Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1981-86.volumes.1-5/vol4.iss142-154

Text File | 1990-12-09 | 124.8 KB | 3,283 lines

Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #142
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 6 Jan 85 05:59:58 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 6 Jan 85  0:27:08 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 142

Today's Topics:
                     Orlando call return service
                                 511
                 New Countries Dialable by AT&T soon
                       TOUCHSTAR--A New Ripoff?
                           TOUCHSTAR Codes?
            New Safety for Pacific Bell Calling Card Users
                    Long-haul: analog or digital?
                          Low price for telephones
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 2-Jan-85 16:24:12 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: Orlando call return service
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA

Hmmm.  That service seems to have a rather serious potential problem.
Since you don't know the phone number of the person who just called
you (that you didn't answer), you have no way to know HOW EXPENSIVE
a return call will be initiated.  And you won't know unless you get
through to the other end.  Of course, if you could see the person's
number ahead of time (the number of the person who TRIED to call you)...

But *useful* calling number display services would seem to be some
ways off, and then the legal hassles will start... (For example, would
you want every store you called with a random query to record your
number and add you to their phone inquiry database?)

--Lauren--


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

From: hou4b!dwl@Berkeley (d.w.levenson)
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA
Date:  2 Jan 1985   8:30 EST
Subject: 511

Another contributor asks why, when he dials 511, his phone was left
completely dead for some time.  While 511 does not do that in New
Jersey, there is a longer number which does.  The effect is that the
line is left with no battery, no ground, and a very high-impedance
termination at the central office for 30 - 45 seconds (depending
upon which CO, I think).  This is a useful option for field repair
craft.  When trying to find a short to ground, a short between tip
and ring, or any one of a great many potential loop faults, it is
much simpler if the line can be temporarily disconnected from the
CO.  Our friend in Florida has probably discovered a code which
allows field craft to disconnect the CO (for a limited time) from a
line under test without bothering the CO craft.

Dave Levenson
AT&T-ISL, Holmdel


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

Date: 03-Jan-1985 2158
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: New Countries Dialable by AT&T soon

Nine new countries go dialable by AT&T on 2 February:

        Brunei                  673
        Gibraltar               350
        Lesotho                 266
        St. Pierre & Miquelon   508
        Swaziland               268
        Tanzania                255
        Uganda                  256
        Zambia                  260
        Zimbabwe                263

Useful information, no?  (Actually, St. Pierre & Miquelon interests me;
I'd like to go there some day.  Gibraltar, too.)

/john

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

Date:     Thu, 3 Jan 85 16:56:26 EST
From:     The Home Office of <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TOUCHSTAR--A New Ripoff?

I suppose fairness dictates a "wait and see" attitude since the Bell
"System" isn't much of a system any more.  Nevertheless, TOUCHSTAR, as
reported here, allows tracing of annoying (or any) telephone calls
received at your phone.  But now they want $9.00 for it!  Some years
back, we were plagued with criminally-annoying phone calls at home; the
local BOC installed some sort of "tracer" at the central office to
log time and source number of incoming calls.  The only requirement was
that we first report the annoying calls to the police and agree to
prosecute the perpetrator.  We then reported date and time of annoying
calls and the phone co. compared these with their logs.  No suspect was
ever identified, but that's now it worked.

Now, it sounds like we'll have to pay for "protection?"

Brint

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

Date: 4 Jan 1985 14:30-PST
Subject: TOUCHSTAR Codes?
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <[e-mail]>
To: telecom@MC

I'd be interested in seeing a complete list and laconic
description of all the various TOUCHSTAR codes.  Anyone in the
Orlando area have the poop or be willing to *88 and transcribe?

g


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

Date:  4-Jan-85 15:42 PST
From: Steve Kleiser  <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Safety for Pacific Bell Calling Card Users
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA

From the December 1984 issue of Openline (insert with bills).

QUOTE:

We've come up with two new ideas that will make your Pacific Bell Calling Car

        d
even safer to carry and use.

One idea involves something *we've* done. The other is a simple thing that
we're strongly recommending *you* do. Both ideas have the same objective:
keeping your Personal Identification Number (PIN) *your* personal secret.

What *we've* done is this: all Pacific Bell Calling Cards issued from now on
will be printed *without* a PIN on the card itself. Instead, the PIN will be
printed on the holder that the card is mailed in. If you receive this new car

        d,
it will be necessary for you to treat the PIN number on the holder just as yo

        u
would other personal identification numbers you may have used - memorize it,
and then keep the printed version in a safe place. (It's not a good idea to
carry your written PIN on your person unless you disquise it so only you can
figure it out.)

Now, here's what *you* can do if you already have a Pacific Bell Calling Card


with your PIN printed on it: First, *memorize* your PIN, then write it
somewhere safe. Then simply erase the PIN from your Calling Card. It will rub


right off using any ordinary pencil eraser. Your card will then be as safe an

        d
secure as the new ones.

UNQUOTE

[note: this is not the AT&T hard plastic card, but the same thing (same numbe

        r)
on a flimsy plastic card with Pacific's name on it. Amazing - they're finally


getting smart??]


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

Date: 4 Jan 85 18:17:08 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Long-haul: analog or digital?
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]

From TELECOM Digest of 24-Dec: "most long-haul toll circuits are still
analog".

Is that really true? I'd really expect things to be mostly digital by
now. I have been hearing about digital stuff for many many years, and
long distance traffic has been growing at a huge rate for as long as I
can remember. Even with a large pile of existing equipment at the start,
the compounding should make it mostly digital by now.

Does anybody have the statistics handy and/or can you tell me where to
look to get it?

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

Date:           Sat, 5 Jan 85 15:38:16 PST
From:           "Theodore N. Vail" <[e-mail]>
To:             [e-mail]
Subject:        Low price for telephones

While I have seen numerous telephones for sale at under $10.00, they
have always been (until today) the "made in Singapore" variety with an
expected lifetime of about one year.  Today the Broadway Department
Store (a local chain not noted for low prices) is selling model 500 dial
telephones for $9.95 and model 2500 touchtone phones for $24.95.  They
bear the PacTel label and are obviously the same quality as the old
Western Electic telephones with the same model numbers.  They are built
like battleships and have an expected life (to first failure) of about
20 years.  Moreover, they can be fixed if they break.  Across the aisle,
essentially identical AT&T telephones were selling for three times as
much.

Is PacTel giving up selling the old-fashioned sturdy telephones?

ted

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #143
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 8 Jan 85 04:38:04 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 7 Jan 85 23:08:46 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 143

Today's Topics:
                   Circuit Switch Digital Capability
                       What about party lines?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Sun, 6 Jan 85 02:55 EST
From:  Paul Schauble <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Circuit Switch Digital Capability
To:  [e-mail]


I have recently been reading about a new data transmission system called
CSDC.  This basically extends the 56kb digital trunk to the subscriber's
location and provides 56kb full duplex data circuits.

I would like more information on this.  In particular, I need tecnical
specs and information that the telephone companies are willing to
release about the commercial availability of the service.

Does anyone have any references, or know where I should look??

          Thanks
          Paul

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

From: ima!johnl@bbncca
Date: Mon Jan  7 22:26:00 1985
Subject: What about party lines?
To: bbncca!telecom

While idly reading my phone book the other day, I noted that it says that the


rules for connecting equipment to party lines are different from those for
private lines.  Anybody know what they are?  I know on two-party lines that
it's usual to put a diode in series with the bell and to polarize the ring so


that each party only hears the phone ring for his own calls.  But the last I
checked, there was no way except for the honor system to tell which party on
a line is making a given toll call, either by having an operator cut in and
ask for the calling number, or by having a "circle digit" that one dials afte

        r
the "1" or "0" but before the desired number.

So what happens when equal access, TouchStar, and all the magic of modern
telephony comes to party line customers?  I expect that there always will be
party lines, because they're a lot cheaper than private lines.  I wonder how
many party lines there are in Boston and Cambridge?  The phone book gives the


monthly charges, so there is presumably a tarriff.

John Levine, ima!johnl or [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #144
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 8 Jan 85 22:56:27 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 8 Jan 85 17:02:53 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 144

Today's Topics:
                             Party Lines
                             Party lines
                             party lines
                 TOUCHSTAR and calling-number displays
                  questions about touchstar service
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 08-Jan-1985 0146
From: [e-mail]  (John Covert)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Party Lines

On two party lines, the technology for automatic party determination has
been available and installed in some areas for ages.  It requires a specific
"party determining" set-up which can't be achieved by a layman, or so the
telephone company believes.

In ESS it's even possible for one party of a two party line to have
three-way calling and for the other not to.  Call waiting is not offered,
though it would be possible to apply it to the line if the user is the
called party and provide a busy signal otherwise.

/john

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

Date: 8 Jan 1985 08:35:52-EST
From: prindle@NADC
To: telecom@bbncca
Subject: Party lines

Here in PA and NJ, the normal hookup for 2 party lines involves use of a thir

        d
wire into the instrument which is grounded outside the house.  For ringing,
the ring signal is impressed between the tip and ground for one party, betwee

        n
the ring and ground for the other (thus the designation of tip-party and
ring-party).  For calling line identification, the instrument is wired so tha

        t
one party (can't remember which) has a phone which imposes a fixed resistance


(about 2400 ohms) between one side of the line and ground whenever it is off
hook (the resistance is derived from the bell coils), while the other party
has a phone which is completely isolated from ground (DC wise) when off hook.


The calling party is identified at the CO by detecting the absence or presenc

        e
of this resistance.
The local telco tells party line customers that they may purchase their own
phones but must make sure that the phone can be rewired for party line use
(ie. accept the 3 wire ringing and generate the required identification
resistance); most non-basic-500 style new phones cannot be.  The manufacturer


is supposed to provide instructions for the modification, or the telco will
do it on a carry in basis.  Even though the mod to 500 series sets is fairly
simple, I've seen an installer botch it the first time.  If done incorrectly
you can get strange symptoms like the clapper on the bell ringing every time
you dial the phone or any other extension, or the bell ringing for the wrong
party, or both parties, or the calls you make getting charged to your
party!
Because of these difficulties, most telcos are phasing out party lines by
allowing only current owners of party lines to continue to have them, not
accepting new orders for party lines.  It has reached a curious point now,
there are so few party lines in most areas, that those who have them effectiv

        -
ely have private lines because there is a low probability of finding another
party line customer along the same line with which to share!

Frank Prindle
Prindle@NADC

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

Date: Tuesday,  8 Jan 1985 06:05:48-PST
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: party lines

        Party lines have several special tricks to distinguish between
the different rings.  2500-set manufacturers provide several different
resonant ringers, so the CO can send a specific ringing frequency down
the wire and only the right set will ring.  One technique is called
harmonic ringing (multiples of 16 2/3 Hz?) and another is called
decimonic ringing (20, 30, 40, 50... Hz).  Then you can put the ring
voltage on only tip, or only ring, to ground, etc.  Obviously, for a party
line customer to provide his own telset, he'd need to know exactly which
ringer and configuration he needed; the original registration rules knew
that this was difficult so they left it in telco's hands.  I don't really
see a huge competitive market for decimonic bells in department stores!

        There are also devices that enable automatic number identification
to work on a party line, by some slight-of-hand DC circuit hacks, along
with privacy on calls; the effect is that a party line (up to 4 parties,
I think) can appear to be a single-party line with a poor blocking grade
of service.  Northern Telecom builds them for the Canadian market and
I'm sure some US companies have the equivalent, but I'm not sure if they
ever made "Bell System Standard".

        Party Lines are no longer offerred in Boston.  Massachusetts has a
policy by which every exchange offers either 1MR measured residence
service ($3.24/month) or 2FR party line service (about $6).  Party lines
are found in the boonies and a few outer suburbs; they aren't worth the
effort in town where local loops tend to be short.

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

Date:     Tue, 8 Jan 85 12:30:17 CST
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TOUCHSTAR and calling-number displays

One of the earlier messages about TOUCHSTAR mentioned that the process
that displays calling numbers would NOT display unlisted numbers, and theat
the writer agreed with that design. If this is the case, I think I disagree
with that being a correct implementation.

If someone calls me, by the act of so doing this they have given up any
right of confidentiality of their number. It doesn't matter if they
called me by mistake or intentionally -- when they called me, and
interacted with me, they have imposed upon me, and the least they owe
me is identification.

Up until now, there was no simple way for them to be forced to pay that
cost (e.g., identifying themselves to me by calling number); they could
volunteer it, or respond or not as they chose upon a request for that
information. Now, with the implementation of TOUCHSTAR and similar systems,
they can be compelled to properly identify themselves.

