Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss301-350

Text File | 1991-05-11 | 851.8 KB | 21,382 lines

Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16700;
          24 Apr 91 4:41 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11141;
          24 Apr 91 3:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07113;
          24 Apr 91 2:02 CDT
Date:     Wed, 24 Apr 91 1:56:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #301
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 Apr 91 01:56:10 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 301

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Dangers of Cellular Car Phones [Brandon S. Allbery]
    Re: Documentation Wanted on January '90 AT&T Outage [Bryan Richardson]
    Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Radio Reception on Telephone [R. Kevin Oberman]
    Re: US Answering Machine in Israel [Danny Padwa]
    Re: 900 Discussion on CNN [Ronald Greenberg]
    Restricting Telemarketers [Ronald Greenberg]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Mark Mortarotti]
    Re: US Answering Machine in Israel [David Lemson]
    Back On Line [Dave Leibold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Dangers of Cellular Car Phones
Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA" <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1991 23:45:11 GMT


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by Geoff Goodfellow
<[e-mail]>:

> reaction and came across this from a women on her car phone: "My name
> is Julia. Longtime listener. I'm very upset that you're canceling
> 'Perspectives' and I'm considering canceling my support. Please
> reinstate --," followed by the sound of squealing brakes, a crash,
> shattering glass, and Julia yelling "Oh s---, you've made me so mad I
> just rear-ended the f---er in front of me. Have to go now." Click.

Not so funny.  I've lost track of the number of times that idiots who were too
busy yakking on their cellphones to check for someone in the next lane over
have forced me off the road.


Me: Brandon S. Allbery          Ham: KB8JRR/AA on 10m,2m,220,440,1.2
Internet: [e-mail]           (restricted HF at present)
Delphi: ALLBERY             AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88]
uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery    KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH

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

From: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Documentation Wanted on January '90 AT&T Outage
Date: 23 Apr 91 01:31:06 GMT
Reply-To: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Purdue University


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail]
(Ronald T. Crocker) writes:

> There was some publications around the time of the incident indicating
> that the problem was a missing break statement in some C code in the
> 4ESS software.  It was indicated that the generic was installed in the
> offending office in December, was up and running with "no" problems
> for three weeks. I know more about this, but am bound by agreements to
> not disclose it.

This is basically correct at the most detailed level.  There were a
number of conditions which occurred in the network that day prior to
the exposure of the missing break statement, including hardware
failures.

> The immediate (kneejerk?) reaction by AT&T management was to insist on
> everyone at Bell Labs taking a course in C programming, and find a
> tool that would highlight missing break statements. Nothing like
> shooting the message carrier :->.--

As a member of the 4 ESS development team, I can concretely say that
this is an Urban Legend in the making.  There are always efforts to
improve product quality, and these naturally are intensified after
incidents such as these.  However, there was no mass mandatory
enrollment in C programming courses, at least as of this writing :).


Bryan Richardson     [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University
Disclaimer:  Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions.

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs
Date: 23 Apr 91 17:29:58 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Steven S. Brack) writes...

> (1) What will Caller*ID show as my number?
> (2) What does E911 get as my number?
> (3) What would an Ohio Bell trace show as my number?

In general, if you are behind a PBX, then the public network knows
only about the PBX trunk or group you're on.  In some cases the trunk
will return a hunt pilot, in others its own number, depending upon how
it's set up.  But none of the above three services can know your
extension number, even though it can be dialed directly.  Extension
info is passed from the CO to PBX on incoming calls (DID service)
only.

On Centrex, it would show the number for your extension.

Story behind the story: Back in the olden days (when steppers were
used), the telco used to provide two kinds of Centrex.  Centrex-CO
used CO switches; that's what we have today.  Centrex-CU put a switch
(usually a Bell 701 stepper!) on customer premises and delivered a
similar service. (Generally you paid about a quarter/month/phone less
for -CU, essentially as compensation for the switchroom space.)

Centrex-CU did deliver your extension number for billing purposes,
911, etc.  (If they had 911 back then!)  This was done via a data link
from the switch to the CO, reporting which extension had seized which
trunk.

When the stepper went away, this service was made available to newer
PBX users, under the name "Automatic Identified Outward Dialing"
(AIOD).  Many PBXs of the day, such as Dimension, supported it.  BUT
it was frightfully expensive, something like $3/month/extension.
Since it didn't bill for WATS or FX, few customers found it useful.

When 1983 came (when the FCC ordered all PBXs detariffed; this had
noth ing to do with divestiture!), the last few remaining Centrex-CU
systems were handed over to AT&T and repriced as PBXs.  The
previously-bundled trunks, including both DID and AIOD, went under
telco tariffs.  The total price went WAY up.

I'm not sure if modern PBXs even support AIOD.  The telcos priced it
out of the market.  ISDN, on the other hand, includes the capability,
so it may make a comeback.  (If they don't charge for it. They have no
justification to charge, since it's built in to the protocol.)  AIOD
would make caller*ID behave in the expected fashion.


Fred R. Goldstein              Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA
[e-mail]   voice: [phone]
 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let
 alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Radio Reception on Telephone
Date: 23 Apr 91 14:54:09 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(H. Peter Anvin) writes:

> Well, a "choke" is a fairly simple device consisting mainly of
> capacitors and inductors and the purpouse of which is to short out the
> RF radiation before it gets detected in your phone.  It can be
> effective sometimes, and totally worthless at times.

Well, a "choke" is not "a fairly simple device consisting mainly of
capacitors and inductors". That's a filter, also commonly called a
trap. A choke is simply an inductor which is, in turn, simply a coil.
Coils work because they present an impedence which increases with
frequency. And you want to block RFI while allowing in audio. I'm not
familiar with the impedences in telephones, but I suspect that a 10 mH
inductor should do the trick. It would present a 63 K impedence at 1
MHz.

Frankly a little PI filter made of two chokes and a capacitor would
work better, but just a choke will probably do the job.


R. Kevin Oberman            Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: [e-mail]        [phone]

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything. Especially
anything gnu.

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

From: Danny Padwa <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Answering Machine in Israel
Date: 23 Apr 91 15:04:43 EDT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Joel Spolsky) writes:

> Does anybody know if an American answering machine will work in
> Israel?

I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure it will work ... while I didn't
quite have my own phone line when I was there last year, many of my
friends brought phones (and answering machines, and all sorts of other
things) with them, and didn't have much problem.

You will need a converter for the power, of course, and a little gizmo
to bridge the phone connectors ... if memory serves correctly the box
just connects the wires (perhaps with some impedance matching) and is
very easily available there.

Be careful about the import duties on electronics, however.


Danny Padwa   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 16:10:30 -0400
From: Ronald Greenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Discussion on CNN
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park


In article <[e-mail]>:

> He said that the FCC had proposed a plan with two major goals:

> 1) Require every 900 number to air a "preamble" including three things;
> a brief discription of the nature of the service, a clear statement of
> the cost or charges involved, and the opportunity to hang up without
> incurring any charges.

> 2) Require all telcos to provide free blocking to any customer on
> request, and make parents of children who make calls to 900 numbers
> not liable for the charges.

The plan also includes a provision that the telco cannot cut off
ordinary service for failure to pay 900 charges.

They also ask for comment on whether their proposals should only apply
to 900 numbers or should apply to any number that has extra charges
for calling it.  (There are certain local exchanges like this, e.g.
976 in DC, and I think 700 numbers, and apparently there is nothing to
stop the telcos from giving 800 numbers to things that are not free in
every way.)  Unfortunately, as the plan is written now, it just
applies to 900 numbers.  Also, I'm pretty sure the FCC is only able to
place restrictions on interstate calls.

I found out all this when I called the FCC to complain about getting
phone calls from machines asking me to call 900 numbers (and other
telemarketing calls) and they sent me a copy of their proposal on 900
numbers.  They say they are considering some other sorts of regulation
on telemarketing calls, but again it would only apply to interstate
calls, and they haven't actually decided to do anything so far.

It would be nice if one could get copies of FCC proposals on-line.
Also, I'm not really sure how members of the public are supposed to
express their comments.  There is some information about making
comments in the material they sent me, but it seems to involve some
annoying bureaucratic requirements, and they use some legal terms I'm
not familiar with.  I may try to get more information out of them on
the phone some time, in which case I will post anything interesting
that I learn, but if somebody already knows something, I'd be
interested in hearing.


Ron Greenberg    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 16:10:30 -0400
From: Ronald Greenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Restricting Telemarketers
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park


I did a little more research on the question of restricting
telemarketers.

On the local end, there is a bill pending in the DC city council to
prohibit use of automated dialing machines for soliciting people
without a preexisting relationship.  (There may be some exceptions,
e.g., for charitable organizations; I think the bill is modeled on the
MD law.)  I was told by a staffer that the bill is expected to pass,
and I told them I would like to see it extended to calls by humans,
but I don't have any expectation of that happening soon.

Unfortunately, I think these state (or district) bills are limited to
intrastate calls.  I also talked to somebody at the Public Service
Commission for DC in the hope that they could do something, especially
in the case of the telephone company making telemarketing calls.  He
said that the corresponding commission in PA tried to stop the telco
from telemarketing, and the courts said they couldn't do it.  But he
couldn't tell me why.  I presume it's because it applied only to the
telco or because it was done by regulation instead of legislation,
since there is restrictive legislation in Florida (and CA?), and it's
being considered elsewhere.

I also learned from somebody at the FCC that there is proposed
legislation in the US Congress to put some kind of limitations on
telemarketing, but I haven't yet gotten details.  I was pointed to
Congressman Markey's office.  I think that's because he runs the
correct committee rather than because he proposed the legislation.
 From there I was pointed to somebody named John Kinney, who I believe
is a member of the committee staff.  I haven't yet managed to talk to
him to get details about the bill.  If and when I learn more, I'll
post.


Ron Greenberg    [e-mail]

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

From: Mark Mortarotti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Date: 19 Apr 91 16:08:42 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino


I think the point here is that the Phone Company may own my phone number
by not my life. I own my address, and my name. If the phone company wants
to publish my number, go ahead. If any one wants to use my name, or address,
" P A Y   M E "!!!

We have been forced over the years to comply what is currently done. I
pay a fee to the telephone company to keep my number unlisted. I just
realized I can avoid the fee altogether by letting the phone company
just print my telephone number, not my name, and not my address. Then
any person who whats to use the phone book for wall paper may, and I
will not object.


Just a thought,

Mark

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Answering Machine in Israel
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1991 15:04:03 GMT


[e-mail] (Joel Spolsky) writes:

> Does anybody know if an American answering machine will work in
> Israel?

Yes. They work fine.  Remember that the power transformer cube will be
a 120V one but you'll either need to devote a step-down transformer
(one of the 100W ones that puts out a sine wave, not the solid-state
ones) or buy a 220V -> whatever voltage the answering machine needs.
(Probably be easier to buy it over there or in Europe.)

Remember that almost no phones in Israel have Touch-Tone (tm), though.
So, don't expect to be able to use beeperless remote unless you buy a
small DTMF pad at Radio Shack (which is exactly what I did) and bring
it with you.


David Lemson   University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant
Internet : [e-mail]         UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson

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

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 91 17:50:00 PST
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Back On Line
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Greetings from Florida, where things are settling down after the move.
Please note that [e-mail] (woody) will no longer be home;
rather, the new [e-mail] (real name!) is now in effect.
So, too, is the modem line at [phone] (only up to 2400 baud at
present, apologies to those fans of the newly-official V.* standards
modems). It's an MCI default carrier line, for those familiar with the
new Friends and Family program. (MCI was chosen largely on the
strength of a good US-Canada calling plan).

Caller-ID is now approved by Florida PSC for Southern Bell; everyone
can block their ID for free, though. I saw 1st July as a start-up
date; Call Screening is already being marketed.

More on the sunny south, carriers, COCOTs, local service installation
and other stuff later ...


|| David Leibold   [e-mail]   IMEX 89:480/126
|| The Super Continental BBS  + 1 407 731.0388 (300/1200/2400)

        Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1
        [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #301
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19192;
          24 Apr 91 5:57 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18171;
          24 Apr 91 4:11 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11141;
          24 Apr 91 3:07 CDT
Date:     Wed, 24 Apr 91 2:48:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #302
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 Apr 91 02:48:21 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 302

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturers [M. Dorrian]
    Experimenting With AT&T's Account Management Service [Michael Dorrian]
    New MCI Sleaze or Just a Mistake? [Matt L. Armstrong]
    NJ Bell Selling Mailing List? [Phillip M. Vogel]
    London Numbers (was: Dublin Number Expansion) [David Heale]
    Compiling a List of Interesting Audio Response Systems [Robert Virzi]
    Pay Phones [David Esan]
    Posted Sign at Payphone [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 01:28 GMT
From: Michael Dorrian <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturers


Larry Lippman wonders about the status of COMDIAL, the old Stromberg
Carlson entity ....

Comdial is still alive and kicking in Charlottesville, VA., operating
under the same name.

As far as I know, Comdial remains the only US manufacturer of
telephones (local content - AT&T's phones are assembled in the US from
Asian manufactured components).  This offers quite a niche on sales to
the US government.

Their products are often used as key system behind PBX or Centrex.

I recollect that they won an anti-dumping suit (filed jointly with
AT&T) against the Asian manufacturers. Uncertain of current status.

Pacific Telecom (no - not PACBELL!) held a 45% interest at one point.
Comdial trades Over The Counter and were in pretty tight straits two
or three years ago.

Recent {Washington Post} Virginia 30 had them at $80M in sales with 1K
employees.


Michael Dorrian     The RTP Group Mid Atlantic    Voice: 703-243-6000

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 01:28 GMT
From: Michael Dorrian <[e-mail]>
Subject: Experimenting with AT&T's Account Management (Call Manager Service)


Last month I tested the use of Call Manager on my non-ATT
presubscribed business line.  On my C&P bill this month I received a
breakout of the call by the account code I used as well as a summary
sheet listing the number of calls, minutes and charges by account
code.

I had forgotten to write in about during the moderator's absence (good
to have you back Pat!) until I got a call today from my local AT&T
rep.  Since I haven't used AT&T as my principal carrier since 1982 I
was somewhat surprised, especially when she offered to stop by and
review my service needs.

I asked her what her records showed.  " A $.21 call im March " she
said.

Aha! It appears that I was the only user of Call Manager that was
billed by C&P instead of AT&T.  The all-knowing billing computer had
kicked my record out as an exception report and someone actually
followed up on it. I was impressed!

I explained to the rep that I was part of a secret cabal probing the
... er rather that I was part of an International users group testing
the feature functions of various Long Distance vendors.

The rep is still going to come by my office and discuss whatever other
undocumented features there are she can offer her accounts and to try
to sell me AT&T service. I'll even listen.

Question: A previous poster (whose name I lost) stated that he used
10XXX access Reach Out World while not having AT&T as his primary
carrier.  Was it billed by the local phone company or AT&T?


Michael Dorrian     The RTP Group Mid Atlantic    Voice: 703-243-6000


[Moderator's Note: Interesting you mention this. I also tried the Call
Manager service last month on a lark, to see what would happen. My
bill from Illinois Bell arrived today, and a couple of the calls are
identified by account code, along with a little summary at the bottom
of the page.  And even though they were zero plus calls with special
billing involved, they were still treated under my Reach Out America
and Reach Out World plans, with appropriate discounts, etc.  So far
no one has called me to discuss my requirements however. But
apparently there is no need to sign up in advance to use the service.
Just entering 0 + ten digits + 15xx sets it up.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 12:07:02 MDT
From: "Matt L. Armstrong" <edsr!tantalum![e-mail]>
Subject: New MCI Sleaze or Just a Mistake?


Over the weekend, I was going through some mail that I'd missed seeing
earlier in the week and ran across an envelope from MCI which
contained "important information about your new MCI service." Curious,
I opened it up and read,

Dear Valued MCI Customer;

Thank you for upgrading to MCI PrimeTime(sm) plus Personal 800(sm)
Service, MCI's newest and most innovative advance in long distance
service.

With PrimteTime plus Personal 800 Service, you get MCI's excellent
savings on all your long distance calls.  *To your* house.  And
*from* your house.

Surprised and cursing, I ran to the phone to check my 1+ carrier.
Still AT&T.  Ok, so what's the deal?  There's an 800 Service
Confirmation Notice inside that lists my address, an 800 number, my
"Private Security Code," and my home phone number as being the number
that the 800 number will connect to.  The literature seems to imply
that I have selected MCI as my 1+ carrier and have signed onto their
long-distance savings plan.  I have no recollection of having asked
for such a thing.

Unless one of my housemates has foolishly allowed an MCI rep to switch
us (he's been pretty good about not impersonating me lately ...), my
guess as to the explanation is this: MCI has sent this note hoping to
get me (aka J. Random Citizen) to switch to their service by tempting
me with the prestige of having my own 800 number which has,
conveniently enough, already been established.

Since no one can use my 800 number without the security code, anyone
using this 800 number has to have been given the code by me.  If I've
given out the code, it implies that I have agreed to use the 800
number as mine and to use MCI as my 1+ carrier.

Does this sound correct?  Have I been slimed?

They were thoughtful enough to provide cards to write my number and SC
on to hand out to all my friends and relatives, and even better, my
mom can call me for free on Mother's Day by using my number.  (And you
know, those long distance rates from seven miles away can really add up
out here ...)

Curious question: Is this number by any chance used by more than one
customer such that MCI uses the "security code" to differentiate
between destination numbers, or is MCI just filling up 800 number
space?


Matt Armstrong - [e-mail]   ...uunet!tantalum.uucp!bonzo

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

From: "Phillip M. Vogel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NJ Bell Selling Mailing List?
Date: 23 Apr 91 03:36:15 GMT
Organization: Bartal Design Group, Inc.


Imagine my surprise when I got a mailing from AT&T inviting me to
change my long distance service.  Well, this would be expected (but
still not acceptable), except that there was a pre filled out card
with two of my phone numbers on it. Both of these numbers are
"unpublished", and have never been serviced by AT&T.

Where did AT&T get my numbers?  The only explanation I can come up
with is that NJ Bell sold it to them. By the way, one of the numbers
is serviced by Sprint, and the other by MCI.

I intend to call NJ Bell and register a complaint, but I don't expect
to get very far.

I really take exception to the fact that they charge me monthly for
having an unpublished number (in this case two), and then charge other
people for calling directory assistance to get the numbers, and on top
of all that, they'll give the numbers to anyone with caller id, and if
that wasn't enough (and don't you think it oughta be?), they turn
around and sell my precious private numbers to a mass marketer. Give
me a break, please.

Does anybody have any information that may be useful to me in what
promises to be a long battle with the phone company?  I just can't see
letting this slide, but I'm not sure how to proceed.


Phil unhappy-in-NJ Vogel

Phillip M. Vogel, President             | #include "/disclaimers/std.h"
Bartal Design Group, Inc.               | Domain: [e-mail]
318 Marlboro Road, Englewood, NJ 07631  | [phone]   FAX:[phone]


[Moderator's Note: The fact that your numbers are non-pub has no
relevance in this case. The local telco is required, by the terms of
the MFJ, to share billing information with the various long distance
carriers. If you made *any* call on AT&T (are you positive you have
never done so after divestiture but prior to electing your carrier of
choice?)  then AT&T is entitled to have the name and address which
goes with the number.  Another explanation is that if your local telco
does the billing for AT&T, then AT&T may have paid the local telco to
do a mass mailing for them based on telco's records ... with AT&T not
actually knowing who got the mailing unless/until you respond.   PAT]

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

Subject: London Numbers (was: Dublin Number Expansion)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 10:07:12 BST
From: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tim
Oldham) writes:

> > I believe the reason BT didn't choose the "017 & 018" option is that
> > they preferred to keep the entire "01..." sequence clear for as yet
> > unspecified future use.

> I believe (and I don't speak for my employer on this) that as 01 is
> already the international dialling sequence (eg the USA is 0101), 017
> and 018 were out of the question, or just plain confusing.

   I understand that the reason for not wanting to re-use 01 was so
the new numbers were distinct from the old ones. This allowed the new
numbers to be introduced before the official change-over and the old
ones to be detected and a message given after the change without
needing to use timeouts. Another reason for not using 017 and 018
would be that that all National Number Groups (the real area codes)
that contain a 1 have this as the last digit and BT seem to be
gradually phasing out the subdivision of NNGs into more than 1 area
code.  Thus if the new numbers started 01 it would probably entail
increasing the length of the local number to eight digits and keeping
01 as the code.

And John Slater writes:

> However it's worth pointing out that there is a proposal to
> standardise the international access code throughout the world. I
> believe "00" is proposed, as this is used in quite a few countries
> already. Germany springs to mind. This would fit in with both US and
> UK systems without conflict. (Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong! :-)

    I think this is a European rather that world wide standard. It
would conflict with some current numbers in the UK, eg 005 is used for
some local premium rate services and and 003 used for BTs non-cellular
mobile telephones. I have read that these are both temporary
allocations and would be withdrawn at some stage to free 00 for IDD.
There used to be a code 0001 for Dublin which could be used before IDD
was available to Ireland and continued to be listed with 010 353 ...
for the rest of Ireland, however it seems to have been replaced on the
latest list I have seen so it may have been withdrawn.


David Heale ([e-mail])

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

From: Robert Virzi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Compiling a List of Interesting Audio Response Systems
Date: 23 Apr 91 14:50:08 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories Incorporated, Waltham MA


Telecommers:

A while back in comp.dcom.telecom we had a series of postings with
phone numbers of interesting audio response systems -- numbers that
you call to hear canned information on a variety of topics played back
to you.

I think it's time to update the list, as these new services seem to
pop up (and ocassionaly disappear) at a rapid rate.  Some of them are
actually quite useful, while others are not.  I have general info
lines in mind, not specific services like those tailored to the
shareholders of a particular mutual fund.

Below are some of the numbers I know of.  I would be willing to
collect numbers by e-mail, which I will summarize and post.  I think
this method will conserve some net bandwidth and provide a compact
listing for those interested.

Although not necessarily excluded, I am generally less interested in
900-numbers.  The reasons should be obvious.


Bob Virzi   [e-mail]


Number        Description
======        ===========
617.333.FILM  Film reviews & local theater times keyed to zip code.
              Try zip codes 02054 and 02142 for examples.  This is a
              fairly unique service and one that I might actually pay
              for if they didn't give it away free.

617.258.8671  Boston area directions.  Enter two street addresses and
              get amazingly detailed directions.  I think this is an
              MIT project, uses synthetic speech.

206.464.2000  Seattle Times info line.  Subsidized by commercials.  Has
              lots of info categories (like the next two) but unusual
              in its support of 15 min delayed stock quotes on line 9800.
              Enter ticker symbols in the form 41,81,32* for GTE.

808.296.1818  GTE Directories ON CALL service.  Some interesting lines
              like surf reports (this is in Hawaii).  Other topics include
              TV listings, news, sports, weather, and a unique report on
              the activities of the armed services.

214.621.2200  Another version of ON CALL, customized for local area.
              ON CALL promises to be getting stock quotes like the
              Seattle Times number in the near future.  Some games on
              this service (e.g., telephone golf).

908.236.7000  United Telephone in NJ has (had) a similar to service to
              the three above, but the user interface was done particularly
              well.  These systems are flaky, what with trying to pick
              off DTMF during message playing, and their system used some
              tricks to make the technology *seem* better, if not actually
              making it *work* better.

602.753.9009  Kingman, Bullhead City, and Lake Havasu City and other areas
              around Mohave County have their own version of telephone
              information lines called TeleTips.  It has more static infor-
              mation like how to do taxes and golf tips.

900.xxx.xxxx  USA today provides the stock quote service provided by the
              Seattle Times but for a charge.  One improvement they have
              made is a greatly expanded list of company names that includes
              common names.  So AT&T can be entered ATT, not the cryptic T
              (the ticker symbol) required by the Times.  The number appears
              in the business section of the paper along with instructions.

900.454.4BUD  Provided by Budweiser, they let you call in and listen to a
              song from a selected list of bands playing in NYC.  I have
              not called this number.

900.HOT.DISC  Lets you preview first 30 seconds of each song on a short
              list of albums (er, CDs).  You can switch over to a live
              operator to place an order.

900.454.3277  Another music preview service specializing in music of off
              beat, hard to find bands.  It has something like 500 bands
              online, and you need the codes to get to specific bands.  Costs
              a buck a minute and they cut you off after 15 minutes, or so
              I am told.

If you have additions to this list, please include the complete
number, a short description, and charges, if you know them, and send
me email at the address below.  Thanks.

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

From: David Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Pay Phones
Date: 23 Apr 91 15:39:02 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


I noted in a small article in our local small paper, the {Rochester,
NY Times-Union} that AT&T is going to test market pre-paid cards for
their payphones.  These tests will be made in large international
airports, particularly JFK in NYC.  Cost will be $4.75 for a card that
will provide $5 worth of calling.


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 3:00:04 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Posted Sign at Payphone


In the rest area on northbound I-83 in York County, PA (just across
the state line from Maryland -- actually about a mile at least), is a
pay phone on the 717-235 Glen Rock exchange.  That phone has a sign
posted just to the left saying "MCI 22#" and instructions reading
something like this: "You may punch the code if you have an account
with the carrier.  Listen for new dial tone and instructions.  You may
need to deposit coin."

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #302
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20932;
          25 Apr 91 4:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04447;
          25 Apr 91 2:31 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22006;
          25 Apr 91 1:21 CDT
Date:     Thu, 25 Apr 91 1:07:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #304
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Apr 91 01:07:28 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 304

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cracking Down on Auto-Dialing Telemarketers [Observer, via Don Kimberlin]
    North Georgia to Get NPA 706 [Bill Berbenich]
    Sprint Raises 800 Monthly Fee [Steve Elias]
    Decrease in University Long Distance Telephone Rates [Andrew Hastings]
    Racine and Things ... [Ninja Master]
    A Part-Time Job for John Higdon (Seriously! A Help Wanted Ad) [Carl Wright]
    Pac Bell Billing Disk [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: 'Dumb' PBX Wanted [Vance Shipley]
    Help Wanted Obtaining New Service From Indiana Bell [Doctor Math]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Michael H. Riddle]
    Re: Voice Recognition Telephones and Security [David Gast]
    Re: A Very Sophisticated ACD From Dytel [John M. O'Shaughnessy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 05:32 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cracking Down on Auto-Dialing Telemarketers


     Numerous posts in the Digest have addressed several aspects of
telemarketing sleaze.  Not the least of these has been the auto-dialing
type.  The following story, a bit belatedly reproduced here, tells how
North Carolina has taken some steps to just plain shut them down.
From the <Charlotte Observer> (called by some the "Disturber", April
13, 1991, page D-1:

                 "N.C. TO CRACK DOWN ON AUTO-DIALER CALLS

     "RALEIGH - The state is cracking down on the illegal use of
telephone auto-dialers after numerous compalints about the machinYs,
Attorney General Lacy Thornburg said Friday." (4/12)

     "`It's time to stop illegal intrusions into our family lives and
businesses,' said Thornburg.

     "The machines automatically dial telephone numbers and play a
recorded message when phones are answered.  They are typically used to
market goods and services or to entice telephone users to makes costly
calls to 1-900 numbers.

     "Under N.C. law it is a misdemeanor to use auto-dialers to market
goods and services for profit.  Exceptions are made for civic,
charitable and political organizations, for media polls and for use of
auto-dailers with a live operator who must first ask permission before
playing the recorded message.

     "Thornburg said his office had received complaints from businesses
and state agencies, whose phone lines have been overwhelmed by
auto-dialer calls."

 ...The article, of course written and printed in a newspaper, does not
indicate if N.C. law includes the exemption for newspapers found in
other states.  It would be interesting to see if they tried to call
their telemarketing sleaze "media polls" so they could operate in the
manner of John Higdon's favorite sleazoid, his <San Jose Mercury>.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: North Georgia to Get NPA 706
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 13:47:04 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I heard on the radio during lunch that Northern Georgia is to get
NPA 706 in (May?) 1992.  Metropolitan Atlanta is to remain in NPA
404.


Bill Berbenich   Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill   Internet: [e-mail]

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

Subject: Sprint Raises 800 Monthly Fee
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 11:01:10 MDT
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


US Sprint has raised their monthly charge for 800 numbers to $15 from
$10.


eli

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

From: Andrew Hastings <[e-mail]>
Subject: Decrease in University Long Distance Telephone Rates
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 21:16:50 GMT


[Copied from Cursor, Academic Services Newsletter, Carnegie Mellon
University, April, 1991.  What seems odd to me is that the rates
charged back to departments appear to have been decreased across the
board, although the article implies that the rates charged by Sprint
are lower only on calls to participating institutions.  Can anyone
give more details about how Sprint's VPN really works?

Andrew Hastings        [e-mail]            412/268-8734]


   From: Mary L. Pretz-Lawson,
   Telecommunications

Telecommunications recently installed US Sprint as Carnegie Mellon's
main long distance carrier on all of our administrative lines.
(Student lines still use AT&T.)  Sprint is now our first choice,
lowest cost carrier for all of our outgoing domestic US traffic.

In addition, we are now part of a Sprint virtual private network (VPN)
of universities that includes Stanford, Yale, University of
Pennsylvania, Georgia Tech, and others.  A virtual network is a long
distance service provided through public switched facilities, but
configured via software to resemble a private network.  Our university
VPN defines all of the participating institutions as a single
"corporate" network.

The result is very competitive long distance rates by capitalizing on
the large volume of inter-university calling.  Accordingly, we
decreased the university long distance rates by about 15 percent
effective February 1.  Business day rates are now $.20 per minute and
non-business day rates decreased to $.14 per minute for interstate
calling.

Benefits of the Sprint VPN go beyond our long distance voice telephone
calls.  Since Sprint's network is based on 100% digital, fiber optic
technology, it can handle voice, data, and video simultaneously.
Specifically, the VPN 56 feature can transmit data at 56 kilobits per
second and extend applications such as local area nework (LAN)
connectivity to participating universities.

If your department needs switched data service or private lines to
other educational institutions, you may be able to reduce your costs
by moving to this VPN service for data, too.  Contact
Telecommunications (extension XXXX, yyy@zzz) to find out if schools
you connect to for data are part of the VPN network.

The change to US Sprint should have been transparent to you.  However,
if you experience any difficulty with making long distance calls,
please notify the Carnegie Mellon operator by dialing "0."  Give the
operator the time the call was made, the calling and called numbers,
and the nature of the problem.  The sooner you provide this
information to use, the better able we are to trace the problem.

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

From: Ninja Master <[e-mail]>
Subject: Racine and Things ...
Date: 24 Apr 91 22:54:31 GMT
Organization: The Hellfire Club


Just to clear something up, that switching system talked about in
Racine, WI (I believe it was an April 12th post), went down because of
a leak in the roof.  It shorted out the entire system.  WiBell and
other BOC's have taken note of this, and will be correcting this
design flaw in future buildings.

Question ...

With ANI's, how different will they be with the new POTS CLID hookup,
and those generally used with Corps, etc ... are they essentially
the same thing?  Is there a different software/physical hookup, or
what?

Thanks.

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Part-Time Job for John Higdon (Seriously! A Help Wanted Ad)
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1991 03:03:58 GMT


My apologies to John, but he hates COCOTS so much that this applies.

My latest issue of <On The Line> from the California Payphone
Association has the following advertisement:

TECHNICIANS NEEDED FOR ENFORCEMENT TESTING THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA

* Each visit will be paid.
* The average inspection takes 20 minutes.
* Visits can be worked into the daily schedule.

CALL 415-614-7607.

Also present is an article which I quote:

ENFORCEMENT TEST TO EXPAND TECHNICIANS SOUGHT THROUGHOUT STATE

Enforcement testing will be expanded shortly throughout California.
Technicians from all over the state are needed to help carry out the
testing.  Each visit takes about 20 minutes, and can be worked into
the regular daily schedule. CPA (California Payphone Association) will
pay for each technician visit. If you are interested in participating,
please call Pam Stamer at 415-614-7607.

CPA expanded its program of enforcement testing into the LA area in
January. In the Bay Area test region the problems are primarily
incomplete signage. In LA, CPA technicians are finding much more
overcharging for local calls, blocking, and not allowing free access.
As in the northern part of the state, vendors found not in compliance
are given notice to correct the tariff violation by a certain date to
avoid disconnection.

Vendors are receiving the test positively. Most recognize the value of
running phones well and being in compliance.

<End quote>

[Personal note: Almost no one thinks of themselves as the bad guys. WE
all have reasons. I'm glad to see the side where the COCOTS are good
along with the side where they are bad.

It's an interesting newsletter. It lists all the names and phone
numbers of the member payphone operators. I get it free. I don't know
why.  I must have gotten on the right list.]


Carl Wright                     | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]        | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST       | Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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

Subject: Pac Bell Billing Disk
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 19:55:03 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


According to a small article in this months Compuserve magazine, Pac
Bell is now offering billing via floppy disk. There is a one time $100
charge for the analysis software, followed by a $15/month charge per
disk.

Details are available at [phone] or the local Pac Bell office.


Ken Jongsma                   [e-mail]
Smiths Industries             [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan        ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 'Dumb' PBX Wanted
Organization: SwitchView
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 00:55:30 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Larry Rachman) writes:

> Does anyone out there know of a 'dumb' pbx product. By that I mean a
> box that would connect between a group of stations and a group of
> trunks, and switch calls between them, but not under its own control.

Redcom makes a product that does exactly that.  It is called the MPX.


Vance Shipley  vances@ltg   ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!ltg!vances

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

From: Doctor Math <moocow![e-mail]>
Subject: Help Wanted Obtaining New Service From Indiana Bell
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 15:11:27 PDT
Organization: Brown Cow Software (a licensed Waffle developer)


I live in Indiana Bell territory and all my residential phone lines
are served by a #5ESS.  The only "feature" available is Call-Waiting
(sm). I would rather have forward-on-busy instead, but my Bell
"doesn't offer that service".  Further questioning reveals that there
is no scheduled cutover date for CLASS services, and that the only
feature they intend to add in the foreseeable future is some sort of
remotely-programmable call forwarding (in addition to the ordinary
style of call forwarding).  I'm served by a switch capable of
forward-on-busy, and for all I know, the software may already be
loaded into the switch.  How can I make them give me what I want?
(Yes, I'm aware that I can't very well "make them" do anything, but
considering that I had supposedly unmixable service types for several
months -- measured and unmeasured lines in the same house -- I'm
betting there might just be a way to get what I want.)

Thanks in advance to anyone who can give me some advice.

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

From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 19:53:50 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark
Mortarotti) writes:

> I think the point here is that the Phone Company may own my phone number
> by not my life. I own my address, and my name. If the phone company wants
> to publish my number, go ahead. If any one wants to use my name, or address,
> " P A Y   M E "!!!

If we're really still on the subject of the Court decision, having
read it I can say that the issue was much more narrow.  It was stricly
one of copyright law and compilation.

Much of the discussion here, valuable as it has been, was about public
policy and phone numbers.  For the purposes of copyrighting white
pages, however, the subject is substantially narrower, and that was
the basis of the Court decision.


            <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
[e-mail]                  |   University of Nebraska
[e-mail]   |   College of Law
[e-mail]  |   Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 19:45:31 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Recognition Telephones and Security


Re my comments about how a voice recognition facility by the phone
company would further reduce our privacy by tracking every phone call
we make and to whom we make it.

[e-mail] said:

> This can already be done: Make a cash withdrawal from an ATM; the bank
> now knows where you are. Place a calling card call from a payphone;
> the phone company now knows who you called, and where you are. Walk
> into a moderately sized department store, and video cameras will track
> you're every move. Getting paranoid already? :-)

These examples are true, but having a record of every single phone
call we make would be worse than knowing that once per week a cash
withdrawal was made by someone with my ATM card or that someone
unnamed walked into the store.  Additionally, I can pay cash for my
phone calls and the phone does not know who made the call (under most
circumstances), if voice recognition is on, then they would know
(unless I disguise my voice with some type of electronic device that
might also change words et al).

And the Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: And what, pray tell, is the difference between this
> and sending someone a written letter who then forges my handwriting
> and signs off on some fraudulent documents for me?  Maybe we should
> stop allowing handwritten communication between people (or individuals
> and companies) before this 'existing security hole' gets worse. How
> inconvenient do you want things to be just to accomodate your fears
> about 'what might happen'?    PAT]

I think there are several differences.  I hear Bush'es voice almost
every night on the news.  I could record his voice and then easily
impersonate him.  It would be more difficult, but not impossible, for
me to send out letters on his official stationary with his signature
on them.  It would be easy for someone to call up my bank and say this
account 12345 and the last four digits of my SSN are 1234, please send
a cashier's check to the ABC Company for $1000.  It is harder for that
individual to do the above through the mail.  It is even more difficult
for the individual if the bank confirms the proposed transaction with
me before doing it.

Additionally, I have heard many complaints about phreaks from you.
Why give them another toy that won't do me any good?  I don't consider
the proposed system convenience.  We must pay more attention to
security, not less.  If I want an eight digit PIN for my phone card or
my ATM card, I should be able to get it.  If I want to limit myself to
$100 per day withdrawals, I should be able to.  Is it convenience that
I am only allowed to get a four digit PIN that is typically chosen for
me and is publically available information like the last four digits
of my zip code?

You can bet that if a bank, for example, got on the internet, I would
not under any circumstances want them to accept any instructions that
came through the internet, it is just too easy to impersonate others.
On the other hand, I am not so paranoid that I refuse to have an
account on the internet.


David

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

From: "John M. O'Shaughnessy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Very Sophisticated ACD From Dytel
Date: 23 Apr 91 17:42:13 GMT
Organization: Open Systems Architects, Inc., Mpls, MN


We installed a Dytel box at the Roach Organization when I worked there
and helped them move into a new buidling.  It's very impressive, and
we needed good flowcharts to help us keep up with all the options.


John M. O'Shaughnessy            [e-mail]
Open Systems Architects, Inc.    Minneapolis, MN

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #304
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20940;
          25 Apr 91 4:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04447;
          25 Apr 91 2:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22006;
          25 Apr 91 1:20 CDT
Date:     Thu, 25 Apr 91 0:31:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #303
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Apr 91 00:30:52 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 303

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    NXX Count  4-15-91 [David Esan]
    New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Winston Lawrence]
    Live DJ for Music-on-Hold [John Nagle]
    Prodigy Questions [Arnette P. Baker]
    Battery Discharger Needed [Peter Hayward]
    X-Trace Programs / Sources [Henk van de Ven]
    A New Digest Reader's Introduction [Leroy Casterline]
    Help Needed Understanding ISDN [William Robert Kent Cousert]
    Preventing 900 Call Abuse [Kath Mullholand]
    Prelude Phone Documentation Needed [Kath Mullholand]
    Area Code List Wanted [David Appell]
    212-516 in Use in 1986 [Carl Moore]
    Decreasing Costs of Transmission [James Borynec]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: NXX Count  4-15-91
Date: 23 Apr 91 15:40:13 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


Once a quarter I receive the BellCore V&H tape.  Using this
information I can total the number of exchanges in each area code.
The twenty most populous area codes are listed below.  After the
written text of this article I have included the count for each of the
area codes.

I have not included the 52? series of area codes that are in use for
Mexico, since they are not yet dialable from the US.  (Note: Don't ask
me when they will be dialable, I don't know although I will guess
sometime after 1995.)

I have not included the 82? series of area codes which include many
more Mexico exchanges, as well as the non-diable locations in the
NANP.

The fields are:
                        ------------ rank last quarter
          213: 736 (1, 7)
  area code --^^^  ^^^     ^------- number of new exchanges
                    |-------------- total number of exchanges

213: 736 (1, 7)        212: 668 (6, 5)     205: 630 (12, 15)    714: 581 (16, 8)
214: 730 (2, 12)    415: 657 (7, 15)    919: 624 (11, 4)     206: 579 (17, 9)
201: 703 (3, 9)        512: 639 (8, 5)     215: 603 (13, 7)     501: 569 (18, 5)
301: 694 (4, 4)        416: 633 (9, 5)     602: 594 (15, 5)     604: 555 (19, 2)
404: 679 (5, 12)    313: 630 (10, 4)    403: 593 (14, 2)     703: 552 (20, 6)


Of the top 20 NPA's we can note: (I have no details on calling patterns in
those NPA's not noted, and have no information of impending splits in those
NPA's).

#1. 213 - due to split to 310  beginning February 1, 1992.
#2. 214 - has split to 903.  Permissive dialling will end 11/91, and number
      will be reduced.
#3. 201 - has split to 908.  Permissive dialling will end this year, and number
      will be reduced.
#4. 301 - due to split to 410  beginning November 1991.
#5. 404 - no plans to split at this point.  Intra-NPA calls require the dialling
      of the NPA.  Note the large growth of the NPA.
#6. 212 - due to split to 917  some time in 1992.
#7. 415 - due to split to 510  beginning October 7, 1991.
#8. 512 - no plans to split at this point.  I have no data on 10 digit dialling
      for non-local calls.
#9. 416 - due to split to 905 in 1993.  Intra-NPA calls require the dialling
      of the NPA.
#10. 313 - no plans to split at this point.  Intra-NPA calls require the
      dialling of the NPA.

#16. 714 - will split to 909 beginning November 1992.


The other area codes are given below.

213 : 736 713 :    547 804    : 462 617 : 370    318 : 329 409 :    285 518    : 250
214 : 730 216 :    541 305    : 460 516 : 370    209 : 329 613 :    283 608    : 243
201 : 703 405 :    539 513    : 450 508 : 365    618 : 325 208 :    277 509    : 237
301 : 694 615 :    529 816    : 447 418 : 359    504 : 324 805 :    276 603    : 231
404 : 679 708 :    527 306    : 446 818 : 358    319 : 324 812 :    274 901    : 221
212 : 668 612 :    524 913    : 433 316 : 358    304 : 324 712 :    271 308    : 197
415 : 657 503 :    523 916    : 424 217 : 355    912 : 320 609 :    266 417    : 196
512 : 639 314 :    522 312    : 418 701 : 351    908 : 314 705 :    265 706    : 189
416 : 633 303 :    512 412    : 417 219 : 344    517 : 312 903 :    264 707    : 177
313 : 630 803 :    504 317    : 416 204 : 344    905 : 311 606 :    264 802    : 175
205 : 630 809 :    494 515    : 407 605 : 342    715 : 310 202 :    264 506    : 175
919 : 624 619 :    493 402    : 407 519 : 342    505 : 310 507 :    263 607    : 163
215 : 603 904 :    491 907    : 406 406 : 341    819 : 307 902 :    261 719    : 159
602 : 594 813 :    490 718    : 403 502 : 336    918 : 306 806 :    259 307    : 152
403 : 593 514 :    481 614    : 402 704 : 332    915 : 304 309 :    258 401    : 133
714 : 581 817 :    480 601    : 393 207 : 332    408 : 299 814 :    257 413    : 130
206 : 579 203 :    480 407    : 380 914 : 331    815 : 291 709 :    256 302    : 110
501 : 569 717 :    466 716    : 373 801 : 330    702 : 288 808 :    254 906    : 109
604 : 555 414 :    465 616    : 373 419 : 329    218 : 288 315 :    254 807    : 105
703 : 552


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

Subject: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department
From: Winston Lawrence <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 16:03:26 EDT
Organization: The Dorsai Diplomatic Mission


In the HELLO pamphlet that NYNEX sends with its phone bill came the
following:

To report a fire in New York City, call:

[phone] (Manhattan), [phone] (Bronx), [phone]
(Brooklyn),  [phone] (Queens), and [phone] for Staten
Island. or call 911.

The 999 prefix immediately caught my eye as this is (or was) the
number that every schoolkid and up in London knew as the emergency
services number. Is this a new variation on 911 being started up here?
When I tried 999-xxxx the call was immediately halted with a recording
saying that the number was incorrectly dialed (this is from Long
Island area code 516). Dialing only three digits of any other
combination results in a looong timeout.

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

From: John Nagle <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Live DJ for Music-on-Hold
Date: 24 Apr 91 05:25:36 GMT


     Word Perfect's tech support number (1-800-336-3614) now has a
live DJ playing music, running ads, and giving live traffic reports.
"And right now, the longest wait is twelve minutes on the UNIX support
line, with four people waiting.  Two callers are waiting on the
printer line, and four, with an average wait of five minutes, on the
features line.  There's no waiting on the other lines."

     The concept is awesome.


John Nagle

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

From: Arnette P Baker [phone] <ihlpf![e-mail]>
Subject: Prodigy Questions
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 09:23:00 GMT


I am looking for information on Prodigy.  I am looking into it because
my parents just bought a PC and are looking for things to do with it.
They received a Prodigy start up kit (well, they bought the darn thing
at Sears) and are interested in it.  The first question I have
involves e-mail. Can Internet users send e-mail to Prodigy users and
vice-a-versa?  If yes, how is it done?

I also need some comparative analysis of Prodigy vs. Compuserve.  Do
the two offer similar services besides e-mail?  Of particular interest
to my Dad are the news service, the travel stuff, and weather.  I did
follow the discussions a while back about Prodigy "sensoring" e-mail
(a practice I despise) and was hoping to discover that Compuserve has
virtues to recommend it above Prodigy.

I would appreciate replies either by e-mail to [e-mail] or
through posts to this group.

Pat -  I can not ftp the archives from this location.  If you could
send me the instructions on "alternative e-mail archive access" I could look
at back articles discussing Prodigy.  Thanks.


Arnette Baker   AT&T Network Systems   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I've sent you the bitftp help file. For others who
cannot use ftp at their site, if you wish information about the bitftp
method for accessing the archives, send me a note and I will send you
a copy of the help file.  When using the help file, substitute
'lcs.mit.edu'  and 'cd telecom-archives' in the appropriate places.  PAT]

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

From: Peter Hayward <[e-mail]>
Subject: Battery Discharger Needed
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 13:46:14 GMT


A good six months ago, there was a discussion in this group about a
device that would "burn the whiskers" off nicad battery packs, thus
defeating the dreaded nicad memory problem.  I archived that message,
but, now, when I find myself in need of such a device, I cannot locate
the message. Can anyone help?


Peter B. Hayward     University of Maine       WX9T

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

From: Henk van de Ven <[e-mail]>
Subject: X-Trace Programs / Sources
Date: 24 Apr 91 13:53:59 GMT
Organization: Bull, P.O. Box 22859, NL-1100 DJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands


Hello,

    This is Henk van de Ven , Unix porting co-ordinator for
Bull Holland (+BeNeLux).

    Because of the fact that we are more and more integrating
different types of hardware of different manufacturers, there are
rising some problems in connections through TCP/IP etc.

    So I wondered if there are SOFTWARE products that can trace
what is happening on an Ethernet cable.

    If there is some-one who can tell me where to FTP the source
from or even better, E-mail the source I would be very grateful.


Henk van de Ven            Bull Netherlands
Internet: [e-mail]        Hoogoorddreef 66-68
Uucp: nlbull!henk        1101 BE  Amsterdam
Phone: [phone]        Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 09:31:18 -0600
From: Leroy Casterline <[e-mail]>
Subject: An New Digest Reader's Introduction


Cahill Casterline Limited offers microcontroller-based product
development services to manufacturers and entrepreneurs.  The company
has developed expertise in interfacing to, understanding and
contending with conditions on the analog telephone network, and would
like to make that expertise available to others who are trying to
develop customer premise equipment such as toll restrictors, call
diverters, feature telephones, etc.

The company can be reached at 303/484-2212, on BIX as 'leroy', on
Compu$erve as 70540,3307 and on Internet as [e-mail].
edu.  Please note that I *am* affiliated with Cahill Casterline
Limited, and so am not a good person to ask for an objective opinion
of these services!

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

From: William Robert Kent Cousert <share![e-mail]>
Subject: Help Needed Understanding ISDN
Organization: MIT
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1991 09:23:55 GMT


Could someone briefly describe in laymen's terms what ISDN is?  Also,
is ISDN fast enough for real-time video?


Bill Cousert     share![e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1991 12:49:12 EDT
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Preventing 900 Call Abuse


In an ideal world, only those who are authorized to pay for a service
would be able to order or use that service.  For the most part, we can
do this.  The problem areas are mail order and telephone services.

900 numbers can be dialed without any forethought about where the money
will come from to pay for the calls.  A friend's daughter ran up over
$3000 worth of these calls in one billing period.  The daughter, 13,
is by no means an adult, able to make a contract for that kind of
money.

When my friend called the phone company, she got nothing but grief.
One representative said, "If you can't control your daughter, you
can't expect us to take you off the hook."  Her daughter probably was
out of control, and has gotten in other kinds of trouble since, but
the real issue is, who is liable when a child makes a contract that
the parents have not authorized?  This, to me, is the key sticking
point of 900 services.

Possible solutions abound:

One mother I know puts a rotary phone with a "dialing block" on it so
that the phone can't be dialed at all.  (I'd worry about emergencies.)
Another puts her phone set in her trunk when she goes to work each
morning.  (Emergencies still are an issue.)

But the most elegant solution I've heard is to remove the PIC from the
home telephne line, in essence removing all ability to make inter-LATA
calls.  This has the added benefit of being unable to call your
out-of-state in-laws ...


Kath Mullholand     UNH  Durham, NH


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell takes care of this problem by
offering to completely block 900 and/or 976 calls. With the block on
your line, those calls cannot be completed, nor can the operator
complete the call for you. They offer this blocking free of charge.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1991 12:53:37 EDT
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Prelude Phone Documentation Needed


The University of New Hampshire has a hotel associated with it, the
New England Center, which has an AT&T Prelude system that serves the
Hotel desk and rooms.  The documentation is available, but training
for new administrators is apparently no longer offered by AT&T.  Is
there anyone out there using a Prelude who would be willing to be a
resource for the Hotel Manager when she needs to reconfigure the
system?  She is looking for assistance with adding extensions, adding
turnks, and moving extensions.

You can reply to me direct:  [e-mail]
Thanks in advance.


Kath Mullholand   UNH  Durham, NH

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 18:39:23 EDT
From: David Appell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code List


If anyone has a list of area codes and the area they cover, sorted
numerically, could you please send it to me. Thanks.


David


[Moderator's Note: I would expect you will have at least a half-dozen
copies of the area code list by this time tomorrow.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 10:26:29 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 212-516 in Use in 1986


I made a note of the following, apparently a result of my own July,
1986 visit to that area in New York City:

212-516-8003, in Grand Central Station; 30-second call from it to
anywhere in New York state for 25 cents.

(Recently, it's been said in this Digest that there is no 212-516 --
it could have been discontinued since I made the above note -- and
when I tried to call the above number yesterday or today, I got
intercepted in 215, where my outgoing long distance calls go thru.)

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 04:51:00 -0600
From: "James Borynec" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Decreasing Costs of Transmission


After looking at some of the developing transmission technologies
(notably fiber optics) I have reached some conclusions that I would
like to share with the net. I would also appreciate any feedback.

1) The costs of long distance transmission of information is going WAY
DOWN.  This is because of the incredible bandwith of fiber.  You can
easily fit one million phone calls onto one 32 strand fiber cable.  I
suspect that the number of phone calls in New York City at any one
time would fit on this cable!

2) The real costs of transmission is really in the multiplexing
technology.  Getting information on and off these fiber highways is
the cost bottleneck.  Fortunately, we can build bigger, faster, and
CHEAPER multiplexers with the new silicon (and other) technologies.
Thus these costs are going down quickly too!

Because these costs are going down so very much they will quickly be
dwarfed (or indeed may already be dwarfed) by other costs such as
local access, accounting of calls, etc.  Therefore, for all practical
purposes a LOCAL phone calls costs as much as a LONG DISTANCE phone
call.

Clearly the pricing structures do not reflect these costs (Yet!).  My
question is - What is AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc going to do when they can
no longer reasonably charge more than a local call?  Won't this change
the industry substantially?  Will North America move to a wide area
extended flat rate billing zone?

How about this - you pay Sprint $10/month to call anywhere in the USA
to talk for as long as you want.


Jim Borynec
[e-mail]  [e-mail]
500 Capitor Sqr, 10065 Jasper Ave, Edmonton Alberta, T5J 3B1

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #303
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13274;
          26 Apr 91 3:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11682;
          26 Apr 91 1:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08312;
          26 Apr 91 0:35 CDT
Date:     Fri, 26 Apr 91 0:35:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #305
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 26 Apr 91 00:35:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 305

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse [S. H. Schwartz]
    Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse [John Higdon]
    Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse [Robert J Woodhead]
    Re: 900 Discussion on CNN [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs [John Higdon]
    Re: Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit [Robert E. Zabloudil]
    Re: 'Dumb' PBX Wanted [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Randy Borow]
    Re: AT&T Digital Answering Machine [John Foos]
    Re: US Answering Machine in Israel [Mike Berger]
    Re: Computer/Telex Interface [John R. Levine]
    Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted [Daniel Zlatin]
    Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Carl Moore]
    Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: NXX Count 4-15-91 [Carl Moore]
    Re: Battery Discharger Needed [S. H. Schwartz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. H. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse
Organization: Expert Systems Lab., NYNEX Sci. and Tech., White Plains NY
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 14:33:05 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(KATH MULLHOLAND) writes:

> ... [how to block 900 calls] ...
> But the most elegant solution I've heard is to remove the PIC from the
> home telephne line, in essence removing all ability to make inter-LATA
> calls.  This has the added benefit of being unable to call your
> out-of-state in-laws ...

But the PIC only specifies which LD carrier gets your 1+ calls.  Does
this also stop 10288-1-900-xxx-xxxx?  I would think not.  No, I'm not
going to try it at home.  :-)


S. H. Schwartz    [e-mail]   Expert Systems Laboratory
914-683-2960    NYNEX Science and Technology Center  White Plains NY 10604

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 12:58 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse


KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]> writes:

> But the most elegant solution [to unauthorized calls made to 900
> numbers] I've heard is to remove the PIC from the
> home telephne line, in essence removing all ability to make inter-LATA
> calls.

This is not only not an elegant solution; it is not a solution at all.
In a similar manner to the way 800 calls are handled, a call to a 900
number is routed to the carrier that is furnishing the 900 transport,
NOT to your PIC. Removing the PIC would not stop one single call to a
900 number. And even if it would, how much trouble would it be for
someone to dial 10XXX to access any carrier? Removing your PIC does
not disable interLATA long distance by any stretch of the imagination.
And it will not even slow down carrier-specific calls such as 800/900.

> [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell takes care of this problem by
> offering to completely block 900 and/or 976 calls. With the block on
> your line, those calls cannot be completed, nor can the operator
> complete the call for you. They offer this blocking free of charge.  PAT]

This is indeed the only real method to effectively handle the problem
of unauthorized calls to 900 numbers. It also should end the constant
discussion over contracts, uncontrollable children, etc., etc. This is
offered by Pac*Bell (and many other LECs, no doubt) at the time
service is applied for. If a person declines blocking (or fails to
order it when faced with a potential problem) then there really should
be no slack cut by the LEC at bill time.

With the advent of free 900/976 blocking, this whole debate can be
concluded at long last.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse
Date: 26 Apr 91 02:35:44 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (KATH MULLHOLAND) writes:

> One mother I know puts a rotary phone with a "dialing block" on it so
> that the phone can't be dialed at all.  (I'd worry about emergencies.)

One hopes said mom's flock doesn't learn how to hook-tap the phone.
Said trick is my favorite bit of phone trivia; I estimate that maybe
2% of the population knows it is possible to dial "without dialing."


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Certainly hook-tapping will work, but the smaller
digits are easier to achieve with accuracy. Tapping out nine, ten and
ten more (as in 900) can be tricky unless your finger is agile and
quick, and your timing very precise in offices which require it.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 9:36:26 EDT
From: "KATH MULLHOLAND, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, X1031" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Discussion on CNN


Ron Greenburg commented that he wondered if the new FCC proposals would
apply only to 900 numbers, and that he wasn't sure how to provide
input regarding the proposal.

You can provide input by writing or calling your Congressional
Representative.  I called my Senator, and was sent a copy of HR328,
which is intended to regulate "Audiotext services" (definition below).
It took about four days for it to come in the mail.  The bill would
not be specific to 900 numbers.

Definition:

"For the purposes of this Act, the term 'audiotext services'

1)  includes various electronic communications products and services
    that enable users to send or receive information by interacting
    with a voice processing system via a telephone connection using
    audio input;
2)  encompasses the following types of services:  information retrieval
    from a remote database, messaging capability permitting users to
    communicate with each other, conferecing services for simultaneous
    voice conversations; and
3)  does not include electronic communications for the purpose of
    conducting financial transactions."

I assume that last is meant to exclude things like ATM machines, but
it's also possible that it's meant to exclude the voice response
tellers that my Credit Union has recently started using.  (And I'm
thrilled (not) since they selected one that is extremely poorly
written and user unfriendly.)


Kath Mullholand    UNH  Durham, NH

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 12:30 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs


"Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]> writes:

> I'm not sure if modern PBXs even support AIOD.

The ITT 3100 still supports it. I have found it useful for using LD
carriers that provide "account code" billing. Used with FGB, the
switch calls the 950 number, outputs the company's authorization code,
the called number, and then an account code based on the extension
making the call. When the bill comes, it lists all the calls BY
EXTENSION.  Everyone knows this and abuse has dropped to virtually
zero.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit
Date: 24 Apr 91 19:21:55 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


Me too.  Is there enough interest for a summary?  Thanks.


[Moderator's Note: Perhaps someone will summarize the mail they
received on this subject and send it along.   PAT]

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 'Dumb' PBX Wanted
Organization: SwitchView
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 21:25:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Larry Rachman) writes:

> Does anyone out there know of a 'dumb' pbx product. By that I mean a
> box that would connect between a group of stations and a group of
> trunks, and switch calls between them, but not under its own control.

Redcom makes a product that matches your description.  It is called
the "MSP" (Modular Switching Peripheral).

    Redcom Laboratories Inc.
    One Redcom Center
    Victor, New York 14564-0995
    [phone]


Vance Shipley  vances@ltg    ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!ltg!vances

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Apr 24 08:54:14 CDT 1991
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable


Mark Mortarotti had stated that he owns his address and his name.
While the latter may be true, the former isn't. According to what I
was told years ago by a buddy of mine who works with the U.S. Postal
Service, our addresses are NOT are own. The city in which we live has
jurisdiction on how our addresses are numbered or arranged. Such
cities (apparently with the approval or advice of the Postal Service,
according to my friend) can change your address without your approval
or even knowledge for that matter. Does this surprise you, Mark?

Unfortunately, we'd be surprised (or would we?) to find out just how
little control we have over things we consider our "own".


Randy Borow             AT&T Communications             Rolling Meadows, IL.

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

From: John Foos <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Digital Answering Machine
Date: 24 Apr 91 14:45:15 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


How new is the NEW AT+T Answering Machine?  I was just reading in {EE
Times} last week some manufacturer has release a chip set designed for
all solid state digital phone machine applications.  As well as a host
of advanced features is a recording time of 26 minutes.  The article
stated several manufacturers will soon release products with this chip
set.  It could be worth the wait.


                   John Foos
                  Motorola Inc.   [phone]
        1501 W. Shure Drive, Arlington Heights, IL 60004

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: US Answering Machine in Israel
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 19:23:09 GMT


[e-mail] (Joel Spolsky) writes:

> Does anybody know if an American answering machine will work in
> Israel?

Doesn't it run backwards?


Mike Berger    Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
AT&TNET   217-244-6067   Internet:  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Computer/Telex Interface
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 23 Apr 91 11:09:30 EDT (Tue)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> is written:

> Someone was asking about a computer-to-Telex interface.

These days, regular hard-wired telex machines are fast disappearing in
favor of dial-in/dial-out or store and forward schemes.  In the first
case, you have a terminal (or a computer, it hardly matters) with a
phone number known to your telex carrier.  When an incoming telex call
starts ringing, the telex carrier calls your terminal and delivers the
message in real time.  For outgoing calls, you call them in the
obvious way.

Store and forward services save incoming telexes until you call to
pick them up.  There are lots of store and forward services, MCI Mail
has a telex number associated with every account, Easylink has telex
numbers as an option, and all of the other online services such as
Compuserve and Genie have some sort of telex gateway.  The telex
companies also seem to have simpler telex-only store and forward
services, e.g. WUI at least used to have one that is separate from MCI
Mail, as do RCA and ITT.

If you want to connect your computer to the store and forward service
in a better way, there are lots of options.  AT&T Mail passes messages
via uucp, and MCI Mail has both a single-user protocol implemented in
packages like Norton Commander, Lotus Express (probably renamed since
they sold it to MCI) and Desktop Express for the Mac, and a couple of
mail system to mail system protocols.

Speaking of Telex, when Western Union sold Easylink to AT&T last year,
the press release I saw said they were selling their telex services to
AT&T as well.  Does anyone know if this actually came to pass and, if
so, whether WU's decrepit telex network has improved any?


Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 07:27:00 EDT
From: Daniel Zlatin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted


My $0.02 on the issue of "open architecture" PBX's (but I work on the
following product, so could be accused of bias!):

Northern Telecom's Norstar system is definitely an open architecture
PBX.  All of the functions of the system are available to a PC through
an interface card (which connects to the KSU as though it were a set).
A software library for the PC, available from NT, enables one to write
applications similar to those that were mentioned in the original
posting.

