end will either skip a > byte of data or repeat the last byte of data, depending on whether it > needs to catch up or slow down, and that results in a phase jump that > a modem will detect. It usually will not bother 1200 bps or slower > modems, but will produce the classic '{{{{{{{' pattern at 2400 bps > with modems that do not do error correction. I've heard tell that this is a common problem with new T1 facilities or T1 facilities into new switches (such as Higdon's problem). The way I've heard it told is that a common problem is human error: the switch is tested with the trunk cards supplying their own timing and that people forget to reset them to synchronize to the network when the trunk is put into service. Floyd, you're on the operational side of this business -- any truth to this? Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 10:24:04 CST From: u1906ad@UNX.UCC.OKSTATE.EDU Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality I am sure glad to hear several people mentioning the problem of clock synchronization when talking about line noise. We have an Ericssen MD110 PBX connected to trunks leading to a DMS100 Southwestern Bell switch via a digital interface of which I have no practical working knowledge. We do, however have the strangest problem. Sometimes, when calling in on any data line using 1200 or 2400 baud, we get a connection which sounds perfectly normal to the ear, but produces a rhythmic pattern of garbage characters which march across the screen. The pattern frequently looks like {i{i{i and occurs every two to five seconds. If data are being received when this happens, the whole line is garbage. When speaking with our Telephone Services Department, they are quite eager to solve the problem but say that they can't find anything wrong. They usually will take the offending modem out of service and everything appears OK. I have suspected for a long time that this was some kind of sync problem because of the rhythmic nature of the trash. Another interesting fact is that it is always worse on the originating end of the connection. This would make since because the higher frequency carrier would be disrupted more by the phase shift than a lower frequency carrier. What really makes the problem tough is that the act of breaking the connection frees that particular modem and that particular trunk, making it all but impossible to truly recreate the situation for testing. Next time we have a rash of these problems, I'll forward some of these messages to our Telephone folks and at least alert them to something to look for. The sound quality of the Ericssen switch for digital calls on campus is supurb and the sound quality of the DMS100 is pretty good. Martin McCormick Amateur Radio WB5AGZ Data Communications Group Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 17:29:32 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot? In a message dated 1 Nov 91 17:09:42 GMT, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > The FCC considers packet networks to be similar to voice networks, and > all things being equal they should be connected to the phone network > the same way, e.g. 950 and 10XXX. But all things are not equal, and > the FCC has given packet carriers an exemption so that they connect to > the phone network like business customers, not like long distance > customers. There is an important financial difference, since long > distance carriers pay per-minute rates for incoming calls, but > business customers don't. That's why per-hour rates for packet > carriers are much lower than for voice carriers, e.g. $10/hr is cheap > for voice, but expensive for data. I'm not saying at this point > whether this is good or bad, but it's how things are. I think it's bad for the simple reason that it encourages packet networks to "cherry pick" the major population centers and ignore the rural areas. If they had to use 950 or 10XXX access just like any other OCC, we'd probably have access to at least one of them here in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Look at the phone number access list for SprintNet (as just one example) ... they have virtually stopped adding new indial cities (even though we were promised an access node here about two or three years ago), and there are an awful lot of towns with under 50,000 population that don't have any access yet. SprintNet has broken so many promises (especially to users of its PC Pursuit service) that I dobut they will be able to mobilize another massive letter-writing campaign like they did the first time around (when the FCC wanted to charge them just like any other OCC). Now, perhaps packet networks SHOULD be treated differently, but on the other hand, I can see the distinctions between voice and data starting to blur already (as there is more and more talk about digitizing speech)... suppose a packet network starts offering, say, 19.2K throughput and people start hooking up voice-to-data converters and sending voice conversations digitally... should the packet network providers still be treated differently? Where do you draw the line? > In a perfect world one might dial 950-DATA to be connected to > a local packet switch which would take your data off the voice net at > your local switch, then connect you via efficient packet switching to > your packet net. I've been hoping for something like this for a long time, but it will never happen as long as the packet network providers find it cheaper to run FX and private lines to the major cities. I really galls me every time I call up SprintNet's PHONES list and see that people in Moscow (no, I don't mean Idaho!) can get into SprintNet for the price of a local call, but many people in our own country cannot. Why do our regulators allow this? Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 08:32:09 PST From: John R. Covert 07-Nov-1991 1134 Subject: Re: Maximum Output for Canadian Handheld Phones? > Is there a different maximum output for Canadian handheld cellular > phones? In the U.S., the maximum output is 0.6 watts I believe. Correct. I doubt that it is different in Canada, since the station class bits in the AMPS protocol are specifically allocated to 0.6 watts, 1.6 watts and 3.0 watts. > Since Canadian full-powered cell phones can put out four watts instead > of three as is the limit in the US... Where did you get this information? > You can bring any Canadian cell phone into the US, but the US tower > will order the phone to power down to three watts (or less) Can't be. There are exactly eight power levels defined in the protocol (three bits are used), and the highest one is 3 watts. 0 is off, 1-5 are the power levels up to 0.6 watts, 6 is 1.6 watts and 7 is 3.0 watts. For this reason, I think your information about Canadian phones being allowed to transmit four watts is incorrect. john ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 10:51:43 PST From: porterg@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (greg porter) Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls The Pacific Bell White Pages on page A46 state that: "Federal and State tariffs state that for a telephone conversation to be recorded, on of the following conditions must be met: 1. All parties being recorded must give their prior consent to being recorded; or, 2. All parties being recored must hear a "beep" tone approximately every 15 seconds. Exemptions to these provisions apply to commercial broadcasting purposes when the person being recorded has been informed." ----------- This is how it is in California. I'm sure a call to your local telephone provider would be able to answer your questions. Being able to record a conversation can be handy, especially when it comes to legal matters. My fiance got hit by a drunk driver and his insurance company refused to pay up or take any action for over a year. So her parents bought a recorder that gave the legal tones ... and wa la ... they had results with in two weeks. Greg Porter INTERNET: gporter@csus.edu UUCP: ucdavis!csusac!porterg All the standard disclaimers apply ------------------------------ From: elm@cs.berkeley.edu (ethan miller) Subject: PacBell proposed increases Date: 7 Nov 91 11:52:02 In article Scott Fybush writes: > Although NETel claims that the rate change will be revenue-neutral, I > have a feeling it will end up costing me more. Currently, calls to > the Boston Central exchange are two message units for me. That means > about 18 cents for a five-minute call. At the new rates, that call > will cost me 33.5 cents. PacBell is trying to do the same thing. Although their pamphlet states "the average residence customer's monthly phone bill will decrease by $0.11 (0.3 percent)," I don't believe it. For that to happen, the average customer will have to spend $36.66 on local calls. Since local flat rate (in Berkeley) is about $13/month, that's almost $25/month on "long-distance" calls. At current evening rates, that would be about three hours of long-distance per month. Remember, this is PacBell long-distance, not inter-LATA long-distance. I find it hard to believe that most people spend that much. In addition, PacBell now wants to charge for directory assistance outside a caller's area code. So much for the "415/510 split will *not* affect your rates" claim. They also want to phase in, over a two year period, 16% increases for Basic Exchange Services and 40% increases for Private Line Services. To offset the increase, they'll chop rates on Toll Services and Switched Access Services. Am I the only one who thinks PacBell wants to compete in other markets and is trying to charge its customers (who have no choice) so it is able to? ethan miller elm@cs.berkeley.edu include ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #908 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09219; 10 Nov 91 10:52 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24102 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 09:10:17 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23043 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 09:10:07 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 09:10:07 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111101510.AA23043@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #909 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 09:10:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 909 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card (Jack Decker) Re: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet (Wade Rogers) Re: PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies (David Lewis) Re: Who Benefits From Local Competition? (David G. Lewis) Re: Administrivia: Feedback Wanted on Subject Index (Dave Niebuhr) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 17:27:25 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card In a message dated 31 Oct 91 19:18:36 GMT, john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Jack Decker writes: >> John ... the offices I am talking about are STEP-BY-STEP offices >> operated by independent telephone companies. I don't know why you >> seem to think that you are always right and everyone else is wrong, >> but I don't need a switchman to tell me that a step-by-step office on >> a little independent phone company that is barely capable (some would >> say "incapable") of providing reliable local exchange service is NOT >> FGD capable. > Jack ... facts are facts. There is no right or wrong about it. Facts > are verifiable and confirmable. I am not always right, but in this > case my facts happen to be correct. > Why? Any office, including the most vile, disgusting, incapable, > primative, rural, backwoods XY can hand ANY (and I mean ANY) call off > to a FGD-capable tandem. And this is precisely how any call you make > to an OCC 800 number would have to be completed. This also applies to > 950. The original message has scrolled off my system, but as I recall your assertion was that the END OFFICE had to be FGD capable in order to reach Sprint's 800 number. > Now if the office can hand those calls off, please explain to me why > it cannot hand off 10XXX calls, etc., to that same tandem? I can't answer this directly (maybe someone else can help out here) but I do know this: In many smaller central offices, especially those operated by independent telephone companies in rural areas, the switch doesn't know about "Feature Groups." All it knows is that IF the first digit dialed is NOT a "1" or a "0", you're making a local call, otherwise you're making a toll call. When you dial a "1" or a "0" it seizes a toll trunk or operator service trunk (usually provided by the Bell company serving the area) and all additional digits you dial are simply "passed through". After you've dialed ten more digits (or you "time out" on a 0+ call), the ANI equipment (which is probably the most modern piece of equipment in the office!) fires off a set of in-band signaling tones that communicate your phone number to the toll equipment at the other end. Now, please note that the "1" or "0" is NOT sent out on the toll trunk. Thus, if you dial "10222" the fist digit that goes out on the toll trunk is the "0". The problem, as I see it, is that if you tried to dial a "10XXX +0 +" call (operator assisted) the intital "1" would cause the call to go out on a DDD trunk, not an operator service trunk. Also, I'm not sure that the ANI equipment could cope with the extra digits. And, many small independents really don't care much about offering Equal Access (though that attitude is thankfully changing). If they can get a call out of the local CO, that is all they care about. Some even go so far as to let the Bell company do their billing for them (one Michigan company I know of used to have bills that looked EXACTLY like Michigan Bell bills, except that the Bell logo was absent from the computer-printed bill pages). So I think that there are technical reasons that 10XXX calls aren't handed off, and the primary one that I can think of is the use of the leading "1" or "0" to indicate whether the call should go out via a DDD or operator trunk (which ARE technically different ... for example, operator trunks can "hold" a connection path after the caller hangs up in many CO's). On a 10XXX call you don't know whether the call will be DDD or Operator-assisted until the SIXTH digit, and most older Step-by-Step offices have no facilities to store and forward digits ... as I noted, once you dial the initial "1" or "0", you are essentially gone as far as the local CO is concerned. Now, I am talking Step-by-Step here, which is what the offices I was referring to have. You are talking XY which as I understand it, is still a common control switch with some limited digit storage and translation capabilities ... if so then your question might be more valid for that kind of switch. But I SPECIFICALLY mentioned a Step-by-Step switch in my post. >> There are lots of us who never make international calls, or who don't >> mind a small amount of added noise to save up to 30% on an >> international call. Granted that if you're pushing data across >> international boundaries to some remote country, this might be a major >> consideration, but relatively few of us are in that situation. > Let me turn this around. You have repeatedly accused me of > parochialism in my Pac*Bell orientation, so what makes you think that > just because YOU have no need for decent international service (and > yes, I do push high speed data to Japan) that some of the rest of us > might not be so small-time? Some of us do more than call Aunt Edna > every week. Well, again, I'm speaking from my perspective in the North Woods of Michigan. People up here are just now discovering FAX machines, and computer modems are mostly still a mysterious device used by people in Big Cities. Even the local State University (smallest in the state) has not fully entered the computer age (they are one of only two or three state U's that are NOT connected to MichNet). Believe it or not, most people, and even most business owners up here almost never have the need to make an international voice call, let alone an international data call. >>> 2. Reliably connect you with virtually any internal technical >>> department in almost any telco in the nation; >> Why do you need this capability? YOU might, but again, this just >> isn't a major consideration for MOST folks. > In any situation where one has multiple offices around the country, or > is involved with WANs, or has a multipoint distribution requirement, > the ability to reach distant repair services is a gawdsend. Once > again, I turn it around: just because your requirements are so light > that you have never found this necessary is no reason to decree that > it does not constitute a valid benchmark for carrier satisfaction. I'm not saying it isn't a valid benchmark FOR YOU. What I'm saying is that you make the all too common mistake that we all make at times, which is one of thinking that our view of the world is one that is shared by the majority of people (after all, to admit otherwise would be to admit that one is sort of an oddball, and who wants to admit THAT?!?) :-) > And I have a problem with your term "MOST folks". One of the major > causes for the decline of goods and services in this country is the > concept of marketing to the lowest common denominator. If it is > mass-marketable, then fine. If it is vertical, then scrap it. AT&T is > the ONLY FULL-SERVICE long distance company in the country. Yes, the > OCCs can fill the needs of MOST of the people MOST of the time. So > does Chevrolet. But do you fault Mercedes for selling expensive cars > just because YOU find no need for one? No, I don't. But I would fault a Mercedes owner for constantly trying to tell everyone else that the only respectable thing to do is buy a Mercedes (even those whose needs would be satisfied by a Volkswagen), and for constantly making disparaging remarks about all other cars. John, you do tend to take occasional swipes at the OCC's without realizing that some people may have valid reasons for choosing an OCC over your beloved AT&T. > If your requirements are thin enough, then use the weeniest carrier > that can fulfill them. You MIGHT even save some money (if your time is > not worth anything). But please do not fault AT&T for continuing to > provide its vast assortment of excellent services just because you do > not need any of them. Some of us are willing to pay a little more to > get a lot more. Okay, I won't fault them for providing (usually) excellent service (we'll just forget about some of their recent outages ). And, hey, we won't talk about the following item that appeared in this Sunday's "Business Briefs" section of the local newspaper: "AT&T admits charge lag" "NEW YORK (AP) - American Telephone & Telegraph Co. said it has continued to charge some former customerts for a discount calling plan for months after they switched long-distance phone companies. "The charges involve AT&T's Reach Out America, Reach Out State, and Reach Out World calling plans, which allow customers to buy an hour or half-hour of long-distance calling per month at a reduced rate. "AT&T said Tuesday it has continued to charge the monthly fee for the Reach Out plans to some customers even after they switched to MCI Communications Corp., Sprint or another phone company." Point is, even AT&T can screw up, yet they are very quick to point out the faults of their competitors. I wish MCI or Sprint would run an ad that says something like "Subscribe to an AT&T Reach Out plan, and you may continue to be billed for the service for months after you try to cancel ... or subscribe to [MCI PrimeTime|Sprint Plus] and you'll save more money and if your calling patterns ever change, WE'LL let you cancel with just one phone call!" You just KNOW that AT&T would not be above running that sort of ad if it had been MCI or Sprint that had screwed up! Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 [Moderator's Note: This has been an interesting thread, but since it is now just Mssrs. Decker and Higdon arguing between themselves, perhaps they will continue it in private email, space and time being at a premium here this weekend. PAT] ------------------------------ From: eplrx7!rogers@uunet.uu.net (Wade Rogers) Subject: Re: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet Organization: DuPont Engineering Physics Laboratory Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 19:28:31 GMT ksakotai@cs.ulowell.edu (Krishnan "krish" Sakotai ) writes: > In a similar vein, does anybody know if there is an anonymous FTP > source for the ADPCM test sequences described in CCITT G.721 and > G.722? And in yet another similar vein, is there such for the CCITT H.261 compression standard? Wade T. Rogers | E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. eplrx7!rogers@uunet.uu.net | Engineering Physics Laboratory uunet!eplrx7!rogers | P.O. Box 80357 (302) 695-7945 | Wilmington, Delaware 19880-0357 ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 21:21:30 GMT In article nelson@bolyard.wpd.sgi.com (Nelson Bolyard) writes: [description of inaccuracies in transcriptions deleted] > I already thought of presenting a written copy of > your remarks to the transcriptionist in advance of making them orally > to the hearing. I don't know if the transcriptionist will use them or > not, and I wouldn't want the transcriptionist to be insulted (whether > or not such insult was deserved). This is getting a little off telecom, but ... If the meeting was recorded by a CSR (Certified Shorthand Reporter) and then transcribed, chances are the reporter would be very willing to take a written copy of your remarks. Just be reasonable in the way you go about it -- saying something like "my remarks have a lot of technical terms and I wanted to provide you a copy as a reference." The reporter will not copy your written remarks verbatim, but will use it as a reference for any unintelligible comments or confusing terms. (My fiance' is a CSR and does a fair number of depositions for malpractice cases -- and if you think *telecom* has some difficult terminology ...) Of course, if the reporter is so bad that he/she's making the mistakes you mentioned, there's no guarantee about what will happen ... and if the remarks are recorded on tape and transcribed from the tape, all bets are off. A CSR affirms that the transcript is an accurate representation of the notes and seals the transcript to that effect. A transcription from tape isn't affirmed or sealed, generally. A non-certified reporter will fall somewhere in the middle -- better than a tape, because the reporter will at least have been there, but not as good as a CSR. (Of course, I admit to being prejudiced in favor of CSRs ...) David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Who Benefits From Local Competition? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 21:31:55 GMT In article lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) writes: > You can bet potential competitors aren't going to be lining up to > serve suburban or rural areas, or residence or small business > customers. Those will be left to the original telco, who will > continue to go screaming back to the PUCs demanding ever more basic > service increases to make up for the lost revenue. Chuck Buckman, General Manager of Teleport Communications Chicago, has proposed a "Universal Service Tax" -- a percentage of revenues to be paid by all telcos to the local (presumably state) government, which would turn around and pay it to telcos serving these "underpriviledged" areas. I'm not saying that's the only (or even best) solution, but again, let's not climb back inside the Natural Monopoly shell when alternate, creative solutions have potential. > Such revenue requirements could be at least partially controlled if it > were mandated that the telcos must concentrate on their core > businesses as regulated utilities -- and not keep trying to venture > off into speculative sidelines and enhanced services that usually > don't benefit the average customer in any significant way and would be > best provided by outside entities in any case. Can you say "Divestiture", boys and girls? Let's see -- AT&T divested itself of the local Bell operating companies largely so it could enter into the unregulated computer business. Next, the seven RBOCs will divest themselves of the local Bell operating companies so they can enter the unregulated information services, long distance, manufacturing, real estate, financial, etc. businesses. Then, I guess the local Bell operating companies will themselves divest themselves of the local telephone operations so they can enter some other new unregulated business. The poor guys in the BOCs are going to start feeling like unwanted relatives. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 17:16:12 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: Administrivia: Feedback Wanted on Subject Index In PAT writes: > If any of you have had a chance to get the Volume 9-10-11 Subject > Index from the archives (ftp lcs.mit.edu) and play around with it ... I like it but found it more workable if I sorted it by Issue/Group, e.g. 9/701-750 9/751-800 This was a very trivial operation and was more convenient for me. However, as another poster mentioned, it is a useful tool when researching previous articles concerning a specific topic or topics. Good Work. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: My intent in gathering up all those subject lines in alphabetical order was to provide a tool for people searching through back issues by whatever search key. Whether you grep for author names, titles, or file name (and all articles in that volume by alpha order for example), the index should help you locate what you want. You still have to then go back to the archives and pull the file with the collection of issues desired, but at least with the index you now know where to begin looking. I've updated it through issue 900, and it can be obtained in compressed form from the Telecom Archives using anonymous ftp at lcs.mit.edu. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #909 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10395; 10 Nov 91 11:41 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16061 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 10:05:33 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27972 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 10:05:24 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 10:05:24 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111101605.AA27972@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #910 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 10:05:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 910 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Information Wars (Mike Godwin) Re: The Information Wars (John Higdon) Re: The Information Wars (Peng H. Ang) Re: The Information Wars (Mitch Kapor) Re: Video Dialtone vrs. Info Services (Marvin Sirbu) Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires (David Cornutt) Re: Question on Easements (Marc T. Kaufman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: The Information Wars Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 20:06:28 EST John Higdon writes: > This matter is even more serious than Pac*Bell's confiscatory ratepayer > money-grab. Pacific Telesis' entry into the information providing > business will give new meaning to the term "Orwellian". Some > organizations, such as the EFF, seem to feel that letting the RBOCs get > a foot in the door is essential to the emergence of the necessary > technology to get a "universal", national data network launched. This is not really our position. Instead, we have argued that since the RBOCs are likely very soon to enter this arena, their entry be conditioned upon, among other things, investment in technology that facilitates more high-bandwidth connectivity to the home -- available to *all* would-be information-service providers. Mike ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 17:44 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: The Information Wars In the previous message in this issue Mike Godwin writes: > This is not really our position. Instead, we have argued that since > the RBOCs are likely very soon to enter this arena, their entry be > conditioned upon, among other things, investment in technology that > facilitates more high-bandwidth connectivity to the home -- available > to *all* would-be information-service providers. A laudable goal to be sure. But as in the case of, for instance, voicemail providing the telco makes that technology available to competitors at a ridiculous price. No one can pay that price and still be competitive with the telco. The telco claims that the charge represents the "true cost of providing the service", and has to offer absolutely no substantiation for that claim. My fear, backed by history and current practices, is that the telcos will engineer any technology to their own exclusive advantage. Yes, we may eventually get high-bandwidth connectivity to our homes, but only the telcos will be able to afford to send anything on it. Competition is a dirty word to the RBOCs. The only way they want to play is to have some overriding advantage that will guarantee a "win". A "win" to a telco is not the providing of advanced services or filling customer needs but the making of a LOT of money. Ask anyone now currently in competition with a telco with a product that depends on the local exchange network and find out how Baby Bell plays. Go to voicemail providers and discover how much each pays for FX circuits to the offices they wish to serve; or ask about mysterious problems on PBX trunks when the local telco is actively pushing Centrex on the vendor's customer. Then discover how low the price is for voicemail from the telco -- it makes you wonder how they can do it so cheap. The answer, of course, is that pot of gold called the "regulated ratepayer". And the price will be low until all those other folks disappear. But then ... No Mike, this has got to happen either via regulatory strangle-hold mandates and edicts to the LECs, or through some other means entirely. If you think that anyone can "play house" with Baby Bell and come out ahead, then we have not talked enough. And remember, the Bells write the tariffs for the PUCs, not the other way around. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 21:54 EST From: "Peng_H.Ang" <20017ANG@msu.edu> Subject: Re: The Information Wars > typical of the underhanded tactics PacTel uses to ruthlessly get its > own way. It attacks Lantos by name, accusing him of "siding with the > newspaper interests" in "blocking your right to free access of > information". I would have thought that the correct attribution tag would be a form of "said" rather than "accuse." PacTel on this point is correct. Lantos, bless his heart tho' I don't know him, is siding with newspaper interests and, on the face of it, blocking access to information. May I offer a counterpoint that I do not seem to have encountered in this debate about telcos and info services. The info services market, particularly at the consumer level that the telcos are interested in, is heavily concentrated. The mass market consumer videotex has just five key players, starting with CompuServe and Prodigy. I think CompuServe is wonderful but its prices are a different matter. Well, recently, with Prodigy gaining market share, CompuServe introduced a "basic" service where for $7.95 a month you get several "popular" services plus 30 email messages. (Sounds familiar?) I'm sure that CompuServe would that have done that without the qualified success of Prodigy. Of course CompuServe could also be pre-empting the telcos' move -- by lowering prices it is erecting a barrier to entry. I look forward to the telcos' entry in shaking up the consumer information services market. Yes, the FCC and PUCs will have to watch them closer. But aren't we all technological optimists in believing that the greater the access to information techology and services, the better the country will be? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:44:18 -0500 From: mkapor@eff.org (Mitch Kapor) Subject: Re: The Information Wars John Higdon says: > Some organizations, such as the EFF, seem to feel that letting the > RBOCs get a foot in the door is essential to the emergence of the > necessary technology to get a "universal", national data network > launched ... This mis-states our position. We believe that the deployment of a ubiquitous, affordable platform based on ISDN is the sine qua on for the emergence of innovative information services. These services would practically all be created by entrepreneurs and new entrants into the field. If such a platform were created, which would be a historically unprecedented event, and assuming other developments such as the emergence of competition in the local loop and other safeguards, then we believe it would not be inappropriate for RBOC's to provide content as well as conduit. For more information on our ISDN platform proposal, send mail to eff@eff.org. Mitch Kapor mkapor@eff.org Electronic Frontier Foundation ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 11:33:18 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: Video Dialtone vrs. Info Services > If I understand recent FCC rulings correctly, both local and long > distance phone service providers are now allowed to provide a pathway > into the home for full-motion video provided they do not have a > financial interest in the production of that video (the so-called > 'video dialtone'). Phone companies are also allowed to provide > information services within their own service areas. My question is > this: is there a provision in all of this which prevents the > information services from providing full-motion video? I use the > phrase 'full-motion video' to signify what we typically call > 'television programs.' How are we to discriminate between the types > of messages which are and are not allowed? That someone might be confused by regulations in this areas is not at all surprising -- they ARE confusing! Perhaps I can straighten things out a bit. In the U.S. political system, there are many independent sources of political power and regulation. Rules may be issued as laws by the Congress; as regulations by quasi-independent regulatory commissions such as the FCC; or by the courts as judicial decrees. Moreover, because we are a federal republic, there may be State as well as National rules from each of these three types of agencies. When you have several rules regarding the same thing, it is the _most binding_ rule which is important. With respect to video and information services, there have been three major sources of limitation. 1. The MFJ, which prohibited the Regional Holding Companies (RHCs) (but not other local exchange carriers) from providing information services -- whether data or video, and whether in their service area or outside of it. 2. The Cable Act of 1984, Congressional legislation, which bans the provision by any local exchange carrier of "video programming" within their local exchange area. Video Programming is ambiguously defined in the act, but it generally refers to cable-like service: provision of a limited number of one-way video channels. The Cable Act also specifies that providers of "video services" need to secure a municipal franchise. 3. FCC rules. There are two main sets. 1) Computer Inquiry 3, which establishes the rules for participation by any "dominant" LEC (i.e. the RBOCs) in the provision of "enhanced communications services"; and 2) the FCC's own rules banning provision by LECs of video programming, which were written into the Cable Act of 1984. There have been several recent changes in these rules, which I will describe, and then I will try to explain which remaining rules are binding. One. Judge Greene, at the direction of the Appellate Court, has removed all restrictions on the provision by the information services by the RHCs. Thus, the court is no longer a limiting factor. Two. The Cable Act of 1984 remains in place. Three. The FCC CI3 rules say that the RHCs can provide enhanced services, including information content, through a separate subsidiary, and subject to open standard interfaces for other enhanced service providers (Open Network Architecture). This separate subsidiary need not be completely at arms length, however. It can share equipment with the parent, for example; accounting rules are to be relied upon to allocate the cost of the equipment properly between the two. The FCC has recently asked for comment in a Notice of Proposed Rule Making on the idea of Video Dial Tone; the decision is so recent, hoever, that the text of it has still not been made available to the public. Like 976 services, Video Dial Tone would provide switched transport on a common carrier basis to video information sources. A result of this process may be a recommendation to Congress to amend the Cable Act of 1984. Implications. 1. Since the MFJ was the only rule which applied to LEC provision of information OUTSIDE of its service area, the RHCs are free to buy up cable companies outside their service area (as Pac Bell has already done with a special waiver from the court prior to the general decision). 2. Under CI3 rules, the RHCs are free to provide any other kind of non-video information inside their service areas. As a result of the MFJ changes, they are also now free to provide information *content* as part of an enhanced service: e.g. instead of just providing electronic mail, where they don't provide any of the content, they can provide an electronic white pages and yellow pages as well. 3. With respect to video information, the situation is still not settled. At the moment, the Cable Act of 1984, and the lack of official adoption, _yet_, by the FCC of its Proposed Video Dial Tone rules means that the RHCs may not provide video information within their service areas. As the FCC Video Dial Tone docket proceeds, we will see if legislative change by the Congress to the Cable Act is needed, or whether Video Dial tone, as a *switched* service, falls outside the prohibitions of the Cable Act, and can be authorized by the FCC unilaterally. In the latter case, the RHCs will be able to offer video information content, subject to the combined rules of the Video Dial Tone proceeding and CI3. The FCC has also made the claim that information providers who make use of a Video Dial Tone service do not need to secure a municipal franchise; a claim which we can expect municipalities to contest in the courts. Lastly, some States may attempt to put in their two cents worth as well. For example, by demanding more severe structural separation restrictions -- as opposed to mere accounting rules -- for the RHCs enhanced services subsidiary. The District of Columbia has already proposed such rules. For a detailed treatment of these issues see the forthcoming book on Fiber to the Home by David Reed from Artech House publishers. ------------------------------ From: cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt) Subject: Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires Organization: NASA/MSFC Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 03:06:08 GMT Thanks for an interesting article, Al. Now let me ask you a question about cutover. I'm looking at a flyer from Tekelec (I called them about info on their FDDI analyzer; now they're sending me all kinds of neat stuff). Among the goodies that they sell to folks who are in the business of implementing telecom systems is something they call simply the Cutover Device. From the description of it, and my limited knowledge, I take it that it's intended for cutting over toll switches. It appears to be a device with which two switches can be connected to an SS7 net so that they appear to be one device. On command, apparently it starts routing call setup requests to the new switch, while still handling messages concerning existing traffic to/from the switch which is being cut over. I assume that it keeps track of remaining calls on the old switch and notifies the operator when all traffic has been cut over. Is this an accurate summary? Am I correct in the assumption that it is only for toll switches, or can it be used for COs too? (And if so, how are the individual pairs cut over? Come to think of it, when all the analog systems are gone, presumably there won't be any pairs coming directly to the switch, just trunks. At that point, will you even need a device like this any more?) David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL (205) 461-6457 (cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov; some insane route applies) "The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary." ------------------------------ From: kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: Question on Easements Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA Date: 8 Nov 91 17:08:58 GMT KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com writes: > My family has some land, and 20 years ago we gave the Public Works > Dept. in our town a easement for sewer and water ONLY. Then, the LEC > "snuck" in some buried lines without a easment or permission. Ten > years later the LEC's contractor drives onto our property with their > tractors ripping up the ground to install a new fiber optic cable. We > say, "stop!" They say they now have a "perscriptive easement" for this > half mile strip down our property. We settle for about $3,500 dollars > in paving work done by one of their contractors. > My question is, since they intalled the cable without our permission > (we didn't even know it was there) and, then went to install new > cable, did they have a right "with the perscriptive eaesment" to do > that? And, were we suckered on what a half mile long easement is > worth? Any ideas? Well, as to what it's worth: it depends on how much you value water and sewer service ... It's not unheard of for utilities not specifically named in the easement to use right-of-way granted to other utilities (sort of like sub-contracting to provide telephone lines alongside the water pipes). The requirement on your side is that you not build any structures (or plant large trees) over the lines, because the utility has the right of access, and can remove them if needed. On their side, I think they have to restore the land to a "reasonable" state; which does NOT include replanting specimen trees or reinstalling fences. The bottom line is that if you take them to court to make them stop, the local governing body will probably take the easement by emminent domain. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) [Moderator's Note: Does anyone remember the story in the Digest a couple years ago where IBT claimed easement rights in this lady's home -- in her bedroom, mind you -- because the former occupant had been an answering service, and pairs multipled from all over the neighborhood were connected in a huge terminal box in her bedroom? Maybe I should run that story again. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #910 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12040; 10 Nov 91 12:48 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24628 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 11:09:11 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19955 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 11:09:02 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 11:09:02 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111101709.AA19955@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #911 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 11:08:56 CST Volume 11 : Issue 911 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" (Eric Skinner) Re: Bell of PA *Offers* CallerID Blocking (Craig R. Watkins) Re: AT&T Alliance Signal Quality (Bryan Richardson) Re: New NETel Rates For Metro Boston Customers (John Higdon) Re: Desperately Need Telco Line ... Concluded (Joe McGuckin) Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch Tone (Bud Couch) Re: British Telecom Figures (Peng H. Ang) Re: Touch Tone on Old Switches (Bud Couch) Re: AT&T Online Translation Service (David McKellar) Re: Controlling LD Access (Barton F. Bruce) 10xxx Compliance Update (Barton F. Bruce) Books on LANS and Communications (Mark Allyn) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 13:45:21 EST From: Eric Skinner <443114@acadvm1.uottawa.ca> Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" In Digest 11/877, Albert Pang (albert@INSL.McGill.CA) writes: > While on the same subject, I have to mention this since it is > telecom related. > I am a subscriber of Call Display (caller id) from Bell > Canada. My exchange is (514)289-xxxx which is a Northern Telecom > DMS-100 switch. I have rented a much to be desired Northern Telecom > Maestro phone with has a small LCD display. It shows the time of day > and tells you if there is a new call. Montreal (or Canada) has > switched to EST last Sunday. However, as of today, the little display > on my phone still works on EDT. I don't think it is my problem since > the clock will be set by any incoming Caller-ID information. That > means the clock on the DMS switch is still working on EDT. > Pretty annoying. Anybody outside of Bell Canada area has the same > problem? (Someone else mentioned it a few issues later, too). I noticed the same thing, and called Bell repair (611) on the date of the time change to see what the story was. You won't believe the answer. Yes, the time of the call *is* delivered with the Caller ID information and if the time on the phone hasn't been set since power-on (of the phone), the phone resets the time to what it's just received with the Caller ID information. The rest of the time, the Maestro ignores the time information. This strikes me as completely ridiculous. Unless they're allowing for the case where my CO is in another time zone (which would screw up billing, no?) there is no reason for the Maestro not to ALWAYS reset the time and date. This is the story I got from 611 -- apparently they had already received a flurry of calls. They recommended I unplug the phone and let the next call set the time. I sighed and set the clock manually (through what I might add has got to be one of the worst menu interfaces I've ever seen). Eric R. Skinner 443114@acadvm1.uottawa.ca ers@xgml.com ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Bell of PA *Offers* CallerID Blocking Date: 8 Nov 91 10:32:59 EST Organization: HRB Systems "Scott D. Green" writes: > D. Michael Stroud, Bell's VP and general counsel, said that callers > could press *67 to make a call untraceable. "I think that would cure > every issue raised by every oponent," he said. I just tried *67 here in Bell of PA land (814.238) to see if it would defeat "Return Call" (*69). I got "... your call cannot be completed as dialed ..." when I tried *67. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ From: richard@cs.purdue.edu (Bryan Richardson) Subject: Re: AT&T Alliance Signal Quality Date: 8 Nov 91 17:31:21 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University In article jxh@attain.ICD.Teradyne.COM (Jim Hickstein) writes: > I recently used AT&T's Alliance conferencing facility to make a call > that connected points in Massachusetts, California (me), and Tokyo. I > was very disappointed with the result. The trunk to Tokyo seemed not > to go over the usual, high-quality path, and there was a very high > level of background noise when someone in Tokyo talked (accents are > bad enough in person ...). This could have been due to ambient noise > in the room with a speakerphone on their end (the rest of us were > using handsets), but it was still very distressing. While not an expert in transmission, I would guess that was the quality of the speakerphone at the remote end (and any ambient noise) was what made the connection sound so bad. A simple test would have been to have someone on the far end pick up the handset -- the noise is likely to disappear. This has been my overwhelming experience with speaker-phones in general and on teleconferences in particular. > I called their customer service number and asked the simple question: > Did this call use AT&T facilities, specifically the crystal-clear > transPac fiber trunks, to Tokyo? The answer was Yes, but I somehow > doubt it. Is Alliance an integral part of an AT&T tandem somewhere > (it said it was in Reno), or is it a "service" that AT&T resells on > behalf of a "provider" who may very well use other carriers. (This is > ridiculous on the face of it, but at this stage I'm ready to > disbelieve anything.) Most definitely you were using AT&T facilities throughout the call. I don't know if it is possible to guarantee what transmission capabilities were used to route the call (I don't even know what the choices are), but if there was more than one choice, then the choice is made when the call is routed based on current traffic, etc ... The Alliance bridges are AT&T's, and service is NOT provided by another company. In fact, some SDN customers purchase or lease their own private Alliance bridges for their private networks. If I remember exactly, the four public bridges are in Reno, Chicago, Dallas, and White Plains, connected to respective 4 ESS switches in those cities. Calls are routed from the 4E to the bridge, and outbound traffic from the bridge is handled like any other AT&T call. Most certainly, prefixing 10288 (or anything else) would have yielded an announcement along the lines, "Your call cannot be completed as dialed ..." [stuff deleted] >Does my use of Alliance count against our SDN volume? I don't know for sure, but it depends upon your particular contract and how your PBX is set up to handle 0 + 700 traffic. > A Disgruntled Customer. Sorry you were dissatisfied. To truly determine if the bridge is at fault, try calling only domestic locations (and no speakerphones). If the problems still result, call AT&T Repair (whose 800 number escapes me at the moment). Bryan Richardson richard@cs.purdue.edu AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University ------------------------------ Subject: Re: New NETel Rates For Metro Boston Customers Date: 7 Nov 91 14:38:51 PST (Thu) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) Scott Fybush writes: > No matter what, it's still embarrassing that I can call downtown > Boston, 24 miles away, for half of what it costs to call the West > Coast. There's still an inequity afoot. Sinner, get down on your knees and thank your personal diety for small favors. A twenty-four mile call within a California LATA costs about THE SAME as a call to the east coast. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: oilean.oilean!joe@uunet.uu.net (Joe McGuckin) Subject: Re: Desperately Need Telco Line ... Concluded Organization: Island Software Date: 8 Nov 91 00:33:56 Well, a minor net-miracle happened and I was able to contact the person who I had been looking for. I'd also like to thank those people who offered me their help in designing my project. Joe McGuckin oilean!joe@sgi.com Island Software (415) 969-5453 ------------------------------ From: kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) Subject: Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch Tone Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 18:59:10 GMT In article NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes: > In 1965, my wife and I were on one of the earliest exchanges (516-325) > that permitted touch-tone dialing (this was a very small community on > Long Island, and still is for that matter). > We subscribed to the service and enjoyed it and now I am curious as to > what type of switch allowed touch-tone. My guess is that it might have > been a 1ESS some early animal. I seriously doubt that you were on one of the earliest DTMF exchanges in 1965. When I went to work for North Electric in 1966, they had had DTMF receivers designed and in place on both the NX-1D and NX-2 switches. I think that their trademark name for it was "Key Call". Given the fact that they were certainly not Bell Labs, I would guess that the technology had been around for at least three or four years by then. The typical design cycle for a trunk modification was on the order of eight months. From this, it is also obvious that an electronic exchange is not required for DTMF; it makes economic sense for any common control switch, where register holding time can be decreased. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 14:31 EST From: "Peng_H.Ang" <20017ANG@msu.edu> Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures I saw the British Telecom profit figure on the news wire but what really puzzles me is why the British are so upset about the L100 a second profit? Isn't this the expected result of privatization? That BT would become more profitable. I'm aware that there are some gripes about the lack of true competition. But is that a major problem in terms of level of service, price, etc? Or is it that they are ok but they could do better? ------------------------------ From: kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) Subject: Re: Touch Tone on Old Switches Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 19:38:07 GMT In article /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/ ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com writes: > There were several adapters that could be added to Step, XY and > Crossbar switches that permitted a user to have Touch-Tone service. > These were placed on the line equipment which took the tones and > converted them to pulses so that they would continue through the > switch train. Later on at least in Step switches a conversion was done True for SXS and XY, but not correct for Crossbar. The DTMF receiver was connected to the register (the equipment that collected the dial pulses and told the switch which links would have to be made to connect the call) via a switch matrix. This gave any register access to any DTMF receiver. When the caller went off-hook, the register would be connected to that line. There were two possiblilites as to how the DTMF receiver was attached. In one, a class mark was used, and only lines so marked got the receiver. In the other, a receiver was always attached, but would be disconnected from the register if a dial pulse was received. In this manner, a limited number of DTMF receivers were necessary to serve a large office, but could be added as demand increased. Eventually, enough DTMF service was supplied that the total number of registers could be decreased, since each was used for a significantly shorter time. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: djm@dmntor.uucp (David McKellar) Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service Organization: DMN Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 15:18:22 -0500 In article YSAR1111@VM1.YorkU.CA (Rick Broadhead) writes: > Speaking of translation services ... > Toronto, effective Monday, is using AT&T's online translation services > in Monterey, California. Previously, when the 911 operator could not > understand a caller, ambulance, fire, and police vehicles were all > dispatched to the scene. I wonder if they have thought about how to know which of the 140 langauges the caller is speaking? Does somebody at the translation service answer the phone, listen and think "That sounds like an oriental language ... I'll try the Chinese translator" or "That sounds Eastern European, maybe its Hungarian." etc. ? ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Controlling LD Access Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. Date: 9 Nov 91 06:14:15 EDT In article , sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > Is there any feature or service that any of the LD carriers have > that would prevent someone in your home (temporary employee) from > using your phone to make LD calls? (of course removing a default Generally, yes. It is one of several types of screening that are available. Often it is put on a phone in a rentable ski condo. Local calls are just included in the rent, but no 'sent-paid' LD calls are possible. One can dial toll calls that are CC, third party billing, or collect. Also one generally wants yet another service they offer that adds you to the database that indicates collect into you and third party billing to you is disallowed. The operator service positions simply won't allow such calls to be billed to you! There are other variations. If you have SMDR and call accounting, you may wish to allow 1 + LD, but NOT sent-paid 0+ simply because you can't determine what the operator was asked to provide. Sadly, the names and USOC codes vary. ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: 10xxx Compliance Update Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. Date: 9 Nov 91 06:14:15 EDT Some late breaking screening news: AT&T has now written new software to support special screening needed for 10xxx service from hotels, prisons, etc. It disalloes 10xxx1+ (the site should be able to pick the carrier for calls billed to it) and allows normal 1+ and any 10xxx0+ billed elsewhere. Obviously the 011+ and 01+ situations are handled properly. These mods have cost AT&T over $7 mil and are being *GIVEN* to all operating companies using AT&T switches. AT&T is compiling lists by LEC and LATA of other 10xxx related screening codes and ordering info. AT&T is trying to get this all out to anyone that needs it as rapidly as it becomes available. They are having detailed tarriff searches being done, and will include whatever local names are used for individual features. The team responsible for all of it is still on the road doing their 10xxx seminars mostly for the consultant community. The one I was at also had folks from large companies and someone from MCI present. The 10xxx compliance is happening. The FCC *HAS* been making test calls from publicly accessible phones, and clearly will do more as the various 'must comply dates' roll by. It is quite possible that we may be able to get a lot of the AT&T info available here on C.D.T, but one major component of their session handout was FCC stuff that was simply copied and which they don't have in machine readable form. Oh, yes, another part of this is that the new laws (this is not just FCC's doing -- your letters to your elected ones occasionally do work) additionally require 950 or 800 access to ALL carriers, so AT&T *WILL* do one of them! Apparently, since not all LECs pass ANI on all FG-B trunks, AT&T will be using the 800 route for compliance. ------------------------------ From: bcsaic!allyn@cs.washington.edu (Mark Allyn) Subject: Books on LANS and Communications Date: 10 Nov 91 01:54:15 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services ATC, Seattle I have received flyers in the mail promoting the following two books: 1. Handbook of Communications Systems Management Auth: James W. Conard Pub: Auerbach Publishers Price $125 2. Handbook of Local Area Networks Auth: John P. Slone & Ann Drinan Pub Auerbach Publishers Price $125 I would like to know if anyone out there has used these books or others on the same topic from the Auerbach outfit. As you can see, these books seem pricy and I would like to get some idea of their usefullness before I shell out these kind of bucks. Are these folks as good as O'Reilly (who created the X books) and Addison & Wesley (who published the 4.3BSD Bible)? Thanks, Mark Allyn ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #911 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28890; 10 Nov 91 22:24 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27427 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 20:40:28 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25531 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 20:40:17 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 20:40:17 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111110240.AA25531@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #912 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 20:40:16 CST Volume 11 : Issue 912 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only? (Barton F. Bruce) Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done (Jay Ashworth) Re: What's AT&T's Number? (John R. Levine) Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) (David Ash) Re: Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number (John Higdon) Re: Cellular Phone Rates (John Higdon) Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest (Paul Guthrie) Re: Inpartiality and Due Process? (Dave Niebuhr) Re: New NETel Rates for Metro Boston Customers (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere (Ken Dykes) Re: British Telecom Figures (Graham Toal) Re: Last Week at the FCC (Harold Hallikainen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only? Date: 9 Nov 91 06:26:12 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , brack@uoftcse.cse. utoledo.edu (Brack) writes: > I recently moved back home, and my parents are not pleased with my LD > bill. Although I pay promptly, and use Call Manager, they don't want > my calls on their bill. Calling cards are too expensive, and I don't You may find there are some LD companies that only allow calls from pre-subscribed customers and that bill directly to such customers, not via the LEC. They would have to be agreeable to having/billing you as the customer without changing your parents PIC, and you would have to use their 10xxx access code. Or if your parents don't often make LD calls, perhaps the PIC change would be tolerable to them. You would get their random LD calls on your bill, then. ------------------------------ From: Jay.Ashworth@psycho.fidonet.org (Jay Ashworth) Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 23:09:27 PDT Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida Some references I've seen say that many cellular phones have the ESN burned into a ROM/PAL _on the CPU chip_. For obvious reasons, (if they aren't obvious, hang aroung here for awhile, you'll catch on ... :-) this would make reprogramming the ESN _quite_ infeasible. Cheers, Internet: Jay.Ashworth@psycho.fidonet.org UUCP: ...!uunet!ndcc!tct!psycho!Jay.Ashworth Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write root. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What's AT&T's number? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 9 Nov 91 17:20:01 EST (Sat) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) In article you write: > ... an AT&T calling card center (813-654-6000) > ... 816 - 654 - 6004 (call collect from overseas) Is their number 813 (Florida) or 816 (Missouri)? To clarify things, I called AT&T and asked them what the number is, and they said 205-470-7619. Hmmn. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash) Subject: Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 00:19:53 GMT In article ve3pmk@student.business. uwo.ca (R. Patrick MacKinnon) writes: > [Moderator's Note: MCI = Microwave Communications, Inc. Sprint = I thought that it long ago was changed so that now it stands for Mass Communications, Inc. It was originally Microwave Communications, Inc. David W. Ash ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu HOME: (415) 497-1629 WORK: (415) 725-3859 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 17:24 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards) writes: > First moral of the story: if you ask for an unlisted number, > don't assume that you'll get one that was not very recently in use by > another party. And the fourth, unmentioned, moral of the story: do not ever expect that by getting an unlisted number that you will be protected in any way from junk, nuisance, or other annoying calls. After spending a quiet two weeks away from civilization I returned to my usual telephone annoyance: wrong numbers. I have essentially three incoming voice lines: a listed public line (in the .signature if you are interested), a very private line known only by a very tight handful of associates, and an even more private 800 number which has its own dedicated appearance. The public line gets almost no wrong numbers whatsoever, nor does it appear to be particularly susceptable to solicitation calls. (The {San Jose Mercury} was an exception: it went down the list in numerical order and nailed all my lines, modems, fax and all.) Whenever that line rings it is almost assuredly for me from someone with legitimate communications. And this, even though the number is published in the telephone directory, is available from directory assistance, and is appended to almost every one of the hundreds of e-mails that I send to people all over the world every week. The "private" line is a zoo. It rings at least four times a day with a call for someone I have never heard of. There is no pattern, common name, or any other thread than I can possibly follow to track down a potential source of misinformation. This line also seems to attract all the charities, insurance offers, and long distance companies with their stupid pitches. Why not change it, you ask? Simple: this is much better than the ten + calls I received a day on the previous "private" number. In other words, I have no assurance that changing the number would net any positive results; and indeed could be a lot worse. Thankfully, the 800 number also appears to be "clean". It has a double exposure: the 800 number itself and the POTS number of the physical line. Even so, about one wrong number per month is all that I experience from it. (My previous 800 number was cross between that of the Hilton hotel chain and the San Francisco-based Red and White Fleet. You have no idea how many room and tour reservations I took before getting tired of the game!) I have heard many talk about the sanctity of unlisted numbers and how necessary they are to avoid annoying calls. If this is the goal, a great deal of disappointment is likely. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 18:16 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Rates "Steven M. Palm" writes: > cellulars use radio frequencies, so there aren't any lines to > maintain. Should be much cheaper. Why do people put up with such a > ripoff? Good question. But in Hawaii, apparently they don't. I do not have the rate card in front of me, but GTE Mobilnet offers five-island coverage for about half the going rate here in California. And not only are the per-minute rates very, very low, the monthly base rates are also quite attractive. Under one plan (that also has reasonable per-minute charges) the monthly service is FREE. That's right -- if you don't use it, you don't pay. What a novel concept. I wonder how they can maintain all that ether out there without a monthly fee. Gee! No, GTE! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: pdg@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Guthrie) Subject: Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 07:26:12 GMT In article mikel@aaahq05.aaa.com (Mikel Manitius) writes: >> [ ... ] There was even a _real_ (not pre-printed) 10-cent stamp on >> it. Imagine my surprise to see that inside was a $20 check from AT&T >> -- all I have to do to get the cash is switch to AT&T. > I really thought it was funny when my friend received such a $20 check > from MCI to switch -- she was already an MCI "Dial 1" customer! > Are these things legally binding? > I've often managed to desposit checks into my account without signing > them by using an ATM. The problem is they'll probably switch you anyway, > and the trouble of getting it fixed isn't worth the $20. This will be an interesting thing for me to try. I just hope I get one of those checks in the mail. I live in an apartment complex with it's own PBX which charges for LD service itself. I don't have a chance to switch. (At least they charge "AT&T rates", though). Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul or pdg@balr.com or attmail!balr!pdg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 6:20:17 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: Inpartiality and Due Process? In Volume 11, Issue 898, Message 1 of 6 john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > The commission will study the report and will have to option to: 1) > approve the recommendations intact; 2) make modifications and then > approve it; or 3) throw it out entirely and decree something > completely different (as Monty Python would say). What will actually > happen is that the commissioners will have lunch (and maybe dinner) > with some key Pac*Bell people and they will grind out what the people > of California will be stuck with. It will be almost exactly what > Pac*Bell originally proposed with some cosmetic changes to pacify > TURN, who will then be able to go back to its constituency (little old > ladies) and crow about how much it saved the people of the state. My > personal prediction is that even more of the burden of the increase > will be shifted to small business, a group that TURN seems to feel has > infinitely deep pockets. This is the same way that NY Tel gets its pound of flesh from its ratepayers. Instead of a Public Utility Commission, we get the Public Service Commission which is also known as the UTILITY Service Commission. The supposedly powerful State Consumer Protection Board (created during the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant fiasco) can't seem to make any reasonable headway against the PSC in keeping rates down anywhere. One answer that was suggested in New York was to make the Commissioners elected, not appointed which would give the people some form of control. That dies each time due to the intense lobbying by you-knnow-who. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 6:31:48 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: New NETel Rates for Metro Boston Customers In ST901316@PIP.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (Scott Fybush) writes: > Anyone know just what NETel is up to? Is this a move towards some > sort of universal ZUM system here? Or is NETel making enough from > extended-flat-rate premium deals like Metropolitan Service that it > would want to avoid ZUM? This sounds like what NYTel did a few years ago when they went from (I think) calling areas based on mileage to regional calling. For the NY Metro area there is NYC, part of Westchester County, a very small part of Connecticut, Nassau County, and the West Suffolk and East Suffolk home regions. Calls in the primary area (my community and all adjacent exchanges including in another region) are in Flat rate pricing and calls to the rest of my region are at (currently) 10.2 cents for the first minute, 2.2 cents per minute after that. Discounts apply for certain hours. Calls to other regions incur higher rates with the exception of those exchanges that border mine. Since most of my calls are in my flat rate area, this is the best choice for me since I can call as often as I want and talk as long as I want (a wallet saver if you have kids). Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: thinkage!kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ken Dykes) Subject: Re: Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere Organization: Thinkage Ltd. Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 11:22:41 GMT In article S_ZIEGLER@iravcl.ira.uka.de (|S| Juergen Ziegler) writes: > Hi TD-readers, > program. Last Friday I watched 'Journalist Roundtable' where they > accept phone calls. > While watching the program I was quite stunned by poor audio quality > from most callers within the US as compared to a phone call from a > correspondent who was calling from Madrid, Spain. In North America (US and Canada) the subscribers may attach/supply their own telephones. They are more often than not the cheapest piece of garbage you can possibly manufacture. Ie: toys > The audio from the intra-US callers had a 'metallic' sound. So there > was a relatively loud high-frequency spectrum compared to a virtual > not existing low-frequency spectrum. The sound reminded me of an > 'speaking' toy from Texas Instrument (I do not know the name), which Speaking toy. Yes, that's the description! :-) "Real" phones have either some sophisticated audio technology, or before modern electronics, some neat acoustical/material design features. These solutions are sadly missing on what are essentially disposable phones. Imagine magazine publishers giving away a "free phone" with every six month subscription ... the phones won't exactly be expensive to manufacture or package. I have one of these phones, and a normally annoying "bell tap" I actually use as a feature. I live on a non-electronic exchange (519-886) which, when it "connects" the line, but before the first ring is sent, will cause a brief "chirp" on the cheap phone. I pick up before the first ring and surprise the unsuspecting caller. They always say "But! It didn't even ring!" I pretend I'm psychic :-) :-) (My exchange has synchronized ringing with callers in the same local area.) Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] postmaster@thinkage.on.ca kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca thinkage!kgdykes kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1] kgdykes@thinkage.com [Moderator's Note: You mean the News Weak Magazine and Telephone Company sells inferior instruments? You mean their phones have about as much quality inside them as their magazine has inside it? Regards advance notice of incoming calls, I used to do the same thing as yourself about twenty years ago when I had service on one of the last stepper switches in Chicago. 312-WEbster-9 phones frequently gave a little 'ding' from the bell while the caller was still riding the switch-train, crashing and banging along on the track to connection. They cut Webster and the rest of Chicago-Wabash (Cannonball) straight over to ESS in 1975. The one holdout was 312-LOngbeach-1, and it went ESS in 1977. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures Date: 10 Nov 91 18:56:50 GMT Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands In article 20017ANG@msu.edu (Peng_H.Ang) writes: > I saw the British Telecom profit figure on the news wire but what > really puzzles me is why the British are so upset about the L100 a > second profit? Isn't this the expected result of privatization? That > BT would become more profitable. Yes. That would indeed be the case if the majority of Britons approved of the privatisation in the first place. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 13:57:24 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Last Week at the FCC Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo This "Last Week at the FCC" posting was great! Can we see them every week! Is the actual text of each item available on line turh internet? (especially Notices of Inquiry, Notices of Proposed Rulemakings, Report and Orders, and Policy Statements). Harold ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #912 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29668; 10 Nov 91 22:53 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01440 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:09:36 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31453 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:09:25 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:09:25 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111110309.AA31453@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #913 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 21:08:22 CST Volume 11 : Issue 913 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea (David G. Lewis) Re: More on LEC Competition (John Higdon) Re: More on LEC Competition (Norman Yarvin) Re: The Information Wars (Roy M. Silvernail) Re: The Information Wars (Harold Hallikainen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 16:59:02 GMT In article strat@access.digex.com (Robert J. Stratton III) writes: > I strongly suggest that you take a look at larger cities where LEC > bypass is beginning to thrive (Metropolitan Fiber in NYC might be a > good example), Actually, Teleport Communications in NYC might be a better example. MFS only began operations in NYC in late 1990, while Teleport Communications has been operating there since 1985 and turning a profit since 1988. [This is not meant to imply any preference on the part of AT&T towards Teleport, MFS, or NYT, or any endorsement on the part of AT&T of this "bypass" business ...] In article davidb@zeus.ce.washington. edu (David W. Barts) writes: > Another interesting fact about markets and competition is that they > are not free. They incur costs. Yes, they also incur benefits. I > agree that in many cases, the benefits exceed the costs, but in this > respect the telephone network presents a special case. This is > because size, _in and of itself_, is a desirable attribute in a > telephone network. Wrong metric. *Size* is not the desirable attribute. The number of people to which I can connect is the desirable attribute. This returns us to the interconnection argument -- if I operate a small, efficient, highly localized telephone network, and I'm interconnected with all the other local telephone networks in my LATA and with all the IXCs having presence in my LATA, my customers can reach as many people as can the customers of the large, ubiquitous Phone Company located in the same area. Size is *not* a virtue in and of itself. > The more people I can talk to with my phone, the > more useful it is to me. Exactly. Which is not the same as saying "the larger the phone network to which my phone is connected, the more useful my phone is to me." > Sure, steps can be taken to ensure connectivity between systems. But > now what we're doing is: 1) spending much effort breaking the whole > into pieces, then 2) spending more effort and resources to make the > system that resulted from (1) look essentially the same as before (1) > was applied. A) Who said anything about breaking the whole into little pieces? I don't advocate breaking up the existing local exchange carriers, be they Bell or otherwise (my humorous remarks about an ongoing chain of divestiture in a previous post notwithstanding); I merely advocate permitting other carriers to freely and fairly compete with them. B) Some would state that we already did this. Lessee, to enable the system of multiple IXCs and multiple divested BOCs to work as well as One Bell System, the industry had to invent equal access signaling, settlements and separations, subscriber line access charges, minutes of use access tariffs ... but how many people would argue that long distance service was better before divestiture? > Several posters have mentioned the undesirability of subsidies for > various components of the telephone network. But such revenue > transfers are a fact of life no matter what we do. Right now, if I > decide to purchase a Sony TV, Sony can use the profit it earned from > this sale to support research and development of a new line of > computers. Revenue has been transferred from the TV sector to the > computer research sector. Yes, but (as I'm sure John H will point out) Sony is not guaranteed by the government an 11% + profit on the sales of TVs. Sony's got to compete in the marketplace to sell those TVs, whereas LECs don't have to compete in the marketplace to sell phone service. Please, keep up the discussion. This is interesting. Note that, of course, these opinions in no way represent those of AT&T. They pay a lot of other people to have opinions about this kind of thing. They just pay me to do ISDN. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 00:11 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: More on LEC Competition David W. Barts writes: > My! I certainly stirred up a hornet's nest, didn't I? Yes, but the problem is that most of what you say, while true, misses the mark by a few degrees. You fail to address the actual reality of the situation. > To take an example from this Digest, when pay phone customers began to > recognize most COCOTS for the rip-offs that they are, the market > responded. You could not have picked a more irrelevant analogy here. The issue of COCOTs is strikingly unique. One (as a customer) does not have occasion to "shop". I cannot recall a time when I woke up one morning and said to myself, "Self, we are going to shop for COCOT service today. We are going to find the best possible service for the least cost." I also do not remember getting on my bike and going from street corner to street corner looking for the "best possible" COCOT. (I have gone looking for the worst, but that is another story.) In short, the pay telephone actually IS a natural monopoly. Or at least a business that requires a helluva lot more regulation than it has received. > The more people I can talk to with my phone, the > more useful it is to me. There are not many industries in which this > can be said -- usually size affects efficiency of production in some > indirect manner (usually related to management structures or local > availability of a raw material). But a telco IS limited in size. In case it has escaped your notice, telcos operate in a very strictly defined geographical area. Pac*Bell cannot "grow" as a telco, only as a conglomerate. AND it must interconnect with all the IECs and other surrounding telcos. This interconnection that worries you so much is the least of a telco's problems. Then you say regarding interconnection: > And this is supposed to be better and more efficient. I > now propose a humble solution to the traffic problem in our cities: > Build walls across the streets. Then, establish a Bureau of Gates and > Overpasses to ensure people can get across these walls. The street > system is now much improved. Is it just me or does this logic sound a > little silly? No, your logic sounds silly. I don't know about your city, but mine has many traffic signals and even some gated railroad crossings. Apparently, you feel that things would go a lot more smoothly if the signals and gates were all removed, right. If you manage to pull this off, give me some notice so I can get out of town. But to deny people choices because you do not feel that interconnection can be effecient is very short sighted. This whole country abounds with interconnected computers, networks, telcos, IECs, e-mail systems, etc., etc. We have become very good at interconnection. Within minutes after I finish typing this message, I know it will be available to PAT and probably yourself within minutes. It will pass through many machines, all owned by different people and companies but it will arrive bit-perfect. Likewise, the interconnection of telephone companies is not a problem. Using your logic, maybe we ought to put the Bell System back together again. That was the largest telephone company of all time. Was it effecient? Was it progressive? Was it reasonably priced? Was it responsive to customers? If your principle is sound, it should work in reverse, no? > But such revenue transfers are a fact of life no matter what we do. > Right now, if I decide to purchase a Sony TV, Sony can use the profit > it earned from this sale to support research and development of a new > line of computers. This is where you really missed the boat. What you say is true, but what you forgot to mention is that you do NOT have to buy Sony. You can buy Sanyo, Toshiba, Panasonic, or even Emerson. If you do not like the way one company distributes its money internally, buy from someone else. Currently, I am unable to do that with my dial tone supplier. > But it is nothing new that under the present system, monied interests > can use their influence to corrupt the legislative process in order to > warp the laws to their own benefit. Right-O. But when Macy's California went to the Supreme court to overturn a state tax law that had they succeeded would have put a lot of elderly people out of their homes, they got a flood of correspondence from customers including some cut-in-half charge cards. Macy's decided that customer good will was worth more than any tax savings in Concord that would have been achieved in court. It dropped the case. Do you think for one minute that Pac*Bell gives one molecule of excrement about what its customers think? Can you imagine the horse laughs when the letters pour in about taking dial tone business elsewhere? One of my little fantasies is calling Pac*Bell some day and telling the rep that I have no more use for the company's services. "They are overpriced and underfeatured. I'm going with XYZ Telecom." John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) Subject: Re: More on LEC Competition Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 23:26:45 GMT davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes: > Sure, steps can be taken to ensure connectivity between systems. But > now what we're doing is: 1) spending much effort breaking the whole > into pieces, then 2) spending more effort and resources to make the > system that resulted from (1) look essentially the same as before (1) > was applied. And this is supposed to be better and more efficient. All it takes to connect different systems is a precisely defined interface standard. Guess what? The telcos already have interface standards. Even in a monopoly situation, using standard interfaces and modular design has been found practical. So this cannot be regarded as an extra cost. There are other aspects which are slightly less clear. For instance, suppose a customer finds a problem. Whose equipment is at fault? Well, how is the problem found today? One subsystem after another is checked, until the problem is found. How would it be found under competition? The same way, except that the systems would be owned by different companies. For instance, the customer might complain to the first, which would confirm that its circuits were working properly, then pass it on to the second, which would pass it on to the third, which would find the problem. The only additional effort needed would be the handing off of problems from one company to another, but this handing off has its parallel in existing practice too, since systems of different types or in different places already use different repairmen, and problems have to be handed off between them. In fact, competition might very well improve the speed with which problems could be isolated to one particular system, because it could be observed that the problem only occurred when the call was routed through one particular company. This may be the main reason why repair coordination is not a problem in the existing competition in long distance services. As for "social good", is it not a social good of the first order to be able to walk away from a company with which one does not want to do business? ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Information Wars From: cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 16:57:11 CST Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN 20017ANG@msu.edu (Peng_H.Ang) writes: > Lantos, bless his heart tho' I don't know him, is siding with > newspaper interests and, on the face of it, blocking access to > information. How do you come by this viewpoint? The telcos are not yet making this information available. Yet the selfsame types of information are available through current sources, from CompuServe and Prodigy down through the hobbyist BBS's. We have the access now. > The info services market, > particularly at the consumer level that the telcos are interested in, > is heavily concentrated. The mass market consumer videotex has just > five key players, starting with CompuServe and Prodigy. I don't see this concentration. The info services that most annoy the RBOCs are in the free hobbyist market, since they cannot price their yet-to-be-offered services at less than free. > I look forward to the telcos' entry in shaking up the consumer > information services market. Yes, the FCC and PUCs will have to watch > them closer. But aren't we all technological optimists in believing > that the greater the access to information techology and services, the > better the country will be? The phone companies' track record belies your optimism. I, for one, do not believe that allowing the RBOCs to become information providers will increase access to either technology or information. Allowing the network to provide the content, as well as the transport mechanism, surely means that the network will wish to transport its own products (where the profit is highest), rather than third-party products (where they can only recover for transport). And if they can only recover for transporting third-party product, does it not stand to reason that the charges for that transportation will grow? Yes, I'm a tecnological optimist, and I believe in the widest possible access to information. The telcos' bludgeoning of the info-services market isn't what I had in mind. Roy M. Silvernail roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 16:38:44 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: The Information Wars Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > Pacific Telesis' response has been a radio commercial which I just > heard aired over a San Francisco classical radio station. Later today > I will transcribe the spot, but for now let me tell you that it is > typical of the underhanded tactics PacTel uses to ruthlessly get its > own way. > Our pulp media is having difficulty staying awake through all of this. > To most, this is a non-issue that deserves, if anything, space on page > sixty-seven. However, PacTel has taken the gloves off with its > political radio spots. Yes, you read that correctly, these are > political spots and I am going to investigate the matter of "equal > time". The "equal time" provision of which John speaks is proabaly the "Fairness Doctrine" (FCC Rule 73.1910, Federal Register volume 39, page 26372). As I recall, the FCC has removed this requirement on radio stations (though, for some reason it's still in my copy of the Rules). The Fairness Doctrine did require stations to give a reasonable opportunity for people with opposing viewpoints to present their views. This was applied here in San Luis Obispo to allow (as I recall) the Mothers For Peace and the Abalone Alliance to air announcements (at no charge) in response to paid announcements by Pacific Gas & Electric regarding the NRC licensing of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Since then, Florida (again, as I recall) imposed a Fairness Doctrine on newspapers, requiring them to provide "equal space." A court threw that out as violating the first amendment (the government was telling a newspaper what to print). Since then, the FCC has thrown out the Fairness Doctrine, reasoning that with the large number of "voices" now present in broadcast (and competing media), that most views will probably be heard. They further reasoned that the Fairness Doctrine was an unreasonable restriction on the editorial rights of broadcasters (first amendment concerns), even though courts had previously ruled the Fairness Doctrine was ok (I think the big case was Red Lion Broadcasting, some time in the 1960s). In general, the FCC is moving toward a "print model" for broadcasting and other electronic media (for example, a court decided the FCC "must carry" rule for CATV systems interfered with the CATV operator's first amendment editorial control). So, I don't think you'll get "equal time". Harold ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #913 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00776; 10 Nov 91 23:37 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04993 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:52:03 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21844 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:51:49 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:51:49 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111110351.AA21844@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #914 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 21:51:46 CST Volume 11 : Issue 914 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Question on Easements (David G. Cantor) Re: Question on Easements (Charles Hawkins Mingo) Re: Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst (Marcus Adams) Re: TAT-10 and TAT-11 (Harold Hallikainen) Re: The Information Wars (John Higdon) Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches (John Higdon) Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Who Benefits From Local Competition? (John Higdon) TIMELY: TV Program on Phone Phraud (Jeff Wasilko) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Question on Easements Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 10:07:53 -0800 From: David G. Cantor In TELECOM Digest, Volume 11, Issue 910, Irc Kaufman states: > It's not unheard of for utilities not specifically named in the > easement to use right-of-way granted to other utilities (sort of > like sub-contracting to provide telephone lines alongside the > water pipes). This may happen, but the owner can protest and win. Easements can only be used for the stated purpose. See below: > The bottom line is that if you take them to court to make them > stop, the local governing body will probably take the easement by > eminent domain. Exactly that happened to me. Los Angeles County already had sewer and water easements on my property. It wanted to install underground drainage facilities, etc. It filed an eminent domain suit against my wife and myself offering to pay $2,000.00. We didn't accept and, in a negotiated settlement received $16,500. This took two years, an elaborate assessment report and a three-hour deposition. The lawyer received 1/3. On the other hand, the local cable TV company happily ripped up my (private) street without an easement to install upgraded facilities. No resident on the street objected. If one had, I suspect we wouldn't have had cable TV. Our street is a dead-end and the cable was for residents of our private-street, alone. David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555 Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu ------------------------------ From: well!mingo@well.sf.ca.us (Charles Hawkins Mingo) Subject: Re: Question on Easements Date: 10 Nov 91 21:20:55 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA In article KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com writes: > My question is, since they intalled the cable without our permission > (we didn't even know it was there) and, then went to install new > cable, did they have a right "with the perscriptive easment" to do > that? And, were we suckered on what a half mile long easment is > worth? Any ideas? > [Moderator's Note: I think what they were trying to say is the law in > many or most places grants easement rights to utilities as long as > they act within reason, repairing/replacing roadways, grass, etc when > finished with their work. Comments, anyone? PAT] State law may well provide telcos with the power to obtain easements by eminent domain, but that's not what a prescriptive easement is. The statutes of limitations require aggrieved parties to sue to enforce their rights within a certain period, or lose those rights altogether. In the field of real estate, this led to the doctrine of "adverse possession," where a trespasser can obtain ownership of property by occupying it -- (i) openly and notoriously, (ii) continuously, (iii) while claiming ownership, (iv) in a manner hostile to true owner (eg, not as a tenant), and (v) for a period equal to the statute of limitations for real estate claims (usually twenty years). A prescriptive easement is a form of adverse possession. Because the LEC was able to use the easement for a long period of time, they may have acquired the right to continue to do so. "Long continued use engenders an inference that such use began lawfully." That is not to say that the LEC actually had a proscriptive easement on your land. The statute of limitations varies from state to state, but ten years sounds a little short. Some states require that claim of ownership be made in good faith. There is also the question of whether having a buried cable constitutes "open and notorious" use, and so on. As for the value of the easement, that depends on the degree of disturbance the buried cable will cause you, the value of the land, and what you were planning to do with it. In any case, it sounds as if you signed away your rights when you settled, so it's all moot now. [Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but as I don't know which state the land is in (or many other relevant facts) this is not a professional opinion.] Charlie Mingo Internet: mingo@well.sf.ca.us 2209 Washington Circle #2 mingo@cup.portal.com Washington, DC 20037 CI$: 71340,2152 AT&T: 202/785-2089 ------------------------------ From: madams@aludra.usc.edu (Marcus Adams) Subject: Re: Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst Date: 11 Nov 91 02:01:51 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA In article madams@aludra.usc.edu I write: > I do know a guy who, in order to get even with an ex-girlfriend, > called up the touchtone registration on the last day of drop/add (last > day to make changes in your schedule without getting charged for it) > and added 16 classes to her schedule for a total of 44 credit hours. > She got a bill for it a couple weeks later, at $475 a credit hour, for > over $20,000 over her normal tuition. > [Moderator's Note: Gee, what a witty, brilliant and funny thing to do > to someone. He must have been rolling on the floor with laughter after > doing that, the same as I am now reading about it. PAT] Wasn't my point ... There were fees involved that the school was trying to force her to pay, which she claimed she wasn't responsible for because she didn't register for the classes, and it was easy for someone to register under her name with the system they had in place. This relates to the discussion regarding MCI's putting personal info on-line and making it easy to retrieve. For instance, all my personal financial info is available 24 hours a day from Bank of America with only my account number and a social security number. And only the last four digits of a SS number are needed! At what point is a company liable for the information they provide via phone? What are "minimum" security standards for touchtone systems like these? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 14:04:36 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: TAT-10 and TAT-11 Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > AT&T sent out a press release today about the proposed new TAT-10 and > TAT-11 fiber optic transatlantic cables. Both will run from Green > Both will run at 560 megabits/sec, equivalent to 80,000 simultaneous > calls. > Green Hill currently serves TAT-6 and TAT-7, older copper cables with > capacities of only 7,000 conversations each. Are these cables running just one fiber each (or one in each direction, or several in each direction), each running 560 Mbits/sec? Are the TAT-6 and TAT-7 cables still running SSB FDM voice, or are they driven by "high speed modems" at each end, making a digital interface to the undersea coaxial cable. I understand the coax cables from Hawaii coming here in SLO have all the FDM terminal equipment replaced with a fast modem. Harold ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 13:38 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: The Information Wars "Peng_H.Ang" <20017ANG@msu.edu> writes: > The mass market consumer videotex has just > five key players, starting with CompuServe and Prodigy. I think > CompuServe is wonderful but its prices are a different matter. Well, > recently, with Prodigy gaining market share, CompuServe introduced a > "basic" service where for $7.95 a month you get several "popular" > services plus 30 email messages. (Sounds familiar?) Excuse me, but have you perhaps overlooked the literally thousands of privately owned BBS services in this country? These are the real backbone of the information age currently. And these are precisely the targets of the RBOCs. SWBT does not even mince words on the subject. It knows that it cannot compete with 'free' in terms of price competition and therefore has ALREADY mounted its war on the private BBS. Many private BBSes offer mail services and a vast array of information. Most are funded by the owner's own resources. There is even a handful of users on this site who pay nothing for news and mail access. Knowing this, the telcos are gearing up excuses to jack up the rates on any line where they hear modem tone. SWBT's lame excuse is, "How do we know it isn't a business operating behind that modem?" (The dark implication there is that they can tell if you are operating a business on a voice line because they can monitor it.) So, if the RBOCs enter into the info business the order of attack will be: 1) the private and small BBSes; and then 2) those other players you have mentioned. The RBOCs have already had a crack at them with an abortive attempt at passing an access surcharge for data networks. > I look forward to the telcos' entry in shaking up the consumer > information services market. Yes, the FCC and PUCs will have to watch > them closer. But aren't we all technological optimists in believing > that the greater the access to information techology and services, the > better the country will be? Please tell me what the telcos can bring to the party that is not already here? They have proven time and time again that they are completely devoid of creativity in virtually every venture they have tried. Pacific Telesis, for instance, failed with its computer stores, its "gab lines", and even the Message Center is in trouble. After telcos have decimated the BBSes and damaged the experienced commercial information services, we will be left with the usual stogy "phone company"-style drivel. And that will be so much for the information age. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 20:01 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches On Nov 9 at 19:34, TELECOM Moderator writes: > It is instances like this which make me wish I was a telco service > rep. I would have called your friend back; apologized for us > 'accidentally getting cut off'; reminded him that he had no property > rights in his telephone number and that his number could be changed at > anytime the Company found it expedient to do so in the conduct of its > business; and that he was being moved to an exchange where the Company > found it expedient to place his service: one on which his use of touch > tone *could* be controlled; ie, an ESS. Almost as an afterthought I > would ask if he had reconsidered his earlier position and was willing > to either (a) use it and pay for it, or (b) refrain from using it. PAT] I have several comments about this (what a surprise!) First, being Pac*Bell Land, there was, of course, no ESS to reconnect him to. So that threat is out the window. If they would have given him free foreign prefix service from another CO, I'm sure he would have gladly paid for the touch-tone. But more important was something that you obviously missed. The ENTIRE office had been converted for touch tone. This means that each and every originating register would have had a receiver. The long and the short of it is that by using TT, the customer was actually SAVING the telco money by tying up the originating register for less time. The issue of the cost of the TT receiver is moot; the office was universally equipped. I once had an identical situation with a client. The telco tried to charge my client for TT service in a crossbar office that was fully TT equipped. I told him that unless the telco could technically force him to pay for REDUCING THEIR COSTS, he should refuse to pay. I also reminded him that he was not paying any less for his inferior crossbar-provided local exchange service than customers who were served out of ESS equipment. (His crossbar was particularly vile; much worse than mine.) My customer got "free" touch tone service for years. Later, another part of the CO was upgraded to a 1AESS. I advised the client to have his number changed to get service out of the new switch. I also advised him that he would have to begin paying for TT service. "Gladly. Anything to improve the rotten service I am now getting." So you see, Pat, people are actually willing to pay for something they actually get, no? Using TT signaling on a telephone line served out of a fully-tone-equipped office is not exactly the same as stealing an exhaustable commodity such as water. Let us try to keep a perspective, please. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 16:57:11 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo In article is written: > I had a friend who was served by a rotary dial crossbar office in > Santa Ana California that he knew would soon be updated to include T-T > service that would be hardwired into every phone in the CO. He > acquired a non-Bell System T-T phone and checked the line until his > tones could break dial tone and then never used his rotary dial phone > again. Not long after he received a call from a PacTel representative > DEMANDING (emphasis meant to highlight PacTel's heavyhanded approach) > that he pay for the service or she would disconnect him from the T-T > service. He simply laughed at her and said "Go ahead and try!" and > then hung up on her to really get her upset. They never did bill him. At least here in SLO-town, Pacific Bell now gives everyone DTMF service. Those that were paying extra got a reduction in the monthly bill. I also agree with the Moderator's comment that we should pay for what we get, not just take without paying whatever we can get away with. If the DTMF surcharge were unreasonable, file a complaint with the PUC, don't steal the service. Harold ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 14:06 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Who Benefits From Local Competition? deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes: > Next, the seven RBOCs will > divest themselves of the local Bell operating companies so they can > enter the unregulated information services, long distance, > manufacturing, real estate, financial, etc. businesses. But this will only happen under court order. The last thing the RBOCs want to do right now is divest themselves of the geese laying golden eggs. Oh, sure, they cry and moan about how they have to labor under regulation (that they write themselves), but when push comes to shove, that regulated ratebase is risk-free, easy money. What will have to happen is a Greene-style action once again. (Hear all that shuddering in the background?) The RBOCs want it all: the might of the regulated capital supply and the ability to branch out with a mighty big footprint. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Jeff@digtype.rochester.ny.us (Jeff Wasilko) Subject: TIMELY: TV Program on Phone Phraud Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 16:49:06 EST Organization: Roslyn's Cafe on the road... Reply-To: digtype!jeff@netcom.com I just saw an annoucment for a feature program on Phone Phraud (it looked like they will concentrate on PBX-based fraud). It's Steals & Deals, which is on CNBC at 7:30 on Monday. Jeff Jeff's Oasis at Home. Jeff can also be reached at work at: jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu OR digtype!jeff@netcom.com jjwcmp@ritvax.isc.rit.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #914 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02743; 11 Nov 91 0:43 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14786 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 22:50:21 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14445 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 22:50:05 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 22:50:05 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111110450.AA14445@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #915 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 22:50:02 CST Volume 11 : Issue 915 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [Jack Decker] Re: Did I (Hopefully) Cause Trouble For a Telemarketer? (Steve Kass) Re: Did I (Hopefully) Cause Trouble For a Telemarketer? (H. Hallikainen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 00:13:41 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea In a message dated 5 Nov 91 07:10:10 GMT, davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts) wrote an article entitled "LEC Competition is a Bad Idea" in which he made some doom-and-gloom prediction about what might happen if competition were allowed at the local exchange service level. My first reaction was that it reminded me of the folks who said it would take five years or more to put out all the oil well fires in Kuwait following the end of the Gulf War. It my mind, I have a very difficult time imagining that the "worst-case scenario" portrayed by Mr. Barts would come to pass. However, it's a difficult thing to argue against because we have not defined exactly what we mean when we say "local competition." For example, suppose we allow "competition for the provision of local dial tone." That may sound like it pretty well defines the issue at first blush, but consider that there are many ways that this could be implemented. You could allow multiple telephone companies to operate in the same service area, each providing their own facilities (both inside and outside plant), but there are other variations that might be considered. For example: 1) Requiring existing phone companies to lease point-to-point circuits to other service providers. Let's say that your local phone service costs $15 per month and that (for the sake of argument) you either have flat rate service or you make no outgoing calls. The phone company must recover the expense of providing and maintaining the pair of wires that connects your home to the central office for some fraction of that monthly charge, correct? So you could unbundle that from provision of dial tone say that the phone company must impute to itself a certain monthly charge for providing and maintaining the lines to your home (which it would recover in your monthly bill if you're a user of the phone company) or charge to any other company that wishes to provide phone service. In other words, if I wanted service from the Fair Dinkum Phone Company rather than Ma Bell, FDPC might bill me for $15 per month and then turn around and give a certain amount back to Ma for providing the line between my home and the FDP C switch. Why would this be advantageous to the customer? Because the lines would be leased solely on the basis of time, not usage (which is as it should be ... lines do not age faster because they are used more!). Therefore, other phone companies might choose to provide certain services that Ma charges extra for free of charge. This could be done the moment the regulators allowed it, and Ma would still get at least some of her due, and all the arguments about "extra cables in the streets" would be moot. 2) Or consider an even smaller operation: Suppose the owners of housing complexes, apartment buildings, condominiums, mobile home parks, etc. had the right to purchase small PBX switches and sell local phone service to their tenants? Now, I admit that this would open the door for the same sort of sleaze that run some of the AOS and COCOT operations, but if it were done RIGHT, consider what you could offer: Free calls between neighbors (even in mandatory measured service areas), free custom calling features, perhaps direct connections to LD carriers to bypass access charge payments to the local telco, perhaps FX trunks to nearby exchanges that are toll calls (I can think of one mobile home park in particular where that would be a VERY useful feature, as it sits just on the "wrong" side of an exchange boundary where there is no EAS across the line), and of course, lower monthly rates since only a fraction of the normal amount of lines from the telco would be needed (and with DID everyone could still have an individual phone number). 3) And then there's the fear of every telco executive: That of letting the cable companies provide dial tone. But cable companies (especially the ones that use fiber) actually have capacity for MULTIPLE voice paths. If the cable companies were to simply function as a conduit (similar to the telco provision of the line between CO and the customer as mentioned in #1), they could actually provide service for MULTIPLE telephone companies on the same line. You could even have a small "channel selector" that would let you "tune into" the phone company you want to use for a given call (much as "10XXX" selects a long distance carrier). Presumably you'd subscribe to one, or at most two telcos for your dial tone (you might use two if they had different coverage areas for "local" calls), but others might allow you to place "casual calls" at a fixed rate per call or per minute, which would be billed through your cable bill. My point is that there are a lot of different things that COULD happen but it all depends on HOW competition is implemented, and we're a long way from deciding that. I believe that SOME form of competition is not only inevitable, but will save people lots of money AND (the best part) force telephone company executives to start to consider what their CUSTOMERS want, rather than what they can do to gouge more money from customers. I just think many telephone company officials don't realize what a thin line they are walking in that regard. They may think they have the regulatory process all buttoned up, but all it would take would be for ONE citizens' group to start an initiative petition going (with the backing of some influential citizens) to upset the whole applecart. In fact, voters in Maine and Oregon have already passed initiative measures that BAN mandatory measured service in those states! But on the other hand, I'd hate to see too much opportunity given to the sleaze element. One other thing Mr. Barts seems to fear is the inability to communicate with others who don't use the same phone company you use. Well, it seems to me that this is a regulatory issue. Right now I am sitting in a Michigan Bell exchange and I can dial toll-free into a GTE North exchange. The fact that they happen to serve different geographical areas now doesn't mean that it HAS to be that way. I suspect that in the current environment, those telcos that offer connections to other telcos would get more business than those that do not, so regulatory action would really only be needed to keep the current large telcos from refusing interconnections to their competitors. I do grant that in some cases it might wind up being a bit more costly (at least at first) to call someone on another telephone company but at least you'd have the choice of which company to use. Right now the local telcos in some areas are trying to push through mandatory measured service, which means you'll STILL be paying "changes to call your neighbor across the street" but as it stands now, you don't HAVE any choice in the matter if your PUC chooses to allow this. With the ability to choose, at least the calls to SOME of your neighbors will still be free! The bottom line is that the "natural monopoly" argument doesn't wash in the telephone industry. We tried it in the long distance industry, and rates were artificially high. Now that competition is allowed, long distance rates have been cut to nearly half of the former levels, despite the inflation that has caused other prices to rise (ever think you'd see the day when you could place a three-minute cross country call for about the price of a postage stamp? It wouldn't have happened without competition!). The idea of a natural monopoly is a socialist idea that sounds good in theory, but it often doesn't work as well as expected in practice. With proper legislative controls to restrict the ability to refuse interconnections to competitors, and some incentives/penalties to keep companies from "cherry picking" customers in only the most populated areas, I believe that competition at the LEC level could work very well. In a message dated 5 Nov 91 16:20:13 GMT, fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes: > 1) By reducing the cost of switches and trunks, modern technology has > made serving rural areas much more reasonable. Any place that has > electricity can have a trunk run in, and a switch for 50 or 100 people > is not an unreasonable proposition. A fiber-optic trunk can easily be > hung from the same poles as the electric wires. The extremely small > number of people who live in even more remote areas could use a > subsidized satellite phone service; the price of satellite antennas > has been dropping like a stone. One problem I see with the argument that LEC competition is a bad idea because the competitors might "cherry-pick" the prime areas (which could be prevented by proper regulation) is that, given a chance, the EXISTING telephone companies do exactly the same thing. Just ask the people who live in the East Lake area of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. They've been trying to get phone service for YEARS, with little success. There's roughly 20-30 potential customers in the area (that would actually subscribe to phone service) and many are elderly. Most leave the area during the coldest winter months, but have said they would even pay for sevice on an annual rate if they could get it. The area is currently considered "unassigned", but is adjacent to both Michigan Bell and GTE North exchanges (in fact, a Michigan Bell fiber optic toll cable runs right along a railroad grade that goes through the area, within a few hundred feet of some of the homes that have no phone service). The major problem is not in getting local exchange service for them, but the fact that Michigan Bell is the only toll service provider in the area and they refuse to meet any independent telephone company at the exchange boundary to provide toll service (as they normally do with existing independents) unless the independent can pay them over $100,000 up front!. Bottom line is that Michigan Bell, which for many reasons would be the company best able to serve the area, does not want to serve these people but apparently does not want any other company to serve them either. I KNOW that there are ways that very remote areas obtain toll service, but I don't know what they are. Our public service commission is looking into the matter of these unserved areas (I think there is one other in the state where a number of unserved people live) but from the comments I've heard, they don't seem to think they can force any company to serve the area, nor force Michigan Bell to provide toll service to an independent telco. For those of you who work in the telephone industry, might I suggest that this area would be a good place to test some new switching equipment to see how well it would hold up under HARSH winter weather conditions. I've always thought in the back of my mind that since CO switch makers have to test new equipment anyway, it would be nice if once in a while they'd do it in a currently unserved community and get the bugs out there, and then just sort of leave the equipment behind at the conclusion of the test. It would also, in my opinion, be a lot more public-spirited thing to do than giving monentary contributions to the United Way or some other organization that may be spending your money to support political causes you wouldn't approve of anyway. I mean, I suppose it's nice (?) that a major long distance company gives money to support the environment (so some whacko organization can spike trees, and blind or maim people who work in the logging industry?) but it would be a lot nicer, and probably a lot more cost effective to help those few people who still don't have phone service obtain it. I think that would be a real smart public relations move on the part of some firm in the industry! [I can see the TV spots now: "This lady, who lives in a remote area of Michigan's Upper Peninsula, is alive today because when she had a heart attack, she was able to call for help on her newly-installed phone service provided by the XXX Company. A year ago, she wouldn't have been able to make that call ..."] By the way, if anyone wants more information about this area, give me a call at +1-906-632-3248 and I'll explain the situation as it stands now. In a message dated 5 Nov 91 20:06:07 GMT, john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > LEC competition IS inevitable. With companies such as Pac*Bell now > wanting to rape the small subscriber, the time is coming closer, > faster. At $1.20 per hour for a call ACROSS THE STREET, Pac*Bell is > making "universal service" a bad joke. You claim that competition will > drive the cost up rather than down. I think Pac*Bell is single-handedly > proving you wrong. I fully agree with you on this point, John, but would like to toss something into this discussion that might be helpful to many of us. One on the many little items of information that I have in my notes is that the November 10, 1986 issue of {Communications Week} carried an article which stated that in the November, 1986 elections, voters in the states of Oregon and Maine backed referendums that BAN mandatory measured service! In Maine, New England Telephone and Telegraph Company spent nearly $1.2 million dollars to defeat the referendum, but it was approved by about 58 percent of the voters anyway. What's even more significant about this is that the measured service plan in Maine allowed two measured service options by which customers paid by the minute and distance of a call, and one $19 unlimited usage plan. All three plans capped the maximum monthly charge at $19, no matter the amount of usage. But supporters of the measured service ban argued that the usage-sensitive approach to rates opened the door for New England Telephone to radically increase rates. They argued that while Maine's present measured service program includes a cap, if not subject to a ban the phone company would someday be able to remove the cap and charge customers on a strict usage basis. What I would like to obtain, if anyone has it in their files, is either a copy of the {Communications Week} article cited above, or better yet, a copy of the actual legislation that was enacted by the voters in either Maine or Oregon (or both!). [If anyone has hardcopy of this and no way to scan it into the computer, please send it to me via mail at 1804 West 18th Street #155, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783-1268] Since California is the land of the voter-initiated petition, you might want to try getting something like this going there. If I were doing it, I'd not only put in for a ban on mandatory measured service, but also the inclusion of all adjacent exchanges (and all non-adjacent exchanges within 20 miles) as part of a customer's "local" calling area. Seems to me that this sort of ballot initiative would pass with no problem in your neck of the woods (provided it's not worded in a "funny" way so you have to vote "no" when you mean "yes" or something). Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 22:24 EST From: SKASS@DREW.BITNET Subject: Re: Did I (Hopefully) Cause Trouble For a Telemarketer? In Issue #904, Felix Finch writes: > Last week I answered the phone to hear a recorded pitch for home > equity loans. I swallowed my bile, kept my temper, and waited to give > my name and phone number. Two days later, someone called back. This gives me an idea. The next time a recording asks for your number, leave the number of the PUC, perhaps with the name of someone there who might care about this kind of sleaze. Now if I had an idea for dealing with the recordings that ask you to call a number to "claim your prize" or whatever ... Steve Kass/Math & CS/Drew U/MadisonNJ07940/2014083614/skass@drew.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 16:09:58 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo By the way, totally automated telemarketing calls appear to not be legal in California (according to page A40 of the San Luis Obispo Pacific Bell directory). Has anyone been prosecuted or whatever for this? Any statistics regarding the number of complaints and what actions were taken would be interesting (at least to me!). Harold ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #915 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05033; 11 Nov 91 2:19 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26484 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 11 Nov 1991 00:26:59 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14552 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 11 Nov 1991 00:26:47 -0600 Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 00:26:47 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111110626.AA14552@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #916 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Nov 91 00:26:15 CST Volume 11 : Issue 916 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Report on Telecommunications (Globe and Mail via David Leibold) German AVON Book Wanted With STD Codes, etc (David Leibold) Complete Communicator Technical Information Available (Russ Nelson) MCI F&F Responds With New Privacy Safeguards (Rob Knauerhase) Step by Step Switches and 950 (Bill Huttig) Carriers Billing For Plans After Carrier Change (Bill Huttig) Customer Slammed, But Rips Off Sprint For $125 in Calls (Toby Nixon) Calling Card Wars (J. Philip Miller) Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment (Donald Ekman) The Future of Printed Books (news@unix.cis.pitt.edu) Re: Visual Message Indicator (Leroy Casterline) Re: PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 20:26:52 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: Report on Telecommunications The 10 September 1991 edition of the Toronto-based {Globe and Mail} newspaper had a special "Report on Telecommunications" section. Some of the news items included: - the potential for competitive international telecommunications, as companies such as Cable & Wireless/Mercury, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc. have the potential to offer international services to Canada. - how telecommunications equipment played a part in the failure of this summer's Soviet coup attempt. - the Alex videotext service from Bell Canada seems to be close to a shutdown according to one report; subscribers have stagnated around the 31 000 level, and of these only 10% are actually using Alex to any significant extent; problems included a consumer reluctance to per-minute charges on most of the useful services, and lack of features that would entice people to use Alex over other services such as newspaper, voice telephone, mail, etc. Comparison was made with France's Minitel which saw $2 billion used to give away terminals, plus force people to use Minitel to get to directory information. - an article on videoconferencing, plus other short articles on new technologies and cordless/cellular services. - ads from various telecom interests including Bell Canada, Unitel, AT&T Easylink (Mail, Enhanced Fax). There wasn't too much else earth-shattering, and little mention seemed to have been made about the impending decision regarding competition in domestic Canadian long distance services. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 14:59:24 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: German AVON Book Wanted With STD Codes, etc In (Western portion) German phone books, reference is made to a book called AVON (presumably a German acronym) which contains STD codes and other telephone information that is missing from the phone book. Does anyone on the Digest have access to a copy of a recent AVON? Does it now contain information for the former East Germany system as well? Is it possible to get a copy if one is outside Germany? dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) Subject: Complete Communicator Technical Information Available Reply-To: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu (aka NELSON@CLUTX.BITNET) Organization: Crynwr Software, guest account at Clarkson Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 02:26:14 GMT The Complete PC will mail you technical documentation on their products, including the Complete FAX and Complete Communicator, when you sign a nondisclosure agreement. AND you can buy product at 50% off retail price at that time. The Complete Communicator is a combination FAX, Modem, and voice mail product. To get a copy of the nondisclosure agreement, send a FAX to Bert Rankin at (408) 434-1048. russ ------------------------------ From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: MCI F&F Responds With New Privacy Safeguards Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 21:52:09 CST I was speaking with an MCI salesman this afternoon (the Friends and Family per-minute rate beats AT&T and Sprint by enough of a margin that I was almost ready to switch). First, and coincidentally, they're offering a $20 check after switching, plus $5 credit to pay for any switching charges, as a response to the current AT&T $20-check promotion. However, the good news on the privacy front came when I expressed distaste that the 1-800-FRIENDS number was open to anyone who knew your zipcode. With a second of paper shuffling, he said that many people had expressed the same concern. He found and read to me from a recent MCI memo saying that the FRIENDS number now requires information from the MCI bill and will recite names rather than numbers, since people had complained that the old number gave away even non-published numbers of people on the list. These changes took place yesterday. So I tried the number, and indeed, it now asks for the last three digits of your MCI account number. One small step for MCI, one giant step for the security of personal information. Rob Knauerhase University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign knauer@cs.uiuc.edu Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group ------------------------------ From: wah@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) Subject: Step by Step Switches and 950 Date: 10 Nov 91 20:13:07 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Jack Decker's discussion of step by step and 10xxx numbers left out the fact that this is the reason that in many small areas you need to dial 1 before 950 numbers and you might have to dial 1 before other numbers that are not charged for (local numbers that belong to other LEC'S). Bill ------------------------------ From: wah@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) Subject: Carriers Billing For Plans After Carrier Change Date: 10 Nov 91 20:09:23 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Jack Decker wrote about billing for Reach Out Plans after switching to another carrier. What the local Southern Bell people said (North and Central FL) is that when you have you PIC on a line changed they do not notify the previous carrier of the change. Also you can have the calling plans without the need of having AT&T as your 1 + carrier. [Moderator's Note: So in other words, the continued billing from AT&T for Reach Out was legitimate if the customer himself did not specifically tell AT&T to cancel his participation. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Customer Slammed, But Rips Off Sprint For $125 in Calls Date: 10 Nov 91 18:20:14 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA The attached article appeared in today's {Atlanta Journal- Constitution}. I'm sure some of you will have comments as to whether Sprint did the right thing. My personal opinion is that they should have credited him for the $5 PIC change charge, and whatever MCI might have charged him less for the calls -- but to credit him the entire bill just invites fraud! I'm sure Sprint is cringing at the thought that a few hundred thousand people now know how to rip them off for at least $125. I also fail to understand why MCI would cancel a credit card of someone who simply changed PICs. It would seem to be in MCI's interest to leave as many of their cards as possible in the hands of past customers. You should get a chuckle out of the penultimate paragraph, too! Toby ----------- UNAUTHORIZED HOOKUP TO SPRINT RINGS WRONG NUMBER WITH MCI CUSTOMER ("Helpline" column, by Gene Tharpe, {Atlanta Journal-Constitution}, Sunday, 10 November 1991, page Q2) Donald Estep, assistant professor of methematics at Georgia Tech, knows when something doesn't add up. And he knew he had not switched his long-distance service from MCI Telecommunications to US Sprint. But US Sprint insisted he had switched service. Mr. Estep said the problem began in January when his wife tried to use their MCI phone credit card and was told it had been cancelled because their service had been switched to Sprint. "She called Sprint and was told we had signed up with it," Mr. Estep said. "She denied this and we switched back to MCI." During subsequent months, Mr. Estep talked several times with different Sprint representatives about a $125.89 bill for calls made while Sprint was handling their long distance. He wanted the bill reduced because of the unauthorized switch to Sprint and because he had to pay a hookup fee when he switched back to MCI. Eventually, Sprint sent Mr. Estep a copy of the form authorizing the switch to Sprint. He said the handwriting was neither his nor his wife's -- and refused to pay any of the bill. Sprint sent the bill to a collection agency. Helpline wrote to a Sprint service center in Dallas, but our reply came from Robin Carolson, a Sprint media representative in Washington: "Upon receipt of your letter, [Sprint] contacted Mr. Estep ... and credited $125.89 to his account, leaving him with a zero balance. We also recalled his account from the collection agency and stopped all collection activies. Mr. Estep's credit rating was not damaged in any way." She called Mr. Estep's experience "isolated and unusual" because Sprint's "strict policies" require authorized signatures and the customer's request before establishing service. "When these policies are not followed," said Ms. Carlson, "Sprint will work with the customer to ensure satisfaction." ----------- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | BBS +1-404-446-6336 AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15 USA | Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) Subject: Calling Card Wars Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 19:21:01 CST In an ad run in the {St. Louis Post Dispatch} today, SWBT was indicating that a significant advantage of its calling card over others was that you could remember its number even if you did not have the card at hand. They also indicated that the PIN was "user selectable." Is it war or not between AT&T and the Baby Bells for credit card accounts? Are others using the same advertising strategy? J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 20:23:41 PST From: ekman%wdl30@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (Donald Ekman) Subject: Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment Years ago I called my local telco to report the addition of an answering machine to my line, dutifully giving the ringer equivalence number. The rep seemed slightly amused. Does anyone still report these things, or is the requirement akin to the do-not-remove-under- penalty-of-law tags found on mattresses and pillows? Naive mind wants to know. Donald E. Ekman, Space Systems/Loral, Palo Alto, CA ekman@wdl30.wdl.loral.com [Moderator's Note: Actually, the tag on mattresses and pillows refers ONLY to the manufacturer and seller of the bedding ... not to the end user. The federal government requires those tags be available for inspection by consumers of the products, and thus warns the seller that the tags are not to be removed. What you as the end user do with the tags is your business, although I don't think I've ever seen a mattress or pillow without one, even long after purchase from a store. I once called up to report a modem I was putting on my line. That would have been about 1979 when I got my first modem, a 110/300 baud Hayes Micromodem II for my Apple II+ (actually, a Bell & Howell 'black Apple' which I still have here). I think the telco rep snickered at me also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "USENET News System" Subject: The Future of Printed Books Date: 10 Nov 91 14:24:59 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh In article <92466@brunix.UUCP> cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes: > infrastructure had been pretty much dead in the water; the phone > companies weren`t allowed to do it, because they would be competing > unfairly with the cable companies; the cable companies weren't allowed > to do it, for fear that they would compete unfairly with the phone > companies. Sigh. Capitalism is such a wonderful thing :-) I hope you're not implying that you think that THIS is Capitalism. Capitalism would be a great thing. If the government, bless its grasping and meddling little ways, would GET THE **** OUT OF THE WAY. When Ma Bell WAS a monopoly, I had better, cheaper service. I now have worse service. Thank you, O mighty Government, for saving me from something that was working just fine. Sea Wasp [Moderator's Note: Not everyone here would agree with you, but I do. For all that was wrong with the old Bell System, we still had the best phone system in the world, bar none. That is now very questionable. Yes, we have all kinds of new technological gimmicks on the phone we did not have years ago, but the network itself has gone to hell in a handbasket, and the old-time enthusiasm and dedication to quality of service is mostly missing. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 12:48:31 -0700 From: casterli@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Leroy Casterline) Subject: Re: Visual Message Indicator >> I'm currently using GTE's 'Personal Secretary' service (aka voice >> mail). The service notifies you of message(s) waiting by changing >> the dialtone from a constant sound to a 'stutter.' >> Does anyone know of a device that can be plugged inline with >> the phone which will illuminate a light or something to that >> effect when a message is waiting (thereby eliminating the need >> to pick up the phone to hear if there is a message). > Someone sells a little box that ... trips an indicator if your phone > has rung. My "little box" would reset the indicator when you went > off hook ... Yes, I had a chance to see such a box just the other day. The problem is that the box does NOT indicate that you have a message waiting, only that you might have one -- you still need to go off hook to check for stutter dialtone to see if there actually is a message waiting. And this system won't work unless the local phone line rings -- what if the message was left without ringing? This is possible on systems which automatically transfer incoming calls to voice mail when the target line is busy, and also on systems where the caller can call directly into your voice mail number and leave a message for you. Also, this box has no way of knowing if you called your voice mail system and retrieved the waiting messages from an outside phone. A better approach is to detect the stutter dialtone which is produced only when there is actually a message waiting. Leroy Casterline ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 14:00 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes: > If the meeting was recorded by a CSR (Certified Shorthand Reporter) > and then transcribed, chances are the reporter would be very willing > to take a written copy of your remarks. Just be reasonable in the way > you go about it -- saying something like "my remarks have a lot of > technical terms and I wanted to provide you a copy as a reference." > The reporter will not copy your written remarks verbatim, but will use > it as a reference for any unintelligible comments or confusing terms. During my testimony at the hearing, even though I am experienced at public speaking and do not mumble, the reporter stopped me on numerous occasions to ask that a technical term be repeated or spelled. I had the distinct impression that he was trying his best to record the proceedings as accurately as possible. And even though he seem to require occasional clarification, I believe the gentleman was experienced in this type of proceeding to the point where he was used to transcribing a lot of jargon. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #916 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18182; 12 Nov 91 1:48 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06172 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 11 Nov 1991 22:14:21 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25397 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 11 Nov 1991 22:14:01 -0600 Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 22:14:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111120414.AA25397@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #917 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Nov 91 22:13:40 CST Volume 11 : Issue 917 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Colin Plumb) Re: Telemarketing Prevented (John Higdon) Re: AT&T Translation Service (Peter G. Capek) Re: Cellular Phone Rates (Linc Madison) Extended Antenna For Cordless Phone (Tatsuya Kawasaki) Connnection Between Digital Phone and Answering Machine (Tatsuya Kawasaki) Taping Phone Calls -- Summary and Thanks (David R. Zinkin) Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) (H. Hallikainen) Re: The Information Wars (John Higdon) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Ethan Miller) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Henry Mensch) Re: Area Code Postings Should Stop Now! (David Ash) Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? (Andrew M. Boardman) Re: Area Code Postings Should Stop Now! (Patrick L. Humphrey) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: colin@array.uucp (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 03:50:29 -0500 Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA In article kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > So, a telemarketer who calls ten people who are not interested is > equivalent to ten calls to one person who is not interested? > [Moderator's Note: Nope, not true at all, because a telemarketer does > have a legitimate business reason for calling. The fact that you or I > or anyone else is not interested does not remove the legitimacy of the > call in the first place. The difference between them and phreaks who > war-dial an entire community is the phreak had no business calling the > number in the first place ... the telemarketer did. PAT] I'm sorry, but I fail to see the distinction between a phreak scanning an exchange for modem carrier (or some such) and a telemarketer scanning an exchange for a customer. The telemarketer may be smarter and use a list of likely clients (income bracket, neighbourhood, etc.), but phreaks have their sources, too ... Of course, the telemarketer wants to make money and the phreak is doing it for his own inscrutable reasons, but I consider that irrelevant. The main advantage to me is that while both, in accordance with Murphy's law, call while I'm in the shower, the phreak doesn't take up my time with a sales pitch. Colin [Moderator's Note: The phreak intends to steal something from you if possible; ie your computing and telecom resources. The telemarketer wishes to sell you something if possible. There is legally and otherwise a difference between selling you something and stealing from you. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 00:19 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > By the way, totally automated telemarketing calls appear to > not be legal in California (according to page A40 of the San Luis > Obispo Pacific Bell directory). Has anyone been prosecuted or > whatever for this? Any statistics regarding the number of complaints > and what actions were taken would be interesting (at least to me!). I do not have statistics on any prosecution successes, but judging from my experience on several occasions, it is likely very low. Each time when I was called by a telemarketing machine, a note was made concerning the sponsor. And each time a complaint was made including a follow up. In every case, the telemarketer claimed that the machine making the calls was located outside the state. In more than one instance, I was completely convinced that not only was the call made from within the state but from my own CO! Crossbar has a distinct sound upon disconnect when the call is in the same switch. The corker was when the call-back number weedled out of the live person who eventually called back bore a prefix served by my switch. Even when I presented this evidence, Pac*Bell yawned in my face. I was told quite frankly that they had other things to worry about and that enforcing the telemarketing regulations was next to impossible. It is funny that Pac*Bell seems to be able to enforce tariff against competitors without difficulty. Here is a good use for Caller-ID. It would stop this nonsense forthwith. Even if the telemarketer was bright enough to block, it would show 'blocked' rather than 'out of area'. Maybe Pac*Bell people would listen to this evidence. And who said that Caller-ID would not be any defense against junk calls? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 01:38:05 EST From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Re: AT&T Translation Service It was mentioned here several times recently that the Translation Service is located in Monterey, California. Does anyone know whether this location was chosen because it is where the Army (DoD?) Language School is? Is there any relation between the two organizations? Peter Capek ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 00:13:20 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Rates Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article John Higdon (john@zygot.ati.com) writes: > "Steven M. Palm" writes: >> cellulars use radio frequencies, so there aren't any lines to >> maintain. Should be much cheaper. Why do people put up with such a >> ripoff? > Good question. But in Hawaii, apparently they don't. ... > [info about GTE cellular rates in Hawai'i -- low per minute and low > per month, even a plan with ZERO monthly fee] > Gee! No, GTE! I have a friend who lives in the jungle on the Big Island of Hawaii. He spends most of his time out in the field in the middle of the island, studying birds and butterflies. Every week or two he goes into Hilo for mail and provisions, but other than that he has no contact with the outside world. Until recently, that is -- he now has a cellular phone! He's miles from the nearest land lines, but no longer incommunicado. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu (& Kawasaki) Subject: Extended Antenna For Cordless Phone Organization: Brigham Young University Date: 10 Nov 91 00:25:54 I understand it is illegal to sell an antenna to extend your cordless phone range, allowing it to transmit more than 1000 feet (legal limit) or whatever. But I have a question. My cordless phone is bad, and probably it is due to a small battery capacity. Anyhow, any suggestion to extend my phone range, other than buying a phone would be welcome. Thanks. Tatsuya tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu EMT:901006 Ham: N7UQJ [Moderator's Note: The rule is the output (base or phone unit) cannot exceed 1/10 watt (100 milliwatts). The law is not concerned with the distance the signal travels, since no one can control that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu (& Kawasaki) Subject: Connection Between Digital Phone and Answering Machine Organization: Brigham Young University Date: 10 Nov 91 00:57:04 Some time ago, someone was trying sell information on how to make an interface to connect a regular answering machine to digital phone. If someone could help me on that, I would appreciate it. It should not be too hard to make it but I am not an EE. E-mail would be appreciated. Tatsuya tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu EMT:901006 Ham: N7UQJ ------------------------------ From: drz@po.CWRU.Edu (David R. Zinkin) Subject: Taping Phone Calls -- Summary and Thanks Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 15:56:28 GMT Thanks to all who responded to my request for information on whether or not I can tape a phone call if only I know about the recording. Page 17 of my Ohio Bell telephone book (Cleveland, OH) states that "Recording conversations is not permitted unless all parties consent either verbally or in writing, or a distinctive tone sounds every 15 seconds during the recording, or the party intending to record the conversation notifies the other party (BOTH AT THE BEGINNING AND THE END OF THE CONVERSATION) that the call is being recorded." A few readers suggested that I send my requests via certified mail, return receipt requested. Unfortunately, I've tried this and have been told by the other party involved in that particular incident that "I lost the letter before I could read it". Another popular response was to *let them know* that the recording is in progress. The one time I tried this, the other party chose to hang up the phone. (I guess it was silly of me to think that CWRU would encourage the simple procedure of taping phone calls; after all, this is a school which defines wiring up an extension as "unaesthetically pleasing and therefore illegal".) The overwhelming response, however, was that I should skip the recording altogether and simply get a signed contract in such situations. I agree that this is probably the way to go. Once again, TELECOM comes through...thanks to all! David Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu) CWRU Psychology and Chemistry (WR '92) Apple Computer Student Rep & CWRU MacMUG University of Rochester Cancer Center ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 14:29:29 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > [Moderator's Note: MCI = Microwave Communications, Inc. Sprint = > outhern

acific ailroad nternal etwork elecommunications. > The railroad was the original owner of Sprint, which was its internal > telecom department. I don't know about MTI. In the Telecom Archives > you will find three glossary files of interest. (ftp lcs.mit.edu). When I first heard of Southern Pacific Railroad (the local railroad here in SLO) starting SPRINT, I thought it was an excellent idea. They do have all those right of ways. I'm really surprised they sold off SPRINT. Seems those right of ways would be quite valuable, though perhaps at that time microwave was the communications conduit of choice. Since I think it is now optical fiber, the right of ways should again be quite valuable. Further, someone with such a right of way could either lease it to a telecommunications company to string fiber, or could put up its own point to point fiber, selling 150 Mbps or so links on a point to point basis. Those buying use of those links would typically be telcos. I don't see the need for every long distance carrier to market directly to the consumer. Market to the telephone companies. If the railroad can provide a high speed link from here to there for less than anyone else (including the telco, who also has to pay right of way or microwave relay site fees, and, perhaps, someday, spectrum fees), the telco should buy the use of the link from them. As an analogy, my local power company produces some of its own electricity, but, if someone has a special going on, they'll buy the power from them (perhaps a good rain year has produced excess hydro capacity in the Pacific northwest). I don't have to shop around. The power company does it for me. Harold ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 21:53 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: The Information Wars hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > So, I don't think you'll get "equal time". Ah, but what I did not tell you was that the owner of station on which I heard the spot is a personal friend of many years. We'll see. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: elm@cs.berkeley.edu (ethan miller) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Date: 9 Nov 91 19:14:33 > Which area code is the most underused of all? Only a small > percentage of available prefixes in it are used, yet the others aren't > likely to be assigned elsewhere. Geographically, it is pretty tiny > also. PAT] 401 (Rhode Island) uses very few prefixes. It was ranked 43rd in population in 1987, but it's geographically dense, so most prefixes are full with numbers (as opposed to states like Wyoming which may have prefixes/towns with just a few phones). The only other similar candidate would be Washington, DC, but there are so many business phones (and fax machines) that they need lots of prefixes for them. My guess for the smallest area code is either 202 (DC) or 213 (LA). Anyone know the area of 213 after the 213/310 split? ethan miller elm@cs.berkeley.edu #include ------------------------------ From: henry@ads.com (Henry Mensch) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 19:46:38 PST Organization: Advanced Decision Systems Reply-To: Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Well, since none of your answers were in question form, you're all wrong :) # Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / ------------------------------ From: ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash) Subject: Re: Area Code Postings Should Stop Now! Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 05:39:11 GMT > [Moronic Idiot's Rambling: We are getting carried away with this! One > last riddle, then we will stop. Which area code is the most underused of > all? Only a small percentage of available prefixes in it are used, yet > the others aren't likely to be assigned elsewhere. Geographically, it > is pretty tiny also. PAT] 807, where I grew up, definitely serves the lowest population of any area code. However, it's not geographically "tiny". David W. Ash ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu HOME: (415) 497-1629 WORK: (415) 725-3859 [Moderator's Note: The answer (question) I was looking for dealt with Rhode Island (401). PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 00:49:34 EST From: andrew m. boardman Subject: Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? > [...] perhaps deal with some other questions such as how the original > set of area codes was assigned (ie. the rhyme and reasons). This, at least, would seem to be quite obvious, in that more frequently called areas have NPAs which are shorter for both the subscriber to dial and the switching system to repeat; even at 20pps it makes a small difference, and exhaustive nitpicking detail on these sort of things was a trademark of The Phone company. This would finger NYC as the most called area, with Chicago and LA second/third, et cetera ... andrew ------------------------------ From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) Subject: Re: Area Code Postings Should Stop Now! Organization: Rice University Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:07:35 GMT In article meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) writes: > These endless area code postings should be reduced. This information > is available in any phonebook or even in some desktop diaries. The > moderator reduces signatures to a single line in order to save > bandwidth, and yet posts arguments about which area code belongs in > which city. > [Moronic Idiot's Rambling: We are getting carried away with this! One > last riddle, then we will stop. Which area code is the most underused of > all? Only a small percentage of available prefixes in it are used, yet > the others aren't likely to be assigned elsewhere. Geographically, it > is pretty tiny also. PAT] Would it be 302 in Delaware? With an area just a little larger than Harris County (Houston) and a population of less than 700,000, it would seem like the best answer ... Patrick L. Humphrey (patrick@is.rice.edu) Rice Networking & Computing Systems +1 713 527-4989 at Rice. 713 981-5952 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub. [Moderator's Note: But Rhode Island is smallest of all, and I think the entire population is less than a half-million people. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #917 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18978; 12 Nov 91 2:16 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09960 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:22:45 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29231 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:22:30 -0600 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:22:30 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111120622.AA29231@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #918 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Nov 91 00:22:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 918 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: British Telecom Figures (Nick Reid) Re: British Telecom Figures (Terry Rawlings) Re: British Telecom Figures (Alan Barclay) Re: Question on Easements (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Question on Easements (Andrew M. Dunn) Re: Cellular Phone Rates (Bill Berbenich) Re: Cellular Phone Rates (Ron Dippold) Re: German AVON Book Wanted With STD Codes, etc (Helmut Heller) Re: MCI F&F Responds With New Privacy Safeguards (Bill Huttig) Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? (Thomas J. Roberts) Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced (Lee Ziegenhals) Re: Loopback Points in ISDN Network (Gerd Lux) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nick@atlantis.cs.orst.edu (Nick Reid) Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures Organization: Computer Science Dept. Oregon State University Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 11:28:55 GMT In article 20017ANG@msu.edu (Peng_H.Ang) writes: > I'm aware that there are some gripes about the lack of true > competition. But is that a major problem in terms of level of service, > price, etc? Or is it that they are ok but they could do better? British Telecom service is truly abysmal. When I was there in July a wait of ten minutes or more for a response from directory service, over five minutes for a response from the operator, was not unusual but about average. Line quality is also bad, and from a London telephone number there were bulletin boards in London that I could not even log onto because line noise prevented completion of the login process. Individual British Telecom employees are often as helpful as they can be (when you actually manage to get through to them), and the costs of the telephone service, if it worked, are not excessive by US standards, but the overall provision of service to the average caller is almost unbelievably low. It is against that *ethos* that the complaints about the company's large profits have validity. ------------------------------ From: cstar@wanda.jcu.edu.au (Terry Rawlings) Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures Organization: James Cook University, North Queensland Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 11:31:18 GMT Adam Ashby wrote: > British Telecom released its half-yearly figures recently and > announced a profit of L1.7 billion (1.7 billion pounds) for the six > month period, that comes out to about L100 every second. Telecom Australia released its yearly profit figures last week, this is taken from a report published in the newspapers. _Australia's Telecom. So Much Better_ Corporate Results. Telecom (Australia) returned a strong financial performance for 1990-91. Though growth in some area of our business slowed down, revenue increased by AUD$652.3m to AUD$9,531.2m. We worked hard to contain the costs of running our business. These rose by AUD$317.3m: the lowest annual increase in ten years. As a result, we were able to successfully generate a pre-tax operating profit of AUD$1,625.5m; up from AUD$1,290.5m in 1989-1990. For the first time, Telecom (Australia) was subject to Income Tax: some AUD$662.8m, leaving us with an after tax operating profit of AUD$962.7m. We paid an increased dividend to the (Australian) Government of AUD$250m. [parts deleted.] Service Performance. Demand for many services slowed down during 1990-91, reflecting uncertainties in the general economic climate. Local and STD call traffic grew by 7% (compared to 8.3% in 1989-90), but demand for new service connectiosn fell by 28% from the previous year, to a little over 506,000. [rest deleted.] Today's exchange rate was AUD$1.00 = US$0.785 An after tax operating profit of more than AUD$50.00 per person in Australia is not a bad figure and it will be interesting to watch next year's figures after the privatisation of Telecom Australia is complete and competition is allowed. Terry Rawlings cstar@marlin.jcu.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 12:01:08 GMT From: ukpoit!alan@relay.EU.net (Alan Barclay) Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures Organization: iT - The Information Technology Business Of The Post Office > Western telecom outfit. This suggests that our poor English friends > must be paying some kind of rates. British please, the English are a small part of Britain. :-) This is true. My line + local phone bill (POTS, no specials, and local calls are definatly not free!) came to about $uk 45 for the last quarter. I don't make a lot of local phone calls, but they charge aprox $uk 0.04 for a phone call unit, which lasts for 20 - 180 seconds depending on the time of day. The really annoying thing is that in April we had a tax change, and BT over charged us all by the difference between the old tax and the new tax (2.5%) for up to three months. They have just refunded it, six months later. Can you imagine what 2.5% of a billing cycle will generate in interest in six months?? Alan Barclay, iT, Barker Lane, CHESTERFIELD, S40 1DY, Derbys, England alan@ukpoit.uucp, ..!uknet!ukpoit!alan, FAX:+44 246214353, VOICE:+44 246214241 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 9:16:41 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: Question on Easements richg@locus.com (Rich Greenberg) in writes: > In article KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com > writes: >> I have a question as to how does LEC determine what a easment is >> worth? > [ LEC snuck in some cables] >> My question is, since they intalled the cable without our permission >> (we didn't even know it was there) and, then went to install new >> cable, did they have a right "with the perscriptive easement" to do >> that? And, were we suckered on what a half mile long easement is >> worth? Any ideas? > You have most likely gotten as much as you can expect out of them. > They are wrong about the "perscriptive easement" provided that you > truly didn't know about it. They get this easement only if you knew > and didn't protest for some specfic length of time (may vary > state-state). > Keep in mind that they are "TPC", and they don't have to care. > (And they have lots of lawyers on staff.) When we bought our home in 1968 the electric and phone lines were in as the place was a resale. I'm not quite sure about NY laws on easements but they were on the deed for those utilities. An easement, signed by us, was put onto our deed when we signed a contract to have public water installed. It's my opinion that once an easement goes on a deed then it caries forward to all subsequent owners of a home, with no expiration date. With electric, it is simple: no easement, no utility; no utility, no certificate of occupancy. People are not required to have a phone, public water or public sewage disposal unless mandated by a change to the building code. In my locality, if there's public water on your street you take it if you are building a new home; otherwise no C.O. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: mongrel!amdunn@uunet.uu.net (Andrew M. Dunn) Subject: Re: Question on Easements Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 14:40:19 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Does anyone remember the story in the Digest a > couple years ago where IBT claimed easement rights in this lady's home > -- in her bedroom, mind you -- because the former occupant had been > an answering service, and pairs multipled from all over the > neighborhood were connected in a huge terminal box in her bedroom? > Maybe I should run that story again. PAT] Please do! Andy Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.uucp) ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn) [Moderator's Note: Okay, watch the next issue (819) this morning. The article appeared here in 1989. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Rates Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 23:47:57 EST From: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu John Higdon writes: > Good question. But in Hawaii, apparently they don't. I do not have the > rate card in front of me, but GTE Mobilnet offers five-island coverage > for about half the going rate here in California. And not only are the > per-minute rates very, very low, the monthly base rates are also quite > attractive. Under one plan (that also has reasonable per-minute > charges) the monthly service is FREE. That's right -- if you don't use > it, you don't pay. What a novel concept. I wonder how they can > maintain all that ether out there without a monthly fee. Gee! No, GTE! This is just a guess, mind you, but it may be that GTE Mobilnet in Hawaii makes a big pile of money off of their roamers. It wouldn't be the first instance of roamers subsidizing local subscribers! As far as the cellular companies which serve Atlanta, Bell South and PacTel, the roamer rates are not much higher than the regular airtime rates - and there's no daily roamer fee (unless it's changed in the last year, which it may have). My point being this: what's to stop an Atlanta area resident from subscribing through GTE Mobilnet in Hawaii and then using the phone as a roamer in Atlanta? My monthly base rate is $18, so I wouldn't save a whole lot, but some subscribers pay the full $35 base rate each month in addition to a higher airtime rate. They'd stand to save substantially more, depending upon their actual airtime. Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: +1-404-894-3134 Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Group 3 fax: +1-404-894-8363 | Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu or: +1-404-853-9171 ------------------------------ From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Rates Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 21:38:21 GMT john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > "Steven M. Palm" writes: >> cellulars use radio frequencies, so there aren't any lines to >> maintain. Should be much cheaper. Why do people put up with such a >> ripoff? > But in Hawaii, apparently they don't. I do not have the rate card in > front of me, but GTE Mobilnet offers five-island coverage for about > half the going rate here in California. And not only are the > per-minute rates very, very low, the monthly base rates are also quite > attractive. Cellular phones charges are so much in California (and NY) for two reasons. First, people are willing to pay it. I imagine most LA and Hollywood types would rather give up their office phones than their cellular phone(s). They can be connected at all times, and to many the cost is nothing. Well, if prices were lower, then even more people would be willing to use it, right? That's exactly what they don't want or need right now. As you get more people using the phones, service quality gets worse and worse, as you can't place a call when you need to or you pass from one cell to another and the phone just hands off into nothingness (or someone else's conversation, that's always a good one). Estimates are that by the end of 1992, LA will have completely exceeded its cellular phone capacity -- bad service when you can get it. Cellular phone sales are still going strong, and I bet most of those people expect to be able to use that phone. You can get more capacity by building more cells (not cheap), but due to frequency re-use, minimum signal strength, and other practical problems, there is a definite limit. Part of this is due to the fact that FM cellular phones are power pigs. Look for cellular use prices to go up (or at least not go down) until the digital cellular phone systems get here with 20x capacity. Of course, it sounds better and is more reliable, so you might get many more people using it, and you still have to support those FM phones ... ------------------------------ From: heller%lisboa@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Helmut Heller) Subject: Re: German AVON Book Wanted With STD Codes, etc Reply-To: heller@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 13:28:37 GMT In article DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA writes: > In (Western portion) German phone books, reference is made to a book > called AVON (presumably a German acronym) All I can say is that AVON stands for Amtliches Verzeichnis der Ortsnetzkennzahlen (the N comes from the Netz-part) which means "official compendium of all the area codes (pre-dial)". Unfortunately I don't have access to one right now. Servus, Helmut (W9/DH0MAD) heller@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu u27013@ncsagate.bitnet Phone: (217)244-1586, FAX: (217)244-2909 Helmut Heller, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Beckman Institute Theoretical Biophysics Group, Transputer Lab, Room 3151, MC 251 405 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801, U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: wah@zach.fit.edu ( Bill Huttig) Subject: Re: MCI F&F Responds With New Privacy Safeguards Date: 11 Nov 91 15:08:05 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article knauer@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) writes: > So I tried the number, and indeed, it now asks for the last three > digits of your MCI account number. One small step for MCI, one giant > step for the security of personal information. It is a little better ... but there still is the fact that if your bill is mis-delivered all the needed information is there ... I don't see why companies insist on putting all the information about you in one place. (Bank statements with SS numbers and account numbers when they require that information for phone information on your account). Hopefully they will do something about the billing inquiry number also. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 10:07:02 CST From: tjrob@ihlpl.att.com (Thomas J Roberts) Subject: Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article , by joeisham@chinet. chi.il.us (Joe Isham): > In article martin@cod.nosc.mil wrote: >> Also, I hope someone will explain 710 (Government Special >> Services), else explain why no information is forthcoming regarding >> 710. Is it classified information or something? I've tried dialing >> many numbers in 710, and I always get the intercept: "Your call cannot >> be completed as dialed." > and the Moderator noted: >> I've been asking for a couple years for someone to explain 710. No >> information has ever been given out. The 710 area code in the USA (and, perhaps, Canada) is indeed used for "Government Special Services". It provides Emergency Services to federal and local agencies, and is NOT intended for use by the general public. Don't bother to "hack" at these numbers - there are security features which make it unlikely for you to get anything more than some useless intercept messages. Repeated attempts which could potentially deny service to authorized users might result in a VERY unwelcome visit from the authorities. Tom Roberts att!ihlpl!tjrob TJROB@IHLPL.ATT.COM ------------------------------ From: lcz@sat.datapoint.com (Lee Ziegenhals) Subject: Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 17:20:46 GMT joeisham@chinet.chi.il.us (Joe Isham) writes: > In article is written: >> I'm just a bit surprised that they split it in the direction they did >> -- I would've expected San Antonio to keep 512 and Austin and/or >> Corpus to get the new area code. My mother's home town of Goliad >> won't have to change after all! > I suppose they split the NPA the way they did to keep the number of > exchanges in each new area more or less the same. Austin is growing a > lot faster than San Antonio, though, so it'd make sense for the new > 210 to start off with fewer exchanges. A local (San Antonio) newspaper article said that the original intent was to keep S.A. in the 512 area and change Austin. One of the reasons I can recall for the new scheme was to avoid changing the telephone numbers for all of the state offices in Austin. I have no idea how accurate that information is, though I can imagine some political pressure being applied. ------------------------------ From: lux@math.fu-berlin.de (Gerd Lux) Subject: Re: Loopback Points in ISDN Network Organization: Free University of Berlin, Germany Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 18:28:24 GMT Are there any TCP/IP packet drivers on top of ISDN out there? Thanks for your time. Gerd Lux lux@math.fu-berlin.de ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #918 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23418; 12 Nov 91 21:56 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03791 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 19:41:38 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03684 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 19:40:59 -0600 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 19:40:59 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111130140.AA03684@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #919 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Nov 91 19:40:44 CST Volume 11 : Issue 919 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson On Having Telco as a Housemate (was Easement) (TELECOM Moderator) Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea (John Higdon) Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Thing (Robert J. Woodhead) Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest (Yanek Martinson) Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Re: Telemarketing Prevented (Harold Hallikainen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:45:34 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: On Having Telco as a Housemate (was Question About Easement) Here is the story I promised earlier which originally appeared in TELECOM Digest on Sunday, February 26, 1989 along with a few replies which appeared in the week following. PAT ------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 1:04:38 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate' I will sub-title this report 'The Case of the Box Which Won't Be Removed'. The location is Lockport, Illinois; a suburban community thirty miles or so southwest of Chicago. It is served by Illinois Bell; or should I say the lady I will tell you about serves IBT. One way or the other -- anyway -- Wanting to get out of the city, the lady bought a house in Lockport. It is an older place, but very well maintained over the years. One room would make a great den, but there was one problem that had to be taken care of first. In one corner of the room sat a box, about five feet high and four feet square. There were about 500 wires running in and out of it, all eventually finding their way through a hole in the wall. On the outside of the house at that point, the wires ran a short distance, then went down into the ground in a metal conduit like thing. Curious about it, she asked the realtor what it might be for, and was told that a former occupant of the house had operated an answering service there. The room she was planning for her den had been the switchboard area for the answering service years before. The lady called up Illinois Bell to see about having it removed. IBT agreed to do so for the mere sum of $2,400. *And they agreed the box was dead*. The lady protested; saying that $2,400 seemed a lot of money to yank out the old box, especially since nothing was going in its place provided by the phone company. After asking around, she found an independent workman willing to remove the box for $300, and was about to tell him to go ahead with the work when two people from Bell stopped by to see her, to warn that if any lines were broken or damaged, she would have to pay $70 for the repair of each. She said she thought $70 was rather outrageous for the repair of useless, dead lines, but the guys from Bell said in fact the lines were alive. They did agree to reduce their price and remove the box for 'only $1800', and completely indemnify her against damages or disruption of service which might occur in the process. Her independent workman took another look and confirmed what Bell had said: The box was in fact alive, and nearly 500 working pairs were terminated inside. Together they went back to Bell, and got the price for removal of the box negotiated down to only $1200. The lady said she had no intention of paying *anything* to take it out. And really, can you blame her? Finally with no place else to turn, she went to see the house's former owner; the fellow who had run the answering service. He said he thought Illinois Bell had been granted an easement to have the box there. And now the matter becomes even more mysterious. The lady went to the village hall and spoke to Lockport officials herself; and yes, they said, Illinois Bell *does* have an easement to that room in your house. They were unable, however, to show her a signed document from the previous owner giving easement rights to Bell. Tbe former owner insists he never signed anything; he claims they put the box in when he started the answering service back in the middle 1950's; and he claims he can't remember ever giving Bell permanent squatting rights there. After continued negotiations, IBT still insists it needs $1200 to remove its equipment and give up its easement rights. In the meantime, the lady won't budge, and she is living there with a Pandora's Box filled with legal ramifications for a 'roomate'. The search goes on for an official record of the easement with someone's signature on it. I suspect if and when it is found it will be the signature of the former owner. The contractor hired by the woman has identified a dozen businesses and several dozen residences in the vicinity which show up on terminals in the box. I think eventually if an easement record cannot be located, IBT will have to bite the dust and relocate the whole thing at thier expense. The woman has said if the easement *is* found, and it contains the signature of the former owner, she will sue him if necessary to make him pay for the removal. In the meantime if something goes wrong and Bell has to visit the box? Well, let's hope the woman isn't asleep, in the bathroom or otherwise 'indisposed' when her 'roomates' visitors show up! Patrick Townson Subject: Re: Telco As a 'Housemate' Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 12:40:48 -0500 From: Joel B Levin If I were that lady, and IBT came to the door because they needed access to work on one of the lines that came to that box, I would give it to them -- as soon as they showed me the document granting telco the easement. Not before. Another tack-- Is there some way a noisy electrical device (an old refrigerator or something) next to the box might cause noticeable noise on the lines? That also might provide some impetus for them to move the box (or really make it dead). After all, they can't tell her what she can or can't have in some corner of her den. /JBL From: Mark Brukhartz Subject: Re: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate' Date: 1 Mar 89 19:16:45 GMT Organization: Lachman Associates, Inc., Naperville, IL This woman ought to consult a real estate attorney without delay. I believe that her seller was responsible for conveying a clear title to the property, including a written description of any easements. He (or his title insurance company) are probably responsible for Illinois Bell's claim of easement. I understand that uncontested use of a property will mature into permanent rights after some (forgotten) interval. Mark Brukhartz Lachman Associates, Inc. ..!{amdahl, masscomp, nucsrl, sun}!laidbak!mdb From: John Allred Subject: Re: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate' Date: 2 Mar 89 16:40:10 GMT Reply-To: John Allred Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA In article laidbak!mdb@buita.bu.edu (Mark Brukhartz) writes: > This woman ought to consult a real estate attorney without delay. I > believe that her seller was responsible for conveying a clear title to > the property, including a written description of any easements. He (or > his title insurance company) are probably responsible for Illinois > Bell's claim of easement. > I understand that uncontested use of a property will mature into > permanent rights after some (forgotten) interval. I think the interval is 20 years for "adverse use" of property. Your mileage may vary. John Allred BBN Systems and Technologies Corp. (jallred@bbn.com) From: Darren Griffiths Subject: Re: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate' Date: 4 Mar 89 01:13:09 GMT Reply-To: Darren Griffiths Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley It seems like it should be pretty easy to get the box removed. Simply have the lady go down to Radio Shack and buy a line kit that can be connected straight to the punch down block that's probably in the box. Whenever she has some spare time try a few of the lines, see who's talking and interrupt them. If they aren't to angry at someone listening to their phone calls then she could explain the situation and have them call IBT. If they are angry I'm sure they'll call IBT anyway. Darren Griffiths DAGG@LBL.GOV Lawrence Berkeley Labs Information and Computing Sciences Division ----------- And there you have it ... the story which appeared here over two years ago. I had forgotten one detail: The box was not in her bedroom, but actually in the room she wanted to use as a den. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 02:37 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea Jack Decker writes: > Since California is the land of the voter-initiated petition, you > might want to try getting something like this going there. If I were > doing it, I'd not only put in for a ban on mandatory measured service, > but also the inclusion of all adjacent exchanges (and all non-adjacent > exchanges within 20 miles) as part of a customer's "local" calling > area. Amen to the twenty-mile radius. Everywhere else that I have been in the US has a larger local calling area than the extremely weenie eight-mile radius that is standard in California. You may be interested in the Pac*Bell party line, as it were, on this topic. Mr Disher of Pac*Bell explained that what was important was not the distance but "the number of people you could reach with your phone". In other words, in metropolitan areas, you can reach literally millions of people, including your civic offices, libraries, etc., within that eight-mile radius. In other parts of the country, this is not true and wider calling radii are necessary to cover spheres of influence for the caller. (He failed to address the issue as it applies to those same areas in California -- I just spent two weeks in a house that is twenty miles from ANYWHERE.) Frankly, the only city that has anywhere near the density that validates his point in California is San Francisco. The rest of the state has cities that are sprawled out all over the countryside and the result is that it is toll from one end of Los Angeles to the other. Of course, Californians are used to these microscopic local areas. I can just imagine the telco opposition to a ballot measure at campaign time. Somehow, we would be reminded that students and senior citizens would suffer irreparable harm with expanded local calling areas. But I am dying of curiosity: how did the telcos in Oregon, etc., campaign against the measured service ban? Did they predict that people's hair would fall out with such a ban or what? The only conceivable argument that I can see would hold any water would be for those who really do make very few calls. But as you pointed out, all it takes is a foot in the door and then you can manipulate the cost of local service very easily. Case in point: Pac*Bell's proposed doubling of the additional minute charge on local calls will cause real hardship on many small businesses who are already paying hundreds of dollars a month on nothing but local usage. > Seem to me that this sort of ballot initiative would pass with > no problem in your neck of the woods (provided it's not worded in a > "funny" way so you have to vote "no" when you mean "yes" or > something). Oh, we are used to that garbage -- those of us who vote, that is. The latest figures show that 25% of those eligible to vote in California actually do. Judging from the lack of interest at the rate hearings and the recently demonstrated ability of Pacific Telesis to mount an advertising campaign full of misleading statements, I would put the odds of an initiative passing a little farther down on the scale of probability. It is an interesting idea, however. And something well worth looking into. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Thing Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 04:08:42 GMT 71336.1270@CompuServe.COM (tim gorman) writes: > From a practical viewpoint, agriculture (in other words rural > subscribers) has gone very high tech in the past several years. Those > farms who want to maximize revenue depend heavily on telephone access > to market data as well as to market buyers/sellers. This includes > telecommunications options such as modem and fax usage. Since these > high tech operations are also the ones that provide most of the food > for the world, anything that increases their costs also increases the > cost of food to everyone. It is, therefore, quite practical from my > viewpoint to keep their costs as low as possible. This is nonsense. All subsidies do is introduce distortions into the market and promote uneconomic behavior. All you are saying is that instead of paying more for food, we should pay more for our telephone bills. Why should corporations (which, last time I checked, do not eat) pay to support farmers (or for that matter, residential customers)? Regarding cheaper food for the world, why should I be forced to donate $ through higher food bills; If I care about the problem, I'll give money to OXFAM or UNICEF. Besides, cheap food exports (subsidized) only destroy local markets, making it less likely that they will become self-sufficient and more efficient. If the phone company truly believes that subsidizing farmers is a laudable goal, then they should go ahead, but out of THEIR pockets, not mine, thank you very much. Farmers, and telephone companies, for that matter, should sink or swim in the marketplace like everyone else; in large part, the farming "crisis" was created because government subsidies distorted the marketplace and sent the wrong signals to the farmers. They got a short-term gain and a long-term pain. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ From: yanek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Yanek Martinson) Subject: Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest Date: 11 Nov 91 22:48:32 GMT Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science In knauer@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) writes: > Imagine my surprise to see that inside was a $20 check from AT&T > -- all I have to do to get the cash is switch to AT&T. > MCI mails out checks if you switch, Sprint mailed me a $10 check > in June that's only good after October 1, and now AT&T ... > get the money without switching How about this: Switch to ATT, collect $20. Switch to Sprint, collect $10, then switch back to ATT, then back to Sprint, etc. Would this work? Would it be illegal in any way? yanek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu safe0%yanek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ From: djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Subject: Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 20:34:14 GMT John Higdon quoted the Pacific Telesis spot, which ended: > This advertisement is brought to you by the people of Pacific Telesis > and is not paid for by telephone customers. What this means, of course, is that it's being paid for by the salaries of the people they're laying off. :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 22:01:38 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > Even when I presented this evidence, Pac*Bell yawned in my face. I was > told quite frankly that they had other things to worry about and that > enforcing the telemarketing regulations was next to impossible. It is > funny that Pac*Bell seems to be able to enforce tariff against > competitors without difficulty. Do we now rely on "private companies" to enforce laws or regulations? How does the PUC deal with such complaints? Harold Hallikainen ap621@Cleveland.Freenet.edu Hallikainen & Friends, Inc. hhallika@pan.calpoly.edu 141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4 phone 805 541 0200 fax 544 6715 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590 telex 4932775 HFI UI [Moderator's Note: The answer to that is very simple: They don't deal with the complaints either; not at least until there are a large number of them. Then they begin an inquiry. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #919 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29260; 13 Nov 91 1:18 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10324 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 20:58:46 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06550 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 20:58:16 -0600 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 20:58:16 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111130258.AA06550@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #920 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Nov 91 20:58:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 920 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Fifty Copies -- Enough Already! (TELECOM Moderator) HDTV Regulations, Do You Know Some? (Thomas P. Imbro) SWBT Wants Information Services Monopoly (J. Brad Hicks) Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences (Jim Fenton) Current RBOC Fiber Deployment, Video Dial Tone Article (Kevin Collins) Computerized Radio Foul Weather Closing Announcements (Bill Berbenich) Just Dial One-Nine-Zero-Zero-SCREWME (Jerry Leichter) Pauses in Speed Dialing (David Schanen) Phone Gateways? (Mark McWiggins) Must New Second Line Use Same Class of Service as First? (Fred Linton) Regulations and Telco (A.E. Guadagno) Telemarketing COS (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 19:55:44 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Fifty Copies -- Enough Already! Due to a malfunction at the Bitnet gateway site I use (nuacvm.acns. nwu.edu) on Tuesday morning, issue 918 went out to most Bitnet readers 50+ times. It seems the mailer kept stalling, then restarting itself about every ten minutes all night until about 9 AM Tuesday morning. Rather than compound the problem further, I held off mailing further issues of the Digest until the source of the problem (here, or the gateway) was found and corrected. As it is, I got numerous messages from all over the globe throughout the early morning hours Tuesday from people saying please turn it off ... we are being flooded, etc. Now I am about two issues behind, meaning another day or so delay in some messages still waiting from Sunday/Monday. As a result, I made a decision a few minutes ago to dump unused about 30 messages (mostly REplies) that I had planned to send out Tuesday morning, to get back on schedule. Sorry, and a special apology to the Bitnetters. PAT ------------------------------ From: tom@ecst.csuchico.edu (Thomas P. Imbro) Subject: HDTV Regulations, Do You Know Some? Organization: California State University, Chico Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 08:43:41 GMT In re regulations governing HDTV: I imagine most of the regulations that apply to current NTSC systems will be carried over. But are there any new regulations? How about some issues on spectrum space? There seems to be some problems allocating spectrum in large markets if a simulcast HDTV sytem is used. How about industrial standards? From what I have read, the FCC is requiring a simulcast system, but are they requiring an analog or digital system? Hopefully the latter. What I'm actually looking for is changes in current NTSC regulations because of the implementation of HDTV. This information will be helpful in writing a college report. And I wouldn't be surprised if the people required to write this same report are looking for the same information on this newsgroup because this newsgroup was mentioned in class as source of information on this topic. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 16:10 GMT From: "J. Brad Hicks" <0004073044@mcimail.com> Subject: SWBT Wants Information Services Monopoly I just got the 16-Oct-91 issue of {Electronic Messaging News} forwarded to me, and saw what has to be the most arrogant thing I've ever heard from an RBOC. Is this disgusting or what? The day after the appeals court overruled Judge Green and let the RBOCs into the information services business, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) introduced a bill to put trivial restrictions on it, like forbidding the RBOCs from creating artificial "bottlenecks" to prevent competition. By Rep. Cooper's own admission, the total effect of his bill will be to restrict the RBOCs so they can ONLY control 90% of the market, not 100%. In other words, they're practically being handed 90% of the information services market on a silver platter, by legislative fiat. Are they elated? No, they're enraged, enraged that they have to allow any competition at all. Southwestern Bell Telephone's vice chairman Gerald Blatherwick was blunt and arrogant: "Frankly, we think it's time the competing commercial interest groups get on the train or get off the track." In other words, merge with an RBOC or die. Is there any one left who still believes that it's a coincidence that the same RBOC is busily trying to shut down free BBS systems? I'm learning to agree with Mr. Higdon; RBOCs shouldn't be allowed into ANY venture other than selling local dial tone. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 12:27:25 -0800 From: fenton@esd.ESD.WJ.COM (Jim Fenton) Subject: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences A posting of John Higdon's recently spoke of the different rate at which he receives wrong numbers on his various lines. Several years ago, when I had a phone number with a repeat digit in it (-5885), I used to get a great many wrong numbers, which if I could get the caller to tell me the number they were calling, was frequently -585x. It seems that either their pushbutton contacts were dirty, or they weren't pushing the buttons cleanly. Have others noticed this behavior, and do others avoid being assigned phone numbers with repeated digits, as I do? Jim Fenton, Watkins-Johnson Co., San Jose, CA +1 408 435-1400 fenton@wj.com ------------------------------ From: aspect!kevinc@uunet.uu.net (Kevin Collins) Subject: Current RBOC Fiber Deployment, Video Dial Tone Article Date: 11 Nov 91 20:50:05 GMT Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca The following taken from {Communications Week}, dated 11/4/91. (begin quote) BELL FIBER DEPLOYMENT STATUS REPORT (percentage of copper & fiber installed within the Bells' facilities & to-the-curb) 1989 1994* Copper Fiber Copper Fiber Ameritech Corp. 94.8 5.2 92.0 8.0 Bell Atlantic Corp. 96.9 3.1 86.6 13.4 BellSouth Corp. 95.8 4.2 85.7 14.3 Nynex Corp. 98.2 1.8 95.0 5.0 Pacific Telesis Group 99.5 0.5 91.2 8.8 Southwestern Bell Corp. 98.3 1.7 83.7 16.3 US West Inc. 98.8 1.2 95.4 4.6 * - Figures are projected (end quote) The table is contained in an article about user, telco, and cable TV provider reactions towards the FCC "Video Dial Tone" proposal. Gist of the article: users excited, telcos want to provide programming as well as transport, cable providers complaining about regulators' inability to prevent cross-subsidies, telcos ripping cable providers for gouging customers. I really like those last two -- two large monopolies accusing each other of all the things Joe Schmo has been saying for years. Maybe now that big voices are saying these things, things will actually improve in both arenas. Hope springs eternal. Kevin Collins | My opinions are mine alone. USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc | GO BEARS! ------------------------------ Subject: Computerized Radio Foul Weather Closing Announcements Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 12:20:21 EST From: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Here I sit at my desk eating a bit of lunch and listening to the radio. This past weekend was kind of chilly here in the Atlanta area and there was the possibility of flurries. Naturally, since Atlanta isn't close to the snow belt, if there is any accumulation of snow or ice the city and all businesses will close down until the frozen stuff goes away. On to the point ... A local news/talk radio station here has announced a new service that they will be using this winter. I forget the catchy acronym, but it is a means whereby school administrators, corporate management, and others can disseminate foul weather closing information via a secret touch tone code entered after calling a secret telephone number. When an authorized administrator calls and enters his appropriate code it causes the appropriate information to be printed out in the station's newsroom in order that they may announce it on the air. The potential for abuse seems greater than for the old reliable method of having an individual call in by voice. An afterthought: I wonder if they are using CLID (available here) or 800 ANI (if the secret phone number is an 800 number). Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: +1-404-894-3134 Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill | Group 3 fax: +1-404-894-8363 Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu | or: +1-404-853-9171 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 16:41:39 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: Just Dial One-Nine-Zero-Zero-SCREWME The 900 telesleazes are very much still out there. I just got a long message on my answering machine. Apparently, someone is getting clever, and has a pitch deliberately tuned for them. I don't know what I would have heard had I been in at the time, but the message starts of VERY briefly -- and just about incomprehensibly, telling me that I've won something or another and should call the "redemption center" immediately. If I call back within ten minutes, I get some sort of extra prize. The message then begins repeating the number of the center. It's "one, nine, zero zero ". Not, of course, "one, nine-hundred" -- too many people recognize that already. Always "one, nine, zero zero". The number is repeated about five times; then the voice says "one last time" and gives the number yet again. Only at this point is the cost of the call revealed. Well, kind of revealed -- it's read so fast that after repeated listening to the tape, I still can't tell you what it is. I wasn't even able to make out any of "dollars", "cents", "seconds", "minutes". Perhaps the cost is being given in rubles per micro-fortnight. After the very fast obligatory "message", the number is repeated yet again, and then the friendly voice (mild southern accent) signs off with "enjoy your vacation"! Ah, so they want to take me for a ride! Jerry ------------------------------ From: mtv@milton.u.washington.edu (David Schanen) Subject: Pauses in Speed Dialing Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 12:47:11 GMT Does anyone know if future switching systems will be able to include pauses in speed dialing? I'm working with a system now where it would be nice if the telco could provide something like NXX-XXXX..(Pause)..XXX-NXX-XXXX. Know what I mean? Cheers! Dave Inet: mtv@milton.u.washington.edu * 8kyu * UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv ------------------------------ From: esca!markmc@uunet.uu.net (Mark McWiggins) Subject: Phone Gateways? Organization: ESCA Corporation, Bellevue WA Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 23:08:46 GMT What's the hardware like on the back end of a phone "Gateway"? If I were a service provider, I'd ideally like something like an Ethernet connection that would support multiple logins, but the local US Westers weren't able to give me details. They referred me to a guy in Omaha (where the US West gateway trial was held), but I haven't gotten ahold of him yet. Can you point me to a reference on this kind of thing? Thanks in advance. Mark McWiggins markmc@esca.uucp (or uunet!esca!markmc) +1 206 822 6800 (voice) 206 889 1700 (fax) ------------------------------ Date: 11-NOV-1991 22:38:52.97 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Must New Second Line Use Same Class of Service as First? Anticipating the need, eventually, for a second phone line to my abode, I queried my local BOC (SNET Co.) as to whether I could get "lifeline" measured service on a new line while retaining unlimited service on the old. Nope, I was told -- new line must have same class of service as old. Anyone know whether that's really so in SNET's service area? (Detailed tariff references appreciated if it's NOT really so, thanks.) Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06459 E-mail: ( or ) Tel.: + 1 203 776 2210 (home) or + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 20:16:58 -0500 From: aeg0933@ultb.isc.rit.edu (A.E. Guadagno) Subject: Toll Restricted Local Service Hello, c.d.t. readers, My question is a simple one, although I am not sure where else it could be asked and answered. Is it legal for a telephone service provider to refuse access to the LATA if one does not wish to have long distance service? A friend with teenage sons wishes to initiate such a service in her new apartment, and the local telco sez that she cannot; that in order for her to get service at all she has to name a 'dial-1' service provider and thanks for calling. However, if she had a large bill she could not pay and was put into arrears with this same telco, she certainly could get such a toll-restricted account. Anyone with information regarding this topic is invited, nay encouraged to reply to dave@rochgte.fidonet.org or, if that bounces, to this account (it's a loaner) with chapter and verse fashioned in such a way that the remarkable human simulators they employ at this telco are sure to agree that it would be A Good Thing. Thanks and may all your CONNECTs be error-free. Dave Stoddard Fido 1:260/246 CI$ 73717,3616 [Moderator's Note: You did not say what telco was involved, but any Bell company with an ESS switch can provide her with a local line on which all toll service (including via the operator) is denied. She will still have to pay the 'network access fee', and the line will cost the same as a normal one. Lines with special treatments like this (such as outgoing / incoming calls only) are intended for security reasons, not as a way to save money. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 01:25 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Telemarketing COS After viewing a shouting match on ABC Television's Nightline over the matter of telemarketing, I suddenly got an idea that should make any telco's mouth (do they have mouths?) drool. Why not have a "Telemarketing Class of Service"? If a firm or individual wants to conduct telemarketing, it or he is required to make the calls on "telemarketer" lines. These lines are POTS lines with a plus: any outgoing call is first checked against a national database to determine if the callee accepts junk calls. If so, the call is completed. If not, the caller gets a recording or perhaps even some machine-recognizable signal. Maintaining such a database should be trivial nowadays and the lookup should likewise be no problem. The cost of all of this would be folded into the price of the lines. People would have to put themselves in this database by indicating to local service reps the intended status of each line ordered. Anyone making telemarketing calls on other than TCOS lines would have suffer immediate disconnection. After all, 900 service providers bear the costs of their operation including blocking, charge-backs, and other "safeguards" that have evolved. And when was the last time a 900 service woke you up in the early morning when you had been up all night working? It is only fair that a positive technical solution to the telemarketing problem be financed by those profiting from the enterprize. Telco's should be all for this idea because they can then inflate (by a factor of four or five as they have done in the 900/976 business) the costs of providing these special lines and make some extra profit. The people should all be in favor since they would now have the ability to positively block all junk calls. And who cares about the telemarketers? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #920 ******************************  ISSUE 921 WAS DELAYED IN MAILING AND APPEARS BETWEEN ISSUE 924 - 925.  Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03179; 13 Nov 91 3:34 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09014 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 01:54:30 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07741 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 01:54:19 -0600 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 01:54:19 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111130754.AA07741@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #922 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Nov 91 01:54:10 CST Volume 11 : Issue 922 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody [Jack Decker] Results of Question About Credit Verification Protocols (Carol F. Lerche) Paging Scam (Neil Kruse) Two Cellular Questions (Tom Lowe) AT&T EasyLink Services New Rates (Dave Levenson) Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Dave Leibold) Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman (Dan'l DanehyOakes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 18:14:55 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody If you happen to live in Michigan, pay close attention to this one. I got a message from a friend in Wisconsin asking me if I had heard about a new law in Michigan "where you can only make 300 calls a month on flat rate." He had read a message in alt.sys.amiga.uucp, where the writer had stated, "Now, Michigan Bell has paid off our state legislature and they passed a law where you can only make 300 calls a month on flat rate, so I only call out a few times a day to keep the calls down, or to get ready for this when it starts Jan 1 ..." I was pretty sure that he must be mistaken, or that the writer of the original message didn't know what he was talking about. After all, I try to keep pretty close tabs on what the Michigan Public Service Commission is up to, and the last time I had heard anything from them, they were not at all inclined to allow the phone company to begin offering mandatory measured service, even with a 300 call allowance (such allowances have a way of shrinking over the course of time). One reason they were not so inclined is that in a series of public hearings held throughout the state, the public had told the MPSC that they didn't want measured service. In fact, the MPSC just recently ordered Michigan telcos to begin providing a new optional calling plan where residence customers can pay $15 a month flat rate and get unlimited calling to all exchanges adjacent to your own (within in your LATA). Michigan Bell began offering the service on November 1, though I have yet to see any formal announcement of its availability (wonder why?...). :( (By the way, any Michigan telephone customer interested in this should inquire about the Adjacent Exchange Toll Calling Plan ... it will be available in almost all Michigan telephone exchanges by January or February of 1992, and limited time blocks of 30 minutes or two hours per month are also available for both residence and business customers). But just to be on the safe side, I sent a message to the person who posted the original message (Ronald Kushner ). And his reply dumbfounded me: [Quoted text begins] [Header and quote of my message to him deleted] Well Jack, to be honest, I am very interested in politics, and if I could explain everything about the intense lobbying by MBT, you would be shocked ... This year, the bill regulating Michigan Bell expires. A new bill was drafted, and basically everything Bell has tried to get the MPSC to pass in the last three years has been drafted into law. This bill passed Thursday, and section 303 states: (7) The local exchange rate for residential customers shall be one of the following at the option of the customer: (a) A flat rate allowing personal and domestic outgoing calls up to 300 calls per month. Calls in excess of 300 per month may be charged at an incremental rate as set by the provider. A person who has reached the age of 60 years of age or more shall not be charged a rate greater than the flat rate charged other residential customers for 300 calls. Except for customers or providers with less than 250,000 access lines, the rates for persons who have reached the age of 60 years or more, shall not be increased during the period from January 1st, 1991, to December 31st, 1995. (b) A rate determined by the time duration of service usage or the distance between the points of service origination and termination. (c) A rate determined by the number of times the service is used. (d) A rate that included one or more of the rates allowed by this subsection. I hope this clears it up for you. This bill will be law once [Governor John] Engler signs it. The only way the MPSC will get involved is if they feel the set rate per call is unfair, then they can suspend the rate and hold a hearing. Otherwise in ten days the rate takes effect. Ron [End of quoted text] Whatever else you may feel about measured service, I think the thing that is most galling (and unethical!) about this is the attempt to circumvent the normal regulatory process. Normally, telephone companies in Michigan are required to go to the Michigan Public Service Commission for approval of rate increases and changes in the way that service is billed. The request is then made public, with notice of the proposed changes published in newspapers throughout the state, and customers and the general public are given an opportunity to comment upon these proposed changes. However, in this case it appears that the process is being short- circuited. Instead of government in the sunshine, we have a fundamental change in the way telephone service is offered in Michigan being passed into law without ANY public notice or opportunity to comment. And I'm sure this is exactly what the telephone companies (Michigan Bell and/or GTE North in particular) had planned all along. Do I think it's dishonest? Very much so. But is it legal? Unfortunately, it probably is. Since today is Veteran's Day, and state offices are closed, I'm unable to find out any more about this end-run maneuver until at least tomorrow. What you see above is all I know about the subject. However, if you live in Michigan and think this is really sneaky, you might want to give the MPSC a call (at 1-800-292-9555) or better yet, call or write the Governor's office and ask him to consider a veto of this legislation (on the grounds that it attempts to circumvent the regulatory process, if you can't think of anything more colorful to say about it). Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: cafl@lindy.stanford.edu (Carol Farlow Lerche) Subject: Results of Question About Credit Verification Protocols Organization: DSG, Stanford University Date: 12 Nov 91 23:50:59 GMT Here are the replies I got from my question about credit verification protocols. Thanks to all who replied. -------------- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 07:45:57 GMT From: kfb@melb.bull.oz.au (Kevin Barrell) Subject: credit card authroization protocols Operating in the North American market, you will probably find that the Visa "Second Generation" protocol definitions will be of value. I have seen the following standards, which include the contact point as: Visa USA Frank Fojtik 3155 Clearview Way San Mateo CA94128 (415) 570-3337 External Interface specification (EIS1051-V1.0 9/24/90) Second Gen Authorization Terminal Link Level Protocol. EIS1052-V1.2 9/20/90 Second Gen Data Capture Terminal Link Level Protocol. EIS1080-V1.3 9/24/90 Second Gen. Authorization Record Format EIS1081-V1.2 9/24/90 Second Gen Data Capture Record Format Second Gen. Authorization Equipment Specifications V1.0 May,'88 Second Gen Data Capture Equipment Specifications V1.0 May,'87 Hope this is of some use. Kevin Barrell Bull Information Systems, Melbourne Australia kfb@melb.bull.oz.au Ph: +61 3 4200943 Fax: +61 3 4200958 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 16:51:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Pat_Barron@transarc.com Subject: Re: Credit Card Verification -- Need Protocol I don't have any real info for you, but I'd like to see the summary when you get the information. My (limited) understanding is that the data goes over a 300 baud Bell 103 modem. I don't know what the actual bytes look like. Thanks, Pat Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 20:44:56 CDT From: SEAN@SDG.DRA.COM (Sean Donelan) Subject: Credit Card Verification -- Need Protocol There are actually several protocols used between POS verifiers. Your associate should contact the particular company that will be doing the verification (eg. the bank, etc). They will be able to get you "their" protocol, as well as the "certification" needed before you will be allowed to use your implementation of the protocol to call their system. I think they "tweak" their protocols just to be obnoxious, because they turn out to all be very similar. I actually had one company tell me that federal banking law prevented them from agreeing to a standard protocol. This is based on my experience in tracking this information down about two years ago. If you find things have changed, I would be interested in hearing about it. Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100 Subject: Re: Credit Card Verification -- Need Protocol Date: 23 Oct 91 23:10:41 EDT (Wed) From: adobe!iecc.cambridge.ma.us!johnl@labrea.Stanford.EDU (John R. Levine) The little verification terminals that sit next to the cash registers use standard 300 baud modems (they're real cheap) and exchange ASCII messages. The exact format of the message seems to vary somewhat, but it's basically that the terminal calls up, gets a proceed message, sends a message with the merchant number, card number, expiration date, transaction amount, and a two-digit transaction type code, and the central system responds with the message that appears in the window, e.g. APPROVED: 123456. A few years back I wrote a program that interfaced to a PC database and emulated such a terminal in an afternoon. Worked great. For the exact formats, you need to ask your local credit card verification service bureau. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 91 12:03:00 -0800 From: KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com Subject: Paging Scam I have just been alerted by our corporate communications dept that there is a new scam operating on the paging network. The announcement read as follows: We have been alerted by PacTel Paging Services in Northern California to a scam that is being perpetrated on the paging network. People are being paged to a 212 area code number which generates a $55 charge when the call is returned. If you receive a page to a 212 area code number that is unfamiliar to you, you may not want to return the call. Neil Kruse KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com [Moderator's Note: Well here we go again! This is beginning to take on the proportions of an Urban Legend. *If* the guy in New York is silly enough to be calling California numbers (I doubt it) then he is wasting his time, since 212-540 is *only* charged that much money in the New York area. Calls from other states pay only the telephone company toll charge in effect, if they can get through at all. For example MCI intercepts it saying 'at the present time, MCI does not complete calls to 976 numbers' (yes, 540 is like 976 in NYC). And even if the guy is not too bright, you'd think PacTel would know what's going on. Still, I guess a generic warning saying 'know the people who page you' isn't a bad idea. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tlowe@attmail.com Date: Mon Nov 11 23:36:26 EST 1991 Subject: Two Cellular Questions I have two questions: 1. I have a Panasonic TP500 transportable. It has a relay in it that clicks on whenever the unit is transmitting. When the phone is just sitting there, it tends to transmit for about one oe two seconds every hour or so. What is it transmitting? Is the cellular switch polling it or is the phone taking it upon itself to transmit something? 2. Is there any advantage to using twin cellular antennas on a car? Remember during the CB craze this was the case. Also, does it matter if the antenna is in the back, middle, or side of a car? Thanks. Tom Lowe ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.WESTMARK.COM (Dave Levenson) Subject: AT&T EasyLink Services New Rates Date: 12 Nov 91 01:45:00 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA This letter was received on October 28, 1991, by the U.S. Mail: AT&T EasyLink Services 400 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, NJ 07054 November 1, 1991 To Our Valued Customer: Several important changes to the rate structure for the AT&T EasyLink Services product suite will take effect on December 1, 1991. These changes will provide clearly defined, value-oriented pricing. AT&T EasyLink Services will move its pricing for electronic mail services to a worldwide kilo-character structure. This change will provide value throughout the spectrum of message sizes. This strucure is especially effective in significantly reducing the cost of sending larger files while maintaining attractive rates for shorter messages. For example, a 200,000 character spreadsheet delivered via our service within the U.S. will cost $10.70, about the same price as an overnight delivery service. For our business customer, we will reduce the magnetic tape billing fee to $75.00 per month to make it easier for your business to monitor costs. Dedicated port access charges will be reduced to $500 and shared port charges will be eliminated. In response to the rapid expansion of the use of EDI in inter-company transactions, AT&T EasyLink Services will introduce a "per character" rating method for its EDI service. This method is one of the most innovative in the industry and allows trading partners to realize the benefits of the most accurate usage-sensitive pricing. The enclosed information sheet provides a summary of all of the price changes. If you have any questions, please contact your Account Representative or a Customer Service Representative on 1-800-242-6005. We value your business and are committed to serving your global messaging needs with quality service and the most economical rates possible. Sincerely, Steven A. Graham Marketing Vice President [excerpts from enclosure follow] AT&T Mail Rate Summary Effective December 1, 1991 Electronic Mail (Within U.S.) characters rate 1-1,000 $.50 1,001-2,000 .80 2,001-3,000 .95 Each add'l. 1,000 .05 ... Core Services service rate Magnetic Tape Billing $75.00 per month Dedicated Port Access 500.00 per month Shared Port Access Eliminated Monthly Usage Minimum $25.00 Monthly Service Fee $3.00 per user ID ... [end quotation] The monthly service fee of $3.00 per user apparently replaces the former annual service fee of $30.00. The $25.00 monthly usage minimum is the item which caused this firm to discontinue its subscription to this service. Our typical monthly usage was approximately $5.00. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 20:24:33 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? I checked with AT&T Communications on the Canadian side of things today. Generally, the AT&T Mail as sold in Canada has rates that are similarly structured to the U.S. service, but translated to something near to Canadian funds (and the GST (Grab & Steal Tax) of 7% would likely be tossed in there as well for Canadian subscribers). The AT&T folks in Canada don't seem to be aware of any impending changes to the rate structure, but someone in the Toronto-area office said they'll check further ... could be that the Canadian customers may be hit with something of a surprise, if AT&T Easylink/Mail couldn't warn the Canadian subscribers ... My account was started up in the U.S. ... This might get scary here. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ From: djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Subject: Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 20:34:14 GMT John Higdon quoted the Pacific Telesis spot, which ended: > This advertisement is brought to you by the people of Pacific Telesis > and is not paid for by telephone customers. What this means, of course, is that it's being paid for by the salaries of the people they're laying off. :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #922 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03848; 13 Nov 91 4:06 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29530 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:28:05 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01584 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:27:53 -0600 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:27:53 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111130827.AA01584@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #923 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Nov 91 02:27:49 CST Volume 11 : Issue 923 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment (R. Kevin Oberman) Re: Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment (Fred E.J. Linton) Re: TAT-10 and TAT-11 (John R. Levine) Re: Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number (Larry Appleman) Re: 5ESS Audio Quality (Marcus Leech) WAIS Server Needs Volunteer Beta-Testers (Jeff Wasilko) A Telephone Repair Question (Kevin C. Gross) T1 Services (Jeff Sicherman) AT&T AUDIX Hard Disks (Lawrence Roney) Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches (Ed Greenberg) Forced Number Changes (Ed Greenberg) Musical Chairs in the Long Distance Business (John R. Levine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov Subject: Re: Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment Date: 11 Nov 91 18:22:43 GMT In article , ekman%wdl30@wdl1.wdl. loral.com (Donald Ekman) writes: > I once called up to report a modem I was putting on my line. That > would have been about 1979 when I got my first modem, a 110/300 baud > Hayes Micromodem II for my Apple II+ (actually, a Bell & Howell 'black > Apple' which I still have here). I think the telco rep snickered at me > also. PAT] I called the local LEC (Pac$Bell) when I purchased my first phone and was informed that the reporting of this was no longer required and that they were not interested in any way. They DID state that I should keep the information available in the event that there was trouble and repair service asked for the information. And they did when my line died about three years later. They ran tests and asked for REN information on all of my equipment. Once they confirmed that the values the test returned did not match my equipment, they sent out a repairman (with the stern warning that if the trouble was my phone, I'd be billed). The problem was water seepage into a large mass of crimped connections in front of my neighbor's house. The repairman simply chopped off the whole mess and re-crimped all of the wires, not just mine. So, at least in Pac$Bell land, don't bother registering, just keep the information handy. Since it's usually affixed to the equipment, this is not usually a problem. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icaen.llnl.gov (510) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything. ------------------------------ Date: 11-NOV-1991 22:47:48.93 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment In , ekman%wdl30@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (Donald Ekman) writes: > ... The rep seemed slightly amused. Same here. But every six months, when SNET breaks out the detail on my basic monthly charges, there are two line-items, each detailing Customer-provided equipment .................... $0.00 (for the answering machine and modem I reported, on separate occasions, long ago, I suppose; I think I too remember a tone of wonderment in the voices of the reps handling my reports; I wonder when SNET will come up with a way to change those $0.00 charges to something non-zero ). Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06459 E-mail: ( or ) Tel.: + 1 203 776 2210 (home) or + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: TAT-10 and TAT-11 Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 12 Nov 91 17:17:41 EST (Tue) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) In article is written: > Are [TAT-10 and TAT-11] running just one fiber each (or one in each > direction, or several in each direction), each running 560 Mbits/sec? I suspect they're one working fiber in each direction plus a bunch of spares. 560MB is well within the bandwidth capacity of a single fiber -- the limit is surely the in-line repeaters. I hear that there is also copper power wiring running at 1000 volts. > Are the TAT-6 and TAT-7 cables still running SSB FDM voice, or > are they driven by "high speed modems" at each end, making a digital > interface to the undersea coaxial cable. Probably digital, since they can get a lot more capacity that way. Considering that TAT-8 and TAT-9 are already in service and providing fiber quantities of bandwidth, I wouldn't count on -6 and -7 staying in service very long after TAT-10 and TAT-11 go into service. At this point, the main reason to hold onto -6 and -7 are backup in case a hurricane disables both -8 and -9 which terminate about 10 miles apart in New Jersey. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman) Subject: Re: Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 20:09:13 GMT In article sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com writes: > ....A quick check of the new 1991-1992 Nynex White Pages phone > book for my area found my "unlisted" number listed on page 164 under > another person's name! Another entry with the same last name, but > different first name, was located.... NYNEX seems to have trouble deleting some numbers from its White Pages. A friend of mine is listed in the Boston central directory at a 'phone number and address he hasn't had for 12 years. (His present number and address appear correctly in his suburban directory.) Each time a new Boston directory is published, we see that he's still listed incorrectly, and he calls customer service; they invariably say they'll remove the listing from the next directory. Larry Appleman P.O. Box 214, Cambridge B, Mass. 02140 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 91 16:59:00 EST From: Marcus (M.D.) Leech Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality In article is written: > .... What really makes the problem tough is that > the act of breaking the connection frees that particular modem and > that particular trunk, making it all but impossible to truly recreate > the situation for testing. This reminds me of a telephone-network phasing problem my roomy and I "discovered" while listening to the CBC network on both the local station and one in Montreal (about 200Kms from here). CBC uses phone-lines to distribute the audio to its various stations. Every few seconds there was an annoying phase-inversion of the signal. I suspect that the phone-network was doing dynamic trunk facilities allocation for these circuits, and one of the analog-to-digital translation points in the trunk group had a Tip-Ring inversion. The phase-inversion only seemed to happen after silent periods. Given the apparently exact 180degree phase-shift and the relative proximity of the distant (Montreal) station, this *couldn't* have been phase-distortion due to skywave propagation of the Montreal station. Marcus Leech, 4Y11 Bell-Northern Research |opinions expressed mleech@bnr.ca P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C |are my own, and not ml@ve3mdl.ampr.org Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7 |necessarily BNRs ------------------------------ From: jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) Subject: WAIS Server Needs Volunteer Beta-Testers Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 0:39:07 EST Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY As Pat mentioned a while ago, we are working on indexing the Telecom Digest archives with Thinking Machine's WAIS server. At this point, the archive server is not ready for general use (or abuse), but I am looking for a few people to help test the server. I don't have time now to write up any documentation, so you'd have to be willing to figure out most of it from the provided documentation. As such, you should be comfortable compiling UNIX applications. You also need to be on the Internet. You don't need to be root to install any of the client software, but you do need a telnet that allows you to spec port numbers. For a look at WAIS in action, telnet to quake.think.com and log in as wais. For a look at the X-windows interface to WAIS, telnet to snark.lcs.mit.edu and log in as wais. You will be prompted for your display name. If you are interested in helping with the test process, drop me a line. RIT VAX/VMS Systems: | Jeff Wasilko | RIT Ultrix Systems: | ITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax +----------------------+ INET:jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu| NTERNET: jjwcmp@ritvax.rit.edu |____UUCP:jjwcmp@ultb.UUCP____| ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 05:36 GMT From: "Kevin C. Gross" <0004056890@mcimail.com> Subject: A Telephone Repair Question Hi. A friend suggested that someone on this list might be able to answer this question. One of my AT&T Trimline phones has a dead ringer in it. Do you know the spec's of the little speaker-like ringer in the base station? Radio Shack sells a "piezo-electric buzzer" which quite resembles it, peak voltage 28 or so. Would this baby do? If not, can you suggest a source? Thanks in advance for your help. Kevin Gross kcgross@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 21:04:27 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: T1 Services Organization: Cal State Long Beach I would appreciate references to introductory information on T1 connections and services. Technical details not needed at this time, just a general description, cost calculations/justifications, equipment requirements, service limitations/restrictions and possible problems and pitfalls of going this route. Thanks for any help. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: lawrence@netcon.smc.edu (Lawrence Roney) Subject: AT&T AUDIX Hard Disks Organization: Santa Monica College, Santa Monica, CA Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 21:31:52 GMT We have an AT&T AUDIX voice mail system. It stores all the voice and data on a 170Mb SCSI hard disk. The the disk that is currently in the system is a CDC 94161-155. The system will support two disk drives. It has the SCSI and power cables ready to go. The manual claims that the unit will work with the below listed drives. (either 170Mb or 380Mb) AT&T wants over $6000 for a 170Mb hard disk!!! Has anyone purchased one of the disks below, put it in an AUDIX, and made it work? CDC 94161-155 CDC 94171-376 Micropolis 1375 Micropolis 1570 NEC D5862 Maxtor XT-4380S Piram 738 HP 9753XSA Lawrence Roney - Network Systems Technician, Department of Telecommunications Santa Monica Community College District, Santa Monica, CA Internet: lawrence@netcon.smc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 09:54 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches jparkyn@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (James Parkyn) writes about a fellow who whose CO was hard wired to offer touch tone to everybody, and the Telco trying to get him to sign up. The friend sayd they would disconnect him and he said "Go ahead and try!" The Moderator noted: > [Moderator's Note: Isn't this a little like saying that since every > home is equipped with water faucets, you are entitled to use the water > supply without paying ... and if they don't want you to use the water > they can simply come out and dig up the pipes where they connect to > your home or otherwise lock off the supply? Nope. Water companies go to the expense of installing shut off valves. One must take positive action, breaking seals, etc., to use water for which you haven't contracted. Patrick goes on to suggest that the telco rep (without company sanction) call back and threaten to extort the cost of touch tone by threatening to change his number. Further, Patrick suggests that he, as the telco rep, would be snide and arrogant. Now, First of all, I want to go on record as being grateful in the extreme for Patrick's moderation of TELECOM Digest, for his putting up with our various problems in areas of subscription and submission, etc. Lots of times I agree with Patrick's opinions and lots of times I disagree. On this one, I disagree. Patrick compares using available touch tone service to taking positive action to connect to a disconnected utility. The telco knew they were opening this can of worms, and chose to open it anyway. They probably began the operation planning to go back and "catch" everybody who used tone signalling ... gee, they could easily sign up some new subscribers that way. My parents have not paid for touch tone yet. When I visited them a few years back, I switched their phone to tone in order to access my voicemail, and forgot to switch it back. Gee, it worked. Telco stupidity? Too damn bad. Sounds like an attractive nuisance to me. You don't want it used? Don't leave it in my house. As to Patrick's suggestion that the telco extort the charge by threatening number changes on an individual basis, this is the typical underhanded dealing that most of us don't appreciate of telcos and other large corporations. Had the telco gone to the Public Service Commission (in whatever state), and proposed to make Touch Tone charges mandatory for subscribers in the XXX exchange, they would have been shot down. Had they proposed that subscribers who would not sign up would have to have their numbers changed, they would probably have been shot down again. Besides, as I read Patrick's Moderators Note, he suggests that he, as the service rep, would take such action, probably independent of company policy. Had there been a few PSC complaints, Patrick would not have lasted long as a service rep. Rather than the water company analogy, this really compares more to unordered merchandise. Consider a newspaper thrown on your doorstep when you don't take the paper. You don't have to pay for it. You also don't have to call the paper and tell them to stop sending it. Are you allowed to read it? I'd argue yes. They also have the right to stop delivering it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 10:02 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Forced Number Changes Despite what I wrote in the message before this , the telco DOES have the right to make number changes. Typically this is done on a mass basis, although I'm sure other people here can write of retaliatory number changes. I know of one mass number change. About fifteen years ago, a windowless brick building went up at the corner of Old Country Road and Grohmans Lane in Plainview, New York (11803). When it was almost complete, a large bell in a circle was hung on the wall. A new CO was born. (No, there were no tours. :-( ) Shortly afterwards, a friend of mine, along with most every other telco subscriber in an area north of Old Country Road and east of NY 135, got a notice that their telephone number would be changing and that they would be served by a new electronic office. Lo, the people rejoiced (almost) because the service from the three crossbar offices in the area was deteriorating rapidly. The number change was upsetting, but since it was a mass change, it was accepted reasonably well. The telco said that they would try to maintain suffixes where possible, but since people were being transferred into two exchanges from six, it would not be possible. My friends two numbers were changed as follows: XXX-6061 -> AAA-0661 YYY-6435 -> AAA-7435 So they got them almost right. The result was that the people transferred OUT of the existing exchanges got ESS telephone service (with custom calling features) and the capacity was opened up on the existing exchanges for other customers located closer to the old CO's. ------------------------------ Subject: Musical Chairs in the Long Distance Business Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 23:57:25 EST From: John R. Levine {Newsbytes} reports that Williams Telecommunications, which is a large but low-profile player in the private network business, is getting into retail long distance. After Telesphere died, their assets ended up with Ronald Hahn who used to be the chairman of NTS, an AOS that Telesphere tried to buy last year. Telesphere is buying Telesphere's customer accounts from him. WilTel has been seeing a lot of competition from the big three who are offering package deals with private networks or VPNs, MTS, and 800 all at one price (boy, that's a lot of acronyms.) WilTel needs the MTS and 800 from Telesphere to be able to provide competitive packages. Williams' parent is a big rich gas pipeline company so they can put a whole lot more capital into the business than Telesphere ever could. They seem to have no interest in the 900 business, fortunately. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #923 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04112; 13 Nov 91 4:22 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18599 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:48:16 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18487 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:48:03 -0600 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:48:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111130848.AA18487@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #924 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Nov 91 02:47:59 CST Volume 11 : Issue 924 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Future of Printed Books (John Higdon) Re: The Future of Printed Books (Glenn F. Leavell) Re: Telemarketing Prevented (David E. Bernholdt) Re: Telemarketing Prevented (Marcus Adams) Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) (David G. Lewis) Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires (Alan L. Varney) Re: Connection Between Digital Phone and Answering Machine (Paul Cook) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 00:59 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books On Nov 11 at 0:26, TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Not everyone here would agree with you, but I do. > For all that was wrong with the old Bell System, we still had the best > phone system in the world, bar none. That is now very questionable. > Yes, we have all kinds of new technological gimmicks on the phone we > did not have years ago, but the network itself has gone to hell in a > handbasket, and the old-time enthusiasm and dedication to quality of > service is mostly missing. PAT] Will you give us some examples if I go first and give some evidence to the contrary? Item: Even before the crossbar was cut to 5ESS, it seemed to be generally more reliable and better maintained than anytime before divestiture. Item: Trouble calls always result in a follow up from a switchman or plant trouble desk within hours and sometimes within minutes. The people actually talk cases and technical details. Problems are fixed FAST. And the customer is not treated as though he has no business knowing the inner workings of the phone company. Item: Priority repair (something that has come about since divestiture) is truly amazing. On SUNDAY, they will fix almost any problem within an hour. Item: New service orders and additions are handled in hours, not days and weeks. Item: Ten years ago, a call to San Francisco took a few seconds to complete and sounded as though you were talking through a barrel. Today, the call is completed instanteously and sounds as though it is in the same switch. In adjusted dollars, it also costs less. Item: Calls across the continent also complete quickly, reliably, and sound local. Item: In adjusted dollars, my local service costs me less than it did in 1967. Item: In actual dollars, my long distance bill is MUCH LESS than it was for the same usage in 1967. In adjusted dollars, we are not even in the same ball park. Item: All in all, my local service (16 residential lines) is completely reliable. There has been no trouble with switch or cable in years. Oops, I take that back. A few months ago, I had a noisy pair which I reported on a Saturday. Within a couple of hours a man showed up, confirmed the bad pair. He determined that spare pairs were not plentiful but spent the entire afternoon working on it. He found a pair that had been removed from service because of a fault, but that the problem was beyond my residence. So he cut off the problem section and moved my line over to the remaining section between my house and the CO. Now what was that about old-time enthusiasm and dedication to quality of service? BTW, a similar problem that happened in the seventies took more than a week to fix. The repair person quipped that it was hardly an emergency because after all I did have three other (at that time) lines. There you are. Now perhaps you could give some example of how it has all gone to hell in a handbasket. Give me now versus then any day of the week. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 21:29:12 GMT In article , news@unix.cis.pitt.edu (USENET News System) writes: > In article <92466@brunix.UUCP>, cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) > writes: >> infrastructure had been pretty much dead in the water; the phone >> companies weren`t allowed to do it, because they would be competing >> unfairly with the cable companies; the cable companies weren't allowed >> to do it, for fear that they would compete unfairly with the phone >> companies. Sigh. Capitalism is such a wonderful thing :-) > I hope you're not implying that you think that THIS is > Capitalism. Capitalism would be a great thing. If the government, > bless its grasping and meddling little ways, would GET THE **** OUT OF > THE WAY. > When Ma Bell WAS a monopoly, I had better, cheaper service. I > now have worse service. Thank you, O mighty Government, for saving me > from something that was working just fine. Of course, it is debatable whether or not the phone system is better or worse now than it was before the breakup. But, you seem to be arguing two different points here. On the one hand you ask the government to stay out of things, but on the other you say that things were better when the government was interfering by allowing the Bell System to remain a monopoly. Though, I guess it is also debatable whether the Bell System would have remained a monopoly without ANY government intervention. Glenn F. Leavell Systems Administrator glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu 404-542-3488 University of Georgia Economics Department. 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602 ------------------------------ From: bernhold%blue9@bikini.cis.ufl.edu (David E. Bernholdt) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented Date: 12 Nov 91 18:06:26 GMT Organization: Quantum Theory Project, University of Florida In article hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > How does the PUC deal with such complaints? > [Moderator's Note: The answer to that is very simple: They don't deal > with the complaints either; not at least until there are a large > number of them. Then they begin an inquiry. PAT] I just made a few phone calls to Tallahasse. In Florida, such complaints are handled not by the PSC (Public Service Commission) but by the Dept. of Consumer Services. They _say_ that if I file a complaint with them (which requires the name and address of the offending firm -- not always simple to obtain) it wil be followed up by contacting the offender and informing them of the relevant laws. Then if they don't desist, Consumer Services is "legally empowered" to prosecute them. Of course they won't guarantee that they'll take legal action ... Next time I get an automated telemarketing call (and every few months I do), I may see if they're true to their word. On the other hand, I'm not sure its worth the effort. David Bernholdt bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu Quantum Theory Project bernhold@ufpine.bitnet University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 904/392 6365 ------------------------------ From: madams@aludra.usc.edu (Marcus Adams) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented Date: 12 Nov 91 20:00:30 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Being unfamiliar with the entirety of these laws, is it illegal to attempt to sell something with a phone call that begins with a recording, or is it *any* phone call that begins with a recording? I get at least one phone call a week that starts off "We have an important message for you. Please hold for a customer service agent." ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 16:15:24 GMT In article hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > Further, someone with such a right of way [note - referring to railroad] > could either lease it to a telecommunications company to string > fiber, or could put up its own point to point fiber, selling 150 Mbps > or so links on a point to point basis. I know of at least one company that does this, although the name currently escapes me and I can't recall the details of the ownership arrangements -- a subsidiary or corporation in which Amtrak holds an interest uses the Amtrak Northeast Corridor right-of-way (Boston to Washington) to provide fiber-optic service. > Those buying use of those links would typically be telcos. I > don't see the need for every long distance carrier to market directly > to the consumer. Market to the telephone companies. If the railroad > can provide a high speed link from here to there for less than anyone > else (including the telco, who also has to pay right of way or > microwave relay site fees, and, perhaps, someday, spectrum fees), the > telco should buy the use of the link from them. Actually, there are a lot of companies that do this, but the typical consumer has (for obvious reasons) never heard of them. Williams Telecommunications (WilTel) started this way, although they're beginning to market more private line services to business users; Cable & Wireless primarily operates this way in the US; LightNet was this kind of "carrier's carrier" (although something in the back of my mind tells me that LightNet no longer exists as its own company -- bought out/merged with Sprint, I think?) There are a host of others, some regional, some national. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 11:56:15 CST From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article cornutt@freedom.msfc. nasa.gov (David Cornutt) writes: > Thanks for an interesting article, Al. Now let me ask you a question > about cutover. I'm looking at a flyer from Tekelec ... they call > the Cutover Device. From the description of it, and my limited > knowledge, I take it that it's intended for cutting over toll > switches. > It appears to be a device with which two switches can be connected to > an SS7 net so that they appear to be one device. On command, > apparently it starts routing call setup requests to the new switch, > while still handling messages concerning existing traffic to/from the > switch which is being cut over. I assume that it keeps track of > remaining calls on the old switch and notifies the operator when all > traffic has been cut over. Is this an accurate summary? Am I correct > in the assumption that it is only for toll switches, or can it be used > for COs too? (And if so, how are the individual pairs cut over? Come > to think of it, when all the analog systems are gone, presumably there > won't be any pairs coming directly to the switch, just trunks. At > that point, will you even need a device like this any more?) From my limited understanding of Tekelec's SS7 device, it serves as a router of incoming Trunk Signaling (actually ISUP) SS7 messages, while perhaps intercepting inappropriate outgoing messages. It plays no role in the physical cut-over of trunks, and is not involved in lines at all. To understand the need for this device, one has to understand the routing of ISUP SS7 messages to individual switches. The SS7 packet protocol essentially identifies a trunk/circuit with a far-end Point Code (PC, 24 bits) and a Circuit Identification Code (CIC, 14 bits). Since the SS7 protocol was not designed with network re-arrangements in mind, only one node (switch) can be associated with a Point Code. So now the problem with cut-over is that either the new switch has to assume the PC of the old switch (Tekelec's box supports this) or one has to "flash cut" some trunks at every connecting switch to the different PC of the new switch. The first method is much easier at cut-over time. Before cut-over, one would like to move trunks in small groups to the new switch, test them, then move them back. With SS7, this is difficult if the switch is "assuming" the original Point Code because there is no easy way to connect the new switch to the SS7 network (with the new Point Code) and still allow most traffic through the old switch. The box (I'm guessing here) must connect into the signalling links coming into both the old and new switches, allowing both to have the same PC. All outgoing traffic from the new switch would be blocked. Then a small number of PC/CIC identifiers are marked "under test", the corresponding trunks are blocked from traffic, allowing the trunks to be moved and tested. In this mode, the box would "re-route" ISUP messages for specific trunks to/from the new switch. At cut-over, I don't see the box providing any traffic re-routing; it probably just sends everything to the new switch. (After all, at cut-over, all the trunks are typically reconnected to the new switch. There are few cases anymore where duplicate trunks are provisioned, allowing calls to terminate normally.) A similar mechanism is available from AT&T when the old switch is a 1A ESS(tm) switch and the new one is a 5ESS(reg) switch. No special hardware is involved, and coordination of test trunks is not as critical. There is even some interest in the Standards groups for a non-proprietary solution, but don't look for anything soon ... Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL; Above info. is my own opinion. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 18:32 GMT From: Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Connection Between Digital Phone and Answering Machine tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu writes: > Some time ago, someone was trying sell information on how to make an > interface to connect a regular answering machine to digital phone. > If someone could help me on that, I would appreciate it. It should > not be too hard to make it but I am not an EE. Not too hard? I assume that you are talking about connecting an answering machine or any other standard telephone device to a station port on an electronic key system. The problem is that there is no one standard for all these systems. They generally have an analog pair for the voice path, and another pair that carries digital information between the telephone instrument and the KSU (the central device that connects between the outside telephone lines and the telephones). This digital information includes things like hookswitch status, ringing, and even dialing. Every manufacturing has their own standard for the signalling over this digital pair. Our company used to manufacture a device called the 46225 Single Line Interface for Electronic Key. It turned one of these two pair KSU connections into a standard two wire RJ-11 jack with standard 48 vdc and 20 Hz ringing, but it was only programmable for the Tie EK612 and Modkey 16, and the Premier 1A3. It had to be programmed by the user for one of these three systems only, had a microprocessor, ring generator and 48 volt supply inside, and at $325 per line was not too popular. We used to get calls from folks who had installed one of these three key systems at some mansion, and now needed to add a cordless phone for the tennis court or the pool. We no longer manufacture this unit. Maybe some surplus dealer has one, but it is only good for those three key systems. There is another possible solution, if you are using Tie products. Some of the Tie key systems use the Tie SLU card or Single Line Card. You can connect the Proctor 46222 Long Loop Adaptor to the SLU to generate standard tip and ring voltage. The best solution is to contact the manufacturer of the key system, and find out what they recommend for connecting their system to voice mail. Voice mail/auto-attendant applications use the same standard two wire connection as an answering machine, and the manufacturer is used to answering this particular question, because of the increased popularity of these systems over the past few years. For many systems, the manufacturer has no solution. But this is changing, mostly because of voice mail requirements. Paul Cook 206-881-7000 Proctor & Associates MCI Mail 399-1080 15050 NE 36th St. fax: 206-885-3282 Redmond, WA 98052-5317 3991080@mcimail.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #924 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13397; 14 Nov 91 1:40 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20733 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:03:59 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02585 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:03:48 -0600 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:03:48 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111140603.AA02585@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Issue 921 apparently lost, coming out again The next mailing you will receive from telecom is a retransmission of issue 921 ... it was in transit when all the troubles started here yesterday with the mailer. Enough people have said they did not recieve it that it seems apparent it fell in a black hole somewhere. Patrick Townson   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13565; 14 Nov 91 1:48 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18879 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:05:33 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00523 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:05:17 -0600 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:05:17 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111140605.AA00523@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #921 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Nov 91 21:58:28 CST Volume 11 : Issue 921 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson You Can Help Build the National Public Network (Gerard Van der Leun) San Francisco Examiner Telecom Editorial (Seth I. Robson) BIX and Genie Come to the Internet (J. Philip Miller) AT&T Long Distance Repair Service (Mike Olson) Personal 800 Service Plans (Greg Paris) Inquiry For Information on Telecommuting (Janet Dixon) Free USA Today Number Cancelled (Robert Virzi) Limited Bandwidth PBX? (Alan Gilbertson) Fiber Optic Component Drafting Standards (Jeff Brown) AT&T Billing SNAFU (Jack Dominey) AT&T Mail Minimum Charge (Toby Nixon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 21:24:58 -0500 From: van@eff.org (Gerard Van der Leun) Subject: You Can Help Build the National Public Network. Here's How. THE NATIONAL PUBLIC NETWORK BEGINS NOW. YOU CAN HELP BUILD IT. Telecommunications in the United States is at a crossroads. With the Regional Bell Operating Companies now free to provide content, the shape of the information networking is about to be irrevocably altered. But will that network be the open, accessible, affordable network that the American public needs? You can help decide this question. The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently presented a plan to Congress calling for the immediate deployment of a national network based on existing ISDN technology, accessible to anyone with a telephone connection, and priced like local voice service. We believe deployment of such a platform will spur the development of innovative new information services, and maximize freedom, competitiveness, and civil liberties throughout the nation. The EFF is testifying before Congress and the FCC; making presentations to public utility commisions from Massachusetts to California; and meeting with representatives from telephone companies, publishers, consumer advocates, and other stakeholders in the telecommunications policy debate. The EFF believes that participants on the Internet, as pioneers on the electronic frontier, need to have their voices heard at this critical moment. To automatically receive a description of the platform and details, send mail to archive-server@eff.org, with the following line: send documents open-platform-overview or send mail to eff@eff.org. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 23:09:04 -0800 From: srobson@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Seth I. Robson) Subject: San Francisco Examiner Telecom Editorial The {San Francisco Examiner} ran an editorial regarding a thread that has been discussed here for some time now, that of RBOCs attempting to sell their own information services. From the {San Francisco Examiner}; 10 November, 1991 [ begin quoted text. ] "Baby Bells' Big Brother act" [ nice title... ] Since the breakup of AT&T in 1984, the resultant nine regional Bell companies have been barred by the courts from entering certain businesses where their monopoly power over local telephone networks could be abused. Their efforts to shake off such restrains have been rewarded in recent months with judicial rulings allowing them to sell information services, such as news and electronic advertising. With their monopoly control over the phone lines by which such services are delivered, the Bells are being handed an enormous advantage over competitors in the information field who do not own telephone companies. Legislation pending in Congress would backtrack partly on that and curb the Bell companies' ability to purvey the content of phone lines as well their [sic] use as "common carriers." The bill, HR3515, should be passed to permit fair competition and protect the public from the consequences of monopoly power. This newspaper and others have a self-interest in the issue. We are among information-oriented businesses exploring possibilities in telecommunications. Newspapers also have an obvious stake in their share of the advertising dollar. But several other kinds of enterprises seek to offer competitive electronic information services, and all must use phone lines. The Bell companies should not be allowed monopolistic control of competitors' phone links -- including the conditions and timing of techno- logical innovations. Their privileged access to everyone's home and business gives them the sheer power to dominate the field. The phone companies are needed to provide local phone service, which guarantees them fair profits from captive customers. Their monopolies should not be allowed to gobble up competitors in other businesses. Members of Congress should stand up to the Bells' blatant pressuring and pass the Telecommunications Act of 1991. [ end quoted text. ] Anyone who wishes to reply directly to the {Examiner} should write to: Letters to the Editor San Francisco Examiner P.O. Box 7260 San Francisco, CA 94120 Their editorial department also has a fax number: +1 415 512-1264. Otherwise, flame away. :-) Seth I. Robson; srobson@ucscb.ucsc.edu imc@mcimail.com Immediate Media Company; Redwood City, CA. ------------------------------ From: phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) Subject: BIX and Genie Come to the Internet Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 8:50:05 CST In the November issue of {UnixWorld} in an article "E-mail Beyond UNIX" by Art Campbell, a sidebar indicates that both BIX and Genie will be connected to the Internet "by the end of the year." Given the number of prior postings on this topic, I am certain it will be welcomed by many users of these services and will provide yet another method of gaining Interent mail services for those without direct connections. Prodigy, of course, indicated that they have no intention of connecting. J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet [Moderator's Note: Oh gosh, let's all get down on our knees and beg Prodigy to change their corporate mind and be one with us. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mao@postgres.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Olson) Subject: AT&T Long Distance Repair Service Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 09:09:14 PST I've been having trouble calling a number in Puerto Rico from Cali- fornia, so I called AT&T long distance repair (AT&T is my carrier). The woman I spoke to was courteous and I have no complaints about the service. I do have a question, though: why did they want my home address for the trouble report? The clerk told me she was "just filling in the blanks on the form." Since AT&T already knows who I am, I didn't get indignant about it. I'm curious, though. Any ideas? Mike Olson UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 12:24:45 -0500 From: Greg Paris Subject: Personal 800 Service Plans Hopefully this hasn't been covered in the Digest recently (I don't have access to the archives), but I'm interested in finding out about what "personal" 800 number plans are available. I can call AT&T, MCI and Sprint to find out what they offer, but from reading the Digest it seems that some of you have your 800 service through other providers who I wouldn't know to call. If you've already done the "legwork" on this, any info you can share would be sincerely appreciated. The questions I'm most interested in answers to are whether I have to change my default LD carrier (AT&T now) on the line to get 800 service, what kind of discount I would get on outgoing LD calls, and of course, what the installation fee, monthly service fee, and rates on incoming calls are. Horror stories about service problems are welcome. Thanks. Greg Paris Motorola Codex, Software Environment Group, +1 617 821 7020 ------------------------------ Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1991 10:07:59 PST From: Janet Dixon Subject: Inquiry For Information on Telecommuting Needed for a doctoral dissertation: A student at Golden Gate University is doing a doctoral dissertation in Business on Telecommuting and would like information on what it takes to successfully supervise telecommuters. If you work in California, have supervised telecommuters for at least six months (and at least 1/4 of your staff work from home an average of one day or more per week, and would be willing to be interviewed for the study, please call doctoral student Lauren Speeth at (510) 675-3747 (work) or (510) 841-2140 (home). Results from the one hour interview, which includes a standardized psychological test, will be kept confidential. General study conclusions will be shared with all participants. ------------------------------ From: rv01@gte.com (Robert Virzi) Subject: Free USA Today Number Cancelled Date: 12 Nov 91 20:54:10 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories Incorporated, Waltham MA As of today, the {USA Today} information service available by calling 800.555.5555 has been discontinued. Apparently that was some sort of reserved number, although I don't know who exactly it was reserved for. When I finally got through to the Information Systems Department, the man I spoke to was p*ssed. He actually didn't know that the number had been disabled when I called, and he began the conversation by telling me not to call the free number anymore, just the 900 number. When I told him that 800 access had been discontinued, he seemed audibly relieved. He affirmed that I had incurred no charges, and restated that I should use the 900 number in the future. He wouldn't give details, and declined to tell me what the new 800 number was. ;-] I'd sure like to hear about it if anyone stumbles across another gold mine like this one in the future. Bob Virzi rvirzi@gte.com [Moderator's Note: The man had good reason to be angry, since the 800 version was a programming error which slipped through the cracks at some point and took all this time to locate and purge. There was never to have been an 800 number to begin with from what I am told. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alan.Gilbertson@f230.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Alan Gilbertson) Subject: Limited Bandwidth PBX? Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 18:32:00 PDT Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/230 - CSFSO Telecomm, Clearwater FL It is not very real. I responded to this particular post in the comp.dcom.modems newsgroup, but perhaps some of it bears repeating here. Modern digital PBXes made by such manufacturers as AT&T (S75/85, G1.x, G2), NEC (2400 IMS), Hitachi (HCX series, DX series), Siemens, et al., use 64 kbps PCM internally. This is more than sufficient bandwidth and phase information for V.32bis connections to operate correctly. At one site I manage, I have a (digital) PBX that has no DS1 capability, so I send the output into analog line cards on a small AT&T S75XE. From there, the calls go out on T1 lines to either AT&T or MCI. A modem signal from the main PBX begins life as an analog signal output from the modem, is converted to digital form at the line card, travels through the PBX as a PCM-encoded digital signal, is converted to analog at a trunk card, is reconverted to PCM digital form by the S75 line circuit codec, and goes from there in digital form to the outside world. This tandem arrangemnt is clean enough that I have never seen a problem with any modems connecting through it. In fact, some comparisons of throughput definitely give it the edge over local central office connections on ordinary 1FB business lines. In general, I don't know of any digital PBX equipment designed or marketed in the last ten years or so that can't handle a V.32 or V.32bis modulation. This is NOT to say they don't exist, but I haven't come across any personally. Internet: Alan.Gilbertson@f230.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG UUCP: ...!uunet!ndcc!tct!psycho!230!Alan.Gilbertson Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write root. ------------------------------ From: edjcb@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Jeff Brown) Subject: Fiber Optic Component Drafting Standards Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center / Cleveland, Ohio Date: 12 Nov 1991 16:29 EDT Are there any established drafting standards for fiber optic systems? We're just starting to use fiber and would like to follow accepted practices if they exist. Thanks. Jeff Brown edjcb@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Tue Nov 12 09:08:24 EST 1991 Subject: AT&T Billing SNAFU Through issue #911, I've seen one or two references to the recent hoopla over AT&T billing for Reach Out plan charges after a customer switches to a different carrier. Since at least one person seemed to have misunderstood the situation, I'd like to take a stab at clarifying things. Everything that follows is my own understanding, based on AT&T intra-company news and clippings from general news sources. The situation: A customer subscribes to a Reach Out plan, with a monthly charge of say, $8 per month. Later the customer changes LD carriers. AT&T still bills the customer that $8, sometimes for many months. The misunderstanding: Some people seem to have the notion that AT&T has refused the customer's request to stop the billing plan. In fact, no direct request was ever made. If a customer calls AT&T and says, "Discontinue my Reach Out plan," then billing stops. The real problem: The customer's request to switch is either made directly to the local company, or through the other carrier. AT&T apparently gets notified of these switches, but has not treated them as requests to shut off Reach Out plans. A correction is apparently in the works. Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA (404) 496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey or !bsga05!jdominey ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: AT&T Mail Minimum Charge Date: 12 Nov 91 13:05:33 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA I called the 800-242-6005 number for information on AT&T Mail's new rate structure. They sent me a two-page letter (probably the same thing other folks have received), and, indeed, I can see the $25 "Monthly Usage Minimum" listed under "Core Services". There are about three dozen members of TIA TR-30 (the US modem standards committee) that have been using AT&T Mail to communicate amongst ourselves (few of the committee members have any other email service available). At $300 per year, that comes out to about $10,000 we'd be paying AT&T Mail. Kind of ridiculous when you understand that we only send, all together, about 5 messages per month to each other. At that rate, we could buy a very nice computer, some excellent BBS software, several phone lines, and set up our own private BBS -- we'd even get the modems for free. In fact, we could do all of this for under $1000, and even paying a couple of hundred dollars a month for phone lines, we'd end up saving a LOT of money. But why bother with all that trouble, when we can all get on CompuServe, which has a monthly minimum of just $2? Methinks AT&T Mail has shot their feet full of holes with this, as far as individual users are concerned. Please assume their is a "cancellation pending" next to my AT&T Mail address below. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | BBS +1-404-446-6336 AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15 USA | Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net [Moderator's Note: Or alternatively, start a mailing list here on the Internet with a common address for everyone to write to which will then send the mail around to everyone. Thus far everyone I've talked to is dropping out of AT&T Mail over the next month or two, and that includes myself. I'm sorry to leave them, but $25 per month is not very nice when my usual bill is $3-4 per month. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #921 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15348; 14 Nov 91 2:48 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05120 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 01:04:19 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11299 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 01:04:05 -0600 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 01:04:05 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111140704.AA11299@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #925 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Nov 91 01:04:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 925 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Last Week at the FCC 10/28 - 11/1 (Karl.N6BVU@p0.f39.n382.z1.fidonet.org) AT&T Definity Plays Dial Tone While Forwarding (Andrew Klossner) Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Ken Sprouse) 5ESS and Music on Hold (Philip Reese) Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Bill Gripp) Call Waiting on the 5ESS (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karl.N6BVU@p0.f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org (Karl N6BVU) Date: 13 Nov 91 11:05:21 Subject: Last Week at the FCC 10/28 - 11/1 The following were part of the actions taken by the Federal Communications Commission during the week of 10/28 - 11/1, 1991. ON OCTOBER 28th.... The FCC issued a Public Notice giving Results of Sample Testing of 49 MHz Walkie-Talkies; Contact Hugh L. Van Tuyl at (301)725-1585, extension 221. The FCC issued a Public Notice listing 13 Petitions for Rulemaking Filed; some of them are as follows: RM# Rule Sect. Petitioner Nature of Petition 7837 90.173 Assoc for Private Request Amendment of the FCC's Paging Section of Rules & Regulations Concerning NABER Shared Use of Paging Freq's. 7838 80 U.S.C.G. Maritime Request Amendment of the FCC's Radio & Spectrum Rules to Phase out the Management Div. Authorization for Class C EPIRBs 7839 94.17(a)(1) Motorola, Inc. Request Amendment of the FCC's Rules to allow Federal Access to Low Power 18 GHz Pvt Systems 7849 97.113(d)(e)Michael Reynolds Request Amendment of the FCC's W0KIE Rules Governing the Amateur 3826 S 92 E Place Radio Service & Prohibited Tulsa, OK 74145 Transmissions. The FCC issued a two page TEXT on FM Booster Stations. The Commission has amended its rules governing operation of FM booster stations by codifying the limitations imposed on FM booster stations by existing international agreements. The Commission also defined the standards to which FM booster stations must conform to prevent increased interference to stations that are 53 or 54 channels removed from the booster station. By Order (FCC 91-317) adopted October 8. The FCC issued a 200 page TEXT on AM Broadcast Services. The FCC has concluded an important phase of its long-term program designed to transform and revitalize the AM broadcast service. Numerous revisions and adjustments, both major and minor, to the existing AM rules and policies have been adopted. MM Docket 87-267 by R&O (FCC 91-303) adopted September 26. The FCC issued a five page TEXT on Personal Communications Services. Adopted Policy Statement that provides preliminary guidance for the development of PCS in the United States; scheduled En Banc hearing for December five on the development of PCS. General Docket 90-314 by Policy Statement and Order (FCC 91-338) adopted October 24. ON OCTOBER 28th.... The FCC issued a 54 page TEXT on Wireless Cable and ITFS Rules. In response to several petitions for reconsideration of the FCC's Report and Order (of October 26, 1990) which facilitated the provision of "wireless cable" service to the public, the FCC has modified and clarified some of that report's provisions. General Dockets 90-54 and 80-113 by Order on Reconsideration (FCC 91-301) adopted September 26. ON OCTOBER 29th.... The FCC issued a one page TEXT on In-Flight Phone Vs. GTE Airfone. Granted motion by In-Flight and terminated proceeding concerning In-Flight's complaint against GTE alleging that GTE violated its experimental radio license for air-to-ground service by offering a Business Calling Card Program to airline passengers. By Order, (DA 91-1324) adopted October 21. ON OCTOBER 31st.... The FCC issued a News Release about a Pirate Radio Broadcast Station Closed Down in Colorado. Contact: Joe Di Scipio or Bob Weller at (303) 969-6497. The FCC issued a three page TEXT on Low-Power Mobile. Proposed amending Part 90 to increase the number of frequencies in the 72-76 MHz band for low-power mobile use. PR Docket 91-295 by NPRM (FCC 91-315) adopted October 3. The FCC issued a Public Notice that the 1992 Maximum Reimbursement Fee for an Amateur Operator License Examination ($5.44) **See separate posting***. ON NOVEMBER 1st.... The FCC issued a News Release, Ordering Dismantlement of a Radio Tower Located in Manchester, Tennessee. Ordered David Stiles, owner of a radio tower located in Manchester, TN., to dismantle the tower because it constitutes a hazard to air navigation as determined by the FAA. Action by the FCC by Order (FCC 91-343) on October 28. For information, contact: Wayne T. McKee at (202) 632-7059. * Origin: The Master's BBS Garden Grove, CA. 1:103/102 (1:103/102) via "MDF" Central Texas Gateway - f39.n382.z1.fidonet.org mdf.