After all, if the system ignores or refuses to display unlisted calling
numbers, what good is the screening and nuisance-call-identification
aspect which is so widely touted? All the caller need do is call from
an unlisted phone. The "boiler-room" scam operations can merely have
unlisted lines, as can obscene or harrassing callers.

Yes, it is true that a business could use this to glean or discover the
unlisted numbers of callers. However, would you refuse to give them your
nunmber if they said "Mr. X is busy, can I have your number and he'll
call you back?"; you might, but in most cases, you called to get some
information, and you want it, so you will trade your number for the
possibility of eventually getting the info you wanted. The chances of
your actually calling a business which you would want to NOT know your
number are minute. You probably wouldn't be calling them in the first
place, unless you wanted to buy aluminum siding or whatever.

Actually, the chances that a business would actually be set up to record
such numbers, manually or automatically, seem slight. Most businesses
don't keep the records they NEED to, much less extra stuff like this!

Will Martin

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

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 85 12:15:25 pst
From: hpda!hptabu!dclaar@Berkeley (Doug Claar)
To: 'Telecom-Request'@BBNCCA.ARPA
Subject: questions about touchstar service

I have a couple of questions about the TOUCHSTAR service.
First, I note that unlisted numbers are protected. Does this
include protection from call back? I can see telephone soliciters
getting unlisted numbers so that people can't touch them.
Second, If a store puts your number on their telephone solicitation list,
can you cure them of that by repeatedly calling them, or is that illegal
(I think that it's called attack dialing?)

Doug Claar
HP Computer Systems Division
UUCP: { ihnp4 | mcvax!decvax }!hplabs!hpda!dclaar -or- ucbvax!hpda!claar
ARPA: hpda![e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #145
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 10 Jan 85 18:55:05 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 9 Jan 85 18:46:29 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 145

Today's Topics:
              Re: Separate PIN on Pac Bell calling cards
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #143
               DeathStar prices for TouchStar features.
                             party lines
                           "attack dialing"?
                             Party Lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 85 01:43:21 pst
From: sun!gnu@Berkeley (John Gilmore)
To: telecom@Berkeley
Subject: Re: Separate PIN on Pac Bell calling cards

I recently got a new Pacific Bell phone line and with it a PB calling
card.  The brochure they send with the card is even better than the
Openline article -- it lists about 6 ways to disguise your PIN while
carrying it safely with you.  Things like: Write it in your phone list
with a fictitious name and an extra 3 digits (or as an extension
number); enter it as an amount in your checkbook, or an account number
for some minor bill; etc.

Amazing.

Now if only the (ex-)Bell people building computers could get their shit
this straight...


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

From: ihnp4!ihuxk!rs55611@Berkeley
Date: 8 Jan 85 13:01:53 CST (Tue)
To: ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom@Berkeley
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #143

In addition to ONI, or Operator Number Identification, for identifying
which party is originating a toll call, there is the more recent
ANI, or Automatic Number Identification.  In this scheme, the tip
party phones have a resistance to ground (actually an inductor with a DC
resistance of about 1000 ohms, when they are in the off-hook state.
After the CO detects an origination from a party line, a check is done for
the presence of this resistance, which is much lower than the normal leakage
resistances to ground.  Low resistance => Tip party.

Thus, between this difference and the polarized ringer arrangements
used for party line ringing, the customer equipment must meet
different requirements than are needed for sngle-party lines.

Bob Schleicher
ihuxk!rs55611

PS ANI has been around for quite a long time.



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

Date: 8 Jan 1985 08:53-PST
Subject: DeathStar prices for TouchStar features.
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <[e-mail]>
To: Telecom@MC


Complements of vax135!petsd!peora!jer@Berkeley, here are the TouchStar
codes from the Orlando phone book.  Some of them look pretty nifty,
however, the prices are egregiously high.  At a glace, it looks like
your feature code bill could quickly overtake your long distance bill
if you don't watch your usage.

    *60 - block the last call you received; caller gets a recorded
    message saying you have the call blocked.  To deactivate, dial
    *80.  Cost: .50 for each group of 3 numbers, plus .10/day.

    *69 - call return.  Call back the last person who called you.
    Rate: .25/usage.

    *66 - Repeat dialing.  Retry every 40 seconds for the next 30
    minutes to call the last number you dialed.  Rate: .25/usage.

    *61 - Call selector.  Gives a "special ring" for "special
    people."  Dial *61 plus the number; to deactivate dial *81.
    Rate .25 for each list of 3 numbers, plus .05/day.

    *57 - Call tracing.  Records the call at the So. Bell security
    office; you must call So. Bell and give them the time and date,
    and they will "investigate further."  Rate: $5.00/usage, or a
    one time $9.00 charge + $3.00/usage.

    *63 - Preferred call forwarding.  Forward only the calls you want
    to forward.  Requires that you have the call forwarding custom
    calling service.  Dial *63 plus the number you want to forward.
    Cost: .25/list of 3 numbers, plus .05/day.  To cancel dial *83.

    Other features: CALL MONITOR - displays the number of the party
    calling you after the first ring on a special call monitor unit.
    CALL TRACKING - enables certain businesses only to list the
    numbers of incoming calls on computer equpment.  For customers
    who don't want this information displayed, there is a feature
    called "display delete": dial *67 before making the call and the
    word "private" will appear instead of the number.  Non-published
    numbers always display "private".  No information is given on the
    cost for these items.


-------


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

Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 15:29:44 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: party lines
To: TELECOM@MC

Actually, there have LONG been ways to determine which party (at least
on 2 or 3 party circuits) are making calls.  The techniques usually
involve shorting or pulsing sleeve to ground and similar techniques.

In old Automatic Electric Type 80 phones, there was a little harness
attached to the dial mechanism that would pulse to ground 1 - 3 times
depending on the party making the call.  Of course, with touch-tone,
other techniques are used.  It should also be noted that the technique
of having a diode to direct party line ringing is by no means
universal.  Other "popular" techniques include ringing tip->ground vs.
ringing ring->ground, and (quite common) harmonic ringing -- where ringers
will only respond to particular frequency ring currents.  (The above
descriptions are simplified to save space...)

--Lauren--



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

Date:     Wed, 9 Jan 85 7:57:47 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  "attack dialing"?

Re:
"Second, If a store puts your number on their telephone solicitation list,
can you cure them of that by repeatedly calling them, or is that illegal
(I think that it's called attack dialing?)"
It does sound illegal (so there'd better be a good way of getting your
number off such a list).  The following is excerpted from Northeastern
Maryland call guide (check for laws of other states, but don't be sur-
prised if they're pretty much the same):
"Abusive calling: It is a criminal offense under Maryland and Federal Laws
for any person to make use of telephone facilities and equipment for:
Repeated calls--If with intent to annoy, abuse, torment, harass, or em-
barrass one or more persons." (Also mentioned are anonymous calls and
obscene comments.)


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

From: hou4b!dwl@Berkeley (d.w.levenson)
To: Telecom-Request@BBNCCA
Date:  8 Jan 1985  15:44 EST
Subject: Party Lines

How do Party Lines differ from individual access lines?

Incoming calls:
Party-selective ringing is done in several ways.  In most of the
Bell System, there are a Tip party and a Ring party on a two-party
line.  The ringer(s) in the Tip party's telephone(s) is(are)
connected between the Tip (0-volt) side of the loop and earth
ground. The ringer at the Ring party is connected between the Ring
(-48-volt) side of the loop and earth.  The CO normally grounds one
side of the loop and applies ring voltage to the other.  It can then
ring one party or the other by flipping the loop during ringing.
Other systems for selective party-line ringing include polarized
ringing with diodes in the phones, and frequency-selective bells,
with one party ringing at 16 Hz, one at 20, one at 23, etc..  Four
party selective ringing is obtained by combining the Ring/Tip
selection with polarized ringing.

Outgoing calls:
When the Tip party goes off hook, the telephone instrument is wired
to apply a high-impedence ground (through one of the ringer coils, I
think) to the tip side of the line, for party identification.  The
Ring party does not apply a ground.  Thus the CO can identify the
originating party automatically on two-party lines.  I don't know of
any similar technique that works on four-party lines.

This, incidentally, is why party-line customers have phones which
are hard-wired, not modular plug-ins.  It is why those customers are
not permitted by the tariff to use customer-owned and installed
equipment.  It is too easy to commit toll-fraud by using an
instrument which does not provide automatic party identification.

At least one manufacturer of station equipment is now offering to
telcos a station-protector which provides ringing-selection and
party-identification using standard stations with bridged ringer
wiring.  If the local telco installs one of these at the building
service entrance, the customer can then plug in any standard
telephone equipment without `harming the network'.

-Dave Levenson


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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #146
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 11 Jan 85 22:49:03 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 11 Jan 85 17:18:20 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 146

Today's Topics:
                   Touchstar and Caller's Anonymity
          Touchstar display delete / new Long Distance plan
        Re: Touchstar display delete / new Long Distance plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jon_Tara@Wayne-MTS
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 85 03:04:12 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

     I just heard a rumor that ATT will no longer guarantee non-satellite
transmission on domestic dial-up connections.

  1) Is this true?
  2) Did ATT *ever* guarantee non-satellite connections?

     I *have* noticed some awfully suspicious-looking delays in my
XMODEM data transfers lately.  At first I thought my long distance
carrier was pulling my leg when they said they use only ATT WATTS
lines, but now I've noticed the delays on ATT.  (Which brings up
another question: questions 1 and 2 above repeated for WATTS...)

     Between this and the (soon) wide avaiability of 2400bps modems,
guess it's time for the BBS people to come up with a new public-domain
protocol for file transfer.  Most recent micros should be able to
handle incoming characters as interrputs or DMA, and continue to
receive while computing CRCs, writing to disk, etc. and should be
able to do away with the silly turn-around after each block.  Suspect
the quick-fix will be increasing block size...

     I shudder to think what this is doing to Kermit, with it's
64 byte default block size.

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

From: hou4b!dwl@Berkeley (d.w.levenson)
To: Telecom-Request@BBNCCA
Date:  9 Jan 1985   8:46 EST
Subject: Touchstar and Caller's Anonymity

While unlisted numbers may be unavailable to the TOUCHSTAR-equipped
recipient of incoming calls, nuisance calls may still be traced. If
the called party inputs the appropriate *+ code and then notifies
the telco that the `marked' call was a nuisance call, the telco can
probably take the appropriate action, even if the called party does
not know who has been `fingered'.

Calls from businesses may come from un-numbered (outgoing only)
trunks or from WATS trunks which have non-dialable numbers. They may
arrive from out-of-town central offices which are not-yet
CCIS-equipped.  Subscribers who buy TOUCHSTAR service, for the time
being, will not be guarranteed identification of *every* call
received.

Dave Levenson
AT&T Holmdel


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

From: vax135!petsd!peora!jer@Berkeley
Date: Thursday, 10 Jan 1985 19:32-EST
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Touchstar display delete / new Long Distance plan

Recent contributors have suggested that callers can disable the callback
feature, or that it will not work if the number is unlisted.  This is not
correct.  Only the DISPLAY of a number is inhibited by display delete or
unlisted numbers, according to the documentation in the phone book.

Second, I have a question on a new topic.  Recently we see on TV that AT&T
has introduced "something rather radical", something that cigar-smoking men
in large armchairs find more interesting than the newspaper: a plan whereby
you can call anywhere in the US for $10/hour, "and the next hour is even
less."

It had been my understanding that AT&T was presently constrained from offerin

        g
rates equivalent to those offered by MCI, Sprint, etc., "to encourage
competition."  So how do they offer this new service?

One thing I notice is that the new $10/hour service resembles outward
WATS a lot ... is the new service, from an accounting/legal standpoint,
somehow equivalent to WATS?  or does it in some other way circumvent this
restriction?  Or is it not really less expensive than the more conventional
AT&T rates?


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

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 85 14:31:55 EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchstar display delete / new Long Distance plan
To: vax135!petsd!peora![e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]

AT&T is offering $8.50/hour service to any point in the US. It's
called "Reach Out America" service (I have it on my phone). The
restrictions are that you can only use it on the night-weekend rate
times, and for an additional fee you can get 15% off evening calls.
Day rates are still the typical high AT&T rate, so they aren't
competing with the other's price wise.

I don't think AT&T is restricted from offering off-peak calling
bargains, just peak ones.

--Jsol


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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #147
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 14 Jan 85 22:20:42 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 14 Jan 85 16:46:43 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 147

Today's Topics:
                          Reach Out America
                           $10 per hr. rate
                        Advance Toll Payments
                           "attack dialing"?
         Frigging obnoxious tel solicitors; fact & advice (?)
                         Re: $10 per hr. rate
                      Re: Advance Toll Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 85 10:22:03 est
From: ulysses!smb@UCB-VAX (Steven Bellovin)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Reach Out America
Cc: vax135!petsd!peora!jer@UCB-VAX

There was indeed a great deal of regulatory controversy when AT&T filed
the tariffs for "Reach Out America" (the late-night discount calling plan).
AT&T's claim was that the plan would stimulate demand; hence, by charging
less, they'd increase revenues with little increase in costs.  That's
very attractive to regulatory agencies....