(Of course, I wouldn't classify it as a "dumb" PBX.  It has a complete
set of built-in functionality; but it is easily enhanced with your own
private features.)


Daniel Zlatin   Norstar Development,
Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ont.
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 10:24:42 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department


999 in NYC used to have recorded messages like Dial-a-Joke.  This was
circa 1976.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 09:15 PDT
Subject: Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department


My GUESS (and it's only a guess) is that the 911 system in New York
City is so badly overloaded with police traffic that they have to
route fire traffic another way.

"You have reached nine-one-one.  To report a crime, press 1, to report
a fire, press 2...."

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 10:22:14 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NXX Count 4-15-91


I have this for use of N0X/N1X in area code 512:
512, Texas, 9 September 1990    (1+ NPA+ 7D on all toll calls)

Please don't say "ten digit dialing" unless you really do mean without
the leading 1.  Local calls going across area code boundaries in
Dallas/Ft.Worth and Washington DC areas are made with NPA+7D (NO
leading 1), with long distance being 1+NPA+7D from those places.

For the 201/908 split, I have:
201/908 New Jersey, 1 January 1991 (full cutover 8 June 1991)

You write "The other area codes are given below.".  Try using
"included" instead of "given", because such list also includes the
area codes commented on earlier.  And what is the meaning of 905 and
706 showing up on such list?  (905 and 706 are the now- discontinued
pseudo-area-codes for parts of Mexico; 905 has been announced for
split of 416, and this Digest just got word of 706 for split of 404 in
Georgia -- the first I have heard for a split of 404, which does now
use N0X/N1X prefixes.)

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

From: "S. H. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Battery Discharger Needed
Organization: Expert Systems Lab., NYNEX Sci. and Tech., White Plains NY
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 14:29:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Peter Hayward) writes:

> A good six months ago, there was a discussion in this group about a
> device that would "burn the whiskers" off nicad battery packs, thus
> defeating the dreaded nicad memory problem.  I archived that message,

What does this device do that cannot be accomplished by running down
the battery in an ordinary flashlight, tape player, etc.?


S. H. Schwartz   [e-mail]   Expert Systems Laboratory
914-683-2960  NYNEX Science and Technology Center  White Plains NY 10604

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #305
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29830;
          27 Apr 91 2:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15979;
          27 Apr 91 0:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17909;
          26 Apr 91 23:44 CDT
Date:     Fri, 26 Apr 91 23:35:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #306
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 26 Apr 91 232:35:37 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 306

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Mark Fulk]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [John Higdon]
    Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing [D. Kimberlin]
    Re: Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit [Rich Zellich]
    Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse [Leroy Casterline]
    Re: 212-516 in Use in 1986 [Ed Greenberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mark Fulk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1991 18:44:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James
Borynec) writes:

> 1) The costs of long distance transmission of information is going WAY
> DOWN.  This is because of the incredible bandwith of fiber.  You can
> easily fit one million phone calls onto one 32 strand fiber cable.

I don't think you've absorbed the real effect of this yet.  I just
talked to an optics professor here, who does research into linear
optical amplifiers for fiber repeaters.  It is now feasible to
transmit more than 100 terabits/sec on a fiber; linear optical
amplifiers allow up to about 6 Tb/sec even on transoceanic cables.
AT&T and NTT just signed a contract to use these fibers (probably at a
lower rate at first) in a trans-Pacific cable, and the next
trans-Atlantic cables will also use this technology.  These cables are
slated for service in about 1995.

Now a phone call takes about 32 kb/s; let's say 50 kb/s to make the
math easier (note: this is not using any kind of fancy compression).
20 phone calls take 1 Mb/s (actually, T1 line at 1 Mb/s handles 32
calls, I think); so 1 Tb/s is 20,000,000 calls.  So a trans-oceanic
cable consisting of two fibers (one each way) could handle about
120,000,000 calls.  In other words, nearly half the people in the US
could be talking to people in Asia using those two fibers.

> 2) The real costs of transmission is really in the multiplexing
> technology.  Getting information on and off these fiber highways is
> the cost bottleneck.  Fortunately, we can build bigger, faster, and
> CHEAPER multiplexers with the new silicon (and other) technologies.
> Thus these costs are going down quickly too!

Actually, you want to do your multiplexing optically too.  This is
getting easier all the time.  How do you think they TESTED those
fibers at the high throughputs?

The hardest problem arises in connection with packet-switched
networks: the last record I heard for packet switches is a degree-32
node handling 150 Mb/s on each connection; it was from BellCore and is
called the ``switching fabric.''  The importance of this kind of
switching technology might well be mooted by increasing bandwidth: if
fibers reach 2000 Tb/s, very much in reach in view of the above, than
200-fiber cables would permit a billion global broadcast HDTV
channels.

> Because these costs are going down so very much they will quickly be
> dwarfed (or indeed may already be dwarfed) by other costs such as
> local access, accounting of calls, etc.  Therefore, for all practical
> purposes a LOCAL phone calls costs as much as a LONG DISTANCE phone
> call.

Th1e costs will be: subscriber equipment, network interfaces, and
right-of- way for cables on land.

> Clearly the pricing structures do not reflect these costs (Yet!).  My
> question is - What is AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc going to do when they can
> no longer reasonably charge more than a local call?  Won't this change
> the industry substantially?  Will North America move to a wide area
> extended flat rate billing zone?

> How about this - you pay Sprint $10/month to call anywhere in the USA
> to talk for as long as you want.

Unfortunately, the pricing structure reflects the costs of the
currently installed equipment, and will continue to do so even after
that equipment is obsolete.  I suspect that, short of a revolution,
the best we will see will be a gradual decrease, and the promise of
the new transmission technologies won't be realized until 2010 or so.

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 13:19 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission


"James Borynec" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Because these costs are going down so very much they will quickly be
> dwarfed (or indeed may already be dwarfed) by other costs such as
> local access, accounting of calls, etc.

> Clearly the pricing structures do not reflect these costs (Yet!).  My
> question is - What is AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc going to do when they can
> no longer reasonably charge more than a local call?  Won't this change
> the industry substantially?  Will North America move to a wide area
> extended flat rate billing zone?

Do not count on it. As a pivot for discussion, I offer the following:

AT&T NEWS BRIEFS

SPEC -- ... [Analyst] Denise Jevne thinks that [AT&T] is poised to
pocket big bucks when - thanks to regulatory changes - competition
heats up in the business of connecting long-distance calls. ...
Access charges - currently the exclusive domain of the RBOCs - are the
most expensive part of [such] calls.  They also happen to be AT&T's
biggest cost.  As other companies enter the field and these charges
fall, AT&T's profits should rise - if the company can avoid passing
all the savings to consumers.  Access costs now equal about 40 percent
of AT&T's revenues.  If they fall to 37 percent ... AT&T's profits
would leap by as much as 40 cents per share. ... [Column, Herb
Greenberg], San Francisco Chronicle, C1.

[End Quoted Text]

While it is just personal speculation, the probability of a
precipitous drop in long distance rates is very small. Long distance
rates are purely marketplace-controlled and have very little to do
with the cost of providing the service. Can you imagine that (given
that the rates for equivalent calls among the various carriers are
very close -- within 20 percent) that it costs each carrier
practically the same amount to handle the traffic? In case you have
not already figured it out, the general method of pricing long
distance is to take AT&T's rate and then discount it by some amount.
The amount is a compromise between what might attact customers and
optimum revenue.  Too high and it will not attract customers away from
AT&T; too low and not enough money comes in the door.  And remember,
AT&T's rate is still subject to regulation by the FCC.

Lowered costs of operation is what the IECs have long counted on to
eventually make the really big bucks. This is what they are working
for; it is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. No one, from the
investors to the executive board is going to endure the slings and
arrows of startup and construction expenses only to "give it all back"
when the promised-land technology comes to pass.

It is interesting to learn of the new technologies and their promise,
but the benefits cost-wise are for the service providers, not for the
customers.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 05:36 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing


     In Digest v11,Iss300, Larry Lippman added to the discussion about
roots of telephone manufacturing in the U.S., suggesting that Stromberg-
Carlson had evolved into Comdial, thus:

> Stromberg-Carlson has led a checkered existence in the past twenty
> years ... General Dynamics  ...  moved the corporate headquarters and
> much of the operation to Tampa, FL.

       Minor correction (about 85 miles), Larry.  The place
Stromberg-Carlson wound up is Lake Mary, FL, a northerly suburb of
Orlando, just off I-4 on the way to Daytona from Orlando. Continuing:

> Stromberg-Carlson did a significant amount of military business; I
> believe that General Dynamics may have absorbed that business into
> another division, while leaving Stromberg-Carlson as a provider of solely
> domestic telephone apparatus.  I am not certain of the subsequent
> changes, though.

       Pretty close to what I heard last year when doing some field
debugging of their DCO Series exchanges in rural Mississippi (John
Higdon, stay tuned for a special message about what PacBell will
inflict upon you shortly!)  In fact, G-D bought Stromberg in an
attempt to learn about telephony to merge it into military electronic
telephone exchanges.  After getting an electronic exchange developed,
they found they couldn't market the DCO to Telcos.  It was just TOO
different from military sales, so after getting the technology G-D
wanted, they sold the Stromber Florida operation to English General
Electric (NO relation to the American General Electric), which very
shortly after the purchase, merged with Plessey of England, and the
merged name soon changed to GPT/Stromberg-Carlson.  It was probably
thought to be a technology prize by the British, but read on at the
end of this story!

      Then, in 1990, Siemens of Germany bought 40% of GPT back in England,
so what is in Lake Mary today is owned by GPT, in turn largely owned
by Siemens. Today's name runs something like GPT-Siemens/Stromberg-
Carlson.  (no kidding!)  Larry continues:

> The remains of Stromberg-Carlson changed their name to Comdial during
> the early 1980's, but may have now changed it back. I believe they may
> have also been acquired by Plessey.

      In fact, G-D spun off Stromberg's telephone-set manufacturing
(which had, like ITT, licensed manufacture of WECo-pattern telephone
sets) to the public, forming ComDial, which struggles to survive to
this day in Charlottesville, VA.

      Michael Dorrian reported about this part of the Stromberg evolution
in Digest v11, Iss302:

> As far as I know, Comdial remains the only US manufacturer of
> telephones (local content - AT&T's phones are assembled in the US from
> Asian manufactured components).  This offers quite a niche on sales to
> the US government.

       In fact, Dear Readers, ComDial remains the place you can still
buy a 500 or 2500 set with a STEEL baseplate, in my opinion even
better than the plastic one AT&T now sells via Sears and such.  They
are small enough that I expect you can probably buy just one from the
Charlottesville factory ... but I can't guarantee that.  ComDial's
president, who just died recently was on a personal campaign to make a
quality, durable telephone set in the USA, much like the campaign of
Zenith's president to keep one US television set factory going.
Michael continues:

> Recent {Washington Post} Virginia 30 had them at $80M in sales with 1K
> employees.

        That report must have piqued the trade press, for the April 22
<CommunicationsWEEK> reported that ComDial reported it had a 1990
profit for the first time in six years, but analysts said it might be
short-lived due to the recession and the Gulf War.  The report said
ComDial had just laid off 33 more workers to cut its staff to 940,
down from 1,200 in 1987.  It further reported ComDial had almost been
buried by foreign imnports in station sets, so it had expanded to
making key systems in 1985, which business had, at a loss, largely
sustained it. The report said ComDial's sales were predominantly (65%)
through distributors, so I'm sure Macy Hallock knows plenty about them
lately.

     One diversion from Stromberg here, to respond to Larry about a
remark concerning GTE and Automatic Electric. Larry quoted:

>> GTE began buying companies and feeding business to
>> its own manufacturing subsidiary, Automatic Electric.  GTE simply
>> decided in the 1950's to copy things that Bell had so successfully
>> clamped controls on a half-century earlier.

     Then Larry commented:

> In my opinion, GTE/AECo copied little from the Bell System. GTE did many
> things the AECo way.

     My remark was not meant to say GTE/AECo emulated Bell designs.
Rather, it was an allusion to GTE copying Bell's business and vertical
market structure by acquiring and feeding its own design and
manufacture with its captive operating companies.  Just like the local
Bell companies were BOCs, the GTE ones were GTOCs.  They had a great
way of fending off aspiring suppliers by telling them they could buy
only against approved Materials Requests, which came from Stamford HQ.
When one wasted a ticket to Stamford, one was told they could only
approve Materials Requests orginating from some unknown place in the
Operating Companies.  Just like dealing with Bell, smart suppliers
knew the cycle starting with lots of multipoint schmoozing, after
which a Materials Request would "materialize," specifying one
supplier's product, purchased through Automatic Electic.  (Can you
say, "KS Spec?")

     But, back to GPT-Plessey-Siemens/Stromberg-Carlson or whatever
their name is these days, and that special alert for John Higdon: The
General Dynamics legacy left there is what became the thing called the
Century Digital Central Office, or DCO.  They've managed a market
postion of going into RBOCs and getting the "spoiler" slot of Number
Two Supplier, just to be a bargaining chip against Northern Telecom.
South Central Bell did that, so lots of DCOs are in KY, TN, AL, MS and
LA.  The DCO has a T-1 (23B+D) connected Remote Line Switch, or RLS.
PHaving lost its General Dynamics product control mentors, this
combination HAS to be one of the most beknightedly out-of-control
pieces of hardware and software junk ever foisted on the telephone
industry. The RLS is but a couple of years old and is running through
Software Release 17 already!

      I personally have stood in front of one that had all green
lights and no local or remote alarms ... but would offer no dial tone
to any subscribers.  Telephone people on here will recognize this as
perhaps one of the most irresponsible things any public telephone
exchange could ever do.

       And finally, the message for John Higdon: Pacific Telephone has
bought these beasts and should be starting installationa about now.
(Just thought you'd like the warning so you can convert to all GTE
FX's, John!)

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

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 7:46:34 CDT
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit


Am I missing something obvious in the original question?  For an
answering machine interrupter of the simplest type, go buy one at
Radio Shack for $8.  If you want a little nicer one that can be
plugged in in "reverse order", you can also use it to protect a modem
or extension when you don't want any other extensions picked up to
interrupt you; you get one of these two-way interrupters at
Venture/Target/etc. for $10.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 16:51:15 -0600
From: leroy Casterline <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse


> One hopes said mom's flock doesn't learn how to hook-tap the phone...

Years ago (how many, I won't say <grin)) I went to work for Northern
Ohio Telephone Co. as an installer/repairman after graduating from
high school.  I remember amazing some friends who worked at a local
restaurant by hook-tapping a call I needed to make on thier
'dial-less' phone.  Were I smarter, I would have gotten them to place
a bet.


Leroy Casterline | Cahill Casterline Ltd | Fort Collins, CO | 303/484-2212
Internet:[e-mail] | Compu$erve:70540,3307 | BIX:leroy

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 09:20 PDT
Subject: Re: 212-516 in Use in 1986


I have vague recollections of a service that allowed 25 cent calls all
over New York State for a maximum of 30 seconds.  It was specifically
available at Grand Central Station (and probably Penn Station too) and
was designed for "meet me at the station at 5:06" type of calls.

I believe that my recollection dates from before 1982 and I have no
details.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #306
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01471;
          27 Apr 91 3:24 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17744;
          27 Apr 91 1:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15979;
          27 Apr 91 0:50 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Apr 91 0:29:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #307
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Apr 91 00:29:26 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 307

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: North Georgia to Get NPA 706 [Arnold Robbins]
    Re: Per Line Blocking? [Peter Creath]
    Re: Battery Discharger Needed [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Carl Wright]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Michael P. Deignan]
    Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [Johnny Zweig]
    Re: Decrease in University Long Distance Telephone Rates [John R. Levine]
    Re: US Answering Machine in Israel [Arnold Robbins]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Jeff Hayward]
    Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted [Lou Kates]
    Re: New MCI Sleaze or Just a Mistake? [David Fiedler]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Arnold Robbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: North Georgia to Get NPA 706
Date: 25 Apr 91 22:44:05 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta Georgia


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

> I heard on the radio during lunch that Northern Georgia is to get
> NPA 706 in (May?) 1992.  Metropolitan Atlanta is to remain in NPA
> 404.

Yep.  Front page news in this morning's paper.  Basically, the current
metropolitan Atlanta dialing area will *be* 404, everything else will
be 706.  The article was pretty nice, it explained how the country was
running out of area codes and that Southern Bell "had to fight" to get
one assigned to it.

Also some speculation as to what will happen when the area codes are
exhausted, e.g. making local phone numbers 8 digits instead of 7 or
always requiring 1+ten digits, even for local calls.

In any case, speculation about area codes here can now be laid to
rest.  It's official.


Arnold  Robbins                         AudioFAX, Inc.
Powers Ferry Road, #200             Marietta, GA. 30067
INTERNET: [e-mail]    Phone: [phone]
UUCP:   emory!audfax!arnold    Fax-box: [phone]

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

From: Peter Creath <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking?
Organization: A small corner of Hell
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1991 23:48:46 GMT


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

> I also want them to stop LYING and calling it "caller id" when it is
> CALLING STATION id.

> But, then, the advocates here in this forum think of it as caller id
> and describe a great variety of uses that work only when knowing the
> calling station happens to identify the calling party.

> I can imagine a product that reads the caller id (sic) data and looks
> the number up in an internal directory and displays a caller name from
> the directory.  Because the directory was entered by the owner of the
> product, it would show my son's name as the caller.  Any time he was
> persona non grata, I would have great difficulty getting through.

According to the most recent issue of {Popular Science} (in the What's
New - Electronics section), they said a new box for Caller ID is now
available, one which displays the callers NAME as well as phone number.
Now, it didn't specify whether the name was transmitted by the Caller
ID system or whether the owner of the box had to program in names and
numbers.


[e-mail]
[e-mail]    (same thing...)


[Moderator's Note: Well I would rather suspect the owner of the box
has to load the information matching certain numbers and names. How
would telco know who was calling? All they can say for sure is the
number.  PAT]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Battery Discharger Needed
Date: 26 Apr 91 03:41:50 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (S.
H. Schwartz) writes:

>> device that would "burn the whiskers" off nicad battery packs, thus
>> defeating the dreaded nicad memory problem.  I archived that message,

> What does this device do that cannot be accomplished by running down
> the battery in an ordinary flashlight, tape player, etc.?

You can rapidly and automatically fully charge even a partially
discharged nicad with no danger of shallow discharge memory.

Using this charger, you 'repair' a nicad that has such memory.

You fast charge with no danger of cooking the battery.

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1991 14:56:40 GMT


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

> Mark Mortarotti had stated that he owns his address and his name.

Randy goes on to explain that our addresses belong to the local
government and the post office to make what they will. I agree with
him.

Further I believe that Mark's name as a work of original authorship
could be copyrightable by his parents. They thought it up and first
published it.

But Mark could claim that his name is a trademark which marks the
results of his work and so long as he uses it, he has rights over the
name.

Probably the only thing that Mark owns is HIS TIME.


Carl Wright                     | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]        | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST       | Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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

From: "Michael P. Deignan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI  02917
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1991 03:23:18 GMT


[e-mail] (Mark Mortarotti) writes:

> I own my address, and my name. If the phone company wants
> to publish my number, go ahead. If any one wants to use my name, or address,
> " P A Y   M E "!!!

Sorry, its also a matter of public record. You can obtain the same
information from a variety of sources (for example, your address from
the voter registration files of the city you live in and your phone
number from the phone directory.)

I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with this scam:

 1. Take phone book.

 2. Send letter to block of listees which says something to the effect of:
    "We're including your name and phone number in a mailing list which will
    be offered for sale to various telemarketing companies. If you would
    like to be excluded from this list, enclose the attached form (along
    with a cheque for $5 to cover processing costs)...."

3. Sit back and wait for the cash to flow in from people who want to
    avoid having their name sold.


Michael P. Deignan                     Since I *OWN* SBS.COM,
Domain: [e-mail]            These Opinions Generally
  UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd   Represent The Opinions Of
Telebit: [phone]               My Company...

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN
Date: 26 Apr 91 15:35:37 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, share!bcousert%zardoz.uucp@
ics.uci.edu (William Robert Kent Cousert) writes...

> Could someone briefly describe in laymen's terms what ISDN is?  Also,
> is ISDN fast enough for real-time video?

Okay, you asked for it.  I'll try to be brief.

ISDN is the all-digital evolution of the telephone network.  It
provides a standard set of services over a standard set of interfaces,
with a goal of reducing the total number of interfaces from what we
need in an analog world.

ISDN's main stock in trade is the 64 kbps channel, used to carry
digitized voice.  (Already the network is mostly digital between COs;
ISDN provides a digital local loop too.)  It can also carry 64 kbps
data, of course, which makes ISDN a lot nicer than a modem for
long-haul data use.  And it provides access to X.25 packet services,
which may make X.25 a lot more accessible in the US market.

The Basic Rate Interface (BRI) has two 64 kbps B channels and a 16
kbps D channel; the D channel carries the signaling protocol (a set of
messages that takes the place of off-hook, ring voltage, etc.).  The D
channel can also carry X.25 in its spare time.  The Primary Rate
Interface (PRI) has 24 channels of 64 kbps apiece, with the "23B+D"
combo being common, but higher-bandwidth "H" channels (384, 1472, 1536
kbps) also being possible.  Think of the BRI as a phone line and the
PRI as a PBX trunk and you'll get the "common" use.

With some effort, a BRI can support compressed 112 kbps video, and a
PRI can support 384 kbps video.  AT&T already provides PRI service
from its POPs (including switched 384k); local Bells are fairly slow
to offer BRI, though it exists in some areas.

That's the tip of the iceberg.  (I have a book on the subject coming
out in a few months, and even that's just a summary.)


Fred R. Goldstein              Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA
[e-mail]   voice: [phone]
 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let
 alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?

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

From: Johnny Zweig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 17:12:55 GMT


share![e-mail] (William Robert Kent Cousert)
writes:

> Could someone briefly describe in laymen's terms what ISDN is?  Also,
> is ISDN fast enough for real-time video?

The wires going to your house can carry digital signals at about
150,000 bits per second without much problem. So if you digitize your
voice (at 64,000 bits per second) you can have two voice channels on
one pair of ordinary copper wires, with room to spare. "But how are we
ever going to convince people to toss out their $20 analog phones and
buy $300 digital phones?" the question arises. "Aha! If we make it an
Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN), we can let people do all
kinds of crazy stuff besides just talking, like faxing, email, running
home security, and so forth ... That's the ticket!" So there you are.

And no, the basic rate ISDN service (the one that does not require
coax or optical fiber into your house) is not fast enough for anything
but the high-compression/slow-scan type video. I wouldn't want to
watch "Monsieur Hire" over the phone just yet.


Johnny ISDN

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

Subject: Re: Decrease in University Long Distance Telephone Rates
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 25 Apr 91 13:32:22 EDT (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> The result is very competitive long distance rates by capitalizing on
> the large volume of inter-university calling. Business day rates
> are now $.20 per minute and non-business day rates decreased to $.14 per
> minute for interstate calling.

That's a strange rate.  I have regular old residential Sprint Plus
with a monthly call volume of about $100 and my interstate evening
rate is $0.112 per minute for coast-to-coast calls, less for shorter
distances.  Perhaps CMU is marking up Sprint's rates a teensy bit.
I'd expect VPN rates to be less than regular MTS, otherwise the VPN is
pointless.


Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Arnold Robbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Answering Machine in Israel
Date: 26 Apr 91 17:31:46 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta Georgia


> [e-mail] (Joel Spolsky) writes:

>> Does anybody know if an American answering machine will work in
>> Israel?

[e-mail] (Mike Berger) writes:

> Doesn't it run backwards?

No, you just have to listen from right to left.  (-:


Arnold Robbins                AudioFAX, Inc.
2000 Powers Ferry Road, #200 / Marietta, GA. 30067
INTERNET: [e-mail] Phone:   [phone]
UUCP:      emory!audfax!arnold Fax-box: [phone]

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

From: Jeff Hayward <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Date: 26 Apr 91 18:22:44 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James
Borynec) writes:

> After looking at some of the developing transmission technologies
> (notably fiber optics) I have reached some conclusions that I would
> like to share with the net. I would also appreciate any feedback.

> Clearly the pricing structures do not reflect these costs (Yet!).  My
> question is - What is AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc going to do when they can
> no longer reasonably charge more than a local call?  Won't this change
> the industry substantially?  Will North America move to a wide area
> extended flat rate billing zone?

> How about this - you pay Sprint $10/month to call anywhere in the USA
> to talk for as long as you want.

I've been told that AT&T could still make money at a rate of 1/10 of a
cent per minute, no matter where in the North America you go.  Here in
Texas, long distance charges are completely dominated by the local BOC
access fees, 7.5 cents/minute per end.

It seems clear to me that our society can best exploit the opportunities
that today's telecommunication technology brings by doing distance-
insensitive pricing.  I'm not so sure about time-sensitivity, but I
think that the experience of the IP internet shows that usage
insensitivity yields some useful results also.

It is certainly the case that the BOCs (and to a lesser extent the
IXCs) make an enormous profit on a very inexpensive service.


Jeff Hayward   The University of Texas System    [phone]
Office of Telecommunication Services    [e-mail]

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

From: Lou Kates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted
Date: 26 Apr 91 23:30:07 GMT
Reply-To: Lou Kates <[e-mail]>
Organization: Teleride Sage, Ltd., Waterloo


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel
Zlatin) writes:

> My $0.02 on the issue of "open architecture" PBX's (but I work on the

Does "open" mean that you can use the usual switchhook flash and DTMF
tones to command the PBX from extensions or does it mean there are
proprietary protocols which you have access to in some manner?

Does anyone have a list of "open architecture" PBX's? For other PBX's
are there vendor specific methods that would still let anyone control
them from a computer?


Lou Kates, Teleride Sage Ltd., [e-mail]

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

From: David Fiedler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New MCI Sleaze or Just a Mistake?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System 408 241-9760
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1991 07:10:20 GMT


edsr!tantalum![e-mail] (Matt L. Armstrong) writes:

> us (he's been pretty good about not impersonating me lately ...), my
> guess as to the explanation is this: MCI has sent this note hoping to
> get me (aka J. Random Citizen) to switch to their service by tempting
> me with the prestige of having my own 800 number which has,
> conveniently enough, already been established.

I just started dealing with MCI (because of their new Preferred
program) so I hope not. It does sound rather like overzealous
marketing.

> Curious question: Is this number by any chance used by more than one
> customer such that MCI uses the "security code" to differentiate
> between destination numbers, or is MCI just filling up 800 number
> space?

Yes on your first guess. They call it "private 800" service. If you
dial an incorrect security code, and you get someone else, do they
pay? And then complain to MCI about it? And then MCI pulls the whole
shebang?  I guess we'll find out.


David Fiedler       UUCP:{ames,mrspoc,hoptoad}!infopro!david        AIR: N3717R
"Video for Computer Professionals"   BIX: fiedler  Internet: [e-mail]
USMail:InfoPro Systems, PO Box 220 Rescue CA 95672 Phone:[phone] FAX:-5873

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #307
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26211;
          27 Apr 91 13:43 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04468;
          27 Apr 91 12:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02928;
          27 Apr 91 10:56 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Apr 91 10:13:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #308
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Apr 91 10:13:16 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 308

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Living in America [Dave Leibold]
    Pulling the Last Plug [[e-mail]]
    CSMA-CD Performance [Harry Erwin]
    Unauthorized Repair Charges [Tim Irvin]
    NATA Sourcebook [Leroy Casterline]
    Remote Three-Way Conferencer [Chris C. Hollands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 23:21:00 PST
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Living in America
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Some findings since coming down from the north a few weeks ago to the
U.S. of A....

Installing a local line can be particularly expensive. Southern Bell
will grab USD$142 to install a new line. Bell Canada would be hard
pressed to charge a third of that for an install (definitely not on
extra Toronto line I had installed).

Southern Bell could be reached from Canada at 1 800 753.0710 for
purposes of arranging new service; the live operator who came on
(after running through a bunch of touch tone selections on the
automated call director) asked how she could provide "excellent"
service. Bodacious! Bill and Ted's "Excellent" BOC :-) After many
questions (including default long distance carrier, which most
Canadians wouldn't be too well versed on), plus a request for a
"social security" number (they took the Canadian equivalent; the
social insurance #), things were set for an install. Of course, they
tried to go after me rather heavily to add on the Call Waiting service
to all the other detailed charges.

MCI seems to be working out quite well so far. The Customer Service is
good, though there is a tendency to take many, many rings before
getting an operator live.

COCOTs are everywhere ... and fortunately so are Southern Bell's
"real" payphones (so far). The COCOTs for the most part seem to allow
access to the carriers, though 10288 (AT&T) is the only 10XXX code
that seems to be accepted by these things. 950 and 800 number access
can be done on at least some of them. The worst COCOTs will attempt to
bill for 800 number Directory Assistance (on Southern Bell payphones,
1 800 555.1212 is free).

The worst COCOT found thus far was outside a Burger Thing in Boca
Raton. The name of the COCOT operator wasn't mentioned (just a phone
number in NPA 305). A robot voice would actually come on and ask for
$3 for calls to currently non-operational area codes like 909, 706,
etc and a lesser fee for "directory assistance" to those area codes.
It wouldn't have done much good to talk to the management anyway as
they didn't have their act together enough to be able to sell any
Whoppers at the time.  Sometimes you gotta break the rules :-)

A bizarre switching bug happens when 1 700 555.4141 is dialed on a
Southern Bell payphone: a canned voice will come out and actually ask
for 65c. Weird thing to happen for a carrier check (which I was able
to do free from Detroit not too many months earlier). '00' will do
quite nicely, though ... default carriers can range from AT&T to MCI,
Sprint and Metromedia/ITT. COCOTs like ITI and Telesphere for their
"carriers".

As a final note, the PBS Nova program featuring a re-creation of the
tracing of the German/KGB hacking ring was broadcast. Cliff Stoll
played himself in the program, as well as the other participants in
the trace, complete with location shots in Germany. Check your local
PBS station or TV listings...


David Leibold    [e-mail]   IMEx 89:480/126
or c/o The Super Continental BBS  [phone]
Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Long-time Digest readers will recall that David
Leibold corresponded with us regularly from Canada while he was living
there. He submitted the Canadian area code and prefix tables available
in the Telecom Archives (ftp from lcs.mit.edu).   PAT]

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

Subject: Pulling the Last Plug
Date: Wed Apr 24 17:29:18 1991
From: [e-mail]


The April 19 edition of the {San Jose Mercury News} had this story in
the state news section:

Plug pulled on last cord telephone board.

Computer replaces four manual switchboards at Kerman Company.

KERMAN (AP) - They're pulling the plug on California's last manual
telephone switchboard, ending an era when an operator's nimble
fingers, not a soulless computer, connected the caller to the rest of
the world.

"Cord boards" were romanticized in movies.  The operators were
familiar, friendly voices willing to give extra help in towns across
America.

"When I got out of school, this was it," Glennda Kountz said.  She
became an operator for Kerman Telephone Co. after high school almost
20 years ago.

But a computer was being installed this week to replace Kerman
Telphone's four manual units.  Rena McDonald of California Telephone
Association said it is the last cord board used by a commercial
telephone company in the state.

"There might be a farmer somewhere who connects a cord board to his
barn," said McDonald, adding that there still are manual switchboards
in some rural parts of the nation.

A light glows near the top of a black backboard when someone wants to
make an operator-assisted call in Kerman.  An operator plugs one cord
into the lighted slot, finds out where the call should go, plugs a
second cord into an outgoing trunk line and dials the number.

"I hate to see it go, but I'm looking forward to new challenges,"
Kountz said.  Operators handle 1,000-2,000 long-distance calls a day
plus about 300 requests for information.

Customers in Kerman already dial most long-distance calls directly,
but they have had to dial zero to reach the manual equipment for
credit card or collect calls.

And some older residents dial zero to get special service.

"They ask us to 'call my daughter at Bank of America,'" Kountz said.
"We know who she is because we've been here so long.  We just go ahead
and dial it.

"Or they say they want the little store on the corner.  You give them
that number.  That's the good part, dealing with the community."

The telephone system in this farming community of 5,400 some 200 miles
north of Los angeles has been upgraded bit by bit since William
Sebatstian bought the company for $40,000 in 1946.

His first telephone office "orginally was a beer parlor," Sebastian
recalled.  "I lived in the lean-to on the side."

Now 75, Sebastian recalls that his first 1930s-style switchboard was
more antiquated than the one he's replacing now.

"Customers turned a crank, and only half the cords worked," he said.

Some computer functions, such as recording calls and billing, have
been added gradually to the current manual switchboard, which was
purchased about 20 years ago.  And Kerman Telephone has expanded into
such modern businesses as burglar alarm systems and faxes.

"We use the old principle of doing a better job at less cost or doing
more at the same price," Sebastian said.

Only one person at a time will operate the computer-based switchboard
scheduled to start up next week.  But Sebastian said his eight
operators will keep their jobs, transferring to other areas or adding
duties to their board work.

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

From: Harry Erwin <trwacs![e-mail]>
Subject: CSMA-CD Performance
Date: 25 Apr 91 12:05:55 GMT
Organization: TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA


I'm seeking information on the performance of CSMA-CD protocols.
Benchmark results, analytic models, and simulation models are of
interest.  In part, this is to support the development of a large air
traffic control system, and in part this is to follow up on some
Lawrence Livermore work on non-stationary statistics in CSMA-CD
protocol performance.


Harry Erwin   Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 18:46:40 EDT
From: Tim Irvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unauthorized Repair Charges
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I got in a (shall be say) spirited discussion with a NET Customer
Service Rep about a Repair Charge that was on my bill this month.
With out boring y'all with the gory details of my problem.  The jist
of the conversation centered around this rep trying to scare me into
subscribing to the Inside-Wire Maintanence plan.

She told me that, hypothetically, my neighbor could call my house, get
a busy signal, and think that my line is out-of-order, then proceeds
to call Repair.  If it turns out I was simply on the phone, and a
service man is dispatched that I would be charged for this (as far as
I am concerned) unauthorized, and unrequested service call -- unless
(of course) I subscribe to their Inside-wire Plan.

Could this be right, (or legal)?  I let her know what I thought of
that, but she persisted.

After I got her off this hypothetical situation, I finally convinced
her to remove the charge I had called about (had nothing to do with
neighbors -- just poorly trained Repair Service Reps), but only after
threatening me with a PERMANENT black mark on my records indicating
that no further Repair Service charges would ever be taken off my
account, no matter what the reason.

So, I guess I shouldn't tell any of you my phone number eh??  :)
Anybody could now place a couple dozen repair calls in on my phone,
and I have to declare bankrupcy.

Well, in my rage at the end of this call, I shot a letter off to the
NH PUC, and NET with my complaints.  Who knows, I maybe even be
ignored.... :)


Tim Irvin

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 16:58:02 -0600
From: Leroy Casterline <[e-mail]>
Subject: NATA Sourcebook


The other day, I ordered a copy of the NATA (North American
Telecommunications Association) Sourcebook, which arrived today.  The
sourcebook is a listing of NATA member companies, divided into the
following categories: contractors, pay phones, manufacturers,
suppliers, telecommunications services and other organizations.

The largest section of the book (about 87 of 195 pages, 500 to 600
entries) is devoted to listing contractors, which are cross-referenced
by vendor.  There are about 115 or so pay phone companies listed
(including Amway [yes, that Amway]).  There are around 200
manufacturers, 14 suppliers (wholesalers?), 80ish telecommunications
services providers, and about 120 'other organizations', which include
government agencies and associations.

Information provided on each company includes name, address, phone
number, and other information which varies from company to company,
including contact names, number of employees, year established, and
sometimes (not often enough) a few words describing what they do.

NATA sells the sourcebook for $38.00 to members and $53.00 to
non-members.  I got it at no charge as part of a promotion of the
_Industry Basics_ (IB) book (buy two IB, get one source book for
free).  Since I was planning on buying one copy of each book, and IB
sells for $40.00 (non-member's price), I saved a few bucks and got an
extra copy of IB for one of my engineers.

NATA can be reached at 800/538-6282.


Leroy Casterline | Cahill Casterline Limited | Fort Collins, Colorado
                   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris C. Hollands)
Subject: Remote Three-Way Conferencer
Date: 25 Apr 91 02:54:12 GMT
Organization: Hale Telecommunications San Diego CA


Hello.  I'm new to "comp.dcom.telecom".

I need a kind person's help to design a circuit.  The circuit is for a
device to be used on my office telephone line.  I know of no
commercially available product that can do what I need this circuit to
do.  Here is a (probably too verbose) explanation of what I need help
with.

The purpose of the device is to be able to remotely use the three-way
conference call feature offered by the telephone central office.

The single-line telephone in my office has three-way conference
capability. Somebody can call me at work, then I can put that caller
on hold so I can dial a third party, and then I can bring the original
caller back on the line. The company I work for also lets me access a
private long-haul network that it uses to carry its business long
distance calls at economical bulk rates. Often I need to call overseas
to Europe or southeast Asia to conduct business, but the time
difference sometimes makes it inconvenient to call during normal
office hours. Rather than having to drive to my office late at night
or in the wee hours of the morning to use that phone, I would like be
able to call from my home phone and use the device (attached to the
line in my office) to make the economical long distance call.

The circuit should operate like this:

1.  It will detect an incoming call and go "off hook," similar to the
way a computer modem answers a call (minus the carrier tone).

(From this point on, the circuit (device) should "beep" if five
minutes elapse without detecting a DTMF tone. It should go "on hook"
(hang up) several seconds after the beep unless it hears a DTMF tone.
Any DTMF tone except "*" should cause this timer to reset for another
five minutes. The purpose of the timer is to make the device hang up
in the event the caller was cut off.  Any time it detects a "*" tone,
it should immediately hang up.

2.  After answering the call, the device should accept a four-digit
security code (DTMF tones) and emit two beeps, indicating to the
caller that the security code was correct.  If the caller enters an
incorrect security code, the device should abruptly hang up and "wait"
at least one minute before being able to answer a subsequent call.
(The security code will be manually set by concealed thumbwheels or
dip switches inside the device.  The purpose of waiting a minute after
an incorrect code is to discourage someone repeatedly calling to try
to learn the code.)

3.  If the security code was correct, then after the two beeps the
device will accept and store up to 20 DTMF digits, the content of
which is the third party telephone number, terminated with a "#" tone
meaning "done."  (Don't store the "#" tone.)

4.  The device will then perform the electronic equivalent of a "hook
flash" (approximately 200 to 500 milliseconds duration), which has the
effect of putting the original caller temporarily on hold. The hook
flash duration should be manually adjustable to allow for telephone
central office compatibility.

5.  The device will then wait approximately one second (or detect dial
tone), and then transmit the stored telephone number as DTMF tones at
a normal dialing pace (the way a computer modem dials).

6.  When the string of digits has been transmitted, the device will
then wait approximately two seconds for the telephone central office
to begin processing the call, and then hook flash again to bring the
original caller online, thus establishing a three-way conference call.

7.  Thereafter, the device will "listen" for a DTMF "*" tone,
indicating the end of the conference call, and then hang up, reset
itself, and wait for the next call.  In this case there is no need to
"wait" a minute, as it would have done for an incorrect security code.

(As previously mentioned, during the conference call the device will
produce a warning "beep" every five minutes.  To continue the
conversation, the original caller must press any digit or "#".  This
should reset the timer and allow the conversation to continue another
five minutes. However, when both parties finish the conversation, the
original caller should press "*" before hanging up, to tell the device
to immediately hang up itself.)

Also, for the sake of power outage, the device should default to an
"on hook" mode.

Well, this conceptually simple device is pretty far beyond my
experience level.  I think it requires a single-chip computer with a
bit of programming, perhaps some relays, a DTMF decoder and encoder, a
power supply, etc.  Thanks in advance for your help.

Please reply privately to "[e-mail]" or post here.

Note: I saw Larry Casterline's email about just such a device and I am
trying to contact him directly.  However, I would still like to build
the device I described above.  Thanks.


Chris Hollands   Chula Vista, CA   [e-mail], [e-mail]
            HALE TELECOMMUNICATIONS - Public Access Node, San Diego
                                 619/660-6734

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #308
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20419;
          27 Apr 91 23:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08269;
          27 Apr 91 22:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17636;
          27 Apr 91 21:05 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Apr 91 20:57:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #309
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Apr 91 20:57:27 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 309

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Computer/Telex Interface [Leslie Mikesell]
    Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing [John Higdon]
    Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [Rich Szabo]
    Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [Phil Weinberg]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Sprint Raises Monthly 800 Fee [Eddy J. Gurney]
    Re: Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit [Julian Macassey]
    Another AT & T Aggregator? [Kyle Rudden]
    A Mystery Refund From MCI [Doctor Math]
    SaudiNet Gateway CLOSED [Ken McVay]
    900 Blocking [David G. Cantor]
    Restricting Telemarketers [Steve Baumgarten]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Leslie Mikesell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Computer/Telex Interface
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1991 15:29:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nigel
Allen) writes:

> Someone was asking about a computer-to-Telex interface.

An easy solution is a connection to attmail since a telex number is
automatically provided.  You can either get individual or unix
accounts.  On a unix account, telex messages are received as mail to a
user named "telex".  Outbound messages might be cheaper through some
other service, but unless you do a lot of international business, you
probably don't have a lot of outbound telex traffic.


Les Mikesell    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 00:51 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing


"Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]> writes:

> In fact, Dear Readers, ComDial remains the place you can still
> buy a 500 or 2500 set with a STEEL baseplate,

The recently-purchased 2500 set sitting next to me made by Cortelco in
Corinth, MS, has a steel baseplate. It also has a standard mechanical
ringer with TWO gongs.

> And finally, the message for John Higdon: Pacific Telephone has
> bought these beasts and should be starting installationa about now.
> (Just thought you'd like the warning so you can convert to all GTE
> FX's, John!)

I had heard about these things, but had not for one moment considered
that any real telco would buy or install them. But then, Pac*Bell is
hardly a real telco so what else could be expected?

My contacts at Pac*Bell have SWORN that the replacement for my 5XB
will be a 5ESS, and that it will appear in time for the CLASS startup
in October, and that CLASS WILL be offered. Too bad it is Friday
night; there will be some phone calls made about this nightmare. Woe
be unto any who have told me what I want to hear just to get this
monkey of his back.

As far as converting to GTE FX is concerned, I will have the phone
removed first. Better to sit in isolation, listening to Beethoven and
reading trade journals than to fight with GTE and what it passes off
as "service". Near as I can tell, the GTD-5 is the GTE equivalent of
the DCO, right? Just ask the Police/Fire departments in Los Gatos!


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 15:18:24 -0400
From: Rich Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I am sketchy on how ISDN interacts and co-exists with Plain Old
Telephone Service.  Does an ISDN line have a "phone number?"  If so,
what happens if I dial this number from a Plain Old Telephone?  Can an
ISDN line be used as a voice line so that I don't need a POTS line in
addition?


Rich Szabo 216-662-1112 internet:[e-mail]
[e-mail] <-- Real Soon Now, so they say

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

From: Phil Weinberg SPS <hplabs!mcdcup![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN
Date: 27 Apr 91 00:10:04 GMT
Reply-To: Phil Weinberg SPS <hplabs!mcdcup![e-mail]>
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products, Sunnyvale , CA 94086-5303


In article <[e-mail]> share!bcousert%zardoz.uucp@
ics.uci.edu (William Robert Kent Cousert) writes:

> Could someone briefly describe in laymen's terms what ISDN is?  Also,
> is ISDN fast enough for real-time video?

A fairly good aricle describing ISDN and the various Acronyms associated
with ISDN can be found in the March 1 issue of EDN.  The only major
omission in the article (warning - a commercial is coming) was leaving
out Motorola as a source of ISDN IC's in the list near the end of the
article (pages 80-88).

Of course you can also wade through the CCITT, ANSI, and BELLCORE
documents to get the actual specs for this service.

<< Usual Disclaimer >>


Phil Weinberg @ Motorola Semiconductor, Sunnyvale, CA 94086-5395
UUCP:  {hplabs, mot,} !mcdcup!phil  or [e-mail]
Telephone:  [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 16:47:03 PDT
From: Jack Winslade <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Reply-to: ivgate!drbbs![e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In recent articles:

> Because these costs are going down so very much they will quickly be
> dwarfed (or indeed may already be dwarfed) by other costs such as
> local access, accounting of calls, etc.  Therefore, for all practical
> purposes a LOCAL phone calls costs as much as a LONG DISTANCE phone
> call.

> Clearly the pricing structures do not reflect these costs (Yet!).  My
> question is - What is AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc going to do when they can
> no longer reasonably charge more than a local call?  Won't this change
> the industry substantially?  Will North America move to a wide area
> extended flat rate billing zone?

> How about this - you pay Sprint $10/month to call anywhere in the USA
> to talk for as long as you want.

I don't think we're gonna see this in God's lifetime <grin>.

The Phone Companies will do whatever it takes to maximize their profits.
That means maximum $$$ transferred from the pockets of consumers
(that's you and me, gang) to the pockets of the corporations.

If they *COULD* make more by offering flat-rate service, they would,
but I think in practicality it would result in some people abusing it
(as in the 1800-0700 PCP connections of a few years ago) and keeping
lines open continuously.  Selling it by the slice instead of
all-you-can-scarf is obviously more profitible for all telecom
corporations.

Local telcos have been trying to push for the end of flat and/or
untimed local service in favor of measured service.  They **CLAIM**
this 'saves money for many customers' but in truth it simply serves to
extract more $$$ from customers' pockets.

I **CAN**, however, visualize that in the near future the least
expensive portion of a phone call will be the long distance transport
from one area to another.  I can imagine LD calls costing just
slightly over local calls of the same duration, but the most expensive
part of any call, local, LD, or international, may very well be the
local telco's charge for the local loop portion of the call, whether
it is to another local subscriber or the terminal point for an
interexchange carrier.

However (comma) if I am wrong, I would not gripe. ;-)


Good Day!        JSW

[1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)
 ..uunet!ivgate!drbbs

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

From: "Eddy J. Gurney" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Raises 800 Monthly Fee
Organization: The Eccentricity Group - East Lansing Division
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 16:59:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Elias)
writes:

> US Sprint has raised their monthly charge for 800 numbers to $15 from
> $10.

Well, I found this out "the hard way" when I got my most recent bill
from them.  I had not received _any_ information that this was going
to happen, and I immediately called them to complain.  They were very
nice about it, and said they would credit my next bill with $15.  (Why
it wasn't just $5 I have no idea, and whether they really will credit
it $15 is yet to be seen.)  I did have to talk to a supervisor to get
the credit.

Anyway, the $15 has suddenly made 800 service through Sprint less then
desirable.  The previous $10/month charge was barely acceptable, but
this definitely puts it over the edge.  So now I'm once again looking
for a LDC to take my 800 service.  (I know this was discussed in the
Digest a few months ago, which is where I found out about Sprint, but
there weren't too many other LDCs mentioned.)

So ... any other suggestions as to which LDCs offer personal 800
service at reasonable rates?  (Note that MCI is totally out of the
question, as they require a "Personal Security Code" and assign a
"shared" 800 number.)

The bad part is I really like my 800 number through Sprint - it ends
in EDDY!


Eddy J. Gurney  N8FPW --- [e-mail] --- The Eccentricity Group


[Moderator's Note: You might ask if Telecom*USA is still offering
their 800 service at $2.75 per month plus the cost of the calls.
Although MCI has taken them over, the services Telecom*USA always
offered before seen to still be available. I still have my three 800
numbers from them. (I had two, but I added their 800 voicemail.)  PAT]

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit
Date: 25 Apr 91 04:58:55 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: Co-dependant Orphans  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In TELECOM Digest V11 #297, is written:

>> Could anyone give me pointers to a circuit which would automatically
>> disconnect an answering machine when at least one phone connected to
>> the line is off hook (picked up), and restore the normal operating
>> state of the answering machine, when all phones are back on hook.

Go down to your local Radio Shack "America's Technology Store" (Made
in Taiwan). Ask for "The Teleprotector Voice and Data Guard". Part
Number 43-107. Cost $7.95.

    Take it home and plug it in to your wall jack and plug the
Answering machine into it. If you lift another phone in the house, the
answering machine will be cut off.

Works with phones that get taken off hook when you are using your
modem. In this case, put the teleprotector on the offending phone when
the modem is off hook, the phone will be dead.


Julian Macassey, n6are  [e-mail]  ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 00:35:05 edt
From: Kyle Rudden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another AT & T Aggregator?


Hi fellow telcomers,

Recently a representative from a company called World Wide
Communications approached our company offering us an alternate
long-distance plan using AT & T's Software Defined Network.  World
Wide doesn't make any money off of us, but gets a rebate back from AT
& T.  The advantages that the tout in their sales literature include:

* No installation charges
* No minimum usage
* No long term commitment (company can cancel within 90 days)
* Monthly bill received from AT & T
* All outgoing calls will be placed utilizing the SDN

Based upon remembrance of a past thread on aggregators, what is the
opinion of fellow Digest readers?  Is this the same type of service
that would be delivered if all outgoing calls utilized the 10832
access code in front of them?

One side note is that we would be issued new AT & T calling cards with
different PINs on them.  What is the reason for this?


In the real world:  Bob Baxter
                    UltraSoft Corp., NY
                    [phone]
On the Internet:    [e-mail]

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

From: Doctor Math <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Mystery Refund From MCI
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 22:43:15 PDT
Organization: Brown Cow Software (a licensed Waffle developer)


Something interesting happened to me today ... this month's phone bill
included a $10 credit from MCI! A quick check of my various phone
lines indicates that I'm still with my chosen long distance carrier
(which isn't MCI). I didn't call and ask about it (don't look a gift
horse in the mouth, etc.), but I suspect that MCI tried to slam me and
failed. This probably came about because about a month and a half ago,
I called four or five of the bigger long-distance carriers and asked
them to send me some thick, glossy documentation, which they did. My
guess is that MCI construed this to mean I wanted their service as
default, which I did not. Very strange.

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken McVay)
Subject: SaudiNet Gateway CLOSED
Organization: 1B Systems Management Limited
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 06:57:35 GMT


Mail addressed to the troops in the Gulf theatre can no longer be
forwarded via [e-mail] - at least not until some
technical problems within SaudiNet have been addressed and resolved.

Major links in the chain, downstream from this site, are no longer
processing or forwarding SaudiNet mail, and I must reluctantly close
the gateway into the net.

If and when the problems are resolved, I will post an announcement
here.  Until then, any mail received will be regretfully returned to
the sender.


Ken McVay Co-Ordinator, SaudiNet Canada 1B Systems
Management Limited Nanaimo, British Columbia
Public Access UUCP/UseNet (Waffle/XENIX 1.64) | [e-mail]|
    TB+: 604-753-9960  2400: 604-754-9964     | ..van-bc!oneb!kmcvay    |
   FrontDoor 2.0/Maximus v1.02/Ufgate 1.03    | SaudiNet 90:82/0        |
           HST 14.4: 604-754-2928             | IMEx   89:681/1         |

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: 900 Blocking
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 08:19:05 +0100
From: "David G. Cantor" <[e-mail]>


In TELECOM Digest V11 #305 John Higdon states:

> With the advent of free 900/976 blocking, this whole debate can
> be concluded at long last.

I wish that were true.  The latest (issued, March 1991) San Diego Pac
Bell directory states:

    "Most customers can choose to have California 900 and
    976  blocked from their telephone line."

And the latest (Also issued March, 1991) Western Los Angeles GTE
directory states:

    "This feature, if available in your area, allows you to
    block the direct dial of 976 numbers within California
    and all 900 numbers from your telephone.  If you chose
    this service, you will be unable to place calls to all 976
    numbers within California and all 900 numbers."

Note that Pac Bell limits blocking to "most customers" and "California
976 and 900" (whatever that means) and GTE has a similar restriction
for 976 numbers.

If the telcos really wanted to provide complete blocking, they
obviously could!

Besides, next year the telcos will probably invent 901 numbers, then
902 numbers.


David G. Cantor   Department of Mathematics   University of California
Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555    Internet:  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I assume you meant the last paragraph as a joke
since of course we already have '901 and 902 numbers'.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 11:42:14 EDT
Subject: Restricting Telemarketers
From: Steve Baumgarten <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In Telecom 11/301, Ron Greenberg ([e-mail]) writes:

> On the local end, there is a bill pending in the DC city council to
> prohibit use of automated dialing machines for soliciting people
> without a preexisting relationship.  [...]

> Unfortunately, I think these state (or district) bills are limited to
> intrastate calls.  [...]

I wish we'd do something like this in New York City -- I get weekly
calls urging me to "Call 540-SCAM within 30 minutes to get yourself
ripped off!" (the 540 exchange is New York Telephone's local
equivalent of 1-900 numbers).

I rarely get automated calls from out of state, or even for 1-900
numbers.  So even though enacting local legislation wouldn't solve the
problem completely, it would be a welcome step in the right direction.


Steve Baumgarten    Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York, NY

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #309
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23459;
          28 Apr 91 0:44 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14495;
          27 Apr 91 23:13 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08269;
          27 Apr 91 22:09 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Apr 91 22:00:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #310
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Apr 91 22:00:02 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 310

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Shaving Ni-Cads (Removing 'Whiskers') [Jon T. Adams]
    New AT&T Switches [VOGON News, via Jeff E. Nelson]
    Number Plan Change in Norway [Morten Reistad]
    Driving a Beeper From UNIX 'tip/cu' [Greg Maples]
    Re: Prodigy Questions [Christopher Lott]
    Boys Town Needs Some Phones [Paul Daubitz, MCIOne, via Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Caller-ID Chip Specs [Will Martin]
    MCI - "Follow Me 800" [Bill Huttig]
    AT&T and 10xxx vs 800 [Bill Huttig]
    Help For New AT&T Mail User [Rich Szabo]
    Compuserve ATTMail Gateway [Ken Jongsma]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Jon T. Adams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shaving Ni-Cads (Removing 'Whiskers')
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 8:58:59 PDT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S. H.
Schwartz) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
> edu (Peter Hayward) writes:

>> A good six months ago, there was a discussion in this group about a
>> device that would "burn the whiskers" off nicad battery packs, thus
>> defeating the dreaded nicad memory problem.  I archived that message,

> What does this device do that cannot be accomplished by running down
> the battery in an ordinary flashlight, tape player, etc.?

Ni-Cad "whiskers" are actually crystalline growths that form within
the interior of the battery from the electrolyte and gasses released
during charge ans discharge.  These crystals are conductive enough
that they begin to seriously reduce the capacity of the battery by
putting low impedance bridges between the battery terminals.
Sometimes, enough can act together to internally short the battery and
make it useless.

The only practical way to get rid of these crystalline growths is to
apply a massive current that will essentially evaporate the crystals.
The current pulse must be short enough to prevent undue damage to the
battery yet enough current must be applied to destroy the whiskers.  I
know people who have resurrected their batteries using 50Vdc for
several milliseconds.  But this technique really only allows a
temporary increase in the battery lifespan.  Once the crystals have
formed en masse, the battery longevity will continue to drop off.


jon

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

From: "Jeff E. Nelson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New AT&T Switches
Date: 26 Apr 91 16:49:08 GMT
Reply-To: "Jeff E. Nelson" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


Reproduced with permission from an electronic newspaper, VNS, that
circulates within Digital.


Jeff E. Nelson           Digital Equipment Corporation
[e-mail]   Affiliation given for identification purposes only

<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>
 Edition : 2310               Friday 26-Apr-1991           Circulation :  8501
                                AT&T DISCO

Distributed Switching with Centralized Optics (DiSCO) is the prototype
of a lightning fast switching system that conveys calls with pulses of
light instead of electricity. DiSCO switches, says AT&T, will break
the bottleneck that exists when light waves traveling over optical
fibers have to be converted into slower moving electrons to go through
today's electronic switches. Last May AT&T announced a prototype DiSCO
switch that could take eight incoming fibers, each carrying thousands
of calls, and patch them through to any one of eight outgoing fibers.
Now it has quietly surpassed that with a 16x16 array, and the company
says more advances are in the works. The DiSCO comes in a brass
package the size of a candy bar and could fit into a conventional AT&T
switch, transforming it into a workhorse for big jobs such as high
quality videoconferencing. The first photonic switches, using DiSCO or
another design, should hit the market by 1995, says AT&T.  {Business
Week April 8, 1991}

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 22:35 +0200
From: Morten Reistad <[e-mail]>
Subject: Number Plan Change in Norway


In my latest phone bill insert the PTT ("Televerket") announces that
the number plan for our country will change completely.

Instead of the current seven-digit (two area + five local, or one area
+ six local) a uniform eight-digit plan is being introduced.

Cutover will be in two phases : from June 1st 1992 all calls must use
0 + area code regardless, except for the Oslo (02) area, where this
will be optional. Then the cutover to new area codes will happen
during 1993.

The new numbering plan (pending approval by the Ministry of
Communications) is presented as:

 22 + 6d          Oslo
 63-64,66-67 +6d  Akershus
 69 + 6d          Ostfold
 61,62 + 6d       Hedmark, Oppland, Hamar
 31-33 + 6d       Buskerud, Vestfold, Drammen
 35,37,38 + 6d    Telemark, Agder, Kristiansand
 51,52 + 6d       Rogaland. Stavanger
 53,55,56 + 6d    Hordaland, Bergen
 57,70,71 + 6d    Sogn & Fjordane, More & Romsdal
 72-74 + 6d       Trondelag, Trondheim
 75-76 + 6d       Nordland
 77-79 + 6d       Troms, Finnmark, Svalbard

There is a not quite persuasive argument about running out of numbers.
The old numbering plan is from 1965, and it smells of bad foresight to
have to change after only 27 years. A quick calculation gives 7.7
million numbers for 4.0 million people. How does this relate to other
countries?


Morten Reistad

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

From: Greg Maples <ddtisvr![e-mail]>
Subject: Driving a Beeper From UNIX 'tip/cu'
Organization: DuPont Design Technologies Group
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 00:14:50 GMT


We have a small admin team here, and we would like to be able to
detect the failure of our UPS's and use that info to phone a beeper
with an alphanumeric message.

All the pieces are in place but one.  We have the Alphanumeric
beepers, Motorola PMR2000's.  We have the ability to do pretty much
anything we want to with our unix system under a power fluctuation.

We don't however, have the following:

1) The knowledge of what these beepers want to get to see alphanumeric
   codes.  Legend here has it that these beepers want some form of
   wierd octets driven from the tone pad, and that these are decoded
   into alphanumeric.

2) The tip/cu program capable of sending those codes. (This is for
   a sun 4/370)

3) A sales rep for the beepers that has ANY idea what computer dialing
   is.  He suggests we get a 'keyboard' that hooks to a phone to send
   these wierd octets.

Thanks for any help.


Greg Maples                      | These are my opinions, not yours. Keep your
Systems Group Leader             | hands off 'em. They're also not the opinions
DuPont Design Technologies       | of my employer or yours. So there. (c) 1991
[e-mail]      | The preceding is an opinion which is mine.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 13:11:51 -0400
From: Christopher Lott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy Questions
Organization: The University of Maryland Dept of Computer Science


In article <[e-mail]> Arnette Baker writes:

> I am looking for information on Prodigy.
> Can Internet users send e-mail to Prodigy users and vice-a-versa?

To the best of my knowledge, no.  I believe that this IS possible for
Compuserve, due to the kindness of Ohio-State's CIS software staff.

>I also need some comparative analysis of Prodigy vs. Compuserve.  Do
>the two offer similar services besides e-mail?  Of particular interest

Sorry, can't do comparative analysis.  But here's a few thoughts on
Prodigy.  I was offered their free one-month subscription along with
free s/w, so I bit.  IMHO the best thing about the service is access
to SABRE, the airline reservations system from American Airlines.  You
can check flights, availability, fares, and place reservations.  Then
you contact a travel agent to charge the ticket.  Prodigy has some
travel agent support online, but I don't know how good it is.

In terms of privacy, it's somewhat invasive WRT credit cards.  The
SABRE system won't let you in until you supply a credit card number,
but it doesn't do much validation; I've heard a bogus number works
great.  Lots of other offers want you to type in your credit card
number; I never did.

Just in case you didn't know this, the reason Prodigy is so cheap is
that they show an advertisement on nearly every screen.  And during a
lengthy screen repaint, they very carefully draw the ad first and let
you stare at it while the rest of the screen is being redrawn.

To date, I have received no junk mail resulting from Prodigy selling
their lists.  I made sure by deliberately entering my address with a
small mistake, and no junk mail has shown up with THAT as the address.
However, it was fun requesting freebies, product info, etc. from the
advertisers.  Got a swell miata poster and some other goodies; nothing
really great though.

The stock market quote service (and "portfolio tracker") are nice, if
you want to follow your securities closely.  There's an endless amount
of stuff to burn time with.  Games, forums, newsy stories, etc.  I
have Usenet for that already ;-)

Forget about using a 1200 baud modem with Prodigy, unless you're VERY
patient.  Between modem slowness and system delays, it's SLOW with a
1200.