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Subject: AT&T Definity Plays Dial Tone While Forwarding Date: 13 Nov 91 22:34:46 GMT Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon My employer just installed an "AT&T Definity G2" phone system. When I leave my desk, I instruct it to forward my calls to my cellular number. But when the system does this, it plays half a second of dial tone to the calling party, which as often as not misleads them into thinking the call has dropped and they hang up. I've complained to the corporate authorities, who don't seem to know much about the system but they promise to look into it. Is this an immutable characteristic of this system? -=- Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) ------------------------------ Subject: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone Date: 13 Nov 91 13:16:50 EDT (Wed) From: sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us (Ken Sprouse) In article kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > So, a telemarketer who calls ten people who are not interested is > equivalent to ten calls to one person who is not interested? > [Moderator's Note: Nope, not true at all, because a telemarketer does > have a legitimate business reason for calling. The fact that you or I > or anyone else is not interested does not remove the legitimacy of the > call in the first place. The difference between them and phreaks who > war-dial an entire community is the phreak had no business calling the > number in the first place ... the telemarketer did. PAT] ---stuff deleted--- >> The main advantage to me is that while both, in accordance with >> Murphy's law, call while I'm in the shower, the phreak doesn't take up >> my time with a sales pitch. >>> [Moderator's Note: The phreak intends to steal something from you if >>> possible; ie your computing and telecom resources. The telemarketer >>> wishes to sell you something if possible. There is legally and >>> otherwise a difference between selling you something and stealing from >>> you. PAT] Pat, I have a real problem with the idea that the intent of the caller makes it all right for him/her/it to call and ring my phone when they please. Consider the following. There are a large number of open bulletin boards in my area. Many of them maintain a list of other boards in town. Often times these lists are out of date or have inaccurate information in them. I decide that I will create and maintain an up to date list for my own use and if there is a demand I may even offer this information for a small fee on a subscription basis. Now to do this once a month I turn lose my modem with a "war games" style program to call every number in an exchange and check for ones that have modem tone. I even write some code to record the responses of the ones that do and from that list verify the systems that are open to the public and invite unsolicited callers. Taking it one step further I track all of the numbers that are modems but are closed systems and I exclude them from my monthly dialing expedition. I don't do this for voice numbers (even if I can determine that a human answered) because tomorrow that person may decide to put a bbs on line, or they may move and give up the number which gets reassigned to a bbs. Now if a person doesn't want to be bothered with these calls all they have to do is give me a call and I'll be glad to add them to the dialer's exception list. And should my program become popular and I sell it to some other folks I'll form a BBS Search Association where people who don't want to be bothered with these calls can register there name on a list that is distributed to others in my business. I won't even charge them for this service :-). Now I think this is every bit as legitimate a business reason for me to be ringing people's phones as an automated telemarketer. What a load of horse manure! No one should be allowed to dial numbers at random for the purpose of soliciting or selling period! And I don't care if its a human or a machine doing the dialing. If these people want to be in the business of soliciting/selling by way of the telephone let them find a way to build a database of phone numbers of people who have said that they don't mind being called on a random basis for the purpose of hearing a sales pitch. No I don't know how they could go about building this database but that is their problem. On second thought, how about this as one possible alternative -- All of the magazines I subscribe to make their mailing lists available to companies for mass mailings of advertising literature. All I have to do is drop them a note and they take my name off the list. When I subscribe to telephone service the rep says "We make our subscribers list available to mass marketing companies who offer products and or services you may be interested in by phone. May we include your name and number on this list?" The local phone company then sells its list of people who say "yes" to the telemarketing crowd. Yes I know this is a far from perfect plan ripe with problems of its own but I would prefer it 100% to what we have now. Sorry to be so long winded on this but these unsolicited phone calls really set me off. By the way did anyone see ABC's Night Line program on Monday (11/11) night talking about pending congressional action to limit automated telemarketing? I had no idea how cheaply one could get into the business. (A machine demo'd on the show was < $2000.) Ken Sprouse / N3IGW sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us GEnie mail ksprouse Compu$erve 70145,426 [Moderator's Note: Well, unsolicited calls from people looking for modems on the line set me off. At least the telemarketers are trying to earn a living selling things on the phone ... I'm the first to agree I don't like sales calls, but I tell them 'no' and hang up the phone. What, precisely, is the big deal? PAT] ------------------------------ From: preese@skat.usc.edu (Philip Reese) Subject: 5ESS and Music on Hold Date: 14 Nov 91 05:33:45 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA I've been following the discussion of 5ESS noise or no noise. Here at USC the new 5ESS is very quiet. It is so quiet it is hard to tell if a connection has been made or not. More than once I've surprised someone when I've come back from being on hold and started talking to them. We have a problem however. Our new VMX voice mail system would be a lot more friendly if we had music on hold. While the VMX is doing its thing the caller only hears dead silence. The system tells the user that they should wait during the silence but waiting time seems to be magnified because of the silence. The switch is not owned by AT&T but by the campus proper. There are interesting stories about that but lets leave that for another time. My question to this group is how to get music on hold. The local telcom folks tell us in vague terms that there are a lot of technical issues involved and financial issues as well. Can anyone help me understand why the state of the art switch would have this type of problem? Is it something simple like the whole campus would have to listen to the same music or is it something more techincal. Thanks for any help or ideas, Phil Reese University Computing Services University of Southern California 213-740-2836 preese@usc.edu ------------------------------ From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) Subject: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Organization: The Bank of New York Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 15:21:02 GMT Speaking of causing trouble for these jerks, is there any way to generate the message you get when you call an out of service phone number for a specific number (one that YOU can specify or call from)? I think it might make an effective "filter" for telemarketers if my answering machine responded with the recording ... The number you have reached 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 is not in service. No furthur information is available on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Of course it would have to sound right to be effective, hence my inquiry. Is there a way to get Bell to "give" me this message, short of calling a new number before it is connected and recording the message? Those in the "know" would know to wait for the beep and leave a message. Those darned telemarketers would no doubt hangup as soon as they heard that the number "ain't alive". =8^) Heh, heh, heh. [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What is wrong with answering the phone, listening to the first few words from the caller, saying 'no thank you' and hanging up? Oh, I see, you are such a busy person, such a dillitante, so important and full of yourself that you'd rather go through all these layers of subtrefuge inconveniencing all your legitimate callers just so itzy-poo you doesn't have to lower himself to answer the phone and hear something you don't want to listen to. To answer your question -- no, telco will not 'give' you their recordings, and will strongly discourage you from answering your phone with a misleading message about its connection status. If you feel you must screen all calls, then use an answering machine with a regular message and keep the volume so you can hear it and pick up the phone when you want to talk. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 00:11 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Call Waiting on the 5ESS I have just been informed by someone deep in Pac*Bell that there IS a situation where the 5ESS will allow Call Waiting to a person who is the center of a three-way call in progress. The telephone in question must have the feature, "Call Hold" enabled. This is part of Centrex-type services (Commstar, Starline, etc.). If your Call Waiting is operated by hookflashing and then pressing *9, you will be able to still receive calls while conducting a three-way call. There are some ramifications here. The person who told me about this was very annoyed that AT&T could not seem to keep its own standards with the design of the 5ESS. The 1/1AESS switches (the ones that set the Custom Calling standards) allow CW on 3W in all cases, not just on those telephones equipped with Call Hold. The Pac*Bell person indicated that up to now, most of the 5ESS cut have been from featureless crossbar and that the people "were happy to get anything". Now, some of the 1/1AESS switches are being retired and the customers are going to be more than a little annoyed to find that features do not work the same way, if at all. People who have been served by a 1ESS for twenty years will not be very impressed with the discovery that things have changed for the worse. The Pac*Bell contact indicated that he was going to be very active in calling for AT&T to get its act together and honor its defacto standards of the past decades. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #925 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18371; 14 Nov 91 4:33 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00978 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 02:51:08 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16244 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 02:50:57 -0600 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 02:50:57 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111140850.AA16244@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #926 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Nov 91 02:38:06 CST Volume 11 : Issue 926 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Two Cellular Questions (Ron Dippold) Re: Two Cellular Questions (Marc T. Kaufman) Re: Two Cellular Questions (R. Patrick MacKinnon) Re: Customer Slammed, But Rips Off Sprint For $125 (Phil Ritzenthaler) Re: Phone Gateways? (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Must New Second Line Use Same Class of Service as First (H Hallikainen) Re: Toll Restricted Local Service (Mark R. Jenkins) Re: Toll Restricted Local Service (Dan Hepner) Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences (Carl Moore) Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences (Scott Coleman) Old Area Code Splits (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 23:30:37 GMT tlowe@attmail.com writes: > I have two questions: > 1. I have a Panasonic TP500 transportable. It has a relay in it that > clicks on whenever the unit is transmitting. When the phone is just > sitting there, it tends to transmit for about one oe two seconds every > hour or so. What is it transmitting? Is the cellular switch polling > it or is the phone taking it upon itself to transmit something? It could be a couple things ... besides answers to page (call) requests there are many quite a few different ways that the cell can get the mobile to respond. When the phone turns on or moves to a new cell it recieves overhead information on a control channel. It sits there on the control channel and looks for anything that it needs to respond to (including an incoming call). Some of the overhead messages that could cause transmissions are registration requests or rescan messages. Since rescan isn't that likely (this puts you back to initialization) unless something is up with your phone, most likely what is happening is that the cell every now and then decides to see who is still out there. "Hello?" And your mobile sez "Here I am!" There are at least four different possible registrations, so it's hard to say exactly what any system is doing. In addition, a cellular system may implement custom operation using the local control messages. If your phone is programmed by them it may respond to custom commands in any way they want. ------------------------------ From: kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA Date: 13 Nov 91 16:19:55 GMT There is a disadvantage to using twin cellular antennas, if you could even find someone who would install them. The purpose of twin CB antennas was to concentrate the antenna pattern fore and aft along the road, to the detriment of signal strength to the sides. For maximum effect, this required that the antennas be mounted approximately 1/4 wavelength apart, which is 7.5 feet -- thus making it useful for trucks on long straight superhighways, but not for cars in town. Cellular sites are most often to the sides of roads or up on mountains or buildings. It would be of no advantage to direct the signal energy along the road. In any event, you probably couldn't mount two antennas accurately enough, since the cellular wavelength is of the order of 1 foot, and a directional array would place the antennas 3" apart (or an odd multiple of 3"). Placing the antenna in the center of the roof will give the most uniform (in azimuth) coverage. Center of the trunk is next best. On a fender is last on my list, because of the non-uniform ground plane under the antenna. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: rpmackin@student.business.uwo.ca (R. Patrick MacKinnon) Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions Date: 13 Nov 91 19:05:03 GMT Organization: University of Western Ontario I also have a Panasonic EB-500 (or 2500 as it is the same beast). It is normal for it to xmit by itself occasionally. It is normal for a cell to interrogate a phone occasionally for whatever purposes. As far as putting two cellular antennas in phase, the law limits the amount of gain you can have on your antenna (mobile that is..) and secondly, Do you really want to put two cell antennae on your vehicle? I hope this puts you mind at ease re: the phone xmitting without reason. rpmackin@student.business.uwo.ca (R. Patrick MacKinnon) The Western Business School BBS -- London, Ontario ------------------------------ From: phil@stupid.cgrg.ohio-state.EDU (Phil Ritzenthaler) Subject: Re: Customer Slammed, But Rips Off Sprint For $125 in Calls Reply-To: phil@cgrg.ohio-state.edu Organization: Advanced Computing Center for Arts & Design References: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 15:06:59 GMT In article , hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > But US Sprint insisted he had switched service. > Eventually, Sprint sent Mr. Estep a copy of the form authorizing > the switch to Sprint. He said the handwriting was neither his nor his > wife's -- and refused to pay any of the bill. Sprint sent the bill to > a collection agency. > She called Mr. Estep's experience "isolated and unusual" > because Sprint's "strict policies" require authorized signatures and > the customer's request before establishing service. Excuse my language, but BS!! This is NOT an isolated incident. OK, here's my story: I received a phone call from Sprint's collection operators wondering why I haven't paid my bill ... since I had had ATT (with Reach Out America), I replied what bill? To make a long story short, some jerk had gotten a Sprint Fon Card and used my phone number and had racked up an "interesting" bill. After several calls to Sprint's investigative unit in Kansas (No, I am not him, no that isn't my address) Sprint was kind enough to send me a check to reimburse me for the changeover and looking over the bill, I paid my fair share for calls I made ... This was nine months ago ... since then I have received at least one call every two months from Sprint asking for this jerk and requesting I pay the bill!! This is frustrating and I'm REALLY PISSED OFF!! I have asked SEVERAL TIMES to have ALL TRACES of my phone number removed from his account, but I still get these damn phone calls!! What do I have to do, change my phone number?? If I do that, can Sprint trace the change ... even if it's unlisted? Phil Ritzenthaler The Advanced Computing Center for the Arts & Design (ACCAD) Systems Manager The Ohio State University UUCP: ...!{pyramid,killer}!grumpy.cgrg.ohio-state.edu!phil (614) 292-3416 ARPA: phil@grumpy.cgrg.ohio-state.edu [Moderator's Note: Yes they can get your number even if it is non-pub. The rules are local telcos must exchange name and address information with long distance carriers for billing purposes, regardless of whether the number is otherwise published or not. Sprint got a check for $10,000 from our firm and misapplied it. The back of the check was totally illegible with bank/Sprint stamps, and their microfilm was apparently illegible or filmed out of order also. So Sprint's solution was that *I* should pay again since none of them had the nerve to go to the controller or chief financial officer to get approval for a write off of that size. After six months of this, Sprint decided to place me with an agency ... I called their attorney and he got them to pull the account back from the agency and close it with a letter to me saying our account was in good standing. Never be afraid to tell an attorney what you want done and why. Most of them (but not all by any means) have better sense than their clients. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 11:50:54 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Phone Gateways? Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > What's the hardware like on the back end of a phone "Gateway"? If I > were a service provider, I'd ideally like something like an Ethernet > connection that would support multiple logins, but the local US > Westers weren't able to give me details. They referred me to a guy in > Omaha (where the US West gateway trial was held), but I haven't gotten > ahold of him yet. This reminds me of the X.PC protocol supported by Xtalk Mk 4. It allows you to use one modem and phone line to simultaneously talk to 15 computers thru Tymnet using multiple sessions under Xtalk. Seems real nice! I haven't been able to get any information on the data format. Publisher of Xtalk won't release it. I'd like to use their packet format so our equipment could talk to multiple Xtalk sessions over one data circuit. Harold Hallikainen ap621@Cleveland.Freenet.edu Hallikainen & Friends, Inc. hhallika@pan.calpoly.edu 141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4 phone 805 541 0200 fax 544 6715 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590 telex 4932775 HFI UI ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 11:54:53 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Must New Second Line Use Same Class of Service as First? Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > Anticipating the need, eventually, for a second phone line to my > abode, I queried my local BOC (SNET Co.) as to whether I could get > "lifeline" measured service on a new line while retaining unlimited > service on the old. > Nope, I was told -- new line must have same class of service as old. Seems like they may have a legitimate concern on mixing some types of service. If you can afford two lines, they probably think you don't need a "lifeline". It is intended to provide the minimal service to those who cannot afford more. Harold ------------------------------ From: MARCUS@CPVA.SAIC.COM (Mark R. Jenkins 619.458.2794) Subject: Re: Toll Restricted Local Service Date: 13 Nov 91 09:09:45 PST Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego In article , aeg0933@ultb.isc.rit.edu (A.E. Guadagno) writes: > Is it legal for a telephone service provider to refuse access to the > LATA if one does not wish to have long distance service? [Moderator responded these lines existed for security reasons but did not ever save any money.] Ha. I asked South Central Bell about not having long distance service when I lived in Tenessee, about three years ago. I didn't want long distance service on my modem line which I only used to call into work, locally. I didn't want to pay the "Access Fee" for something I wasn't going to be using. I figured if I didn't have access, I wouldn't have to pay the "Access Fee". I was right. However, I was politely told that I would have to pay a "Blocking Fee" to block the long distance. It was about the same as the "Access Fee". Mark Jenkins Science Applications International Corporation San Diego, CA USA (619) 458-2794 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 13:40:54 pst From: Dan Hepner Subject: Re: Toll Restricted Local Service > [Moderator's Note: You did not say what telco was involved, but any > Bell company with an ESS switch can provide her with a local line on > which all toll service (including via the operator) is denied. A relative with a chronic telephone bill payment problem has a "no toll service" line which is about as restrictive as one can imagine. It's a US West phone. The phone cannot be used to make any toll call, regardless of the proposed method of payment (_I_ couldn't call out either with a valid telephone credit card, to charge to my home number, or to call collect.) Why this makes sense, other than perhaps as punishment for an outstanding bill is beyond me. It even seemed confusing to the various operators (local and AT&T); they tried to put the call through, but some switch somewhere always bounced it, with some irrelevant sounding error message. Suggestions as to how one might get around such restrictions (by someone who pays for calls) are welcome. Dan Hepner [Moderator's Note: It makes sense if there are times when the phone is left unattended and someone unauthorized could make a toll call either by dialing direct or by passing phraud billing information to the operator. There are no ways around this restriction because the subscriber does not want to have calls of that sort made from the phone they own and are paying the bill for. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 10:28:15 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences Several years ago, the area which includes my office was shifted to a new number series 301-278-6xxx , and then got a lot of wrong numbers of this form: intended -- extension 6abc actually gotten -- extension 66ab (The area code is now being changed from 301 to 410.) ------------------------------ From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 18:26:26 GMT In article fenton@esd.ESD.WJ.COM (Jim Fenton) writes: > Several years ago, when I had a phone number with a repeat digit in it > (-5885), I used to get a great many wrong numbers. > Have others noticed this behavior? YOU BET!! My phone number has not one but TWO repeated digits. This appears to square the number of possible ways that people can misdial phone numbers. I've received all sorts of wrong-number calls, including some for the local cable company! It brings to mind the old AT&T ad jingle about "second class phones." There appear to be a great many second class phones out there ... Earlier this week, I got a message on my answering machine from a nearby Allstate office. The lady said she was returning my call (which I never made). I shrugged it off as just another wrong number. Yesterday, I got another message from the same Allstate office, trying again to return my call! I'll say one thing for the switchbounce in the phones at that Allstate office: their bounces are certainly consistent! ;-) I haven't considered changing my phone number since the cost to do so exceeds the "cost" of a few wrong number calls. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 11:29:35 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Old Area Code Splits Early splits for which no date appears may not have been announced publicly due to lack of direct-dial facility at the time, and can only be guessed at with the following guidelines: If an areacode is of form N1X, it is in a state or province with more than one areacode. (The reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.) If an areacode is in a state or province with only one areacode, it is of form N0X. (The reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.) For the last two splits in the list below, there was a note in the TELECOM Digest. For the others, I have no documentation and can only rely on the notes above. what?/209 California what?/707 California what?/805 California 305/813 Florida 404/912 Georgia what?/309 Illinois 502/606 Kentucky 504/318 Louisiana what?/906 Michigan 612/507 Minnesota 402/308 Nebraska what?/607 New York 704/919 North Carolina 405/918 Oklahoma what?/806 Texas 206/509 Washington what?/705 Ontario what?/807 Ontario what?/608 Wisconsin 901/615 Teennessee 201/609 New Jersey, late 1950s 415/408 California, 1960 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #926 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01747; 14 Nov 91 12:41 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05025 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 10:32:27 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06822 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 10:32:09 -0600 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 10:32:09 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111141632.AA06822@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #927 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Nov 91 10:32:03 CST Volume 11 : Issue 927 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Call Waiting on the 5ESS (Tim Gorman) Cellular Phone as Traveler's Only Phone Service (Robert Swenson) How Does Call Waiting Work? (Ernst Kloecker) Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements (Steve Forrette) Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (John Higdon) Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrances (Dave Niebuhr) Re: The Future of Printed Books (Dave Niebuhr) Yes, You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Yanek Martinson) Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Gordon D. Woods) Re: Cellular Antennas (Eric Florack) Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (David G. Lewis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Nov 91 09:55:24 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Call Waiting on the 5ESS john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #925: > The person who told me about this was very annoyed that AT&T could not > seem to keep its own standards with the design of the 5ESS. ...... According to my 1982 copy of the LSSGR, in document FSD 01-02-1201, APPENDIX, Section 1.5 THREE-WAY CALLING: Is Three-way Calling allowed with Call Waiting? YES Do they interact? YES English description of dynamic interaction: A. The use of Three-way Calling should not restrict the Call Waiting capabilities. All parties may receive Call Waiting calls in either a talking or held state. B. If the controlling party of a three-way call receives a Call Waiting call, a flash by the controlling party should place the two noncontrolling parties on hold and answer the Call Waiting call. The controlling party should then be able to alternate between the Call Waiting call and three-way call by successive flashes of the switchhook. So, the 5ESS violates AT&T's own standards, but the 1982 LSSGR standards also. (Admittedly, my copy is very old. Maybe someone with a newer copy can check to see if this still applies.) Tim Gorman - SWBT * opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 15:05:45 PST From: Robert_Swenson.OSBU_North@xerox.com Subject: Cellular Phone as Traveler's Only Phone Service I will be retiring soon and traveling around the US in our trailer. One problem is telephone service. The average trailer park telephone is out in the cold with a long line of people waiting to use it or in a rec room with so much noise you cannot hear. So I wonder about a cellular phone in the trailer (or movable between the tow vehicle and the trailer). I have never used a cellular phone and I have some questions. How much of the US is covered? If we are along a main highway even in the remote parts of the country I would expect to be able to use a cellular phone. If we were in the remote backwoods I would be doubtful. Any comments? We will not be in our home territory much of the time. I read about roaming, etc, but I don't really understand the details. I would have no objection to having to do something special to be logged into the local system. How does this work? Anything else that we should know about? Any books, etc, you would recommend for a new user? Thanks, Bob Swenson ------------------------------ From: ernst@cs.tu-berlin.de (Ernst Kloecker) Subject: How Does Call Waiting Work? Date: 14 Nov 91 13:26:54 GMT Hallo, out there ! Could somebody help me with some information about how a typical American telephone is wired ? When I visited my friends in the States, I was amazed by this thing I think it's called "call waiting service", so that if you are on the phone and another call is coming in you just press the HOLD-button to switch between calls. In Germany, old-fashioned TELEKOM does not provide this system. But I have got two ordinary telephone lines (with two different phonenumbers) and an American telephone with a HOLD-button. So here my question : Is there any way to connect the American phone to both lines and use its HOLD-Button to switch between the lines ? A solution would save me a lot of running around between the two phones which I am using now. Thanks. Ernst Kloecker phone: ++49-30-6181635 e-mail: ernst@cs.tu-berlin.de ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 00:51:58 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA My parent's house in Northern California had the same configuration as the original poster's: three pair inside wiring, and a two pair drop, just buried with no conduit. Over the last ten years, the drop pair has failed twice due to leakage. The first time, they came out and switched to the second pair. The second time, a trench had to be dug. Since the problem was on their side of the demark, it was of course free of charge. They had an non-Pacific Bell construction company come out and dig the trench while the lineman watched. Then, the new drop was laid, and the construction guys filled in the trench. Perhaps if the original poster's existing drop were to develop some "difficulties," Pacific Bell would have to pay for the trenching. And, as long as the trench is open, they might as well lay the extra drops for the extra lines which of course would be on order at the time ... Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 00:09 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com writes: > The real problem: The customer's request to switch is either made > directly to the local company, or through the other carrier. AT&T > apparently gets notified of these switches, but has not treated them > as requests to shut off Reach Out plans. A correction is apparently > in the works. Why is this a problem? Some people may even want to continue AT&T plans even with another PIC. Just because a customer has "switched carriers" does not mean that they can never use AT&T again. When recently being slammed by one of those "other" carriers, I was afraid that I would have to re-up for all of my AT&T plans after switchback. Fortunately, this was not necessary. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 6:26:59 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrances fenton@esd.ESD.WJ.COM (Jim Fenton) in Message-ID writes about repest digits. I, too, had that problem when I received a new number (-0062). People would usually be dialing 0662, 0622, 0006 and most said "Oops!" when I informed them that they called a wrong number. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 7:03:50 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) in writes: > Item: New service orders and additions are handled in hours, not days > and weeks. I had a second line installed in September, 1991, and NYTel took over two weeks to get it working despite the fact that there was a second line from pole to the house and interface block in the basement. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: Yanek Martinson Subject: Re: Yes you can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Date: 14 Nov 91 12:23:17 GMT Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science In billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes: > I think it might make an effective "filter" for telemarketers if my > answering machine responded with the recording ... > The number you have reached > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > is not in service. > No further information is available on > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. > Of course it would have to sound right to be effective, hence my > inquiry. Is there a way to get Bell to "give" me this message, short > of calling a new number before it is connected and recording the > message? There is a way to get such a message, if you are willing to work somewhat with a tape recorder. The method: call a number that is not in service and record the parts of message that are same for any number. The beep, the "is not in service" and "no further information" part. Then call your ANI number to and record your number as pronounced by the phone company computers. It will sound exactly like the real out of service message would sound. The only thing you need to find out is your local ANI number. ANI is Automatic Number Identification. It is a number that you dial, a machine answers, and reads you back your number from which you are calling. This is also useful for example if you have many phone lines and get mixed up which is which you can identify each. The ANI that works for me is 1-200-555-1212 but I think it may wary from place to place. I don't know if the phone company publishes this information in the white pages or not. I know every area must have one it is usually used by the person installing or repairing your phone to test the connection. yanek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu safe0%yanek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 08:59:48 EST From: gdw@gummo.att.com (Gordon D Woods) Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >From article , by billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp): > [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort > some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What > is wrong with answering the phone, listening to the first few words > from the caller, saying 'no thank you' and hanging up? The only explanation for someone not beleiving this amount of effort is that they do not live in a high "telemarketing community." I have recently moved and it is clear that telemarketers target specific areas. Before the move, one telemarket call per week; after the move, two or three per night. (Generally one during dinner, another later.) Unless you want to live right next your answering machine, screening in real time just doesn't work. Since we don't get many calls that are really for us (several a week), telemarketing represents most of the terminating traffic. My solution is to just turn off the ringer and never answer calls in real time. For all intents and purposes, telemarketing has removed a telephone feature I used to have (call termination). [Moderator's Note: Well, if the problem is that severe -- two or three calls a night every night of the week, then I would have to partly retract what I said -- but only a little. Maybe 60659 is not a telemarketer's paradise, but I get very few sales calls here. One every week or two would be the average. To me, the 'solution' is more of an annoyance than the problem, by far. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 06:28:25 PST From: Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas For the sake of accuracy: > The purpose of twin CB antennas was to concentrate the antenna > pattern fore and aft along the road, to the detriment of signal > strength to the sides. For maximum effect, this required that the > antennas be mounted approximately 1/4 wavelength apart, which is 7.5 > feet -- thus making it useful for trucks on long straight > superhighways, but not for cars in town. Not quite correct. At CB frequencies, (27MHz) the wavelength is 11 meters. 1/4 of that is around 102" or a slice under 9 feet. Most cars, of course (and darned few trucks) are not wide enough to provide a fully directional system at this frequency, so the detriment to the pattern along the sides of the car wasn't quite as bad as you might expect. The inside trick here was not so much the directionality of the resulting signal, although that did play a part, but that there was so much added (tuned) antenna up in the air. (I know ... I was a broadcast person, and a CB fanatic for many years ... since the middle 60's.) > Cellular sites are most often to the sides of roads or up on > mountains or buildings. It would be of no advantage to direct the > signal energy along the road. In any event, you probably couldn't > mount two antennas accurately enough, since the cellular wavelength is > of the order of 1 foot, and a directional array would place the > antennas 3" apart (or an odd multiple of 3"). In this case, I agree fully, but with the added stipulation that with the wavelength so short, many other things come into play, like the shape of the body, structural supports and the location thereof, and so on, so as to make any change unpredictable at best, and therefore, any advantage hard to obtain. In this case, the added RF radiated by the added antenna would be offset by phasing problems, and the losses generated thereby. With all of this established, my final point: With any co-phased system, line length, antenna placement, and grounding effects, and transmitter frequency are all /critical/. Even at the longer wavelength of CB frequencies, the effect is that of lowering the bandwidth by quite a bit ... to the point where at the band edges, your increased ERP was roughly offset by your increased Standing wave ratio (the amount of power reflected back to the transmitter.) Because the bandwidth requirements of Cellular phones are so much wider, it would make tuning a co-phased (twin) antenna system unlikely, if not impossible. In CB you can 'ahng out' on a favorite channel, to take advantage of your antenna array. Not so, of course, for cellular. Such a system is all but useless. IF you're seeing two cellular antennas, someone has bought a dummy antenna and suck it up there. (Gee, he has TWO phones?) Funny part is, even if the second antenna isn;t hooked up, it's likely as not to be fouling the performance of the first ... but that's another story. Eric Florack:WBST311:xerox ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 14:29:13 GMT In article sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us (Ken Sprouse) writes: > In article kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu > (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > I have a real problem with the idea that the intent of the caller makes it > all right for him/her/it to call and ring my phone when they please. Doesn't *anyone* have a right to call and ring your phone when they please? And don't you have the right to not answer it, to screen using an answering machine, to get an auto-attendant, or to take any number of other strategies to not talk to whomever may be calling? It seems to me that by purchasing service on a public network, you are implicitly permitting anyone else on that public network to attempt to call you. If you don't like it, don't answer. Or purchase something that will not answer for you. Or purchase a service that will enable you to selectively not answer. But I have a problem with it being illegal for me to call you under certain conditions, while it's still legal for me to call you under other conditions. For example, let's say it's illegal for an outbound telemarketer to call you on the basis of dialing all lines in a given area. So said outbound telemarketer purchases an electronic white pages, sorts on phone number, and dumps the resulting list into his/her autodialer, which then dials all the numbers. Is that legal? Face it -- if you want restrictions on whether or not a call is permissible based on the reason for the call, the intent of the call, or whether or not the call has a "legitimate purpose" or some such, you're getting into regulating content. And having anyone -- certainly the telco, but even worse the government -- starting to regulate content of telecommunications is to me a very scary thought. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #927 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12481; 14 Nov 91 18:24 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26598 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:11:38 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20494 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:11:11 -0600 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:11:11 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111142211.AA20494@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #928 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Nov 91 16:10:59 CST Volume 11 : Issue 928 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Message to AT&T Mail About Monthly Usage Minimum (Toby Nixon) Re: AT&T EasyLink Services New Rates (Colin Plumb) Is The Following True? (John Adams) ATTMail Rates, Service (Help Ticket ID: 17050) (Paul S. Sawyer) Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (Wayne G. Namerow) Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (Andrew M. Boardman) Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Mark Fulk) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Toby Nixon Subject: Message to AT&T Mail About Monthly Usage Minimum Date: 14 Nov 91 09:59:34 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA It was brought to my attention that Daniel Rosen of AT&T Mail is responsible for forming a "consumer-oriented" AT&T Mail service that will meet the needs of low-volume individual users. Accordingly, I have sent him the following message. Toby Date: Wed Nov 13 15:35:02 EST 1991 Original-From: attmail!tnixon (Toby L. Nixon ) Phone: +1 404 840 9200 Fax-Phone: +1 404 447 0178 Subject: Impact of AT&T Mail minimum usage charge on individual subscribers To: attmail!danrosen (Daniel Rosen ) Dear Mr. Rosen: It is my understanding that you are in charge of developing a "consumer" service for AT&T Mail, that would accommodate low-volume users. I thought I would make you aware (if you aren't already) that there is a quite vocal revolt going on right now amongst low-volume individual AT&T Mail users over the $25 per month "Monthly Usage Minimum" announced in the November 1st letter sent to all subscribers. I personally know of over three dozen low-volume users (all business associates of mine) who are planning to cancel their AT&T Mail accounts and take their messaging business either to CompuServe or to private BBSes (which I already have set up). There is an ongoing discussion of the charge on the comp.dcom.telecom USENET newsgroup, and several other users there have said they plan to cancel their AT&T Mail service. In my case, even though my company pays my AT&T Mail bill, I cannot in good conscience include $300 in my budget just to maintain a mailbox when my actual usage will be much less. I get the impression that AT&T Mail has intended all along to provide a lower-cost way for individual low-volume users to maintain AT&T Mail accounts, but there has not been even a hint of this in public. I think you'll find that unless some announcement is made soon (like, THIS WEEK), that several thousand individuals are going to terminate their AT&T Mail service when the new charge goes into effect. While I don't think such a loss would put AT&T Mail out of business, I can't imagine that you actually WANT to lose all of these customers; to do so would reduce the utility of the system for the remaining large users. Can you confirm that this $25/month charge will indeed apply to all users, including individuals with only one user ID per account? Can you tell us when AT&T Mail plans to institute a pricing plan that accommodates users who send and receive very few messages? Does AT&T Mail really want to lose all of their individual low-volume accounts? Finally, can I have your permission to post your response to comp.dcom.telecom? Thanks for your anticipated quick reply. Best regards, Toby Nixon Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | BBS +1-404-446-6336 AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15 USA | Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: colin@array.uucp (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: AT&T EasyLink Services New Rates Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 04:15:01 -0500 Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA In article dave@westmark.WESTMARK.COM (Dave Levenson) writes: > For example, a 200,000 character spreadsheet delivered via our service > within the U.S. will cost $10.70, about the same price as an overnight > delivery service. > Electronic Mail (Within U.S.) > characters rate > 1-1,000 $.50 > 1,001-2,000 .80 > 2,001-3,000 .95 > Each add'l. 1,000 .05 H'm, let's see ... I live in Canada, which is not known for telecom deregulation, and uunet will run a 19200 bps line to my front door and connect me to IP for $600/month. (They'll do 56K for $1200). I understand it's cheaper in the states. Assuming 1K/sec out of that line, that's 43.2K/cent. Only a slight factor of 864 away from AT&T's rates. Oh, yes, add Canadian dollar adjustments. Now, there are differences in service... uunet only serves Toronto and Ottawa right now. But it's real-time. Uunet probably needs a much smaller support staff to explain things to novices. But nearly a thousand? More, if I use a 56 kbps line? And if I can batch like AT&T do, then I can average a pretty good clip on that line ... So let's say I pay for both ends of a line, and a bunch more at 10x the cost to odd places, and spend a few more thousand dollars a month on front-ends and modems and a few full-time support people, and I only average 1/10 the efficiency I assumed above, and ... Gee, how long is $10.70 coast-to-coast on a phone call? Take that 200K spreadsheet, compress it to, say, a bit under 150K (conservative), send it at V.32bis rates (a bit over 1.5K/sec), and we're talking a minute and a half, plus half a minute overhead -- it's cheaper to modem it to Moscow! Well, okay, that's a bad line -- use a Trailblazer. Can someone explain where my reasoning that this is a tremendous rip-off is in error? When my computations end up 100 times off, I'm not sure *what* to suspect. But, but ... some sites get 100 times that 200,000 bytes in news traffic daily and aren't running up costs anything like $10/day ($300/month, $3600/year). If I offered that trade to any BBS in town, they'd take it in a heartbeat. Colin ------------------------------ From: jadams@nvuxl.