Besides, it's not reasonable to say that AT&T shouldn't be allowed to
compete with MCI et al....

                --Steve Bellovin
                AT&T Bell Laboratories

"The preceeding statements are my own personal opinions, and do not necessari

        ly
reflect the opinions of AT&T, AT&T Bell Laboratories, etc."

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

Date:    12 January 85 12:17-EST
From:      Michael Grant  <[e-mail]>
To: Telecom Digest <TELECOM@BBNCCA>  (.ARPA)
Subject: $10 per hr. rate

$10 per hour rate comes out to $0.166 per minute. I've not heard of of the
$8.50 rate ($0.141/min).  Is there some clause that says that you pay for the


hour wether you use it or not?  I have SBS, they charge $0.11/min to a
neighboring state, $0.15 within a 'region' (whatever that can mean) and $.17
'coast to coast'. (these rates are all late night/weekend rates.)  AT&T
actually wins if you call 'coast to coast' all the time.  But I don't always
spend an hour on the phone long distance each month.  Has anyone seen any
other long distance service which is more econimical?  I'd like to see a
company offer flat rate long distance. But I'm sure it would just be
abused. (by flat rate I mean, pay one price each month)
-Mike Grant

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

Date: Sat 12 Jan 85 11:18:39-PST
From: Ole Jorgen Jacobsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Advance Toll Payments
To: [e-mail]



        I received a surprising phone call from Pacific Bell
recently. They had discovered that during the first 11 days
of that particular billing period, I had  made a number of
long distance (overseas) phonecalls and "based on their pro-
jection" my phonebill would end up totalling $700 or so for
that month. They therefore demanded *immediate* payment of
"advance toll charges" so far accumulated (about $200). I
gave up arguing with them since I knew the billing period
ended on the 19th and it was the 14th when they called me up,
in other words, I *knew* that the total bill for that month
would be almost exactly what they wanted in advance. Immediate
payment meant *the next day* or else my phone would be dis-
connected and re-connection charges would be applied. I'm
sure glad I was not out of town when this happened. Has anyone
had similar experiences? Why on earth do they apply this
weird statistical formula which says if you use you phone
alot at the beginning of the month then they "project" your
usage will be the same for the rest of the month? And why do
they give you absolutely NO grace period for "advance toll"
payments?

I guess the answer is as always: "We don't care, we don't have to,
                                  we're the Phone Company"



<OLE>
<370>
-------


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

Date: 13 January 1985 09:12-EST
From: Howard D. Trachtman <[e-mail]>
Subject:  "attack dialing"?
To: [e-mail]

    "Second, If a store puts your number on their telephone solicitation list

        ,
    can you cure them of that by repeatedly calling them, or is that illegal
    (I think that it's called attack dialing?)"
    It does sound illegal (so there'd better be a good way of getting your
    number off such a list).  The following is excerpted from Northeastern
    Maryland call guide (check for laws of other states, but don't be sur-
    prised if they're pretty much the same):
    "Abusive calling: It is a criminal offense under Maryland and Federal Law

        s
    for any person to make use of telephone facilities and equipment for:
    Repeated calls--If with intent to annoy, abuse, torment, harass, or em-
    barrass one or more persons." (Also mentioned are anonymous calls and
    obscene comments.)
I would hope this is illegal.  Just the other day I was wondering what would
happen to a company with an 800 number that got attack called on it.
Even if the bill never got paid, tying up an order line might kill them.

--Howard--
    The above was for thought purposes only.  Do NOT repeat this stunt at hom

        e.



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

Date: 13 January 1985 04:56-EST
From: Howard D. Trachtman <HDT @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  Frigging obnoxious tel solicitors; fact & advice (?)
To: hpda!hptabu!dclaar @ UCB-VAX

    Date: Tue, 8 Jan 85 12:15:25 pst
    From: hpda!hptabu!dclaar at Berkeley (Doug Claar)
    To:   'Telecom-Request' at BBNCCA.ARPA
    Re:   questions about touchstar service

    I have a couple of questions about the TOUCHSTAR service.
    First, I note that unlisted numbers are protected. Does this
    include protection from call back? I can see telephone soliciters
    getting unlisted numbers <*>   {convention invention}

Um, this is the default case even in phone rooms that are
"less obnoxious".  The people in the room don't even know the phone
number.  Frequently, they bought the phones in blocks, and if a couple
people in a row are not at their phone, you will hear one phone ring about
1 or 2 rings then the next then the other.   I think we can all guess
the process being described.
                             <*>  so that people can't touch them.

Many pay phones are already hacked so as not to accept incoming calls.
There probably is/will be a "feature" one could buy that would always
prevent your number from being called and ringing, as but there are other
reasons for that (in fact I'm sure I saw this as a TOUCHSTAR feature on a
"temporary" basis.  Even in "losing" areas, one could always call forward
one's phone to a local losing place (if willing to pay forwarding charges).
Seperate Legal scenerious.  Suppose ANY business forwards your phone to:
1) a KNOWN place such as the local weather w/ intent to simply
   avoid incoming calls
   a) Would this have to be cleared with the target phone number
           i) If calls were excessive
          ii) Even if number is "Advertised" to take gobs & gobs of calls
         iii) Under no/any conditions
          iv) When intent is merely to avoid these calls.
           v) When done temporary as a "hack" for a few minutes
2)  a PRIVATE residence  that is unknown.
           i) if selected at random
          ii) if selected w/ intent to annoy
         iii) by mistake eg. wrong phone # typed in to forwarding mech.
        (YES, this requires receive party to answer.....NOW/as does above

...

    Second, If a store puts your number on their telephone solicitation list,


    can you cure them of that by repeatedly calling them, or is that illegal
    (I think that it's called attack dialing?)
Um, repeatedly calling can only cause the original person possible legal
problems and make the target party mad.   REMEMBER:  IN THE CASE OF
TELEPHONE SOLICITORS THEY HAVE the ideal environment to ATTACK call YOU,
if they desired.  While legally that may screw you, I've known places to
make a decision to YANK all phones and people out of an office in less
that 2 days.  All you lose is a fraction of 1 months rent; your good
employees hang with you.

Solution:  Most solicitors of general-hawkish items  (ie. not
financial services sales & marketing professionals) are, while on
commission, usually are making 1-4 X minimum wage  (even if on 100%
commission, one's checks usually are about the same each week (depending
on hours worked, of course) and really are the typical hardworking
college student trying to make a buck (got to put in a plug for them/us
on the ARPANET).  The long term soliciting operations really are concerned
not to annoy people, and if you tell them politely if they could take you
off the list you can/will do so.   Sometimes, they will be lazy and not
do so, therefore its usually a good idea to ask for the supervisor,
even though they may gribe.  Also, if you have an unlisted number, don't
bother asking "how did you get this number" unless you want to waste a lot
of time.  Most solicitors are programmed to answer this "We dial in numerical


sequence and... {you're the lucky winner}.  As far fetched as this may seem,
many times it is correct.  If it isn't, then your number came out of (you
guessed it), some kind of directory (Haines, Polk, Thomas, phone book).
Unless you really want to engage in conversation most of the people are
too stupid to be able to help you.  (Like even if they are calling numbers
out of the Haines directory, sometimes the solicitor is really only dialing
a list of numbers off of a adding machine tape readout or a computer printout


and would have no idea where the numbes originally came from.

        Howard D. Trachtman
           R & B Consulting, Inc.
            Cambridge, MA
PS:  I still own an operation that legally can do telephone-solitici
(actually anyone can legally, but commercial liscences...).
Note there is a big difference between various soliciting places.
If interested, I could provide a brief summary.     Rest assured though
that I won't call *you* up at home.   I once saw representatives at a
"firm (reg. w/BBB clean record in 2 relevant and 1 random AREA code that
called after 1 1/2 years)  which sold "advertising specialties
(long story of those con people {again, only if interested}) call people
up at work and if they didn't buy, on their own personal whim would hack
a home phone number associated with that person, and call the spouse
(non-sexist on my part) to see if 'direct quote: "She's a bitch or not".
This was real heavy stuff that turned my stomach, but I didn't want
to fight the system.  These reps had their own secretaries, and I honestly
doubt if the managers knew everything that was going on. (Sure the supers
can always listen in, but the reps can defeat/detect that easily).



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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 85 16:32:48 EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: $10 per hr. rate
To: Michael Grant  <[e-mail]>
Cc: Telecom Digest <[e-mail]>

My AT&T Reach out America service is billed at $11.50 for the
first hour (whether you use it or not), and $8.50 per hour
(pro rated - you pay for what you use and no more) after that.
The $11.50 rather than $10.00 is so I can get 15% discount
on evening calls too.

While it is a bit more expensive than SBS, the quality of the
service really pays for itself

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 85 16:35:04 EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Advance Toll Payments
To: Ole Jorgen Jacobsen <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]

I've dealt with Pacific Bell (when it was Pacific Telephone), GTE, NJ
Bell, Southern New England Telephone, and New England Telephone in my
life and I have never found a larger bunch of assholes than in the
California Phone companies. One note of sympathy is that GTE is far
WORSE than Pacif**k.

On a lighter note, Pacific Telephone was probably just covering
it's collective ass about international calling (which has been
greatly abused in the past). While they didn't mention it at
the time, I'm pretty sure they were also interested in knowing
whether you in fact made the International Calls and they wanted
to know immediately so they could start an investigation if you
hadn't.

I've been hit with "projected" calling in California too, but
I was told I had a week (and it was in writing, not by phone).


I'm so glad I live in an area where phone companies feel that
customers are important and should be dealt with respectfully.




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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #148
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 24 Jan 85 01:48:46 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 Jan 85 21:28:25 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 148

Today's Topics:
                 PacBel leading the way -- yet again.
                     help with RJ-41S and RJ-45S
                     Communications Forum Seminars
                   MIT Communications Forum Seminars
                    Time-segment speech scramblers
           Satellite communications: Portable Earth station
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 1985 14:38-PST
Subject: PacBel leading the way -- yet again.
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <[e-mail]>
To: Telecom@MC

The following insert came in the bill for the leased line that
goes SRI and my residence:

                           NOTICE OF FILING
                            APPLICATION TO
                           DISCONTINUE TIME
                         PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
                        SERVICE AND CONTINUOUS
                          TIME ANNOUNCEMENT
                         SERVICE AND TO PROVIDE
                          TIME ANNOUNCEMENT
                            ACCESS SERVICE


On November 7, 1984 Pacific Bell filed with the California Public
Utilities Commission a request to withdraw the existing Time
Public Announcement Service and the Continuous Time Announcement
Service.  In addition Pacific Bell has proposed that the current
Time Public Announcement Service responsibility be turned over to
a private information provider.  the proposed charge would be 20
cents per call.

A copy of the application, 84-08-049, and related exhibits will
be furnished upon written request to: Pacific Bell, 140 New
Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 or at the offices of
the California Public Utilities Commission.

Requests for information may be directed to the Commission
Offices at 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 or 107
South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90012.

--end of insert--

Question: I wasn't aware there were two different services, as
they implied in the insert, i.e.  "Time Public Announcement
Service" AND "Continuous Time Announcement Service".  Anyone know
what's the beef here?

Next think you know, the Weatherperson (936-1212) will be a thing
of the past as well!

g


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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 85 11:37:04 est
From: Mark Weiser <mark@tove>
To: telecom@mit-mc
Subject: help with RJ-41S and RJ-45S

What can anyone tell me about RJ-42S and RJ-45S telephone connections?
I'll tell you what I know.

I just bought a couple of Anderson Jacobson 4800 baud modems for use
over regular 2-wire telephone lines.  However they arrived with,
instead of the little 4 connector modular plug (RJ-11C), with an
8-wire modular plug into the phone system, which they call an
RJ-41S or RJ-45S (I don't know what the difference is).  They claim
the phone company must come out and install the corresponding 4-wire jack.
Here is what they say about using the RJ-11S:

        "Connecting the modem to the telephone line with an RJ-11C jack
        is not recommended, although it may work under certain conditions.
        An RJ-11C voice jack requires a 4-wire telephone cable, not supplied
        with the AJ-4048 modem."

Actually not only do they not supply the 4-wire cable, but they don't supply
anyplace on their modem where the 4-wire cable could plug in.