Never used email on it; you get a certain number of messages free each
month, and then each one costs you $.25 past that free number.  Don't
know about their privacy policy, but I wouldn't count on ANYTHING.

That's all I can think of right now.  If I get another free month
somehow, I'll sign up again.  But *I* sure wouldn't pay for it.  Not
when I have free access to Usenet!


Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
  [e-mail] /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg  301 405-2721 <standard disclaimers>


[Moderator's Teaser:  If its *privacy* you want, the latest word is
Prodigy violates your privacy regularly. In the next issue of the
Digest, I'll be printing (what I feel is) a *very explosive* report I
received recently from a regular user of that service.  Apparently
they have no hesitation or compuction against raping your hard drive
in the process of getting you established on line.    PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 13:36 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boys Town Needs Some Phones


The following message was posted by Paul Daubitz, an independent
telecomms consultant, in MCIOne, a closed bbs limited to telecomms
consultants.  I hope that reposting it here to a wider audience might
garner broader support as that venerable orphanage, Boys Town, expands
its operations nationwide:


  04-24-91 23:17:10
  From: Paul Daubitz
  Subj: Need Key System Donated for Boys Town


Boys Town is doing great things with troubled kids.  They are starting
distributed operations in Los Angeles and New Orleans.  The
distributed approach allows the kids to remain in their local
community and at the same time get help and support.  Both operations
need key systems with approximate capacity of 12 X 36.  They initially
will likely need a dozen phones.  If anyone can help with a donation
of a new or pre-owned system which hopefully includes installation,
please contact Paul Daubitz directly.  Good corporate citizens have
donated over $200,000 in telecommunications equipment to Boys Town in
the past two years.  Previous donations have come from BellSouth,
Solid State Systems, TIE, Best Power Systems and 3M.

Interested parties can contact Paul Daubitz at [phone] or Fax
[phone].

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

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 9:51:01 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID Chip Specs


The April '91 issue of Electronic Products magazine has a
"new-product" announcment for a Caller-ID chip from Sierra
Semiconductor Corp. on page 81, and an editorial on the concept on
page 7. Here's the chip specs:

"The SC11210/211 Caller Indentification Circuit is the first highly-
integrated analog front end that supports the Caller Number Delivery
feature in a general switched telephone network. It receives and
decodes frequency shift key (FSK) modem signals -- sent through
telephone lines between the first and second rings -- and allows the
caller's number to be transmitted to a user's premises while the phone
is on-hook.

The device includes a differential-input buffer, a four-pole bandpass
filter, an FSK demodulator, a user-selectable energy detect circuit,
and a clock generator. The SC11211 version provides support for the
power-down and call-progress detect functions and has four energy
detect levels. The SC11210/211 operates from a +5V supply and is
available in 8- and 14-pin packages. (About $2 ea in qty 10,000 --
available now.)"

Contact: Sierra Semiconductor Corp. - Michael Friedman - 408-263-9300

Maybe the availability of this chip will cut the costs of Caller-ID
displays and make more PC-interfacing units available, and make it
easier for hobbyists to make their own versions.

As a practical matter, if a telco implements Caller-ID services, is it
going to send the data down the line on each and every call to each
and every instrument or line, or is it going to limit the data
transmission so that it only goes to people who have paid for it?
Would it be cheaper to send it to everyone or to do an edit and send
it only to the limited subset?

[This might be like touch-tone acceptance used to be in many areas --
it was easier and cheaper (or even necessary) to turn it on for an
entire CO or community, rather than enable it just for those who paid
the touch-tone premium. Of course, lately we've seen that the telcos
have been able to economically discriminate between lines where
tone-recognition was paid for and those where it wasn't. So will
caller-ID start out with that cost-effective discriminatory ability
universally available initially?]


Regards,

Will    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 15:21:50 -0400
From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI - "Follow Me 800"


In the May 1991 issue of TELECONNECT (page 10) in their News and
Scouting section there is a short article stating that MCI will
shortly introduce a "Follow Me 800 Line"... You call a MCI voice
response unit and give it a new number and all your 800 calls are sent
to that number.


Bill

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

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 15:27:33 -0400
From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800


I received some info on AT&T's USADirect Service and it notes an 800
number (800 872-2881) for calls from Bermuda, Dom. Rep. etc.. (I think
this for all the countries in the 809 area code).  When the number is
dialed from my home (407-676 Melbourne, FL) I receive the following
recording:

"The 800 number you have diailed is not yet in service ... Please
try this number at a later date."

Does this mean that AT&T will offer access to their network via 800
number in the future?


[Moderator's Note: I think what it means is that someone at the local
telco serving 407-676 misprogrammed the response code which is played
when the number is dialed. I think they meant to say merely, 'the
number is not in service from your area ...'       PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 15:42:35 -0400
From: Rich Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help For New AT&T Mail User
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Could you kind readers please provide some little-documented tips or
traps of ATTMail?  Real Soon Now, AT&T Mail says my account will be
active.  I would like to use the UUPC program to avoid e-mail charges.
E-mail to my ac220 address for now, please, and I will summarize for
the Digest.


Rich Szabo 216-662-1112 internet: [e-mail]
[[e-mail] <-- Not Yet But Real Soon Now]

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 09:45:49 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>
Subject: Compuserve ATTMail Gateway


Compuserve has announced that they now have a working email connection
to ATTMail. Addressing is as follows:

  SENDING TO AT&T MAIL (from Compuserve)

            >x400:(c=us;a=attmail;s=SURNAME;g=GIVEN;d=id:UNIQUE ID)

            >x400:(c=us;a=attmail;s=jones;g=bob;d=id:bjones)

  NOTE:  The ">x400:" must always precede the address, the address must
  be enclosed in paren's, and the elements must be separated by a
  semi-colon.

  SENDING FROM AT&T MAIL (to Compuserve)

       To: mhs/c=us/ad=compuserve/pd=csmail/d.id=70008.9004
       or
       To: mhs!csmail!70008.9004

  NOTE:  User ID MUST be addressed using a period NOT a comma.


Ken

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #310
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26087;
          28 Apr 91 1:47 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15768;
          28 Apr 91 0:17 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14495;
          27 Apr 91 23:13 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Apr 91 23:04:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #311
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Apr 91 23:04:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 311

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Mark A. Emanuele]
    Re: Prodigy Questions [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management? [Alex Cruz]
    Re: 212-516 in Use in 1986 [Mark A. Emanuele]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Mark A. Emanuele" <overlf![e-mail]>
Subject: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
Date: 26 Apr 91 19:09:50 GMT
Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc.  Fords, NJ


I just downloaded this from a local bbs and thought it might be interesting.


 ### BEGIN BBS FILE ###

   218/250: Fraudigy
   Name: George J Marengo #199 @6974
   From: The Gangs of Vista (Southern California) 619-758-5920


        The L. A. County District Attorney is formally investigating
PRODIGY for deceptive trade practices.  I have spoken with the
investigator assigned (who called me just this morning, February 22,
1991).

We are free to announce the fact of the investigation.  Anyone can
file a complaint.  From anywhere.

The address is:

District Attorney's Office
Department of Consumer Protection
Attn: RICH GOLDSTEIN, Investigator
Hall of Records   Room 540
320 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Rich doesn't want phone calls, he wants simple written statements and
copies (no originals) of any relevant documents attached.  He will
call the individuals as needed, he doesn't want his phone ringing off
the hook, but you may call him if it is urgent at 1-213-974-3981.

PLEASE READ THIS SECTION EXTRA CAREFULLY.  YOU NEED NOT BE IN
CALIFORNIA TO FILE!!

        If any of us "locals" want to discuss this, call me at the
Office Numbers: [phone]; [phone].  Remember, the next
time you pay your property taxes, this is what you are supposed to be
getting ... service.  Flat rate?  [laugh] BTW, THE COUNTY IS
REPRESENTING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  This ISN'T limited to L. A.
County and complaints are welcome from ANYWHERE in the Country or the
world. The idea is investigation of specific Code Sections and if a
Nationwide Pattern is shown, all the better.

LARRY ROSENBERG, ATTY


  Prodigy: More of a Prodigy Than We Think?
  By: Linda Houser Rohbough


     The stigma that haunts child prodigies is that they are difficult
to get along with, mischievous and occasionally, just flat dangerous,
using innocence to trick us. I wonder if that label fits Prodigy,
Sears and IBM's telecommunications network?

     Those of you who read my December article know that I was tipped
off at COMDEX to look at a Prodigy file, created when Prodigy is
loaded STAGE.DAT. I was told I would find in that file personal
information form my hard disk unrelated to Prodigy.  As you know, I
did find copies of the source code to our product FastTrack, in
STAGE.DAT. The fact that they were there at all gave me the same
feeling of violation as the last time my home was broken into by
burglars.

     I invited you to look at your own STAGE.DAT file, if you're a
Prodigy user, and see if you found anything suspect. Since then I have
had numerous calls with reports of similar finds, everything from
private patient medical information to classified government
information.

     The danger is Prodigy is uploading STAGE.DAT and taking a look at
your private business. Why? My guess is marketing research, which is
expensive through legitimate channels, and unwelcomed by you and I.
The question now is: Is it on purpose, or a mistake?  One caller
theorizes that it is a bug. He looked at STAGE.DAT with a piece of
software he wrote to look at the physical location of data on the hard
disk, and found that his STAGE.DAT file allocated 950,272 bytes of
disk space for storage.

     Prodigy stored information about the sections viewed frequently
and the data needed to draw those screens in STAGE.DAT. Service would
be faster with information stored on the PC rather then the same
information being downloaded from Prodigy each time.

     That's a viable theory because ASCII evidence of those screens
shots can be found in STAGE.DAT, along with AUTOEXEC.BAT and path
information. I am led to belive that the path and system configuration
(in RAM) are diddled with and then restored to previous settings upon
exit. So the theory goes, in allocating that disk space, Prodigy
accidently includes data left after an erasure (As you know, DOS does
not wipe clean the space that deleted files took on the hard disk, but
merely marked the space as vacant in the File Allocation Table.)

     There are a couple of problems with this theory. One is that it
assumes that the space was all allocated at once, meaning all 950,272
bytes were absorbed at one time.  That simply isn't true.  My
STAGE.DAT was 250,000+ bytes after the first time I used Prodigy. The
second assumption is that Prodigy didn't want the personal
information; it was getting it accidently in uploading and downloading
to and from STAGE.DAT. The E-mail controversy with Prodigy throws
doubt upon that. The E-mail controversy started because people were
finding mail they sent with comments about Prodigy or the E-mail,
especially negative ones, didn't ever arrive. Now Prodigy is saying
they don't actually read the mail, they just have the computer scan it
for key terms, and delete those messages because they are responsible
for what happens on Prodigy.

     I received a call from someone from another user group who read
our newsletter and is very involved in telecommunications.  He
installed and ran Prodigy on a freshly formatted 3.5 inch 1.44 meg
disk. Sure enough, upon checking STAGE.DAT he discovered personal data
from his hard disk that could not have been left there after an
erasure. He had a very difficult time trying to get someone at Prodigy
to talk to about this.

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

Excerpt of email on the above subject:

THERE'S A FILE ON THIS BOARD CALLED 'FRAUDIGY.ZIP' THAT I SUGGEST ALL
WHO USE THE PRODIGY SERVICE TAKE ***VERY*** SERIOUSLY.  THE FILE
DESCRIBES HOW THE PRODIGY SERVICE SEEMS TO SCAN YOUR HARD DRIVE FOR
PERSONAL INFORMATION, DUMPS IT INTO A FILE IN THE PRODIGY
SUB-DIRECTORY CALLED 'STAGE.DAT' AND WHILE YOU'RE WAITING AND WAITING
FOR THAT NEXT MENU COME UP, THEY'RE UPLOADING YOUR STUFF AND LOOKING
AT IT.

     TODAY I WAS IN BABBAGES'S, ECHELON TALKING TO TIM WHEN A
GENTLEMAN WALKED IN, HEARD OUR DISCUSSION, AND PIPED IN THAT HE WAS A
COLUMNIST ON PRODIGY. HE SAID THAT THE INFO FOUND IN 'FRAUDIGY.ZIP'
WAS INDEED TRUE AND THAT IF YOU READ YOUR ON-LINE AGREEMENT CLOSELY,
IT SAYS THAT YOU SIGN ALL RIGHTS TO YOUR COMPUTER AND ITS CONTENTS TO
PRODIGY, IBM & SEARS WHEN YOU AGREE TO THE SERVICE.

     I TRIED THE TESTS SUGGESTED IN 'FRAUDIGY.ZIP' WITH A VIRGIN
'PRODIGY' KIT.  I DID TWO INSTALLATIONS, ONE TO MY OFT USED HARD DRIVE
PARTITION, AND ONE ONTO A 1.2MB FLOPPY.  ON THE FLOPPY VERSION, UPON
INSTALLATION (WITHOUT LOGGING ON), I FOUND THAT THE FILE 'STAGE.DAT'
CONTAINED A LISTING OF EVERY .BAT AND SETUP FILE CONTAINED IN MY 'C:'
DRIVE BOOT DIRECTORY.  USING THE HARD DRIVE DIRECTORY OF PRODIGY THAT
WAS SET UP, I PROCEDED TO LOG ON.  I LOGGED ON, CONSENTED TO THE
AGREEMENT, AND LOGGED OFF. REMEMBER, THIS WAS A VIRGIN SETUP KIT.

     AFTER LOGGING OFF I LOOKED AT 'STAGE.DAT' AND 'CACHE.DAT' FOUND
IN THE PRODIGY SUBDIRECTORY.  IN THOSE FILES, I FOUND POINTERS TO
PERSONAL NOTES THAT WERE BURIED THREE SUB-DIRECTORIES DOWN ON MY
DRIVE, AND AT THE END OF 'STAGE.DAT' WAS AN EXACT IMAGE COPY OF MY
PC-DESKTOP APPOINTMENTS CALENDER.

     CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF.

 ### END OF BBS FILE ###

I had my lawyer check his STAGE.DAT file and he found none other than
CONFIDENTIAL CLIENT INFO in it.

Needless to say he is no longer a Prodigy user.


Mark A. Emanuele   V.P. Engineering  Overleaf, Inc.
218 Summit Ave   Fords, NJ 08863   [phone]
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for sending along this fascinating
report for the readers of TELECOM Digest. I've always said, and still
believe that the proprietors of any online computer service have the
right to run it any way they want -- even into the ground! -- and
that users are free to stay or leave as they see fit. But it is really
disturbing to think that Prodigy has the nerve to ripoff private stuff
belonging to users, at least without telling them. But as I think
about it, *who* would sign up with that service if they had bothered
to read the service contract carefully and had the points in this
article explained in detail?    PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 19:53 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy Questions


     In article (Digest v11, iss303), Arnette P. Baker <ihlpf!kityss@
att.uucp> asks:

> I am looking for information on Prodigy.  I am looking into it because
> my parents just bought a PC and are looking for things to do with it
> ...question I have involves e-mail.

     Prodigy's interpretaion of what constitutes "mail," particularly
e-mail, has been a particular point of discussion.  It seems that from
the perspective of a lot of the public, Prodigy wants to have its cake
and eat it too, in that they CHARGE you for its delivery, and then
CENSOR anything they don't like.

     Even the Postal Service doesn't look inside your envelope when
you mail something, even though that may be something objectionable.
We can. of course, understand an electronic bulletin board's System
Operator reserving the right to delete items not in keeping with the
Sysop's policies.

     But Prodigy seems to be trying to go a step further, charging you
for more than a minimal amount of transmission, and heavily censoring
what it transports.  This might sound incredible, but the press report
I saw at the peak of public outrage concerned Prodigy censoring a
message in which a coin collector was asking about "Roosevelt dimes."
When he asked the Prodigy staff why they deleted his mail, the
unbelievably stupid retort was that "pro{oting personalities is
prohibited."  When he pressed about what "personality promotion" was
involved with Roosevelt dimes, the more unbelievably stupid reason
was, "Why, Roosevelt Dimes, the Chicago Bears football player, of
course!"  I have NOT made this story up.  I wish I could recall the
publication source to prove it.

     Incidents like this have caused suficient public outcry that
Prodigy is under investigation, as summed up in the following snippet
from <Information WEEK>, 4/22/91:


                      "FAR FROM A PRODIGY"

     (Network World, April 15, p.4) Prodigy Services Co. is being
investigated for possible criminal or civil violations stemming from
its electronic-mail pricing and bulletin board editing policies.
Users are complaining about the on-line service's recently
established 25-cent price tag for every E-mail message after the first
30 allowed per month; they claim that Prodigy's policy pf deleting or
editing controversial or obscene' (since when are Roosevelt dimes
either controversial OR obscene?) "messages from bulletin boards
violates the First Amendment.  (DA Probes BBS Practices at Prodigy, by
Barton Crockett)."

     My own opinion is that your parents would be best off to assert
one of our few remaining rights, to just take that Prodigy kit and
return it to Sears before they cancel the famous Sears money-bakc
guarantee.  There are plenty of other places to have both bbs
recreation and to use "electronic mail" provided by responsible
parties.  Even MCIMail has a deal where your e-mail (of moderate
length) costs only 25 cents per message, while it reaches a far wider
range, including real business.

     And, oh. Compu$erve's "e-mail" to the outside world is really a
port to MCIMail, so why not just open an MCIMail account and buy it
direct, and cheaper?

     All you need to do to help is to get an easy-to-use comms program
for their Sears-bought PS/1 (I recommend BOYAN as a very easy program
for beginners to use, especially if you install it and enter the
dialing directory numbers for them) and introduce them to the world of
REAL bbs-ing. In fact, if you get onto a commercial e-mail service and
request it of our Moderator, he can get the Digest delivered to DOS,
MAC or what-have-you there daily!


[Moderator's Note: This is correct. TELECOM Digest can be (and is!)
delivered to almost every commercial email service in the world.
Copies go to MCI Mail, ATT Mail, Telemail/Sprint Mail, Compuserve,
Portal, and many others including the Telebox Mail system in Germany.
All you have to do is provide me with a working path to get there.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 09:56 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management?


Dear Telecom Readers:

In the {MacWeek}, April 16th, 1991, Volume 5, Number 14 issue, there
is a story about a user lockout in the GEnie on-line service:

A Toronto couple requested an explanation of the online service's
recent lockout of members who disagreed publicly with GEnie
management.

Linda Kaplan, a GEnie member for more than five years, had both her
internal account and her paid account discontinued last month in what
she described as a series of personality conflicts and escalating
misunderstandings.  She said that GEnie cancelled accounts not on the
basis of rules being broken but just because someone lost their
temper.

Apparently, GEnie officials refused to comment on the matter but said
that they would clarify their policies in the future.

Ms. Kaplan had a paid account but she mainly used a systemwide free
account designed to bring in more users.  She said that some account
holders were bound by the secret agreements forbidding them from
criticizing GEnie, its sysops or executives.  She added that friends
who inquired about her absence from forums or who questioned
management's handling of the incident either in on-line forums or
private electronic mail found themselves drawn into the fray.

When another long time user, Peter Pawlyschyn, contacted management
and inquired about his rights on the service, he found himself
censored and harassed.

Other members have said that they were reduced to read-only status or
had their accounts cancelled after simply mentioning Kaplan's name in
postings.

Soooooo, here we go again with the issue of censoring certain
materials in large online systems.  Or is it really an issue?
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Alex Cruz  Associate, Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications
Consultant, American Airlines Decision Technologies

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

From: "Mark A. Emanuele" <overlf![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 212-516 in Use in 1986
Date: 28 Apr 91 01:21:20 GMT
Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc.  Fords, NJ


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

> I have vague recollections of a service that allowed 25 cent calls all
> over New York State for a maximum of 30 seconds.  It was specifically
> available at Grand Central Station (and probably Penn Station too) and
> was designed for "meet me at the station at 5:06" type of calls.

I have seen these payphones in Penn Sta. as recently as last month.

I needed to call NJ to have someone pick me up at the station.  I had
four minutes until the train left.  Tried to place a BELL ATLANTIC
credit card call, dialed 0 + 908 XXX-XXXX got a reorder. Tried JUST 0,
got re-order.  Phone ONLY took COINS, asked for Four Dollars and
Fifteen Cents Please!  Made the call AT the station (in NJ) for $.25


Mark A. Emanuele   V.P. Engineering  Overleaf, Inc.
218 Summit Ave   Fords, NJ 08863   [phone]
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #311
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01634;
          28 Apr 91 3:53 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20058;
          28 Apr 91 2:24 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01200;
          28 Apr 91 1:18 CDT
Date:     Sun, 28 Apr 91 0:45:49 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #312
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Apr 91 00:45:42 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 312

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Roaming Through the Midwest: Cell Phone Comparison [TELECOM Moderator]
    Florida Caller ID [Bill Huttig]
    New International Card Numbers [Bill Huttig]
    Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West [David Dodell]
    Re: Per Line Blocking? [Jamie Mason]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 0:24:05 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Roaming Through the Midwest: Cell Phone Comparison


I took my two cellular phones with me last week on my trip to Kansas.
Here are some observations:

The phones:   (A system) Cellular One/Chicago.  Three Watt 'bag phone'
              with window mounted antenna. Plugged into the car's
              cigarette lighter. Technophone MC-915-A.

              (B system) Ameritech Mobile Communications. Hand held
              unit from Radio Shack, CT-301.  Half-watt output, with
              small antenna on the unit. Recharged as needed from time
              to time from the cigarette lighter in the car.

The route:    From Chicago, south and southwest on I-55 to St. Louis,
              MO.  Then west on I-40 to the intersection of US-54.
              South and southwest on US-54 through the Ozark Mountains,
              until we reached Fort Scott, Kansas.  Then a couple of
              local highways going south, including Highway 169.
              Destination: Independence (Montgomery County), KS.
              The return route was the same in reverse.

              Two side trips: From Independence, northwest to Wichita, KS
              and back (140 miles each way).  Also, from Independence
              south to Tulsa, OK; I think about 60-70 miles each way.

              We started on Monday at 9 PM, and arrived in Independence
              early Tuesday afternoon. Returning, we left Friday night
              about 7 PM, and arrived home in Chicago Saturday about 2 PM.

Before leaving home, I consulted with both Cellular One and Ameritech
to make sure there would be no difficulty roaming. In addition,
Ameritech had 'Fast Track: Follow Me Roaming' in place, which allows
the user to notify his home system to send calls to wherever he
happens to be by pressing *18 when entering a new cellular service
area.

Unfortunatly, despite what the national directory said, and Cellular
One's own reference materials said about 'NationLink', and the use of
*30, *31, and *32 to use that feature, the representative I spoke with
insisted it was 'still in the testing stages here.'

With that in mind, I call-forwarded my home phone lines to the
Ameritech cell phone, then used *18 throughout our trip to enable
calls to my home (landline) phones to reach me. My mother 'kept tabs'
on us throughout our trip down and back by calling my 800 number in
Chicago, and it in turn called the Ameritech cell phone switch, which
in turn hunted me down. Since I have 'transfer to voice mail on
busy/no answer' from Ameritech, on those occassions when there was no
cell service along the way and the call could not be forwarded, it
simply went to my voice mail here in Chicago instead.

Going south on I-55, both phones went out of 'home' mode and into
roaming mode just south of Morris, IL, the outermost limit of the
Chicago service area. Ameritech's phone was usable in roaming mode,
but Cell One's was not. Even though *711 produced a response saying I
was in Cellular One territory, I was told 'the phone was not
authorized to make calls'. This was about midnight, and the local
office of Cell One had no one on duty to help. And this was despite
the rep's assurance earlier that day that it would work.

Meanwhile, I punched *18 on the Ameritech phone and from the truck
stop in Bloomington, IL I tried making a call from the payphone to my
home phone -- the call came through to the cell phone with no delay.

In Springfield, IL, *both* phones roamed. Apparently Cell One did not
update their switch in Chicago until about midnight, and on doing do,
they were also equipped to handle my calls. But I *know* about these
things and planned ahead ... what about the less knowledgeable user
who simply starts out on a trip and suddenly finds the phone won't
work?

As we got near the Missouri border, a company called 'Mac Tel
Cellular' very briefly took over the Ameritech (B) unit. Before long,
Mac Tel was gone, and Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems took over on
the B side. Once again, roaming worked fine on the Ameritech unit, and
*18 got me connected immediatly for incoming calls.

But the A side was messed up again!  St. Louis is served by a company
called 'Cybertel Cellular', and they would have nothing to do with me.
I was told I was not authorized to make calls. When I switched the bag
phone over to roaming on the B side however, Southwestern Bell was
more than happy to accept me -- an A subscriber -- right along with
the handheld B phone.

On a lark, I tried an experiment: using the bag phone on the B system
instead of its 'normal' A system, I punched in *18, and Southwestern
Bell Mobile Systems had no objection, saying calls would presently be
transferred to me from my home system ...  but it never happened.  On
the B side, I was able to use follow me roaming through St. Louis. SWB
did notify Ameritech to forward calls. I assume they also notified
*someone* to forward calls on the A phone also ... (who? were they
smart enough to know it was Cell One in Chicago and not Ameritech?)
 ... but whoever they notified did not do it.

Incidentally, throughout the whole trip I tried several times on the A
unit to get whatever company I was in to accept *31, but no one would
accept it. I guess it is just in the 'testing stages' here as the rep
said.

In general, coverage was much better this last trip than it was a year
ago. We had coverage the entire length of I-55, and for quite a
distance west on I-40 from various companies on the B system. Once we
got onto US-54, coverage was spotty at best; available here and there
for a few minutes at a time on either unit. The carrier we seemed to
get a lot was 'United States Cellular'. Both the A (bag phone) and B
(handheld unit) would wind up getting the same carrier in many of
those little places; I assume the service was mostly 'B', since the
handheld phone based on Ameritech could always do *18 and keep getting
calls; the bagphone based on Cellular One could make calls, but always
on the same carrier as the handheld, but *18 and *31/32 would usually
not be accepted.

Through much of the Ozark Mountains there is no cell service, nor is
there any the last 100 miles of the trip. I checked the phones from
time to time and both sat there blankly, saying only 'no service'.

Once in Independence, the results were curious: in parts of the town
which are higher than others, the little Ameritech half-watt phone
would roam through Tulsa, OK -- sixty miles away!  The bag phone
would work okay also under certain circumstances there.

On the trip to Wichita, neither phone had service until we got about
forty miles from Wichita, then both started roaming on their
respective carriers. Naturally, the Ameritech phone accepted *18, and
in fact I got a call from my doctor on the way to Wichita asking why I
had missed an appointment a few minutes earlier ... it was entirely
transparent, and the doctor did not even know he was being call
forwarded through several links to a cell phone driving down the
highway outside Wichita!

We were in two cars, so I used the handheld to call the Wichita 'A'
dialups and then was able to call the bag phone that way ... my
brother had the bag phone in the car following us.

On the trip to the airport in Tulsa, we started with a poor signal on
both phones almost as soon as we were outside Independence heading
south, but within a few miles both were roaming nicely on Tulsa on
their respective carriers.

Coming back, there was nothing of any special note. I kept entering
*18 on the Ameritech phone each time we would enter a new service
area, and everything seemed to work fine. A very disappointing thing
occurred though in the final 200 miles back. We took a slightly
different route returning, taking US-54 up into Illinois, then a
little side road several miles to where it connected into I-55. This
was no problem for the Ameritech phone, but the Cell One phone could
not place calls without making prior (credit card) arrangements. I
called the customer service for that company (also known as Cellular
One, but of Peoria, I believe), and they apologized 'for the trouble
caused by my home carrier, Cellular One of Chicago ...'. I asked them
what they meant by that, and they said Chicago had cancelled their
roaming agreement just a few days earlier.

By the time we got within about 100 miles of Chicago, we were all so
cranky, sleepy and hostile toward one another (in the car) I decided
to crawl in the back of the station wagon and sleep the rest of the
way home ... end of testing!

Overall, I think the Ameritech unit on the B system worked better,
especially considering it only had a little antenna on it and it put
out only a half-watt. The bag phone with three watts output was always
connected to the window mount antenna (little suction cups that stick
on the glass on the inside). There were times the handheld would say
there was 'no service' and the bag phone would still have a tiny
signal from somewhere, but it was seldom useable. The bag phone also
had instances of *appearing* to have service -- it would say it was
roaming and have a fairly decent signal for maybe three or four
minutes while the handheld did nothing.  The tech guy at Technophone
said that 'probably there were other signals in the area which
confused the phone into thinking there was service' ... I noticed that
when this happened -- the bag phone claimed we were roaming but the
handheld knew nothing about it -- that attempts to call on the bag
phone always failed; it was obviously not a cellular phone signal we
were getting, but probably some other form of radio signal.

In terms of the quality of the units however, everyone who has talked
to me on both cell phones seems to think the Technophone actually
sounds a lot better than the Radio Shack unit.

Comments and feedback welcome. If you know a little about cellular
roaming, please share your experiences and insight.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 15:29:21 -0400
From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Florida Caller ID


Our PUC approved Caller ID starting July 1. If the SouthernDing-a-Ling
(SouthernBell) rep is correct it had per call blocking available.

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

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 15:30:43 -0400
From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: New International Card Numbers


Does any one know when the other (non-AT&T) carriers are going to
issue international calling card numbers?)

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

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 18:19:32 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West


On <Sat, Apr 27 00:29>, TELECOM Moderator (...!eecs.nwu.edu!telecom )
wrote:

> [Moderator's Note: Well I would rather suspect the owner of the box
> has to load the information matching certain numbers and names. How
> would telco know who was calling? All they can say for sure is the
> number.  PAT]

Actually that is coming.  I was at a friend's house who works for US
West.  I was reading their internal weekly newsletter, and it said
that US West was testing a Called ID scheme in Nebraska (I think) that
would deliver both the calling number and subscriber name.  The
article went on to say that this was unique where all other systems
only delivered the calling number.


David

          St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona
        uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
    Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD                    FidoNet=> 1:114/15
    Internet: [e-mail]       FAX: [phone]

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

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking?
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Science Undergraduate Student
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1991 22:32:42 -0400


In article <[e-mail]> Peter Creath <peterc@taronga.
hackercorp.com> writes:

> According to the most recent issue of {Popular Science} (in the What's
> New - Electronics section), they said a new box for Caller ID is now
> available, one which displays the callers NAME as well as phone number.
> Now, it didn't specify whether the name was transmitted by the Caller
> ID system or whether the owner of the box had to program in names and
> numbers.

> [Moderator's Note: Well I would rather suspect the owner of the box
> has to load the information matching certain numbers and names. How
> would telco know who was calling? All they can say for sure is the
> number.  PAT]

    Here in Toronto, we have Caller-ID, only the call it 'Call
Display', as part of Bell Canada's 'Call Management Services' line of
services.

    The box for Caller-ID that we use is a Northern Telecom widget
called 'Interlude'.  According to the manual for this device, it will
display the name, as well as the number of the calling part, subject
to local availability.

    There is *NO WAY* "the owner of the box" could "to load the
information matching certain numbers and names".  The box has the
following interfaces to the external world:

    - Two single-twisted-pair modular connector jacks.
    - One dot-matrix lcd-pixel display.
    - One buttong on the front
    - One two-position switch on the back.

    You plug the phone into one jack, and the wall into the other
one.  :-) The display displays, the number, the time and date of the
most recent call from that number, (and potentially the name).  The
button on the front used to review the circular buffer of the last
five calls.  The switch on the back switches between English and
French.  Holding down "review" while toggling the language switch
initiates a self-test and reset.

    That's it, that's all there is.  How will the owner load the
data?  By bit bashing, using the 'review' button as CLOCK and the
"language" switch as DATA?  :-)

    Because of the "Subject to local availability", and the fact
that my box works, but does not display names, I must assume that if
the name is to be provided, it is provided in the Caller-ID datagram
which is inserted between the first and second rings.

    By the way, I *really wish* it *would* display the name.
Either that, or I would appreciate a reverse phone book, by phone
number, of Toronto, preferrably on computer.

    It would also be nice if Bell would release the standard
(method of transmission and format) of the Caller-ID datagram, for us
curious folk.  I can conceive of answering machines, for instance,
which could record the number as well as the time on the tape, for
those who are shy of answering machines and don't leave a message.  I
can also coneive of modems which could make the calling number
available to the computer ... but this requires devices made by other
companies than Northern Telecom to be able to decode the datagram.


Jamie

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #312
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22060;
          29 Apr 91 1:20 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07749;
          28 Apr 91 23:37 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31710;
          28 Apr 91 22:31 CDT
Date:     Sun, 28 Apr 91 22:13:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #313
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Apr 91 22:13:05 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 313

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Summary: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit [David Nyarko]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [John Higdon]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Daniel R. Guilderson]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [David Pletcher]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Jim Borynec]
    Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturers [H. Silbiger]
    Re: 212-516 in use in 1986 [Leryo Malbito]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Nyarko <[e-mail]>
Subject: Summary: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit
Reply-To: David Nyarko <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Alberta Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1991 10:39:58 -0600


I dismantelled an answering machine stopper centered around a phone
jack splitter having red and green status indicator LEDS .  See
article #4 in SUMMARY below. This was a MELTONE device.

A figure of the setup (a MELTONE device) is indicated below.

             GREEN LED
   IN +      |--|>|--|     B311    B311   OUT1 +
   --------*-*       *----((...)--(...))----
           | |--|<|--|
           |  RED LED
   IN -    |                 OUT1 -
   -----*--|------------------------------
        |  |
        |  *------------------------------ OUT2 +
        |
        *--------------------------------- OUT2 -


Legend:

1) IN +, IN - : connected to wall socket.

2) OUT1 +, OUT1 - : connected to device you want to disconnected when
an extension phone is picked up.  (In this case the answering machine
will be connected here.)

3) OUT2 +, OUT2 - : connected to telephone or 2nd device.

     For B311 devices,(Possibly 11volt zeners)
     ((   = black marking on device. (Cathode band)

     For LEDS
     Anode ----|>|--- Cathode

4)  * : 2 or more wires connected together.


Comments:

a) Green LED turns on when answering machine accepts call and turns
off when machine goes off or any extension telephone is picked up.

b) Red LED never turns on. From the circuit, It could turn on if the
IN +, IN - are reversed.

c) Actually 2nd B311 device near OUT1 + might not be required if the
IN + and IN - polarities are not reversed.

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME: Email to [e-mail]

Please find below the summary of the responses received so far.  Item
# 2 appears to be incomplete so I have asked if he could please
re-mail his response.

I have not tried out any of the recommendations. # 1 seems the 1st type
I would try.

                      ----------
 1)
 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 09:15:05 CDT
 From: [e-mail] (Samuel W. Ho)

Many answering machines now have this capability built in.  The way it
works is to raise the answering machine's threshold for line voltage
detection.  The easiest way is to put in a Zener diode of about 12-15V
in series with the answering machine phone line connection.  If
another phone is off hook, the current draw pulls the line voltage low
enough that no signal gets to the answering machine through the Zener.

The answering machines that do this automatically work by having three
voltage ranges detected: 50-90VAC is ring, 12-50V is normal line
voltage, below 12V is disconnect.  Incidentally, CPC is picked up by
the same circuit.  (Voltage thresholds vary, depending on how far you
are from the central office.)

Sam Ho

                     ----------
 2)
 Date: 22 Apr 91 06:27:29 PDT (Mon)
 From: [e-mail] (Phillip Evans)

 advertised as doing exactly what you said you need to do.  Mine works
fine - it cost about $10.

                      ----------
 3)
 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 12:43:34 -0400
 From: [e-mail]

I have such a device, called PHONE ALONE.  When any extension in the
house is picked up, it disconnects whatever device is connected to it
(in my case an answering machine), but it is advertised to be used
with a phone extension (for privacy).  When the extension is hung-up
it resets to normal operation.

I believe I got this sucker from The $harper Image.  If you can't find
it let me know and I'll try to find out where it can be had.

Tim Irvin

                        ----------
 4)
 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 14:13 CDT
 From: [e-mail] (Roger V. Thompson 7847)
 Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO


I saw a device that seems to do what you want at Walmart last
Saturday.  It was about the size of a two-way modular jack splitter and
had a couple of led's to indicate which side was active.  I didn't
check the price.

Roger

                         ----------
 5)
 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 14:02 CST
 From: Mike Gordon <[e-mail]>
 Organization: University of Wisconsin--Platteville


   Radio Shack has a little donger that does that.  It's called the
teleprotector and it runs $7.95.  (item number 43-107)

I built a little bugger that did the same thing and it ran me about
$10. (and soldering iron burns on my fingertips :( )

Mike Gordon  [e-mail]   University of Wisconsin - Platteville

                         ----------
 6)
 Date:     Tue, 23 Apr 1991 19:27:00 -0400
 From: "Joel C. Justen" <[e-mail]>

I found one of these at 'Target' which is a large discount store chain
here in the US.  It's basically just a plug which plugs into the jack,
and has two separate plug ports with leds on them for the phone and
the answering machine.  It detects whether or not the phone has the
line or the answering machine, and if it is the phone, it disconnects
the answering machine portion.  I think you can also find this at
Radio Shack if you can find one.

Cost?  2.95.

                            ---------
 7)

 Date:     Wed, 24 Apr 1991 23:19:00 -0600
 From: Toby Nixon <decwrl!uunet.UU.NET!hayes!tnixon>


Well, I can't point you at a "circuit" (you want to build it
yourself?) but I can tell you that they sell these at lots of places
around Atlanta for about $5.00.  I have on on my answering machine at
home.  Generically, they are known as "answering machine stoppers".

                            ---------
 8)
 Date:     Wed, 24 Apr 1991 10:19:00 -0600
 From: [e-mail]


David,

    Radio Shack has a FAX/TAD controller as you describe in the
Canadian catalogue on p. 88, part 43-8015.  It has no CSA or DOC
approval, but since it's a passive device perhaps that's not
necessary.

    Anyway, RF on the phone line sometimes prevents this gadget from
making up its mind.  I have several, and have moved all of them to the
grounded lightning block in the basement so that computer and voice
are exclusive, and picking up the phone disconnects the answering
machine.  In the basement they're all decisive.  It's also possible
that Alberta will have less RF floating around than Metro Toronto...

                             Hugh

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

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 23:23 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission


Jack Winslade <ivgate![e-mail]> writes:

> I can imagine LD calls costing just
> slightly over local calls of the same duration, but the most expensive
> part of any call, local, LD, or international, may very well be the
> local telco's charge for the local loop portion of the call, whether
> it is to another local subscriber or the terminal point for an
> interexchange carrier.

The rate structure for calls outside of the innermost band (Zone 1 --
Local) is such that it is already distance unrelated in California.
LATA calls are outrageously expensive. During the day, it is cheaper
to call NYC on AT&T from San Jose than it is to call San Rafael, sixty
miles to the north. Calls within California but outside the LATA are
better, but not as good as interstate.

A call to my 800 number from say, San Francisco, is $8.60/hr, but a
call from San Diego (nearly 600 miles away) is $5.63/hr. This is an
example of the stranglehold that LECs still have on the toll market.
Pac*Bell still charges a fortune for calls that it carries.

I know of someone who ran up over $200 on calls to a girl friend on
the other side of town in one month who was just out of the local
radius.  What he did not realize that he would have been better off if
she had lived out of state! In fact, most knowledgeable types who
cannot find a good UUCP connection within the local calling radius
look for one in another state rather than settle for one in the Bay
Area with the ultra ripoff rates.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Date: 28 Apr 91 12:35:08 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James
Borynec) writes:

> Because these costs are going down so very much they will quickly be
> dwarfed (or indeed may already be dwarfed) by other costs such as
> local access, accounting of calls, etc.  Therefore, for all practical
> purposes a LOCAL phone calls costs as much as a LONG DISTANCE phone
> call.

> Clearly the pricing structures do not reflect these costs (Yet!).  My
> question is - What is AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc going to do when they can
> no longer reasonably charge more than a local call?  Won't this change
> the industry substantially?  Will North America move to a wide area
> extended flat rate billing zone?

An interesting point!  In most industries, the price of goods or
services reflect their cost, and also their value to the customer.  If
the customer perceives that there is increased value in 'long
distance' calling, then the customer is willing to pay increased
rates.

Remember Satellite Business Systems (one of the early alternate long
distance carriers)?  They were a joint venture of IBM and Aetna, I
think.  Their rate structure was very simple.  While I forget the
exact numbers, I think it was 11 cents per minute for calls up to 100
miles, and 21 cents per minute for all other calls.  They routed
virtually all of their long-haul traffic by satellite.  With that
technology, it's roughly 45,000 miles between any two Earth stations,
regardless of the overland distance between them!  The cost is the
same, and their pricing reflected that.  (They also remained
unprofitable throughout their short existence, and were eventually
aquired by MCI.)

It takes more than one carrier to alter the customer's expectations,
but when distance-insensitive pricing becomes common, the big guys
will have it, too.  If none of the 'big guys' have it, however, it
won't become common.


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
Voice: 908 647 0900     Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 13:46:53 EDT
From: "Daniel R. Guilderson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission


Given that the recent posts about fiber optic transmission rates in
the range of terabits per second are accurate, I envision a phone
network in which people maintain a continuous live connection to a
packet switched network.  When that happens, it will make sense to
charge a flat rate for most service and in addition a resource usage
fee.  People who don't make a lot of long distance transfers or
transfer huge amounts of data will only be charged the flat rate.

I like to try to imagine what it would be like if the internet adopted
an RFC which specified a voice interface protocol.  All you would need
is an ADC and the right software and we could have voice transmissions
over the internet.  I bet that would really scare the hell out of the
telephone companies.  I think the lack of bandwidth is the only thing
that's keeping it from happening.


Daniel Guilderson   [e-mail]
UMass Boston, Harbor Campus, Dorchester, MA  USA

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

From: Nuclear Warrior <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Date: 28 Apr 91 20:30:57 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711


I have been harboring an amusing idea for some time.  Wouldn't it be
great if one of those rare individuals who wasn't motivated solely by
personal and corporate greed was to create a full-service telephone
company, hopefully providing long distance (and in some areas, where
the LEC was especially lame, local service) at the lowest possible
prices?  It would charge just enough to hire all the necessary people,
provide ample capacity and keep all of the equipment state-of-the-art.
Perhaps a public stock offering could be made, and the big benefit
would be that $1000 up front would get you five years of unlimited
free long distance on your line or something.  The amazing thing is
that this could actually be done, and it would probably have
fascinating effects, effectively bringing the whole country into your
local calling area.  Any comments?


David Pletcher      [e-mail]

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

From: "James Borynec; AGT Researcher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1991 20:15:56 -0600


ivgate![e-mail] (Jack Winslade) writes:

> If they *COULD* make more by offering flat-rate service, they would,
> but I think in practicality it would result in some people abusing it
> (as in the 1800-0700 PCP connections of a few years ago) and keeping
> lines open continuously.  Selling it by the slice instead of
> all-you-can-scarf is obviously more profitible for all telecom
> corporations.

Note that we will soon have fiber bandwith coming out of our ears.
Everyone talking to everyone else across the country will only use up
80 48 strand cables.  If you need more capacity along a stretch you
just replace the repeaters with newer technology - no need to plow in
another cable.  This technology changes the WHOLE economics of long
distance voice traffic.

> Local telcos have been trying to push for the end of flat and/or
> untimed local service in favor of measured service.  They **CLAIM**
> this 'saves money for many customers' but in truth it simply serves to
> extract more $$$ from customers' pockets.

The problem is that people LIKE flat service.  The only way that I can
see for people to go to local measured service is if they get long
distance service at the same rate.  How about this: You pay five cents
a minute to call anywhere in the USA (including local calls).


jim borynec     [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 10:10:58 EDT
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturers
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Michael Dorrian) writes:

> Comdial is still alive and kicking in Charlottesville, VA., operating
> under the same name.

> As far as I know, Comdial remains the only US manufacturer of
> telephones (local content - AT&T's phones are assembled in the US from
> Asian manufactured components).  This offers quite a niche on sales to
> the US government.

> Their products are often used as key system behind PBX or Centrex.

Many hotel chains such as Hyatt use Comdial phones in the rooms.  They
have their own design.  What I like about them is that they provide an
easily accessibleRJ-11 port on the side of the set.  An arrow on the
faceplate points to the jack, and is marked "modem".

So much more convenient than having to move the bed to get to the wall
jack.


Herman Silbiger

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

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 22:17:08 -0400
From: Leryo Malbito <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 212-516 in use in 1986


Right. These phones are still in use in Grand Central AND in Penn
station.  They allow calls to anywhere on Long Island, and up into
Westchester.  ANAC (958 here in New York) doesn't work from these
phones, but through other methods it was determined by myself that the
phone numbers of these payphones are 212-516-xxxx, and they don't
allow incoming calls.


Leryo

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #313
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26817;
          29 Apr 91 3:09 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12928;
          29 Apr 91 1:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11167;
          29 Apr 91 0:37 CDT
Date:     Sun, 28 Apr 91 23:43:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #314
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Apr 91 23:43:25 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 314

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800 [Phillip Wherry]
    Re: Sprint Raises 800 Monthly Fee [Steve Elias]
    Re: Living in America [Bill Woodcock]
    On Line Services [John Higdon]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [J. Philip Miller]
    Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted [Vance Shipley]
    Re: 900 Blocking [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Caller*ID From US PBxs [Vance Shipley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phillip Wherry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1991 16:53:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Bill Huttig <[e-mail].
edu> writes:

> "The 800 number you have dialed is not yet in service ... Please
> try this number at a later date."

> [Moderator's Note: I think what it means is that someone at the local
> telco serving 407-676 misprogrammed the response code which is played
> when the number is dialed. I think they meant to say merely, 'the
> number is not in service from your area ...'       PAT]

I just tried dialing this number from 804-220 and 804-229. Same message.


Phillip Wherry   The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I should have tried it also, I guess ... having
done so I also get the same message.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Sprint Raises 800 Monthly Fee
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 16:26:54 MDT
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


> From: [e-mail] (Eddy J. Gurney)

>  [e-mail] (Steve Elias) writes:

> > ...charge for 800 numbers to $15 from $10.

> I had not received _any_ information that this was going
> to happen, and I immediately called them to complain.

Same here.  I guess I should have yelled at them more loudly:

> They were very
> nice about it, and said they would credit my next bill with $15.

Wow!  You must have chewed them out good, huh?

> Anyway, the $15 has suddenly made 800 service through Sprint less then
> desirable.

Yeah, but they just paid you three months worth of the extra $5 !!
You may as well hang with them for a few more months, now.  In fact,
you could probably yell at them every other month and get more credits
out of them -- they're soooooo apologetic and eager to give out
credits sometimes!

>  The previous $10/month charge was barely acceptable, but
> this definitely puts it over the edge.

It looks that way to me, too.  The only saving graces of Sprint's
service is the six second billing increments (and the awesome call
volume and clarity).  Does anyone know of other 800 services which
offer six second billing?

> [Moderator's Note: You might ask if Telecom*USA is still offering
> their 800 service at $2.75 per month plus the cost of the calls.

Six second billing?

eli


[Moderator's Note: No, one minute billing, but the difference between
the $2.75 per month and Sprint's $15 per month for a low volume user
would require quite a few calls rounded to the next six seconds to
make up the difference.    PAT]

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

From: Bill Woodcock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Living in America
Date: 28 Apr 91 22:09:00 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


> As a final note, the PBS Nova program featuring a re-creation of
> the tracing of the German/KGB hacking ring was broadcast. Cliff
> Stoll played himself in > the program, as well as the other
> participants in the trace, complete with location shots in
> Germany. Check your local PBS station or TV listings...

I talked to Cliff not long after they'd finished filming it, and he
didn't seem too happy about it.  Specifically, they shot one scene in
the forest where the German hacker was found burned to death, and the
director apparently kept trying to get him to be more "lighthearted"
which he found to be in rather poor taste.

He said the whole thing was shot on 16mm film, rather than video, but
was low budget, so they couln't do more than one or two takes of any
scene.  Also, apparently almost all the people at Laurence Berkeley
Labs played themselves, and got a big kick out of it.  He said that
only the Intelligence types wouldn't agree to appear in the
documentary, and that the producers got some football coaches to play
them, although I don't know whether he was thrying to make a joke on
that one.  :-?


[e-mail]
2355.virginia.st..berkeley.ca.94709.1315

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

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 00:45 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Online Services


With the recent articles detailing the various horrors of online
services, one must conclude that there might be other ways of
accomplishing what these services provide. It really should not be
surprising that Prodigy, Genie, CompuServe, etc. have shortcomings and
limitations when you consider their design purpose and why they were
created.

If your desire is to communicate and share information with others
sharing a common, specialized interest, privately run BBSes should
fill the bill nicely. Many are now quite sophisticated with networking
and powerful software that serves the users quite well. And best of
all, they are free. Each issue of any free computer rag contains page
after page of BBS listings. And the rules of any given system are
generally much less Mickey Mouse than the pay services.

If you want non-interactive information, such as stock quotes,
national weather, etc., you might want to check out the various cable
channels.  These are very convenient in that you do not have to login,
or do anything other than tune your TV to the correct channel. I have
just discovered The Weather Channel -- it is well done and quite
informative.  It is also more accurate than the Ken and Barbie
weatherpeople on the local news.

If you want airline info and the ability to book reservations, you
might want to look at the online OAG. Actually there are online
specialty services for almost any activity. These are no-nonsense
services that provide a quality product.

For e-mail and international BBS-style boards, nothing beats UUCP and
the Internet. If you are an e-mail junkie, then get yourself a
software package that will do UUCP, find a sympathetic host, and go to
it. There are no online charges, no restrictions on what you can mail,
no restrictions on how much you can mail, in fact, few restrictions at
all. You can send and receive unlimited amounts of mail to and from
virtually anyone on any system that talks to the outside world. Usenet
provides discussion on every topic known to man and is read by people
all over the world. Except for the moderated groups (such as this
one), a person may post whatever and whenever he likes.

I am sure that I have missed many other examples of substitutes for
general purpose online operations, but you get the point. Years ago
when I discovered Usenet, CI$ went by the wayside. And even the
considerable cost of CompuServe was not the issue. The anarchistic
nature of Usenet is much more suitable for its purpose (diverse
discussion) than the restrictive "grade school style" rules that are
part of all the commercial services. While I recognize that there are,
for example, commercial interests that Prodigy must protect, that is
Prodigy's problem. We, as functional adults, would prefer to be
treated accordingly. I seriously doubt that the general purpose online
services are incapable of that accomodation.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 9:53:21 CDT


"Mark A. Emanuele" <overlf![e-mail]> writes:

> I just downloaded this from a local bbs and thought it might be
> interesting.

>   Prodigy: More of a Prodigy Than We Think?
>   By: Linda Houser Rohbough

>      Those of you who read my December article know that I was tipped
> off at COMDEX to look at a Prodigy file, created when Prodigy is
> loaded STAGE.DAT. I was told I would find in that file personal
> information form my hard disk unrelated to Prodigy.  As you know, I
> did find copies of the source code to our product FastTrack, in
> STAGE.DAT. The fact that they were there at all gave me the same
> feeling of violation as the last time my home was broken into by
> burglars.

The orginal author then speculates:

>  So the theory goes, in allocating that disk space, Prodigy
> accidently includes data left after an erasure (As you know, DOS does
> not wipe clean the space that deleted files took on the hard disk, but
> merely marked the space as vacant in the File Allocation Table.)

>      There are a couple of problems with this theory. One is that it
> assumes that the space was all allocated at once, meaning all 950,272
> bytes were absorbed at one time.  That simply isn't true.  My
> STAGE.DAT was 250,000+ bytes after the first time I used Prodigy. The
> second assumption is that Prodigy didn't want the personal
> information; it was getting it accidently in uploading and downloading
> to and from STAGE.DAT.

I don't think that this explanation has been adequately refuted.  When
I examined my STAGE.DAT, I found lots of "private" information on the
leftover ends of sectors - a sure sign that no erasure of prior
information was being done by the Prodigy software.  Since this is
standard practice in DOS programming we all need to be more careful
about this type of problem.  I am never able to understand folks who
reach in drawer, "erase files from the floppy retrieved", then copy a
file over to the disk to give to me certain that I cannot read what
was on the disk before!  But I digress.

Even the experiments reported later in the posting really don't
discount this explanation.  In that experiment, the user ran from a
floppy based disk, but on a system with a hard disk.  If I were a
Prodigy programmer, I would consider it good programming to look for
scratch space on every device available to me.  If I could find hard
disk scratch space, I would use it.  Then when terminating the program
I might copy it from the hard disk to the floppy so it would be
available to me the next time I ran the program.

Whether the space is allocated all at one point in time, is allowed to
grow, or is allocated and deallocated dynamically matters not at all.
The big problem is that there is always the problem of data from a
previous file being included as parts of a new file.  If you are
concerned about this, you need to get one of the many programs which
really do "erase" the file when it is deleted or encrypt all such
files - be careful, however, about whether your word processor or
compiler doesn't use scratch files that you will need to erase or
encrypt as well.  If you use Windows that uses a disk scratch file for
the support of virtual memory you need to be concerned that something
that was core resident isn't out there on your disk now.

I don't want to maintain that the Prodigy folks are clean here, only
that before we start making chargers that they are actually
intentionally uploading information we need more proof.  Anyone who is
actually interested in this can monitor what is going out to the modem
and then make their charges.  Just because it is in a scratch data set
proves nothing.  Also that their customer reps can't answer any
technical question about their software reveals nothing other than
they are like the telephone company operators we all deal with :-*

I also want to attempt to deal with the rapidly developing urban
legend about the Prodigy censoring.  As far as I am aware of, the
censoring of the "Roosevelt Dimes" message etc were in posting to one
of their "moderated groups" similiar to what Pat does all the time
here :-).  It was not in private e-mail.


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted
Organization: SwitchView
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1991 22:30:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel
Zlatin) writes:

> Northern Telecom's Norstar system is definitely an open architecture
> PBX.  All of the functions of the system are available to a PC through
> an interface card (which connects to the KSU as though it were a set).
> A software library for the PC, available from NT, enables one to write
> applications similar to those that were mentioned in the original
> posting.

While I whole heartedly agree that the Norstar is definitely an "open
architecture" system (if you don't discount systems with licencing
fees and contracts as not open) it is certainly not a PBX.  I know
this may seem like picking gnats and many, many people on this
conference call these type of systems PBX's it is actually a Key
System.  It does not even have ground start trunk interfaces so it
cannot be called a PBX in the traditional sense.  It is however a
wonderful Key System with a wealth of possibilities using the "open
interface".  I'm waiting for a Unix version of the toolkit though :).


Vance Shipley   vances@ltg     ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!ltg!vances

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

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 17:13:06 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Blocking
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> David Cantor writes:

> I wish that were true.  The latest (issued, March 1991) San Diego Pac
> Bell directory states:

>    "Most customers can choose to have California 900 and
>    976  blocked from their telephone line."

> Note that Pac Bell limits blocking to "most customers" and "California
> 976 and 900" (whatever that means) and GTE has a similar restriction
> for 976 numbers.

Some of the older exchanges (such as #5 crossbar) can't handle it on a
line- by-line basis.  Last year, I had service from 415-848, which was
#5 crossbar (since cut over to something else just last month), and to
prevent unwanted 900/976 calls, they were blocked from *all* numbers
in the exchange.  That's right, if you were on that exchange, and
wanted to be able to call 900/976 numbers, you would have to change
your number to a newer exchange.  I assume that this policy is in
effect everywhere that Pacific Bell serves.

As far as I can tell, the blocking is in effect for ALL 900 numbers,
and to California 976 numbers.  Although Pacific Bell will allow calls
to inter-state 976 numbers, no major long distance carrier will carry
them, so they are in effect blocked as well (I tried AT&T, MCI, US
Sprint, and ComSystems).  The MCI recording said that "MCI does not
complete calls to 976 at this time."  All the others had more generic
"can't be completed as dialed" recordings.

And 900/976 calls cannot be billed to a calling card by a LEC or major
IXC.  A 0+ call to 900 or California 976 will be blocked at the switch
if you're calling from Pacific Bell's territory.  It used to be that
an AT&T operator would complete a calling card call to an inter-LATA,
intra-state 976 call if you asked nicely, but now the "policy" forbids
it.  Notice I say "major" IXC - see my next message!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs
Organization: SwitchView
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1991 22:20:18 GMT


"Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]> writes:

> I'm not sure if modern PBXs even support AIOD.

The SL-1 (or Meridian 1 if you prefer) by Northern Telecom does.


Vance Shipley    vances@ltg     ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!ltg!vances

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #314
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26959;
          29 Apr 91 3:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12928;
          29 Apr 91 1:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac11167;
          29 Apr 91 0:38 CDT
Date:     Mon, 29 Apr 91 0:20:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #315
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 Apr 91 00:20:36 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 315

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    OKI 900 Handheld Cellular Review [Mark Lottor]
    Whither the AT&T News Line? [Dave Leibold]
    Saudinet Link Restored! [Ken McVay via Michael H. Riddle]
    Paradyne FDX 2400 Modem Power Supply Needed [[e-mail]]
    Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted [Michael Schuster]
    Marriage of 900 Numbers and COCOTS [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1991 21:40:33 PDT
From: Mark Lottor <[e-mail]>
Subject: OKI 900 Handheld Cellular Review


I recently purchased an OKI 900 handheld cellular phone and this is a
review of the OKI, along with my comments on the phones I didn't get.

I decided to get a handheld phone, and decided I should get a fairly
small one for most convenient use.  The choice was between the
Motorola Micro-Tac, the Fujistu Commander, the Mistubishi 3000/99x,
the NEC P-300, and the OKI 900.

The NEC P-300 is the largest of the phones and also the heaviest
(14oz).  It has some neat features like escalating ringing tones.
However, it also feels like a square block of wood, and the case felt
sort of cheap and not too sturdy.  Because of its size and weight I
didn't consider it for very long.

The Fujitsu Pocket Commander is a pretty neat phone.  However, it
comes standard with the extra-talk-time battery instead of the slim
battery.  This makes it heavier than advertisements lead you to
believe (11.9oz instead of 10.2), and makes the phone fairly thick and
bulky.  If you buy the slim battery to get the small size advantage
then your talk time goes down to 45 minutes or only seven hours
standby.  This means that if you talk for five or ten minutes early
on, your battery will die out around five hours of use.

Besides these problems however, are two missing features.  You don't
get continuous touch tones from the keypad (only one of two length
settings).  There is also no got-a-call-in-absense indicator.  I
needed this so I would know if I missed a call that would then have
been transfered to voice-mail.  The display is only ten characters
wide, too small for displaying both a name and number.  Also the mouth
piece feels like it will break off if you happen to cough into it.  It
could be a nice phone if you used the slim battery and only turned it
on to make short outgoing calls.

The Mistubishi 99x and 3000 phones are probably the smallest of the
phones.  They come in at 10.4oz, making them pretty light too, but
thats with the standard short-life battery.  Standby time is nine
hours or 45 minutes talk.  Again, this translates into much less than
nine hours standby if you talk for ten minutes.  I needed a phone that
could standby for an eight-hour work day even after I had used it a
bit.  The high-capacity battery makes these times reasonable but adds
1.5 inches to the length of the phone making it as big as the NEC.
The physical design of the phone also makes it feel more like a
movie-prop or a kids toy than a real working phone.  The phone is
almost completely flat so it doesn't curve around your face, and the
mouthpiece doesn't get anywhere near your mouth.  The buttons are also
a bit small, even worse on the 3000.

The Motorola Micro-Tac / Flip-phone has been around a while now (Rumor
has it a new model called the Star-Lite will be out in six months).
Again, it comes standard with the thick-heavy battery, so it's short
and bulky.  It weighs in at 12.3oz.  Talk time runs around 75 minutes
and standby of 20 hours.  When it's flipped open the phone feels
pretty nice, although the mouth-piece feels like it might break off
easily.  Functionality and features are pretty limited compared to the
other phones.  The phone only has a seven-digit display, and LED at
that.  Reminds me of the first generation of digital watches and
calculators.  I kept thinking 'boy is this thing old'.  It's also
pricey.

Then comes the OKI 900.  It was announced in January of 1991.  Its
very slightly larger than the Mitsubishi (its 6.5x2.1x1 inches) and
comes standard with the slim battery.  It weighs in at 12.7 ounces and
so is slightly heavier, and has a talk time of 70 minutes or 12 hours
standby.  Optional thick battery only adds one ounce but ups this to
24 hours standby!  The earpiece and mouthpiece stick out a little, so
the phone curves around your face a bit and feels right.  The phone
also has a really nice solid quality feel to it.  The keyboard buttons
are big and feel great too, and the keyboard and display can be
backlit if you want.  The phone comes with two antennas, a short stub
(one inch) and a longer flexible one (six inches).  This is a slight
drawback, but in good coverage areas you can get away with the stub
antenna all the time.  The OKI was rated best recently in Mobile
Office magazine for electrical specifications, and some of this may be
due to the phone having a 'real' antenna compared to the little wire
that pops out of some of the other portables.  This phone has LOTS of
neat features, the more interesting described below.