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john) Date: 14 Nov 1991 8:24 EST Subject: Is the Following True? [Moderator's Note: Mr. Adams sent along a copy of a letter he wrote to someone else, thinking Digest readers might be interested. PAT] Hi Dale, It's been a couple of years since I last talked to you in Lincroft. We were exploring linking TRUEVISION VDA, TGA, & NAPLPS images in AT&T MAIL. Since that time, I took the Bell Labs 5+5, retired, and now work for Bellcore. My point in writing to you is to question the marketing strategy alluded to in recent "netnews" postings from Toby Nixon and Dave Levenson. Since you are deeply entrenched in Easy Link, perhaps your perspective on this rate change would help me decide whether or not I continue my personal account(s) with AT&T Mail. As you may have noted (Cc:s above), I use AT&T MAIL principally to keep in touch with my two sons who are away during the school year. It also provides a convenient and cost effective methods of reaching many other business contacts. The previous rate structure and per message fees were just fine (actually below my willingness to pay for an excellent service). I must say that $25.00/month minimum fee is a bit too steep. If the AT&T MAIL pricing strategy is to discourage individual and small business users (let alone poor college students), then it is right on the mark. Since AT&T doesn't pay me to develop products anymore, I can only guess at this hypothetical strategy based on the evidence presented so far. Perhaps you may want to pass this message along to some of the "empty suits" in Product Management and Marketing for a _level set_ from some of us "small customers". Jack (John) Adams | Bellcore RRC 4A-253 (908) 699-3447 {Voice} | (908) 699-0231 {Facsimile} jadams@nvuxl.bellcore.com | kahuna@attmail.com (For a little while!) ------------------------------ Subject: ATTMail Rates, Service (Help Ticket ID: 17050) Date: 14 Nov 91 11:54:13 EST (Thu) From: paul@unhtel.unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer) I sent a letter to attmail!atthelp (Customer Assistance ): My message was: We received a letter from Steven A. Graham, Marketing Vice President with "AT&T Mail Rate Summary - Effective December 1, 1991" attached. There is an item under "Core Services" of "Monthly Usage Minimum - - 25.00" which I interpret to mean that we would have to pay $300.00 a year to remain connected to ATTMail, rather than the previous $30.00. If I am correct, I do not believe that we can continue the service. If I am NOT correct, please let me know. Thank you. Paul S. Sawyer - University of New Hampshire CIS - paul@unhtel.unh.edu Telecommunications and Network Services - VOX: +1 603 862 3262 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 - FAX: +1 603 862 2030 And this is the answer I received in response: > Please call 1-800-242-6005 for information regarding the new billing > rates. > Thank You, > Tom > !atthelp If I cannot get an answer via e-mail to a question I posed via e-mail to a provider of e-mail concerning their e-mail rates, then I guess I really don't need their service ... Paul S. Sawyer - University of New Hampshire CIS paul@unhtel.unh.edu Telecommunications and Network Services - VOX: +1 603 862 3262 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 - FAX: +1 603 862 2030 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 13:50:04 EST From: "Wayne G. Namerow" Subject: Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message In yankek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu writes: > There is a way to get such a message, if you are willing to work > somewhat with a tape recorder. > The method: call a number that is not in service and record the parts > of message that are same for any number. The beep, the "is not in > service" and "no further information" part. Then call your ANI number > to and record your number as pronounced by the phone company > computers. It will sound exactly like the real out of service message > would sound. Actually, this probably could be accomplished via a MUCH simpler method. Since the 'Not in Service' Jane recording only repeats your seven digit number, simply call multiple NPA's then your number until you find one where it really *IS* out of service. Then just tape the recording and you have a genuine Jane recording to put on your answering machine (or wherever). Wayne Namerow@pokvmcr3.vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 13:56:20 EST From: "Andrew M. Boardman" Subject: Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message I suspect it would be far easier to find an NPA where your number is not in service (consult exchange lists to avoid annoying people), call it there, and record the resulting message, which in virtually all cases only reports a seven digit number not being in service. andrew [Moderator's Note: Thank you for at least suggesting the consultation of exchange lists. Otherwise, how many people would be disturbed in the process of finding a solution to prevent yourself from being disturbed? (Still looking down my nose with distaste at the whole project.) PAT] ------------------------------ From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 19:10:13 GMT In article gdw@gummo.att.com (Gordon D Woods) writes: > From article , by billg@bony1.bony.com > (Bill Gripp): >> [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort >> some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What >> ... plus answering machine solution ... > The only explanation for someone not beleiving this amount of effort > is that they do not live in a high "telemarketing community." I have Another problem with the answering machine solution is the use of deceptive tactics used by telemarketers. I don't know all my wife's friends; furthermore, we have no chance of training them to identify themselves on every call. Consequently, when a telemarketer calls, the following sort of thing frequently ensues: Ring, Ring, Ring. Answering machine: We can't answer the phone right now, please leave a message after the beep. Beep. Male Voice: I'd like to speak to Tina please. Could she call me at... Me: Who is this please? Voice: Joe Blow. Me: Could I ask why you're calling? Joe: I need to talk to Tina Reynolds. Me: Are you selling something? Joe: No, I need to talk to Tina Reynolds. Me, shouting up stairs: Honey, Joe Blow is on the phone. Tina: (pause) I'll get it in a minute. A minute passes, while Nathan gets a new diaper. Tina: I'll take that call now. Joe: Mrs. Reynolds, have you heard about Flim-Flam Marketing and our new deal on aluminum garbage can siding.... Tina, Mark, in unison: We're not interested. Joe: ... just $200,000 per can, we think you just can't pass up ... Tima, Mark, in unison: Did you hear us, we're not interested! Joe: ... considering the frequency of raccoon damage in, uh, uh, Rochester, you really ... Tina, Mark, in unison: Goodbye! Slam! Now I know there are laws against some variations of this sort of thing. Those laws are enforced about as well as the anti-fornication laws, as far as I can see. I have tried to file a complaint with Rochester Telephone, and they make it about as painful as a hundred telemarketing calls. If I was willing to invest in CNID equipment, and lived in an area where they were testing it, I might have a chance; somehow, though, I expect all those calls are blocked for CNID. I could also use call trace, which is offered, but, again, the numbers are likely blocked, I would have to pay a per-trace fee, and my phone company and police department will only act after a pattern of harassing phone calls is established. I suspect our esteemed Moderator lacks one or more of the following features: - Small children, who often need our undivided attention. - Friends and co-workers who don't identify themselves when calling. - Friends and family who refuse to leave messages on our answering machine. - Frequent occasions of waiting for a call we don't want to miss. - Frequent phone calls, which, though unexpected, we wouldn't want to miss. (Our babysitting coop is great for generating those.) - Frequent telemarketing calls, often from people who are deceptive about their real purpose. We average about two per night. I know I am going on and on, and there is real work to do, but three more things ... Last night's second telemarketer was from AT&T! At least, that's what he said. He was selling (oops, he wasn't selling it, he was just explaining features and taking reservations for a seminar on home security) AT&T home security systems. If I have a detail or two wrong, it is because I cut him off pretty quickly. I wasn't aware that AT&T sold home security products, so perhaps this call was a ripoff. There is a historical precedent for the current surge in telemarketing. In the early thirties, as unemployment soared, large numbers of people went into door-to-door sales. It was the great age of door-to-door bibles, vacuum cleaners, encyclopedias, you name it. I even remember reading a novel about selling teapots door-to-door. It was widely perceived as being just about the most obnoxious thing anyone could do for a living, but people were desperate for any sort of job. I get a few calls per week at work. My department chose not to get phone mail on our (buggy ROLM) phones, so I or the very busy secretary upstairs have to answer these calls. Mostly they are from financial services companies, John Hancock, Merrill Lynch, and Prudential among them. Schwab is never one of the callers. I wonder if the non-discount brokers, uncompetitive by any reasonable measure, are trying to get customers by making deceptive claims in a private way. That was certainly very much the case with the door-to-door salesmen of 60 years ago. Mark A. Fulk Computer Science Department fulk@cs.rochester.edu University of Rochester Omit needless words -- Strunk Rochester, NY 14627 [Moderator's Note: You are partly right about my circumstances. I will reply in detail in the next issue. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #928 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13414; 14 Nov 91 19:01 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18651 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:58:46 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02209 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:58:15 -0600 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:58:15 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111142258.AA02209@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #929 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Nov 91 16:57:54 CST Volume 11 : Issue 929 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Dave O'Heare) Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out of Service Message? (Dan Swinehart) Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Jim Haynes) Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Phone Gateways? (Dick Rawson) Alternative Email Service (Ken Sprouse) Re: New Zealand Toll Price War (Tony Harminc) Re: Cellular Antennas (Robert L. McMillin) Re: Two Cellular Questions (Dave Levenson) Re: 540 Pager Scam Update (Ralph W. Hyre) Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences Administrivia: Overload Continues Unabated (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: doheare@hobbit.gandalf.ca (Dave O'Heare) Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd., Nepean, Ontario Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 19:46:35 GMT In article our Moderator responds to billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp): > [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort > some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. Pat: The problem I've had with telemarketers is that they WILL NOT leave a message on an answering machine. It's very distressing to come home to see that the machine has received a dozen or so calls, and NO-ONE has had the decency to leave a message. It is very easy to get the feeling that somebody is calling to find out if there is anybody home. Having been the victim of a few break- ins over the years, I'd rather not repeat that experience. I subscribed to Caller-ID. I've called back a few telemarketers, and harangued them for not leaving messages. Funny, the more telemarketers I call, the fewer telemarketing calls I get. Do you suppose there might be a connection? :-) Dave O'Heare doheare@hobbit.gandalf.ca +1 613 723 6500 [Moderator's Note: You may have hit on a very good solution. Call them back and waste as much time of theirs as they do of yours. Seriously, time is money to those folks. Waste it for them. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 08:17:50 PST From: Dan_Swinehart.PARC@xerox.com Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? "I'm ancient, decrepit, and disintegrating rapidly." That line from "Brigadoon" accurately describes the way I feel at the end of a long day these days. Clearly I should do something about that. But in the mean time, I find it quite tedious, and not at all itzy-poo, to have to drag myself out of the easy chair for the fourth or fifth time to answer the phone at night. Similarly, during the few evenings a month when our family actually eats together, we often have serious business to discuss and the interruption of a phone call, even for a few seconds, can be distracting. We accept the need to take calls from our friends and acquaintances, but the telemarketers are another thing entirely -- especially those who want to sell us something we already have (subscriptions) or something we have already refused (service contracts on their flashy wonderful appliances that they now claim are so flaky we'll lose if we don't buy their insurance). So I work pretty hard to make their lives miserable. I usually engage in prolonged discussions with them, hoping to diminish their returns, about why they are barking up the wrong tree because I don't speak English and can't possibly understand their pitch. ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 10:07:24 -0800 Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone > [Moderator's Note: ... I'm the first to agree I don't like sales > calls, but I tell them 'no' and hang up the phone. What, precisely, is > the big deal? PAT] Well I'm not one of those people who sit around the house waiting for the phone to ring, so whenever it does it interrupts something I am doing. This may be a pleasant interruption, if it's someone I enjoy talking with; or it may be a justifiable interruption, if it's someone who needs to talk with me about something more important than what I was doing before the phone rang. It is not either of these if the caller is advertising a business or soliciting for a charity. They can advertise in the newspaper or send me junk mail and I might read it at a time of my own choosing. But I get angry when they choose the time and I drop what I'm doing to answer their calls. And I would guess they interrupt and annoy thousands of people for every one who is interested in their pitch. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 11:18:36 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood I am convinced part of the reason I do not see eye to eye with many readers regarding the 'scourge of telemarketing' is due to the relative rarity of this sort of call to my phones. That may be why I feel the various complex efforts by some of you to avoid these calls are in themselves such a waste of time. Twice today we've had messages from people claiming to receive these phone calls in great quantities: one person said he got two or three a day, and a writer in this issue alluded to leaving his easy chair four or five times in an evening to answer the phone. That's amazing! For starters, I have phones everywhere I sit, including my throne chair. By my bed, on my desk at home, near the sofa, a wall phone in the kitchen area, etc. I have a speaker phone I can casually reach over and tap with my finger. It is wired so it will pull either line which is ringing. On the rare occassion when I am home during the day, the phone rarely rings, except with wrong numbers. Those I do admit to receiving more than I would like, but where repetitive digits are concerned, the line which gets the most wrong numbers has the same digit five times in a row in it, ie abc-cccc. But telemarketers just don't call. I'm 'lucky' if I get one telemarketing call every two weeks. This probably has to do with my location: telemarketers are a very sophisticated bunch, and something in the paper the other day mentioned that to a large extent they had 'redlined' inner city areas. Is this true? I don't feel like a major series on this in the Digest, and won't print a lot of lengthy sociological treatises in response, but maybe there is one good reason at least for me to remain living in this impoverished ghetto city, eh? :) In response to the person who asked other questions about my household the answers are these: we (my brother and his wife who live with me) have a two year old son who must be supervised constantly by one or the other of us. The two of them wind up getting a lot more calls than myself, yet I'm the one to reach over and slap the button on the speaker phone as often as not when a call comes in. They get three or four legitimate calls per evening most days; I get one or two. As noted above, telemarketing calls are extremely rare here, which for whatever reason, suits me fine. If I got four or five a night, I guess I would be annoyed by it also. So I can see why some of you want to devise schemes to avoid the calls when possible. Is three or four a night about average for most people? That seems like a lot. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 10:11:19 PST From: drawson@Tymnet.COM (Dick Rawson) Subject: Re: Phone Gateways? > This reminds me of the X.PC protocol supported by Xtalk Mk 4. > It allows you to use one modem and phone line to simultaneously talk > to 15 computers thru Tymnet using multiple sessions under Xtalk. > Seems real nice! I haven't been able to get any information on the > data format. Publisher of Xtalk won't release it. I'd like to use > their packet format so our equipment could talk to multiple Xtalk > sessions over one data circuit. X.PC is freely available to the public, both as a specification and as implemented in C. I don't know the current terms if you try to get it from BT North America, who now operate TYMNET. But I think it is available from SIMTEL20 and its mirrors. I found the following three lines in the index file from the ftp archive at wuarchive.wustl.edu, but didn't confirm if it's really X.PC, although I THINK it is! arc_mirr 495 Aug 11 19:00 ./mirrors/msdos/xpc/00-index.txt arc_mirr 5472 Mar 17 1990 ./mirrors/msdos/xpc/xpc.frm arc_mirr 639766 Nov 15 1988 ./mirrors/msdos/xpc/xpc401.arc Dick Rawson, BT North America. +1 408 922 6545 ------------------------------ Subject: Alternative Email Service Date: 14 Nov 91 11:11:03 EDT (Thu) From: sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us (Ken Sprouse) In article 5771 Toby Nixon writes: > But why bother with all that trouble, when we can all get on > CompuServe, which has a monthly minimum of just $2? Methinks AT&T > Mail has shot their feet full of holes with this, as far as individual > users are concerned. And the Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Or alternatively, start a mailing list here on the > Internet with a common address for everyone to write to which will > then send the mail around to everyone. Thus far everyone I've talked > to is dropping out of AT&T Mail over the next month or two, and that > includes myself. I'm sorry to leave them, but $25 per month is not > very nice when my usual bill is $3-4 per month. PAT] I think you should also look at GEnie.(General Electric Information Service) They offer email as part of their BASIC services package for a flat fee of $4.95 a month with no connect time charges (18:00 to 08:00 eastern time) and no limit on the number of email messages. I think CompuServe is at $12.50 an hour right now (no time of day restrictions) along with the monthly minimum. (last time I looked it was $1.50 they may have raised it) With your low usage it might not be worth you while but I would at least look. Ken Sprouse / N3IGW sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us GEnie mail ksprouse Compu$erve 70145,426 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 15:28:39 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: New Zealand Toll Price War Pat Cain wrote: > This weekend the two major New Zealand phone companies (which are > primarily American owned) are having a price war. > Clear Communications (MCI and Bell Canada), the new player on the > scene, provide an alternative tolls service (by dialling 050). They > offer slightly cheaper rates than Telecom, have discounts for prompt > payment, and round calls to the nearest six seconds (Telecom round to > 60 seconds). Bell Canada's hypocrisy surfaces again. While owning a portion of a competing carrier in New Zealand, they are adamantly opposed to long distance competition back home in Ontario and Quebec. Sigh ... Tony Harminc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 10:56:30 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas Eric Florack writes about cellular telephone car antennas: > Such a system is all but useless. IF you're seeing two cellular > antennas, someone has bought a dummy antenna and suck it up there. > (Gee, he has TWO phones?) Funny part is, even if the second antenna > isn;t hooked up, it's likely as not to be fouling the performance of > the first ... but that's another story. Well, maybe he has and maybe he hasn't. Here in Los Angeles, traffic congestion has made cellular phones a near necessity for salesmen and anybody else doing business out of their cars. The appearance of pigtail antennae on such pedestrian autos as Fords and Buicks has driven the truly status-conscious to adopt the cellular fax machine as the latest in electronic one-upsmanship. Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.WESTMARK.COM (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions Date: 14 Nov 91 19:43:41 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , tlowe@attmail.com writes: > 1. I have a Panasonic TP500 transportable. It has a relay in it that > clicks on whenever the unit is transmitting. When the phone is just > sitting there, it tends to transmit for about one oe two seconds every > hour or so. What is it transmitting? Is the cellular switch polling > it or is the phone taking it upon itself to transmit something? The cellular switch is probably sending a periodic request for registration. Mobile units which receive these requests identify themselves. Your unit may also re-register itself when it discovers that you have moved it from one cell to another. This is done to allow the switch to poll you where it thinks you are, rather than all over the place, when you have an incoming call. It is typically done in high-density areas where the paging traffic becomes large. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Subject: Re: 540 Pager Scam Update Date: 14 Nov 91 17:05:40 GMT Reply-To: rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article rboudrie@encore.com (Rob Boudrie) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 888, Message 12 of 12 > ... it mentioned that their pager company (Skytel) was updating > their software to prevent such numbers from being displayed ... Wonderful. This is clearly the WRONG solution. Why should Skytel be forced to change the content of everybody's messages because some users indiscriminately call whatever appears on their pagers? I can see it now ... Ralph: Call me at hospital: 513 212 5401 gets replaced with Ralph: Call me at hospital: 513 XXX XXX1 or even better: 'Japan contract awarded: Call 0112125407342' XXXXXX Don't most of the victimized companies have PBXs that can drop calls to 'bad' exchanges (like 1-900-NXX-XXXX and 976-XXXX?) (Our PBX's don't decide which trunks to route a call until they have the NPA-NXX entered, so (212) 540-anything is easy to squash.) [disclaimer: I don't claim to know how Skytel will implement the fix. Perhaps 10 digit skytel pagers can only display phone numbers, so 212-540 is easy to edit out with minimal impact. I think the solution is to train users, rather than force Skytel to modify its software. Aren't they risking their common carrier status by modifying message content?] Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. E-mail: rhyre@cinoss1.att.com Snail: Box 85, Milford OH 45150-0085 Phone: +1 513 629 7288 Radio: N3FGW ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences Date: 14 Nov 1991 15:09 -0400 Then there is the problem of phone numbers starting with "9". People don't change their dialing patterns when the get home from work. I also have a double digit which probably doesn't help. Interestingly I get more wrong numbers on one line than another. The offending one is the second line which is one higher than the first line. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:27:23 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Overload Continues Unabated I am still receiving a huge amount of mail daily here, and aside from the usual constraints on me, there is some trouble with the mail here and at the Bitnet gateway which has kept me running a little slower than usual. Another thing has to begin at this time, and that is a slowdown on Digest mailing when this site is otherwise running at a high load level. Although no specific rule has been set yet, to be as accomodating to my hosts as I can, when the 'uptime' command says the load is higher than desired, I'll be holding off mass mailing of the Digest for the duration. The end result will be a chronic backlog of message traffic for telecom, and an even larger than usual number of messages turned away. Please don't take it personally; I'm doing what I can to circulate as much telecom news as I can, as rapidly and thoroughly as I can. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #929 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26415; 15 Nov 91 2:58 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13657 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 15 Nov 1991 01:08:20 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00860 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 15 Nov 1991 01:08:09 -0600 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 01:08:09 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111150708.AA00860@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #930 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Nov 91 01:08:02 CST Volume 11 : Issue 930 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Geoff Steckel) Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Bill Fisher) Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (Brent Byer) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood Gordon Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Mickey Ferguson) Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (John Hood) Moderator's View of Telemarketers (Ken Levitt) Answering Machine Message For Telemarketers (Mike Van Pelt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gsteckel@vergil.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Steckel) Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Date: 14 Nov 91 21:40:06 GMT Reply-To: gsteckel@eastapps.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Steckel) Organization: Omnivore Technology, Newton, Mass. (617) 332-9252 >> [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort >> some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What >> is wrong with answering the phone, listening to the first few words >> from the caller, saying 'no thank you' and hanging up? Why is a telephone different from a front door? I believe I should have the ability to mark my telephone number just like my front door. I see a need for a way to put a clearly visible `NO SOLICITORS' sign on my telephone, just like the one on my door. If someone THEN calls, they have been warned that I consider them intruding, and repeated intrusions will be treated as (at least) matter for complaint to authorities. I get recorded sleazecalls at work and at home, and it is intrusive. Just because someone is trying to make a living by bothering people in their homes does not, in my opinion, give the solicitor the right to bother the victim. The victim (for I see it in these terms) should be able to preemptively say `DON'T even TRY to bother me unless it is >>URGENT<<'. There should be a nationwide data base of phone numbers who do not accept solicitations. I can't believe this is difficult to set up ... 1 bit per line. $1000 fine per call to numbers in that database. This is the best use of CLID I can think of! Oh yes -- it should also be illegal to conceal the number or identity of the caller for uses of automated solicitation equipment! ( 1/2 (:-) ) Yes, I have my phone number in my header -- it's my BUSINESS line, which I do not answer out of business hours. I have yet to get a junk call from displaying my number on the net (fingers crossed!). Just another solitary grump, geoff steckel (gwes@wjh12.harvard.EDU) (...!husc6!wjh12!omnivore!gws) Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Sun Microsystems, despite the From: line. This posting is entirely the author's responsibility. ------------------------------ From: bill@fisher.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Organization: Georgia Tech Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 23:32:37 GMT In article fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes: > Another problem with the answering machine solution is the use of > deceptive tactics used by telemarketers. I don't know all my wife's > friends; furthermore, we have no chance of training them to identify > themselves on every call. Consequently, when a telemarketer calls, > the following sort of thing frequently ensues: [telemarketer won't admit who or what he is until the intended victim gets on the line] I'll tell you what, I get the very same calls. Normally, I answer my phone if I can. If the call is from "Out-of-Area" on my CLID box or shows up as a mysterious number, I prepare myself for a sales spiel. Ring, ring. Me: Hello? TM: May I speak with William? [sometimes they even add my last name!] Me: Who's calling, please? (Note that is ME asking who's calling for me before I let on who I am) TM: William? Me: I asked who's calling, please? TM: I'll call again later. [CLICK!] or just {CLICK!} That has happened to me more often than any other variation. A friend or associate knows my voice (and I know most of theirs) for one thing and for another thing they wouldn't hesitate in the least to tell me who they are when I ask (if it is a friend or associate). Other netters may want to try my approach above, either for themselves or for a housemate/family member. It seems pretty foolproof to me. I am of the impression that if someone is calling me, they want something from me. If I win the Publisher's Warehouse Sweepstakes they'll try something else besides the phone -- like a registered letter and/or a courier. If it's a friend, family member, or associate, of course I'll be happy to talk with them right then and there -- they took the time to call me, after all. If it's a sales drone, then they'll tell me so (and I'll say "Not interested" usually) or they'll be evasive and I'll know who they are anyway but not who they are calling on behalf of. It's a win-win and I never spend more than 30 seconds or so on an unwelcome call. I have an unlisted number and it doesn't buy me a whole lot. I don't get a huge number of sales calls, possibly as a result of the unlisted number, but some places do still end up with my phone number. I don't guard it as rabidly as some folks would, though. I suspect that some of the calls are as a result of captured ANI information. On the other hand, I don't make calls from my home phone that I wouldn't want the recipient of the call to have my number. I may get a Ring Master line and just give that number to "call me anytime" people, such as friends and family. I dunno. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 23:53:03 -0500 From: bb@generali.harvard.edu (Brent Byer) Subject: Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message Organization: Textware, Cambridge, MA > In yankek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu writes: > There is a way to get such a message, if you are willing to work > somewhat with a tape recorder. > The method: call a number that is not in service and record the parts ... This reminds me of one of our best phone pranks in college. Way back in 1966, we did just this, but there weren't any answering machines around, just klunky reel-to-reels. The recorded message was: "I'm sorry; the number you have reached is not in service. Please make sure that you have dialed correctly and try again. If you need assistance, please stay on the line and an operator will assist you." We would remove the phone's microphone and connect the recorder output. Then, we would call people up, and as soon as they answered, we'd play the recording to them. Baffled the hell out of them! It was especially good when we called the guy across the hall (frat house) and woke him at 3 AM. "Groan ... Huh ... Did I call someone? Huh! Yeah, I'll stay on the line and talk to the operator. Huh..." We recorded the whole thing on a second recorder and played it at dinner the next night. If anyone knows David Rudd, RPI '67 (Math), remind him :-) Brent Byer ( bb@wjh12.harvard.edu ) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 19:34:53 CST From: "Mike Gordon N9LOI 99681084@uwwvax.uww.edu" Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood In issue #929 Pat Townson writes: > I have a speaker phone I can casually reach over and tap with > my finger. It is wired so it will pull either line which is ringing. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ How do you have it wired? Is it a feature in your particular model, or are you using a (now discontinued) Radio Shack line selecter box? Mike Gordon N9LOI 99681084@uwwvax.uww.edu [Moderator's Note: I am using a Radio Shack Duofone Telephone Amplifier System (speakerphone) behind a Radio Shack Two Line Controller (yes, the discontinued one). I've also got the newest Radio Shack headset phone coming from there. So on an incoming call, the controller puts the ringing line on the pair out to the speakerphone and the headset phone. From where I am sitting I either slip on the headset and tap the talk bar or just tap on the speakerphone. The soft pleasant chirp in the headset phone sounds for incoming calls on either line that way. Looking at the lights on the controller tell me which line has the call. The ringing cadence tells me if it is the first line or the Ringmaster number (to which my 800 lines are routed by Telecom*USA for ease in identifying those calls, and consequently who is paying for the call!) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 17:56:30 PST From: fergusom@scrvm1.vnet.ibm.com (Mickey Ferguson) Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood Organization: Rolm Systems In Digest # 929 TELECOM Moderator writes: > I am convinced part of the reason I do not see eye to eye with many > readers regarding the 'scourge of telemarketing' is due to the > relative rarity of this sort of call to my phones. That may be why I > feel the various complex efforts by some of you to avoid these calls > are in themselves such a waste of time. One thing that comes to mind is that it is human nature to remember the calls which come in and annoy us, and thus it *seems* like we are receiving an average of four or five telemarketing calls per day, when in fact most probably receive four or five calls on *a particular* day, and many more go by without receiving any at all. I'm not disputing the numbers, I would just like to see some of our readers who feel that they really do receive large numbers to actually tally up the results for a two week period. As for the person who hated having to get up out of his super-comfortable easy chair to answer the phone, I have a suggestion: Get a cordless phone, and keep it nearby. That way, at least you can be annoyed in comfort! :) Mickey Ferguson Rolm Systems fergusom@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: jhood@banana.ithaca.ny.us (John Hood) Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone Organization: Pick a banana, any banana Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 00:56:06 GMT Pat appends these words to article : > [Moderator's Note: Well, unsolicited calls from people looking for > modems on the line set me off. At least the telemarketers are trying > to earn a living selling things on the phone ... I'm the first to > agree I don't like sales calls, but I tell them 'no' and hang up the > phone. What, precisely, is the big deal? PAT] The big deal is that a telephone call demands your time and attention, wherever you may be. Junk mail you can let pile up in the mail box for a few days, newspapers and TV you can ignore, but the ring of a phone brings you running. To put it more formally: other forms of communication don't demand your immediate attention. Telephones, for most people, are an intrusion into daily life, albeit a welcome one. They are welcome because they allow immediate conversation in a way that is not otherwise possible. However, this intrusion is a significant one. Perhaps it is not so significant for you, if you have a phone convenient at a table in every room. Some of us may find it more significant -- for example, I am hearing impaired, and often work at my computer without my hearing aids on. I can hear the phone trill without them, and if I want to answer it, I've got to stuff them into my ears and run for the phone and hope the caller hasn't given up by the time I get there. There are plenty of other similar situations -- there are millions of two-story houses with one phone, I am sure; there are millions who work night shifts and would be unpleasantly annoyed by a call between 9 am and 9 pm. If the phone starts ringing frequently to play recorded messages about 1-900 astrology hotlines, it starts to become an unwanted intrusion. It takes up my time and diverts my attention from what I'm doing. You may say, "Use an answering machine and screen those unwanted calls". So, say I do this, and I no longer leap up to the phone and answering machine, secure in the knowledge that I can go over the tape later and call people back (yes, I know this is different from the usual method of standing over the answering machine and picking up the phone if the voice is recognized -- but this is what could happen if uninvited and undesired calls became popular). Now say that my mother starts to do the same thing. I can't reach her; she can't reach me. Now, say that a significant percentage of the population in my town starts to do this. Do you see that the value of the telephone, as an instrument of immediate communication, has been nullified? People cannot reliably call and speak to other people anymore. Some notes: I live in a low-rent area in an isolated city -- the only telemarketing calls I've gotten are two from the above-mentioned 1-900 "service", and ironically, one from the local Gannett newspaper, in the past four months. This problem is somewhat hypothetical to me :) I have an answering machine, but I don't use it to screen calls; I grab the phone when I'm around and awake. I dislike the idea of screening calls. John Hood, CU student, CU employee, and sometime BananaOp jhood@albert.mannlib.cornell.edu,jhood@banana.ithaca.ny.us,jeh@crnlvax5.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 22:21:47 EST From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) Subject: Moderator's View of Telemarketers In TELECOM Digest Volume 11 : Issue 925 our Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort > some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What > is wrong with answering the phone, listening to the first few words > from the caller, saying 'no thank you' and hanging up? Oh, I see, you > are such a busy person, such a dillitante, so important and full of > yourself ... I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent person as yourself would be so intolerant of other peoples needs and desires. I run a business out of my home. I am on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. When a customer calls, they want to talk to a person, not a machine. I can not afford to let the phone ring even when I am eating dinner, sleeping, or in the bathroom. I work late into the night and generally sleep until 9:30 or 10:00 am in the morning. At least once a week I get woken up out of a sound sleep by a telemarketer. When working, I am generally deeply involved in writing software with five or six things all stacked up in my head. When I have to stop and answer the phone, I lose several minutes of work just getting back to where I had been prior to the phone ringing. Is there any reason that I should accept some idiot telemarketer messing up my productivity? I think not! P.S. According to my spell checker the word is "dilettante", not "dillitante". Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Answering Machine Message For Telemarketers Date: 15 Nov 91 01:22:59 GMT Reply-To: mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology A friend of mine found the following answering machine message very effective: Yes, this is an answering machine. We didn't want to do it, but after months of getting pestered by a dozen calls a night from random salespeople, we are using this machine to screen our calls. If you are a friend or family, just stay on the line and start talking after the beep. If we're available, we'll pick up the phone. If, however, you are one of those salespeople, then you needn't bother. We aren't interested. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #930 ******************************  ISSUE 931 APPEARS FOLLOWING ISSUE 932 DUE TO ERROR IN MAILING.  Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08222; 16 Nov 91 2:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17774 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 00:31:13 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32157 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 00:31:01 -0600 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 00:31:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111160631.AA32157@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #932 TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Nov 91 00:30:56 CST Volume 11 : Issue 932 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Wasting the Slime's Time (John Higdon) Telemarketers: One Good Solution (Eric Florack) Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed (Bob Yazz) Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Bill Gray) Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (Linc Madison) Re: Telemarketing COS (Simona Nass) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Jeffrey Hunt) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Gordon D. Woods) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Adam Ashby) AT&T Security Systems (was Can I Generate FAKE Msg?) (Paul S. Sawyer) Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 01:45 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Wasting the Slime's Time I have turned what many of you consider an annoyance into an opportunity for a bit o' fun. When I get a telemarketing machine, I play around with it. Does it hang up when I put the call on hold? Does it do anything strange when I play DTMF into it? Anyway, the name of the game is to waste the telemarketer's time. If you are not interested, he wants to move along to the next victim. So be interested. Tonight was a good case in point with a call (the first junk call in some time) on my public line. It was a machine introducing "a computer that would tell me how I could cash in" on the equity in my home or something like that. This particular system wanted me to answer a bunch of personal questions. I was to wait for each tone before speaking. Usually, I answer the questions and feign interest so the live person will call back and I can waste even more time (and maybe find out who is violating CPUC tariff). Tonight, however, I simply played a little of my MOH at each prompt. Currently, my MOH is a Spanish language radio station. While the machines are sort of fun to play with, live people get an unceremonious, "I'm sorry, I do not respond to telephone solicitation." This has yet to result in anything other than an apology for bothering me from the other end and an immediate end to the conversation. I, too, work all hours. I do programming and hate to have my train of thought derailed. And I get my share of junk calls. But I have to admit that they are really nothing more than a minor annoyance. And it is much easier to resume writing code or whatever after a couple of words with a telemarketer than when a client calls and talks my ear off. I think that Herculean efforts to avoid telemarketers are more of a waste of time than the "problem" itself. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 05:41:47 PST From: Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com Subject: Telemarketers: One Good Solution I have my own solution ... and given the medium this is being discussed on, I'm amazed nobody's thought of it! A modem answers my phone when I'm not on the computer. If no modem tone exists on the calling end, the /COMPUTER/ emits a turkey caller type ring, indicating a human caller. At this point, the modem holds the line open for 45 seconds, or until I tell it to let go of the line, whichever comes first. I've not had a telemarketing call in some months, now ... most give up as soon as they get the tone. I've been told by someone in that business that the common practice is for numbers that have modems attached to them get removed from calling lists. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 17:04:37 -0800 From: Bob Yazz From: yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz) Subject: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 01:02:44 GMT Rep. Barney Frank was interviewed at Boston's Logan Airport the other evening on Nightline, about his proposed legislation. Surely someone else has seen it and might be able to fill in the following a bit more completely. I believe there were four points but I remember only the first and last: o Require all junk-call dialers to disconnect immediately if the the callee hangs up. (The inability to call 911, or whatever, until the automated sales pitch finishes is the issue here.) o Create a national list of phone numbers that could Not be junk-called or junk-faxed. The crucial point that I didn't hear made specific is whether this list would prevent human junk calls too, or just the machine ones. Rep. Frank did say that until machines started bothering people in their homes in the last few years, the problem was small enough that people didn't much complain. Elections are coming up, and is this the kind of legislation that the public can really get behind. Maybe, in the name of saving trees, we can get them to put our mailing addresses out-of-bounds for junk mail too! yazz@locus.com ------------------------------ From: gray@s5000.rsvl.unisys.com (Bill Gray) Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Date: 15 Nov 91 15:59:29 GMT Organization: Unisys - Roseville, MN gdw@gummo.att.com (Gordon D Woods) writes: > The only explanation for someone not believing this amount of effort > is that they do not live in a high "telemarketing community." I have > recently moved and it is clear that telemarketers target specific ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ > areas. Before the move, one telemarket call per week; after the move, > two or three per night. I live in the Twin Cities, and we have a lot of telemarketing here. And yes, telemarketers do target specific locations; if you sell roofing or siding, you do not need to call areas where most people live in apartments or rental housing. Some of what Mr. Woods reports may be geographic targeting. But there are at l