I also think I am going to need to get myself a phoneset with an 8-wire
connector since the AJ doesn't autodial.  Are these available?

My questions are:
        A. Is it likely to be a big deal or a little deal for the phone
        company to install that 8-wire jack in my house?  Are the 8 wires
        in the wall somewhere or does a major restringing occur?  (I would
        guess from the descriptions of wires 7 and 8 below that they are
        just a volume control from the phone company built into the box.)
        B. Are there adaptors available to go from 8-wire to 4-wire connector

        s
        and back?  The quote above implies it is somehow possible.
        C. What is the real difference?  What are the circumstances under
        which RJ-11C will not work but RJ-41S will?

Thanks for any and all help.
By the way, the 8 wires are identified as follows (in the AJ manual):

        1. no connection
        2. no connection
        3. Mode indicator.  Selects voice or data mode depending on state of
           telset exclusion switch (or other control).
        4. Ring.  One side of telephone line.
        5. Tip.  Other side of telephone line.
        6. Mode Indicator Common.  Ground.
        7. Programming Resister.  Resistor (on data block) used to
           control modem transmit level.
        8. Programming resistor common.  Return side of PR signal (7. above).



7 and 8 are identifed as: "Passive or isolated signal", and none of the
rest are, whatever that means.



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

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 85 21:31:40 pst
From: newton2%ucbtopaz.CC@UCB-VAX
To: telecom@UCB-VAX

This is a renewed request for discussion/comment/pointers on the
subject of speech scramblers which work by temporily shuffling blocks
of speech.

If we assume the underlying cryptography to be secure (i.e. the generation
of scramble-sequences throughout the message cannot be anticpated wihout
the key), what are the techniques for cracking the system by direct assault
on the analog scrambled signal? How quickly can this be done- Real time?

I assume a digital random access memory- no clues from the differing noise
level along the length of an analog shift register. However, there might
be clues from the excitation of the (known) impulse response of the band-limi

        ted
voice channel, or by endpoint matching of segments. And of course the clearte

        xt (voix humaine) has some known
characteristics.

Is such a scrambler of *any* value against a determined opponent-- i.e.,
might it provide at least some time-limited security or require such special
equipment for routine cracking that the use of large numbers of such scramble

        rs
might overwhelm a particular opponent (not knowing which messages were high-v

        alue?)

I'd greatly appreciate any discussion of this, public or private.

Thanks-

                Doug Maisel  415 549-1403



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

Date:  Mon, 21 Jan 85 17:40 EST
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  Communications Forum Seminars
To:  [e-mail], [e-mail],

Prospects for Leased Access

  February 7, 1985

Richard B.  Smith, President, Satellite Program Network

Kathy Garmezy, Labor Institute of Public Affairs

William Finneran, Chairman, New York State Commission on Cable

  Television



     The new cable legislation provides that systems with 36 or

more channels must make time available for commercial leasing at

a "reasonable" fee.  Some have argued that such laws deprive

cable operators of First Amendment rights.  Others have argued

that a full "separations policy" is necessary to maximize

diversity.

     This seminar will look behind the longstanding policy debate

to assess the demand for leased access.  Who is willing to pay

for it?  At what price?  What are the opportunities for national

packaging services?  Will leased access programming offer

anything different?  Or will it simply substitute for public

access or special programming services?





Software Protection and Marketing

  February 14, 1985

Ronald Rivest, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science

Wayne Chou and Richard Erett, Software Security, Inc.

  February 21, 1985

Michael Tyler, Datamation

Todd Sun, Multimate International

Representative from Lotus Development Corporation



     The mass marketing of personal computers has created a large

market for software -- and with it, unauthorized copying on a

large scale.  Two special seminars will look at the problem of

unauthorized copying:  What technologies can be used to minimize

it?  How big is the problem and how does it affect marketing

strategies?  Are technological and marketing solutions adequate?

The first seminar will look at different technologies used to

prevent copying.  The second will consider the advantages and

disadvantages of copy protection in the marketplace and

strategies such as user registration and bundling of support

services.





The Multivendor Computer Networking Zoo

  February 28, 1985

Paul Green, IBM



     The difficulty of interconnecting networks or network

components when they obey different architectures inhibits the

growth and flexibility of computer communications.  Two ways to

alleviate the problem are:  to adopt a standard architecture for

all nodes in the network; or to provide conversions at suitable

points in the network and at the level of a suitable

architectural layer.  The first approach is most unlikely to

succeed.  The seminar will focus on the second approach.  First

some details of the "mapping" that must take place at the point

of discontinuity will be reviewed.  Then the roles of enveloping,

substitution, complementing, and conversion will be described.

Prognosis about the possible existence of a general methodology

for synthesizing the mapping leads to the final topic -- the role

of Open System Interconnect as a solution.





Changing Communications Technologies:  Learning from the Past

  March 7, 1985

John McLaughlin, Harvard Program on Information Resources Policy

JoAnne Yates, MIT

Richard John, Business History Review, Harvard



     New communications technologies have profoundly changed

communications practices and communications industry structure --

and the structure of other businesses.  Mapping these changes

over two centuries reveals an interrelationship between broad

structural trends and the development of particular products and

services.

     One trend is the emergence of systems that combine products

and services -- and that combine content and conduit.  Another is

the cycle from competition to monopoly and back to competition.

An especially important question is how advances in

communications technology affect the size and structure of

business users.





Unrecordable Video

  March 14, 1985

Andrew Lippman, MIT

John Woodbury, National Cable Television Association

Speaker to be announced



     Although motion picture producers depend increasingly on

revenue from television and home video, the spectacular growth of

videocassette recorders has provoked fears that much potential

revenue will be lost.  The Electronic Publishing group of MIT's

Media Laboratory has developed a way of generating television

transmissions that can be viewed but not taped.  This seminar

will present the technology, and industry representatives will

discuss the possible effects on distribution practices.



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

Date:  Tue, 22 Jan 85 13:12 EST
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  MIT Communications Forum Seminars
To:  [e-mail], [e-mail],

MIT Communications Forum seminars are held on Thursdays from 4:00 to
6:00 in the Marlar Lounge (Bldg.  37-252, MIT, 70 Vassar St., Cambridge)

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 85 21:33:05 pst
From: newton2%ucbtopaz.CC@UCB-VAX
To: Telecom-Request@BBNCCA
Subject: Time-segment speech scramblers

This is a renewed request for discussion/comment/pointers on the
subject of speech scramblers which work by temporily shuffling blocks
of speech.

If we assume the underlying cryptography to be secure (i.e. the generation
of scramble-sequences throughout the message cannot be anticpated wihout
the key), what are the techniques for cracking the system by direct assault
on the analog scrambled signal? How quickly can this be done- Real time?

I assume a digital random access memory- no clues from the differing noise
level along the length of an analog shift register. However, there might
be clues from the excitation of the (known) impulse response of the band-limi

        ted
voice channel, or by endpoint matching of segments. And of course the clearte

        xt (voix humaine) has some known
characteristics.

Is such a scrambler of *any* value against a determined opponent-- i.e.,
might it provide at least some time-limited security or require such special
equipment for routine cracking that the use of large numbers of such scramble

        rs
might overwhelm a particular opponent (not knowing which messages were high-v

        alue?)

I'd greatly appreciate any discussion of this, public or private.

Thanks-

                Doug Maisel  415 549-1403



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

Date: 22 Jan 1985 1135 PST
From: Richard B. August <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite communications: Portable Earth station
To: telecom-request@bbncca

SUITCASE COMMUNICATOR

     The  equipment is a portable communications system  designed
to  relay  messages  over long distances by  satellite.  A  joint
development  of  NASA's  Ames  Research  Center,  Mountain  View,
California,  and General Electric Co.,  Schenectady, New York, it
consists of a collapsible antenna and a computerized transceiver,
a terminal for sending and receiving messages.  The whole  system
fits  into  two Pullman-size suitcases and can be powered from  a
conventional outlet or a vehicle's battery.

     Use  of satellite relay permits transmissions in almost  any
terrain, even in areas where mountains block normal line-of-sight
transmission.  In intitial tests, the relay spacecraft was NASA's
Applications  Technology  Satellite direct  broadcast  satellite.
With  ATS-3,  an operator anywhere in North or South America  and
most  of  the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans  can  communicate  with
fixed  Earth stations in those areas.  If a network of compatible
satellites were available, the system could be used globally.

     The principal use envisioned is communications in  disasters
and  other  emergencies  where it is necessary to get  short  but
vital  messages out of the emergency area.  The 1980 eruption  of
Mount St. Hellen illustrated the need for rapidly deployable long
distance communications not dependent on wirelines,  because such
lines  are often destroyed in disasters.  Another application  is
long-range  communications  between transportation  vehicles  and
their  dispatch  offices.  In a seven-month test  concluded  last
year,  drivers  of  Smith Transfer  Corp.  cross  country  trucks
exchanged  information  via satellite with their  dispatchers  in
Staunton,  VA.  The  drivers  reported  excellent  communications
except on brief occasions where trees or overpasses blocked line-
of-sight  transmissions.  Such  a  communications  system  offers
advantages   to  the  trucking  industry  in  keeping  track   of
equipment,  improving  maintenance schedules,  avoiding  improper
routing and reducing theft losses.

     The  system is alphanumeric,  meaning that messages are sent
and received in letters and numbers. The operator types a message
on a keyboard, then transmits it to the Earth station by punching
a single key.  Another keystroke enables him to receive  messages
stored  at the Earth station.  The terminal can be set up in  two
minutes.  The  antenna unfolded and pointed toward the satellite;
the  proper direction and elevation are available from  a  simple
chart.

     ATS-3  is  17  years old and nearing the end of  its  useful
life,  but  if enough public service and commercial  applications
are  found,  the  system could be redesigned to work  with  other
satellites. Mobile Satellite Corp., King of Prussia, PA, plans to
build  and  operate such a satellite;  the company has  filed  an
application  with  the  Federal Communications  Commision  for  a
frequency allocation.
------

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #149
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 24 Jan 85 22:04:34 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 24 Jan 85 16:21:20 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 149

Today's Topics:
                      Using DTMF on pulse lines
                     RJ41S and RJ45S - Revisited
                     RJ41S and RJ45S - Revisited
                        PacBel leading the way
    Dr.Dobbs Journal of June 85 = SPECIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUE
                         RJ45S, RJ41S, RJ11C..
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 85 10:28:47 PST (Wednesday)
Subject: Using DTMF on pulse lines
To: [e-mail]
From: Bruce Hamilton <[e-mail]>

Many of you may not be aware that, even if DTMF ("touch-tone") doesn't
break dial tone on a line, you can still make some use of it if your
exchange is one which permits user entry of calling card numbers.  Just
dial 0+number in pulse mode, then as soon as you hear the "bong", you
are talking to a computer, and you can switch to tone dialing and enter
your calling card number.  Still better, if you're making a series of
calls, you can STAY in tone mode, enter "#" at the end of the first
call, and use DTMF to dial another number when you get the recording
"you may now dial another number".

--Bruce

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

Date: 23 Jan 85 10:46:12 PST (Wednesday)
Subject: RJ41S and RJ45S - Revisited
To: [e-mail]
From: John <[e-mail]>

----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RJ41S and RJ45S - Revisited
To: Mark Weiser <[e-mail]>
cc: XeroxTelecom^.PA
From: John <Cottriel.ES>

Mark-

re:  "...My questions are:
        A. Is it likely to be a big deal or a little deal for the phone
        company to install that 8-wire jack in my house?  Are the 8 wires
        in the wall somewhere or does a major restringing occur?  (I would
        guess from the descriptions of wires 7 and 8 below that they are
        just a volume control from the phone company built into the box.)
        B. Are there adaptors available to go from 8-wire to 4-wire connector

        s
        and back?  The quote above implies it is somehow possible.
        C. What is the real difference?  What are the circumstances under
        which RJ-11C will not work but RJ-41S will?..."


All the wiring is done in the jacks with only two wires (tip & ring)
going all the way back to the Telco Central Office. The RJ11C
(Permissive Data Jack) in your house uses the two center wires (Tip &
Ring) for your phone.  The Mode Indication and Mode Control pins are not
used.  The RJ11C is actually a 6 position jack with only 4 wires in
place.

The difference between an RJ41S (97A Universal Data Jack-Fixed
Loss/Programmable) and a RJ45S-(97B Data Jack-Programmable) is that the
RJ45S is "Programmable Only", which means that the data set (modem) can
dynamically set the output level within the range of 0 to -12db, as
required.  This is accomplished by a resistance within the jack that is
matched to the characteristics of the line for optimum performance at
the time of installation.  This resistance appears across PR (pins 7) &
PC (Pin 8) and the modem has to have enough brains to read this
resistance and figure out what level he should transmit at.  The reason
they are labeled ""Passive or isolated signal"" is that they have no
direct connection to Tip & Ring.