The phone has a continuous signal strength meter (unlike the Fujitsu),
and a two-line eight-character display.  It's also the only phone that
can display upper and lowercase letters.  Volume controls and lots of
settings.  Keypad touch-tone volume, ear-piece volume, and ringing
volume (each in eight different settings) and four different ring
sounds.  Ringing and keypad can be muted too.  The phone also provides
side-tone so you can hear yourself talking in the earpiece (this is
useful with handhelds so you can get the microphone at the right
distance from your mouth).

Optional beeping when leaving or entering service areas and also for
one minute intervals when talking.  Last call time counter and
resettable total-time used counter.  Five NAMS.  200 memories that
hold eight characters and 32 digits each, searchable by partial name,
of which ten are speed dials and ten are secret. Also an additional 32
memories that hold 16 characters and 11 digits for storing roamer
access numbers.  A phone number FIFO memo scratchpad holds last five
numbers entered while talking, any of which can be saved in memory or
dialed.  Silent-keypad option for entering numbers into scratchpad
during conversation, and mouthpiece mute control.

Features are accessed thru three circular menus.  The main menu gets
you to often accessed features.  A sub-menu gets you to user
preference settings, and an administration menu (accessed with a
passsword) lets you select NAMs, program calling-card info, call
restriction modes (lots of them), and change your keyboard lock code.
An 'online' user manual can be cycled thru to remind you of how to
access various random functions.  There is also a battery strength
indicator bar-graph.

Neat features: The phone can be set in a pager mode, where it will
answer the phone and beep like a paging terminal.  Caller touch-tones
in phone number, and phone remembers last nine 'pages' for later
recall.  In this mode the phone can be set to turn off in five hours,
and can also be turned off remotely with a password by calling it up.
Ever neater: during conversation with someone, remote person can put
phone in DTMF-Receive mode to send you a phone number, and,
optionally, cause your phone to hangup the current call and
immediately dial the new number!  Great if you have a secretary.  OKI
is also supposed to be coming out with an RJ-11 jack adapter in a few
months for use with modems, faxes, answering machines, etc.

Getting into programming mode is also interesting.  It took me quite a
bit of hassling to get the 'secret' dealer password out of the place I
purchased the phone at.  However, things aren't that secure, as
apparently OKI has a master password to unlock any phone.  If you buy
a phone I suggest you make getting any special dealer passwords a
condition of your purchase.  A quick call to OKI had the programming
mode instructions faxed to me in a few minutes.  Entering this mode
displays the software version number and your ESN in hex.  In this
mode you can set up your NAMs and reset memories and air-time
counters.  You can also change your security code needed for the
"administration" user-menu.  In programming mode you can also
personalize what the display shows when the phone is idle.

BAY AREA CELLULAR SERVICE: I had to decide between the two evils of
Cellular One/PacTel and GTE.  Both rate plans are very similar.  I
made a spreadsheet of the two carriers and played around with
different amounts of calling time and voice-mail charges.  Total
bills never differed by more than about $10 dollars.  GTE could be
more expensive if you use voice-mail heavily (they charge air-time
rates for receiving and retreiving messages) or if you don't sign up
for their one-year contract.  I was told C-1 has a better system for
portables than GTE.

In the end I picked C-1 thru PacTel.  The PacTel service rep had me
sign a form saying I received a sticker that says conversations on
cellular phones are not private; however, I got no such sticker,
apparently in violation of California law.  The GTE people gave me
such a sticker even though I didn't take their service.  Calls have
some occasional slight noise, and occasional bursts of static and
hiss; certainly nowhere near the "you'll hardly know the difference
between a cellular call and a land-line call" claims from PacTel and
other carriers.  Coverage in mountain and coastal areas is practically
zero, and hopefully they will add to those areas soon, so I can go out
to the beach with a laptop PC and OKI's RJ-11 option!

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 23:46:00 PST
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whither the AT&T News line?
Reply-to: [e-mail]


In previous Digests, a number 1 800 2ATT NOW (??) was mentioned as an
AT&T recorded message full of news. This number when dialed from
Florida gets a message saying the number is disconnected and gives no
further information.

Anyone know where the AT&T daily news went?

Also, Bell Canada's Telenews line [phone] or 1 800 387.9050 (in
Ontario and perhaps other parts of Canada) seems to have been
reactivated for proceedings on Canadian long distance competition. The
line had been moribund since around the time of holidays due to
"declining listenership".


        Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1
        [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 09:33:46 cdt
From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saudinet Link Restored!


 From: [e-mail] (Ken McVay)
 Date: 28 Apr 91 08:49:48 GMT
 Organization: 1B Systems Management Limited

I am pleased to report that the downstream logjam which caused us to
temporarily refuse Saudi-bound mail has been corrected, and the mail
is moving again.

We are also receiving confirmation from returning troops that the mail
did indeed arrive, although some of it didn't catch up with the folks
it was addressed to until they returned to the States :-)

The mail flow remained steady (7-8000 messages a month) until the end
of February, when it was interrupted. All mail received between the
end of February and the present has been RESENT to Saudi Arabia as of
this writing - 1.6 megs arrived there yesterday, and has been
distributed to the MPO for delivery.

There are still about 200,000 troops in the Gulf, and they NEED to
hear from you folks - I will be posting instructions again soon, when
we can get caught up with the cancelled APO/FPO addresses and provide
a current list.

For those of you with current addresses, just continue to use the same
format you used prior to this time, and address the messages to:
[e-mail]

The upper-left-hand corner of the message body should contain the
address in this format:

LOCAL FORCES
PVT JOHN DOE <SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER!>
UNIT ADDRESS    (DEPLOYED)
OPERATION DESERT STORM
APO/FPO ADDRESS

The uucp mail headers will be removed at the SaudiNet gateway, so
don't forget to include a return address at the END of the letter. The
letters are printed in Saudi Arabia, folded three ways, stapled, and
delivered to the military for distribution.


Public Access UUCP/UseNet (Waffle/XENIX 1.64) | [e-mail]|
    TB+: 604-753-9960  2400: 604-754-9964     | ..van-bc!oneb!kmcvay    |
   FrontDoor 2.0/Maximus v1.02/Ufgate 1.03    |                         |
           HST 14.4: 604-754-2928             | IMEx   89:681/1         |

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

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 12:35:05 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Paradyne FDX 2400 Modem Power Supply Needed


Question:

Does anyone know where I might get a power supply adapter for a
Paradyne FDX 2400 MODEM manufactured by ARK Products. I bought it at a
Flea Market with docs but no address for ARK. ??

Thanks in advance.

Send reply to [e-mail]

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

From: Michael Schuster <panix![e-mail]>
Subject: Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 18:50:17 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY


Anyone have an instruction sheet/tech sheet on the Motorola BRAVO
beeper?  I've been given one with no instructions. The simple things
are easy enough to figure out, but I've discovered that holding
various buttons while turning on the power will display interesting
things. Is any of thos documented? Is this in the Archives somewhere?
(If some kind soul with a fax machine has this, they may send it to
212-308-4054 ... thanks!)


Mike Schuster                                      |    CIS: 70346,1745
NY Public Access UNIX:  ...cmcl2!panix!schuster    |    MCI Mail, GENIE:
The Portal (R) System:  [e-mail]    |           MSCHUSTER

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

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 17:24:49 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Marriage of 900 Numbers and COCOTS


As if things weren't bad enough, here's a new one (at least for me):
Last week, I saw a COCOT whose enclosure booth had a panel advertising
900 numbers.  My first thought was "how stupid, everyone knows you
can't use coins OR a calling card to bill 900/976 calls."  But then, I
thought that the sign was probably there for a good reason, so I tried
0 +900 + xxx + xxxx.  Sure enough, a ka-bong sounded.  I wasn't
curious enough to try any further!  The carrier was ITI or something
like that, I think.  I'm tempted to say "Now I've seen everything!",
but I know better!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

P.S. - Boy, is time flying or what?  I know it's 1991 now since the
yearly "last cordboard in public service was just cut over" message
recently appeared!  :-)


[Moderator's Note: Considering it was a COCOT, you should have held
the line to see what sort of outrageous charges would be requested, or
if in fact it would simply connect, etc. Let the COCOT owner worry
about the charges in the event you decided not to pay / stick around
for the connection after being advised of the charge.    PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 17:56:42 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> Actually that is coming.  I was at a friend's house who works for US
> West.  I was reading their internal weekly newsletter, and it said
> that US West was testing a Called ID scheme in Nebraska (I think) that
> would deliver both the calling number and subscriber name.  The
> article went on to say that this was unique where all other systems
> only delivered the calling number.

My Pacifc Bell friend knew something of this.  When pressed for
details, he indicated that it just used the name in the computer (the
listed directory name, I believe), and had no provisions for several
people at the same calling number.  There may have been a way to
specify an "override" string, whose sole purpose was for Calling Name
delivery, but I'm not certain.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #315
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21598;
          30 Apr 91 0:40 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15446;
          29 Apr 91 23:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac21051;
          29 Apr 91 21:54 CDT
Date:     Mon, 29 Apr 91 21:20:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #316
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 Apr 91 21:20:30 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 316

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Leryo Malbito]
    Re: 900 Blocking [[e-mail]]
    Re: Per Line Blocking? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Whither the AT&T News Line? [Randy Borow]
    Re: Whither the AT&T News Line? [Bill Huttig]
    Re: North Georgia to Get NPA 706 [Carl Moore]
    Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted [W.L. Lance]
    Re: Caller-ID Chip Specs [Brian Cuthie]
    Re: NXX Count 4-15-91 [David Esan]
    Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Matt Blaze]
    Re: US Answering Machine in Israel [Hank Nussbacher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
Date: 29 Apr 91 17:48:19 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, overlf!emanuele@kb2ear.
ampr.org (Mark A. Emanuele) posted a BBS file containing hysterical
raving about Prodigy supposedly snooping through user's disks,
uploading and processing confidential information.

This is nonsense.  The STAGE.DAT file is allocated in large chunks
according to the level of usage of the service and the number of
different areas you visit.  The Prodigy software requests the space
from DOS, which allocates it from areas of the disk which previously
contained other files.  DOS does not erase the old information -- and
neither does the Prodigy software.  But the Prodigy software does not
READ sectors to which it has not first WRITTEN.  Any non-Prodigy
information in the STAGE.DAT file is left over from deleted files, in
sectors to which the Prodigy software has not yet written.  Remember
that even formatting a disk does not remove old information!

I was involved in early beta testing of Prodigy, was a charter member,
and have watched HOURS of Prodigy traffic on data line monitors.  I
have NEVER seen any information transmitted that was not typed by the
user, or originated within the software.  I've never seen ANYTHING
that even remotely gave me the impression that information from
previously-delete files was being transmitted.

The idea that Prodigy is slow because they're using bandwidth to
upload confidential information for analysis is just wrong. Watch your
modem lights!  Only tiny little bursts of transmission are sent.  MOST
of the time, the line is completely idle in both directions.  The
simple fact is that Prodigy is slow because the software is SLOW (it
was written in anticipation of us all having very fast CPUs, video
cards, and modems before too much longer), not because of some
sinister conspiracy to invade our private files.  Who could honestly
believe that two companies who are big fat targets for lawsuits would
do something so supremely stupid and easily detectable?

No, the biggest mistake Prodigy made was in not wiping clean
newly-allocated disk space in order to remove any questions in this
regard -- and I suspect that the next Prodigy software update will do
just that, considering the amount of noise that has been generated
over this non-issue.  We should all be concerned about privacy, but
this is grossly misplaced paranoia.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer    | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                   | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348  USA      | Internet       hayes![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for an excellent rebuttal, but not everyone
sees it quite the same as yourself. See the next message for another
thought on this topic. And is there a logical reason for the traipzing
back and forth between the C and D drives, as per the next item?   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 13:29:52 -0400
From: Leryo Malbito <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???


Upon showing V11 issue 311 (the one with Mark's comments) to a tax
professional friend, he discovered not only confidential tax info on
most of his clients, but logs of Telix sessions which he didn't
remember taking, in addition to the entire Telix dialing directory,
including passwords, macros, etc. An interesting side note is that
Telix is on his D: drive, while stage.dat et al are on his C: drive.
He is still searching through his immense (950K) STAGE.DAT file,
shouting expletives.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 900 Blocking
Date: 29 Apr 91 15:25:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David
G. Cantor) writes:

> If the telcos really wanted to provide complete blocking, they
> obviously could!

You are making some assumptions about telphone COs that are not valid.
A couple of years ago I received a note that my switch is not allow
per line blocking of 976 calls and that I had my choice of switching
to a new switch (and number) or not having access to any 976 numbers.

In other words, since they couldn't do per-line blocking, they blocked
976 calls for the entire switch! I thought that was nice of them.
After about 1 uSecond of careful deiberation I decided to sacrifice
access to 976 "pproviders".


R. Kevin Oberman          Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: [e-mail]      [phone]

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking?
Date: 29 Apr 91 16:48:49 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, the Moderator commented:

> [Moderator's Note: Well I would rather suspect the owner of the box
> has to load the information matching certain numbers and names. How
> would telco know who was calling? All they can say for sure is the
> number.  PAT]

Actually, they ARE working on including the subscriber name along with
the number in future "Caller ID" systems.  The name delivered will be
the subscriber name associated with number according to the phone
company's computers.  It _still_ won't constitute "Caller" ID, but
"Calling Line" ID.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer    | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                   | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348  USA      | Internet       hayes![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Apr 29 15:18:46 CDT 1991
Subject: Re: Whither AT&T's Newsline


In answer to Dave Leibold's wondering what happened to the AT&T
Newsline: it was discontinued via its 800 number. It now can be
reached via a normal (meaning YOU pay) POTS number. Why the change?
From what we were told, it was due to cost-cutting measures. So what
else is new?


Randy Borow                     AT&T Communications      Rolling Meadows, IL.

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whither the AT&T News Line?
Date: 29 Apr 91 16:07:24 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


The newsline discontinued its 800 number.  The correct number now is
908-221-NEWS. (I don't see why they want to make people pay for it.)

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 12:03:58 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: North Georgia to Get NPA 706


Commenting on the newspaper speculation on running out of area codes,
I will restate/summarize what has been said in this Digest before:
Area codes of the N0X/N1X form are running out, and area codes will
then have to generalize to NXX, with the first slew of NNX area codes
being of form NN0 (and Mexico then will be getting pseudo-area-codes
of 52x form, x not necessarily 0).  This will force dialing to change
in many areas:

Local calls within your own area code should remain 7D (the exceptions
I know about are soon to be discontinued if not already:

   Use of 1+703+7D for extended area calls from "Northern Va."
   to "Prince William".

   Use of 1+7D (at least this was available in 1970s) if you
   are in 215 just outside Phila. metro, have metro-wide
   service, and are calling points not already included in
   next lower level of local service; if this metro service
   has remained available, the leading 1 is being removed,
   just like for long distance within 215.

For local calls to other area codes, check locally for use of 7D or
NPA + 7D or 1 + NPA + 7D.  Long distance within your own area code
should be 7D or 1 + NPA + 7D, with 1 + 7D having to be discontinued.
Long distance to other area codes should be 1 + NPA + 7D, with NPA +
7D having to be discontinued.

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

From: "W.L. Lance" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 18:17:38 GMT


Can anyone give the number for Northern Telecom?


Lance Ware                     Mac and IBM Reseller
Try here first:[e-mail] |      Then here: [e-mail]
Last Resort:[e-mail]------------Continually computing fractals . . .

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

From: Brian Cuthie <umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Chip Specs
Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1991 18:41:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Will Martin) writes:

> As a practical matter, if a telco implements Caller-ID services, is it
> going to send the data down the line on each and every call to each
> and every instrument or line, or is it going to limit the data
> transmission so that it only goes to people who have paid for it?
> Would it be cheaper to send it to everyone or to do an edit and send
> it only to the limited subset?

As far as I know, it actually takes some additional equipment to
implement the service.  Unlike TouchTone, where the dial registers
were simply augmented with DTMF decoders, there is actually special
tone generating equipment switched into the call when caller ID is
used.  In the Bellcore specs TR-TSY-000030 and TR-TSY-000031 (which
describe the service and it's physical layer interface) there are
words stating "Less than .01 of Average Busy Season Busy Hour (ABSBH)
attempts to allocate SPCS transmission equipment for this service
should see all circuits busy."  (SPCS == Stored Program Control
System)

BTW: The reason for the ANI coming in between the first and second
ringing cycles is that the ringing voltage from the first ring cycle
is used to wake up battery powered terminal equipment.


brian

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

From: David Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NXX Count 4-15-91
Date: 29 Apr 91 17:59:52 GMT
Reply-To: David Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 305, Message 15 of 16

> For the 201/908 split, I have:
> 201/908 New Jersey, 1 January 1991 (full cutover 8 June 1991)

I did not note the dates of the cutover, merely that it has occurred,
and that the number of NXX in this NPA will be reduced when the split
is complete.  In fact I wrote:

> #3. 201 - has split to 908.  Permissive dialling will end this year,
> and number ...     will be reduced.

which does not contradict your statement, and in fact makes your
statement unneccessary.

> And what is the meaning of 905 and 706 showing up on such list?

I noted in the beginning of my article (as I have noted in the
beginning of each article since I began posting this list to
comp.dcom.telecom) that the list is based on the V&H tape from
BellCore, and that I just am compiling some statistics.  BellCore has
not removed these area codes from the tape as of 4/15/91.  I know that
they are no longer in use.  Does BellCore?

I will also note that as of the posting of the article I was unaware
of the proposed split of the 404 area code to 706.  This will be in my
article of 7/15/91.


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

From: Matt Blaze <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: 29 Apr 91 04:29:52 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> My GUESS (and it's only a guess) is that the 911 system in New York
> City is so badly overloaded with police traffic that they have to
> route fire traffic another way.

> "You have reached nine-one-one.  To report a crime, press 1, to report
> a fire, press 2...."

Well, kind of.  My recollection (based on my experience as a NYC
paramedic eight years ago) is that the NYC 911 system is answered by a
police ACD operator.  They have a pool of operators for each of the
five boroughs, but all calls are answered in the same physical
location (1 Police Plaza), which also has all the police radio
dispatchers.  No problem if you are calling for just police help.

The fire department, on the other hand, is not completely centralized.
Each borough has its own central office, which houses the radio
dispatchers, the cables from the street alarm boxes and from each
firehouse, and so on.  The fire central offices, by the way, are all
located in city parks, on the assumption that if there is a really big
fire, they will be isoloated and less likely to themselves burn down.

If you call 911 to report a fire, the police operator has to figure
out that you are calling about a fire, and places a 'three-way call'
via a leased-line to a fire department dispatcher in the appropriate
borough.  Then you have to repeat the location information to the fire
operator again, wasting lots of time.  The police operators are not as
well trained to handle fire calls, which is why they do it this way.
So it's always faster to just call the fire department directly.

The new numbers are certainly easier to remember (although I still
remember the old Manhattan number: 628-2900), and I assume that the
new numbers will not require you to drop a quarter into a pay phone to
call them, as the old numbers did.

By the way, the same thing is (or was eight years ago, at least) also
true for emergency medical service (EMS) calls: first you get the
police at 911, and then they connect you to the EMS dispatcher after
they figure out that you need an ambulance.  I don't recall whether
EMS has a direct number for the public to call without going through
the police first; at least when I worked there, we kind of liked
having the cops show up at all our calls.


matt


[Moderator's Note: When Chicago converted to 911 many years ago from
the decades-old POLice-1313 and FIRe-1313 system, there was quite a
bit of bickering from the FD brass about delays in answering calls.
Even after 911 was cut in, fire continued running parallel for another
year. Where calls to POLice were trapped at each central office and
delivered to the police dispatchers on various-1313, to identify the
neighborhood originating the call, fire calls were only sent one of
two ways: everything north of 39th Street went to DEArborn-1313 at the
City Hall Fire Alarm Office. Central offices south of 39th Street sent
their fire calls to Englewood Fire Alarm at TRIangle-0002. (I never
could figure that one out ...). Prior to 911 -- the early seventies
here -- fire fighters, paramedics and police officers were being sent
on about a hundred phalse alarms daily. When the fire brass found how
well 911 served to identify people who do that sort of thing, they
quickly swallowed their pride and agreed to let the police answer
their calls.  PAT]

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

Organization: Bar-Ilan University Computing Center, Israel
Date: Monday, 29 Apr 1991 09:45:08 IST
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Answering Machine in Israel


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike
Berger) says:

> [e-mail] (Joel Spolsky) writes:

>> Does anybody know if an American answering machine will work in
>> Israel?

> Doesn't it run backwards?

My Panasonic answering machine works fine.  Needs no modifications.
And it even records in English and in Hebrew :-)


Hank Nussbacher    Israel

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #316
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27113;
          30 Apr 91 2:54 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25596;
          30 Apr 91 1:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13042;
          30 Apr 91 0:13 CDT
Date:     Mon, 29 Apr 91 23:22:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #317
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 Apr 91 23:21:49 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 317

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Caller ID PC Boards Wanted [Michael Almond]
    Caller ID is a Fraud (was: Per Line Blocking) [Daniel Herrick]
    Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West [Bruce Carter]
    Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer
    Question About Test Tones [Jason Hillyard]
    416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Jamie Mason]
    Microcells: Test Underway in St. Louis [Post-Dispatch, via Rich Zellich]
    US Phone Connectors [Ruediger Vermoehlen]
    NEC RadioPager Schematics and/or Documentation Wanted [Brandon S. Allbery]
    Nynex 832 Plus Cellphone - Request for Info) [David E. Sheafer]
    Programming Manual for Toshiba Strata SE Needed [James Van Houten]
    Prestel Uploading Software [Peter Thurston]
    Your Thoughts and Kindness [Patrick A. Townson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Almond <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID PC Boards Wanted
Organization: search technology, inc.
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1991 13:31:49 GMT


I've seen several people mention that there are PC interface boards
for Caller ID.  Would someone tell me the names and numbers for these
companies?

Thanks a bunch!


Michael R. Almond (Georgia Tech Alumnus)  [e-mail] (registered)
search technology, inc.              [e-mail]
4725 peachtree corners cir., suite 200      uupsi!srchtec!mra
norcross, georgia 30092              [phone] (office)

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

Date: 29 Apr 91 16:41:00 EDT
From: Daniel Herrick <abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com!herrickd>
Subject: Caller ID is a Fraud (was: Per Line Blocking)


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

> [Moderator's Note: There are all these 'scenarios' people come up with
> -- red herrings, really -- as excuses for not having Caller ID.  From
> your example above, I take it you would rather force the people to
> answer the phone every time it rings -- being unable to tell in advance
> who is calling -- rather than sit down with the people as one parent
> speaking with another to discuss and correct the misbehavior of your
> children.   PAT]

The threads are confused here, I'll start a new heading.

Pat's comment refers to my scenario in which the person in a household
who gets the most calls from my telephone does not want to talk with
the member of my household who makes those calls, and so I, the
telephone subscriber cannot get through to the telephone subscriber in
that household on the rare occasion that I want to.

I find most of the rantings here about wanting Caller ID (sic) in
order to ignore unexpected incoming calls to be quite childish, so I
set the scenario in a childish context.

The point I was trying to make is that "Caller ID" is a lie.  The
product is "Calling Station ID".

Pat's comment contains the phrase "being unable to tell who is
calling".  If my number appears on a Caller ID (sic) readout, it
probably means that one of four or five (do I count my eldest who will
be returning for the summer in a few weeks?) people is calling.

However, there is a household around here where the reaction to my
number on a Caller ID (sic) readout would be, "Oh, my daughter is over
at Liz's and calling from there."  This would not prevent me from
getting through to them, but my voice would be a surprize.

Most of the applications of Caller ID (sic) depend on the false
assumption that knowing the number of the originating station enables
one "... to tell who is calling".  Most of scenarios Pat decries as
red herrings are intended to demonstrating the falsity of the
assumption.

The Lotus Equifax database offering was killed over much smaller
potential abuse.  I have tried to expose the absurdity of the
assumption with lighthearted examples, rather than demonstrate another
scenario allowing abuse, in this posting, and the previous.


dan herrick          [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 16:16:51 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West


> Actually that is coming.  I was at a friend's house who works for US
> West.  I was reading their internal weekly newsletter, and it said
> that US West was testing a Called ID scheme in Nebraska (I think) that
> would deliver both the calling number and subscriber name.  The
> article went on to say that this was unique where all other systems
> only delivered the calling number.

Greetings,

This service is currently available in (believe it or not) Boise, ID.
I believe that we are a test area, and one of the first areas to be
provided the service.  Now if we can get the ACLU and certain other
groups to quit howling about invasion of privacy we may get some
decent peripherals, like intelligent call handling based on the
caller.


Bruce Carter, Courseware Development Coordinator            Lab: [phone]
Faculty Development Lab - Room 213                       Office: [phone]
Simplot/Micron Technology Center                       CompuServe ID: 76666,511
Boise State University                            CREN (BITNET): duscarte@idbsu
1910 University Drive                        Internet: [e-mail]
Boise, ID  83725                        --> Preferred: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: If the Boys of Boise will be quiet for awhile, huh?
Does anyone other than me remember the famous documentary by that name
from the early 1960's which discussed the witchunt against people
suspected of being gay in Boise during the 1950's?  Fanned in large
part by the {Idaho Statesman} and its infamous headline, "We Must
Crush the Monsters", that was a sad era in your city's history. But I
digress ... carry on!   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 08:29:38 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer


Here's a real good one that I just found out today:

I had concerns about third party billing fraud after reading about
some instances here, so I called New England Tellyfone today, and
here's what the service rep told me. I could put a "block" on my line
to prevent third-party billing, for the "amazingly-low-price" (my
wording) of $.95 a month per line, and a one-time charge of $11.70 .
So, I asked the rep, why should I pay to rectify your lousey security
practices regarding third-party billing fraud? (No answer recieved).
Then I asked "why can't NET just give everyone a calling card and
prohibit third-party billing? (rep says "some people like to do
third-party billed calls.) Yea, sure they like to, since it seems easy
to rip off the phone company and not pay for the call, rather than use
a calling card (which I use).

Don't ya just love Ma Bell logic?


Fred Belanger


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell gives 'inbound toll restriction' at
no charge. My two lines and my distinctive ringing number are
configured to automatically refuse collect or third number billing.  PAT]

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

From: Jason Hillyard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question About Test Tones
Date: 29 Apr 91 19:08:32 GMT


While flipping through the Specialized Products catalog of telecom
gear, I saw several devices called "Analog Test Sets" which were
capable of generating certain tones for testing purposes.

These boxes can generate 404, 1004, 2804, and 3804 Hz tones.  I assume
these tones are used when measuring line loss.  Does anyone know for
sure?

Also, these boxes can generate a 2713 Hz tone for "activating a Bell
829 loopback device."  Does anyone know how this works?


Jason Hillyard    [e-mail]

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

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Science Undergraduate Student
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1991 17:01:05 -0400


Well folks, it's official news now, 416 *will* split in two years.
 From a Bell Canada pamphlet delivered with the phone bill:

                        =================

                        4       1       6

               Area Code 416 is stretched too far!


                        9       0       5

        October 4th, 1993, 905 will relieve the tension.

        In order to meet the increasing demand for telephone  ex-
changes  and  numbers, it will soon become necessary to split the
416 region into two area codes.  This will enable us to  continue
to  provide  you  with  the high level of service and reliability
you've come to expect from Bell Canada.

        Beginning October 4th, 1993,  Metropolitan  Toronto  will
retain  the  416  area code number, and all other areas currently
served by 416 will switch to the new area code number 905.

        This will mean a change in  your  dialing  patterns  when
calling into or out of 416 or 905.  These examples provide simple
illustrations of how the change will affect you.

1.      If you are placing a local call from  416  into  the  905
area code, you will dial:

                905 + the seven digit number

2.      If you are placing a local call from  905  into  the  416
area code, you will dial:

                416 + the seven digit number

        Of course there will be  no  long  distance  charges  for
these calls, or changes in your local calling area.

3.      However, if you are placing a local call and not  dialing
into or out of the 416 or 905 area code, you will simply dial the
regular seven digit number of the party you are trying to reach.

                     =============

        All the typos are mine.

        Note that 416 has already switched to dialing 1-416-xxx- xxxx
for long distance calls *within* 416, so that exchanges which look
like area codes (x0x and x1x) can be used.  This should have added 179
exchanges, or 1,790,000 new numbers.  I guess that is just a kludge,
and not enough for the long run.

        It seems strange to me that they will split the 416 at the
Metro Toronto municipal boundary, rather than at the edge of the
Toronto local calling area.  Looking at a map of 416 territory, I
can see that the Toronto local calling area covers approximately 1/3
of the 416 area, but Metro Toronto alone covers only a small fraction
of that.  The new 416 is going to be tiny, at least in terms of
geographic area, compared to the old 416 and the new 905.

        This is a pity.  I enjoyed being in the most overcrowded area
code on the continent.  :-)


Jamie

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 7:38:23 CDT
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Microcells: Test Underway in St. Louis


Extract from the Business Plus "magazine" insert in the Mon, Apr 29 {St.
Louis Post-Dispatch}:

           _New_Cellular_Telephone_Service_To_Get_Test_Here_

By Jerri Stroud
Of the Post-Dispatch Staff

  Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, AT&T and Southwestern
Bell-Technology Resources Inc. will test one of the newest
technologies for expanding telephone service next month at a
conference in St.  Louis.

  The technology, called microcells, helps provide service in densely
populated aread and inside buildings, where cellular radio waves often
weaken.  Essentially, it's a way to subdivide cells, the building
blocks of a cellular telephone system.

  Each cell in a cellular telephone system has a radio tower that
transmits signals from phones within the cell to a central switch and
back again.  As a user travels through the area, calls are handed off
from one cell to another.

  The cellular structure allows celular companies to use radio
frequencies over and over again.  Cells can be subdivided as usage
grows.

   Next month's demonstration will be part of the Vehicular Technology
Conference sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Engineers.  The conference runs May 19-22 at the Sheraton Westport
Plaza.

  The event will be the first public demonstration of a microcell
system unveiled by AT&T in January, the companies said.  The new
technology will allow cells with a radius as small as a few hundred
feet.  Most cells now are four to 20 miles in diameter.

  With current technology, cells need a large outdoor tower and a
small building or underground vault to house electronic parts.
Microcells are suitcase-sized packages that can be installed inside or
outside a building, said AT&T spokeswoman Barbara Mierisch.  AT&T
expects to offer microcells commercially early next year.

  Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems expects to use microcells to
provide better coverage for cellular users in high-density aread, such
as airports, sports complexes or downtown buildings, said Walter
Patterson, a spokesman for the Dallas-based subsidiary.

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

From: Ruediger Vermoehlen <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Phone Connectors
Date: 29 Apr 91 14:01:39 GMT
Organization: RBI - RWTH Aachen


Hi NETers!

I have a question about the pin assignment of US phone jacks and the
purpose of some pins. In a user manual of a modem, I found a diagram
of a so called 'RJ12/13' modular jack with lines referred to as R, T,
A, and A1. The function of R and T is obvious (analog input/output),
while the function of the other two puzzles me. I would appreciate any
information anybody can give me about these lines. Please reply by
mail. Thanks in advance,


Ruediger Vermoehlen
[e-mail]    [e-mail]
[e-mail]    ...!uunet!mcsun!unido!rwthinf!ruediger

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

From: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NEC RadioPager Schematics and/or Documentation Wanted
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1991 00:00:08 GMT


I just picked up an incomplete NEC RadioPager from a scrap pile.  It
is complete and functional except for the board/switch/??? which sets
the tone(s) it responds to.  Now I need the schematics so I can
"program" it for my use.  (For the net.lawyers out there who keep
griping about legality: it's on 158.700 now, but will be moved to
147.210.  And get a clue before jumping on people, okay?)  [sorry,
Pat.  I'm still p*ssed at some of the responses I got to the post
about cellular telephone manuals.  ++bsa]

Insofar as I can tell, the part number is R3V2-2B.

Thanks in advance,

Me: Brandon S. Allbery              Ham: KB8JRR/AA  10m,6m,2m,220,440,1.2
Internet: [e-mail]               (restricted HF at present)
Delphi: ALLBERY                 AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88]
uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery       KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH

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

From: "David E. Sheafer, Class of 1989" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nynex 832 Plus Cellphone - Request for Info
Date: 29 Apr 91 09:41:36 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


If anyone has used a Nynex 832 plus celluar phone, could you let me
know of what you think of it.


David E. Sheafer
internet:  [e-mail]   or  uucp:      samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b
GEnie:     D.SHEAFER             Cleveland Freenet:    ap345
Bitnet:    Sheafer_davi@bentley

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

Date: Sun Apr 28, 1991  4:44 pm  GMT
From: James Van Houten / MCI ID: 427-2229
Subject: Programming Manual for Toshiba Strata SE Needed


Assistance is needed in obtaining a programming manual for a Strata SE
KSU. I had one about a month ago but it appears that it has disappeared.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.  I would gladly pay
reproduction and mailing charges.  Thanks in advance.


James Van Houten   [phone] (Voice, Fax, Data)

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 16:52:52 +0100
From: Peter Thurston <[e-mail]>
Subject: Prestel Uploading Software


This article is directed at UK readers. can anyone help me, I am
looking for public domain Prestel uploading software for the Acorn
A3000 (or BBC) microcomputer. This is comms software that permits
updating of Prestel frames via the Prestel bulk update computer in
London.

Any help would be appreciated with the protocol for bulk updating.  I
have already written some code which I use with an experimental
service on Prestel, although this does not involve frame editing.


Thanks in advance,

[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 0:33:37 CDT
From: "Patrick A. Townson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Your Thoughts and Kindness


Individual responses would be almost impossible ...

To all of you who wrote me during the past week with expressions of
sympathy I send my sincerest thanks for your kind words in my time of
grief.

If only I had the energy and time to respond personally to each of
you.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #317
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00248;
          30 Apr 91 3:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13337;
          30 Apr 91 2:25 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25596;
          30 Apr 91 1:19 CDT
Date:     Tue, 30 Apr 91 0:24:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #318
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 30 Apr 91 00:23:45 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 318

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 212-516 in Use in 1986 [Danny Padwa]
    Re: 212-516 in Use in 1986 [wet!@cca.ucsf.edu]
    The Two Line Solution [Leryo Malbito]
    Re: Restricting Telemarketers [Mark A. Emanuele]
    Re: Living in America [Doctor Math]
    Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [Toby Nixon]
    Re: OKI 900 Handheld Cellular Review [John Higdon]
    Re: New MCI Sleaze or Just a Mistake? [Matt L. Armstrong]
    Re: Unauthorized Repair Charges [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800 [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Roy Smith]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Danny Padwa <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 212-516 In Use in 1986
Date: 28 Apr 91 15:39:08 EDT


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

> I have vague recollections of a service that allowed 25 cent calls all
> over New York State for a maximum of 30 seconds.  It was specifically
> available at Grand Central Station (and probably Penn Station too) and
> was designed for "meet me at the station at 5:06" type of calls.

Yup ... that was exactly how this worked. It was introduced back in
the days of ten cent local calls in New York.

New York Tel introduced these phones in Penn Station, Grand Central (I
guess), and JFK International Arrivals (and perhaps other places ...
I've only used them at Penn). It was quite a deal ... for a quarter
you could call anywhere in the state (even Buffalo!) for 30 seconds
 ... at which point you got cut off with no warning or mercy.

They were quite a hit with the commuter crowd ... I have often found
it useful to be able go into the city by train, knowing that when I
need to go home, I'll be able to call home to tell Mom which train
I'll be on, for only 25 cents.  Now that a local call also costs a
quarter, the "special" phones are a great deal!!


Danny Padwa  [e-mail]
(and a frequenter of the Long Island Railroad!)

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

From: wet!@cca.ucsf.edu, [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 212-516 in Use in 1986
Date: 29 Apr 91 23:54:09 GMT
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco


[e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> I made a note of the following, apparently a result of my own July,
> 1986 visit to that area in New York City:

> (Recently, it's been said in this Digest that there is no 212-516 --
> it could have been discontinued since I made the above note -- and

I can't vouch for the exchange (since I moved out of NY in February, I
haven't been within 2500 miles of Penn or grand Central Stations),
but, as of Mid-February, the 30-second-to-anywhere-in-the-state phones
were still in Penn Station.

Since NY Tel went to one-plus dialing several years ago in NYC,
there's no reason why there shouldn't be a 516 exchange in 212 area
code.


Email: [e-mail]    alt: rogerd@well   CompuServe: 72730,1010

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

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 22:12:00 -0400
From: Leryo Malbito <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Two Line Solution


With regards to Nelson Bolyard's ([e-mail]) two-line
CID solution, I just recalled something from a couple of weeks ago.
Upon calling a COCOT, I got a telco tri-tone message stating something
to the effect of: "There are no incoming calls permitted to this
telephone ..." Da-Daa-Daa...

(I think this is the same type of message that Bell Atlantic provides
when you have been chosen as a CALL BLOCK(tm?)ed number ... eg, you
bother someone, then they block all future calls from your number.)

Anyway, I think therefore you might be able to explain the situation,
and request this special service from your telco.


Leryo

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

From: "Mark A. Emanuele" <overlf![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Restricting Telemarketers
Date: 28 Apr 91 15:00:24 GMT
Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc.  Fords, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Steve Baumgarten) writes:

> I wish we'd do something like this in New York City -- I get weekly
> calls urging me to "Call 540-SCAM within 30 minutes to get yourself
> ripped off!" (the 540 exchange is New York Telephone's local
> equivalent of 1-900 numbers).

I once got PAGED to a 540 number when I worked in NYC. The call cost me
(actually the company I worked for (ATT)) $35.00. I called the number
and got a Phone Sex Message.


Mark A. Emanuele   V.P. Engineering  Overleaf, Inc.
218 Summit Ave   Fords, NJ 08863    [phone]
[e-mail]

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

From: Doctor Math <moocow![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Living in America
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 12:05:50 PDT
Organization: Brown Cow Software (a licensed Waffle developer)


[e-mail] (Dave Leibold) writes:

> Installing a local line can be particularly expensive. Southern Bell
> will grab USD$142 to install a new line. Bell Canada would be hard
> pressed to charge a third of that for an install (definitely not on
> extra Toronto line I had installed).

That's a little out of line; I've lived in Pac*Bell and Indiana Bell
territories and it's right around $40 ($20 additional in Pac*Bell for
various options and first month's service).

> COCOTs are everywhere ... and fortunately so are Southern Bell's
> "real" payphones (so far). The COCOTs for the most part seem to allow
> access to the carriers, though 10288 (AT&T) is the only 10XXX code
> that seems to be accepted by these things.

Strange as it sounds, I have found that the IndianaBell payphones will
only allow 10288; while it is possible to dial other access codes,
they all get you AT&T. I called to complain, but I don't think
anything will be done.

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN
Date: 29 Apr 91 17:11:31 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Rich Szabo) writes:

> I am sketchy on how ISDN interacts and co-exists with Plain Old
> Telephone Service.  Does an ISDN line have a "phone number?"  If so,
> what happens if I dial this number from a Plain Old Telephone?  Can an
> ISDN line be used as a voice line so that I don't need a POTS line in
> addition?

An ISDN Basic Rate Interface as two 64000bps bearer channels.  Except
for the analog local loops, POTS is based on exactly this same kind of
channel!  Once you get into the CO, you can connect a digitized 64kbps
POTS PCM voice channel to an ISDN B channel, and talk just fine.  You
definitely don't need to keep a POTS line around once you have ISDN.

Of course, there's a lot more you can do with that 64kbps channel in
ISDN than in POTS -- clear channel 64kbps synchronous transfers, V.110
or V.120 terminal adaption, X.25, etc.  When it's being used for
3.1KHz voice or voiceband data, the network knows this so that it can
route you to POTS lines (it will reject attempts to connect those
other call types to POTS lines).  Also, if the network knows you're
using the channel for voice or voiceband data, it knows it can do
voice compression and multiplexing on the channel -- but this happens
primarily on international calls (rarely on domestic calls).  Don't
tell the network you're using the circuit for voice and then use it
for something else, because strange things will happen.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer    | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                   | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348  USA      | Internet       hayes![e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 13:24 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: OKI 900 Handheld Cellular Review


Mark Lottor <[e-mail]> writes:

> BAY AREA CELLULAR SERVICE: I had to decide between the two evils of
> Cellular One/PacTel and GTE.

As a user of both systems, I could have told you precisely what the
differences were.

> In the end I picked C-1 thru PacTel.
> [...]
> Coverage in mountain and coastal areas is practically
> zero, and hopefully they will add to those areas soon, so I can go out
> to the beach with a laptop PC and OKI's RJ-11 option!

GTE has perfectly acceptable coverage in the mountain and coastal
areas. In fact, it has superior coverage overall, which is, I assume
important to most cellular users. Cellular One has a MUCH more
aggressive sales presence than GTE Mobilnet, but it is trading on the
ghosts of times long past. GTE was the first system in the Bay Area
and the "service" was attrocious. It was as bad as PacTel is now in
Los Angeles. Coverage was terrible, calls frequently dropped, audio
levels varied all over the map, plus a host of other problems. People
could not wait for the "A" system to come on line.

When Cellular One (PacTel/McCaw) opened for business, GTE Mobilnet
customers lined up at the door. I was one of them. And it was a
refreshing improvement. In the meantime, however, GTE was building and
improving. It outstripped Cellular One in number of cell sites and
developed one of the country's finest in-house RF engineering
departments. Motorola was given a swift kick in the butt and told to
fix the bugs in the EMX "or else".

The result has been that GTE is clearly the technically superior
system in the Bay Area. It has a wider coverage area and serves that
area better than the competition. Since I have had at least one
cellular account since it was available, it was no heartache to sign
up for the "yearly" commitment (and get the cheaper rates).

But Cellular One still has the attitude that is was entitled to in
1986. And times have changed. Since I use my phones heavily in the
mountain areas, I would not dream of having Cellular One for my
personal accounts. I am also not at all impressed with the "A" carrier
roaming agreements, which seem to be more flaky.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 17:00:23 MDT
From: "Matt L. Armstrong" <edsr!tantalum![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New MCI Sleaze or Just a Mistake?


Ugh.  It turns out that the housemate that was out of town did indeed
order personal 800 service from MCI.  He thought it sounded like a
useful idea, so he ordered it.  The problem was that they couldn't put
the service in his name because the line was in my name, so they'd
start up P800 in my name and would allow him to switch the billing of
the P800 service to his name later.  That's why it came mailed to me.

However, he ordered it months ago and had forgotten about it.  He's
now going to tell them to get lost since he's moving out in a month
(No, I'm not kicking him out of the house for messing with MCI...).
I'm still curious if using the 800 service would have switched my
carrier over to MCI or if I'll still get switched sometime down the
road because of this.

Sorry for the misinformation.


Matt

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Repair Charges
Date: 29 Apr 91 22:32:15 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu (Tim Irvin) writes:

> I got in a (shall be say) spirited discussion with a NET Customer
> Service Rep about a Repair Charge that was on my bill this month.

There has long been the threat of a 'maintenence of service charge'
for problems that THEY think are your fault. I have always tried to
make sure there was a trapdoor by describing a problem as intermittant
(unless it was as gross as an open pair). That way if their repair man
finds nothing, well maybe he just missed it.

Recently I was placing a repair call, and was told there was NO WAY a
'maintenance of service' charge could be levied now UNLESS they came
into my house and FOUND it was in my wiring. (I don't know if this is
absolutely true).

Now that there is the new FCC DEMARC law of 'outside or within 12
inches inside' and ANY reasonable interconnection is 'ok' (need NOT be
their demark jack, in fact need not be a jack at all), I will NEVER
let them in - EVER. No need to risk needless charges.

You were in NH. This is in MA, and who knows what NYNEX has been able
to pull in NH, but that is FCC. If you feel ripped off, DO CALL their
'Executive Appeals' phone number. It gets answered: "Office of the
President". You generally will be getting a call back from some
manager directly in line above your problem within a VERY short time
(hours if not minutes).

If someone of them is threatening you with black marks on your service
record that you KNOW are unfair, just stand your ground firmly but
politely. It probably will do you no harm to mention that the next
call will be to 'Executive Appeals' and if you get some wise azz that
basically DARES you to do it, DO IT - they probably should not be a
service rep and if enough people complain they won't be.

You simply call the main number - 617-743-9800 - and ask for
'Executive Appeals'. If LD, try collect.

Do your own testing to be SURE its broken at the 'DEMARK' with all
your inside wiring disconnected, and THEN call repair and TELL THEM
the trouble shows at the DEMARK with all inside wiring removed. DON'T
pay them monthly for this trivial service.

Most of their service reps are really nice and helpful, and if it is
clear that you know what you are doing you generally will have no
problems. Just be a little patient. The rep may have just finished
with some MEGA-PAIN grade customer.

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800
Date: 29 Apr 91 22:48:41 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill
Huttig) writes:

> I received some info on AT&T's USADirect Service and it notes an 800
> number (800 872-2881) for calls from Bermuda, Dom. Rep. etc.. (I think

> "The 800 number you have diailed is not yet in service ... Please
> try this number at a later date."

I got the same from 617, and it sounded as though the intercept was
FAR away.

Did the original ad offer letters for those numbers? Obviously 288 =
ATT, and the 872 could be USA. All together it would be 1-800-usa-att-1.
Just a guess. Otherwise it is a bummer to remember.

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 14:50:46 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> My GUESS (and it's only a guess) is that the 911 system in New York
> City is so badly overloaded with police traffic that they have to
> route fire traffic another way.

    Why not just add more operators, lines, etc?  No, my guess is
that it's political (what in New York isn't?).  The NYPD and NYFD have
a long standing tradition of feuding with each other.  Various mayors
have attempted, without much success, to mediate the disputes.

    NYPD claims they have jurisdiction over everthing that's not a
fire, while the NYFD points out that since they have all sorts of
fancy rescue gear, they should be the ones to cut people out of
crushed cars, go scuba diving to get bodies out of the rivers, etc,
etc.  They also fight about which department is "in charge" of an
emergency scene where officers from both departments have responded
(have a Fire Marshal give orders to a policeman at a fire scene?
About as likely has having American troops under Saudi commanders!)

    To bring this somewhat back to telecom issues, the radios they
have are unable to communicate with each other.  I believe the only
way a policeman can get fire equipment to a scene is to call 911, and
vice versa; this also extends, by-the-way, to the transit cops; they
can't talk with the regular cops, and are also always having turf
wars.


Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[e-mail] -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #318
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26417;
          1 May 91 2:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26429;
          1 May 91 0:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28525;
          30 Apr 91 23:32 CDT
Date:     Tue, 30 Apr 91 22:33:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #319
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 30 Apr 91 22:33:46 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 319

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Louis J. Judice]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [[e-mail]]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [John Higdon]
    Re: Shaving Ni-Cads (Removing 'Whiskers') [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Shaving Ni-Cads (Removing 'Whiskers') [Javier Henderson]
    Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800 [Javier Henderson]
    Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800 [Bill Huttig]
    Re: 212-516 in use in 1986 [Carl Moore]
    Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Carl Moore]
    Re: ATT Digital Answering Machine [Roger Clark Swann]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 10:38:38 PDT
From: "Louis J. Judice  30-Apr-1991 1328" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???


Really, now... I've seen paranoia in this discussion before, but this
really takes the cake. I must say that I just cancelled my prodigy
account, but only because it I was only logging into it once a month.
Why? Well, first of all, except for the online Sam Goody "song
directory" there was nothing left of interest to me. Oh, and the fact
that Prodigy is slow enough to put bricks to sleep.

But come ON NOW! If you look at pre-allocated data files created on
any simplistic operating system without DELETE/ERASE capability you'll
find all kinds of data trash left behind by previous programs or
users. I remember on RSTS/E in college, allocating HUGE files, dumping
them and then pouring through it, looking for interesting junk left
behind by OTHER USERS.

If anyone REALLY thinks that Prodigy, IBM and Sears are going off and
uploading your confidential files to have a look, well, I suggest you
power off your computers, unplug your phones, cancel your drivers
license and move to the mountains where the CIA, NSA, Trilateral
Commission, KGB and Iraqi secret police can't find you!

Sorry to be so blunt, but someone has to point out the paranoia aspect
of all this!


ljj

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 10:13:29 -0400
From: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???


Just to add my data point: I have searched my STAGE.DAT file several
times hoping (:-) to find private data to no avail.  The only items
I've found in the file are cache'd Prodigy screen dumps and error
messages. Perhaps significantly, I use a Macintosh version of the
software.

Really folks, this sounds much more like typical DOS filesystem bugs
than a conspiracy directed by Sears and IBM to gather confidential
info from hundreds of thousands of users.

But it's a great urban rumor.


ric

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
Date: 30 Apr 91 13:54:39 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Leryo Malbito) writes:

> Upon showing V11 issue 311 (the one with Mark's comments) to a tax
> professional friend, he discovered not only confidential tax info on
> most of his clients, but logs of Telix sessions which he didn't
> remember taking, in addition to the entire Telix dialing directory,
> including passwords, macros, etc. An interesting side note is that
> Telix is on his D: drive, while stage.dat et al are on his C: drive.
> He is still searching through his immense (950K) STAGE.DAT file,
> shouting expletives.

Since Patrick asked me to respond to this, I'll at least ask this: has
he ALWAYS had Telix on his "D" drive?  Or, perhaps, did he move it to
"D" in order to make room to put Prodigy on his "C" drive? Are these
physically separate drives, or just partitions? And how would Prodigy
get logs of Telix sessions?  You can't have two programs receiving
serial data at the same time.  I think the operative phrase here is
"he didn't _remember_"; let's not attribute to major corporate
conspiracy what is best explained as memory lapse.

I think that if ANY of us searched through the "free space" (not
currently allocated to a file) on our disks, we'd ALL be surprised.
This is only turned into "shouting expletives" when one has been
convinced by conspiracy-theorists that one is being spied upon.  But
it just ain't so.

I don't mean AT ALL to come across here as defending Prodigy in any
way.  _I'd_ like to know why they go out and grab so damn much disk
space if they're not going to use it right away!  Regardless, there
are so many REAL violations of our privacy going on, I think it's a
shame that so much energy is being expended on this case.

By the way, you would do your lawyer friend a great favor by advising
him to NOT store his passwords on his hard disk.  Aside from the fact
that anyone with physical access to his computer (including burglars)
can easily get them, he must now realize that deleting those files
means that information can be inadvertently released to others.  It's
quite simple -- all a program has to do is write a partial sector, and
that password data could be left there.  It's then possible for XMODEM
to send that data to others, and you'd never even know it.  Even
copying the file will preserve the "garbage" at the end.

I've heard stories of "heads rolling" at software publishers when
programmers used supposedly "empty" disks to produce the master disks
that were bulk-duplicated, boxed, and sold.  The problem was, of
course, that the disk wasn't clean, but that the old files had simply
been "deleted" (and not erased) -- so anybody that did a little
"garbage collecting" (it's fun; try it some time) got a good bit of
the source code of the product!!  It's great fun on a multi-user
computer to open a new file for random access, and do a write to an
arbitrarily high record number -- the system allocates all of the
unused space in between to you, but doesn't erase it, so you can
merrily read through everything that the other users of the system
supposedly "deleted".  If you're on a multiuser system, always use an
"erase" program that actually overwrites your files rather than just
deleting them, or everything you delete will be available to other
users of the system.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer    | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                   | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348  USA      | Internet       hayes![e-mail]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Date: 29 Apr 91 23:42:24 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu (Nuclear Warrior) writes:

> I have been harboring an amusing idea for some time.  Wouldn't it be
> great if one of those rare individuals who wasn't motivated solely by
> personal and corporate greed was to create a full-service telephone
> company, hopefully providing long distance (and in some areas, where
> the LEC was especially lame, local service) at the lowest possible

You have the right idea. Think of the HORRIBLE impact on the European
contries of their individual greedy PTTs. They make the RBOCs look
like saints. Realise how fundamental it is to the growth and
prosperity of our planet to have communications so darn cheap that
ANYONE can easily afford ANY amount of bandwidth they can use.

The not millions but BILLIONS of dollars they are about to use to sink
the South East Expressway underground in Boston is totally needless.
They are perpetuating the ugly downtown mess that originally was
'necessary' only because it was not possible or economical to
communicate effectively with other businesses unless you were
physically DOWNTOWN.

If one tenth of that money were to be invested PERMANENTLY and used to
subsidise statewide communication with it being CHEAPER to call
anywhere OTHER THAN downtown Boston, and make the WHOLE state a local
call to residences, the crying need for this insane artery project
would dissappear.

Anyone note that even Pop Sci this month mentioned an AT&T software
package for Definity PBXes called "HOME AGENT"? You log in or out of
your telemarketing response terminal located AT YOUR HOME. When logged
in, customer calls will be dynamically routed to you. No gas mileage,
no expensive office space rent to support your individual work, and,
if in Boston, a little less need to squander billions sinking the
smogging expressway.

The video teleconferencing codecs that work at 112/128kb will be two
or three thousand dollars in a year or so, further allowing businesses
to move to their favorite countryside hilltop. Cheap dial T1 could
hasten teleconferencing's growth - less compression needed, cheaper
codecs.

The telco's charter should be 'how much can be done for how little
dollars', rather than, sadly, the reverse.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 17:30 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission


Nuclear Warrior <[e-mail]> writes:

> Wouldn't it be great if one ... was to create a full-service telephone
> company, hopefully providing long distance ... and ... local service
> ... at the lowest possible prices?  It would charge just enough to
> hire all the necessary people, provide ample capacity and keep all
> of the equipment state-of-the-art.

And maybe charge just enough more to guarantee the investors a twelve
percent rate of return. Maybe I missed something, but is that not what
our LECs as a regulated monopoly are already supposed to be doing?

If you have trouble recognizing any of that in your local telephone
utility, perhaps it is because the regulated division is just a tiny
speck on the spreadsheets of a megaconglomerate holding company who is
manipulating the books, the legislators, the regulators, and its
customers to maximize the "unregulated" profits of the parent
corporation.

I give you Pacific Telesis as an example, not because it is
particularly slimy (it is), but because it is typical. Here you see a
very powerful corporation, who among many other things, happens to own
a telephone utility. This monopoly is guaranteed by statute to earn a
given percentage on invested capital. It cannot lose. The government
will not allow it. But does this satisfy PacTel? Of course not. It
wants to have the last of the regulations removed that prevent
Pac*Bell from competing with its own customers. It wants it both ways:
a guaranteed rate-of-return AND the ability to compete on a playing
field tilted in its favor. ("No one but Pac*Bell should be able to
provide intraLATA toll service, but Pac*Bell should be able to
manufacture and sell terminal equipment.") That is one holding
company's idea of fair.

I can think of a lot of people who would be quite happy running an
exemplary utility -- providing the best service at the lowest possible
cost. But looking at the stepsisters Bell, it is not really very
likely that they will get the chance.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Shaving Ni-Cads (Removing 'Whiskers')
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


I have a friend that swears by this method to ressurect 1.25V nicads:
Hook them up (with polarity reversed) to a car battery using jumper
cables.  My friend's not an EE, but these tricks of his that he swears
by usually work.  I've not tried this one myself, though.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: Javier Henderson - TMS Group <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Shaving Ni-Cads (Removing 'Whiskers')
Date: 30 Apr 91 07:15:08 PST
Organization: Avnet Computer - CTC Group; Culver City, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jon
T. Adams) writes:

> The only practical way to get rid of these crystalline growths is to
> apply a massive current that will essentially evaporate the crystals.
> The current pulse must be short enough to prevent undue damage to the
> battery yet enough current must be applied to destroy the whiskers.

It should be noted that Nicads can explode if the pulse is too strong
and/or too long. I've seen it happening before, when a friend was
trying to resurrect a few cells, and one went kaboom on him. He knew
of the dangers so he was applying the current to the cells while they
were inside a clear plastic box.


Javier Henderson  Engineering Services  Avnet Computer   Los Angeles, CA
[e-mail]  {simpact,asylum,elroy,dhw68k}!hamavnet!henderson

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

From: Javier Henderson - TMS Group <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800
Date: 30 Apr 91 07:12:14 PST
Organization: Avnet Computer - CTC Group; Culver City, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill
Huttig) writes:

> "The 800 number you have dialed is not yet in service ... Please
> try this number at a later date."

> [Moderator's Note: I think what it means is that someone at the local
> telco serving 407-676 misprogrammed the response code which is played
> when the number is dialed. I think they meant to say merely, 'the
> number is not in service from your area ...'       PAT]

I just tried the 800 number listed in the original message from my
phone in Los Angeles and got the same response "to try it at a later
date."

So the original question as to whether AT&T would offer their network
from an 800 number is still valid?


Javier Henderson   Engineering Services  Avnet Computer  Los Angeles, CA
[e-mail]  {simpact,asylum,elroy,dhw68k}!hamavnet!henderson

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800
Date: 1 May 91 01:01:03 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Barton F. Bruce) writes:

> Did the original ad offer letters for those numbers? Obviously 288 =
> ATT, and the 872 could be USA. All together it would be 1-800-usa-att-1.
> Just a guess. Otherwise it is a bummer to remember.

No, The original 'ad' is a wallet size card from the AT&T
International Department.  I knew that the 288 got you ATT but I
didn't think about the 872. I don't have trouble remembering numbers.
I just forget where they go to.


Bill

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 10:12:17 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 212-516 in use in 1986


If such 25-cents-for-call-within-NY-state phone appears in JFK, I
overlooked it when passing thru JFK for my trip to England late in
1989.  What prefix would be used there?

As for use of 212-516: It's already been noted that out of courtesy
you do NOT use a nearby area code as a prefix.  But since the phone on
which 212-516 appears is not set up for incoming calls, it's OK to use
a nearby area code as a prefix on it.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 10:25:25 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993


So you too will have ten digits (NPA + 7D) for local calls across the
new 416/905 border.  This is what you will hear for local calls across
the new 301/410 border in Maryland, if you listen to the helpline at
800/477-4704 and punch in a prefix which will have local service
across that border.

But from downtown Toronto, you will have local service into 905?
That's being handled differently from Maryland, where if you are local
to Baltimore you go into 410, and if you are local to Washington DC
you stay in 301.

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATT Digital Answering Machine
Date: 30 Apr 91 02:35:11 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


Someone was asking here recently about the ATT digital answering
machine.  I just received a flyer from Sears that includes:

    ATT Digital Answering System 1337

    - All digital technology, etc        Sale price $99.99

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #319
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26521;
          1 May 91 2:15 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26429;
          1 May 91 0:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28525;
          30 Apr 91 23:32 CDT
Date:     Tue, 30 Apr 91 23:30:53 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #320
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 30 Apr 91 23:30:23 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 320

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed [Tony Harminc]
    Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [Johnny Zweig]
    Re: Answering Machine Auto-Disconnect Devices [Tony Harminc]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Ralph W. Hyre]
    Re: Caller ID PC Boards Wanted [Jim Langridge]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: Third Party Billing Fraud and New England Tel's Answer [Steve Forrette]
    Georgia Relay Center Report [Fidonet ABLED Echo via Nigel Allen]
    Noise on the Line [Chip Yamasaki]
    Conference Bridges - State of the Art [John Nagle]
    New Area Code Won't Work From Hotel [Robert M. Hamer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 13:34:34 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed


David Berman wrote:

> Question: Does anyone reading know what is sent out? How the phone
> number or alpha information is encoded on the ring cycle? Has it been
> done in a reasonable way so that decoding is sensible? (etc) Addresses
> the future?

> Or: Does anyone know where such information is published for
> reference?

This is rather old, but the only answer Dave received was flip, and
not very helpful.  So here again is the official place to get Bell
Canada's version of Call Display technical disclosure information:

Bell Canada
Director - Switched Network Services
220 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario  K1G 3J4
[phone]

The document is "Call Management Service (CMS) Terminal-to-Network
Interface", Interface Disclosure ID - 0001, November 1989.  (The
document number may give you a clue as to how long this service has
been running :-))

I was not charged for this document, but Bell does reserve the right
to charge for it in future.  It is only 18 pages so it seems unlikely
they would charge a lot.  They are required to disclose this
information to anyone, so any charge would be administrative only -
i.e. they cannot sell the information.  Phone and find out.

Please note that it is incorrect to call this "the Canadian Caller*ID
standard".  This document describes only what is being implemented by
Bell Canada in its service areas.  Other Canadian telephone companies
may well implement something quite different, though it isn't too
likely.


Tony Harminc

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

From: Johnny Zweig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 19:36:08 GMT


[e-mail] (Rich Szabo) writes:

> I am sketchy on how ISDN interacts and co-exists with Plain Old
> Telephone Service.  Does an ISDN line have a "phone number?"  If so,
> what happens if I dial this number from a Plain Old Telephone?  Can an
> ISDN line be used as a voice line so that I don't need a POTS line in
> addition?

