DP Tool Club 15/CD_ASCQ_15_070894.iso/vrac/tc14_224.zip/TC14-224.TXT

Text File | 1994-05-18 | 24KB | 606 lines

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 13 May 94 15:10:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 224

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: McCaw Cellular One (NYC) Introduces Anti-Fraud Program (Barry
Mishkind)
    Re: Handy Money Saving Cellular Tip (Carl Oppedahl)
    Re: Need Criteria for Choosing a Phone Number (John Lundgren)
    Re: What Network Equipment is Needed to Set up Access Point (John
Lundgren)
    Re: Wireless Data Services (Joe Ford)
    Re: Bell Atlantic Gets Maryland Competition (Stephen Denny)
    Re: ZMODEM - Proprietary? (Bob Allison)
    Re: Any Modem Decode DTMF? (Mahabala Sastry)
    Re: 3270 Emulation (Windows) (Roger Fajman)
    Re: Sprint "Combined Billing" Error (Arthur Rubin)
    Re: Searching For High School Classmates ... Help, Please! (himsworth@aol)
    Re: Need Information on Complete PC (Brian Sinofsky)
    Re: Need Criteria for Choosing a Phone Number (Peter Campbell Smith)
    Re: Direct Billing by AT&T (Jeffrey C. Honig)
    Re: FCC Order on Interstate Caller-ID (Robert Berger)
    Re: San Carlos Joins Internet (Dave Niebuhr)
    Information Wanted on Large Digital Data Exchange (Rolly Noel)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 May 94 21:31 MST
From: [e-mail] (barry mishkind)
Subject: Re: McCaw Cellular One (NYC) Introduces Anti-Fraud Program
Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ


>> 611 and 911.  Incoming calls, however, still work.  Dialing *560 + PIN
>> (SND) releases the phone and allows it to make calls.  This is, of
>> course, distinct from the lock feature of the phone, itself.

> Something sounds fishy about this to me.  Criminals today can capture
> mobile numbers and ESNs off the air.  What's to stop them from also
> capturing the PINs?  All they have to do is set their scanners to look

> "*560####" message to "unlock" the number.  Pretty bogus security, if
> you ask me.  Certainly gives customers the _feeling_ that something is

I have to agree. This doesn't make me feel very secure. But, perhaps
the answer is more along the lines of what you imply ... the telcos
don't really care about the matter, except as a PR thing.

Not so long ago, one of the national TV networks had a program on the
PIN surfers that watch people at payphones dialing in their PIN. In
this case, the reporter was in contact with one of the LD carriers,
and as shown, they had computer reports within seconds of the calls
that were then made to Hungary, Sri Lanka, etc.

IF the computers can catch this that fast ... there is not reason they
can't "hold" a phone calling more than one country not in the profile,
and have an operator check upon the next call. Some with cell phones.
A quick check into the call probably would be apprecaited by the user,
rather than a $5000 phone bill.

Of course, if the phone companies are allowed a percentage of return
on investment, they wouldn't care about the level of fraud, since, not
only will they recover it in the rates, but ... the fraud *increases*
the gross and they make more profit in the end.  A cynical view
perhaps, but then I've dealt with the phone companies for years. It's
not unthinkable.


Barry Mishkind   [e-mail]  Tucson, Arizona

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Handy Money Saving Cellular Tip
Date: 13 May 1994 10:46:30 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R Levine)
writes:

> I was scrutinizing my cellular bill this evening and noted this
> fascinating (well, sort of fascinating fact):

> My long distance carrier is Sprint, which bills directly, not through
> my cell carrier NYNEX.  For about three quarters of the LD calls,
> Sprint billed the call as a minute shorter than NYNEX did.  I presume
> that this is because NYNEX starts the clock as soon as I hit Send,
> while Sprint doesn't start until the call supervises.  On the other
> hand, for roamer calls with the LD charges billed through NYNEX, the
> LD and cellular times are the same.

[the point being that having one's long-distance cellular calls billed
separately could save money]

This is one reason a person might choose one cellular carrier over
another.  Of the two cellular carriers in New York, one (Nynex) lets
you pick your own long-distance carrier and be billed separately if
you wish, the other (Cellular One) forces you to AT&T and bills you
for it.  Or at least it was that way a few years ago, can current
customers comment?