The RS41S jack has as a switch which is labeled FLL/PROG, that will set
the jack up as a "Programmable" as described above, or as a "Fixed Loss
Loop as described here.  The "Fixed Loss Loop" option puts an H-Pad in
parallel with the Tip & Ring to provide a constant balance of power with
respect to the characteristics of the Local Loop (the line from your
house to the Telco Office) and is usually set up for 8db attenuation.

The purposes for the various jacks are to provide the correct signal
attenuation on Telco Facilities with respect to the device you are
hooking up to their stuff.  Correct matching prevents crosstalk and
amplifier overdrive and therefore presents a useable signal to your
modem while allowing your modem to transmit a useable signal to the
other end.  That's why they tell you that it ~might~ work on an RJ11C,
but it is not recommended.  If your Local Loop is real clean, you might
overdrive the circuit (too much power on the line) and send a distorted
signal.  It's not a big deal to install a data jack in your house, BUT,
the installation charge can be as much as $75.  AND they might force you
to change the line from a ~Residence Line~ (~$4/month) to a ~Business
Line~ (~$8/month).
I have used an RJ41S jack connected to a modem, then plugged that into a
RJ11C jack.  It will work OK if the internal resistance in the jack is
approximately matched to your phone line (Local Loop) - Good luck...

RE:  "...I also think I am going to need to get myself a phoneset with
an
      8-wire connector since the AJ doesn't autodial.  Are these
available?..."

Sure, how much money do you have.  You will need a USOC RTC Tel Set (503
for rotary dial or 2503 for Touch-Tone)   You can go buy one or you can
have Telco install it for ya.  If you use a Telco model you will need
these options (or use the options recommended in your modem manual)
Options are: A2, B4, [C5(touch-tone) or C6(Rotary], D8.  You will also
have to give Telco the FCC Registration Number for your modem and your
TelSet (if you purchase your own.)

You'll ALSO need a RJ36X Jack installed in parallel with the RJ41S Jack
for the telset to plug into.  More installation charges and more monthly
cost.

If it were my decision, I would check around for a modem that is RJ11C
compatible, that has a jack on the modem for a regular phone to plug
into and a switch to put it on line when you get the answer tone.

Racal-Vadic, Codex, General DataComm and a few others make 'em.

good luck,
  John


For more information see:

Racal-Vadic Publication:
 "Telecommunications From The Terminal User's Viewpoint"
   Corporate Office: 408-744-0810

General DataComm Publication:
 "Announcing the GDC Connection"
   Corporate Office:  203-797-0711

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

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

Date: 23 January 1985  19:18-CST (Wednesday)
From: Paul Fuqua <[e-mail]>
Subject: PacBel leading the way
To: [e-mail]


     Time as a Public Service?  Here in Dallas the time service is run by
Republic Bank.  Dial 844-anything and you get five seconds of
Republic-Bank-is-wonderful, then the time and temperature.  No tariffs to
worry about.
                              pf


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

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 85 21:01:21 CST
From: Werner Uhrig <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Dr.Dobbs Journal of June 85 = SPECIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUE

[ figured this group may want get that issue. as I meet a lot of people who
        are not familiar with this magazine, I'll include an overview below ]



[bugs - there is a reason for everything (I guess)]

just a quick overview, in case you missed reading page 4 in Dec 84 issue ...

NOV-84  p74 - A Guide to Resources for the C Programmer.
                including a bibliography and lists of program and product
                sources, this resource guide can help you start tackling the
                material available.

DEC-84  the theme of the issue is "INSIDE UNIX".  relevant articles are:
        p24 - Varieties of Unix.  a comparitive overview ov Unixes for micros


                with a brief history of Unix and comments on its future,
                plus a guide to choosing a Unix
        p38 - Unix Device Drivers. Version 7 drivers are the point of departu

        re
                for this inside look at the Unix I/O subsystem and device
                drivers.
        p50 - A Unix Internals Bibliography.  .. so you won't have to "grep
                for it"
        p96 - C/Unix Programmer's Notebook.

JAN-85  theme: FATTEN YOUR MAC - step by the step instructions to increase RA

        M
                in the Macintosh to 512K

FEB-85  Gala Anniversary Issue 100 months of DDJ

Mar-85  theme: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR MICROCOMPUTERSand announcement
                of the winner of the AI-competition.

APR-85  theme: HUMAN INTERFACE DESIGN

MAY-85  theme: GRAPHICS ALGORITHM

JUN-85  theme: SPECIAL COMMUNICATIONS ISSUE

[PS:  has anyone approached some of the magazine publishers to see if they ar

        e
        willing to provide TOCs in advance of publication, or whenever, in
        machine-readable form?  I'm sure they could as they have it in their
        machines, and it sure wouldn't hurt their sales.  and as it is
        welcome information for us that does not require typing, I'm sure
        that noone would consider such postings as improper advertising.
        Dr Dobbs headquarters seem to be located in Palo Alto, if someone
        there wouldn't mind making a local call there to ask the question]


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

Date: 24 January 1985 01:15-EST
From: Minh N. Hoang <MINH @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  RJ45S, RJ41S, RJ11C..
To: TELECOM @ BBNCCA


The RJ4XS connectors are used with programmable DAAs (Data Access
Arrangement - the old term associated w/ phone connector for modems).
As you've guessed correctly, a programming resistor across leads 7
and 8 cause the modem to transmit at a certain power level.  There's
a standard list of resistor values and output levels.  The phone co.
technician picks the resistor to compensate for the loss through the
local loop to the central office so that your signal goes into the
network at about -13dBm (not too sure about this figure...)

The RJ11C is for permissive DAAs, ie. regular phone jacks, where the
modem agrees not to transmit at more than -9dBm. By the way, the
reference power level 0dBm is 1 milliwatt into 600 ohm load.

Mode Indicator and Mode Indicator Common are for exlusion-key operation.
If you don't have the phoneset: short them to make the modem connect
to line, open to disconnect.  Actually, it is the transitions from
open to shorted and vice versa that cause the connect and disconnect.
If the modem is already dis/connected then they're ignored.

The AJ-4048 may work without the right DAA (you can insert the 6-pin
plug into the 8-pin jack) but it's best to follow AJ's instructions.
They made it.

Cheers, Minh


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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #150
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 29 Jan 85 04:13:45 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 28 Jan 85 22:59:48 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 150

Today's Topics:
                           Re: RJ45S......
               Time & Temp commercial in St. Louis, too
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #148
                 RJ41S and RJ45S - Revisited - Again
                   T1 synchronous interfaces/drivers
                         AT&T equipment rental
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 85 02:59:43 EST
From: Stephen Carter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RJ45S......
To: [e-mail]


The quickest kludge I can think of is to hop down to your local Rat Shack
and buy their funny RJ11--->RJ11 with the cute little inline switch (they
made it so little old ladies can cut the bell off (actually the whole
simple fern!!)  when The Edge of Wetness is on.)  Cut off one RJ11 and hot
wire it into your ring and trip of your modem.  Short the exclusion key
feature to make your modem always happy, put a duplex RJ11 tap to both
your modem and a regular phone.   Dial with the regular phone, toggle the
inline switch, and your ready to communicate.

You should also look around for a telephone line transformer while you have
the modem open.  If it doesn't have one, add it.  (Rat Shack also has a
cheapo 600/600 ohm xformer).   This will keep your Telco happy, and also
helps random ground hums...
-------

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

Date: Fri 25 Jan 85 11:46:29-MST
From: William G. Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Time & Temp commercial in St. Louis, too
To: [e-mail]

Here in St. Louis, time & temp have been provided by a local bank, the
same as the other poster mentioned regarding Republic Bank in his area.
Wonder why such an obvious money-maker/advertising gimmick was not
promoted by all the other BOCs? (I guess both of these are in SW Bell
territory.)

The interesting thing about it here is that it had always been advertised
as "FA 1-2522", but that any number from "FA 1-1000" thru "FA 1-8999"
worked fine (the first might have been "FA 1-0000", but I don't recall
for sure). I always used "FA 1-1111" since that is the best number to
dial on a rotary phone (quickest, easiest on the finger). When they went
to ESS (I suppose), this changed, and now ONLY "FA 1-2522" (or "321-2522",
if you must be modern about it...) will function.

What I'm wondering is why they picked "2522" as the digit combination
to advertise and settle on. Anybody have any idea? I would have chosen
"1111", of course, and was mightily irked when "321-1111" no longer worked.

I always figured that the "9000" series wasn't used, as those were for
payphone numbers, but that the choice of any other four digits was
completely arbitrary. Why not pick four identical digits? Is there some
psychological-study-justification that "2522" is easier to recall or
more "effective" in some way than "2222" or "4444" or anything else?

Will Martin
-------

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 85 12:25:28 pst
From: ihnp4!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder@Berkeley (Dani Eder)
To: uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom@Berkel

        ey
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #148

Boeing Computer Services negotiating with AT&T for Switching System
Installation
Form the 24 January 1985 'Boeing News'

     Boeing Computer Services Company has announced selection of
AT&T for negotiations leading to installation of AT&T telephone
switching systems at major Boeing plant locations in Seattle and
Wichita.
     The AT&T selection follows a six-month eveluation of proposals
from 13 suppliers and marks the beginning of a modernization of
Boeing voice and data telephone communications systems that will
be completed in 1987.  The copleted system, including telephones,
switching, and related equipment, will be owned by Boeing.
     After negotiations with AT&T are completed successfully, the
AT&T 5ESS telephone switching system, which was selected as the
product best suited to serve Boeing's requirements in the Seattle
and Wichita areas, will be installed at those locations.
     Boeing's review of the proposals submitted revealed that no single
offering fully met all Boeing requirements for all of the company's
nationwide locations.  Consequently, Boeing elected to integrate
systems from a number of suppliers.
     Decisions on suppliers of equipment and service offerings
for other Boeing sites will be made later.  Details of the installation
plan will be announced when they are available.
----------end of article, start of commentary----------

     Right now the bottom of my telephone says "Bell system property,
not for sale".  I presume that this means there will 50000 surplus
telephones on the market sometime soon.  I am more interested in
the long term implications of this change.  I presume that Pacific
Northwest Bell currently provides local switching.  We already have
a satellite earth station at this plant in Kent, WA that talks to
an SBS satellite.  I presume we can connect to SBS's Skylink long
distance service.  This doesn't leave much for PNB to do, does it?
The only service they have left is local access, and perhaps
a service contract for maintenance.  With the spread of company-
owned telecommunications, what is the long term (>10 year)
future of the local operating companies?

Dani Eder / Boeing / ssc-vax!eder






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

Date: 25 Jan 85 10:25:50 PST (Friday)
Subject: RJ41S and RJ45S - Revisited - Again
To: Mark Weiser <[e-mail]>
From: John <[e-mail]>

Mark,

Hope this clears things up.

John

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

re:  "...an RJ-41 doesn't require anyone to actually measure
         the loop-loss at my house and set a resister..."

Negative - both the RJ41S and RJ45S require a telco person to
           set them up.  That's why they cost so much to install.

That initial set-up is what the modem uses to determine it's levels.
Based on the info you provided (i.e. the 8 wires from the AJ manual)
your modem requires an RJ45 jack, and telco will determine what resistor
to use across pins 7&8.  If an RJ41 jack were installed, the same thing
would apply, but additionally, the RJ41 jack has an H-pad across pins 1&2
and these pins are paralleled with pins 4&5 (tip&ring) through the switch
on the jack.  The H-pad is impedance matched to the line and set for an
approximate 8db attenuation.  When the FLL is used, the modem that is
attached to the jack is required to limit it's output level to a maximum
of -4dbm.

Modems designed to be used with an RJ45S jack (or an RJ41S jack with
the switch in PROG mode), have the ability to set their transmit levels
in the range of 0 to -12dbm.  Within that range, they determine their
transmit level from the resistance that telco puts across pins 7&8.

Modems designed to be used with RJ11C jacks (permissive) must
have their output level limited to a maximum of -9dbm.

Here's some pictures (sorta...use a fixed pitch font...)