Your local Central Office probably digitizes your POTS signal as soon
as they get their (4ESS or higher) hands on it.  ISDN phones actually
have a number along with port-number like thingies I forget the name
of that specify particular devices that may be connected to a single
interface.  But it should certainly be possible to call a seven-digit
number and talk to your friend Joe down the street from POTS.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 14:00:02 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Auto-Disconnect Devices


I forwarded the discussion on the $5 zener diode devices to a friend
who does not read this list.  His comments follow:

  Greetings:
  Tony you may want to repost this.

  The device with the zeners does not have DOC (Canadian) approval
  because it does NOT meet Canadian standards and cannot be approved
  here. It does meet the more lax US standards, although even that is
  open to some interpretation.  It is a series device and does require
  approval according to tariffs.  It works on most lines but does not
  work under all circumstances (not due to stray RF but the
  characteristics of the line and various qualities of telephone
  connected).

  If you're interested I'll write a longer epistle on these devices. I
  have designed one and have gotten it approved in both Canada and the
  US.

  Regards,
  Howard

If anyone is interested enough I can post Howard's further comments.
He is quite familiar with the standards approval process in both
countries.


Tony Harminc

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

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Date: 30 Apr 91 21:28:20 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 306, Message 2 of 6

> "James Borynec" <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Will North America move to a wide area extended flat rate billing zone?

> [No] ... executive board is going to ... "give it all back"
> when the promised-land technology comes to pass.

> ... the benefits cost-wise are for the service providers, not for the
> customers.

Well why can't consumers band together, form a non-profit organization,
and build their own phone network to provide service at cost?  Amateur
radio operators do this already.  Subscriber equipment costs more than
telephones, but you get free bandwidth.

One could use microsatellites and radio links to provide enough
capacity to get a network up to a critical mass of subscribers
cheaply, then you could run fiber as your network grows to dwarf all
others :-)

Even with the expense of acquiring rights-of-way could be mitigated by
asking for 'donations' from member/subscribers.


         - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.
Internet: [e-mail]    Amateur Radio: N3FGW
UUCP: attmail!cinpmx!rhyre    Snail Mail: 45150-0085 [ZIP code]
  or: att!cinoss1!rhyre        Phone: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 08:41:29 edt
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Caller ID PC Boards Wanted


In Volume 11 : Issue 317, Michael Almond<[e-mail]> writes:

> I've seen several people mention that there are PC interface boards
> for Caller ID.  Would someone tell me the names and numbers for these
> companies?

Classmate-10 from MHE Systems is available from Bell Atlantic Business
Supplies.  Their phone is: 1 800 523 0552.

I recently evaluated the Classmate-10 for my company.  For a $50 bill,
I was impressed.


Jim Langridge    | [e-mail]    | NICCS OA
Synetics Corp.    | [phone]        | jlangri
24 Danube Dr.    | [phone] (FAX)
King George, VA.| 22485-5000

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

Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 21:45:06 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


Given the conflicting opinions about Prodigy and the STAGE.DAT file, I
believe there is a fairly easy way to determine the truth.

I have a TSR utility that will record every DOS call made by a
program.  If I had a Prodigy kit, I would run it under this TSR and
examine the resulting DOS call log for unusual actions.  If, indeed,
the STAGE.DAT file is copying erased information, nothing untoward may
be intended.  However, if the logfile shows Prodigy's front-end
snooping about on my hard drive partitions, I think that will speak
for itself.

Anybody got a spare (virgin) Prodigy kit to donate to the
investigation?


Roy M. Silvernail   [e-mail]
cybrspc![e-mail]  [e-mail] (maybe!)


[Moderator's Note: You are welcome to try this experiment, and by all
means report back on the results, but the consensus here over the past
two days in messages is that the whole thing is really a non-issue ...
just a case of Prodigy grabbing up 'empty' space to store stuff.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 04:35:32 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


> [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell gives 'inbound toll restriction' at
> no charge. My two lines and my distinctive ringing number are
> configured to automatically refuse collect or third number billing.  PAT]

I asked Pacific Bell about this a few months ago, and they said that
they would only do it after I received at least $100 in phraudulent
calls.  You know, it costs them so much to flip that bit in my account
profile.  I think the real reason is that having my lines blocked
would prevent ME from doing third number billing when that's what I
really wanted, thus reducing their revenue.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: IBT was glad to do it; the only thing I disliked
was that they did it in the middle of a billing period. The bill
which came the next month was a nightmare to read, with every single
item pro-rated up to the date of the change, then charged again for
the remaining days. They managed to screw up my Reach Out America and
Reach Out World account when they stopped it and restarted it on the
same day. Apparently 'flipping that bit' requires rebilling the whole
account for the month. The brief instant AT&T was not the default
carrier was sufficient to get Ma all aggravated and sending me letters
about how much I could save by joining one of the plans, etc. It was a
messy thing. I nearly always have record changes and service orders
done on the cycle billing date to avoid the confusion.   PAT]

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Georgia Relay Center Report
Date: 28 Apr 91  23:10:18


I found the following message, which appears to be a press release
from the Georgia Relay Center, on the FidoNet ABLED echo.

The press release does not indicate who operates the relay center, so
I do not know whether Southern Bell or another telephone company is
running the service. (Perhaps it is being run under contract to the
telephone companies by an outside organization, such as one that
provides services to the deaf and hearing-impaired as well.)

Thanks to Tzipporah Benavraham of 1:278/632.0 for posting it
originally.

04/23 1213  GEORGIA RELAY CENTER REPORTS FEW PROBLEMS WITH NEW ...

NORCROSS, GA (APRIL 23) - The new Georgia Relay Center that enables
deaf, hearing-impaired and speech-impaired Georgians to hold telephone
conversations with people who can hear has handled more than 8,000
calls since its April 1 opening.

   While the vast majority of callers have successfully reached the
center, a few customers have encountered problems because they did not
include the digits "1-800" when dialing the center's toll-free 800
numbers.

   Deaf, hearing-impaired or speech-impaired customers using
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf or "TDDs" reach the center by
dialing 1-800-255-0056.  Hearing callers using a regular telephone
call 1-800-255-0135.

   Regardless of where in the state callers are located, they must
dial the entire eleven digit toll-free TDD or hearing number to reach
the center.

   The Georgia Relay Center operates 24 hours a day, seven days a
week.  During a relay call, a communications assistant serves as a
link between a hearing caller and a caller using a TDD.  The assistant
speaks to the hearing caller and types the conversation to the TDD
user.

   The center only relays calls made between locations within the
state of Georgia.  Conversations relayed by the center are held in
strict confidence.

   All calls made using the center are billed at AT&T or local
telephone company rates, with a 25 percent discount applied to regular
long-distance prices.  There is no additional charge for the center's
relay service.

   The Georgia Relay Center was established by the Georgia Public
Service Commission.

   CONTACT: Dan Coulter, 404-810-7373 (office) or 404-995-3889 (after
hours), or Bill Blair, 404-810-7241 (office) or 404-664-3623 (after
hours).

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

From: Chip Yamasaki <[e-mail]>
Subject: Noise on the Line
Date: 30 Apr 91 01:22:33 GMT
Organization: U.S. D.O.L - Occupational Safety & Health Admin.


I've got a problem with REAL BAD bursts of noise (or something like
it) on my system.  The situation is this:

I have an ITT 386 system running SCO Xenix (286, don't ask why) which
I'll refer to as "the 386", and an ALR MultiAccess system running SCO
Unix Sys V 3.2.2 which I'll refer to as "the 486".

The 386 has 9 T2500 modems on a 16 line rotary with the interface
locked in at 9600 baud and they are plugged into ports on ITTs MTS
multiport cards.  The 486 has 2 T2500s on non-rotary lines at 19,200
plugged into the ALRs multiport option boxes.  The two systems have a
direct cable at 9600 to log into the 486 from the 386.

I am getting bursts of "noise" that are terrible when I dial in from
home (25 miles, normally good lines) using a Codex 2400 bps or Telebit
T2500 on a PC.  The noise happens only occasionally and comes in
occasional bursts.  It happens more when I am in the 386 system and
most when I am in the 486 from the 386.  At first I thought it could
be the rotary giving problems when another call comes in (and I still
think that may be a contributor), but I get it on the 486 sometimes.

Does anybody know anything about the T2500 that might contribute to
the problem?

Does anybody know anything about problems with noise on rotary lines
when a call comes in to a neighboring number?

Does anybody know anything about problems with SCOs serial port
drivers that might make them generate garbage if they are under
stress?

Any other ideas?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.  This is driving me nuts!


Charles "Chip" Yamasaki    [e-mail]

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

From: John Nagle <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Conference Bridges - State of the Art
Date: 30 Apr 91 03:54:42 GMT


     What are some good references to read on current low-noise
conference bridge technology?  MCI is now offering 300-party
conference calls; how is this handled?  I know there have been recent
advances in microprocessor controlled conference bridges designed to
handle the psychophysics and social aspects of the problem better, and
need more info.


John Nagle

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 09:16 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Area Code Won't Work From Hotel


I recently stayed in the Omni Newport News (in Newport News, VA) while
doing four days of cousulting there.  (It is a very nice hotel.  I
like Omnis.)

While there, I wanted to call my wife, who is currently staying in a
Residence Inn, outside of Princeton, NJ.  (Try selling a house in
Virginia, buying in New Jersey, all the while when both of us travel
on business, and her "home" since December has been a Residence Inn.)

That Residence Inn is in area code 908, recently split off from 201,
still reachable via permissive dialing through area code 201.

I dialed 908-xxx-xxxx, and got an ITT-Metromedia operator, who told me
that I couldn't dial that number from wherever I was (and he really
didn't know where I was, either.)  I tried it again, and got the same
result.  I called the hotel operator and front desk, who assured me
that I should just be able to dial the phone number and everything
should work automatically as it usually does in a hotel.  I tried it
again and got the same result.

At that point I thought, "Ah, ha!  Perhaps some table either in the
hotel's PBX doesn't know about area code 908, or some table at
ITT-Metromedia (who obviously handles the hotel's long distance)
doesn't know about 908, so I dialed the call as a201-xxx-xxxx.  Bingo.
It worked.

I wrote a letter to the manager, dropped it off at the front desk.  I
stayed there three more days, and never heard from the manager.  I
wonder if he/she tossed the letter in the wastebasket.

However, this is another instance where I feel sorry for the poor
everyday consumer who barely knows that there are multiple long
distance companies, has no idea that 10xxx codes are available, and
has no idea that area codes have been split, ever.  I doubt that it
would have occurred to me that the area code table might be wrong had
I not been some sort of telecom phreak.  Has anyone else had a similar
experience?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #320
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29567;
          1 May 91 3:30 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02485;
          1 May 91 1:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac26429;
          1 May 91 0:44 CDT
Date:     Wed, 1 May 91 0:01:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #321
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed,  1 May 91 00:01:09 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 321

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Metro HighBill Has an AOS! [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Follow-Me Call Forwarding [Scott Hinckley]
    Bay Area Cellular [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Bay Area Cellular [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30-APR-1991 01:04:06.73
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Metro HighBill has an AOS!


Tired of COCOTs which force you to use some slimey high priced
Alternate Operator Service? Decided to buy a carphone to avoid getting
overcharged on your calling card? Well, if you Roam into Metro
Mobile's Northeast system, or Cell One's Boston system, a nice little
AOS-like firm will take the number you are trying to call, a credit
card or calling card, place the call for you, and bill you for the
privilege. How much does all this cost? A mere $1.95 per minute!

Well, actually, this is not all that bad. Here's what happened:

I forgot to set my phone back to the "A" carrier in Connecticut (as
many may have heard, my *favorite* cell co ;) ), and instead came into
their system "looking" like a "B" customer from GTE Mobilnet/San
Francisco. Normally, or should I say, previously, this was never a
problem. As GTE Mobilnet/SF does not, to my knowledge, have a roaming
agreement with Metro Highbill, the call would always be intercepted
and instructions given to make a free call to *611 to see if they can
set you up for temporary service.

Presently, however, this no longer happens. When I turned on my phone
and tried calling myself (to see if it was working), I got connected
to someone who identified herself ONLY as "The Roaming Operator", and
the following conversation ensued:

Operator> This is the roaming operator, can I have the number you are
          calling?

Me> Ummm ... "roaming operator" ... I'm not roaming [which was wrong].
    Is this Metro Mobile? [Since it was 11PM, and Metro would never
    hear of 24-hour customer service, I found it odd that a person was
    there to take calls].

Op> Yes, sir, we are associated with them. What is the number you are
    trying to call?

Me> Err... 856-2655

Op> Sir, I NEED the area code to complete your call...

Me> The same area code that Metro is in ... I always dial this way ...
    203!  [not knowing that this wasn't Metro]

Op> I will NEED the complete number, area code first, then the number ...

Me> (tell her the number again) ... By the way, why can't I dial this
    myself, I always used to...

Op> (no answer) ... I need your calling card or a credit card.

Me> [Ok, now this was getting weird] Huh? Why? Who IS this? Metro Mobile
    never asked for this sort of info before!?

Op> Sir, do you want me to place the call for you or not? (very rudely)

Me> Well, I'm not giving my card number out to just anyone at the other
    end of the phone. Who are you and what will this cost me?

Op> It will cost approximately $1.95 per minute. What is your card number?

Me> Who are you?

Op> I want to know your card number (!!!!!!! - pretty pathetic!)

Me> Look, there is obviously a problem here. I am a Metro Mobile/CT
    customer. Have been for a few years. This never happened before.
    I want to tell customer service about this when ...

Op> (cutting me off) Sir, the number for customer service for Metro Mobile
    is 688-xxxx [can't recall, I use the 800 number]. Thank you. [and then
    she hung up.]

I don't like being hung up on, so I called back, told her what I think
of being hung up on, she said nothing, and then I repeated my demand
to know who I was dealing with:

Op> You are dealing with Cellular One. Our number is [phone].

 ...so I said "Thank You" as if I was glad to get rid of her (which I
was), and waited until today to call the number.

The 617-890 prefix is used, in part, by Cell One/Boston. They are
owned, I believe, by Southwestern Bell's Cellular outfit. The person I
talked to said this was a new system, started a few weeks ago, called
"Roam Express".  It is intended to collect all roamers which do not
have roaming agreements as they enter a service area, and allow them
to place calls through their calling cards or credit cards, for $1.95
per minute.

All that really happens is that instead of the call being sent to a
recording which says "Call customer service to set up roaming", the
call is sent to one of the operators, who will take your card number
and place the call for you. They don't do an ESN check or anything
like that (although they said they may do so in the future. I'm not
sure it is really necessary since you pay the bill directly via your
credit/calling card and are NOT billed via your mobile company.)

Nothing was stated about RECEIVING calls, but this should be possible.
ie, "Roam Express" can have an 800 number that you call into or
something. Metro seems to be doing something with its roam ports -- if
you call its 203-930-7626 port, and enter a GTE/SF number
(415-710-2xxx), rather than get the usual message "The mobile number
you are attempting to reach has either left the car or travelled
beyond the service area", the call just "dies". No ring or anything. I
*suspect* that they may be re-routing all calls to "B" roamers which
do not have pre-existing roaming agreements to "Roam Express", but
that the system isn't fully in place yet. Cell One/Boston, which
according to Roam Express also has this system has not changed the
procedure by which "B" calls are rejected at the port - ie, you call
the 617-633-7626 port, enter a 415-710-2xxx number, and you will get
intercepted right away.

Roam Express claims that they are presently serving Metro
Mobile/Northeast (that's: CT, RI, Western Mass, and Southeastern
Mass,like New Bedford, etc.), and Cell One/Boston, one area of
Florida, a system in Colorado, and a few of the upstate or midstate NY
systems. (I tried the US Cellular system for Poughkeepsie, which comes
in around the mountains surrounding Kent, CT along US-7, and they
didn't have this, so perhaps they are referring to Albany and areas
further north. The NYC system, the Orange County system, and the US
Cell system all don't have it, and the next one north is Albany. Of
course, I believe US Cell accepts "B" roamers, at least from GTE, so
there is no need for Roam Express there ...) New York City's system
should get this by next week (Metro One), and Cell One/South Jersey by
the middle of May.

The rates are the same all over: $1.95 per minute. I am not sure if
they bill for incomplete calls or not. There is no daily roam charge.
The $1.95 is high enough to cover the airtime charges as well as the
toll charges and I suspect make a good deal of profit on the longer
calls. (Perhaps the cell companies charge Roam Express for airtime?
Maybe that's why the "roam operator" who I initially spoke with rushed
me off the phone ... hmmm.)

In any event, it seems like a useful system, but the deceptive way
they try to get your business by pretending to be the local mobile
company and not disclosing the rates until you ask reminds me a LOT of
an AOS. They already have a message which says "Metro Mobile, one
moment while you are connected to the roaming operator", and thus they
could easily have a message saying "You are being transferred to an
operator who can place calls for you. The rates are XXXX, and you will
be billed separately, on your credit or calling card, for these
calls." And $1.95 per minute seems a bit high, although not much more
than you pay Hertz or someone to rent a phone.

Roaming is a bad enough already; I don't need yet ANOTHER company
trying to make a quick dollar off of roaming and to do it in a way
which an AOS outfit would be proud of. It figures Metro Highbill would
be one of the first to sign up! :) (Yet oddly, they don't assess a
daily roam charge to other *"A"* roamers, at least not the last time I
checked. Weird ... I can't imagine Metro giving up $3 for anything!)

Guess that's it ... if anyone has more info on this 'service', please
let me know.


Doug    [e-mail]   //  [e-mail]

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

From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Follow-Me Call Forwarding
Date: 30 Apr 91 13:13:31 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I was in Atlanta this weekend (interesting story about Bell/COCOT
phone when I track down some more details) and saw follow-me call
waiting advertised.

You just call up (some number) at have your calls forwarded to you. If
you change locations you call up and change your forwarding again.
 From the advertisement it did not appear that you needed to enable
call forwarding from home before using the follow-me feature.


Scott Hinckley
Internet:[e-mail]|UUCP:...!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott
DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not|[phone]
represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management|  BTN:461-2073

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 05:23:58 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bay Area cellular


I have to take exception to John Higdon's comments about the cellular
situation in the San Francisco Bay Area.  I too have been a customer
of both systems, and find Cellular One to be much superior.  This
opinion is based mostly on my personal experiences, rather than
quantitative data such as the number of cell sites, etc.

In October 1987, I purchased my cellphone, an in-car NovaTel 385.  I'm
really pleased with the way it's worked for me over the years.  (I'm
told that they are a lot like credit reports - "either 1's or 10's,
mostly 1's", but I got a 10, I guess.)  I don't have much experience
with 600 mW handhelds.

I initially signed up with Cellular One, and had it for a couple of
years.  I then lived in Seattle for 18 months, and when I came back, I
decided to give GTE a try, largely based on John's reports.  It lasted
for less than two months before I was so fed up that I switched back
to Cellular One.

There were several smaller reasons for switching, such as the
inability of customer (dis)service to deal with technical problems
(they said "call the people at the switch directly, using this
number", which was never answered).  But my main problem was with
roaming.

As we know, the "B" carriers have this wonderful thing called Follow
Me Roaming.  I often have the occasion to travel into the Sacramento
market, and sometimes to LA, so roaming is very important to me.
After hitting *18 in Sac, it would take around 15 minutes before calls
would "roam", and of course it would reset sometime in the evening and
be unusable and unactivatable for a few hours.  And when it was on, it
sometimes just wouldn't forward.  I had instructed someone to call me
if there were changes in a meeting schedule, and hit the roof when I
found out that I wasted an hour of my time going to meet him when he
tried in vain to reach me.

The "A" carriers in California and Nevada had a really slick system
called Super Cellular.  Your calls forward to you whereever you are.
All you do is hit SEND when you enter a new market, and forwarding is
activated *instantly*.  Not in 15 minutes, not in 15 seconds, but
right away, reliably, every time.  Plus, you get all your custom
calling features as well, something Follow Me Raoming didn't offer.  I
heard talk that the B systems in California were working on something
like this, and maybe it's working now, but that's a couple of years
later.

As far as coverage, I found that Cellular One was superior.  Perhaps
GTE was better at the far edge "fringe" areas, but I was having
problems in the middle of town!  For one thing, Cellular One had
coverage through the Caldecot Tunnel, since 1987 (GTE got it in 1990).
When I first saw this advertised, I thought it was pretty much a
gimmick, but I've been surprised just how many times it's come in
handy.  John's San Jose home is about an hour away from the tunnel, so
his priorities are probably different.

Just after getting my Cellular One account reactivated, I made my last
"B" call to cancel my GTE account.  When asked why I was switching to
CellOne, I mentined the signal quality issue.  Maybe someone was
interfering for dramatic effect (:-)), but the static was incredible
on the line.  We could barely hear each other.  And I was on I-880 in
Oakland, hardly an out-of-the-way place.

And the worst part was that my left arm would get this voilent twitch
every time I wrote GTE right after "Pay to the Order of" on my checks.

I'm sure John has similar stories with the carriers reversed.  Maybe
we're both right, and it's just that each carrier has concentrated on
a different end of the bay.  I'm looking forward to hearing of his
CellOne horror stories!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 10:43 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bay Area Cellular
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


On Apr 30 at  5:23, Steve Forrette writes:

> There were several smaller reasons for switching, [from GTE to
> Cellular One] such as the inability
> of customer (dis)service to deal with technical problems (they said "call
> the people at the switch directly, using this number", which was never
> answered).

But now it is the other way around. I recently had an unusual problem
at an area known to be good for reception. I got right through to GTE
repair service, they took the report and called me back at home twice
in the coming days to follow up. I also got an internal number for
reporting any other reception problems. At the time I turned off my
last Cellular One account, people who took reception reports always
told me to have my radio checked because "since Cellular One's system
is so superior," the problem had to be with my equipment.

> But my main problem was with roaming.

The only trouble I have ever had with roaming (the *18 "follow me
roaming" seems to work just fine) was when I was on Cellular One.
About half the carriers in California refused to give me roaming
privleges unless I coughed up with a credit card. I understand that
that has changed, but an associate with CellOne still complains that
he has trouble roaming on "A" carriers in other states. I have never
had problems with the "B" carriers.

> Plus, you get all your custom calling features as well, something Follow Me
> Raoming didn't offer.  I heard talk that the B systems in California were
> working on something like this, and maybe it's working now, but that's a
> couple of years later.

It is. And it does not matter who is first, it is the present that
counts.

> For one thing, Cellular One had coverage through the
> Caldecot Tunnel, since 1987 (GTE got it in 1990).  When I first saw this
> advertised, I thought it was pretty much a gimmick, but I've been surprised
> just how many times it's come in handy.  John's San Jose home is about an
> hour away from the tunnel, so his priorities are probably different.

And did they advertise it. Every single commercial trumpeted coverage
through the Caldecot Tunnel, as if nothing else mattered. Of course,
this major technological feat is accomplished by locating a cell site
at one end. Of course, Steve is correct: my home is an hour away from
this magic spot, and besides when I travel up there I can go directly
to the destination at either end without going through the tunnel
(just like I can go to either Oakland or San Francisco without using a
bridge).

The problem at the time was that Cellular One did not have acceptable
coverage in my driveway! I was very happy that Cellular One had
conquered the Caldecot Tunnel, but it was most disconcerting to lose
calls as I was reaching my home. I live in the Willow Glen district of
San Jose -- hardly a fringe or out of the way place!

> I'm sure John has similar stories with the carriers reversed.  Maybe we're
> both right, and it's just that each carrier has concentrated on a different
> end of the bay.  I'm looking forward to hearing of his CellOne horror
> stories!

No real horror stories; I just did not feel that Cellular One (despite
the aggressive advertising) was really providing me with the service I
was paying for. I had bad luck with roaming, coverage, and customer
service. But the voice mail is a little cheaper!


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #321
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02232;
          1 May 91 4:30 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04506;
          1 May 91 2:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac02485;
          1 May 91 1:50 CDT
Date:     Wed, 1 May 91 0:52:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #322
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 1 May 91 00:52:30 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 322

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Radio Interference to Phones [Julian Macassey]
    RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms [Steve Forrette]
    Has Anyone Heard of This? [John Higdon]
    GTE Calling Card [Ken Jongsma]
    To Readers in Ithaca, NY, USA [Steve Gaarder]
    Help Needed With AT&T PBX [Arnette P. Baker]
    Radio Shack Computerized Phone Accountant [Mark J. Elkins]
    MCI Around Town Eliminated - No Advance Notice [Bruce Waldman]
    Cable & Wireless 800 Service [Steve Forrette]
    Tele-Trivia: Why Cotton Balls in Handsets?? [Dave Mc Mahan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Interference to Phones
Date: 29 Apr 91 17:07:06 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: Crepuscular Insomniacs Hollywood California U.S.A.


    There has been much banter recently on the subject of
interference to phones by various radio transmitters. I sent some
documents about this to the original poster and let the slanging
continue.

    Late last week I received my copy of "QST" the "American
Rifleman" mag of the Radio Amateur Association in the US (American
Radio Relay League). There on Page 22 of the May 1991 issue was an
article "Basic Steps Towards Eliminating Telephone RFI". This is not a
wonderful article. It has a few things wrong.

    Let me just state a few things about telephone interference. I
have had some experience with telephone RFI. I used to work for some
phone manufacturers. We used to get customers calling in and whining
because their phones were terrible phones and lousy radio receivers.

    Most reported cases of RFI are from Commercial AM (Medium
Wave) broadcast. There are a few reasons for this: 1. They are on most
of the time. 2. They use AM which can be understood when rectified
unlike FM/CW/SSB etc. 3. The Broadcast stations run higher power and
sites once safely in the boonies pushing 50Kw are now often smack in
the middle of Yuppie-ville. Nothing whines like an unhappy Yuppie -
They have the time, they have the money, they are the lawyers.

    If you use real phones - Not gas station give-aways - you
should have few RFI problems. If you do persist in using a phone
sensitive to RFI, it can be fixed, it just requires more skill.

    The phone police will not be happy if you open a phone and
insert a capacitor, this contravenes FCC Part 68 etc. But if you don't
tell people that you are breaking the law with a hot soldering iron,
they will only love you when the problem goes away.

    Unfortunately, many people complain of interference when there
is none. These people will cause much grief as they are hard to
satisfy.

    I have a collection of three documents which our esteemed
Moderator may wish to run in the digest. I can always e-mail them to
maidens (and masters) in distress. The docs are as follows:


(1)    An ASCII copy of FCC Field Bulletin FO-10. Dated 1986. About 7K in
length.

(2)    An ASCII copy of Bell System Practice (BSP) 500-150-100 " Radio
Signal Suppression for Telephone Sets". Dated 1974. About 10K in
length. This was the official "Ma Bell Party-line". Has good advice in
it.

(3)    An ASCII copy of a February, 1988 article in {Popular
Communications Magazine}. This is written by myself and gives some
hints on handling the dreaded RFI problem. About 12K in length.


Julian Macassey, n6are  [e-mail]  ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]


[Moderator's Note: If you wish to send them along, they'll be put in
the archives where interested readers can obtain them.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 20:08:29 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms


The recent message about the Comdial hotel phones with an RJ11 data
jack on the side reminded me of an experience I had a couple of years
ago at Motel 6.  At the time, they had a radio commercial devoted to
their telephone policies.  "Free local calls, no surcharge for calling
card calls, and all our phones use modular jacks, so you can plug in
your computer and send in all your orders."  I was surprised - a
general audience commercial talking about modular jacks, data
transfer, etc.  Their phones don't have extra jacks like the Comdial
phones, but they are plugged into modular jacks, so you just unplug
the phone and plug in your device.

The problem was that the little release clips were broken of the male
end of the RJ11 connector on each end (as if this is going to prevent
someone from taking the phone!).  I complained to the front desk,
explaining not only that it was silly, but that their own commercials
specifically touted the ability for the guest to plug in his own
device.  The first response was "What?  Why would you need to plug in
your computer to the phone?"  After explaining the concept of "dialing
in", the response was "I don't know nothin' about the phones - sorry."
(Exact English preserved.)

As a side note, I also had my voice card with me, and set up voice
mail for my room extension.  My mom was taken aback when calling, but
somehow has come to expect things like this from me.  Too bad the
front desk never had the occasion to call my room when I wasn't there.
Their reaction would have been priceless!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 22:18 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Has Anyone Heard of This?


For the fourth time in about as many weeks, I have received a
pre-recorded marketing spiel on my 800 line (probably directed at the
POTS number). It is the same thing every time, but the fact that it
comes in on this particular line indicates that the calling entity has
no idea who or what it is calling. There is no way that the outside
world can associate me with this line.

The female voice indicates that she has tried to reach me five times
and this is the last time (on every one of the calls). To claim my
prize it will be necessary to call a number and give my validation
number, "C5" (which is spoken in a voice that sounds like a Hollywood
alien on drugs -- supposed to be a computer voice?). I must do this
within 24 hours to claim my prize, which will otherwise be given to
someone else.

The number, 312 292-9000, (Patrick -- I realize Chicago is a big
place, but have you by chance heard of this scam?) is always busy. I
suspect that if one gets through, he will be directed to a 900 number.
If anyone wants to use my "validation number", be my guest. You need
not impersonate me, since there is no possible way the operation has
any ability to connect me with the number it called to reach me.

But be sure you let us know what it is all about!


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


[Moderator's Note: I found out only a few things. All the numbers
between 312-292-9000 and 312-292-9049 *always* are busy. The first
couple dozen immediatly cut to a busy signal when dialed; the numbers
in the upper range (9040 through 9049) click, appear to get forwarded
somewhere, then also return a busy signal. The first thirty or so of
the numbers are listed two ways: 'Combined Credit Service, Inc' and
'American Consumer Services', both of 2320 North Damen Avenue in
Chicago. The remainder of the numbers (from about 9035 up to 9049)
give a CNA report of 'no record on file' (as opposed to non-pub). The
numbers from 9050 up to at least 9099 are not in service. I tried
several of the numbers just now (midnight) and got a busy on
everything I tried; my assumption is the numbers are out of order or
perhaps not in service but incorrectly programmed in the switch, etc.
If I think of it, I will check out 2320 North Damen in the criss cross
at my office tomorrow. There seem to be very few working numbers in
the 312-292 exchange. I tested at random and mostly got 'not in
service' or 'has been disconnected' messages.   PAT]

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

Subject: GTE Calling Card
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 7:33:19 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


I should preface this by saying that I worked for GTE in a previous
incarnation. Although the division I worked in was not connected with
telephone operations, it too ocasionally exhibited certain 'GTE'
traits. But I digress...

Today I received my 'new' GTE credit card. Nothing has changed (number
wise), so the only reason I can see that they sent it was that it has
a new graphic design on it. (Well, that's enough to change _my_
calling habits. How about yours?) Anyway, some comments:

   1) GTE is trying perpetuate the myth that AT&T started about eight
      years ago, when AT&T went to great expense trying to convince
      everyone that they no longer had a telephone credit card, but
      really had a 'calling card'. Several years later, AT&T was quoted
      in one of the industry trades complaining that people weren't
      treating their 'calling cards' like credit cards. Sheesh!
      Hey Folks: If it looks like a credit card, it's a credit card.
      My Amoco card only works at Amoco and not at Sears. It's also
      a credit card and not a post payment automotive services finance
      device.

   2) GTE has dropped the international number from the card with no
      explanation.

   3) Consider the following quote from the card instructions:

         With your GTE Calling Card, convenient, economical calling
         priviledges become as close as the nearest phone. Whether
         you're using a public or private phone, calls with your card
         go through quickly and easily!

         When you make calls with your GTE Calling Card, you also
         avoid the higher charges associated with collect calls or
         billing to a third number. And, you'll never have to cut your
         calls short because you've run out of change.

         Report all lost or stolen [...]

         How to use your GTE Calling Card:    [Paraphrased - krj]

          1. Press "0" plus the area code and number you're calling.
          2. Wait for the tone and enter your GTE Calling Card number.

Not one word about COCOTs and the dangers of blindly entering your
card number after the tone.  Ouch!  Then again, maybe they like the
commissions they get for billing COCOT calls. :(


Ken Jongsma                  [e-mail]
Smiths Industries            [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan       ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 14:44:07 EDT
From: Steve Gaarder <[e-mail]>
Subject: To Readers in Ithaca, NY, USA


Is there any interest among my fellow TELECOM readers in Ithaca in a
local telecom-related mailing list?  We could pass around local
telecom trivia, and perhaps arrange some group activities, such as a
tour of one of the local step-by-step switches.

Let me know,

Steve Gaarder    [e-mail]

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

From: Arnette P Baker [phone] <ihlpf![e-mail]>
Subject: Help Needed With AT&T PBX
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 15:41:00 GMT


Somehow since I work for AT&T (in the switching division) I am
considered a family expert on "everything" phone related - even if I'm
not!  My sister called today because her law firm is having "trouble"
figuring out how to program their new AT&T PBX.  What they want to do,
and what their AT&T sales rep. told them she had no idea how to do, is
to have their system provide distinctive (two-ring) ringing for outside
calls and regular (single ring) for inside calls.

Their system as she described it to me is DID AT&T PBX 75XE (or
7500XE) with DCS and a T1 link between their Belleville and St. Louis
offices.  They have extension dialing between the two office buildings
located about 15 miles apart.  If they dial "9" they are dropped to
the Belleville CO, but if they dial "0" they are routed to a SWB (St.
Louis Mo.) operator.  This seems strange to me, but it is one of those
crazy Intra-LATA, InterState set ups.

Anyway, I figured I would get more accurate information more quickly
from this group than from trying to work my way through sales/support
bureacracy when it really isn't my job.


Thanks,

Arnette Baker   AT&T Network Systems   [e-mail]

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

From: Mark J Elkins <olsa99!mje99![e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Shack Computerized Phone Accountant
Date: 30 Apr 91 16:29:17 GMT
Reply-To: Mark J Elkins <olsa99!mje99![e-mail]>
Organization: Mark's Machine (Working for Olivetti Africa)


Whilst in the USA (I live in Johannesburg), I purchased a
'Computerized Phone Accountant' from Radio Shack.  It is attached to
the phone line and then will print onto its internal paper printer all
call details such as number dialed and call duration or call duration
on incoming calls.  What I was really looking for was this type of
machine with an RS232 interface so I could suck the info into my Unix
box.  I've already written software that can work out the cost from
number/time/duration info.

Anyway - the CPA is noisy and likes to print out info whenever the
receiver is taken off hook - even when no numbers are dialed.  The
unit I bought has already worn its inker dry and the thing really eats
paper.

I'd really like to either 'add' an RS232 interface or find an
alternative with such an interface.  Can anyone enlighten me?

The only other modification I'd like to do to this is to get it to
monitor up to about four lines.

If 'mje@mje99' bounces - try '[e-mail]' - which seems to be on
most maps.


Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Africa
UUCP: {uunet,olgb1,olnl1}!olsa99!mje (Mark Elkins)
[e-mail] (Postmaster) Tel: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 00:25:11 -0400
From: Bruce Waldman <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Around Town Eliminated - No Advance Notice


Well they've done it again.  Look carefully at your phone bill this
month, and you'll see that calls made >= April 1 are now surcharged 75
cents, not 25 cents.  It was just a short time ago that they imposed
the 25 cent surcharge, again with no prior notification.  Of course,
the MCI representative will inform you that you should have known,
because it was clearly stated on your March bill.  I dug it out, of
course, and there is no hint anywhere on the bill!  Like last time,
they offered to credit the difference ... it never came last time, and
I won't hold my breath this time either.  That's it.  MCI is really
screwed up when it comes to implementing these decisions or they think
that we are too stupid to notice.  And of course, I probably wouldn't
have noticed either if the bill wasn't so large.


Bruce Waldman    [e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 20:20:15 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cable & Wireless 800 Service


With the discussion of Sprint's recent rate increases, I thought I'd
tout the carrier I have, Cable & Wireless.  (No relation, just a happy
customer).  They charge $10/month, plus usage.  six second billing, with
a thirty second minimum per call.  Rates are: day $.19/min, evening
$.16/min, night/weekend $.13/min.  These are mileage insensitive, and
both inter and intra state.  Basic service covers 48 states.  For
$10/month extra, you can get a "programmable" option, which allows you
to change the number your 800 calls are routed to as often as you
wish.  This is the only service of this type that I know of, although
I think MCI recently announced plans to offer such a thing in the
future.  Also, they gave me the number I wanted without any hassle
since it was unassigned.  You can call them at 800/486-8686.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Mc Mahan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tele-Trivia: Why Cotton Balls in Handsets??
Organization:  Dave McMahan @ NetCom Services
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1991 20:21:00 GMT


I have been asked why standard desk top telephones have a cotton ball
stuffed into the handset.  Unscrewing the earpiece (not the microphone)
gives access to this little wonder.

Why is it there?


Dave McMahan   [e-mail]  {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!mcmahan

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #322
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17586;
          2 May 91 4:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03844;
          2 May 91 3:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad31589;
          2 May 91 2:06 CDT
Date:     Thu, 2 May 91 2:03:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #324
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 May 91 02:03:23 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 324

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Mark Teegarden]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Arup Mukherjee]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Syd Weinstein]
    Re: Online Services [Gregory G. Woodbury]
    Re: Georgia Relay Center Report [John R Hall]
    Re: Georgia Relay Center Report [Peter L. Thomas]
    Re: Georgia Relay Center Report [Arnold Robbins]
    Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [W. H. Sohl]
    Re: A Mystery Refund From MCI [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mark Teegarden <acd4![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute, IN
Date: 1 May, 1991 00:00:00


In article <[e-mail]> hayes![e-mail]
(Toby Nixon) writes:

> I was involved in early beta testing of Prodigy, was a charter member,
> and have watched HOURS of Prodigy traffic on data line monitors.  I
> have NEVER seen any information transmitted that was not typed by the
> user, or originated within the software.  I've never seen ANYTHING
> that even remotely gave me the impression that information from
> previously-delete files was being transmitted.

As you have pointed out, you were then associated with Prodigy and
probably have at least some small ties with the company from your
association. This will make your opinion/experience invalid in the
eyes of some people on the net (that's just the breaks, pal). Also,
you pointed out being involved with Prodigy very early on. Software
could have since changed.

But, since you mentioned the use of a data line monitor ...

Have any of you Prodigy users out there tried putting a data analyzer
or some other form of monitor on the serial line between your modem
and computer? Would you be willing to risk doing this to discover what
really does go out over the line? I would be interested in knowing the
result as would many other people here watching this thread.

If possible it would be good to know how many characters are
transmitted to Prodigy and even a capture of the characters sent (is
most likely compressed, which is why it probably takes some time). I
am sure that there are some people who would be glad to take on the
task of analyzing any data you should find that would normally go out
on the line. If it is true that these files are being uploaded to
Prodigy, there should be some physical evidence in the actual volume
of transmission. Normally there should be very little transmission to
Prodigy.

If you are going to make the claims against Prodigy, please take some
time to back them up. It shouldn't be that hard, and everyone
following the thread will appreciate hearing the results.

        -- -- Mark Teegarden mjt@acd4 uunet!acd4!mjt [e-mail] --

P.S.  Could someone please post a wiring diagram for an RS232 Y-cable
that could be used to attach the serial line of a second PC to monitor
the serial transmissions of the first one that is running the Prodigy
Software without wreaking havoc on the communication to and from the
modem?  Can this be done inexpensively?

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

From: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
Date: 1 May 91 20:58:23 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


> [Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for sending along this fascinating
> report for the readers of TELECOM Digest. I've always said, and still
> believe that the proprietors of any online computer service have the
> right to run it any way they want -- even into the ground! -- and

Prodigy doesn't have the right to rip off copies of my company's
software from its customers.  Regardless of what's in the service
contract, people can't sign away rights they don't have in the first
place, and third-party commercial software doesn't generally come with
redistribution rights.  If Prodigy is uploading the contents of hard
disks, how can they avoid doing this?  Proprietary software need not
consist entirely of .COM and .EXE files, or any other formula based on
file names to avoid.

> that users are free to stay or leave as they see fit. But it is really
> disturbing to think that Prodigy has the nerve to ripoff private stuff
> belonging to users, at least without telling them. But as I think
> about it, *who* would sign up with that service if they had bothered
> to read the service contract carefully and had the points in this
> article explained in detail?    PAT]

I suspect that MOST contracts are written in a way that no sane person
would sign up for it if they assumed that the other party (who wrote
the contract) would take full advantage of the terms to their
disadvantage.  For example, PSI offered an e-mail service where you
were allowed to send mail TO psi and FROM psi.  Nobody else! (That
they didn't mean it that way is besides the point).  Telephone
companies can change your phone number at any time.  Would you
subscribe if you knew they're going to do it every half hour?  Would
you buy expensive electronic equipment from someone who was going to
sell lists of names, addresses, and what was purchased to organized
crime?

I was inclined to believe the uninitialized-disk-space theory.  The
test with a fresh-formatted floppy (assuming that this means what
everyone but MS-DOS thinks it does - a destructive format that erases
data) seems to disprove that.  I wonder, however, about uninitialized
memory.  A lot of things showing up in clean-wipe tests seem to be
data likely to be accessed during boot.  Could someone prepare a
bulk-erased and then formatted floppy, delete all TSRs from memory,
run a program to clear user-available memory (without booting), then
install Prodigy on the floppy?  I'd expect to find directory contents
(including the hard disk) of directories in the path, read while
scanning for commands.

I would like to see evidence that this data actually appears on the
line.  Since it's compressed, how about demonstrating sufficient
volume of transmission back to Prodigy?  Of course, it's possible they
are hiding a few bytes in each packet ACK.

It is, of course, possible to conduct "marketing research" on the
contents of customers' disks without any huge STAGE.DAT file with
"incriminating evidence" in it, just given a proprietary program to
access the service.  Every five minutes, the service could send a
query "does this user have <file x>", and all the program has to do is
look around and send back one bit with an answer.  This, they match
against the registered owner list.  So what if they don't have a
trademark on the file names for Lotus 1-2-3?  It could also upload
files deemed interesting while the user is reading the interesting
advertisments :-).


Gordon L. Burditt   sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

From: Arup Mukherjee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
Date: 2 May 91 00:12:28 GMT
Reply-To: Arup Mukherjee <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


In article <[e-mail]> overlf!emanuele@kb2ear.
ampr.org (Mark A. Emanuele) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 311, Message 1 of 4

> doubt upon that. The E-mail controversy started because people were
> finding mail they sent with comments about Prodigy or the E-mail,
> especially negative ones, didn't ever arrive. Now Prodigy is saying
> they don't actually read the mail, they just have the computer scan it
> for key terms, and delete those messages because they are responsible
> for what happens on Prodigy.

They said WHAT? Did Prodigy "officially" admit this somewhere? I had a
feeling that this might be happening, but I thought I was just getting
paranoid! I remember that on one of the Prodigy boards someone posted
a message saying that they had written to the FCC about the matter,
and received a reply to the effect that Prodigy would be violating FCC
rules if it were restricting private mail betweem two adults. Prodigy
responded that they only did such things to bulletins, and private
e-mail was never interefered with. Does anyone know of an admission to
the contrary?

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 13:25:46 GMT


Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]> writes:

> It's great fun on a multi-user
> computer to open a new file for random access, and do a write to an
> arbitrarily high record number -- the system allocates all of the
> unused space in between to you, but doesn't erase it, so you can
> merrily read through everything that the other users of the system
> supposedly "deleted".  If you're on a multiuser system, always use an
> "erase" program that actually overwrites your files rather than just
> deleting them, or everything you delete will be available to other
> users of the system.

I know its off the topic, but ... if you are on a multi-user system
and this technique works for you ... switch.  That is terrible
security and the vendor deserves not to be in business (don't name
names, I know several which work this way).  Since most of our
multi-user readers are on UNIX, this trick will not work on UNIX
systems.  Two reasons: First, UNIX does not allocate the intervening
space in the file.  It just allocates the blocks you write to.  The OS
returns 0's for all other blocks read that are not yet allocated.
Second, UNIX does not write partial sectors, nor depend on the
contents of the file to mark end of file.

However, root using the raw partition can always farm the free space
looking for interesting info, but then it can also look at all the
files and look for interesting info too.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP     Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.            Voice: [phone]
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd          FAX:   [phone]

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

From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Online Services
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 13:25:37 GMT


John Higdon wrote about using uucp and Usenet to take the place of the
"high-cost" online services like GEnie and CI$ (I like that particular
visual pun).

While many (or even most) local BBSes or Usenet servers are "free",
this is not always the case and it may get worse.  UUnet and UUpsi and
Portal and others are Usenet providers that charge (sometimes quite a
bit) for feeding you Usenet and providing uucp connectivity.  As of
July 1st, add another one to the list.

I was just informed by "mcnc" (formerly one of the "backbone cabal"
sites) that to continue my uucp/usenet connectivity, it will cost me
$200/month!  Adding this insult to the recent injury of losing RTI as
a newsfeeder in this region has the news readers of the are
understandably confused.

My site, for one, cannot afford to pay that kind of money for news,
and it is unlikely that I will start charging for access (since that
would allow GTE to change my computer line to a "business line" which
I also cannot afford).  The only hope is that I will find some
friendly site at a local university (Hi Duke!) which will allow me to
get the full feed from them that I currently get from mcnc.  Since
Duke is part of the MCNC run "CONCERT" subnet of SURAnet, they may not
want to allow general public use of the resources that they pay for.

If ISDN does get into the home, and "toasternet" ever gets made, it
will only come about if some changes are made in the cost recovery
algorithms used by the phone companies.


Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw   ...mcnc!wolves!ggw           [use the maps!]
Domain: [e-mail]     [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed,  1 May 91 09:33:15 EDT
From: John R Hall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Georgia Relay Center Report
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


AT&T is the service provider for the Dual Party Relay in Georgia as is
the case in Alabama, California, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Montana,
New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia.

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

From: "Peter L. Thomas" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Georgia Relay Center Report
Organization:  The Aerospace Corporation
Date:  1 MAY 91 07:34:55


In article <[e-mail]>, Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.
fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes...

> The press release does not indicate who operates the relay center, so
> I do not know whether Southern Bell or another telephone company is
> running the service. (Perhaps it is being run under contract to the

This service is fairly new, and I know very little about aside from
the surcharge for it which appears on every Southern Bell customer's
bill.

This leads me to think that Southern Bell is at least subsidizing the
service, if it is not running it directly.


Pete

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Arnold Robbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Georgia Relay Center Report
Date: 1 May 91 16:28:25 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta Georgia


In article <[e-mail]> Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.
fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes:

> The press release does not indicate who operates the relay center, so
> I do not know whether Southern Bell or another telephone company is
> running the service.

Southern Bell runs it.  I posted an article here with a copy of the
announcement as it came in my phone bill a few months back.

>   The Georgia Relay Center was established by the Georgia Public
> Service Commission.

It is paid for by *all* Georgia customers of Southern Bell; there is a
monthly surcharge of several cents.  You'd have to check my original
article for the exact rate.


Arnold  Robbins     AudioFAX, Inc.
Powers Ferry Road, Suite 200 / Marietta, GA. 30067
INTERNET: [e-mail] Phone: [phone]
UUCP:     emory!audfax!arnold Fax-box: [phone]

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

From: "24460-W. H. Sohl(L145" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 1 May 91 12:52:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN
Reply-To: "24460-W. H. Sohl" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


[e-mail] (Rich Szabo) writes:

> I am sketchy on how ISDN interacts and co-exists with Plain Old
> Telephone Service.  Does an ISDN line have a "phone number?"  If so,
> what happens if I dial this number from a Plain Old Telephone?  Can an
> ISDN line be used as a voice line so that I don't need a POTS line in
> addition?

The answer is absolutely YES.  The ISDN line is an access technology
that includes POTS if the line is ordered with the POTS capability.
Major deployments of ISDN that have already occured and have been
reported in the media include, McDonald's headquarters in Illinois,
several major oil companies in Texas, and numerous other deployments
around the USA.

The estimate at this time is that there is around 100,000 ISDN
lines installed.  Most, if not all, of the installed lines are
to business customers.


Bill Sohl   (K2UNK)            ||  email
Bellcore, Morristown, NJ       ||   UUCP    bcr!taichi!whs70
(Bell Communications Research) ||    or
201-829-2879 Weekdays          || Internet  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 91 13:47:36 PDT
From: "B.J.  01-May-1991 1616" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Mystery Refund From MCIok


> Something interesting happened to me today ... this month's phone bill
> included a $10 credit from MCI! A quick check of my various phone
> lines indicates that I'm still with my chosen long distance carrier
> (which isn't MCI). I didn't call and ask about it (don't look a gift

This must be part of some judgment against MCI for slamming.  In
punishment for changing the long distance carrier for random telephone
lines, someone is forcing them to give refunds to random telephone
lines.


B.J.

[Moderator's Note: I don't really think this is the case. There may be
a class-action suit against MCI for slamming, but I have not heard of
it. But in class actions I am familiar with, the settlement usually
calls for injured parties to at least submit some sort of claim form
with the court and evidence of what occurred.  Any other ideas?   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #324
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17601;
          2 May 91 4:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03844;
          2 May 91 3:11 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31589;
          2 May 91 2:05 CDT
Date:     Thu, 2 May 91 1:26:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #323
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 May 91 01:26:40 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 323

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Why the Cotton Ball is There [Lots and Lots of You]
    Telemarketing Tip [John Higdon]
    Call Forwarding and Call Accounting [Steve Forrette]
    On the Road to Kansas and Back [Tony Harminc]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Robert Dinse]
    Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Guy Middleton]
    Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Dan Jacobson]
    Question About an Odd Number [Rob Knauerhase]
    Looking for WE 'pod' Speakerphone [Joe McGuckin]
    Crossed Line Woes [Clive Feather]
    A Stupid Touch-Tone Menu System [Roy Smith]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 May 91 0:07:17 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why the Cotton Ball is There


The question was:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave
McMahan) writes:

> I have been asked why standard desk top telephones have a cotton ball
> stuffed into the handset.  Unscrewing the earpiece (not the microphone)
> gives access to this little wonder.

> Why is it there?

The answers came from many of you. Here is a random sampling, and my
thanks to all who wrote, even if you are not included below:

 From: Perry Stokes <[e-mail]>
 Subject: Re: Tele-Trivia: Why Cotton Balls in Handsets??
 Date: 1 May 91 10:41:34 GMT
 Organization: The Free Software Foundation


That is there for acoustic purposes , it helps keep the sound from
traveling up to the earpiece.  To understand what I mean, pull out the
cotton and see if you can notice the difference.


 From: Jeff Bogart <[e-mail]>
 Date: 1 May 91 14:29:47 GMT


The cotton balls suppress sound from the earpiece so that it does not
feed back into the mouthpiece.  Some feedback is necessary and most is
controlled internally in the "network" (the little block with screws
all over it).  Try a four-wire phone for a wierd sensation - no
audible feedback as you speak!


 From: Daniel A Margolis <[e-mail]>
 Date: Wed,  1 May 91 10:42:07 EDT


Well I don't know if this is the "real" reason, but I think it's to
keep the wires from rattling around.  I have a handset with no cotton,
and it makes a lot of noise.


 From: Gordon D Woods <[e-mail]>
 Date: Wed,  1 May 91 12:16:17 EDT
 Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> Why is it there?

To reduce acousticly generated sidetone.


 From: Chris Petrilli <[e-mail]>
 Date: 1 May 91 16:59:20 GMT
 Organization: Free Software Foundation


The reason, I believe is that in conventional phones (i.e. those with
carbon mikes) such as the Western Electric models sold by the Bell
companies, the receiver is hollow, and without the cotton ball (or
something else to absorb sound energy) you would get feedback from the
ear piece to the mike.  None of the "new" phones I have have this
"feature", but the old Western Electric on the wall in the kitchen
(which, BTW, has been there for 25 years and still works wonderfully,
as long as you hit it once in a while to keep the carbon mike working
correctly) does have the cotton ball "feature".


 From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
 Organization: Green Hills and Cows
 Date: Wed, 1 May 91 10:01 PDT


You may be disappointed at the low tech reason. The hollow handset
forms an accoustic chamber behind the earpiece, which you will notice
is open in the rear. This is not unlike a speaker enclosure. Just as
you will notice that most speaker enclosures contain fiberglas or some
other sound dampening material, the cotton in the handset is there for
the same reason.

Experiment: remove the cotton. You will notice an inferior, "peaky"
sound on your calls. Replace the cotton and you will notice an
improved, "flat" response.


 From: Mike Berger <[e-mail]>
 Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 18:48:30 GMT


> Why is it there?

Probably for the same reason aspirin bottles are stuffed with cotton:
To keep it from rattling around.  The wire running through the handset
will stay in one place but can still be removed or replaced if
necessary.


 From: Kurt Freiberger <[e-mail]>
 Date: 1 May 91 20:35:29 GMT
 Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University


Well, they had to put it SOMEwhere!!!!  8-}

Seriously, though, I believe that it is an attempt to reduce the
feedback via that nice conduit from the earpiece to the microphone.
The hybrid gives the proper level and they wouldn't want to rely on
the acoustics.  Cheers.


[Moderator's Note: So it was either done to help with the accoustics
or to serve as a strain relief for the wire inside. Take your pick. Or
as Kurt says, they had to put it somewhere!  Again, thanks to all who
wrote.    PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 22:01 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Telemarketing Tip


It has been many glorious weeks since my last "Are you receiving the
paper OK?" from the {San Jose Mercury}. A number of people have
written to ask if I ever succeeded in making the calls stop and if so
how it was done.

The answer appears to be "yes" and the method was simple and obvious.
It finally came to a crashing end when I called Pac*Bell and
complained about it as harassment. One call to the business office
resulted in calls to the Mercury and a number of followups to
determine if the problem had been corrected. I suspect that if there
are a number of complaints that Pac*Bell might just shut the operation
down.

Which brings me to the purpose of this message. I would strongly
suggest and request that anyone in the San Francisco Bay Area who is
fed up with the constant calls from the Mercury call the Pac*Bell
business office and complain. This will accomplish two things. You
should get no more calls from the telemarketer on that topic (which is
what you really want), and you may be instrumental in shutting down
the whole operation (which is what a lot of us would like).

A clue that this action is dreaded by the telemarketer was the
reaction I received when I so informed the head of the operation. He
said point blank that he really would have preferred that I had not
called "the telephone company".

So, if you are tired of those {San Jose Mercury} calls, call the phone
company. It may be as simple as that.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 19:25:51 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Forwarding and Call Accounting


I recently signed up for Call Accounting with US Sprint.  It costs $5
per month per account, no matter how many lines you have on the
account.  After dialing 1+ inter-LATA calls, a tone prompts for a
code.  When you sign up, you can request a code length of two to five
digits, and have it such that any code of the appropriate length
works, or only certain ones, effectively giving you a PIN for long
distance calls.

I've had it for a few weeks now, and I really like it.  I've always
had problems with remembering which calls needed to get billed out to
customers, and which were mine.  This will more than pay for itself by
ending the calls I was eating because I wasn't sure.

I should have thought about this before I ordered it, but this setup
has a strange interaction with call forwarding.  Since Sprint doesn't
know that a call from my number resulted from call forwarding, the
original caller is prompted to enter an account code if I forward to
an inter-LATA destination.  Fortunately, call forwarding will remember
a 10XXX code, so I can always use AT&T for call forwarding when I need
to.

Another interesting point is that the call accounting works even from
my cellular phone.  I have Cellular One of SF, presubsribed to US
Sprint (a configuration that I know Mr. Higdon is envious of), and I
get prompted for the account code.  This implies that Sprint is
getting the ANI indicating my cellphone's directory number in real
time.  Otherwise, their switch would have no way of knowing to prompt
for the code.  A call a few months ago to one of the MCI 800 numbers
mentioned in the Digest that reads back the ANI revealed that the
directory number was NOT given, but some shared, undialable number was
indicated instead.  So, apparently the Cellular One switch is
configured much like many PBXs, in that inter-LATA calls go direct to
the long distance carrier, probably over T1, and the calling phone's
ANI is delivered as well.  But for intra-LATA or 800 calls, regular
(shared) lines to Pacific Bell are used, and the ANI delivered is
meaningless.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 13:17:04 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: On the Road to Kansas and Back


> Going south on I-55, both phones went out of 'home' mode and into
> roaming mode just south of Morris, IL, the outermost limit of the
> Chicago service area.

Not *the* Morris, IL - the home of the ESS trial in the 1960s ?


Tony H.


[Moderator's Note: Why yes, *the* Morris. It was also the home for
many years of 'rate and route', the place long distance operators
around the USA would call to get dialing information on obscure places
not listed in their flip charts (this was long before every town and
wilderness area was listed on the computer terminal.) Old-timers will
recall that rate and route was accessed at 815 plus 141. Morris was a
big beehive of activity for domestic long distance calls in the days
before DDD; a lot like White Plains, NY was for international calls.

On the same subject of my recent automobile trip, I recieved a note
 from Ray Bretthauer <[e-mail]>, but attempts to mail an
answer to him bounced. He pointed out an error in my travel itinerary
saying that I-40 could not have been correct. He assumed I meant I-70.
Yes, Ray, I think I did mean that.  We were on the highway which goes
straight east and west from St. Louis to Kansas City. I-70 I think...
then at the intersection of 54 we went south / southwest on it. Years
ago as as child I remember this trip also, but then we went on US 66
much of the way.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Dinse)
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Date: 29 Apr 91 18:19:59 GMT
Organization: ESKIMO NORTH [phone] SEATTLE WA.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark
Fulk) writes:

> Now a phone call takes about 32 kb/s; let's say 50 kb/s to make the

     There are multiplexing schemes that only require 32kb/s for a
voice channel but they destroy high speed data and fax so are rarely
used in this country. The normal T1-cxr uses 64kb/s (8 bits times 8
Khz sample).

> 20 phone calls take 1 Mb/s (actually, T1 line at 1 Mb/s handles 32

     The standard T1 rate is 1.544 Mbits/sec and carries 24 not 32
channels.

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

From: [e-mail] (Guy Middleton)
Subject: Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 05:02:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:

> But from downtown Toronto, you will have local service into 905?

Yes, indeed.  Calls to the cities just outside Metro Toronto
(Scarborough, Mississauga, etc) are now local, and will remain so, but
these cities will be moving to 905.  So downtown-to-Mississauga would
be dialed as 905-xxx-yyyy, but to somewhere else, further away in 905,
would be dialed as 1-905-zzz-yyyy.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 08:37:31 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA


Well, I guess if I don't know the emergency numbers for the town I'm
in I just dial 0 for operator (except if I'm in an office building
with it's own internal corporate phone system ... then all bets are
off.)

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 91 00:34:04 -0500
From: Rob Knauerhase <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question About an Odd Number


Yesterday, someone asked me if I knew what the number [phone]
was for.  I didn't, so I tried dialing it and got the following
message:

"You have reached the AT&T long-distance network.  Thank you for
choosing AT&T.  This message will not be repeated."

I have since tried it from my home phone (with Sprint as dial-1
carrier, not that it should matter for an 800 number, but just in
case) and got the same message.  Dialing 10xxx and the number results
in an error message for 222, 333, and 288.

So, does anyone know what purpose that number serves?


Robert C. Knauerhase  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group
[e-mail], [e-mail]   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: All long distance carriers translate 700-555-4141
into some other number. In fact, I think *everything* in the 700
series is translated and sent elsewhere ... but to answer your
question, you will get the same message from 700-555-4141 when calling
on a line which defaults to AT&T, or a line on which you prefaced the
call with 10288. When AT&T takes your call and sees what you have
dialed, they pass it along to the 800 number you noted. There exist
similar numbers for Sprint, MCI and other carriers. When dialing the
700 number from a line defaulting to one of those carriers (or by
using their 10xxx code from any phone) the same thing occurs: the
carrier sees it and translates it to the number playing their version
of the same message. If you dial the 'direct number' for the carrier
involved you will always get their message regardless of the carrier
you used to dial it.

The reason dialing 10xxx in front of the 800 number failed was because
the prefix portion of an 800 number, i.e.  the three digits following
the 800 (800-xxx-something) serve the same purpose, and your local
telco routes the 800 call based on those three digits to the carrier
assigned to use them. Dialing 10xxx + 800-xxx would either be
redundant or a contradiction, depending on which carrier 'owned' the
first and/or second group of xxx.  In other words, you can't route a
call over MCI lines by way of AT&T, or a call over AT&T lines by way
of Sprint, etc.  PAT]

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

From: Joe McGuckin <oilean.oilean![e-mail]>
Subject: Looking for WE 'pod' Speakerphone
Organization: Island Software
Date: 30 Apr 91 21:33:07


I want to buy a Pod style speakerphone.


Joe McGuckin             oilean![e-mail]
Island Software          [e-mail]
[phone]

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

From: Clive Feather <[e-mail]>
Subject: Crossed Line Woes
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 7:48:21 BST


[Taken from the Sun (a UK low-grade newspaper) about three weeks ago.
Emphasis in the original]

Secrets aired!
==============

Two raunchy girls turned the airwaves blue when the BBC broadcast
their love secrets live.

Thousands of listeners to Radio Lincolnshire heard them discussing
*SUSPENDERS*, half-cup *BRAS*, and their boyfriends' sexual
*FANTASIES*.

The show is piped in from neighbouring Radio Nottingham by British
Telecom. BBC bosses blame a crossed line.