Of course the sad part about all this (not the fault of the previous
poster) is that in New York, at least, the oligopoly pricing leads to
very expensive air time charges, for many callers 90 cents per minute.
This dwarfs the long-distance price component and reduces the benefit
of getting to choose your long-distance carrier.

One hopes that some day in the US there will be more than two
providers for portable phone service, to bring the price down.


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW    Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers)
Yorktown Heights, NY   voice 212-777-1330

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: Need Criteria for Choosing a Phone Number
Date: 13 May 94 02:21:34 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


I didn't ask for the one I got, but it fits perfectly.  ANd the FAX
number would have been nicer if it were 329 instead of 379, then it
would have been JOHN FAX.  Oh, well ... actually my voice number is
also JOHNIAC.  But no one seems to remember that one.

B C N U . .

(Now, if I could only get rid of that damn pager number)


John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs
Rancho Santiago Community College District
17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706
VOI (714) JOHN GAB \ FAX (714) JOHN FRY
[e-mail] \ [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: What Network Equipment is Needed to Set up Access Point
Date: 13 May 94 02:29:07 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


It sounds like you're about to get into the wonderful world of Unix.
The addresses we have on the internet don't seem to want to let people
telnet into our site.  THis is because we have a network with only DOS
machines on it.  I have heard that we are going to have to get a Unix
box and a fully qualified domain name if we want to be fully on the
'net.  Hope that helps ...


John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs
Rancho Santiago Community College District
17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706
VOI (714) JOHN GAB \ FAX (714) JOHN FRY
[e-mail] \ [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Wireless Data Services
Date: Fri, 13 May 94 09:10:19 PDT
Organization: WLN


In article <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> writes:

> I've noticed that there's been very little posted to this list
> regarding wireless *data* services.  Anyone know why?  There are some
> very interesting developments in the wireless arena, both for short,
> bursty text messaging (a la RAM or Ardis) and for higher bandwidth, IP
> connectivity within metropolitan areas.

> Am I simply looking in the wrong place, or is the interest level not
> very high, or is there a need to establish a new group regarding
> wireless data services?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Those messages are welcome here, but
> I do not seem to get very many of them. I'm not certain if any other
> newsgroup is currently handling the topic or not.   PAT]

I'm also interested in wireless data services, particularly real-time
data links via cellular transmission to Unix file servers. Anyone out
there with experience or recommendations regarding cellular modems.

Is this group the most appropriate one? Anyone know of another group
focusing on wireless data services?


Thanks,

Joe Ford
Voice:  206-352-4434
Fax:  [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, the coverage of telecom in this
journal is general in nature, and pretty much includes all the various
aspects of telephony. There are a few other specialized groups, but none
specifically as you described it ... so stick around, ask questions!  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Denny)
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Gets Maryland Competition
Date: 12 May 1994 23:27:08 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA


> with 800 numbers.  Portability is clearly in the works, but as I noted
> in an earlier message it'll be an enormous project involving billions
> of dollars of retrofit to the network to look up every single call in
> a carrier database to know who to route it to.  I'd be very surprised
> to see portability working before the year 2000.

As an employee of an equipment vendor, billions of dollars sounds real
good!  Can we have some of it upfront?

I am aware of discussions with unmentioned regional suppliers and some
potential new ones regarding number portability.  There are people
wanting to do it soon, even if on a small scale.  I agree the
full-blown implementation is *several* years out, but things are
moving faster in telecom now than 20 years ago due to competition.

As someone mentioned earlier, there are ways to do small-scale portability
now without any hardware or software mods but they are wasteful.

> One thing I can definitely promise is massive confusion before it's
> all sorted out.  Expect a lot of really stupid proposals, e.g.
> assigning each CAP a couple of area codes, or adding yet more digits
> to be dialed as a prefix to the subscriber's number.

I agree about the confusion state.  I think we are in it now.

There are two or three flavors of portability being addressed.  When we
don't say which version we are talking about, confusion reigns.

  1. phone company selection portability locally only (within the same
     LATA, but you select your provider)
  2. physical local portability (move your number with you within the
     LATA -  nice but not a big revenue producer, not likely)
  3. nationwide portability (take your number with you anywhere)

In some respects number two is supported but only within the same CO.
With number three you have blown all concept of area code being a
geographic area.  It now becomes just part of the number.