RJ11C Jack

1 - NC
2 - MI   -- Black -- Not used
3 - Ring --- Red --- Ring {to switched network}--------------------> R to
4 - Tip  -- Green -- Tip  {to switched network}--------------------> T Telco
5 - MIC  -- Yellow - Not used
6 - NC


RJ45S Jack (97B Programmable Data Jack)

1 - NC
2 - NC
3 - MI   -- Black -- Voice/Data mode via Exclusion Key
4 - Ring --- Red --- Ring {to switched network}--------------------> R to
5 - Tip  -- Green -- Tip  {to switched network}--------------------> T Telco
6 - MIC  -- Yellow - Voice/Data mode via Exclusion Key
7 - PR --RESISTOR---o
                    !
8 - PC -------------o


RJ41S Jack (97A Universal Data Jack-Programmable{PROG} & FixedLossLoop{FLL})

1 - R(FLL)--H-PAD--[S]----o
2 - T(FLL)--H-PAD--[S]-o  !
3 - MI   -- Black -----!--!---> Voice/Data mode via Exclusion Key
4 - Ring --- Red ------!--o---> Ring {to switched network}----------> R to
5 - Tip  -- Green -----o------> Tip  {to switched network}----------> T Telco


6 - MIC  -- Yellow ----------> Voice/Data mode via Exclusion Key
7 - PR --RESISTOR---o
                    !
8 - PC -------------o

Note:  [S] = switch on RJ41S jack, (FLL or PROG).
       [S] Open in PROG position and closed in FLL position.
           In PROG position, Ring and Tip are taken at pins 4 & 5.
           In FLL  position, Ring and Tip are taken at pins 1 & 2.


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

Date:     Sat, 26 Jan 85 16:26:59 EST
From:     Joe Pistritto <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  T1 synchronous interfaces/drivers

        Has anyone had any experience with interfacing to 1.544Mb/s
(T1) synchronous telephone lines out there?  In particular, I need
reccomendations as to hardware and drivers to use for this
purpose.  Can a DEC DMR-11 be optioned to do this?  (since it
supports 1Mb/s synchronous, externally clocked, it seems it might).

                                                -JCP-


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

Date:     Mon, 28 Jan 85 15:33:17 CST
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  AT&T equipment rental

Hi!

Around here, at least, the local BOC (SW Bell) stopped billing for AT&T
equipment rental, and AT&T began sending bills to consumers directly
for leased instruments and the like. (This is academic to me, as I
bought my phone and get no such bills, by the way.)

What I'm wondering is why people are bothering to pay these bills, and
what AT&T can do if they don't. Consider: if they keep their SW Bell
phone-service bill paid, SW Bell is not going to bother them about
what they haven't paid AT&T, right? As a matter of fact, isn't SW Bell
*prohibited* from acting for AT&T in this? In most cases, these bills
are quarterly, and for equipment rental charges in the area of $1.25
per month or so. AT&T can't afford to engage in expensive commercial
collection practices for such piddly bills, even if they are in arrears
for a year or more -- the amounts simply aren't worth it.

There are separate corps of AT&T & SW Bell installers (probably getting
in each other's way), so I guess AT&T has the people to send around to
pull equipment on which the charges are unpaid. In a situation where
you can buy a phone for $7.99 at your local discount house, though,
if your actual phone service remains unaffected, that isn't much of a
threat. Again, of course, does it make economic sense to pay $30/hour
(including overhead) person-and-truck resources to collect an
essentially-worthless desk phone on which the consumer owes $20 back rent?
Sure, it would pay if the premises had a bunch of equipment, but not
for a single standard instrument.

Anyone know for sure what is going on in this area? It's too new to
have any history yet developed, and I notice that local consumer-activist
television news stories on the split of the billing have been careful not
to bring up this topic [so as to not put the idea into the heads of all
those sheep out there that just got this new bill], but, if people just
generally waste-canned these AT&T bills, just what would (or could) AT&T
DO about it? Surely their planners have some worst-case scenario in mind
and have made SOME provisions?

Do mechanisms exist for AT&T to get the BOCs to take collection action
for it? (That is, in effect returning to the pre-split billing
environment.) Or would AT&T have to fight for this in the regulatory
arena?

Will

ARPA/MILNET: [e-mail]     USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #151
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 30 Jan 85 21:50:26 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 Jan 85 16:37:29 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 151

Today's Topics:
                           T1 is wonderful
                   Seperate AT&T and Local billing
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #150
               What's Gerard K O'Neil doing these days?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 85 06:58:40 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: T1 is wonderful
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]

We have a T1 link to a building a block away. It costs about $1500/month
as compared to roughly $1100/month for a 56KB line. (Straight PacTel
prices.)

The error rate is so low that I can't even see it. How about 0 for 10^7
packets. Are we just lucky? Anybody got any more data?

We built our own controller because I didn't find one that would connect
to a Multibus. Anybody know of one? I don't want it to do me any favors
(like talk TCP), just send and receive raw packets like a dumb ethernet
controller.

I don't know what a DMR-11 is like, but it probably won't be trivial to
interface it to a T1 line. The first problem is that the receive side
doesn't provide the clock on another pair of wires like RS232 modems do.
You have to watch the line, and derive the clock with a PLL. Another
problem is that you have to send ones occasionally. (15 zeros in a row
max and you must have at least 3 ones in every 24 bits.) SDLC packet
format meets this if you invert the data! The last problem I know about
is that the actual interfacing to the wires is more complicated that
just plugging in the 1488/1489 chips that everybody uses to talk to
RS232 lines. I got an analog wizard down the hall to design that part: 4
chips, 2 transformers, 2 transistors and a few resistors. There must be
a better way, but it works, it fits, and I didn't have any troubles with
it. If you do decide to design something, check out the RPT-81 from
Precision Monolithics and/or look at page 305, Electronic Design,
7-Jan-82.

If you are thinking of generic T1 links, like a microwave gizmo rather
than an official T1 line from your phone company, you may have some more
options. The one by GE (GemLink) is availiable with RS422 interfacing. I
don't know any more than it's an option on their data sheet. You should
also look into closed circuit TV versions if you are willing to do the
analog interfacing work. (I don't know much about it.) Then you can pick
the data rate. That might be helpful if something like your DMR-11
really tops out at 1Mb rather than the 1.5 that a T1 expects.

T1 is clearly a wonderful thing. The bypass market is going to support a
lot of companys making whizbang microwave and fiber boxes, and they are
all going to be talking T1. Interconnecting LANs that are scattered
around a campus is going to get dragged along for the ride. The prices
and flexibility can only get better....  Support your local T1 vendor.

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

Date:    29 January 85 22:20-EST
From:      Michael Grant  <[e-mail]>
To: Telecom Digest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seperate AT&T and Local billing

As I see it, AT&T might ask there local company to withdraw local service if
a customer stopes paying there phone rental bill.  After all, that phone IS
connected to the local suplier's line.  And, anyway, AT&T still has some
ties to that local company, they can probebly drop little threats like
'Well, if you don't cut Mr. Shmo's phone for us because he's stopped paying
for his phone, we're not going to renew that service contract on all that
nice switching equipment we sold you.'

On the other hand....they may just ignore you until the bill got 'big enough'


to worry about.
-Mike Grant

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

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 85 08:37:13 pst
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!darrelj@Berkeley (Darrel VanBuer)
To: telecom@Berkeley
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #150
Cc:

You can't generally use just a plain high-speed syncronous interface to a T1
facility because of coding restrictions (e.g. every 193rd bit must be a timin

        g
slot, and often every 8th bit must be reserved for control signaling).
I.e. you have to follow the guidelines for the 24 telephone conversations whi

        ch
might be there instead, leaving you a slightly stuttery 1.344 Mbps.

Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD
System Development Corp.
2500 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90406
[phone] x5449
...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,orstcs,sdcsvax,ucla-cs,akgua}
                                                            !sdcrdcf!darrelj
[e-mail]


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

Date: Wed 30 Jan 85 16:12:21-EST
From: Ralph W. Hyre Jr. <[e-mail]>
Subject: What's Gerard K O'Neil doing these days?
To: [e-mail]

I heard he was working on some kind of worldwide communications system,
but I don't know anything else?  If anyone has an address of more information


I'd appreciate hearing about it.  (Gerard K. O' Neil wrote 'The High Frontier

        ',
which advocates building space colonies.)

                                        - Ralph Hyre
-------

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #152
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 31 Jan 85 21:45:22 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 31 Jan 85 16:21:28 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 152

Today's Topics:
                 threats AT&T has against non-payers
                        AT&T Equipment rental
               Push-button (not touch-tone) info needed
                       T1 circuit requirements
                           ATT and billing
                   T1 device offered by DEC = DMZ32
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 1985 1402-PST
From: Richard M. King <[e-mail]>
Subject: threats AT&T has against non-payers
To: [e-mail]

        In many places AT&T has a contract with the local phone company; in
return for X dollars the local company performs the billing.  Part of what
they may promise to do for this money is to disconnect people for whom AT&T
can demonstrate a large unpaid balance.

        Why do people bother to pay their bill?  Because people are honest,
by and large.  What moral justification can you find for not paying the
rental charge on a phone, after having made a cognitive decision not to
buy one?

        Someone sophisticated enough to work out that you don't have to pay
the bill, if indeed that is the case, would have been sophisticated enough to


buy their phone long ago.

        The only class of people left are those who are too poor to pay the
bill.  If, indeed, nonpayment of the phone rental charge makes no trouble, I
suspect that this fact is already well known in the low-rent district.

                                                Dick
-------


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

From: ima!johnl@bbncca
Date: Wed Jan 30 22:43:00 1985
Subject: AT&T Equipment rental
To: bbncca!telecom

If I were AT&T, which lord knows I'm not, I'd cut off long distance service
to people who don't pay their equipment rental bills.  (This assumes that
AT&T's tandem equipment can be trained to allow and disallow calls depending

        on
calling number; at this point I believe only SBS checks at the time of the ca

        ll
that the calling number is one which SBS knows how to bill -- ITT has billing


arrangements with the BOCs for users who are not presubscribed, and who knows


what the other ones do.  But I digress.)

At the moment, most customers, even within equal access areas, don't really
understand that AT&T isn't the only way to call out of town, but that will
change eventually.

I suspect that within a year or two the long distance carriers will have to g

        et
together and exchange lists of deadbeats.  It's already very easy to subscrib

        e
to MCI and not pay the bill until they cut you off, then to ITT, then to
SPRINT, then to SBS, and so forth.  When equal access is widespread,
people will find out that when 10288 (AT&T) stops working because they didn't


pay, they can just try other different 10XXX until they
find another company that will let them through, and so on.
Any company that doesn't make some arrangement to avoid picking up other
carriers' nonpaying customers will end up with a clientele of deadbeats.
Just you wait and see.

Anarchically,
John Levine, ima!johnl or [e-mail]

PS:  It'll be fun in the meantime.  Expect the LD companies to push for
absurd political solutions to their sloppy billing problems before they
clean up their act.

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

Date: 30 Jan 85 10:50:57 EDT (Wed)
From: Nathaniel Mishkin <apollo![e-mail]>
Subject: Push-button (not touch-tone) info needed
To: apollo![e-mail]

My parents have two phone lines into their house.  All the Bell-installed
phones are rotary and (what the phone company calls) "push-button" (i.e.
they have a row of buttons along the bottom to select which line you
want).  They also have a HOLD button.  They (and the random equipment
that supports the hold feature) are presently leased from ATT (which
apparently doesn't let you buy this sort of equipment).

My parents would like to get new, touch-tone phones but apparently neither
ATT nor NY Telephone has anything to offer that satisfies their need.

My question:  in these modern times, does any company offer some sensible
piece of equipment that addresses this need?  Something like a scaled-down
version of the phone systems many small businesses now get:  normal-looking
touch-tone phones with no row of buttons that all connect to a central
box (using the standard 4-wire cable and connectors) that does hold and
line selection?
-------

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

Date: Thursday, 31 Jan 1985 06:07:33-PST
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: T1 circuit requirements

There are a couple of restrictions on T1 circuits that make it less
than a simple data circuit.  ATTCOM's tariff specifies that you must
use "D4" or "Extended framing" format, unless you're a government
agency, on their inter-LATA lines.  The BOCs are often looser,
especially on intraexchange circuits which don't really go through any
of their multiplex equipment.

The key to these formats is that the 1.544 Mbps is divided into 24
channels, each 8 bits x 8000 samples per second.  After 24 octets
are sent, there's a "framing bit", for a total of 193 bits/frame.
The framing bits in turn constitute a specific pattern that repeats
every 12 (old) or 24 (extended) frames.  This is further divided
into a repeating bit pattern (which the terminals use to synchronize
on) and other information (extended framing supports a slow speed
diagnostic channel made up of framing bits).  The Channel Service
Unit knows what this is all about, and you need one (or equivalent
functionality) on both ends of an ATTCOM T1 circuit.

Beyond that, there's a 10% "one's density" rule, and a "15 consecutive
zeroes" rule.  This is necessary because the circuit is isochronous
(self-clocking), deriving its clock from the data.  A one is a pulse,
and a zero is a nothing.  Alternate pulses invert direction (bipolar).
All of this allows 1.5 Mbps to run 6000 feet on twisted pair, which
makes it kinda funny when people take the RS-232 "50 foot @9600 bps"
seriously for async applications.