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
(USA: 1 800 XDESK 57)  | United Kingdom

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: A Stupid Touch-Tone Menu System
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Wed, 1 May 91 17:27:33 GMT


    If you want to hear a stupid intro to a touch-tone menu
system, try calling 800-843-7751.  It starts out "Welcome to Cambridge
Systems"; so far, pretty reasonable.  Then it says "If it's after 5:30
PM Eastern Standard Time, press 1".  I'm supposed to tell it what time
it is!?


Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[e-mail] -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #323
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29129;
          5 May 91 1:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07612;
          4 May 91 23:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10189;
          4 May 91 22:38 CDT
Date:     Sat, 4 May 91 22:36:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #324
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 4 May 91 22:36:10 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 325

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Bill Gripp]
    Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [John Higdon]
    Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Randy Borow]
    Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [John R. Hall]
    Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Steve Wolfson]
    Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer [John Higdon]
    Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed [Michael H. Riddle]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bill Gripp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This?
Reply-To: Bill Gripp <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bank of New York
Date: Wed, 1 May 91 15:50:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 322, Message 3 of 10

> For the fourth time in about as many weeks, I have received a
> pre-recorded marketing spiel on my 800 line (probably directed at the
> POTS number). It is the same thing every time, but the fact that it
> comes in on this particular line indicates that the calling entity has
> no idea who or what it is calling. There is no way that the outside
> world can associate me with this line.

> The female voice indicates that she has tried to reach me five times
> and this is the last time (on every one of the calls). To claim my
> prize it will be necessary to call a number and give my validation
> number, "C5" (which is spoken in a voice that sounds like a Hollywood
> alien on drugs -- supposed to be a computer voice?). I must do this
> within 24 hours to claim my prize, which will otherwise be given to
> someone else.

> The number, 312 292-9000, (Patrick -- I realize Chicago is a big
> place, but have you by chance heard of this scam?) is always busy. I
> suspect that if one gets through, he will be directed to a 900 number.

> [Moderator's Note: I found out only a few things. All the numbers
> between 312-292-9000 and 312-292-9049 *always* are busy. The first
> couple dozen immediatly cut to a busy signal when dialed; the numbers
> in the upper range (9040 through 9049) click, appear to get forwarded
> somewhere, then also return a busy signal. The first thirty or so of
> the numbers are listed two ways: 'Combined Credit Service, Inc' and
> 'American Consumer Services', both of 2320 North Damen Avenue in
> Chicago.

Well I called from here in New York City at 11:30 eastern time and got
through.  They asked for my name, phone number, if I had a checking
account, and validation number.

They then told me that I had been called because I had been selected to
receive one of four special prizes! (which are part of an "advertizing
campaign"):

       32" Sony TV with remote control
       $2000 cashiers check
       Round trip vacation to Jamaica (Queens, NY? =8^) )
       $1000 savings bond

And after they had verified my name and validation number against
their list of winners (remember, they never really called me) they
told me that I also won a special bonus of a seven day trip to
Orlando, FL (consisting of two round trip airline vouchers).

After some sales speil about saving money and trying to convince me to
join their "buying club" they asked me for the number of my checking
account.  Well I don't carry it with me (heh heh heh) so I could
honestly say "I don't know".  They deduct the $199.98 membership fee
directly from your checking.

They gave me some more speil and said they would call me back when I
have my check book available.  Gee, and I just used up my last check
last Sunday and won't get any from the printers for another three
weeks =8^).

Sorry, just another phone scam.

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 91 12:55 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This?


It always seems a little peculiar to answer one's own posts, but once
again the power of the press has come to bear. I received a call from
a gentleman this afternoon, who after establishing his credentials,
informed me about the "prize" that I would have won upon calling the
Chicago number.

The number in Chicago is assigned, as Pat pointed out, to a marketing
company and has been in service since September. It is 100% scammola;
the prize is a trip to Sunny Orlando and a "vacation on the beach". No
kidding! All expenses paid except food, lodging, and transportation --
or something like that. The beach thing is interesting since San Jose
is closer to the Pacific Ocean than Orlando is to the Atlantic -- and
I do not consider my home to be beachfront property by any stretch of
the imagination!

So if anyone is interested, use my "C5" verification number and enjoy
your holiday in Orlando. I think I will pass.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed May  1 11:57:33 CDT 1991
Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This?


John Higdon,

I'm asking Patrick to indulge me here as I tell you both what I found
out regarding your telemarketing calls from 312-292-9000. I decided to
dig deeper than Pat did (or deeper than he's able to, for that
matter).  Accessing the telemarketer's account, I learned much stuff.
What I found out was quite interesting, so here goes ...

First, the name of the "business" is "Combined Credit Service," as Pat
had mentioned earlier. According to my records, they have only a few
lines (they appear to have a hunt feature which doesn't reveal all its
respective numbers, of course. They make all their outgoing calls off
line numbers 292-9027 and 9028. Line number 9015 is used to accept
collect calls (I'd bet from the people they call!) from all over the
country. Lines 9000 through 9014 appear to be the DID lines receiving
individuals' calls like yours, John. BTW, the several times I called
their numbers, each attempt was NOT busy and was answered: "Awards
Center, may I have your area code and phone number?"

Looking through their long-distance calls (lots, too! Somebody from my
company ought to sell 'em Pro Wats :-) ), they make hundreds of calls
to most of the country, over 35 states from what I counted. California
is one of their frequent places to call. Of course, it IS an
overly-crowded state with plenty of places to call, but that's another
matter, John.

Most of their calls are of relatively short duration, from one to five
minutes; however, there are some longer than 45 minutes! I thought you
might be interested, John, about their calling patterns to the San
Jose area. They made numerous such calls to the following San Jose
prefixes: 224, 263, 448, 974, 298, 987, 996, 987, 272, 985, 748, 246,
441, and 978. Of these calls, only two showed repeated calls to the
same number. Each prefix had many calls to different numbers, though.
The 985 and 974 exchanges seem to be their favorites. How they got
these numbers is beyond me, since many of the ones they dialed are
non-published numbers. BTW, their calls were not done in any
particular order or sequence; they seem to be random ones with little
in common. John, if you want to discuss this particular aspect
further, please E-mail me directly, as I probably shouldn't drag it on
here any more than is necessary.

Now, for the good stuff. I eventually called this joint and gave them
my phone number (fake, of course), as well as John's claim #. Some
annoying guy checked and said "Congratulations, Randall," (I used only
my first name) "you have been computer-selected to receive ..." Geez,
how special, I thought. The prizes he had described included a
"31-inch, color Sony TV w/ remote control..."  Blah, blah, blah.

He went on and said that since I gave him this "special claim number,"
I was the proud recipient of a seven-day vacation to Orlando, Florida!
Wanna go with, John? We could tour Disney World, and ... anyway, he
explained to me what exciting things were in Orlando (his words):
"Disney World, sunny skies, and beautiful beaches alongside the
ocean." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, folks, but isn't Orlando in the
middle of the state? Beaches? In Orlando? I've been there a couple
times, and I'm STILL having difficulty trying to find the Orlando
Ocean. :-) BTW, I wish we Chicagoans had sunny skies here. I wonder
what that must be like. Looks like we'll all have to go to Orlando to
find out.

Enough of my digressing into sarcasm, though. To make a long story
short, he finally got to the most important part of his shpiel: the
costs to ME, the consumer. For *only* $199.98 for a year's membership,
I could become a member of American Consumer's Bureau (they sure have
plenty of names), "an organization of over 200,000 happy members,
including members like IBM, Chrysler, .." For this "small fee," I
could receive over $300 in grocery coupons, saving me "from five to
six hundred dollars a year" in grocery costs (but there's only so much
I could do with those 10c Charmin coupons). Other stuff I'd get, but
you people get the point.

All in all, John, just another typical telemarketing sleaze job. From
the looks of their bill, though, they sure get to a LOT of people.

I hope this information helped.


Randy Borow    AT&T Communications    Rolling Meadows, IL.
DISCLAIMER: The above represents the opinions of me only and not Ma Bell.
She's busy enough on her own to worry about us little guys.

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

Date: Thu,  2 May 91 12:44:34 EDT
From: John R Hall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


The 312-292-9000 number is indeed for American Consumer Services at
2320 North Damen in Chicago.  John, you really missed out on a great
opportunity.  Your "C5" validation number was good for one of the
following gifts:

1.  32" Sony Color TV
2.  $2,500 Cashier's Check
3.  2 fully-paid r/t tickets to Jamaica
4.  $1k Savings Bond

In addition, the computer showed that you were eligible for a bonus
gift!  The bonus gift was a seven-day vacation to Orlando with two
round trip ticket vouchers and "competitively priced" hotel
accomodations at selected hotels through their designated travel
agent.

The only catch to this was that you have to pay $199.98 to join their
Buyer's Club which sells things such as life/health insurance, auto
club, tires, etc., etc.  Oh, and you would have had to make a decision
on the spot since the computer "will erase this transaction after you
hang up" and you won't be eligible for the gifts.

I stopped by on the way home last night to visit them.  They are in a
1/2 block long old red brick building with glass-blocked windows so
you can't see inside.  Located in the same building is the Toledo Body
Shop (with a cardboard sign on the door pointing to another entrance
for American Consumer Services).  Sure enough, their name is on the
door, but curiously the doors were open even though the place was
empty except for one man I saw there.  I only poked my head in far
enough to see a big room with modular partitions and desks set up in
the back.  Connected to this building in the back is a Cellular One
phone installation place.  There's also a big sign saying "The Carpet
Place" with the same entrance as ACS.  There's also a big "Available"
sign on the building with a number but no realtor name.

I think ACS make take their phones off-hook at night, since there was
no conversation on the 9000 number according to the operator.  Their
"Customer Service" number is 312-292-9015 and did answer with voice
mail saying their business hours are 9-5 Central time.

John


[Moderator's Note: Admittedly, my tests were only during the overnight
hours. If they take thre phones off the hook at 5 PM central time,
that might explain why John got busy signals if he called during (his)
late afternoon or early evening.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 91 09:29:52 CDT
From: Steve Wolfson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This?


I dialed [phone] at about 9:30 a.m. on May 1.

A voice answers the phone "Good Morning, Award Center, May I have your
area code and telephone number?"  I decided not to try and see what
that did for me.


Steve Wolfson

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms
Date: 1 May 91 07:52:27 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> The problem was that the little release clips were broken of the male
> end of the RJ11 connector on each end (as if this is going to prevent
> someone from taking the phone!).

This is commonly done in hotel rooms.  Any dedicated travelling
modemer carries a small screwdriver for impromptu ECO'ing of hotel
phones.  In a pinch, you can use a paperclip or the tang on the end of
a Bic pen to worm the jack out.

I always travel with a two way splitter and install it as soon as I
get into the room.

Inveterate Motel-6 Modemer's can be recognised by dialing scripts in
their terminal programs that look like this:

        ATDT 6,1XXXYYYZZZZ,,,,,,,AAABBBCCCCDDDD

This gets the outside line, dials the long distance number, waits long
enough to get the bong (varies between five and seven seconds
depending on the Motel 6), and dials a credit card number.  I wish all
Hotel telephone systems were as simple and straightforward (and fair!)
as the big 6's are... ;^)


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 91 01:34 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> I asked Pacific Bell about this a few months ago, and they said that
> they would only do it after I received at least $100 in phraudulent
> calls.

This is the standard response that the front line is told to give
people who casually call in about this. In fact, Pac*Bell will give
you billed number screening (as they did me) without one cent of fraud
being involved if you simply press the matter with a supervisor.

I have both collect call and third number blocking on both my residence
and business accounts. Initially, I got the "there has to be a problem
before we do this" baloney, but when I started talking tarrifs, we cut
through the BS and I got it done. A number of associates have had this
same experience: first, denial -- then compliance upon insistence.

I suggest you call back and beat them up.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell gave it to me with no questions, and
in fact the rep said unofficial company policy is they would love to
get rid of third number and collect billing anyway if it were
possible; but there are a lot of people who seem to prefer it.    PAT]

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

From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 12:04:00 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tony Harminc)
writes:

> Bell Canada    Director - Switched Network Services
> 220 Laurier Avenue West    Ottawa, Ontario  K1G 3J4
> [phone]

> The document is "Call Management Service (CMS) Terminal-to-Network
> Interface", Interface Disclosure ID - 0001, November 1989.

For US specs, a file in the archives (lcs.mit.edu, cd telecom-archives)
has the ordering information: caller-id-specs.bellcore.  I don't know
if this has any applicability to Canada or not.


            <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
[e-mail]                  |   University of Nebraska
ivgate!inns![e-mail]  |   College of Law
[e-mail]  |   Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #325
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01874;
          5 May 91 2:24 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26683;
          5 May 91 0:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07612;
          4 May 91 23:44 CDT
Date:     Sat, 4 May 91 22:42:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #325
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 4 May 91 22:36:10 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 325

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Bill Gripp]
    Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [John Higdon]
    Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Randy Borow]
    Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [John R. Hall]
    Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Steve Wolfson]
    Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer [John Higdon]
    Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed [Michael H. Riddle]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bill Gripp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This?
Reply-To: Bill Gripp <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bank of New York
Date: Wed, 1 May 91 15:50:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 322, Message 3 of 10

> For the fourth time in about as many weeks, I have received a
> pre-recorded marketing spiel on my 800 line (probably directed at the
> POTS number). It is the same thing every time, but the fact that it
> comes in on this particular line indicates that the calling entity has
> no idea who or what it is calling. There is no way that the outside
> world can associate me with this line.

> The female voice indicates that she has tried to reach me five times
> and this is the last time (on every one of the calls). To claim my
> prize it will be necessary to call a number and give my validation
> number, "C5" (which is spoken in a voice that sounds like a Hollywood
> alien on drugs -- supposed to be a computer voice?). I must do this
> within 24 hours to claim my prize, which will otherwise be given to
> someone else.

> The number, 312 292-9000, (Patrick -- I realize Chicago is a big
> place, but have you by chance heard of this scam?) is always busy. I
> suspect that if one gets through, he will be directed to a 900 number.

> [Moderator's Note: I found out only a few things. All the numbers
> between 312-292-9000 and 312-292-9049 *always* are busy. The first
> couple dozen immediatly cut to a busy signal when dialed; the numbers
> in the upper range (9040 through 9049) click, appear to get forwarded
> somewhere, then also return a busy signal. The first thirty or so of
> the numbers are listed two ways: 'Combined Credit Service, Inc' and
> 'American Consumer Services', both of 2320 North Damen Avenue in
> Chicago.

Well I called from here in New York City at 11:30 eastern time and got
through.  They asked for my name, phone number, if I had a checking
account, and validation number.

They then told me that I had been called because I had been selected to
receive one of four special prizes! (which are part of an "advertizing
campaign"):

       32" Sony TV with remote control
       $2000 cashiers check
       Round trip vacation to Jamaica (Queens, NY? =8^) )
       $1000 savings bond

And after they had verified my name and validation number against
their list of winners (remember, they never really called me) they
told me that I also won a special bonus of a seven day trip to
Orlando, FL (consisting of two round trip airline vouchers).

After some sales speil about saving money and trying to convince me to
join their "buying club" they asked me for the number of my checking
account.  Well I don't carry it with me (heh heh heh) so I could
honestly say "I don't know".  They deduct the $199.98 membership fee
directly from your checking.

They gave me some more speil and said they would call me back when I
have my check book available.  Gee, and I just used up my last check
last Sunday and won't get any from the printers for another three
weeks =8^).

Sorry, just another phone scam.

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 91 12:55 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This?


It always seems a little peculiar to answer one's own posts, but once
again the power of the press has come to bear. I received a call from
a gentleman this afternoon, who after establishing his credentials,
informed me about the "prize" that I would have won upon calling the
Chicago number.

The number in Chicago is assigned, as Pat pointed out, to a marketing
company and has been in service since September. It is 100% scammola;
the prize is a trip to Sunny Orlando and a "vacation on the beach". No
kidding! All expenses paid except food, lodging, and transportation --
or something like that. The beach thing is interesting since San Jose
is closer to the Pacific Ocean than Orlando is to the Atlantic -- and
I do not consider my home to be beachfront property by any stretch of
the imagination!

So if anyone is interested, use my "C5" verification number and enjoy
your holiday in Orlando. I think I will pass.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed May  1 11:57:33 CDT 1991
Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This?


John Higdon,

I'm asking Patrick to indulge me here as I tell you both what I found
out regarding your telemarketing calls from 312-292-9000. I decided to
dig deeper than Pat did (or deeper than he's able to, for that
matter).  Accessing the telemarketer's account, I learned much stuff.
What I found out was quite interesting, so here goes ...

First, the name of the "business" is "Combined Credit Service," as Pat
had mentioned earlier. According to my records, they have only a few
lines (they appear to have a hunt feature which doesn't reveal all its
respective numbers, of course. They make all their outgoing calls off
line numbers 292-9027 and 9028. Line number 9015 is used to accept
collect calls (I'd bet from the people they call!) from all over the
country. Lines 9000 through 9014 appear to be the DID lines receiving
individuals' calls like yours, John. BTW, the several times I called
their numbers, each attempt was NOT busy and was answered: "Awards
Center, may I have your area code and phone number?"

Looking through their long-distance calls (lots, too! Somebody from my
company ought to sell 'em Pro Wats :-) ), they make hundreds of calls
to most of the country, over 35 states from what I counted. California
is one of their frequent places to call. Of course, it IS an
overly-crowded state with plenty of places to call, but that's another
matter, John.

Most of their calls are of relatively short duration, from one to five
minutes; however, there are some longer than 45 minutes! I thought you
might be interested, John, about their calling patterns to the San
Jose area. They made numerous such calls to the following San Jose
prefixes: 224, 263, 448, 974, 298, 987, 996, 987, 272, 985, 748, 246,
441, and 978. Of these calls, only two showed repeated calls to the
same number. Each prefix had many calls to different numbers, though.
The 985 and 974 exchanges seem to be their favorites. How they got
these numbers is beyond me, since many of the ones they dialed are
non-published numbers. BTW, their calls were not done in any
particular order or sequence; they seem to be random ones with little
in common. John, if you want to discuss this particular aspect
further, please E-mail me directly, as I probably shouldn't drag it on
here any more than is necessary.

Now, for the good stuff. I eventually called this joint and gave them
my phone number (fake, of course), as well as John's claim #. Some
annoying guy checked and said "Congratulations, Randall," (I used only
my first name) "you have been computer-selected to receive ..." Geez,
how special, I thought. The prizes he had described included a
"31-inch, color Sony TV w/ remote control..."  Blah, blah, blah.

He went on and said that since I gave him this "special claim number,"
I was the proud recipient of a seven-day vacation to Orlando, Florida!
Wanna go with, John? We could tour Disney World, and ... anyway, he
explained to me what exciting things were in Orlando (his words):
"Disney World, sunny skies, and beautiful beaches alongside the
ocean." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, folks, but isn't Orlando in the
middle of the state? Beaches? In Orlando? I've been there a couple
times, and I'm STILL having difficulty trying to find the Orlando
Ocean. :-) BTW, I wish we Chicagoans had sunny skies here. I wonder
what that must be like. Looks like we'll all have to go to Orlando to
find out.

Enough of my digressing into sarcasm, though. To make a long story
short, he finally got to the most important part of his shpiel: the
costs to ME, the consumer. For *only* $199.98 for a year's membership,
I could become a member of American Consumer's Bureau (they sure have
plenty of names), "an organization of over 200,000 happy members,
including members like IBM, Chrysler, .." For this "small fee," I
could receive over $300 in grocery coupons, saving me "from five to
six hundred dollars a year" in grocery costs (but there's only so much
I could do with those 10c Charmin coupons). Other stuff I'd get, but
you people get the point.

All in all, John, just another typical telemarketing sleaze job. From
the looks of their bill, though, they sure get to a LOT of people.

I hope this information helped.


Randy Borow    AT&T Communications    Rolling Meadows, IL.
DISCLAIMER: The above represents the opinions of me only and not Ma Bell.
She's busy enough on her own to worry about us little guys.

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

Date: Thu,  2 May 91 12:44:34 EDT
From: John R Hall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


The 312-292-9000 number is indeed for American Consumer Services at
2320 North Damen in Chicago.  John, you really missed out on a great
opportunity.  Your "C5" validation number was good for one of the
following gifts:

1.  32" Sony Color TV
2.  $2,500 Cashier's Check
3.  2 fully-paid r/t tickets to Jamaica
4.  $1k Savings Bond

In addition, the computer showed that you were eligible for a bonus
gift!  The bonus gift was a seven-day vacation to Orlando with two
round trip ticket vouchers and "competitively priced" hotel
accomodations at selected hotels through their designated travel
agent.

The only catch to this was that you have to pay $199.98 to join their
Buyer's Club which sells things such as life/health insurance, auto
club, tires, etc., etc.  Oh, and you would have had to make a decision
on the spot since the computer "will erase this transaction after you
hang up" and you won't be eligible for the gifts.

I stopped by on the way home last night to visit them.  They are in a
1/2 block long old red brick building with glass-blocked windows so
you can't see inside.  Located in the same building is the Toledo Body
Shop (with a cardboard sign on the door pointing to another entrance
for American Consumer Services).  Sure enough, their name is on the
door, but curiously the doors were open even though the place was
empty except for one man I saw there.  I only poked my head in far
enough to see a big room with modular partitions and desks set up in
the back.  Connected to this building in the back is a Cellular One
phone installation place.  There's also a big sign saying "The Carpet
Place" with the same entrance as ACS.  There's also a big "Available"
sign on the building with a number but no realtor name.

I think ACS make take their phones off-hook at night, since there was
no conversation on the 9000 number according to the operator.  Their
"Customer Service" number is 312-292-9015 and did answer with voice
mail saying their business hours are 9-5 Central time.

John


[Moderator's Note: Admittedly, my tests were only during the overnight
hours. If they take thre phones off the hook at 5 PM central time,
that might explain why John got busy signals if he called during (his)
late afternoon or early evening.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 91 09:29:52 CDT
From: Steve Wolfson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This?


I dialed [phone] at about 9:30 a.m. on May 1.

A voice answers the phone "Good Morning, Award Center, May I have your
area code and telephone number?"  I decided not to try and see what
that did for me.


Steve Wolfson

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms
Date: 1 May 91 07:52:27 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> The problem was that the little release clips were broken of the male
> end of the RJ11 connector on each end (as if this is going to prevent
> someone from taking the phone!).

This is commonly done in hotel rooms.  Any dedicated travelling
modemer carries a small screwdriver for impromptu ECO'ing of hotel
phones.  In a pinch, you can use a paperclip or the tang on the end of
a Bic pen to worm the jack out.

I always travel with a two way splitter and install it as soon as I
get into the room.

Inveterate Motel-6 Modemer's can be recognised by dialing scripts in
their terminal programs that look like this:

        ATDT 6,1XXXYYYZZZZ,,,,,,,AAABBBCCCCDDDD

This gets the outside line, dials the long distance number, waits long
enough to get the bong (varies between five and seven seconds
depending on the Motel 6), and dials a credit card number.  I wish all
Hotel telephone systems were as simple and straightforward (and fair!)
as the big 6's are... ;^)


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 91 01:34 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> I asked Pacific Bell about this a few months ago, and they said that
> they would only do it after I received at least $100 in phraudulent
> calls.

This is the standard response that the front line is told to give
people who casually call in about this. In fact, Pac*Bell will give
you billed number screening (as they did me) without one cent of fraud
being involved if you simply press the matter with a supervisor.

I have both collect call and third number blocking on both my residence
and business accounts. Initially, I got the "there has to be a problem
before we do this" baloney, but when I started talking tarrifs, we cut
through the BS and I got it done. A number of associates have had this
same experience: first, denial -- then compliance upon insistence.

I suggest you call back and beat them up.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell gave it to me with no questions, and
in fact the rep said unofficial company policy is they would love to
get rid of third number and collect billing anyway if it were
possible; but there are a lot of people who seem to prefer it.    PAT]

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

From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 12:04:00 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tony Harminc)
writes:

> Bell Canada    Director - Switched Network Services
> 220 Laurier Avenue West    Ottawa, Ontario  K1G 3J4
> [phone]

> The document is "Call Management Service (CMS) Terminal-to-Network
> Interface", Interface Disclosure ID - 0001, November 1989.

For US specs, a file in the archives (lcs.mit.edu, cd telecom-archives)
has the ordering information: caller-id-specs.bellcore.  I don't know
if this has any applicability to Canada or not.


            <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
[e-mail]                  |   University of Nebraska
ivgate!inns![e-mail]  |   College of Law
[e-mail]  |   Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #325
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04605;
          5 May 91 3:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02461;
          5 May 91 1:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26683;
          5 May 91 0:49 CDT
Date:     Sat, 4 May 91 23:54:02 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #326
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 4 May 91 23:53:51 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 326

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: New Area Code Won't Work From Hotel [Andrew Hastings]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Paul S. Sawyer]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Daniel R. Guilderson]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturers [Dan Margolis]
    Re: The Two Line Solution [Dave Levenson]
    Re: ATT Digital Answering Machine [Michael Schuster]
    Filesystem Paranoia Notes (was: Fraudigy) [Ken Dykes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Hastings)
Subject: Re: New Area Code Won't Work From Hotel
Date: 1 May 91 20:11:16 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University, SCS


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Robert M. Hamer) writes:

> I doubt that it
> would have occurred to me that the area code table might be wrong had
> I not been some sort of telecom phreak.  Has anyone else had a similar
> experience?

I stayed at Hyatt Rickys in Palo Alto about five years ago, shortly
after Stanford University's numbers moved from 497-xxxx to 723-xxxx.
I tried dialing a number at Stanford (a local call) from my hotel
room, and got an intercept from the hotel PBX claiming that the number
was invalid.  I dialed the hotel operator, explained what had
happened, and she put the call through after promising to update the
PBX database.


Andrew Hastings        [e-mail]        412/268-8734

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Date: 2 May 91 14:20:31 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Barton F. Bruce) writes...

> The not millions but BILLIONS of dollars they are about to use to
> sink the South East Expressway underground in Boston is totally
> needless.  They are perpetuating the ugly downtown mess that
> originally was 'necessary' only because it was not possible or
> economical to communicate effectively with other businesses unless
> you were physically DOWNTOWN.

Sigh.  Once again, the "futurists" come out with an idea that works
only so far as you don't follow up on the Law of Unintended
Consequences.

Don't get me wrong: I make a living in telecom, and think that keeping
it expensive is a Bad Thing too.  But Downtowns serve a purpose.
Let's go way, way out beyond the pale of reality and assume that
talking on a phone, picturephone, high-bandwidth-virtual-reality-phone,
etc., could be as effective as face-to-face communication.  (Yeah,
right.)  Just for argument, let's assume that fantasy and go to the
next step, where businesses can be located on any convenient hilltop.

In such an environment, concentrations of the workforce (downtown) go
away.  But people still have to work somewhere.  Clearly our homes
don't cut it: While a significant fraction of the population _can_
work at home _some_ of the time, our homes aren't big/quiet enough to
support much of our modern office gear, and the human interaction of
being in an office with co-workers is rather useful -- to me at least!
So we end up with less-concentrated offices.  (And with offices in the
suburbs, housing can be farther from the city, causing creeping
suburbanization.  Soon there are no farms left for a hundred miles.
Been to NJ lately?)

We end up with Los Angeles.  We end up with sprawling suburbia, where
you can't have public transit since there's no concentration of
workspaces to run the transit lines to!  I work in the exurbs and
commute _out_ from town (the easy way!), but it's a car or else!  The
Expressway in Boston carries a fraction of total commuter traffic;
trains carry a huge load of those who work downtown. Much Expressway
traffic in Boston is passing _through_; there's an ocean next door, so
you just can't go east a bit.

And if you have a sprawling, decentralized environment, what do you
think that does for telecom costs?  Most of the subsidies that we pay
in non-residential telecom go to pay for the longer local loops needed
in non-urban areas.  Downtowns make money for telcos.  Downtowns allow
competitors like Teleport to have a chance.  Who could afford to run
fiber to all the newly-paved hilltops?  Telco, as a monopoly, maybe.
But it's not efficient.

> The telco's charter should be 'how much can be done for how little
> dollars', rather than, sadly, the reverse.

It's true that telcos' historical "rate of return" regulation has
encouraged over-investment, but there's no free lunch.  Somebody has
to foot the bill, and "futuristic" Californication of America won't
solve it.


Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA
[e-mail] voice: [phone]
 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let
 alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?

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

From: "Paul S. Sawyer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Wed, 1 May 91 15:12:02 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> writes:

> I give you Pacific Telesis ...

Since this sounded like a horrible, contageous disease to me, I
wondered if it was a real word.  My desk dictionary says:

  telesis: progress that is intellgently planned and directed : the
  attainment of desired ends by the application of intellegent human
  effort to the means.

Does "truth in advertising" apply here, John?  The next, possibly
related entry, is:

  telesthesia: an impression supposedly received at a distance
  without the normal operation of the organs of sense.

       :-)


Paul S. Sawyer             {uunet,attmail}!unhtel!paul    [e-mail]
UNH CIS - - Telecommunications and Network Services      VOX: [phone]
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523                        FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 91 12:42:36 EDT
From: "Daniel R. Guilderson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission

> Well why can't consumers band together, form a non-profit organization,
> and build their own phone network to provide service at cost?  Amateur
> radio operators do this already.  Subscriber equipment costs more than
> telephones, but you get free bandwidth.

Forming a non-profit phone network is pure fantasy.  I fantasize about
it all the time.  The more I fantasize the more I realize it's just
that.  There's absolutely no precedent for it.  I can think of a lot
of successful non-profit organizations but nothing on the scale of
AT&T, MCI or Sprint.

I have another idea.  Let's deregulate the telecommunications industry
and merge it with the rest of the communications industry.  We'll
throw the phone companies, the cable companies, the LAN/WAN companies
and anyone else who wants a peice of the action into a battle royal.
The competition will be so vicious that prices will have to fall.
Eventually there would be a shakeout and we would be left with a few
very lean and mean competitive communications companies.  Any new
technologies would then be offered quickly as a competitive advantage.

Of course the RBOCS and the long distance carriers would fight this
idea tooth and nail.


Daniel Guilderson   [e-mail]
UMass Boston, Harbor Campus, Dorchester, MA  USA

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

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Date: 1 May 91 20:37:31 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jeff Hayward) writes:

|> I've been told that AT&T could still make money at a rate of 1/10 of a
|> cent per minute, no matter where in the North America you go.

I doubt *anybody* could make money at $0.001 per minute.  I'd like
to see this number justified.

|> It is certainly the case that the BOCs (and to a lesser extent the
|> IXCs) make an enormous profit on a very inexpensive service.

Since when is the cost of installing and running the transmission
media the only cost of the call?  You got switching, you got
operators, you got billing, you got marketeers (No, that's not a dirty
word.  Somebody has to figure out what services you want to buy).

Also, you've got shareholders (in our case, a lot of "widows and
orphans") who expect a reasonable return on their investment and
you've got a need to fund R&D.  Where, praytell, would all this
"cheap" transmission have come from if AT&T had just marked up past
transmission costs a few percent?  If you amortize the past costs of
inventing and developing digital transmission and digital switching
and try to fund future trends, you're not going to sell services for
$0.001 per minute.  Do remember that the Internet was developed with
Defense Department money.  The service can be cheap because it was
subsidized.


Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ
AUDIBLE:  [phone]
READABLE: [e-mail]  or att!ulysses!andys
What? Me speak for AT&T?  You must be joking!

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

Date: Wed,  1 May 91 10:29:12 EDT
From: Daniel A Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturers


[e-mail] (Michael Dorrian) writes:

> As far as I know, Comdial remains the only US manufacturer of
> telephones (local content - AT&T's phones are assembled in the US from
> Asian manufactured components).  This offers quite a niche on sales to
> the US government.

Actually, AT&T does manufacture telephones in the USA.  I know for a
fact that the telephones used with MERLIN communications systems (also
with System 25 PBXs) are manufactured in the USA (not just assembled).
Many of the residential phones are manufactured overseas, however.


Dan Margolis

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Two Line Solution
Date: 1 May 91 17:52:56 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Leryo
Malbito) writes:

> Upon calling a COCOT, I got a telco tri-tone message stating something
> to the effect of: "There are no incoming calls permitted to this
> telephone ..." Da-Daa-Daa...

> (I think this is the same type of message that Bell Atlantic provides
> when you have been chosen as a CALL BLOCK(tm?)ed number ... eg, you
> bother someone, then they block all future calls from your number.)

Actually, NJ Bell (part of Bell Atlantic) provides a recording which
is not preceded by the SIT tone, and says: "The number you are calling
is not accepting calls at this time" if the called party has blocked
calls from the calling party.


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
Voice: 908 647 0900     Fax: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: The recording from IBT is exactly the same here.  PAT]

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

From: Michael Schuster <panix![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATT Digital Answering Machine
Date: Wed, 1 May 91 22:53:26 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY


In article <[e-mail]> ssc-bee!ssc-vax!clark@
cs.washington.edu (Roger Clark Swann) writes:

> Someone was asking here recently about the ATT digital answering
> machine.  I just received a flyer from Sears that includes:

>    ATT Digital Answering System 1337
>
>    - All digital technology, etc        Sale price $99.99

Thanks. The inquiry was mine, but perhaps I was not clear enough.
Randy Borow posted in early April about a =second model= of the AT&T
Digital Answering machine which had the =additional= features (these
are =not= in the 1337's that I've seen) of:

    -time/date stamping of incoming emssages
    -voice prompts
    -remote progrmaming with rotary phone.

Mr. Borow ([e-mail]) has not received/answered my
mail, so I can't ask him what, exactly, he says he played with at an
Illinois AT&T Phone Center Store. He says there are TWO models.


Mike Schuster                                      |    CIS: 70346,1745
NY Public Access UNIX:  ...cmcl2!panix!schuster    |    MCI Mail, GENIE:
The Portal (R) System:  [e-mail]    |           MSCHUSTER


[Moderator's Note: Well since he reads the Digest regularly, I know he
will see your message here, and perhaps be in a position to answer it
soon.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 91 08:09:21 EDT
From: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Filesystem Paranoia Notes (was: Fraudigy)


> From: hayes![e-mail] (Toby Nixon)
> Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
> X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 319, Message 3 of 12

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Leryo Malbito) writes:

> I think that if ANY of us searched through the "free space" (not
> currently allocated to a file) on our disks, we'd ALL be surprised.

No, dont say *ANY* of us ... some of us have more than the "basic
user's" knowlege of things computer-like.

I routinely use a "wipedisk" program which cleans unallocated sectors.
(Optional choice of zeros, ones, three wipes with 0/1/alternate-bit-
pattern.)

It should be noted that an "explicit delete file" is not required on
the part of a user.  Most text-editors use temporary "work files",
every time you do an editing/word-processing session, COPIES of your
data are splashed into workfiles and then released to the world when
you quit the edit/word-process session.  A lot of other software also
uses temporary work files. (This may also be a way a "drive d: got
drive c: data", if you allocated your temporary/work directory on that
drive.)

There is also another place in the DOS filesystem (filesystem? ha!)
that can bite you.  Files are allocated/grown a SECTOR at a time (say
512 bytes).  So if you write 100 bytes to a file plus the EOF-mark,
chances are good there will be 411 old-data bytes at the end of the
file.  Since this sector is "allocated" the wipedisk concepts don't
reach them.  These are a little tricker to take care of :-)

I mention this sector aspect to avoid claims of: "I wiped my disk,
then some *old old old data* RE-APPEARED!"  Chances are it was "stuck"
to some newer file, and the new file was later released which also
freed up that not-quite-a-sector of antique data.

> ...on a multiuser system, always use an
> "erase" program that actually overwrites your files rather than just
> deleting them, or everything you delete will be available to other

Religous claim: a DECENT system would do this either at release-time
or (less ideally) before re-allocating to another file. but alas, very
few decent systems...

For your own machine, you could write any program in just about any
language (heck even a slow .bat exec file) to grow one huge file,
writing it full of null or random byte-values until you get a
file-growth denial (no more room left on disk) then release that huge
file. voila! unallocated space no longer contains private information)

If you wish to write your own erase-a-single-file program, remember to
overwrite/erase the entire PHYSICAL file size, not just the logical
data filesize.

Rules to live by:

  - Secure/sensitive data should never be stored in computer media.
  - Since you *will* store this sort of data anyway, use encryption
    wherever possible.
  - ERASE rather than simply delete files.
  - catalog/directory structure information/sectors should be considered
    sensitive data too.
  - dont use a production/sesitive-data machine for routine BBS-ing and
    networking.
  - be *aware* of what the software you use is actually doing -- it may
    not have fraudulent *intent* but may be the tool of an "accident"
    in data exposure.
  - do not assume this is a complete set of things/rules to watch for.


Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada    [43.47N 80.52W]
    [e-mail]  [129.97.128.1]        watmath!kgdykes

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #326
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07249;
          5 May 91 4:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00413;
          5 May 91 2:59 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac02461;
          5 May 91 1:54 CDT
Date:     Sun, 5 May 91 0:59:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #327
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 May 91 00:59:20 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 327

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New Area Code For North Georgia [[e-mail]]
    Need Ideas on a Telecom Project For Kids [Daniel A. Margolis]
    Re: Roaming Through the Midwest: Cell Phone Comparison [Douglas Mason]
    Information Wanted on Chapel Hill Phone System [Dale Neiburg via J Covert]
    Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area [Stewart Clamen]
    Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted [Vance Shipley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: New Area Code For North Georgia
Date: Wed, 1 May 91 07:24:01 PDT
From: [e-mail]


This article is from the 4/25/91 edition of {The Atlanta Journal}.
I'll transcribe directly, errors and all.  There was a map
accompanying the article that showed the counties that will be in the
new 706 area, except that the AC boundry does not align with county
lines.  It also showed Columbus GA in 706.  Columbus is already in 912
and will stay there.


TWO AREA CODES SET FOR N. GEORGIA; OUTSIDE METRO ATLANTA TO GET 706

     By Bill Hulstead, with Susan Laccetti & John Harmon (Atlanta Journal)


The number is up for North Georgia.  It has outgrown the 404 telephone
area code.

So, in May 1992, some North Georgia residents will be getting a new
area code.  Here's how it will work:

-  The metro Atlanta area will keep the 404 area code.  Anyplace Atlanta
   residents can call as a local number will stay in the 404 area code.

-  Everywhere else in the 404 area will change to 706.  So if you live
   in the 404 area and Atlanta is a long-distance call away, your area
   code is changing.

Southern Bell was running out of numbers in the 404 area code, said
Carl Swearingen, the company's president for Georgia operations.
Besides natural population growth, more numbers were being taken up by
popular new devices such as cellular telephones and facsimile
machines.

Think that's a problem?  Just wait: the country is running out of area
codes.

"There are just 152 area codes in existence," said Southern Bell
spokeswoman Pamela Fuller.  "Of those, 144 are in use today and the
remainder are tentatively assigned."

Which meant Southern Bell had to fight to get the 706 area code.  It
also means that, by 1995 at the latest, there won't be any more codes
available.

Nobody thinks the country will stop growing, so something will have to
give.

Two possibilities are being considered.  One is adding an extra digit
to numbers dialed for a local call.  So, by 1995, instead of dialing,
say, 555-1212, you may have to dial 5555-1212.

DIAL 10 NUMBERS?

Another solution is to require that ten digits be dialed for local
calls, just like you do for long-distance calls.  That means you would
have to dial 1-404-555-1212 just to reach your neighbor.

The telephone system is simply running out of area codes and prefixes.
Fewer are available than you might think because area codes can't be
used as prefix numbers and prefix numbers can't be used as area codes.
For instance, you'll never see a prefix that uses 404, the area code.

In metro Atlanta's outlying counties, where the 404 area code will
soon be just a memory, civic leaders think the change could be a mixed
blessing.

"We'd like to be in metro Atlanta," said Dick James of the Newton
County Chamber of Commerce, located jut outside the toll-free zone.
"But there is a certain amount of charm to being a little rural."

In Helen, which is host to three million visitors annually, Welcome
Center Manager Millie Clements said the change will be an inconvenience
at first.

The change means some counties -- including Cherokee, Henry and Douglas
 -- will have two area codes.  The telephone company set the
area code lines so people who now call Atlanta without paying a
long-distance charge can continue to.

Customers in Cherokee's Woodstock area, where Atlanta numbers are a
local call, will stay on 404.  North of that, customers will be in the
706 area code and continue to pay long-distance charges to call
Atlanta.

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

Date: Wed,  1 May 91 10:52:53 EDT
From: Daniel A Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Ideas on a Telecom Project For Kids


Where will our future telecomers come from?  Well maybe, we can help a
few kids get started early.

We have a program where we bring a few eighth-graders into our labs
during the summer.  Last year, I was in charge of finding a project
for them.  I wanted them to build something that had to do with
telephones, but I couldn't find a telephone kit. So, I took apart some
2500 sets and made my own "kit."  I would like to do a similar project
this year, but unfortunately, I don't have any more of those phones.
The "modern" phones are just a circuit board inside a rectangular box.
There just isn't that much to take apart.  I'm looking for ideas.

What kind of project can I give the students that will involve
telecom?

I have approximatly two hours per day for five days.

They are not old enough to understand electronics, so they need things
that are mechanical and pretty intuitive, but give them a sense of
accomplishment.

Is there a build-a-phone kit on the market?

Thanks,

Dan Margolis

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

From: Douglas Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Roaming Through the Midwest: Cell Phone Comparison
Organization: Consultants Connection, Jenison MI


Patrick -

    Since you have one of the RS handheld cellulars, I was
wondering what your opinion is of them.  I don't live too far away
from you (across the big 'ol pond) and the prices around here have
been in the $299 range for the RS handheld.

One of the local cell shops sells a Motorolla (can't remember the
model) at only $299 as well.  Looks identical to the RS model, except
for it has an actual LED display (rather than LCD) and is white in
color.

What has actual street use been like for your RS?  What is battery
life and talk time like?  What accessories do you have or does it come
with?

I would appreciate any information you can give.  Since this is a
personal purchase, I would normally look to misc.consumers, but I
caught that you owned the model I was interested in and I've respected
your opinion in the past.

Thanks for your time and your work in comp.dcom.telecom.


Sincerely,

Doug Mason - Network Admin    [e-mail]
ITM Corporation               [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan        ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!douglas


[Moderator's Note: The Radio Shack CT-301 in on sale here now also for
$299. When I bought it the price was quite a bit higher. The battery
life for me has typically been 12-13 hours at a time, with each five
minutes of calling decreasing the battery life by about an hour. It
takes one hour to charge completely, however I've had to replace the
battery pack twice in the thirteen months I've had the phone due to
the battery going bad and not holding a charge.  In a densely
populated urban area with cell sites close together, the choice of
antenna is unimportant. You can use the one that comes with the unit
or get one of the 'low-profile' 1/8 wave antennas -- a little stub
like thing about a half-inch long -- if desired. Don't let them sell
you one of the 'five db gain' jobs ... they are totally a waste of
money in an urban area. If you plan to roam a lot, then you might need
a better quality antenna. Overall, I like the unit and the performance
is pretty good.  Thanks for your comments about the Digest.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 91 13:45:15 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  01-May-1991 1646" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on Chapel Hill Phone System


[Moderator's Note: Message forwarded to the Digest.   PAT]

   From: Dale Neiburg
   Subject: Information Wanted on Chapel Hill Phone System
   Organization: NPR Engineering


In volume 11, issue 297, Thomas B. Clark III of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill recounts some puzzling problems with
wrong numbers on his hunt group.

I have no wisdom to offer on that, but would be interested in knowing
how the Chapel Hill phone system works generally.  Reason being: when
I attended UNC-CH (graduated '67), the town phone system was operated
by the University, as were the town laundry, the hotel, the water
works, and lots of other things.  Back in those days, it had the
reputation of being abysmal.

How Bad Was It?  It was so bad that being taken over by GTE was a big
improvement.

Sorry, I don't have any anecdotes about my personal experiences with
the ancien regime.  I was enrolled there for only four years, and
there was a five-year waiting list to get a phone....


Disclaimer: Opinions are mine, not NPR's or GTE's.  UNC and I gave up
speaking for each other in 1967.

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

From: Stewart Clamen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: 1 May 91 18:14:12


[The following is from a 3/4 page ad in the {Montreal Gazette} of
Friday, April 19.  I presume newspaper distribution restrictions don't
apply to advertisements, so this transcription is complete modulo-
graphics. -- SMC]



                 INTRODUCING CALL MANAGEMENT SERVICE
       Four new Bell features that put you in charge of your calls.


You have a busy lifestyle and           The MONTREAL AREA is one of
your value your privacy.  Your          the first to be offered Call
home is you safe place.  The            Management Service (CMS) from
telephone is your vital link            Bell Canada - 4 features that
to the outside.                         give you greater control over
                                        your telephone ... and your
                                        lifestyle.

                              ---------

CALL DISPLAY: Let's you see             CALL RETURN: Allows you to
the caller's originating                return the last call you
number BEFORE you answer.               places or received.

 Imagine choosing which phone            How many times have you run
 calls to take.  Deciding how            frantically for the ringing
 to answer the call or                   telephone?  With Call Return,
 returning the call at a more            you can let it ring.  When
 convenient time.  With Call             it's more convenient for you
 Display (*) and one of Bell             to speak, simple dial a code
 Canada's Call Display                   and you'll be connected with
 companion products, you see             the last caller.
 the caller's number before
 you answer.  And the choice             And how often have you wasted
 is yours.                               time trying to get through on
                                         a busy line?  Use your Call
 (*) This is the only Call               Return turn code a special
 Management feature that                 ring will let your know when
 requires a special visual               the number is free.
 display device.  From the
 multi-functional Maestro(TM)
 telephone to simple display
 devices, such as Call
 Identifier (TM) Model 110,              CALL SCREEN: Screens unwanted
 that attach to your existing            callers before your phone even
 equipment.  Bell offers you a           rings.
 selection of companion                  Wouldn't it be nice to
 products to suit your                   reroute unwelcome calls and
 requirements and your budget.           only receive the calls you
                                         want?  Call Screen lets you
                                         easily program up to 12
                                         calling numbers.  If any of
                                         them call you, they'll
CALL TRACE: Now you can do               automatically get this
something about harassing                message: "The part you are
calls.                                   trying to reach has chosen
                                         not to take calls at this
                                         time."  You can also add the
 At last there's a way to help           last caller to your list --
 put an end to harassing phone           even if you don't know the
 calls.  With Call Trace, just           number.  You'll enjoy more
 hang up if you receive a                peace and privacy.  You won't
 threatening or harassing                get unwanted calls.  And
 call.  Then dial a code and             you'll still be accessible to
 the caller's number can                 the people you want to speak
 automatically be recorded by            to.
 Bell and made available
 should you want to take legal
 action.

                              ---------


SOME RESTRICTIONS APPLY.

Call Management Service is available to single-line residential and
business customers in the Montreal calling area, and currently
operates on direct-dialed local calls that are served by CMS
technology.  The service is gradually being extended to include long
distance calls.  If a CMS feature cannto operate on a particular line,
a display or appropriate voice announcement will let you know.  CMS
may not be availablein your area.

CMS DETERS ANNOYANCE CALLERS.

Call Management Service makes an important contribution to privacy and
security in one's everyday life.  The very existence of CMS deters
annoyance callers -- wheater you personally subscribe to the service
or not.  Those callers who make annoyance calls wil think twice if
they're not sure whether the person they're caling is a CMS
subscriber.

        Therefore, every time you make a call to someone who is a CMS
subscriber, you telephone number will be transmitted to that person
(subject to technical limitations) ... unless you use operator-assisted
dialing.  This also applies to unpublished numbers.

                              ---------

       CMS FEATURES MAY BE SUPPRESSED BY THE CALLER ON REQUEST

Bell provides customers with the option of preventing their telephone
numebrs from being transmitted to the called party.  If you wish to
ensure that your telephone number is not transmitted when calling
certain parties, you can dial "0" and inform the Operator accordingly.
The Operator wil put your call through without transmitting your
telephone number.  A charge of 75c per call applies.

        Certified shelters for victims of domestic violence are exempt
from the operator-assisted dialing fee.  Bell is currently in the
process of identifying eleigble shelters in the Montreal area, and
invites shelter representative to call their local Bell Business
Office regarding certification procedures.

If you live in the Montreal local calling area, order today by calling
279-8636.

                                              BELL
                                       Answering your call.
                     --------------

Stewart M. Clamen        Internet:    [e-mail]
School of Computer Science    UUCP:          uunet!"[e-mail]"
Carnegie Mellon University    Phone:          [phone]
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA    Fax:         [phone]

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted
Organization: SwitchView
Date: Wed, 01 May 1991 22:27:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Lou Kates <louk@tslwat.
uucp> writes:

> Does "open" mean that you can use the usual switchhook flash and DTMF
> tones to command the PBX from extensions or does it mean there are
> proprietary protocols which you have access to in some manner?

What is meant by "open architecture" is the ability to allow computers
to become involved in the processing of calls.  This is accomplished
over an interface between the computer and the PBX that has been given
the generic term "Request and Status Link" (RSL).  The computer sends
requests to the PBX such as "connect phone A to trunk B" and the PBX
sends status messages such as "trunk C is ringing set B".  In some
cases the PBX may make requests of the computer such as "which phone
can take a call now?".

> Does anyone have a list of "open architecture" PBX's? For other PBX's
> are there vendor specific methods that would still let anyone control
> them from a computer?

Some of the vendors I am aware of are:

    Northern Telecom
    AT&T
    Rolm
    NEC

There will be an ANSI Draft standard soon under the term SCAI (Switch
Computer Apllication Interface).


Vance Shipley    vances@ltg    ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!ltg!vances

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #327
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09157;
          5 May 91 5:34 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02095;
          5 May 91 4:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00413;
          5 May 91 2:59 CDT
Date:     Sun, 5 May 91 1:56:46 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #328
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 May 91 01:56:39 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 328

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Tele-Trivia: Why Cotton Balls in Handsets?? [Gord Deinstadt]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Murdo McKissock]
    Re: Remote Three-Way Conferencer [Jon Sreekanth]
    Re: MCI Around Town Eliminated - No Advance Notice [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: Restricting Telemarketers [Ronald Greenberg]
    Re: Call Forwarding and Call Accounting [Steve Elias]
    Re: Question About a Strange Number [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted [Jeffery L. Wisniewski]
    Re: Why the Cotton Ball is There [Herman R. Silbiger]
    Re: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West [Peter Marshall]
    Re: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West [Paul Sutter]
    Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Mark Brader]
    A Choice of Sending Fax or Leaving Voice Recording [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gord Deinstadt <geovision![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tele-Trivia: Why Cotton Balls in Handsets??
Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 19:48:45 -0400
Organization: GeoVision Corp., Ottawa, Ontario


[e-mail] (Dave Mc Mahan) writes:

> I have been asked why standard desk top telephones have a cotton ball
> stuffed into the handset.  Unscrewing the earpiece (not the microphone)
> gives access to this little wonder.

It's not that they put it there deliberately.  It just kinda forms
there.  You know.  Lint.  Ear lint.  :-)


Gord Deinstadt    gdeinstadt@geovision Gotta cut back on those Q-tips.


[Moderator's Note: There's nothing like a good laugh to start off an
issue of the Digest ... but later on in this issue a much more
detailed explanation of coton balls and hadset types is presented.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 2 May 91 11:06:56 bst
From: Murdo McKissock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable

> Mark Mortarotti had stated that he owns his address and his name.
> While the latter may be true, the former isn't. According to what I
> was told years ago by a buddy of mine who works with the U.S. Postal
> Service, our addresses are NOT are own. The city in which we live has

Very true.  After all, the city determines the name in the first
place.  A couple of years ago Glasgow renamed one of their squares
"Nelson Mandela Place".  It was the location of the South African
Consulate.  I imagine they didn't change their letterhead.

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Remote Three-Way Conferencer
Date: Thu, 2 May 1991 13:59:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris C.
Hollands) writes:

> The purpose of the device is to be able to remotely use the three-way
> conference call feature offered by the telephone central office.

> Well, this conceptually simple device is pretty far beyond my
> experience level.  I think it requires a single-chip computer with a
> bit of programming, perhaps some relays, a DTMF decoder and encoder, a
> power supply, etc.  Thanks in advance for your help.

> Note: I saw Larry Casterline's email about just such a device and I am
> trying to contact him directly.  However, I would still like to build
> the device I described above.  Thanks.

If you've already contacted Larry, that's one good off-the-shelf
solution. If you don't mind programming, you can do most of what you
wanted with your own modem.

Assuming you have a modem in a PC in your office, you have most of the
pieces. I think most modems don't have DTMF detectors, but they can
generate DTMF. Hayes compatible modems have standard, interrupt driven
responses to telephone line activity and to program commands.  I don't
know the bit locations and such, but it should be possible to do the
following:

Program a TSR (terminate and stay resident), and leave your pc at work
powered up. The modem will sense an incoming ring, pick up the phone,
and then hang up. Then it dials your home number (that gets you the
security you need), waits, flashes the switchhook, gets another dial
tone, and makes the second call. Getting it to hang up after the call
is over is a little messier, but once you and the other party hang up,
there should be a dial tone after a few seconds, and the modem can
sense that to hang up.

If you have a fax card based on the Yamaha chip, the chip has a DTMF
decoder, so that's a complete solution. I don't know about Rockwell
and Sendfax(tm) type chips (anyone know ?).

Programming all this stuff might take more time than it's worth, of
course.

Regards,


Jon Sreekanth
Assabet Valley Microsystems            Fax and PC products
346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752        508-562-0722
[e-mail]

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

From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Around Town Eliminated - No Advance Notice
Date: 2 May 91 14:18:08 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Waldman)
writes:

> cents, not 25 cents.  It was just a short time ago that they imposed
> the 25 cent surcharge, again with no prior notification.  Of course,
> the MCI representative will inform you that you should have known,

I was informed of noth of these changes on my MCI bill one month
before each change. I have all but stopped using the card method of
calling since they implemented the charge. I have called and explained
to them why their revenues are now $30-$50/month lower but they seem
to think they will make more money this way.

If anyone out there knows of a company with competative rates ($.11 or
less for 200 miles) and an around-town feature (or a <$.75/call card
charge). I would like to hear about it.


Scott Hinckley  Internet:[e-mail]
UUCP:...!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott
DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not|[phone]
represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management|  BTN:461-2073

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

Date: Thu, 2 May 91 10:54:59 -0400
From: Ronald Greenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Restricting Telemarketers
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park


In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:

> I also learned from somebody at the FCC that there is proposed
> legislation in the US Congress to put some kind of limitations on
> telemarketing, but I haven't yet gotten details.

I've gotten more information now.  The bill is HR1304 and Markey is
the original author; there are also a number of co-sponsors.  The bill
would establish a national list maintained by the FCC of people who do
not want to receive calls from telemarketers.  There would be no
charge to get on the list; it would be sold to businesses wishing to
do telemarketing.  There would be fines ("substantial penalties"
according to the staff person I talked to) for telemarketers calling
people who are on the list.  The law would apply to both interstate
and intrastate calls.  The advice given of how to support this bill is
to contact your congressional representatives.


Ron Greenberg        [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Call Forwarding and Call Accounting
Date: Thu, 02 May 91 09:56:39 MDT
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> Fortunately, call forwarding will remember a 10xxx code,
> so I can always use AT&T for call forwarding when I need to.

I tried call forwarding (72#) to a 10xxx number back in framingham and
natickham, mass last year.  And it didn't work.  What gives?

Steve, are you talking about busy-call-forwarding or call-forwarding-
no-answer or the manually controlled 72# kind?  I've never asked the
NYNEX business cats if it's possible to busy-call-fwd or call-fwd-no-
answer to a 10xxx number, but it wasn't possible to do that using 72#.


eli

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

Date: Thu, 2 May 91 13:34:18 -0400
From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Question About a Strange Number


800-555-0000 is the same as 10-288-1-700-555-4141. Although they end
up at the same place, any AT&T 800 number ending in 0000 gives you
that recording.  I think the original idea was to reserve 0000 on all
800 exchanges to identify the owner of that exchange. But it does not
hold true for other 800 providers.


Bill

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

From: jeffery l wisniewski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted
Date: 2 May 91 19:45:30 GMT
Organization: Ohio State University, Dept of Computer and Information Science


Mike Schuster in Article 17635 wrote:

> Anyone have an instruction sheet/tech sheet on the Motorola BRAVO
> beeper?  I've been given one with no instructions. The simple
> things are easy enough to figure out, but I've discovered that
> holding various buttons while turning on the power will display
> interesting things. Is any of thos documented? Is this in the
> Archives somewhere? (If some kind soul with a fax machine has
> this, they may send it to 212-308-4054 ... thanks!)

I have a Bravo Beeper through a company called USAMobile in Cleveland,
Ohio.  My office gave me it and did not give me any instructions
either.  Here is what I have found:

I am sure you know how to call up your pager and enter a phone number
but what many people do not know is that you can insert blank spaces
or '-' in the display also.  To insert a '-' in the display you simply
press a "*".  To insert a blank space you press two "*" and to erase
what you have already put in and start over press 3 "*".

          You Press:               You Get:
          ----------               --------

          1234567                  123-4567
          123*4567                 123-4567
          123**456*7890            123 456-7890
          123*4567**111            123-4567 111
          12345698***              to try again!


This can useful for a few things.  Our office uses it to code our
pages.  For example, if it is an important message and requires
immediate attention they will page with the phone number followed by a
blank and then '111'.  If the call is not that important or if we have
a message waiting they may use "222".

I think I have a copy of the booklet in the office but I will not be
in until Saturday.  I could fax it to you then if you like.

I hope this helped!


jeffery l wisniewski  <[e-mail]>
The Ohio State University    DISCLAIMER:  My ideas are my own.

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

Date: Fri,  3 May 91 19:40:38 EDT
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why the Cotton Ball is There
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I worked for some 18 years at (AT&T) Bell Labs in the Speech
Transmission Quality Group.  My group was responsible for the
measurement of telephone transmission quality, and we devised may
subjective tests of telephone transmission parameters to measure this
quality by subjective tests.  One factor which affects perceived
quality is what telephone people call sidetone, and psychoacousticians
call auditory feedback.

In normal speech, some of the acoustic energy of your voice reached
the ear through the air, and some internally.  The perception of your
own speech is one of the cues you use to control your speech level.
When one ear is covered with a receiver cap, part of the acoustic
feedback path is missing.

The paramaters of the network in the telset feed back some electrical
energy from the transmitter (microphone) to the receiver (earphone) to
replace the lost acoustic energy.  This actually can (and was
sometimes) used to control the user's speech level.  However, mainly
it is desirable to replace some of the acoustic sidetone by electrical
sidetone for a more natural experience.  People have become so used to
this feature that they experience as phobe as "dead" if the sidetone
is missing.

Since it was so desirable to control sidetone exactly, acoustic
sidetone through the handset had to be controlled.  Handsets before
the "G" handset (the handset on the original "500" set only had a
narrow path in the handle, and did not transmit much acoustic energy.
The receiver in those sets also had a closed back.  With the the 500
set and the G handset came the U1 receiver, which was of the ring
armature type.  The back of the U1 is open.  More modern molding
techniques and plastics made a lightweight, hollow handset possible.
The combination of the U1 receiver and the G handset provided a high
acoustic sidetone level, and severely reduced the perceived
transmission quality.  Thus, the cotton ball was inserted into the
handle to control the amount of acoustic feedback.  The size and
weight of the cotton ball were tightly specified by Western Electric.


Herman "Golden Ears" Silbiger

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 09:25:04 -0700
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West


Re: Bruce Carter's comment in 11/317, 4/29; Boise is not only a "test
area," but a signficant one, with results likely to have effects
beyond Idaho, following a relatively large, six-month market trial
incorporating NT's Calling Name ID.

Yet, re: Bruce's comment about getting ACLU et.al. to "quit howling
about invasion of privacy;" would seem he may have a bit of a sticky
wicket as of yesterday, when the Idaho PUC granted part of an ACLU
Petition for Reconsideration of the PUC's earlier decision that due
to passage of a bill largely deregulating a range of US West services,
the PUC lacked jurisdiction over CID.  The IPUC has therefore decided
to re-open the underlying question involved as to whether CID as per
the Boise trial is a "basic" service under Idaho law, after previously
assuming it wasn't, contrary to the position of its own counsel. The
staff position stated more recently also viewed CID as a function of
"basic" service as Idaho defines the term.

Patience, Bruce....


Peter Marshall

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

From: Paul Sutter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West
Date: 3 May 91 01:57:42 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA


I really hope Pacific Bell adopts "caller-name" delivery, like the
field trials in Idaho. As soon as the service is available, I will
make two calls to the phone company:

1) "Please disconnect my phone, I am moving out."
2) "Please connect my phone, I am moving in; my name is Saddam Hussein"

Just think of the fun when I get a call from "Sir Isaac Newton"; I
will know it is my brother. When "Jack Daniels" is calling, I will
know it's my old friend from school. This will be much easier to
remember than the phone number, and no violation of privacy!