I might also point out that although every call could potentially need
a "lookup", 800 numbers are already being "looked up" via Global Title
Translation.  All 800 numbers are not typically looked up in one
single database used by all the world, rather in various locations.
In some respects it is a matter of scale to look up all numbers,
although I am by no means suggesting that the GTT mechanism do it.
Setup time is an issue.

One thing you can bet -- some companies will need to do it long before
any standards are set.

I'd be interested in hearing more discussion, please?


Stephen Denny             [e-mail]
DSC Communications Corp.  Plano, TX

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bob Allison)
Subject: Re: ZMODEM - Proprietary?
Date: 12 May 1994 22:08:51 -0500
Organization: WorldWide Access - Chicago Area Internet Services 312-282-8605


In article <[e-mail]>, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
<omen!caf> wrote:

> The 1986 ZMODEM is public domain, as are the rz/sz sources of that
> vintage.

> Omen Technology has improved the performance and reliability of ZMODEM
> over the last decade.  The Good Stuff is not public domain.

   I have been told that there are important differences in ZMODEM
implementations that the user will notice.  It has been said that the
PD ZMODEM will puke baud barf if you cancel a dl, and it will screw up
if you try to put it in the background on a dl.  But 'they' say that
the higher priced ZMODEM (perhaps that which Mr Forsberg refers to)
doesn't have these faults.  Is this true?


[e-mail]
Please vote for rec.arts.ascii - CFV available in news.announce.newsgroups.

------------------------------

From: nsc!mirage.nsc.com![e-mail] (Mahabala Sastry)
Subject: Re: Any Modem Decode DTMF?
Reply-To: nsc!mirage.nsc.com![e-mail]
Organization: National Semiconductor Corp.
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 13:59:11 GMT


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (puma) writes:

> There are several modems that will do that, mostly the better (read,
> higher priced) ones.  The USR dual standard will, with the following
> commands ...

>  ATH1%T

> The H1 takes the modem off-hook, the %T reads the touchtone.  Sending
> a character or dropping DTR will hang up the line.

TyIN 4000 Pro from NSC is a low end data-modem/fax/voice/audio/scanner
card that can do this. Mostly targetted for small office or home PCs.


Mahabala sastry

------------------------------

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994  00:01:07 EDT
Subject: Re: 3270 Emulation (Windows)


> I'm looking for a good Shareware 3270 Emulator for Windows. I do a
> great deal of work in the VAX/VMS environment and use WRQ's Reflection
> 2 for Windows, however, this is not suited for the IBM mainframe
> environment. If you know of any 3270 Emulators for Windows, could you
> please provide me with the information I need to obtain them.

There are freeware or shareware TN3270s.  Check out these files
relating to TCP/IP for PCs:

  PCIP     FAQ         Frequently Asked Questions
  PCIP     FEATURES    Features of TCP/IP Packages for DOS and Windows
  WINSOCK  APPFAQ      Windows Sockets Applications FAQ
  WINTCP   INFO        Windows and TCP/IP for Internet Access

They are available via anonymous FTP from list.nih.gov, directory pcip.
To order by email, send the command "get filename filetype" to
[e-mail].

To subscribe to the pcip (TCP/IP for PCs) mailing list, send the
command "SUB PCIP your name" to [e-mail].  It's
bidirectionally gatewayed with the comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
newsgroup.


Roger Fajman                                   Telephone:  [phone]
National Institutes of Health                  BITNET:     RAF@NIHCU
Bethesda, Maryland, USA                        Internet:   [e-mail]
Postmaster for CU.NIH.GOV/NIHCU, LIST.NIH.GOV/NIHLIST, NIH3PLUS
List owner for PCIP, SNSTCP-L, and TN3270E, all @LIST.NIH.GOV

P.S. - WRQ sells a version of Reflection with TN3270 capability.

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Sprint "Combined Billing" Error
From: a_rubin%dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 13 May 94 15:39:57 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Pollock) writes:

> Sprint recently changed me over from direct billing to "combined
> billing" on my NYNEX local telephone bill.  Simple, right?  Wrong.  My
> final direct-from-Sprint invoice was contained activity through
> 4/10/94.  My first combined bill from NYNEX contained Sprint activity
> through 4/13/94.  The proximity of these two billing dates meant I got
> a _three_day_ billing period for Sprint long distance service on the
> NYNEX bill.  Now, I'm also a Sprint Select customer, which means I
> have a $6.85/month minimum.  In a normal 30 day billing cycle, I
> easily meet that minimum.  However, Sprint was nice enough to bill me
> $6.85 for this three day billing cycle because in those three days, I
> only made $1.20 worth of calls.