There is a DEC board (CPI-32) that plugs into the VAX and hooks
directly to a T1 circuit.  It derives 24 subchannels, and is mainly
intended to be used for a PBX interface.  CPI also meets all
of the framing & ones density requirements.  It was discussed in the
March-April 1984 issue of Business Communications Review.

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

Date: Thu 31 Jan 85 12:29:57-PST
From: Chris <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATT and billing
To: [e-mail]


Actually, I suspect they would just turn it over to a
collection agency.  If publishers can "quibble" over
books that cost <$10, why cant they?  If nothing else,
they will be happy to write you a letter and hassle your
credit rating.

        Chris.
-------

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

Date: Thursday, 31 Jan 1985 06:49:00-PST
From: [e-mail]
To: telecom-request@bbncca
Subject: T1 device offered by DEC = DMZ32

To All of those who thought DEC was sleeping:

Digital has a T1 interface called the DMZ32 which is a Unibus to T1 I/O

"The purpose of this equipment is to multiplex/demultiplex 24 standard
(RS-232-C/V.28)low-speed asynchronous data lines (up to 19.2K baud) onto
a high-speed, time-division multiplexed (TDM) trunk. The TDM trunk interface
is compatible eith the North American Standard T1/DS-1 carrier that operates
at 1.544M bits/s. Up to nine modem-control signals per low-speed line can be
multiplexed/demultiplexed by the H3014 remote distribution panel without
interfering with data transmission."

/jmp
John M. Potucek

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #153
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 3 Feb 85 23:54:01 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Feb 85 18:38:12 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 153

Today's Topics:
                         ATT Telephone Billing
                          RE: AT&T Equipment
                             Equal Access
                   Re:  Pushbutton (not touch tone)
                       Hold and two phone lines
                             more kludges
                                DMR-11
                    "{" noise & Southwestern Bell
                        Apt. Building Phone's
                   AT+T (Yep, collection agencies)
                  Equal Access comes to Baltimore, MD
                          push-button phones
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 31 Jan 85 15:26 MST
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  ATT Telephone Billing
To:  [e-mail]

ATT can (and does) get nasty about not paying telephone rental charges
very quickly.  The sound the panic button long before the current rental
period is over.  The rental may not be a very large amount, but if you
add the rent to ATT's list price of the phone it becomes a much more
worthwile figure to go after, and they assume if your not paying the
rent that obviously since you still have the phone that you want to buy
it so they bill you accordingly.  BTW Thier billing system seems to have
a lot of bugs.

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

Date:     Thu, 31 Jan 85 18:00:20 EST
From:     Anne Rich <rich@udel-eecis2>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  RE: AT&T Equipment

Since I had this problem with AT&T, perhaps I can answer
some of your questions.  The local BOC here stopped billing
for AT&T equipment rental last August, and AT&T began sending
bills to consumers directly for leased instruments and the like.
This didn't concern me since I owned my own equipment, until
I started to get bills from AT&T for two desk telephones they
said I was renting.  After the first bill, I called the AT&T
customer service number, and was told that it was a "computer
error" - sure, pass the buck to an inanimate object that can't
argue back - and that it was fixed.  Then in November I got
another bill, and a letter from AT&T stating that I was overdue
on my previous bill.  I called them again, and was told that
they had records of my phone bills from February and March
proving that I paid rent on 2 desk telephones - which was
particularly interesting considering that I didn't even have
a telephone in February and most of March.  They said they'd
"check it out and get back to me".  Needless to say, a few
days later I received a letter stating that AT&T wanted the
back rent on the phones, plus payment for them - since I
wasn't paying rent or returning them they wanted me to buy
them.  I called back, and the service agent told me that they
were sure I was wrong, but they would contact my local telephone
company to get copies of their back records on my account and
get back to me.  Meanwhile, the next day I got a letter from
AT&T stating that they were disconnecting my long distance
line (???) since I hadn't paid the bills, which they demanded
I pay or they threatened court action, and that I should be
concerned about my credit rating.  I called them again, and
got yet another serivce agent (whenever I called, the previous
agent I had had would be "out" or "busy") who said she would
also check into it.  I got a letter the next day saying that
they were willing to not charge me for the cost of the phones
if I would just pay them the back rent - pretty nice of them
considering I didn't even have their phones!  A few days
later I called back - as usual, the previous service agent
was "busy" - but the one I got checked my records and said my
account had been "credited for the required amount" - that was
all the information she could/would give me.

My long distance service was never disconnected, although AT&T
had given me an exact date on which it would no longer be active
and the problem wasn't resolved until over a month after that
date.  I was never notified of any "court action" and my local
telephone company never got involved in any way.  My local phone
company told me there was no way for my long distance to be disabled.
I don't think AT&T CAN do anything, except expend money to take
a customer to court, which I don't think they would do unless it
was for a very large amount of money.

The moral:  Use MCI.

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

Date: Thu, 31-Jan-85 17:23:13 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: Equal Access
To: TELECOM@MC

I was talking to some AT&T "large account" account reps a few
days ago, and they think Equal Access is just fine.  The reason
is rather interesting.  In order to get Equal Access in a given
city, you also have to get the feature package (level "D") to provide
called party answering supervision.  This combination is quite expensive.

The alternate carriers are finding that their costs for connecting
equal access are going through the roof and are already starting
to cut back on their plans.  Note what this means.  In general, you
only will get called party supervision to those locations that
have equal access installed.  For most other terminating
points, the calls will continue to be billed on the "after so much
time on a call you get charged, regardless of whether or not there
was an answer" technique that the alternates have been using all
along.  Not only that, but even in some areas where equal access
IS installed, the alternates have decided not to use the feature
package, since they don't have the facilities to pass the info back
to their billing computers.  This means that the alternates, by and
large, will be using their timing technique (which tends to result
in errors in their favor for many calls) for the indefinite future.

This puts AT&T in a good position since only they have called party
supervision in place to ALL points, and that is quite a good selling
point, especially with business customers who could lose a fortune
a little at a time with the "timing only" technique the others
are generally using.  The reps also mentioned that the figures
you hear quoted how "40% of the customers in the first equal access
cities dropped AT&T" are pretty much meaningless.  Why?  Because AT&T
has been very successful at signing up the business users who
account for the overwhelming mass of revenues (remember the figures
from a couple of years ago telling how something like 3% of the
customers represented about 85% of the revenue?)  So as long
as AT&T is successful at keeping the business users, it doesn't
matter too much if the mom and pop subscribers who only make modest
use of long distance want to switch.  AT&T has also found that
business users are the most aware of the busy circuits and variable
quality frequently found on the alternates.  Many of these business
subscribers have already had their fill of the others and gladly
sign up with AT&T.  Large numbers of variable quality phone calls,
busy circuits, or calls that just suddenly drop off in the middle,
are simply not good for business.

--Lauren--



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

Date:     Thu, 31 Jan 85 20:03:08 EST
From:     Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  Re:  Pushbutton (not touch tone)

There are any number of companies now that sell phones that use
two RJ11's and have a a-b line switch and pseudo hold capability.
I believe I saw these in the DAK or JSA catalogs, but I'm pretty
sure I came accross them in either BEST or BELL's.

-Ron

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

To:       [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Date: 31 Jan 1985 19:39 EST

In response to the query about picking up two lines with a single phone:

AT&T makes something called a "Touch-a-Matic 310" telephone.
This is a telephone with a push-button dial in the handset
and buttons to pick up a pair of lines in the base.  It also
has a hold and a conference button.

The telephone has two (electronic) ringers in the base and
a third one in the handset.  The handset ringer goes off whenever
the currently selected line rings.  The ringers in the base have
independently adjustable volume controls and sound different
from each other.

Connection is via a standard RJ-11 jack; red and green for line 1,
yellow and black for line 2.

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

Date:  1 Feb 85 1203 EST (Friday)
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Hold and two phone lines

I've seen DAK's ads for phones that manage two lines (with hold).
If I could only remember their 800 phone number...

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

Date:     Fri, 1 Feb 85 14:43:28 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  more kludges

Nov. 1984 Baltimore metro directory doesn't list pseudo-foreign
prefixes the way it used to.  The following are all listed in there
as Fork:
(area 301) 592 Fork; 557 Jarrettsville (Fork service); 679 Edgewood
(Fork service); 879 Bel Air-Fallston (Fork service); 575 Aberdeen-
Havre de Grace (Fork service).
(For those of you not familiar with Baltimore area: there really is
a place called Fork!)

In Delaware (area 302), call guide of Wilmington directory has a couple
of recent additions to list of place names: Marshallton (992) and
Talleyville (479).  But I suspect that they serve the same area
as Newport (994,995,998,999) and 478 Wilmington, respectively.


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

Date:  1-Feb-85 17:17:36-PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DMR-11
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]

Anyone seriously considering the use of DMC-11 or DMR-11 devices at high
speed should contact me to find out why they don't want to.

                                John Nagle
                                [e-mail]


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

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 85 10:30:20 cst
From: allegra!noao!utastro!nather@Berkeley (Ed Nather)
To: noao!allegra!ucbvax!telecom@Berkeley
Subject: "{" noise & Southwestern Bell

After a new switching system was installed in northwest Austin, Texas, I
found I got a regular burst of noise that gave me a "{" character about
once a second when I tried to call our departmental Vax at 1200 baud.  It
made communication impossible.  I asked about experience with this via
this newsgroup and got several useful replies (thank you, gentlemen) but
couldn't find a mail path to reply to all of them.  I laid this information
on Southwestern Bell, and got the following responses:

     1. There isn't any problem.
     2. If you are using a modem you need a special data circuit.
     3. (Finally:) Yes, we recognize we have a problem but haven't solved
        it yet.  I don't understand the technical things you're telling me
        but I'll have my supervisor call you. (Didn't happen)
     4. (Later:) Yes, we still have a problem due to synchronizing the trunk
        lines in the new system, but we have imported a system expert who
        should be able to fix it.

This sounded like the typical runaround to me until Lo! the noise disappeared


one day, about a month ago, and has not returned.  I don't know whether my
complaints did any good or not; I suspect someone with more clout got to them

        .
However, the moral is: it *can* be fixed, if enough people complain, and
they'll do it if goaded enough.  It seems to be a synchronizing problem, wher

        e
the oscillators (ca. 12 MHz) are separate and slip out of phase -- one part i

        n
10e7 difference in frequency gives about a 1 Hz beat.  The phase slip is
detected and results in circuit interruption to get them "back in step."

All's well that ends well -- until next time.

Ed Nather
Astronony Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
{allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather



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

Date:    2 February 85 12:20-EST
From:      Michael Grant  <[e-mail]>
To: Telecom Digest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apt. Building Phone's

The building I live in is using an old AT&T in house message service.  This
consists of a frame in the basement, a switchboard in the lobby with the old
plugs and wires mess.  This system was installed about 15 years ago, and I
believe AT&T has finally determined that it is obsolete, and wants to stop
servicing it.  This became evident when I was looking around our phone room
and noticed that the backup bateries for this system where awfully low on
water (less than half full!)  I told the superindendant of the building, who
was more interested in knowing how I got into the phone room than what was
wrong.  A few weeks later, I get this notice infroming me that our phone
syustem is now obsolete, and there will be a general meeting to discuss
getting something more modern.

I'd like to know if anyone out there has any suggestions on an in house
phone system for my building.  The basic requirements are:
    - Service 550 units
    - Ability for the desk attendant to pick up an apartment's phone
      iff the person in the apartment has set his phone to do this.

I'm interested in suggesting companies names to the building whom to try,
or whom to stay away from.  Thanx in advance.    { Ad(Thanx)vance }
-Mike Grant

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

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 85 11:42:14 pst
From: gts%ucbpopuli.CC@Berkeley (Greg Small)
To: telecom@bbncca
Subject: AT+T (Yep, collection agencies)

Pace@USC-ECLC is correct, ATT simply refers the bill to a collection agency.
My mother bought two wall phones on 2 Nov, was billed $ 42.50 on 11 Nov, ATT
cashed the check on 6 DEC but credited it to her "lease account" (which
was closed) instead of her "sales account".  She received 3 further notices
each with increasing computer generated threat levels in Dec and early Jan.
She replied to each but finally called ATT when the third arrived and was
told to send a copy of the cancelled check "or else".  She sent the copy
but on Jan 25 received the first notice from a local collection agency
("OR ELSE!").  I called ATT and sternly advised them of the situation, but
the ATT person discoved the miscredit rapidly and promised to transfer the
credit (and call off the hounds).   ATT is apparently learning about
consumer collection (and making the same mistakes).