Some caution should be exercised when selecting a new "name", however.
If you choose "Dan Quayle" to appear on your outgoing calls, people
will probably not answer just on the off-chance that it actually is
Dan Quayle calling.

Also, since I am the type to list my name in the phonebook, I will get
a secondary listing with my true name. Of course, only the billing
name will go out with my calls. I might have to add Saddam's name to
my mailbox so that I can get the bills.

A good idea?


Paul Sutter    [e-mail]

[typical, unoriginal disclaimer about my opinion and those of my employer]

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

Date: Fri, 3 May 1991 03:07:00 -0400
From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


> But from downtown Toronto, you will have local service into 905?

Yes.  Area 416 will be precisely the Municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto.  The local calling area from anywhere in Metro is the same,
and extends for some distance beyond the Metro boundary in all
directions (except south, of course, since Lake Ontario is there).  As
usual, the area code split will not affect the local calling area.


Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 91 10:32:54 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Choice of Sending Fax or Leaving Voice Recording


I called a number where I was then given the option of faxing (hit * to
do that) or of leaving a voice recorded message.  I don't think I had
heard of that before.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #328
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01760;
          5 May 91 14:58 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20723;
          5 May 91 13:13 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15199;
          5 May 91 12:08 CDT
Date:     Sun, 5 May 91 11:37:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #329
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 May 91 11:37:45 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 329

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Ted Papes, Prodigy President, via Tom Lowe]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Louis J. Judice]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [[e-mail]]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Ron Dippold]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Daniel Herrick]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Seng-Poh Lee]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Dick Binder]
    Spreading Rumors (Was: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???) [Louis J. Judice]
    Non-Empty Disks (was: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???) [Bill Vermillion]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 2 May 91 08:50 EDT
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???


The following is quited directly from Prodigy Today (5/2/91).  It was
posted in the Service Info Section:

[Begin Quote]

Members have asked recently about the privacy of the information that
they store on their coumputers as it relates to their use of the
PRODIGY service.

The privacy of your personal information is of primary importance to
us.  We know that our members consider this kind of information
proprietary; so do we.

[ The following was underlined ]  The PRODIGY service does not read,
collect, or transmit to the Prodigy Services Company any information
or data that is not directly connected with your use of the service.
[ End of underline ]

Recently there was an unsubstantiated and false newspaper report
suggesting that members' personal information -- unrelated to their
use of the PRODIGY service -- is being transmitted to our computers
from our members' computers.  This is simply not true.  It never has
been.

Member privacy has always been a top priority for Prodigy.  In fact,
we were active participants, with the ACLU, in the drafting and
passage of the Electronic Communication Act of 1986.


Ted Papes
President, Prodigy Services Company

[End Quote]

                             ----------

Disclaimer:  I am just a user of Prodigy who happened to see this posted
and sent it on for your information.

Tom Lowe

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

Date: Thu, 2 May 91 07:53:40 PDT
From: "Louis J. Judice  02-May-1991 1033" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy


> I know its off the topic, but ... if you are on a multi-user system
> and this technique works for you ... switch.  That is terrible
> security and the vendor deserves not to be in business (don't name
> names, I know several which work this way).  Since most of our
> multi-user readers are on UNIX, this trick will not work on UNIX
> systems.

> Two reasons: First, UNIX does not allocate the intervening
> space in the file.  It just allocates the blocks you write to.  The OS
> returns 0's for all other blocks read that are not yet allocated.
> Second, UNIX does not write partial sectors, nor depend on the
> contents of the file to mark end of file.

Not to stray even further off the topic, but I would caution readers
that in a production environment, this "feature" would probably end up
requiring a lot more I/O, especially on a fragmented disk. Your best
bet is to use file highwater marking techniques on timesharing disks
and permit preallocated files on disks holding large production
databases.  My guess is that most big UNIX database systems work the
latter way, using raw I/O. And of course other operating systems, like
VMS, also let you "go both ways."  :)


ljj

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
Organization:  Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 2 May 91 16:09:56 GMT


I ran a protocol analyzer during my session with Prodigy yesterday --
about an hour's worth -- and saw no personal data being transmitted
from my PC.  If anyone's interested I can post a few hundred bytes of
the trace.

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

From: Ron Dippold <qualcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 1 May 91 18:20:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> hayes![e-mail]
(Toby Nixon) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, overlf!emanuele@kb2ear.
> ampr.org (Mark A. Emanuele) posted a BBS file containing hysterical
> raving about Prodigy supposedly snooping through user's disks,
> uploading and processing confidential information.

Let me say first that I don't think they're doing it, however, I can
see why someone might think so.  Also, I don't believe the article
said that they _were_ uploading, just that they could.

> [how STAGE.DAT is created]

> The idea that Prodigy is slow because they're using bandwidth to
> upload confidential information for analysis is just wrong. Watch your
> modem lights!  Only tiny little bursts of transmission are sent.  MOST
> of the time, the line is completely idle in both directions.  The

I hate to tell you this, but I do watch the modem lights, and there
are many times that the computer should not need to send data to
Prodigy when it is most definitely doing so.  Usually when it is
sending the info about a new screen for STAGE.DAT, it seems to spend a
_lot_ of time talking back to Prodigy.  It's probably just ACKs and
other chatter, but it certainly appears suspicious, and that's the
problem.  I, too, wondered why the hell it was sending all that stuff
back and exactly what it was sending.

> simple fact is that Prodigy is slow because the software is SLOW (it
> was written in anticipation of us all having very fast CPUs, video
> cards, and modems before too much longer), not because of some
> sinister conspiracy to invade our private files.  Who could honestly
> believe that two companies who are big fat targets for lawsuits would
> do something so supremely stupid and easily detectable?

> No, the biggest mistake Prodigy made was in not wiping clean
> newly-allocated disk space in order to remove any questions in this
> regard -- and I suspect that the next Prodigy software update will do

The biggest mistake Prodigy made was to completely alienate its
customers with arrogance and incredible high-handedness, to not train
its customer service people better (so they know what the hell is
going on instead of just denying everything), and in handling the
E-mail affair so badly (okay, three mistakes).  GEnie and CompuServe
both have software that perform the same function as the Prodigy
software and take over your machine in the same way, but you don't
hear people worried about that.  Why?  Because people trust GEnie and
CompuServe and they don't trust Prodigy.

Train of thought: "Hmm, what's all this stuff doing in my STAGE.DAT?
You don't think Prodigy could be harvesting my hard drive, do you?
Why would a big company with the backing of IBM and Sears risk
alienating their customers like that?  On the other hand, they've
never seemed to give a damn before about alienating their customers,
and then there's that E-mail stuff.  You know, I bet those b*stards
would have the chutzpah to do it."

Not that I think they are, but it is easy to see how someone could
think so.  Prodigy has a _serious_ image problem.  I don't think
anyone could log onto a "normal" local bulletin board, ask about
Prodigy, and continue to use it once he/she reads the replies.

Someone asked what they could possibly do with the data that's sent
(assuming it was, of course).  1 MB per user is a lot to store.
However, I could do a _lot_ with one item from every user's hard disk:
their directory tree.  Small, doesn't take much time to send, and
tells you a lot about the person, much more so if you send it every
now and then and compare it to the latest copy.

The STAGE.DAT is sort of a red herring.  If they wanted to send stuff
from your hard drive, they wouldn't need to put it in STAGE.DAT first.


Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks.  |  Ron Dippold

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

Date: 3 May 91 11:11:00 EDT
From: HERRICK, DANIEL <abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Leryo
Malbito) writes:

> Upon showing V11 issue 311 (the one with Mark's comments) to a tax
> professional friend, he discovered not only confidential tax info on
> most of his clients, but logs of Telix sessions which he didn't
> remember taking, in addition to the entire Telix dialing directory,
> including passwords, macros, etc. An interesting side note is that
> Telix is on his D: drive, while stage.dat et al are on his C: drive.
> He is still searching through his immense (950K) STAGE.DAT file,
> shouting expletives.

Look in the file config.sys in the root directory of the boot disk for
a line that says "buffers=40" or some other number.  DOS sets aside
this number of buffers.  When your program writes one byte to a file
it goes into the appropriate location in one of those buffers and then
the whole buffer is written to disk.  Carrying along whatever data was
last moved through that buffer.

The typical number of buffers will hold a lot of data from whatever
you were doing before starting Prodigy to copy into stage.dat.

This is the most likely mechanism for data kept only on D: to appear
in stage.dat on C:.


dan herrick      [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 4 May 91 15:37:24 -0400
From: "Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
Organization: FSF Guest Machines


For the last few days, the Prodigy highlights screen has a message
proclaiming that the users information is safe and that Prodigy does
not upload data from the users computer. This is from the President of
Prodigy, so they are taking this seriously. They also have a further
description of how users info got into STAGE.DAT, and it follows the
deleted sectors theory.

I think after Prodigy messed up the e-mail issue, they are responding
faster to this issue. However, although they emphatically claim that
they do not get hold of any data NOT RELATED to the running of the
Prodigy, this still leaves some avenues open. For example, they could
claim that they need your path information to run Prodigy. This path
information, however also happens to give them an idea of what type of
programs you run on your machine. This would fall right in line with
their marketing research.

In any event, if Prodigy wanted to get info from your system, they
don't have to store it in STAGE.DAT. The Prodigy software is written
in such a way that new modules can be downloaded to your PC and then
executed. This COULD include a program to scan your disk, and upload
stuff without a trace of residual data. While I don't think the
current STAGE.DAT issue is related to any uploading, I do think that
Prodigy has the means to do a lot more if they wanted to. For example,
lets say they investigate a complaint of abusive mail from a user
(They reserve the right to read private mail under these
circumstances). They could also download a module to that users PC to
scan other files for abusive text, as part of building a case against
that user. Is that justified?

I have a funny feeling that this is not the end of it. Big brother is
here and he runs your BBS!


Seng-Poh Lee   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 91 16:13:26 -0400
From: Simplicitas gratia simplicitatis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???


Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]> writes:

> ... even formatting a disk does not remove old information!

I beg to differ.  Vehemently so.  I used to design controllers for
both floppy and hard disks - I did it for about 14 years, using SSI
and MSI chips and, later, LSI controller chips.

The formatting operation must by its very nature destroy the old data.
Formatting is a write operation that is done without reading to verify
position.  It writes both the sector preambles and the data fields
instead of only the data fields.  LSI chips have a register into which
the controlling hardware loads the data pattern to be written into
every byte position in the data fields.

Not wiping out old data in a formatting operation would mean that the
data fields weren't being written - this makes no sense because the
propose of a formatting operation is to put readable information on a
previously unused disk.

The previous claim, that data is in the freshly-allocated sectors by
virtue of their having been marked in the FAT as available, is true.
You say Prodigy doesn't upload this stale data.  If I were paranoid,
I'd respond that of course you would say that -- after all, as a beta
tester you're probably going to be on Prodigy's side in any such
argument.  After reading both sides of this discussion, I'm not at all
comfortable with the idea that I would have to use Prodigy's software
 --- most other BBSs let you use any old telecomms package.  Maybe
it's just as well that Prodigy doesn't sell a package for the Apple II.


Dick Binder                          (Simplicitas gratia simplicitatis)
Digital Equipment Corporation    DEC Easynet: DECVAX::BINDER
110 Spit Brook Road, ZKO3-3/Y32  uucp:        ...!decvax.dec.com!binder
Nashua, NH 03062                 Internet:    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 4 May 91 05:55:31 PDT
From: "Louis J. Judice  04-May-1991 0845" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spreading Rumors (Was: Prodigy)


It's a tribute to the wide circulation of this Digest and the
popularity of BBS systems - here at DEC, I received no less than
twelve copies of the "Prodigy/Fraudigy" article from various sources
in my internal E-mail.  When I looked at the headers, I found that
most originated in one place, but ended up being routed virtually all
over the company - I bet 50% of our E-mail subscribers received a copy
of it one way or another.

I sent the well written counter-argument (by the Hayes person, whose
name escapes me) to the top level of each routing chain, so it will be
interesting to see if a less hysterical article gets fowarded so
rapidly.

What worries me is - let's say Prodigy was a startup company, and it
was ruined by the negative publicity generated by this nonsense. Could
the ORIGINAL poster be responsible? Could intermediate mail systems or
BBS's be held liable?

The oddest thing about this is when you ask someone who flies into
your office "would you REALLY believe that IBM/Sears would REALLY do
such a thing", the answer is always - "Well, No, of course not". "So,
why forward the article?"


ljj

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

From: Bill Vermillion <bilver![e-mail]>
Subject: Non-Empty Disks (was: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???)
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Fri, 3 May 91 16:11:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> hayes![e-mail]
(Toby Nixon) writes:

> I've heard stories of "heads rolling" at software publishers when
> programmers used supposedly "empty" disks to produce the master disks
> that were bulk-duplicated, boxed, and sold.  The problem was, of
> course, that the disk wasn't clean, but that the old files had simply
> been "deleted" (and not erased) -- so anybody that did a little
> "garbage collecting" (it's fun; try it some time) got a good bit of
> the source code of the product!!

Sort of bit of trivia here on that comment.

Years ago I got one of the original Adventure Disk from Scot Adams.
He had just coverted these to disk basic (but before his compiled
versions).

Scott sold me a fresh copy and I took it home.

I discoved his adventure editor on the disk.  I told him about this
and that he ought to check his masters more carefully.

About a year later I got a call from Scott.  He had sold an article
and the rights to publish his Basic Adventure Editor to BYTE magazine,
and he found that he had NO copy of the orginal.  I had the only one
he knew about, although others who had the early disks (there were
only one and two at that time) probably had them on their disk.

So the final article, published around 1981 or so, happened only
because I got "nosy" and started probing my disk.


Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill
                      : [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #329
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03784;
          5 May 91 15:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08468;
          5 May 91 14:17 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20723;
          5 May 91 13:13 CDT
Date:     Sun, 5 May 91 12:36:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #330
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 May 91 12:36:26 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 330

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management? [Amanda Walker]
    Wiring Diagram for RS232 Y Cable [David E. A. Wilson]
    They're Coming to Get Me! [Doctor Math]
    Re: Payphones and Such [Dave Leibold]
    Re: Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area [Jamie Mason]
    Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Daniel Herrick]
    Re: Cable & Wireless 800 Service [Eddy J. Gurney]
    Re: New Area Code Won't Work From Hotel [Carl Moore]
    Re: A Mystery Refund From MCI [Bill Woodcock]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Amanda Walker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management?
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
Date: Thu, 2 May 91 22:12:16 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

[about GEnie vs. Linda Kaplan]
> Soooooo, here we go again with the issue of censoring certain
> materials in large online systems.  Or is it really an issue?
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sigh.  From what I understand, this is one of the more annoying recent
developments on the timesharing service front.  Here are the facts as
I understand them:

 From her messages on GEnie, Linda Kaplan presents herself a quite
annoying person with no sense of humor and precious little sense of
how courtesy applies to public communication.  A "sysop" of one GEnie
round table (who is responisble for being a pseudo-moderator, keeping
discussions on track, putting out flamewars, etc.) got sufficiently
irritated with her behavior on his round table that he locked her out
of it for a while.

Linda subsequently started complaining, and roudned up support from a
large group of ex-Prodigy people (who are, after all, quite reasonably
sensitive to electronic censorship).  Unfortunately, these people then
assumed that GEnie management was just like Prodigy management, and
started jumping to conclusions and making "pre-emptive" accusations to
GEnie and GE management.  This, needless to say, did not do much to
endear them to GEnie management, especially since this "debate"
(combined with Prodigy-style volumnious Email) evidently ended up
causing resource problems within GEnie.

I do not know if it has been resolved, but I will be quite annoyed if
a bunch of disgruntled ex-Prodigy users end up instigating a self-
fulfilling prophecy, and turning the best public timesharing service I
have used into a hostile environment, or shut it down completely
(which GEIS might well do if GEnie ends up being too much trouble).

I have quite a number of people of friends who depend on GEnie (one of
whom is hearing impaired and uses email as her lifeline to the outside
world), and I resent people screwing things up for everyone else
because one person cried wolf.


Amanda Walker            [e-mail]
Visix Software Inc.        ...!uunet!visix!amanda

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wiring Diagram for RS232 Y-Cable
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Fri, 3 May 91 03:45:59 GMT


acd4![e-mail] (Mark Teegarden) writes:

> P.S.  Could someone please post a wiring diagram for an RS232 Y-cable
> that could be used to attach the serial line of a second PC to monitor
> the serial transmissions of the first one that is running the Prodigy
> Software without wreaking havoc on the communication to and from the
> modem?  Can this be done inexpensively?

    HOST End                    MODEM End
    DB-25F                        DB-25M

    4 (RTS) >--------------------------------------> 4 (RTS)
    5 (CTS) <--------------------------------------< 5 (CTS)
    20(DTR) >--------------------------------------> 20(DTR)
    6 (DSR) <--------------------------------------< 6 (DSR)
    8 (DCD) <--------------------------------------< 8 (DCD)
    7 (GND) --------+------------------------------- 7 (GND)
    2 (TxD) >---------------+----------------------> 2 (TxD)
    3 (RxD) <-----------------------+--------------< 3 (RxD)
            |    |    |
            |    |a    |b
            |    \
            |     \
            |      \    SPDT switch a=monitor TxD
            |       \            b=monitor RxD
            |        |
            |        |
    MONITOR DB-25    7 (GND)        3 (RxD)    connector to suit tty/pc

    This should work if plugged into your modem and the cable
    from your PC to the modem plugged into the DB-25F. If the
    monitoring computer does not use a DB-25 then the pin numbers
    at the bottom of the diagram will change. The monitoring pc/tty
    may also require loopback connections to enable its receiver:
    typically this would be 4-5 & 20-6-8 joined in the monitor
    DB-25.


David Wilson    Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong    [e-mail]

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

From: Doctor Math <moocow![e-mail]>
Subject: They're Coming to Get Me!
Date: Thu, 02 May 91 13:31:17 PDT
Organization: Brown Cow Software (a licensed Waffle developer)


[e-mail] (Louis J. Judice  30-Apr-1991 1328) writes:

> If anyone REALLY thinks that Prodigy, IBM and Sears are going off and
> uploading your confidential files to have a look, well, I suggest you
> power off your computers, unplug your phones, cancel your drivers
> license and move to the mountains where the CIA, NSA, Trilateral
> Commission, KGB and Iraqi secret police can't find you!

Heh ... You left out the DIA and Secret Service, not to mention all
those other Dark Government Groups that keep an eye on Citizens who
participate in the Usenet Underground :-) I'm sure all I'd have to do
is type in the "wrong" thing and they'd all show up at 3 AM to bust my
door down and take me away.  Let's give it a try:   RED BOX    BLUE BOX

Oh no, I can hear the glass in my front door breaking!  No! Wait! You
don't want me! Nooooo!!!

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 21:51:00 PST
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Payphones and Such
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Danny Padwa <[e-mail]> wrote in the Digest:

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

% > I have vague recollections of a service that allowed 25 cent calls all
% > over New York State for a maximum of 30 seconds.  It was specifically
% > available at Grand Central Station (and probably Penn Station too) and
% > was designed for "meet me at the station at 5:06" type of calls.

% Yup ... that was exactly how this worked. It was introduced back in
% the days of ten cent local calls in New York.

% New York Tel introduced these phones in Penn Station, Grand Central (I
% guess), and JFK International Arrivals (and perhaps other places ...
% I've only used them at Penn). It was quite a deal ... for a quarter
% you could call anywhere in the state (even Buffalo!) for 30 seconds
%  ... at which point you got cut off with no warning or mercy.

Downtown Miami has a few of the "Anywhere America" payphones; it costs
30c/minute to call to any place in the USA. It costs $1/min to call
Canada or points in (809) like Bahamas, Jamaica, etc., and (if memory
serves correctly) $2/min overseas.

There are some COCOTs at a nearby convenience store that will allow
calls to a few select 900 numbers on relatively harmless topics (a
sports line was one of the choices from what I recall). The charges
for these calls didn't seem too far out of line from other 900
numbers, though the COCOTs undoubtedly might take a super big gulp of
cash in other ways.


David Leibold   replies to: [e-mail]
or c/o The Super Continental BBS  +1 407 731.0388
Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1
[e-mail]

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

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Science Undergraduate Student
Date: Sun, 5 May 1991 09:27:23 -0400


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] quotes:

> The MONTREAL AREA is one of the first to be offered Call
> Management Service (CMS) from

    Toronto has had it since April 22.  I think Ottawa has had it
for a while now.  Why don't they just say Montreal is the Nth area to
be offered CMS, subsituting the correct, but impressively low, N?

    Does anyone have a list of cites which have a full scale
Caller-ID system in place, or to be in place REAL soon?

> The service is gradually being extended to include long distance calls.

    Since at least two other Canadain cities have CMS, why does
Bell Canada not extend it to long distance NOW?

> If you live in the Montreal local calling area, order today by calling
> 279-8636.

    This quote almost exactly matched a pamphlet Bell Canada sent
to Toronto customers with their phone bill.  It was sent three months
ago, announcing the service and inviting questions/orders.  The
Toronto number is [phone].  Does anyone know the date when
these services will go on-line in Montreal?

    I would love to have seen the French ad for CMS.  French ads
are almost always more original and amusing than the equivalent
English ones, except the ads which are direct translations of the
English.

    I am surprised that this message had to wait until someone at
NWU read the Gazette.  Don't we have any Telcom readers in Montreal?

    I have been asked by several Telcom readers to post my
experiences with CMS to the Newsgroup, since the Caller-ID discussion
has a low fact:speculation ratio.  Maybe some Montreal readers would
be interested to see what is coming their way?  I will post the
article as soon as I have finished composing it. It is somewhat long.

    I am glad to see CMS expanding so rapildly.  I think that,
despite itself, Bell Canada is doing the Right Thing with CMS ... or
at least a close approximation of the Right Thing, for a sufficiently
liberal "close".


Jamie

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

From: HERRICK, DANIEL <abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This?
Date: 3 May 91 12:21:40 EST


[John Higdon's description of prerecorded phone invitation to call a
number in (312) land and some of Pat's report on his investigation
truncated.]

> numbers from 9050 up to at least 9099 are not in service. I tried
> several of the numbers just now (midnight) and got a busy on
> everything I tried; my assumption is the numbers are out of order or
   [...]
> the 312-292 exchange. I tested at random and mostly got 'not in
> service' or 'has been disconnected' messages.   PAT]

Maybe people in that neighborhood take the phone off the hook before
they go to bed.  Do you often call all the numbers in some range
around midnight?  Have you programmed your computer to help you make
these calls?

I enjoyed your report, but Good Grief! Pat.


dan herrick   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I tried numbers which were 99 percent certain to be
business numbers (had they been connected); i.e. numbers ending in
hundreds and/or thousands. I also tried some which CNA reported as 'no
record located', which almost invariably wind up being either actually
not in service or in service as DID trunks behind a PBX or extensions
on a centrex, etc ... not exactly the sort of thing which makes up
residential phone service. And no, I would *never* program a computer
to simply start dialing down the line at any time of the day or night.
I concentrated primarily on the 9000 - 9099 group, with a few 'random'
picks elsewhere based on what CNA records said and my own knowledge of
how numbers would likely be assigned here.  PAT]

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

From: "Eddy J. Gurney" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 14:17:26 EDT
Subject: Re: Cable & Wireless 800 Service (MCI and Telecom*USA, too)


Steve Forrette mentioned that Cable & Wireless provides 800 service
for rates comparable to U.S. Sprint before they jacked up the price
$5/month.  Plus, they optionally provide remote programming of the
forwarding number for your 800 calls.  I checked C&W out when I was
originally looking into the 800 LDCs, and unfortunately, they only
offer it in certain area codes.  Mine is not one of them. :-( I called
them again today and confirmed this is still the case.  (If anyone is
interested, it is 517; Lansing, MI.)

I also called MCI about their "Follow Me 800" service, but the
representatives did not have any information available at this time,
and said "you will be hearing more about it."  I guess we'll see about
that.  I wonder if this too, will be a "shared" 800 number, or if they
will finally assign you your own number.

Finally, our Moderator's 800 carrier, Telecom*USA, has been consumed
by MCI, and will not allow new customers to add 800 service at the
incredible monthly rate of only $2.75/month.  They direct all your
calls to MCI, where they try to sell you MCI Personal (Shared) 800
with the infamous "personal security code".  I guess Pat is just lucky
he jumped on the bandwagon when he did! :-)

So the search continues for an 800 LDC besides U.S. Sprint.  Any more
suggestions?

I'll keep everyone posted.


Eddy J. Gurney  N8FPW -- [e-mail] -- The Eccentricity Group


[Moderator's Note: Except that *existing* customers of Telecom*USA at
the time of the MCI merger are still being serviced through
Telecom*USA customer service, and they still let us add/delete or
change around our 800 numbers as desired for $2.75 each.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 91 9:18:58 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Area Code Won't Work From Hotel


To summarize, there are sometimes problems in reaching new area codes
or prefixes.  It makes you wonder about which poor souls will end up
in the first NNX area code.

 From 1973 to 1980, there may have been problems in making calls from
the U.S. east coast to prefixes of N0X/N1X form in area 213 (Los
Angeles etc.; currently 213/818, and later to become 213/818/310).  At
least there would have been a problem in explaining it to operators on
the east coast, with such problem going away only when NYC got N0X/N1X
prefixes.

Someone in this Digest complained of people having trouble reaching
him in the then-new area code 508 in Massachusetts; it split from 617
in 1988.

Several years ago, I had to ask an operator to make a call for me to a
new prefix (301-850), because my attempt to make a 0+ call to it did
not work (0-850-xxxx, the correct syntax at the time for 0+ within
Maryland when originating outside the DC area).  And I know of someone
who had trouble reaching 202-994.

This Digest also had a complaint last year about someone not being
able to complete a local call of the form NPA + 7D from a hotel (in
the VA suburbs of DC) to either MD or DC.  In this case, he had to
work around by using 7D, which still worked at the time.

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

From: Bill Woodcock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Mystery Refund From MCI
Date: 5 May 91 00:03:44 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cru


Somebody wrote:

> Something interesting happened to me today ... this month's phone
> bill included a $10 credit from MCI!  A quick check of my various
> phone lines indicates that I'm still with my chosen long distance
> carrier (which isn't MCI). I didn't call and ask about it

[e-mail] wrote:

> This must be part of some judgment against MCI for slamming.  In
> punishment for changing the long distance carrier for random
> telephone lines, someone is forcing them to give refunds to random
> telephone lines.

Patrick Wrote:

> I don't really think this is the case. There may be a class-action
> suit against MCI for slamming, but I have not heard of it. But in
> class actions I am familiar with, the settlement usually calls for
> injured parties to at least submit some sort of claim form with the
> court and evidence of what occurred.  Any other ideas?

I dunno.  I've always used AT&T, and they've called me with incentives
to switch to AT&T about once a month for the last year.  Their
databases must be fouled up somehow. I invariably tell them that I'm
already using AT&T (and I am; I've checked) and they invariably
apologize, and say that they'll remove my name from their list, and I
invariably recieve some of the little AT&T funnymoney credits in my
next phone bill.  I've got three lines at home, so it really adds up.
My LD service is almost paying for _itself_ now.  :-)


Bill Woodcock   BMUG NetAdmin
[e-mail].
2355.virginia.st..berkeley.ca.94709.1315

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #330
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab06498;
          5 May 91 16:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06780;
          5 May 91 15:22 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08468;
          5 May 91 14:17 CDT
Date:     Sun, 5 May 91 13:58:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #331
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 May 91 13:58:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 331

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ATT Digital Answering Machine [David Fiedler]
    Re: Whither the AT&T News Line? [Dave Leibold]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Daniel Herrick]
    Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: Third Party Billing Fraud and New England Tel's Answer [K. Mullholand]
    AT&T Partner System: A Reasonable Choice? [[e-mail]]
    Making Comments to FCC [Ronald Greenberg]
    Thanks for Advice on Panasonic KSU [Jim Youll]
    Information Needed on Bell Atlantic Answer Call [Kevin Brown]
    Adding a Modem to System 85 Set [Jeff Wasilko]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Fiedler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATT Digital Answering Machine
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services UNIX System 408 241-9760
Date: Sun, 5 May 1991 06:37:59 GMT


panix![e-mail] (Michael Schuster) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> ssc-bee!ssc-vax!clark@
> cs.washington.edu (Roger Clark Swann) writes:

>> Someone was asking here recently about the ATT digital answering
>> machine.  I just received a flyer from Sears that includes:

>>    ATT Digital Answering System 1337
>>
>>    - All digital technology, etc        Sale price $99.99

> Thanks. The inquiry was mine, but perhaps I was not clear enough.
> Randy Borow posted in early April about a =second model= of the AT&T
> Digital Answering machine which had the =additional= features (these
> are =not= in the 1337's that I've seen) of:

>    -time/date stamping of incoming emssages
>    -voice prompts
>    -remote progrmaming with rotary phone.


I got my father an AT&T 1330, which has one cassette and up to 30
seconds of digitized outgoing messages, plus time/date stamping. The
user interface is a bit tricky for non-programmer types, and the voice
quality isn't the greatest, but it only cost $69.95 at a local
discount store.


David Fiedler       UUCP:{ames,mrspoc,hoptoad}!infopro!david        AIR: N3717R
"Video for Computer Professionals"   BIX: fiedler  Internet: [e-mail]
USMail:InfoPro Systems, PO Box 220 Rescue CA 95672 Phone:[phone] FAX:-5873

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 22:28:00 PST
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whither the AT&T News Line?
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Thanks for a number of responses with respect to the AT&T daily news
report...

[e-mail] replies:

> In answer to Dave Leibold's wondering what happened to the AT&T
> Newsline: it was discontinued via its 800 number. It now can be
> reached via a normal (meaning YOU pay) POTS number. Why the change?
> From what we were told, it was due to cost-cutting measures. So what
> else is new?

I'm not sure if the cost savings rationale is as simple as it sounds
 ... wouldn't AT&T people just have to start dialing long distance or
WATS to get their news? Also, if AT&T had the 800 network, would they
not have had the capability to connect the newsline directly to their
network? The new POTS number would seem to entail extra dealings with
a local telco. But I'm neither an accountant nor technician for AT&T,
so perhaps someone out there has a better idea of the situation.

Perhaps cutting the volume of calls to the news line is one motivation
for this change.

Bill Huttig <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The newsline discontinued its 800 number.  The correct number now is
> 908-221-NEWS. (I don't see why they want to make people pay for it.)

Why, so that MCI and Sprint can now make some coin off the deal :-)

Presumably, the news line number isn't eligible for MCI's Friends and
Family program.

David Leibold    [e-mail]
disclaimer: just wondering about the nuances of the situation....

Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1
[e-mail]

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

Date: 3 May 91 10:14:00 EDT
From: HERRICK, DANIEL <abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu (Nuclear Warrior) writes:

> I have been harboring an amusing idea for some time.  Wouldn't it be
> great if one of those rare individuals who wasn't motivated solely by
> personal and corporate greed

What are you waiting for?  Surely you are such a person.

> was to create a full-service telephone company, hopefully
> providing long distance (and in some areas, where the LEC was
> especially lame, local service) at the lowest possible prices?

We have a new industry starting, calling themselves Alternative
Carriers, offering local service in competition with the established
local exchange carriers.

> It would charge just enough to hire all the necessary people,
> provide ample capacity and keep all of the equipment state-of-the-art.

Is this opportunity real?  Has your phone company hired a lot of
unnecessary people?  Do they have the money to swap out 1985's state
of the art equipment for 1991's state of the art equipment?

> Perhaps a public stock offering could be made, and the big benefit
> would be that $1000 up front would get you five years of unlimited
> free long distance on your line or something.

I remember another offer that isn't made any more - $1000 up front
gets you one week a year in the new tower hotel at Heritage USA for
the rest of your life.  There are four of those in my family that
someone else bought and gave us.  We did camp there once.  Nice place.

> The amazing thing is that this could actually be done, and it would
> probably have fascinating effects, effectively bringing the whole
> country into your local calling area.  Any comments?

There is a Robert Heinlein novel that sheds some light on the
economics of big enterprises entitled "The Man Who Sold the Moon".

There was another post a few back in this thread that repeated some
common misconceptions about the relationship between cost and price.

The price is determined by what people are willing to pay.  In long
distance service, AT&T provides a benchmark.  Someone else who wants
to persuade you to buy their service and not AT&T's has to do one of
the following:

      1.  Convince you their service is better than AT&T's and worth
          a higher price than AT&T charges.

      2.  Convince you that they will give you comparable phone service
          to what you have been getting from AT&T for a comparable price
          and they will be nicer to you than AT&T is.

      3.  Convince you that you will be happy with their lower quality
          phone service because it costs so much less.

Those considerations determine selling price.  Cost does not enter in
to the calculations.  The provider of the service learns from the
market what he can sell it for, the price.  He has to find a way to
make his costs low enough that he makes a profit at that price.  Or go
out of business when he runs out of money.

The question I put after the first quoted passage above is serious.
If you have a better idea, offer it to the marketplace.


dan herrick   [e-mail]

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

From: "Steven S. Brack" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs
Reply-To: "Steven S. Brack" <isis![e-mail]>
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix (sponsored by U. of Denver Math/CS dept.)
Date: Sat, 4 May 91 00:06:57 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Fred R. Goldstein) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 301, Message 3 of 10

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Steven S. Brack) writes...

>> (1) What will Caller*ID show as my number?
>> (2) What does E911 get as my number?
>> (3) What would an Ohio Bell trace show as my number?

> In general, if you are behind a PBX, then the public network knows
> only about the PBX trunk or group you're on.  In some cases the trunk
> will return a hunt pilot, in others its own number, depending upon how
> it's set up.  But none of the above three services can know your
> extension number, even though it can be dialed directly.  Extension
> info is passed from the CO to PBX on incoming calls (DID service)
> only.

Ohio State's PBX is an NT SL100.  It is possible to dial a 7D number
from outside the system & reach my phone, or almost any other.  I
apologize if I wasn't clear about the system OSU uses.  OSU actually
bought Ohio Bell's old 42X- exchange CO, and uses it for both its
switch and its offices.  Funny seeing a windowless building with
offices in it.  From my conversation with their switch engineer, OSU
has T1 to Ohio Bell, and a Litel POP.  It's not your "typical" PBX
system.

> On Centrex, it would show the number for your extension.
> Centrex-CU did deliver your extension number for billing purposes,
> 911, etc.  (If they had 911 back then!)  This was done via a data link
> from the switch to the CO, reporting which extension had seized which
> trunk.

> When the stepper went away, this service was made available to newer
> PBX users, under the name "Automatic Identified Outward Dialing"
> (AIOD).  Many PBXs of the day, such as Dimension, supported it.

> I'm not sure if modern PBXs even support AIOD.
> AIOD would make caller*ID behave in the expected fashion.

I know local services getting ANI don't get the "true" number, and
(after much cajoling and pleading) the ONI read back to me by Sprint
(we switched to them a few weeks ago -- Sprint has some network
interface problems with our lines, but that "will be fixed in the next
software upgrade") was for the trunk I was on, not my actual number.

Our system occupies the entirety of the 292- & 293- prefixes, with
about 1000 extra internal numbers not directly reachable from the Bell
side.

PS: I had an interesting tour of OSU's telecom facility.  They have
great plans for the future, including full ISDN and other goodies.
Personally, I'm waiting for Ohio Bell to sue for "unfair competition"
8) 8)


Steven S. Brack            [e-mail]
I am not speaking for the Ohio State University.
Now, if only I could convince them of that  8)

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

Date: Thu, 2 May 1991 11:46:34 EDT
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer


Recently, Belanger noted that New Enland Tel offers:

> here's what the service rep told me: I could put a "block" on my
> line to prevent third-party billing, for the "amazingly-low-price" (my
> wording) of $.95 a month per line, and a one-time charge of $11.70 .

UNH uses this toll restriction to prevent students from billing third
party calls to our lines from whereever they happen to roam.  It works
very well, as long as the potential "phrauders" considerately use AT&T
or their local RBOC.  Calls from any other carrier are often charged,
and receiving creidt is difficult to impossible.  With the
proliferation of 0+ vendors our out there, it promises to get even
harder to control.  I wish the FCC would rule that third party
callling is not allowed -- credit cards and other charging
alternatives are so prevalent, it seems silly to keep this "dark age
billing technology".


Kath Mullhland    UNH  Durham, NH


[Moderator's Note: After having IBT set up my two lines and my
distinctive ringing number (three phone numbers total) to
automatically deny collect and third-number billing, I tried testing
it through a variety of carriers to see what would happen. AT&T,
Sprint, MCI and Telecom*USA immediatly recognized the block, and their
operators would not even bother to inquire (from me) to see if the
calls were accepted. Denial was automatic, as it also was via a couple
alternate operator services.  I had confederates around the country
try to get through using the big three carriers, with no success.
Someone tried to get through using ITI, and I was called by their
automated system, but I refused the charges.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T Partner System: A    Reasonable Choice?
Date: Sun 5 May 1991 00:00:00


I'm looking for a simple key system for use in my home, and it looks
like the AT&T Partner will do most of what I want (especially, the
ability to work with ordinary single-line phones).

For me, the big plus for AT&T is that they have retail stores I can
just walk into.  The minuses are:

 - inability to use all the features from ordinary phones, and
 - price.

The retail prices from the AT&T phone store are:

 - $400 for each Partner system module (2 outside lines, 6 extensions)
 - $160 for each Partner multi-line phone (needed to use the full
   functionality of the system)

My question is whether I'm likely to do much better with other systems
such as Panasonic, enough to make it worthwhile to hunt for someone
willing to sell them to me.

Thanks in advance for any help.

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

Date: Thu, 2 May 91 11:07:53 -0400
From: Ronald Greenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Making Comments to FCC
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park


In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:

> It would be nice if one could get copies of FCC proposals on-line.
> Also, I'm not really sure how members of the public are supposed to
> express their comments.  There is some information about making
> comments in the material they sent me, but it seems to involve some
> annoying bureaucratic requirements, and they use some legal terms I'm
> not familiar with.

I happened to run into somebody who works for the FCC, and he said
that you really can just send any comments about FCC proposed
regulations or things you would like them to regulate to any obvious
address.  So I guess that would be:

   Federal Communications Commission
   1919 M Street, NW
   Washington, DC  20554

Apparently, all the legalese about "ex parte presentations" and
"Sunshine Agenda" and requirements for sending copies are not really
things you have to worry about.  I think some of this is about
stopping people from making covert comments to individual decision
makers at the FCC.

With regard to the FCC's proposed regulations on 900 numbers that
started this discussion, it looks like they wanted comments by April
24 and reply comments by May 24, but I don't know if there is any real
significance to those dates.


Ron Greenberg        [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 4 May 91 12:51:54 -0400
From: Jim Youll <[e-mail]>
Subject: Thanks For Advice on Panasonic KSU


(This seems like the most efficient way. Lots of people gave advice.)

Thanks to everyone who advised me on the purchase of my first-ever
KSU. I now have a Panasonic '616 and it is working out wonderfully.

I thought it would help organize things better around here, but it's
working beyond my expectations. If anyone wants info on the system,
mail me.

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

Date: Thu, 2 May 91 11:24:37 EDT
From: Kevin Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed on Bell Atlantic Answer Call


    Does anyone know if Bell Atlantic's answer call service is
compatible with identa-ring ?  I'm a college student and what I would
like to do is have my number be the main number with the identa-ring
and keep that on call forward inhibited to the answer call service all
the time.  My parents' number could then be the dependent number and
always be answered at home by them as normal.  Well, but with the
distinctive ringing pattern.  Please respond by e-mail, I don't always
get a chance to read the group. Thanks in advance.


Kevin Brown  Box 72     Moravian College, Bethlehem PA 18018
CSNET/INTERNET: [e-mail]  UUCP...!rutgers!liberty!batman!brownK

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

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 3 May 1991 20:29:27 EDT
Subject: Adding a Modem to System 85 Set


I just had my phone switched from an 'analog' (standard 2500 set) to a
AT&T ten button 'digital' set on our System 85 to gain an additional
two lines.

In doing that, I lost the ability to use a modem on the line. Is there
any way to use a standard telephone device (like a modem or answering
machine) with this phone? It's got a second eight-pin RJ- jack on the
back marked 'OTHER'...

The identifiying numbers on the phone are: RF90IL-19, Z7403D01B and
845P11. Any source for a device to add a standard RJ-11 device to this
phone would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance!


Jeff Wasilko, RIT Communications

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #331
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09214;
          5 May 91 18:00 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15055;
          5 May 91 16:28 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06780;
          5 May 91 15:22 CDT
Date:     Sun, 5 May 91 15:16:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #332
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 May 91 15:15:55 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 332

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Audivox Program Codes Wanted [David E. Sheafer]
    Programming Manual for Fujitsu 7300LT Cell Phone Wanted [Amanda Walker]
    Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [Phydeaux]
    Cellular One vs. GTE Cellular [David Gast]
    Cellular Slowdown [Ken Jongsma]
    New AT&T Smart Phone [Ken Jongsma]
    Finding Place Names From Various US Services [Dave Leibold]
    Japan and Modems [Jim W. Lai]
    Alone on a Country Road With Only a COCOT For Help [Scott Dorsey]
    Calling From 416 Area [Tony Harminc via Carl Moore]
    Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience [Will Martin]
    Differences in T1/E1 Standards [Bud Couch]
    Telemarketing Database [Bob Frankston]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David E. Sheafer, Class of 1989" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Audivox Program Codes Wanted
Date: 1 May 91 23:13:53 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


A while ago someone posted programming codes for Audiovox Cellular
telephones.  Could somone forward this information to me?

I've been unsuccessful in finding them in the telecom archives.


David E. Sheafer
internet:  [e-mail]   or  uucp:      samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b
GEnie:     D.SHEAFER             Cleveland Freenet:    ap345
Bitnet:    Sheafer_davi@bentley

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

From: Amanda Walker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Programming Manual for Fujitsu 7300LT Cell Phone Wanted
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
Date: Thu, 2 May 91 22:18:04 GMT


I'm looking for the programming manual for a Fujitsu 7300LT.  I can
get it into programming mode, but I seem to only be able to set NAM #1
(the 7300 has 4).  As an alternative to a manual, does anyone know how
to put in the phone number and home system number for the other NAMs?
That's actually all I care about.

Thanks,


Amanda Walker            [e-mail]
Visix Software Inc.        ...!uunet!visix!amanda

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 91 09:56:25 PDT
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me!


Hi!  During a recent flight, I had my phone turned on and noticed the
'roam' light was on.  I tried to place a call but it didn't go
through.  We were at about 39,000 feet, and I didn't expect it to. It
would stay on 'roam' for a few seconds and then go to 'NoSvc'.  But,
when we were down to about 15,000 feet I noticed the 'roam' light was
on continuously. I tried to dial again and it worked like a charm.  I
was using a .6 watt Motorola "Ultra Classic" portable with the small
(1/8 wave?) antenna, and I wasn't even in a window seat!

I realize that you're "not supposed to" do things like this, but if
anything had happened I could always have called 911 ;-)


*-=#= Phydeaux =#=-*  [e-mail]   or   [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W  h:558 West Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365
w:reb ASK/Ingres 10255 West Higgins  Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500


[Moderator's Note: You should have tried a few more tests of things
you're 'not supposed to do', such as *711 to ask what carrier it was,
and 0 for the operator to find out what place was getting your call.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 2 May 91 16:05:18 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular One v GTE Cellular


John Higdon wrote:

> I just did not feel that Cellular One (despite the aggressive
> advertising) was really providing me with the service I was paying for.

Sure.  If you have a good product, you don't need to advertise.  When
you don't have a good product, you spend all your money on advertising
how good your product is rather than spending money making it better.

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

Date: 02 May 91 19:27:31 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Slowdown


The current {Business Week} has an interesting article on the state of
Cellular Service today. Apparently, there has been a substantial
slowdown in the growth of cellular and the cellular companies are
having to start paying attention to "Service." (What a concept!)  Some
details:

  1) Revenue growth dropped from 71% to 36% in one year.
  2) PacTel Cellular average monthly revenue dropped from $104/month
     to $91/month in one year.
  3) Bell Atlantic transfers you to a "Save Team" when you try to
     drop them as a carrier. BA thinks it keeps 25% of those trying
     to drop. (High Pressure Tactics? "You drop - We know where your
     car is.")
  4) Industry churn rate is 36% per year, up from 24%.
  5) Voice Mail causes customers to spend 15-20 minutes more per
     month on the phone. (And they generally charge extra for this!)
  6) Industry averages $600-$900 spent in marketing for each new customer.

Save Teams are nothing new. Try dropping your American Express card.
You'll get transfered to someone who'll try to talk you into keeping
it, even offering to give you a credit towards the annual fee.


Ken Jongsma                     [e-mail]
Smiths Industries         [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I've had the same feeling about the cellular market
ever since the greatly discounted (and sometimes free!) cell phones
started appearing on the market tied to specific carriers. When
Fretters offers cell phones for $29 in connection with one year
service commitments to Ameritech, you know someone is starting to feel
a pinch!   PAT]

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

Date: 02 May 91 19:26:17 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>
Subject: New AT&T Smart Phone


There is an interesting ad in the current issue of {Business Week},
placed by AT&T Network Systems. The ad states that AT&T will be
offering a new "smart" phone in 1992.

The picture shows something that looks like a beige Etch-a-Sketch with
a handset attached to one side. There is no dial pad. Instead, the
screen is apparently touch sensitive and programmable. One portion of
the screen shows a dial pad, with the remainder divided into soft key
menu selectors.

The ad copy states that the phone is programable such that one key
could be labeled "Friends." Pressing that key would bring up a sub-
menu with all your friends listed. Pressing a particular key would
dial that friend.

The copy goes on to say that the phone could be used for banking,
airline reservations and other services.

No details are given as to what type of service is required to support
this phone (ISDN, POTS?) Perhaps Randy Borow or one of the AT&T people
has more details.


Ken Jongsma                    [e-mail]
Smiths Industries        [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Based on some other messages coming into the Digest
queue at this very minute, I expect to be hearing from Randy Borow
very soon anyway ... maybe he will be able to answer this also.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed,  1 May 91 23:02:00 PST
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Finding Place Names From Various US Services
Reply-to: [e-mail]


The results of trying to find a place name from the various long
distance operators in the U.S. are interesting. In this case, each
operator was presented with the exchange 416-771, which is a brand new
Thornhill, Ontario prefix (active as of the end of March). It's a tad
unfair to spring something that new on anyone, but let's see what
happened...

#1 - US Sprint: Dial 10333 + 0 for their operator ... they answer in
a reasonable time, but were unable to find out where 416-771 was,
other than that the area code was in Ontario.

#2 - MCI: Dial 10222 + 0 for MCI operator ... one thing about MCI's
operators is that they can take quite a long time to answer. After
giving 416-771 to them to find a place for it, the operator said "one
moment" many times (an explanation for the large number of rings?!?),
had an interim location of "Canada" then ultimately gave "Toronto" as
the answer. Close, but not quite icing on the cookie.

#3 - AT&T: 10288 + 0 ... without much delay, the AT&T operator seemed
to be the right choice, and came up with Thornhill without much
trouble.

This only reflects an early evening trial, and may not be too
scientific, but it gives a bit of an idea as to what place name
finding can be had. Finally, I tried doing a place name from a
Metromedia/ITT operator some other day and they weren't able to find
that stuff out.


Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1
[e-mail]

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

From: Jim W Lai <[e-mail]>
Subject: Japan and Modems
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 3 May 1991 01:00:16 GMT


Looking through the ads of a Japanese computer magazine, I was puzzled
by the high cost of modems compared with North America.  No US brands
were for sale.  Can anyone explain the nature of this situation?  I
also noticed the Japanese modem brands were not sold in the US either.

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

From: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alone on a Country Road With Only a COCOT For Help
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Fri, 3 May 1991 01:17:21 GMT


   There we were, stuck on a lone country road with a blown
transmission.  We stopped at a deserted gas station, and there it was.
A COCOT.  Abominable creation of hell.  Dialed 411, and got a request
to enter twenty-five cents, which was all we had on us.  Hung up.
Picked up the phone, dialed 10288, but after dialing the zero we got
an annoying beeping tone.  So there was only one thing left.  Calling
the operator.

   We typed zero.  And waited.  And waited.  And waited some more.
After a bit, we got a machine telling us to dial 1 to make a collect
call or 0 if we wanted a human operator.  So we dialed zero, and
waited some more.  Got some repetitive beeps, too.  But eventually
someone answered "ITI Operator."  We told them we wanted the AT&T
operator.  She told us to hold the receiver away from our ear because
we'd hear a tone, and then to wait twenty seconds for the operator.
We got a blast of 2600, then a quick beep before the line went dead.
And about half a minute later "C&P."  C&P is the local phone company,
and I made sure that I wasn't talking to an AT&T operator.  I said I
was having trouble dialing 411, and asked if they could connect me,
which they did.  And I asked for the number, got it, hung up and
placed my call.

    I suspect if I had tried again for the operator, asked for AT&T
again, and got C&P, the C&P operator would have completed my local
call for free.  But I wasn't pressing my luck.


scott

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

Date: Thu, 2 May 91 13:26:14 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling From 416 Area


With the permission of Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>, I am
forwarding the following remarks:

   ----- Forwarded message:

[From Carl Moore: 905 was recently announced for split of 416.]

Amusingly, when I dial 1+905+7D from here (416) I get routed to a
message from 619 saying that the dialing procedure for Mexico has
changed - use 011+52+, in English and Spanish.  Somehow you'd think a
switch in what will be the new 905 would be the first to be updated!

[Use of 0+ within area 416.]

 ...it is explicitly stated (in the front of the phone book where it
explains how to use a calling card) that although you *can* use a
calling card for a local call ($.75) you cannot dial it with 0+.  You
must dial 0 and wait for the operator.  If you try 0 + 416 + 7D and it
is a local call, you get the recording saying "the number dialed is
not a long distance call - please do not dial 1 or 0 before the
number".  If it is long distance it goes through to the ka-bong/operator
just fine.

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

Date: Fri, 3 May 91 12:42:10 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience


What is the percentage in the US these days of telephones with
touch-tone capability (on touch-tone-accepting lines) vs rotary
phones? Are there now more TT than rotary phones? (If so, any idea
when TT passed the 50% mark?) Is this statistic available for
residential vs. business lines?  (I would venture to guess that the
business percentage is far higher than the residential -- maybe
business is now 100% Touch-Tone [except for those few areas where TT
is not yet available]?)

What inspires this is a frustrating experience yesterday calling a
company (Rhino Records, at 800-432-0020) from my home, where I have
only rotary POTS. I got a voice-mail menu, which said to press 1 for
this and 2 for that, or to hold on if one had a rotary phone. I waited
through a couple iterations of that noise, and then got a ring signal.
However, after it rang six times, another recorded voice came on and
said "to return to the operator, press zero". No option was available
at that point for someone on a rotary phone! Eventually, another voice
said "Thank you" and hung up. I went through this nonsense six times!
On the seventh occurrence, I got a "busy" instead of a ring from the
sub-menu, or whatever you call it, and thereafter, I got a busy when
dialling the 800 number so I just gave up. (An added annoyance was
that they don't open up until 9:30 AM Pacific time, so I had to wait
until 11:30 Central to even begin this futile process.)

Today, at work, from a phone with TT capability, I called again and
managed to get to a real operator, after wading thru a couple levels
of voice mail menus, and eventually got connected to a real person to
whom I explained their problem with the phone-order system. I had had
a $75 order I had just about decided to forego, and I emphasized how
they were losing business from any and all callers with rotary phones.
(Personally, if it was my business and I received such a report from a
customer [or ex-customer], I'd rip the damn voice mail system out and
go back to having human beings answer directly... :-) But I wonder
just what percentage of potential customers are they cutting off with
this cruddy system of theirs? Maybe, if rotary usage is so low now,
they can afford to ignore that segment of the market.

[Interesting thought: I was calling to order vinyl LPs from their
close-out sale, because they're terminating those. I woder how well
rotary phone usage correlates with the use of LPs vs. CDs. Maybe
that's why they didn't get orders for LPs any more -- all us LP
enthusiasts still have rotary phones and could never get thru to order
any! :-)]


Regards,


Will     [e-mail]

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Differences in T1/E1 Standards
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Fri, 3 May 1991 18:51:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Robert Dinse) writes:

> used in this country. The normal T1-cxr uses 64kb/s (8 bits times 8
> Khz sample).

>> 20 phone calls take 1 Mb/s (actually, T1 line at 1 Mb/s handles 32

>     The standard T1 rate is 1.544 Mbits/sec and carries 24 not 32
> channels.

I think that the confusion lies in the difference between US (and Japan)
*T1* rates and the CEPT (European *E1* standards. Both use a channel rate
 of 64 Kb, but not the same frame, signaling, or channel structure. T1
uses 24 channels of 8 bits, whereas the CEPT systems have 32 channels
of 8 bits.  Only 30 of those are used for end-to-end transmission, the
remaining two channels are for signaling, framing and maintenence. The
E1 line rate is 2.048 Mb/s. T1 has an extra bit assigned for framing,
etc, and may steal an lsb from each channel for signaling every sixth
frame.


Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox    If my employer only knew ...  standard BS applies

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

Date: Sun, 5 May 91 18:16 GMT
From: Bob Frankston <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketing Database


It would be nice if there were protocols for querying line properties
such as "no telemarketing".  This seems much cleaner than maintaining
a separate database.  Keeping separate databases linked is a
nightmare.  For example, suppose you are blocking for a given service
and the next party to get your phone number doesn't want blocking,
what are the odds of the database being correctly maintained?

Of course, any such central database is fraught with its own dangers.
Do I want the telco's to start keeping a centralized database on me?
(As if they don't already).

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #332
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11865;
          5 May 91 19:04 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12038;
          5 May 91 17:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac15055;
          5 May 91 16:28 CDT
Date:     Sun, 5 May 91 16:20:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #333
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 May 91 16:20:34 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 333

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Data-PCS Petition to FCC (Apple Petition) [Bill Stevens]
    NYNEX Applies for "Phonesmart" Services, Including Caller ID [John Covert]
    MCI Suspends New 900 Applications [John Boteler]
    Directory of 800 Prefixes Wanted [Steve Shellans]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bill Stevens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Data-PCS Petition to FCC (Apple Petition)
Date: 3 May 91 16:22:08 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA


Dear Reader,

On January 28, 1991, Apple Computer filed a petition with the Federal
Communications Commission, requesting the creation of a new radio
band, which we call "Data-PCS".

May 10, 1991 is the FCC's deadline for comments from the public on
this important issue.  If created, Data-PCS will enable all computer
manufacturers to produce high performance wireless communications
products for the United States.

Please review the following information, and consider what benefits
YOU might gain from the creation of this new communications
capability.  Instructions are included for writing directly to the
FCC.  Alternately, you may simply "reply" to this posting, which will
return your electronic comments to Apple Computer.  We will forward
all such replies to the FCC.  The preferable approach, of course, is
to mail a personal letter to the Chairman of the FCC, as described
below.

Thank you,

William M. Stevens
manager, Wireless Communications Research
Apple Computer

P.S.  A "text" version of Apple's "Data-PCS" petition may be obtained
via anonymous FTP from:

     ftp.apple.com
     /pub/fcc/datapcs.txt

If you desire a copy of the petition but are unable to obtain it via
this method, please reply to this posting (at [e-mail].
com), and indicate that you are requesting a copy of the petition.


April 24, 1991

An Open Letter from David Nagel,
Vice President for Advanced Technologies, Apple Computer, Inc.

Apple recently asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
allow radio frequencies to be used for wireless data communications.
We call this new technology "Data-PCS," for Data Personal
Communications Service.  It will permit high-capacity computer
information to be communicated among people using personal computers,
throughout a radius of about 50 meters indoors.  Today there is no
provision in the law assuring this function -- and we need your help to
make Data-PCS possible.

Apple is asking that computers be able to communicate wirelessly the
way they do on wired networks (at high speeds and sharing the network
equitably).  We are asking that a small part of the airwaves be made
available to all computer manufacturers and users, without requiring
radio licenses or having to pay for using the airwaves.  Apple's
vision of Data-PCS particularly focuses on "spontaneous" computer
communications, whenever and wherever you want to access resources or
collaborate with others having similarly equipped PC's or other
compatible equipment.

The convergence of wireless communications and computers, particularly
portable computers, will dramatically change the nature of computing.
People in business, scientists, engineers -- those in all walks of
life -- will be liberated from the constraints of physical networks.
Creativity and personal productivity will be enhanced.  Students and
teachers will no longer be confined to a rigid classroom set-up.
Instead, computing, communications, and therefore learning, will take
place everywhere.

John Sculley, Apple's CEO, recently said: "The key strength of
twenty-first century organizations will be not their size or
structure, but their ability to simultaneously unleash and coordinate
the creative contributions of many individuals."  Data-PCS is one of
the tools that will enable individuals to realize this vision.

Data-PCS is being featured in numerous newspapers, magazines and
professional journals.  Recently IBM, NCR, Tandy, Grid and other
computer companies have told the FCC that they strongly endorse the
need for radio spectrum for Data-PCS.

But Data-PCS is now a vision, not yet a reality.  It will not happen
unless the FCC adopts new Federal regulations.  Radio spectrum is a
scarce and valuable commodity, sought for many functions.  Apple is
asking the FCC to give Data-PCS "equitable" consideration when viewing
needs for spectrum.  When the FCC passes new regulations, Apple and a
host of other companies can make Data-PCS real.

The most powerful voices in support of Data-PCS will be those of users
like yourself.  I ask you to write to the FCC, not only stating your
support but, to the extent you are willing, explaining how you might
find Data-PCS of value to you and your organization.  Suggestions on
how to direct your comments are attached.  The FCC's formal review
process on Data-PCS has a next major milestone May 10; I hope you'll
write by then.

Thank you for considering this issue.  The true value of Data-PCS will
only be realized when it is available to all of us.  I hope you share
our vision and will help make it come true.


           Very truly yours,


Supporting Data-PCS:

Please write a letter using the reference number the FCC assigned our
petition for Data-PCS: "RM-7618."  You should address and send your
letter as follows:

(On your institution's letterhead if possible.)

(Date)

Hon. Alfred C. Sikes, Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.  20554

Reference: Rulemaking  7618

Dear Mr. Chairman:

We (I) understand that Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") has asked the
FCC to allocate spectrum to establish a new radio service ("Data-PCS")
for local area high speed communications among personal computing
devices.  We are writing to urge you to grant Apple's request
(RM-7618).

(Please describe in the text your views on how Data-PCS could be
important to you.)

Respectfully submitted,

Your name and title or function


If you would like a copy of Apple's Petition to the FCC for Data-PCS,
or if you have questions, please call [phone] or email to:

    internet:   [e-mail]
                     applelink:  data.pcs

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

              A SUMMARY of Apple's Data-PCS Petition to the FCC
                                (FCC RM 7618)


    Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") proposes that the FCC initiate
a rulemaking to allocate 40 MHz in the 1850-1990 MHz band to a new
radio service to be used for high-speed, local area data
communications services ("Data- PCS") between and among people using
personal computers.  FCC action is urgently needed because the
computer industry is rapidly developing technologies to meet the
requirements of computer users, and to bring the power of computing to
people who, for a variety of reasons, have been beyond its reach.

    The development of computer technology over the past decade has been
characterized by three trends:

1) computers are increasingly being networked, using cabling and
common carrier facilities, to give users access to information from a
variety of sources;

2) the media of computing are changing from simple text and numbers to
new, information-rich data types: sound, speech, graphics and complex
imagery; and

3) technology improvements are allowing computers to be made smaller
and much more mobile than ever before.

    As personal computer technology now moves from the desk-top to
the briefcase, the networking and portability features will become
mutually inconsistent unless the networking capability becomes as
personal and portable as the computer itself.  With such a networking
capability, a person could communicate with his or her peers and could
access files, peripherals, and the gateways of wired and wireless data
networks, all within a "local area" of 50 meters.  The development of
Data-PCS, therefore, will facilitate spontaneous, collaborative
computing in the work-place and in educational settings, thereby
increasing the productivity and efficiency of people in these
environments.

    There are, however, presently no technologies and no radio
services that can be used to create the shared electronic space
necessary for collaborative computing, principally because no existing
technology or service can assure consistent, high-quality, high-
capacity data communications in a spectrum-efficient manner.

    Apple, therefore, is proposing the creation of a new radio
service to be devoted primarily and exclusively to local area, high
speed data communications to support collaborative computing and
spontaneous networking.  As conceived by Apple, a Data-PCS radio
service would:

* be accessible to users of personal computers without imposition of
licensing obligations, network connection fees, or air-time charges;

* be open to any computer manufacturer's products and any network
access and usage scheme that complies with the regulatory
requirements;

* be regulated in a manner that assures non-discriminatory access to
assigned frequencies by compatible devices for like purposes; and

* have flexibility built into the initial regulatory scheme to
encourage innovation in and the evolution of Data-PCS technologies and
services.