Etc.

Same situation here with me last April with Sprint/PacBell, but it
only took me two minutes talking to Sprint (once I got through the
voice-mail menus) The credit was on the the bill two months following.
No problem with either Sprint or PacBell.


Arthur L. Rubin: [e-mail] (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] (personal)

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Himsworth)
Subject: Re: Searching for High School Classmates ... Help, please!
Date: 13 May 1994 09:11:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Glen
Gilbert) writes:

I have spent the last three years building a database for a public
school alumni association in Manhasset, NY.  Cannot help you with your
specific request, but if you decide to go with a formal organization I
can help with by-laws, database format (Filemaker Pro), etc.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Brian Sinofsky)
Subject: Re: Need Information on Complete PC
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 23:36:57 GMT


Al Cohan ([e-mail]) wrote:

> A friend of mine is sending me a couple of voice cards manufactured by
> the Complete PC. Can anyone supply info on how to reach this company?

Complete PC is now owned by Boca Research, Inc. in Boca Raton,
Florida.


Brian Sinofsky

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Peter Campbell Smith)
Subject: Re: Need Criteria for Choosing a Phone Number
Organization: Logica, London
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 08:55:26 GMT


[e-mail] (Barry S. Rein) writes:

>> ....  I'm looking for criteria on what makes a telephone number easy to
>> remember.  ....

2580 is a good one -- straight down the middle of the keypad.


Peter Campbell Smith, Logica plc, London.  Voice: [phone]
Fax: [phone]  Internet: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Direct Billing by AT&T
Organization: Information Technologies/Network Resources;
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 12:17:57 -0400
From: Jeffrey C Honig <[e-mail]>


My AT&T billing is handled by my local small independent phone
company.  A couple of times I have called about AT&T billing plans and
rewards programs and have been told that I am not elligible because my
local phone company has decided not to offer said plan (although they
do offer Reach Out America).

Is there any way for me to be billed directly by AT&T instead of via
my local phone company?  Maybe by not selecting a default long
distance carrier and having to dial 10288 every time?

Also, my wife just received a $20 check offer from MCI.  Is AT&T still
countering these offers?


Thanks,

Jeff

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert Berger)
Subject: Re: FCC Order on Interstate Caller-ID
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 16:32:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(A. Padgett Peterson) writes:

> Personally, I agree with the basic service being per-call blocking.

If you want per-call blocking on YOUR phone that's fine. I don't see
why they can't let the customer have his/her choice.

Once again the interests of greedy businesses are being favored over
the needs of the consumer.

I don't want any business I deal with to have my home phone number.
They WILL sell it to telemarketers, and there's no way I can prove who
did it.

IF they can't offer per-line blocking then they should drop the whole
Caller-ID crap altogether.

Emergencies are no excuse; 911's have had number ID for years.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 May 94 15:13:33 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Re: San Carlos Joins Internet


In TELECOM Digest V14 #221 [e-mail] wrote:

>> Anyone who has access to the Internet ...  can reach City Hall by
>> addressing their message to [e-mail].

> Why are they in the Commercial domain, and not the Government domain?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Because, as I understand it, '.gov' only
> applies to the *federal* government. I don't think it was ever defined
> for local or state government use.   PAT]

I obtained a copy of all US sites that have an Internet connection
from Internic via the whois command (whois -h rs.internic.net "domain
*") on my Sun workstation (other systems may vary) and it listed
federal, state and local governmental entites as '.gov'


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] (preferred)
                            [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  1+[phone]
                                          FAX   1+[phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for the clarification and
correction. I guess I've no idea why they are in .com then.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Rolly Noel)
Subject: Information Wanted on Large Digital Data Exchange
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 11:16:16 -0800
Organization: Computing & Network Services, Univ. of Alberta


I'm looking for product info for large digital data exchanges that will
support:

 -- Attachment of 1000 V.34 modems on the front end,
 -- Have 4000 serial ports on the back end for connections to terminal
    servers, support for signal line flow control,
 -- Able to talk to modem and terminal server ports at speeds up to
    115,200 bps.


Thanks.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #224
******************************


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------