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

Date:     Sat, 2 Feb 85 20:08:41 EST
From:     Joe Pistritto <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  Equal Access comes to Baltimore, MD

        Just got my 'equal access' brochure in the mail from C&P.
On May 5, 1985, Equal Access long distance service will be available
from the 321,337 and 583 exchanges.  These are apparently the first
exchanges in the Baltimore area to be upgraded to equal access.
The choices are: (drum roll please)
        TDX Systems Inc (Business only)
        GTE Sprint Direct Dial Service
        EG Communications
        SBS Skyline
        Telesaver Inc.
        ITT Longer Distance
        AT&T Long Distance Service
        ALLNET Dial 1 Service
        Western Union LongDistance Services
        US Telephone Inc.
        MCI Telecommunicatins Corporation

        After November 5, a service charge will be assessed to change
your service designation, which defaults to C&P Telephone.

        Does anyone have rate comparisons for service offered under
equal access by these carriers?  (Particularly SBS Skyline, ITT, AT&T,
MCI, and Sprint, which I understand are the best choices).

                                                        -JCP-


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

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 85 18:18:43 est
From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven Bellovin)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: push-button phones

To the moderator:  this is a reply to a query in the last digest.  I'm
sending it to you, rather than to 'telecom', because I'm concerned that
the commercial content might make it inappropriate.  (I think it's OK,
given other stuff I've seen, but I'll defer to your judgement.)  My attempt
to reply directly to the author failed.

                --Steve Bellovin
                [e-mail]

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

There are many such devices.  Being a Bell Labs employee, I'll first
mention an AT&T phone that plugs into a "RJ14" (I think that's the
number) jack, which is an ordinary RJ-11 with two lines, one on
red/green and the other on black/yellow.  It can talk on either line,
put either line on hold, or bridge the two for a "conference" call.  It
can also store two numbers, plus it has last-number redial.  Dunno what
it sells for; I've seen it in the employee discount catalog.  Other
companies make similar equipment; Radio Shack even sells a little box
that plugs into an RJ14 (maybe it's RJ13...) line, has any standard
phone plug into it, and lets you select either number.  I don't know what
it does about ring; the AT&T phone uses different chirps for the different
lines.

                --Steve Bellovin
                AT&T Bell Laboratories

        "These opinions are mine, not the company's, etc."

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #154
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 5 Feb 85 22:31:52 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Feb 85 17:11:00 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 154

Today's Topics:
                            multi-line telephones
                          XMODEM for Tops-10
                   equal access: data service query
                           Re: Equal access
                        Another nifty phone #
                          NW Bell secure PIN
            Re: What's Gerard K. O'Neil doing these days?
                          RE: AT&T Equipment
                     re: not paying AT&T rentals
             Re: What's Gerard K O'Neil doing these days?
      Push-button (not touch-tone) info needed -- Clarification
          Re: AT&T equipment rental (TELECOM Digest V4 #150)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:           Sun, 3 Feb 85 18:53:46 PST
From:           "Theodore N. Vail" <[e-mail]>
To:             [e-mail]
Subject:        multi-line telephones

There have been a number of comments regarding two-line telephones:
There are a number of manufacturers including AT&T, Panasonic, Uniden,
and the ubiquitous Radio Shack.  They provide a variety of features
including "hold" with "remote pick-up", two-line ringing, etc.  The
local stero-chain, Federated Electronics, is constantly advertising
them at (alleged) substantial discounts.

However, what do you do if you have THREE lines.  You can buy key-sets
(push-button telephones) and the associated equipment.  These are
intended for small businesses and I haven't seen any for less than about
$1200 (including three telephone instruments).

I have three lines (one is primarily a modem line), and in desperation
I have installed external ringers (mounted on the wall) and a two-pole,
three position rotary switch at each instrument.  (Please no flames
on violating FCC or PUC regulations -- it is at most technical for
individual wiring is permitted, indeed encouraged by my Telco General
Telephone, and a switch serves the same purpose as a plug-jack
combination (permitted) and is passive.)  Since my home is wired with
three pair wire (the old Gen-Tel standard) I used 6-wire RJ11 plugs to
connect the instruments to the line.

My installation is at best a "kludge".  Can anyone suggest anything
better which can be purchased at a reasonable price and is easy to
install.  I would like such features as lights to indicate that a line
is in use and a "hold" with "remote pick-up".

Would there be a market for a modern, inexpensive replacement for
key-sets using reasonable electronics and requiring only 4-wires?
Companies like Panasonic could undoubtedly make such devices for less
than the cost of a large color television set.

vail

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

Date: Sun, 3 Feb 85 22:11:30 EST
From: Dave Swindell <dswindel@bbn-labs-b>
Subject: XMODEM for Tops-10
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]

I am interested in locating a version of XMODEM for a DEC  10  running
TOPS  10  version  7.01.   Any  suggestions as to commercial or public
domain packages would be appreciated.

As I am not on your mailing lists, please respond directly to  my  computer
mail address.

Thanks!

Dave Swindell
BBN Laboratories
Mailbox: dswindell@bbn-unix



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

Date: Sun, 3 Feb 85 22:31:12 EST
From: Ed Frankenberry <[e-mail]>
Subject: equal access: data service query
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]

Equal access is coming to Cambridge, MA this spring.  Which long
distance services can handle modems?  Last time I checked (about
two years ago), the circuits from the competing long distance
carriers were so distorted or band-limited as to be unusable with
a 1200 baud modem (at least the 212A).  Will this situation change
with equal access?  Are the AT&T resellers any better?
        Thanks,
        Ed Frankenberry

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

Date: Sun 3 Feb 85 23:46:32-EST
From: Robert S. Lenoil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Equal access
To: [e-mail]

When equal access came to Boston, I called all the carriers to see
what they had to offer.  Of all the companies you mentioned as "best"
choices, I found SBS Skyline to be the most economical.  That is
because they have a very flat rate structure, as opposed to the
mileage system all other carriers use.  SBS has only two rates (though
I heard someone say three): to bordering states, and to everywhere
else.  Of course, there is a reason for this; SBS uses satellites, so
there's not much difference between calling next door and calling
California.  Using satellites also has its effect upon transmission
quality, as I've heard from some SBS users.  Additionally, SBS has a
$15/month minimum usage, which I found unacceptable.

The dubious quality, coupled with a $15/month minimum usage, led me to
choose ALLNET.  They're a reseller of AT&T trunks, so their voice
quality is excellent.  They do six second increment billing, which
saves you money, and their rates are among the cheapest. (USTel was
cheaper, but they're not available for equal access in Baltimore.  I
also found their customer service people to be unfriendly, and my
request for written information took weeks to arrive, causing me to
avoid signing up with them.)  One drawback is what Lauren referred to
in Telecom: they do not have call supervision, and therefore use a
time-limit to decide whether or not to bill a call.  I keep a log of
all my calls, however, and have received credit for those 1-minute
phone calls that I know the called party never answered.

*ONE CAVIAT* New England Telephone does ALLNET's billing here in
Boston, so I assume it's their fault, not ALLNET's; but for the past
two months, my ALLNET bill has been subtly screwed up.  Last month, I
was billed $4.99 for a 1-minute call from Boston to New York that
should have cost $.21.  Those of you who just pay their bills without
reviewing them, BE FOREWARNED - there may be inaccuracies.

Robert
-------

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

Date: Sun 3 Feb 85 23:54:35-EST
From: Robert S. Lenoil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another nifty phone #
To: [e-mail]

Last year in telecom, people were writing about the various ways to make
one's phone ring in.  While trying one of these methods I came upon a
neat new special phone number.  Dialing 980 in Back Bay, Boston causes
your phone line to go completely dead for approximately three minutes.
My guess is that this feature was designed so that one could ensure that
the phone wouldn't ring while he/she was working on it.  It's not a bad
feature, but it should require a full seven-digit phone number to
activate.  I wonder how many people have started to dial a phone number,
misdialed, and had their phones go dead before their disbelieving eyes?

Robert
-------

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

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 85 22:57:21 cst
To: telecom@Berkeley
Subject: NW Bell secure PIN
From: [e-mail]


In a recent TELECOM Digest there was a description of some of the methods
Pacific Bell suggests for hiding one's telephone card PIN.

Well, I just got a new card from Northwestern Bell which they are
calling "secure" since the PIN (which they call the personal security number)


is not imprinted on the plastic card.  They do, however, suggest that the
card holder "pencil in" the security number, and they even show a diagram of
where space is provided to do this.  Real smart, right?

                                        Roy Rubinstein

                                        csnet:   roy@iowa-state
                                        usenet:  ...umn-cs!isucs1!roy

"Anything before Wednesday noon is still Monday morning." - RSR



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

Date: Monday,  4 Feb 1985 05:27:04-PST
From: [e-mail]  (Steve McCrudden BSE-AD  264-7635 )
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What's Gerard K. O'Neil doing these days?

One of O'Neil's current ventures is GEOSTAR, as satellite based
navigation system.  O'Neil's company is located in Princeton, NJ.

An article describing the proposed system was published in the
September 1983 AOPA Pilot.  If you want a copy, please send me your
address (I have only hardcopy).

/Steve McCrudden

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 85 09:44 EST
From: William M. York <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: AT&T Equipment
To: rich@udel-eecis2, [e-mail]

    Date:     Thu, 31 Jan 85 18:00:20 EST
    From:     Anne Rich <rich@udel-eecis2>

    . . .
    I started to get bills from AT&T for two desk telephones they
    said I was renting. . . .  Then in November I got
    another bill, and a letter from AT&T stating that I was overdue
    on my previous bill.  . . .

    The moral:  Use MCI.

Your story is pretty horrifying, but I don't see how using MCI is going
to stop AA&T from sending you spurious bills!  You simply double your
chances of involvement in a "billing error" war.


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

Date:  4 Feb 1985 1052-PST
From: Richard M. King <[e-mail]>
Subject: re: not paying AT&T rentals
To: [e-mail]

        Companies are learning to use small claims court even for small
bills.  It can pay to do this even if it loses money in each case if you thin

        k
that suing one person at a cost of (say) $100 to recover $10 will induce 20
people to pay the ten dollars.  In the case of AT&T phone rentals I suspect
they don't fear the loss of good will, because to my knowledge there is no
other company offering to rent phones to individuals.

        What moral justification can a reader of this list, or anyone else
sophisticated enough to have worked out that this bill can go unpaid, come
up with?  Strikes me as being in the same class as walking into a restaurant,


having mad a congitive decision not to cook, and walking out without paying.

        I can't come up with an exact reference to the small claims court
remark, but it was in the Times about two years ago.  They were in turn
quoting some Law Review article.

                                                Dick
-------


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

Date: 3 Feb 85 23:52:45 PST (Sunday)
Subject: Re: What's Gerard K O'Neil doing these days?
To: , Ralph W. Hyre Jr. <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
From: Bruce Hamilton <[e-mail]>

You can write to Gerard K. O' Neil c/o

Space Studies Institue
285 Rosedale road, P.O. Box 82
Princeton, NJ  08540

The "worldwide communications system" you're probably thinking of is
really a navigation system called Geostar, which would consist of three
geosynchronous satellites (as opposed to the dozen or so satellites in
the DOD's Navstar program) and would let commercial users locate
themselves to within about 10 meters.  O' Neil has a company, but I
think he's still trying to round up clients before building the
satellites.  I think a recent "Electronics Week" mentions Geostar in
passing, in connection with how it ISN'T part of the FAA's rather
antiquated National Airspace Plan, or whatever it's called.

--Bruce

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

Date: 4 Feb 85 10:36:39 EDT (Mon)
From: Nathaniel Mishkin <apollo![e-mail]>
Subject: Push-button (not touch-tone) info needed -- Clarification
To: apollo![e-mail]

I just saw my original message and realized that I perhaps did not make
one thing clear:  the HOLD feature has to work in a way that lets you
HOLD at one phone and un-HOLD at another.  Many phones have a HOLD
feature which is really just a PAUSE feature -- i.e. you can't pick
up the phone somewhere else.  I'm interested only in equipment that
supports a real HOLD feature.

-------

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 85 07:19:17 pst
From: unisoft!pertec!rootcsh@Berkeley
To: Telecom@BBNCCA
Subject: Re: AT&T equipment rental (TELECOM Digest V4 #150)

> if people just
> generally waste-canned these AT&T bills, just what would (or could) AT&T
> DO about it?

They would probably send the special ring signal down your line which will
self-destruct your phone. :-)
--
        roger long
        pertec computer corp
        {ucbvax!unisoft | scgvaxd | trwrb | felix}!pertec!bytebug



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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************