    In particular, Apple urges the Commission to allocate 40 MHz
between 1850 MHz and 1990 MHz for Data-PCS, preferably 1850-1890 MHz,
because these frequencies have optimum propagation characteristics for
local area, in-building use.  Such an allocation will allow several
networks with data rates of, for example, 10 Mbps (rates comparable to
EtherNet or other highspeed wired LAN technologies of today), to
coexist in the same location.

    The Commission should model the basic regulatory structure for
Data-PCSon Part 15 of the FCC Rules, relying on manufacturers and the
equipment authorization process rather than on individual licensing,
to assure compliance with regulatory requirements.  These regulatory
requirements would:

* confine Data-PCS transmissions to a maximum power limit of one watt
of output power;

* permit the use of antenna directionality, to take full advantage of
re-use of frequencies;

* require all users to transmit data in packetized form, with a
required minimum period of "listening" for traffic before transmitting
and a maximum permitted duration of continuous channel occupancy;

* require manufacturers to disclose the channel usage and access
schemes employed by all Data-PCS equipment, with the exception of
encryption schemes, and not authorize systems using schemes intended
to exclude fair access to the frequencies by others;

* require manufacturers to assign each transmitter a universal ID to
be transmitted in each transmission sequence; and

* along with all PCS equipment and similar devices, protect the health
and safety of users by including such devices under the general
guidelines of GEN Docket No. 79-144.

    Finally, Apple requests that the FCC expedite consideration of
this proposal and not defer action awaiting resolution of the many
complex questions associated with establishment of a regulatory
framework for voice PCS.  There is an immediate and critical need for
Data-PCS, which cannot be met using any other frequencies or radio
services.  Unlike voice PCS, Data-PCS is not simply a more efficient,
or a less expensive, means of providing an existing service.  The
Data-PCS capability does not exist at present.  It will require
substantial investments to create Data-PCS, let alone to develop it to
its full potential.  Those investments cannot be made until the FCC
allocates sufficient bandwidth and establishes the operating
conditions that will enable Data-PCS to flourish.

    The urgent need for Data-PCS is underscored by international
considerations facing the U.S. computer industry.  At present the U.S.
industry leads the world in personal computer technology, but it is
being strongly challenged by Japanese companies.  The U.S. industry,
if it is to remain competitive, must be in the forefront of developing
a wireless capability for personal computers.  It can do so if the FCC
creates an environment for Data-PCS now, in advance of WARC-92.
Initiative by the FCC will encourage the spread of Data-PCS with a de
facto U.S. standard and thus will substantially enhance the
competitive posture of U.S. computer manufacturers in the world
market.

Filed January 28, 1991 with the Federal Communications Commission.
Placed on Public Notice by the Commission February 8, 1991.  Initial
"Comments" were due April 10 and "Reply Comments" are due by May 10.
Any party may offer comments or reply comments.  Please call (408)
974-4674 for a copy of the complete Petition as filed.

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

Date: Fri, 3 May 91 16:09:22 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  02-May-1991 2056" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NYNEX Applies for "Phonesmart" Services, Including Caller ID


            LEGAL AD
            --------

D.P.U. 91-64

    New England Telephone and Telegraph Company ("NET" or "Company")
is seeking permission from the Department to offer a new service
called Phonesmart.  The proposed service includes four separate
service features: Caller ID; Repeat Dialing; Call Return; and Call
Trace.  NET proposes to offer these services to one-party residence
and business customers including Centrex but excluding PBX trunk,
foreign exchange or foreign central office customers.  The Company
proposes to offer the service initially only on the North and South
Shore of the Boston Metropolitan area.

    According to the Company, the Caller ID feature would display the
telephone number of the calling party on a display device purchased
separately by the customers.  The Company proposes to make available
to customers the capability to block the passage of their telephone
number on a call-by-call basis, free of charge.

    The Department will conduct a public hearing on the above matter
at its hearing room, 1210 Leverett Saltonstall Building, 100 Cambridge
Street, Boston, Massachusetts on Wednesday, May 29, 1991 at 2:00 p.m.

    A procedural conference for parties who have formally intervened
will be held on May 30, 1991 at 10:00 a.m. at the Department's
offices.

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

Subject: MCI Suspends New 900 Applications
Date: Sat, 4 May 91 11:19:00 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


MCI dropped the shoe yesterday by announcing that it was suspending
all new orders for 900 service due to "eight figure losses" in that
department.

How does any company let things get that bad before taking action?

Did their overabundance of sleazy programs lead to excessive caller
refusals to pay, and therefore to the losses? Or was it good old
fashioned mis-management?

(bill@toto exempt from the above questions.)


John Boteler   bote@csense                {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote
SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling

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

From: Steve Shellans <[e-mail]>
Subject: Directory of 800 Prefixes Wanted
Date: 3 May 91 20:31:48 GMT


On my answering machine, I often find people have called and have left
an 800 number for me to call back.  When I call back, I often find
they are in a different time zone, and I get a recorded message
saying, "Business hours are ....."

Is there some kind of directory or list of *prefixes* for 800 numbers
showing which state they are in?  That way I would know when would be
an appropriate time for me to call back.

(Yes, I realize there are potentially several hundred of these, but
such a listing would fit on a few pages.)

Thanks,


Steve Shellans


[Moderator's Note: In olden-times, when AT&T was the sole player, 800
prefixes did indeed match up to specific states or geographic areas.
They were also tied into 'calling bands', indicating if calls to the
800 number would be accepted nationwide, or only from certain states.
Now, statewide only or limited area 800 lines are rather scarce. Most
folks have nationwide coverage on their 800 lines, and the prefixes
denote *which carrier* handles the traffic except in AT&T's case where
their (numerous) prefixes still to some extent denote a geographic
area and/or type of call to be accepted. In the Telecom Archives we
have a directory of 800 prefixes and who belongs to what. But the
general rule now is an 800 number, regardless of prefix could be
anywhere in the USA.  For Telecom Archives, use anonymous ftp to pull
the desired files:  ftp lcs.mit.edu   cd telecom-archives.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #333
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20082;
          5 May 91 22:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13238;
          5 May 91 20:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23736;
          5 May 91 19:35 CDT
Date:     Sun, 5 May 91 19:15:48 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #334
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 May 91 19:15:44 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 334

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Hollings and the RBOCs [John Higdon]
    Any Calling Cards Without the 75c per Call Charge? [Joel Spolsky]
    Experimenting with AT&T's Call Manager Service [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    Can the Local Telco be the Default Carrier? [Carl Moore]
    How is the Cost of Features Calculated? [Jeff Sicherman]
    ANI Caller ID Information Wanted [Peter B. White]
    Question About Centrex [Christopher Lott]
    Information Wanted on "Call Home America" 800 Service [Dave Close]
    Re: A Mystery Refund From MCI [Alan R. Gross]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [John R. Levine]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 3 May 91 18:35 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Hollings and the RBOCs


If this is not reaching for justification, I do not know what is:

[quoted from today's AT&T's Newsbriefs]

BELL DEBATE -- ... In 1990, Congress [passed] the Americans with
Disabilities Act.  The law provides that telephone companies ensure
that people ... who use TDD devices have the same access to the
telephone network that others do [but] it ignored the needs of people
who do not use TDDs.  That's why legislation sponsored by Sen. Ernest
Hollings (D-S.C.) to allow the seven [RBOC]s ... to enter research and
manufacturing, is so important. ... Lifting the [MFJ] restrictions
would give the Bells ... incentives to invest in their networks and
would spur development of new products such as "prescriptive hearing
service," that would tune an individual's telephone line to
accommodate hearing loss. ... [Frank Bowe, college professor],
Viewpoints NY, p. 119, New York Newsday, 5/2.

[end quote]

Does anyone imagine that CPE vendors and manufacturers cannot come up
with equalization for a phone line and provide devices for the hard of
hearing? What a lame reason for supporting Hollings LEC giveaway.

Ernest Hollings' bill allows the RBOCs to manufacture telephone
equipment in direct competition to the current marketplace suppliers.
All of the concerns about cross subsidization aside, the time has come
for the RBOCs to face the reality that if it is competition they want,
it is competition they will get. There is no stretch of fairness that
dictates that LECs can compete in the equipment business while others
are barred from competing in the dial tone business.

The RBOCs have had a soft, cushy, cash cow long enough. But rather
than use the obscene profits from this guaranteed money-making
business to reduce costs to the public, RBOCs such as Pac*Bell want to
parlay this wealth into vast empires. Using creative accounting
techniques, it is little trouble to siphon off money from the
regulated side of the operation to fund vulturistic practices on the
non-regulated side (and convince brain dead PUCs that regulated rates
need to be increased in the process). NYNEX not so long ago showed us
how easy this is to do.

After carefully considering the various arguments pro and con from
many on this forum, as well as others, I have become convinced that
competition will in the short term and possibly in the long term
result in the massive screwing of the average and even not-so-average
telephone user. The beneficiaries of LEC competition will be those who
can bypass anyway. Those who cannot bypass (you and me) would be stuck
with subsidizing a futile attempt by the regulated LECs to hang on to
the major customers.

My alternative suggestion is to restructure the MFJ so as to forbid
any entity that owns a regulated LEC (or group of LECs) from engaging
in any other related business. It is hard to shed crocodile tears for
Pacific Telesis, who prints full page ads crying about how it is
prohibited from offering all sorts of space age services, when it is
operating a regulated monopoly that is quaranteed to make a specific
rate of return. No gambles, no risks, just recession-proof, easy
money.

If this isn't enough for the current operators of local telephone
networks, then maybe they should sell to yet to be created
corporations that would be happy to run such a focused enterprise. If
Pacific Telesis wants so badly to compete in the equipment and
information services markets, then perhaps it could sell Pacific Bell
to a group of investors whose purpose would be to run the best
regulated monopoly it could.

What is wrong with that, you say? The whole point of Pacific Telesis
becoming involved in the equipment and other markets would be to use
its advantage in owning the local network. Take away that advantage
and you would find that this burning desire to manufacture and provide
other services would suddenly dissipate.

No amount of accounting safeguards can prevent deleterious cross
subsidization. And Mr. Hollings' bill contains not even a pretense of
provisions to protect the consumer. If this bill becomes law we will
be on the road to a return to those thrilling days of yesteryear. But
instead of Ma Bell, we will have all of the Mothers Bell. What they
may lack in regulatory clout will be made up for with financial might.

It may be time to break up the breakup.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Joel Spolsky <[e-mail]>
Subject: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge?
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Date: Sat, 4 May 1991 20:31:44 GMT


I just got my AT&T Universal bill, and noticed that over 50% of the
cost of my long distance calls is due to the 75 cent per-call
surcharge which they tag onto all calling card calls. (I guess their
ads claiming you pay "only low AT&T rates" are a little bit
dishonest).

Are there calling cards without this extra fee?

PS: Thanks to all those who answered my question about answering machines
in Israel!


Joel Spolsky       [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 5 May 91 16:47 GMT
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Experimenting with AT&T's Call Manager Service


The Moderator wrote the following recently with regard to AT&T's
Call Manager service:

> ...apparently there is no need to sign up in advance to use the service.
> Just entering 0 + ten digits + 15xx sets it up.

Is this a new service that's starting up only in certain geographical
areas? The above dialing sequence produced the usual AT&T calling card
prompt, and the extra four digits appear to be discarded.  [I regret
that I didn't see the original post that was referenced by the
Moderator.]


Sander J. Rabinowitz | [e-mail] -or- | [phone]
Brentwood, Tennessee | [e-mail]   | Just moved  8-)
                     | The usual disclaimers apply.


[Moderator's Note: When I used it here (0 + NPA + 7D - pause for tone
- enter 15xx), the call was processed, and the billing came to my line
the following month with notations on the bill entitled 'account code
xx', where 'xx' was the two digits I had entered after the '15' when
making the call.  It appears nothing further is required to use this
service.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 2 May 91 12:03:26 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can the Local Telco be the Default Carrier?


As you have seen in this Digest and elsewhere, the local companies
have a waiver permitting them to serve as long distance carrier for
calls between Philadelphia and southern NJ NYC and northern NJ.

You do see default carriers listed on payphones, and sometimes I have
seen companies I haven't heard of before. (Yes, the complaints about
COCOTs include comments about getting a company you've never heard of
before, but on a NJ Bell payphone in Voorhees I saw a company I hadn't
heard of before: American Network Exchange in Orlando, Florida.)  But
I do not recall the local phone company ever appearing as a default
carrier on phones in areas where the above waiver applies (admittedly
I haven't looked that much); is it because you'd have to list a
different carrier for calls beyond the range of the waiver?

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

Date: Sun, 5 May 91 13:14:58 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: How is the Cost of Features Calculated?
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  Is it just my paranoid, conspiracy-seeking mind or do the RBOC's
always seem to introduce all these new, fancy services with a monthly
price tag of between $3 and $8. I was under the impression that these
are all tariffed and that revenue must reflect cost with a standard
profit allowance. It seems an incredible coincidence that they *all*
would turn out to lie (sic) in such a commonly narrow cost range
unless phone company overhead was a major factor in the cost of every
service. My suspicious mind would suspect they have found there is a
magic range of acceptibility of price beyond which customers more
critically examine the cost/benefits of services and the companies
seek to keep offerings within this safe range.

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

Date: Fri, 3 May 91 10:35:14 -0700
From: peg![e-mail]
Subject: ANI Caller ID Information Wanted


I am currently writing a paper on social aspects of Caller ID, or more
correctly Calling Number Display.

Can anyone tell me whether there was any public debate in the U.S when
the FCC authorized Automatic Number Identification for the long
distance carriers? If there wasn't any debate, how can we explain the
different response to Caller ID? Are there any good FCC sources for
information of this kind?

Comments, information, suggestions appreciated.


Peter B. White
Monash Information and Communications Technology Centre
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia
home   phone + 61 3 817 2483           fax + 61 3 817 5875
office phone + 61 3 565 5421           fax + 61 3 565 5412
APC Networks   -  peg:pbwhite  AARNet/ACSNet  -  [e-mail]
Internet       -  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 5 May 91 14:12:41 -0400
From: Christopher Lott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question About Centrex


While helping a friend move, I got a good look in the basement phone
room of a large (16 floors, some 15 apts/floor) apartment building.
What I didn't understand what that it was much more than a bunch of
punchdown blocks, and there was a prominent sign "to C&P installers:
this is a Centrex system" or something like this.  Now he didn't have
to dial anything special to reach an outside line, and as far as I
know, there was no special anything about his phone.  No single digit
to reach the doorman, and when the front desk wanted to reach him,
they had to dial (what looked like) a full seven digits.

So what gives?  The installation was quite large; is it possible that
they have a small number of trunk lines coming in to that spot?  A
mini-switch!?  Sure was a *lot* of wire in that room.  Several very
large (100-pair?)  cables coming in and a lot of punchdown blocks.
Even found his line on one ;-)


chris...


[Moderator's Note: It may be they had a front door to apartment
intercom phone system with the equipment in the central office and
dedicated pairs to each apartment. That system, frequently called
"Enterphone" is a type of centrex.   PAT]

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

From: Dave Close <shared![e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on "Call Home America" 800 Service
Date: Sun, 05 May 91 02:45:50 GMT
Organization: Shared Financial Systems, Dallas, TX


Has anyone any experience with "Call Home America", a personal 800
provider in Texas.  Rates $3.25/month plus usage.  Sounds too good.


           Dave Close         Shared Financial Systems          Dallas
            [e-mail]       vmail [phone]
            uunet!shared!davec       fax [phone]
    My comments are my opinions and may not be shared by Shared.

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

From: [e-mail] (Alan R. Gross (1-1-90))
Subject: Re: A Mystery Refund From MCI
Reply-To: locke@.PacBell.COM (Alan R. Gross (1-1-90))
Organization: TREE BBS [phone] Sacramento, CA
Date: Sun, 5 May 91 00:40:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(B.J.  01-May-1991 1616) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 324, Message 10 of 10

>> Something interesting happened to me today ... this month's phone bill
>> included a $10 credit from MCI! A quick check of my various phone
>> lines indicates that I'm still with my chosen long distance carrier
>> (which isn't MCI). I didn't call and ask about it (don't look a gift

> This must be part of some judgment against MCI for slamming.  In
> punishment for changing the long distance carrier for random telephone
> lines, someone is forcing them to give refunds to random telephone
> lines.

> [Moderator's Note: I don't really think this is the case. There may be
> a class-action suit against MCI for slamming, but I have not heard of
> it.

    I agree, even though it does look suspiciously like two pic
switch fees.  I haven't read anything on this either, but there are a
couple of things it could be. Most LD carriers have mass billing error
recovery programs in place that will automatically credit overcharges,
once they find that the bill system isn't billing as tariffed. In
these cases, you get the credit without an explanation, most of the
time. If the person who had the credit recieved collect calls through
MCI, or had MCI as a carrier in the past, this is a possibility. The
other thing it could be is a simple bill error where you got someone
else's credit -- possibly the LEC & MCI's bill software programs
aren't communicating well. It could also be an MCI promotion, that has
yet to be announced -- did you check the bill to make sure that the
overall amount of your bill was reduced? If not, it could be a "try
us" credit, which might sit there until used.


 Randall A. Gross    csusac.ecs.csus.edu!tree!locke
  @ the UNIX Tree BBS, Sacramento, CA  ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!tree!locke
 Sprintmail: A.R.Gross     DISCLAIMER: Ego loquito

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

Date: Sun, 5 May 91 09:24 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada


[e-mail] (Daniel R. Guilderson) writes in Vol. 11, Issue 326,
msg. 4:

> Forming a non-profit phone network is pure fantasy.
> ...  There's absolutely no precedent for it.

Recall that in the early years of the 20th century, the Bell companies
were more interested in serving the cities than the sparsely populated
rural areas.  So new rural telephone companies sprang up. Some were
owned by the local doctor or general merchant. Others were established
as cooperatives or membership corporations. (There are some conceptual
differences between cooperatives and non-profit groups, but in
practice they're pretty similar.)

Isn't UUNET set up as a non-profit organization? And aren't a lot of
the regional NSFnet networks similarly set up?

Now, I recognize that the rural telephone examples were monopolies,
albeit marginally profitable ones, and what we are discussing is a
competitive non-profit phone network, I don't think one could readily
be set up (apart from something like shared tenant services in a
co-operative apartment building or office complex), but there is
plenty of historical precedent for people getting together to meet
their own telecommunications needs when the established carriers
weren't interested in serving their needs.


Nigel Allen    [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 5 May 91 13:50:06 EDT (Sun)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> I have another idea.  Let's deregulate the telecommunications industry
> and merge it with the rest of the communications industry.  ...

> Of course the RBOCS and the long distance carriers would fight this
> idea tooth and nail.

Perhaps.  A plausible outcome of this scenario is that everyone except
the deepest pockets would end up bankrupt, and we'd be left with AT&T
and the RBOCs more monopolistic than now.  Or maybe General Motors or
IBM.


Regards,


John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #334
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26329;
          6 May 91 0:44 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23824;
          5 May 91 22:47 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31597;
          5 May 91 21:42 CDT
Date:     Sun, 5 May 91 20:55:49 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #335
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 May 91 22:55:48 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 335

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: New Files in Archives; New Debate Here [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted [Michael Schuster]
    Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Information Wanted on Chapel Hill Phone System [Stephen Tell]
    Re: AT&T Partner System: A Reasonable Choice? [John Higdon]
    Re: Need Ideas on a Telecom Project For Kids [Andrew Payne]
    AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [John Palmer]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Robert Woodhead]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 May 91 19:54:48 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: New Files in Archives; New Debate Here


Our correspondent Julian Macassey has forwarded those files he
promised relating to radio interference on phone lines. They have all
been forwarded to the telecom archives, and will be available for
pulling by interested readers beginning sometime Monday (when I've had
a chance to go to the archives, edit them and put them in the
directory.  Look for the files 'radio-phone.interference' with .1, .2
and .3 following.  These should prove useful to folks who have trouble
with radio interference in their phone lines.  My thanks to Julian for
sending them along.

In case you had forgotten, the telecom archives is located at MIT, and
can be accessed by anonymous ftp: ftp lcs.mit.edu  cd telecom-archives.

In the final two messages in this issue of the Digest, a new topic of
debate is presented for your consideration. In a recent issue of the
Digest, John Higdon discussed a sleaze-bag telemarketing operation
here in Chicago and asked for information. Several of us contributed
what we found out, including Randy Borow, who contributed some inside
information obtained in his position as an employee at AT&T.

Although the information presented by Borow was largely innocuous, and
for the most part obtainable by others -- although not very easily --
I've received a couple posts from readers who took offense at what
they believe is a violation of privacy of the *telemarketer* through
this release of information.  Please read these two final messages
today, then send your opinion. I'll print several, including a
rebuttal from Mr. Borow if any is forthcoming, then will probably ask
that the discussion continue in telecom-priv once the essential points
have been aired here.

I hope the new week ahead is a good one for you!


Patrick Townson

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

From: Michael Schuster <panix![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted
Date: Sun, 5 May 91 18:47:48 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(jeffery l wisniewski) writes:

> I have a Bravo Beeper through a company called USAMobile in Cleveland,
> Ohio.  My office gave me it and did not give me any instructions
> either.  Here is what I have found:

[findings deleted]

> I think I have a copy of the booklet in the office but I will not be
> in until Saturday.  I could fax it to you then if you like.

Thanks. Also thanks to the four people who faxed me the "idiot sheet"
for this beeper. It's a start.

You can buy the tech manuals for these from Motorola.

Call 708-576-7418 with the model number at hand, and they'll give you
the part number for the manual.

Then call 800-422-4210 to order. The manuals cost $5, unfortunately the
minimum order is $25. I was in the midst of setting up a "group" order
with some folks who had responded, but I lost contact with them.


Mike Schuster                                      |    CIS: 70346,1745
NY Public Access UNIX:  ...cmcl2!panix!schuster    |    MCI Mail, GENIE:
The Portal (R) System:  [e-mail]    |           MSCHUSTER

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

Date: Sun, 5 May 91 09:46 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1V3


As Mark Brader <[e-mail]> points out, area code 416 will serve
precisely the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, which includes the
cities of Toronto, York, Etobicoke, Scarborough and North York, and
the Borough of East York.  All these cities have been a single Bell
Canada exchange, Toronto, for a good many years, although I prize my
1953 Toronto-area phone book which lists manual telephone numbers for
Agincourt (then a rural community in northern Scarborough, now just
icky suburban sprawl).

Metropolitan Toronto is responsible for some municipal services, such
as transit, police and ambulance services, while the area municipalities
(Toronto city, North York, etc.) handle garbage collection, fire-fighting,
etc.

Anyway, the delightful coincidence about the new area code boundary
coinciding with a political boundary brings with it a further
coincidence: Since Canadian postal codes begin with a letter assigned
by geography (A = Newfoundland and Labrador, B = Nova Scotia... Y =
Yukon), and since Metropolitan Toronto postal codes all begin with M
(I'm M6G 1V3) while the areas adjacent to Metro Toronto have codes
beginning with L, the postal code boundary coincides with the new area
code boundary.  If your postal code begins M, you remain in 416; if
you are now in 416 and your postal code begins with L, you switch to
905.

I mention this because some U.S. readers observed that new area code
boundaries in Maryland would not coincide with zip code boundaries.


Nigel Allen   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: This is about the same thing that happened here in
Chicago. 312 is exclusive to postal code 606xx, while 708 is found in
the 600, 601, 604, and 605xx areas.  PAT]

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

From: Stephen Tell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Chapel Hill Phone System
Date: 5 May 91 21:32:44 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


In article <[e-mail]> Dale Neiburg requested
information on the Chapel Hill phone system.

I just arrived in Chapel Hill recently (OK, two years ago) and don't know
very much of the history, but I can get the discussion started.

> I have no wisdom to offer on that, but would be interested in knowing
> how the Chapel Hill phone system works generally.  Reason being: when
> I attended UNC-CH (graduated '67), the town phone system was operated
> by the University, as were the town laundry, the hotel, the water
> works, and lots of other things.  Back in those days, it had the
> reputation of being abysmal.

> How Bad Was It?  It was so bad that being taken over by GTE was a big
> improvement.

Actually, GTE didn't take over, Southern Bell did.  Someone once told
me that there were discussions with both GTE and Southern Bell at the
time though.  Southern Bell took over the whole system, and now UNC
has a huge Centrex system, with two prefixes, 962 and 966.  They have
five-digit dialing between them.  Other Chapel Hill and Carrboro (the
little town right next door) prefixes are 929, 932, 933, 942, 967, and
968.  Having the other local prefixes start with "9" is convenient; if
you forget you're behind a centrex, the second dial tone after the "9"
reminds you that somthing special is going on.

I don't know much about the Centrex; here in Computer Science we're
behind a nice digital PBX.

> I was enrolled there for only four years, and there was a five-year
> waiting list to get a phone....

Back in September, I got a second line in my appartment in less than a
week, and most of the waiting was for a free day in my schedule to
stay home and wait for them.  He had to come back a second day after I
had arranged to get access to the attic through another appartment; it
seems there is a splice box up there in addition to the typical green
metal box on the side of the building with the protectors and a
punchdown block.  He characterized the whole installation as more of
that "old University mess."

The installer said that they are still trying to get the outside plant
cleaned up to their current standards, even though its been years
since the university ran things.  He was complaining that his boss
wanted him to clean things up in every cross-connect box he opened,
instead of just doing the minimum necessary for the job at hand, but
not allowing the extra time this would take on every service call.


Steve Tell       [e-mail]    H: [phone]   #5L Estes Park apts
CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill.   W: [phone]   Carrboro NC 27510

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

Date: Sun, 5 May 91 15:37 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: AT&T Partner System: A Reasonable Choice?


[e-mail] writes:

> My question is whether I'm likely to do much better with other systems
> such as Panasonic, enough to make it worthwhile to hunt for someone
> willing to sell them to me.

While the price of the Partner system is certainly competitive (almost
as inexpensive as the Panasonic), it sounds as though one of your
major criteria would be better satisfied by the Panasonic. The
Panasonic allows full use of the features from any standard single
line phone.  This means access to all trunks, extensions, paging and
special stations such as doorphones. They can also forward,
participate in pickup groups, system speed dial, SMDR, etc., etc.

Some people from AT&T were going to tell me how wonderful the Partner
was and how fantastic the single line support was, but I never heard
back from them. No wonder; the single line support is hurting compared
to the Panasonic KSUs.

Panasonic equipment (now manufactured in Great Britain) is widely
available. Any major telephone supplier can sell it to you. Examples:

NTD            800 426-1024

Procom            800 PRO-COM1

The equipment can also be obtained from a Graybar Electric near you,
but be prepared to dicker on the price; Graybar has not yet learned
that its prices are way out of line.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Payne)
Subject: Re: Need Ideas on a Telecom Project For Kids
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sun, 5 May 1991 12:37:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel A
Margolis) writes:

> We have a program where we bring a few eighth-graders into our labs
> during the summer.  Last year, I was in charge of finding a project

> What kind of project can I give the students that will involve
> telecom?

    Try building a network.  Have the students bring an extra
phone from home, or pick up a bunch of cheapies at K-mart.  Add 48V
and off you go ...

    Next, build a "switchboard" with a bunch of jacks so you can
have operators manually route calls.  Then, build another switchboard
and set up "long distance" links between them.  Set up a connection to
one of your lab's extensions so they can make "international" calls
home.  Have the students run the wire, set up the extensions, and
operate the switchboards.

    I doubt you'll have time to build all of this stuff in a week,
but a little pre-fabrication combined with on-site assembly by the
students and you should have something appropriate for the time you
have.


Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI        UUCP:  ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne
                          INTERNET:  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Palmer)
Subject: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI
Date: Sun, 5 May 91 11:49:13 GMT


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

> I'm asking Patrick to indulge me here as I tell you both what I found
> out regarding your telemarketing calls from 312-292-9000. I decided to
> dig deeper than Pat did (or deeper than he's able to, for that
> matter).  Accessing the telemarketer's account, I learned much stuff.
> What I found out was quite interesting, so here goes ...

> First, the name of the "business" is "Combined Credit Service," as Pat
> had mentioned earlier. According to my records, they have only a few
> lines (they appear to have a hunt feature which doesn't reveal all its
> respective numbers, of course. They make all their outgoing calls off
> line numbers 292-9027 and 9028. Line number 9015 is used to accept
> collect calls (I'd bet from the people they call!) from all over the
> country. Lines 9000 through 9014 appear to be the DID lines receiving
> individuals' calls like yours, John. BTW, the several times I called
> their numbers, each attempt was NOT busy and was answered: "Awards
> Center, may I have your area code and phone number?"

(more details omitted)

> Randy Borow    AT&T Communications    Rolling Meadows, IL.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> DISCLAIMER: The above represents the opinions of me only and not Ma Bell.
> She's busy enough on her own to worry about us little guys.

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS!! Do all of you realize what Mr. Borow just
did!!!

He used his privilege as an AT&T employee to access PRIVATE telephone
records about a subscriber of AT&T and has now broadcast them to the
entire world. And we all though that our privacy was in jeapordy by
because of the goverment !!!

Mr. Borow, I am going to make a copy of your article and send it to
AT&T security. You sir, have violated a trust. The trust the was given
to you when you were given access to those records.

Those records are none of the public's business. You most surely have
violated the terms of your employment and perhaps several laws.

I have no sympathy for the telemarketing firm in question. Its just
another scam, but if this individual will release private phone
records in such a manner, then all of our privacy is in danger.


John Palmer

 CAT-TALK Conferencing System   | E-MAIL:
 [phone] (USR HST)      | [e-mail]
 [phone] (TELEBIT PEP)
 ********EIGHT NODES***********

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!
Date: 5 May 91 14:01:52 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] writes:

> I'm asking Patrick to indulge me here as I tell you both what I found
> out regarding your telemarketing calls from 312-292-9000. I decided to
> dig deeper than Pat did (or deeper than he's able to, for that
> matter).  Accessing the telemarketer's account, I learned much stuff.
> What I found out was quite interesting, so here goes ...

Err, is anyone else a little shocked that our good friend Randy
accessed someone's long distance phone records and aired them out in
the public view?  The fact that the company that made the calls is
most likely sleazy is immeterial, I would think.  The record of their
phone calls is private, and IMHO Randy had no legitimate reason to go
snooping through them, and certainly should not have published this
information.

Doesn't AT&T have rules about disclosing call information to third
parties -- and if they don't, shouldn't they?


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well thus far, its just been you two guys who have
mentioned this.  Regarding Mr. Palmer's suggestion that he will send a
copy of the original message to AT&T Security, my suggestion would be
to save yourself the phone call (and the fax paper on the other end).
There are several security people from various telcos and LD companies
reading the Digest; I'm sure the original message has made the rounds
by now. We'll see what others think in Monday's issues of the Digest.
I'll try to print a representative sample, including a rebuttal from
Randy Borow if he chooses to send one. Depending on the volume of
stuff received, the thread will be forwarded to telecom-priv after a
day or two if necessary.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #335
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06117;
          6 May 91 4:28 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01814;
          6 May 91 2:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac05544;
          6 May 91 1:49 CDT
Date:     Mon, 6 May 91 1:24:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #336
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 6 May 91 01:24:19 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 336

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MCI Suspends New 900 Applications [John Higdon]
    Re: A Choice of Sending Fax or Leaving Voice Recording [John R. Levine]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Per Line Blocking? [Bruce Klopfenstein]
    Re: Driving a Beeper From UNIX 'tip/cu' [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area [Tony Harminc]
    Re: ANI Caller ID Information Wanted [Tony Harminc]
    Re: Directory of 800 Prefixes Wanted [Tony Harminc]
    Single-Mode Polarization Preserving Optical Fibers [N. Pakdaman]
    Mysterious Answering Machine Event [Jonathan Mark]
    The Suspense Continues ... [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 May 91 17:22 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: MCI Suspends New 900 Applications


John Boteler <csense![e-mail]> writes:

> MCI dropped the shoe yesterday by announcing that it was suspending
> all new orders for 900 service due to "eight figure losses" in that
> department.

This is the opposite of the way Telesphere (who recently called it
quits completely, advising its long distance customers to select
another provider) handled its 900 service. First, it required
information providers to post an "uncollectables" bond that was handy
for use as capital for Telesphere's general use. Then when it needed
more money, it simply withheld payment to the providers, claiming that
it suffered heavy collection difficulties on that account.

When the providers (Telesphere's customers) got together, they
discovered everyone seemed to have "collection difficulties" at the
same time or particularly when call counts were high. Many providers,
expecting a big monthly check because of high volume, were given the
bad news by Telesphere that not only would they not be getting any
money for the month, but that an additional deposit would be required.

Since Telesphere provided no ANI nor any accounting detail whatsoever,
the providers had to take Telesphere's word for it. Eventually,
information providers wised up and there are now many lawsuits against
the long distance company. Some providers have even been paid off to
get them to drop an action or to refrain from filing one.

Sprint and AT&T provide ANI data to the provider so that if there is
collection difficulty, the provider can take matters into his own
hands. Also, he can keep track of who calls and how much and make sure
that no individual caller runs up a major bill that would be unpaid
due to claimed hardship. For this reason, neither Sprint nor AT&T will
likely have the problems that MCI or Telesphere claim.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Subject: Re: A Choice of Sending Fax or Leaving Voice Recording
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 5 May 91 13:52:28 EDT (Sun)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> I called a number where I was then given the option of faxing (hit * to
> do that) or of leaving a voice recorded message.  I don't think I had
> heard of that before.

I've sent faxes to such an answering machine.  It actually works quite
well, since you don't really have to push *, it recognizes fax pilot
tone which makes it usable with sending faxes not dialed by humans.
The main drawback is that if you actually want to talk to the human
being you have to wait for the beep and say "Hey, Mike, pick up the
phone" until he hears you and realizes that it's not a fax.


Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 01:26:16 GMT


[e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein) writes:

> So we end up with less-concentrated offices.  (And with offices in the
> suburbs, housing can be farther from the city, causing creeping
> suburbanization.  Soon there are no farms left for a hundred miles.
> Been to NJ lately?)

That's a good point ... for places that have a reason for existing
other than a concentration of workers. For places like Scenic Houston,
whose only advantage is low property values (thanks to it being built
in a swamp on the edge of some really nice country I'd much rather
live in), this would be a nice change.

A bigger problem is that this can only work for service jobs. The
number of jobs that *create* wealth that can also be telecommuted is
relatively small (I'm in one ... actually the service part of my job
is the only part I *can't* telecommute!). The most important jobs
(manufacturing) can't telecommute at all without major expense.


[e-mail]

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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking?
Date: 6 May 91 02:49:02 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


 From article <[e-mail]>, by peterc@taronga.
hackercorp.com (Peter Creath):

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

>> I also want them to stop LYING and calling it "caller id" when it is
>> CALLING STATION id.

> According to the most recent issue of {Popular Science} (in the What's
> New - Electronics section), they said a new box for Caller ID is now
> available, one which displays the callers NAME as well as phone number.

My understanding is that the "enhanced" Caller ID services would
display the directory name of the number from which the call
originated.  Hence, if I call from a friend's house, his/her name will
be displayed, not mine.  Therefore, once again, it is not Caller ID at
all.


Bruce C. Klopfenstein          |  [e-mail]
Radio-TV-Film Department       |  [e-mail]
318 West Hall                  |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green State University |  [phone]; 372-8690
Bowling Green, OH  43403       |  fax [phone]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Driving a Beeper From UNIX 'tip/cu'
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 01:43:38 GMT


ddtisvr![e-mail] (Greg Maples) writes:

> 2) The tip/cu program capable of sending those codes. (This is for
>    a sun 4/370)

Don't use tip/cu. You don't need any interactive response, so just
write a program in C, Perl, TCL, shell, lisp, basic, or IBM JCL that
does this:

    Opens /dev/whatever_your_version_of_unix_calls_the_line
    Sends "+++"
    delay 1 second
    Sends "ATH\r"
    delay 1 second
    Sends "AAAAAA"
    delay 1 second
    Sends "ATDT<insert-pbx-junk-here><insert-beeper-number-here>,,,<insert magic codes here>"
    Closes /dev/whatever

This will get the modem's attention no matter what mode it's in, and send
the stuff. Try this:

                        ---------------
#!/bin/sh
Usage='beeper <number> <message-id>'
Tty='/dev/modem'
Pbx='9w'
Commas=',,,'  # Adjust delay for your beeper arrangement.
#
case $# in
  2) ;;
  *) echo Usage: $Usage;;
esac

Beeper=$1

# These are the numeric magic codes we use.
case $2 in
  information) Message='4110000';;
  warning) Message='6110000';;
  fatal) Message='9110000';;
esac

(
stty -echo -nl
echo -n '+++'; sleep 1 # You did say you were using Suns
echo 'ATH'; sleep 1
echo -n 'AAAAAA'; sleep 1
echo "ATDT$Pbx$Beeper$Commas$Message"
) > $Tty


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 05 May 91 22:55:55 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area


Jamie Mason <[e-mail]> wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] quotes:

>> The MONTREAL AREA is one of the first to be offered Call
>> Management Service (CMS) from

>    Toronto has had it since April 22.  I think Ottawa has had it
> for a while now.  Why don't they just say Montreal is the Nth area to
> be offered CMS, subsituting the correct, but impressively low, N?

CMS was introduced in Montreal and Toronto on the same date.
Ottawa/Hull and Quebec were the first (1990).  Bell has published a
rough schedule for the major urban centres in its operating area.
There will be plenty of local publicity when it arrives - why get
excited about the exact date ?

>    Does anyone have a list of cites which have a full scale
> Caller-ID system in place, or to be in place REAL soon?

The above mentioned are it for now in Bell Canada's area.  There are
quite a few in the US now.  I'd be interested to hear about Caller*ID
outside the (technologically nearly-identical) US/Canada systems.  I
have seen references to it in the UK - can a reader there fill us in ?

>> The service is gradually being extended to include long distance calls.

>    Since at least two other Canadain cities have CMS, why does
> Bell Canada not extend it to long distance NOW?

Because Signaling System # 7 (CCS7) is not available in the entire
long distance network yet.  Also, it is not clear whether Bell will
have to re-apply to the CRTC for permission to offer Call Display for
long distance calls.  I'm sure they think they don't, but someone (me?
:-)) will almost certainly try to force them to.

>    I am surprised that this message had to wait until someone at
> NWU read the Gazette.  Don't we have any Telcom readers in Montreal?

Perhaps the rest of us who read about it thought it was too long,
boring, and familiar to send to the Digest :-)


Tony Harminc

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

Date: Sun, 05 May 91 23:58:09 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ANI Caller ID Information Wanted


peg![e-mail] wrote:

> I am currently writing a paper on social aspects of Caller ID, or more
> correctly Calling Number Display.

> Can anyone tell me whether there was any public debate in the U.S when
> the FCC authorized Automatic Number Identification for the long
> distance carriers? If there wasn't any debate, how can we explain the
> different response to Caller ID? Are there any good FCC sources for
> information of this kind?

Caller*ID is something that most people can understand to at least
some extent.  Even the hypothetical grandmother techno-peasant can
probably be shown a Call Display box and understand what it does.

ANI information passed by one large company to another is virtually
impossible to explain to the grandmother, and distinguishing the
possible social evils of ANI vs anything else that big companies may
be perceived to do to people is even more difficult.

I think it's as simple as that.  Will your paper be generally
available?  I would be very interested in seeing a copy.


Tony Harminc

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

Date: Mon, 06 May 91 00:12:31 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Directory of 800 Prefixes Wanted


Steve Shellans <[e-mail]> asked for a directory of 800
Prefixes.

The Moderator's reply included the statement:

> .... But the general rule now is an 800 number, regardless of
> prefix could be anywhere in the USA.

In fact an 800 number could be almost anywhere at all - not just in
the USA.  Several countries within world numbering zone 1 (Canada,
USA, Bermuda, and Carribean islands) use the 800 pseudo area code for
toll-free calls.  In many cases these numbers are reachable cross-
border (if the subscriber is paying for cross border coverage).

But even an "ordinary looking" 800 number could ring in a European
country or Hong Kong, or any one of many places.  Similarly an
"ordinary looking" 0800 number in the UK could ring in Canada or the
USA.

I get quite fed up with people who call me from the USA and leave an
800 number that can't be reached.  They seem to assume that if they
have paid for "all states" service, they have covered the world.  I
don't even have the choice of paying for the call -- there is just no
way to reach such a number.


Tony Harminc

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

From: Mehran Moshfeghi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Single-Mode Polarization Preserving Optical Fibers
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff Manor, NY.
Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 01:05:52 GMT


I am posting this for a friend. Please respond to:

[e-mail].

Thanks.

Hi,

I am looking for dispersion shifted (from 1.3uM) fiber that is single
mode and polarization preserving. Any length beyond 100m would be
fine, however optimum length is approximately 700m.  Corning has
single-mode dispersion shifted fibers, but it is not polarization
preserving. Do you have any leads or sources for this type of fibers.

Thanks,


N. Pakdaman
Please respond to : [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (bitmap )
Subject: Mysterious Answering Machine Event
Date: 6 May 91 03:35:19 GMT
Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix [phone]


My brother-in-law recently experienced an event which defies
explanation.  Maybe someone here can guess what's going on?

* Two weeks ago, a telephone company switching problem had his
  incoming calls going to another number (which differed only
  in one digit), and that number's calls going to his number.
  The problem was corrected after a caller complained to the
  telco (US West).

* One week ago, he discovered that the outgoing message on his
  answering machine had mysteriously been changed.  The new message
  was a standard greeting in an unfamiliar voice, which stated a
  phone number which was the number his line had been wrongly
  connected to.

He called the other number and talked to a woman (whose voice might
have been the same on the tape) who said she didn't know anything
about it, and furthermore that she didn't have an answering machine.

The manual for his answering machine tells how to read incoming
messages remotely (using a one-digit password), but does not say how
to set the greeting remotely.  It is unlikely that anyone broke into
his house to do it, because the place is guarded by a security system
and three dogs.  The phone company had no explanation.  My brother-
in-law did have a few house guests (relatives with a local small-town
cop) around that time, but the voice on the tape didn't match the
voice of anyone who was there.

Can anyone guess what might have happened?  Might this be some kind of
weird scam?  We'd be interested in any guesses you can make.

Thanks,


Jonathan Mark    uunet!polari!bitmap

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

Date: Mon, 6 May 91 1:12:06 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Suspense Continues ...


Someone in a security department somewhere deep within the bowels of
the Mother Company send me a private note Sunday night saying that
Randy Borow's message had been duly printed out and provided to
Central Region security in Oak Brook, IL. They have no need for
duplicate copies from other 'thoughtful readers' who were ...
'wondering if they had seen it yet ...' . So save your phone calls and
printer/fax paper for now.

We should know more within a day or two. I'll print some of your
responses here most likely Monday night.  Naturally, further comments
from Randy or an authorized spokesperson from AT&T will be immediatly
rushed into circulation.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #336
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25291;
          7 May 91 0:07 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08839;
          6 May 91 22:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10823;
          6 May 91 21:12 CDT
Date:     Mon, 6 May 91 21:02:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #337
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 6 May 91 21:02:21 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 337

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Disclosure of Customer Information (AT&T) [Lauren Weinstein]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Gregg Townsend]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Syd Weinstein]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Doug Faunt]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [John Stanley]
    50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Brad Hicks]
    Digest Reader Annoys Authorities in El Lay [Ron Schnell]
    Why the Bong? [Bernard Fran Collins]
    PRO-2010 Scanner Mods Needed [Jean-Marc Odinot]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 May 91 12:39:09 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Disclosure of Customer Information (AT&T)


Like others reading the TELECOM Digest, I was amazed to see the recent
message where an AT&T Communications employee apparently used his
access to customer data to conduct a "private" investigation of a
"contest/telemarketing" operation, then published the "results" via
TELECOM.

Immediately after seeing his original message, I sent the author
private email asking for an explanation.  Of particular interest to me
was whether he was acting in violation of AT&T confidentiality rules,
or whether the rules would have permitted such actions.

I received a reply back from him today.  In essence, he says that he
made a mistake in making the information public, and that AT&T rules
do *not* permit such disclosures from customer data.  He also says
that some of what he said in that message was obtained directly from a
conversation with the telemarketer.

In any case, it is obvious from his original message that he did
access the customer records of the firm in question, and did obtain
information regarding long distance calling patterns and telephone
number usage information from those records.  However obnoxious some
may feel the firm to be, their telecom records are still deserving of
the same security and confidentiality we all (should!) expect, and
should not be subject to "private" investigations and disclosures
outside of official channels.

This is unfortunately symptomatic of the growing range of situations
where the data collected on individuals and organizations in the
course of their normal business is available to too many persons
without authorization or "need to know".  The amount of information
that can be obtained with essentially no security controls, or often
at the best semi-useless, pseudo-controls such as social security
number, is vast and growing.

In the telecommunications arena, the problem has grown greatly with
the breakup of the Bell System -- it seems like customer telephone
data is floating around almost freely between the local telcos and the
private long distance carriers these days.  But the same sorts of
problems exist in many other areas of our lives, and only seem to be
getting worse, not better.

I believe that the time has come for another look at the Privacy Act
in terms of how it does, or does not, protect consumer (both
individual and business) information and who (both inside and outside
of the firms collecting the data) has access to that information.  I
believe that meaningful, uniform minimum standards must be established
for automated systems that allow consumers to access various account
balances or similar data by telephone.  The excuses of the firms
providing these systems that it would be "too difficult for consumers"
to remember a passcode or even know their account number (i.e. the
ongoing Sprint account information case) must be treated as the
unacceptable responses that they are.

Consumers need protection both from the employees of the firms who
maintain the data (whether or not such employees act with malicious
intent is not the issue) and from outside person who can gain access
to such data through the often non-existent security of these systems.

Many of the companies involved state that they are providing all of
the security required by law.  OK then -- if they don't feel a need to
go beyond the current law to a meaningful level of protection, the
time has come to improve the laws to take into account the realities
of the information age.  And there isn't a moment to lose.


  --Lauren--

[Moderator's Note: Lauren is a long-time reader of the TELECOM Digest,
whose participation goes back to the first issues in 1981. Due to the
press of other business, he can't submit articles as often as he did
in the past; so when I contacted him Sunday night asking for a piece
today, I was very pleased when he agreed to write. Lauren is also the
author of "The Day the Bell System Died", a song in the Telecom
Archives which I reprint here from time to time.  Thanks, Lauren!  PAT]

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

From: Gregg Townsend <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!
Date: 6 May 91 21:49:29 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson


Robert J Woodhead writes:

> Err, is anyone else a little shocked that our good friend Randy
> accessed someone's long distance phone records and aired them out in
> the public view?....

Pat wrote:

> Well, thus far, its just been you two guys who have mentioned this ...

Well, if you're keeping score, put me down on the side of those who
think it was improper.  It was a disturbing breach of trust.


Gregg Townsend / Computer Science Dept / Univ of Arizona / Tucson, AZ 85721
[phone]     [e-mail]     110 57 16 W / 32 13 45 N / +758m


[Moderator's Note: Because there were no Digests issued Friday morning
due to my illness, there was a backlog of stuff over the weekend. Many
readers are not in their offices over the weekend, and did not see the
original item or the early responses until today. I'm not keeping
score, nor was I saying the first two were isolated in their
complaints. They were merely up to date in their reading.   PAT]

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!
Date: Sun, 5 May 91 22:21:57 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I didn't reply right away, Pat, because I was also in shock... only
1/2 :-)

I worked at one time for United Computer Systems, Inc., a division of
United Telecom (Long pre-Sprint Days)....

We all had to read and sign the operators non disclosure stuff, and it
definately handled cases like his.  It was immediate grounds for
dismissal.  It was spelled out in clear terms.  Accessing records
without cause, disclosure of records of calling patterns to any third
parties, or disclosure of phone calls was not only against rules, it
was illegal and we could be procusuted, and a reference to the
appropriate statue for my state was stapled to the booklet.

Whether he gets ignored, a repriamand or canned depends on AT&T, after
all he is not in LD department is he?  But that anyone can access the
records is a bit much.  Perhaps AT&T does need to do some re-thinking
re security.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP      Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.             Voice: [phone]
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd           FAX:   [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 5 May 91 21:37:10 -0700
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!


qI guess I didn't realize exactly what he'd done, but I must agree that
it was a breach of trust to have done so.

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

Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!
From: John Stanley <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 06 May 91 13:41:15 EDT
Organization: Mad Scientist


kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
writes:

> [e-mail] writes:

> > I'm asking Patrick to indulge me here as I tell you both what I found
> > out regarding your telemarketing calls from 312-292-9000. I decided to
> > dig deeper than Pat did (or deeper than he's able to, for that
> > matter).  Accessing the telemarketer's account, I learned much stuff.
> > What I found out was quite interesting, so here goes ...

> Err, is anyone else a little shocked that our good friend Randy
> accessed someone's long distance phone records and aired them out in
> the public view?

   Yes. I have been considering the effort it would take to review the
Telecom Digest archives to locate the address of the AT&T Chairman of
the Board or President or whomever it is.

   If I were the business in question, I would be talking to my lawyer
right now. I KNOW that it would be a dark day on the sun before AT&T
got any more of my (apparently high volume) traffic.

   While the passing of this information between LD carriers for use
in marketing LD services might be arguably ethical, using one's
position within AT&T to broadcast this stuff to the general public
certainly is NOT.

   The fact that the company whose records were made public is a
telemarketing scam is no defense. The information provided by Mr.
Borow did not add any proof or disproof of the nature of their
business, and as such, was completely immaterial to the discussion.

   If an AT&T employee feels free to publish long distance records for
this company, what would make us think that he wouldn't do it for
anyone else he took a dislike to? And if Mr. Borow does it, how many
others?  Gentlemen, Big Brother is watching, and it is NOT the
government!


[Moderator's Note: Thus far, no word (officially; I've received a
confidential mailing) from AT&T or Randy on the state of affairs in
Oak Brook today, but I'm told the situation is grim. Due to the
backlog of Digests over the weekend, some people are just now getting
around to reading the weekend issues; so we will see what tomorrow's
mail brings on this subject. I hope Randy will at least reply. I can
understand his possible embarassment, but hope he stays in touch with
us. And a reply from AT&T would be appropriate also.    PAT]

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

Date: 06 May 91 16:07:12 EDT
From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
i]

Is it my imagination, or is wire fraud what the Secret Service charges
you with if they don't like you but can't think of anything else?
This item comes out of the 04/01/91 issue of {Electronic Mail and
Micro Systems} (EMMS), vol. 15, no. 7, pages 23 to 24, Eric Arnum
(ed.):

   "Lastly, a 23-year-old 'entrepreneur' in Manhattan got himself
   a 540 number -- one of the local Dial-It audiotex lines.  He
   used one of those Demon Dialers that calls a list of telephone
   numbers in sequence, and programmed it to call local exchanges
   popular with pagers.  He then left an alphanumeric message to
   call his 540 number.

   "The system allegedly called 50,000 pagers and got 2,000
   'pagees' to call back.  And since his audiotex program was $55
   a call, he pocketed over $70,000 in profit.  Or so he thought.
   One of the victims [note word choice -- JBH] had a friend in
   the U.S. Secret Service.  The entrepreneur is now facing 50,000
   counts of wire fraud."

Note that according to Eric Arnum, in this case an "entrepreneur" has
"victims".  Entrepreneurs don't have victims, they have customers or
clients.  Only criminals have victims.

The only other place I've seen this particular usage was from a
Communist Party member complaining about the black market in Moscow.
He meant the same thing, too: people paying fair market price for a
good or a service they received.

I see no lies and no coercion.  The people who were charged got what
they paid for, a $55 audiotex message.  Is there anybody in Manhattan
who can afford a pager who doesn't know that 540 numbers are toll
calls?  If there are two thousand yuppie scum who are stupid enough to
return a page to a toll number, and they do this for no reason other
than that they were asked to, how can it possibly be illegal or even
unethical?

(I think Eric Arnum can be reached at either [e-mail] or
[e-mail]; I know that I can be reached preferably at
[e-mail] or at [e-mail].)

cc:       Eric Arnum
          Electronic Mail and Micro Systems
          MCI Mail: 273-5375

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

Date: Mon, 6 May 91 10:47:27 -0700
From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Digest Reader Annoys Authorities in El Lay


[Moderator's Note: Another of our kind in the spotlight.  PAT]

Reprinted from {Los Angeles Times} Sunday, May 5, 1991 Page J1

Wrong Numbers - Julio Moran - L.A. Times Staff Writer

     Ever get a phone bill so large that you're [sic] sure it could
not be right because you couldn't possibly have talked that long to
that many people, only to discover that the bill is correct and you
were wrong?

     Well, GTE California customers, take heart.  This month, you may
be right.

     The phone company serving three million customers statewide --
including most of the Westside, South Bay, and Orange County -- said a
computer glitch caused the overbilling of as many as 1.7 million
customers statewide, nearly all in Southern California.

     The overbilling involves so-called ZUM calls, usually eight to 12
miles away from where the call is made, according to Larry Cox, a GTE
spokesman.  A glitch in the computer software billed those calls as
more expensive toll calls during a four- to six-week period in March
and April.

     Cox said the average customer was overbilled by between $2 and
$3.  However, at least one Westwood customer said his business-phone
bill was overcharged hundreds of dollars and that his home phone was
i]overbilled by about $10.

     Ron Schnell, who runs a computer software company called Secure
Online Systems, said he normally would not have looked at his
business-phone bill except that a friend asked him about his average
monthly bill.

     He said he discovered the overbilling and called the phone
company.  He said he was upset that the company is not planning to
notify customers.

     ``It annoyed me that it wasn't publicized,'' he said.  ``There
are probably lots of people who will pay their bills without even
knowing they are being overbilled.''

     GTE's Cox said the company is not sending corrected bills because
of the high cost involved, but he said that the company will determine
how much each customer has been overcharged and will credit customers
beginning June 7 with the overcharge amount plus 3% interest.

     ``We apologize for the inconvenience, and we're asking for a
little bit of patience and understanding,'' Cox said.

     GTE has 460,000 customers in the Westside, 160,000 in the South
Bay and 200,000 in Orange County.  Cox said that most customers in
those communities were overbilled only if they made ZUM calls.

     Cox said the cause of the glitch has not been determined, nor has
the company estimated the total amount of money that was overbilled.

                            ---------

[Ron's note - Gee, 3% interest after three months.  I wish my credit
card would give me that rate.  I don't really like the fact that
people are being forced to loan money to the phone company.  They
should really be forced to give a higher percentage.]

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

From: Bernard Fran Collins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why the Bong?
Date: 6 May 91 20:01:23 GMT
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF


Perhaps this has been discussed before.  Is there a good reason why a
credit card call must contain a pause in the dialing in order to wait
for the bong?  Why can't the card number be delivered to the LD
carrier without such a pause?  Is there a shortcut?  What does the
bong really do anyway?


Skip Collins, [e-mail]

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

From: Jean-Marc Odinot <[e-mail]>
Subject: PRO-2010 Scanner Mods Needed
Date: 6 May 91 13:53:01 GMT
Organization: Gipsi SA, Montigny le Bretonneux, France

q
Hi netWorkers,

I'm looking for people using the "Realistic PRO-2010". I got one, and
would like to know if somebody has done any hard/software patches on
it.

Please e-mail, there is so many news each day.

Thanks in advance,

[e-mail]
tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]
tlx: 699 262 F

Mail: petit maillet muni d'un long manche flexible (Larousse)


[Moderator's Note: I assume you are looking for mods which are
meaningful in Europe. There are a lot of things the guys do with the
radios over here in the USA which would be of no benefit to you over
there.  What did you want, more channels, frequencies, or?   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #337
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00656;
          7 May 91 2:08 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10607;
          7 May 91 0:26 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29680;
          6 May 91 23:20 CDT
Date:     Mon, 6 May 91 22:13:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #338
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 6 May 91 22:12:48 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 338

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Daniel Senie]
    Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management? [Jim Budler]
    Re: How is the Cost of Features Calculated? [Bruce Klopfenstein]
    Re: The Two Line Solution [Perry Stokes]
    Re: Hollings and the RBOCs [Marvin Sirbu]
    Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer [Carl Moore]
    Re: New Area Code For North Georgia [Carl Moore]
    Re: Cable & Wireless 800 Service (MCI and Telecom*USA, too) [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [Ronald Greenberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Daniel Senie <peanut![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department
Date: 5 May 91 15:18:01 GMT
Organization: Daniel Senie Consulting, Clinton, MA


A previous poster asks why New York wouldn't simply hire more 911
operators.  I have a good story about this. Many years ago (late 70's)
I spent a summer at the Polytechnic Institute of N.Y. (in Brooklyn).
i]One of the professors for the summer program I attended specialized in
using discrete modeling to analyze problems. We were there learning
how to do this, using tools such as GPSS.

The City had retained him to analyze the 911 service back then to
determine how to improve response time. The City also asked IBM and
AT&T for analyses at the same time.

IBM, predictably, recommended that the solution was a new computer
system.

AT&T/New York Tel (the pre-breakup days), predictably recommended a
new phone system.

The professor did a proper study using discrete modeling, measuring
time durations of operator tasks, frequency of calls, etc. and built a
model.  A carefully constructed model allows for controlled alteration
of parameters (such as increasing the number of calls per hour, etc.)
and gives very good predictions of the outcomes. His model showed that
they needed a few more operators, and that the phones and computers in
use were not the bottleneck.

The City, of course, bought the phones and computers, and didn't hire
any additional operators. Response time did not improve.

When I lived in NYC, I always kept the phone numbers for the local
police and fire stations near the phone. If there was an emergency you
really didn't want to risk life and property on 911 response times.


Daniel Senie               UUCP: uunet!lectroid!peanut!dts
Daniel Senie Consulting    ARPA: peanut![e-mail]
48 Elm Street              CSRV: 74176,1347
Clinton, MA 01510          TEL.: 508 - 365 - 5352

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

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management?
Organization: Silvar-Lisco
Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 06:16:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Amanda
Walker) writes:

> Sigh.  From what I understand, this is one of the more annoying recent
> developments on the timesharing service front.  Here are the facts as
> I understand them:

> From her messages on GEnie, Linda Kaplan presents herself a quite
> annoying person with no sense of humor and precious little sense of
> how courtesy applies to public communication.  A "sysop" of one GEnie
> round table (who is responisble for being a pseudo-moderator, keeping
> discussions on track, putting out flamewars, etc.) got sufficiently
> irritated with her behavior on his round table that he locked her out
> of it for a while.

Linda Kaplan has been around on Compuserve and GEnie for a long time.
Long enough that she was given a free account on GEnie.

I don't think you can say she doesn't understand "how courtesy applies
to public communication".

The sysop got her free account pulled.

> Linda subsequently started complaining, and roudned up support from a
> large group of ex-Prodigy people (who are, after all, quite reasonably
> sensitive to electronic censorship).  Unfortunately, these people then
> assumed that GEnie management was just like Prodigy management, and
> started jumping to conclusions and making "pre-emptive" accusations to
> GEnie and GE management.  This, needless to say, did not do much to

GEnie management said "shut up or we'll pull your account, too",
undoubtedly to make the ex-Prodigy folk feel at home.

> I do not know if it has been resolved, but I will be quite annoyed if
> a bunch of disgruntled ex-Prodigy users end up instigating a self-
> fulfilling prophecy, and turning the best public timesharing service I
> have used into a hostile environment, or shut it down completely
> (which GEIS might well do if GEnie ends up being too much trouble).

I don't know if has been resolved either, but from the April 23 issue
of {MacWeek}: "GEnie replaces general manager involved in on-line
controversy".

GEnie denies it is due to the controversy, of course. Although I doubt
that Linda will get her free account back, the removal of the man who
made the "shut up or be kicked out" statement will perhaps make people
feel that GEnie is at least trying to understand that people expect
freedom of speech in their network services.

> I have quite a number of people of friends who depend on GEnie (one of
> whom is hearing impaired and uses email as her lifeline to the outside
> world), and I resent people screwing things up for everyone else
> because one person cried wolf.

I like GEnie, but also don't think she cried wolf. I think she had a
dispute with a sysop, and neither person involved knew how to take it
off-line and resolve it properly. The boss got dragged in, and then he
didn't know how to handle it properly, either. This is really a case
of interperson dispute. The fact that one person was a person of
authority, and his boss backed him, made it a national issue.

At this point GEnie's "boss" GE Information Services has stepped in
and replaced Bill Louden as General Manager, while denying it is due
to this.

I take this to indicate that GIS (GEIS?) doesn't like censorship and
am happy.


Jim Budler      [e-mail]      |  Proud
Silvar-Lisco        +1.408.991.6115    | MacIIsi
703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 |  owner

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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How is the Cost of Features Calculated?
Date: 6 May 91 12:23:44 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail].
edu (Jeff Sicherman):

>   Is it just my paranoid, conspiracy-seeking mind or do the RBOC's
> always seem to introduce all these new, fancy services with a monthly
> price tag of between $3 and $8. I was under the impression that these
> are all tariffed and that revenue must reflect cost with a standard
> profit allowance.

I attended a recent presentation by a Bell Atlantic representative who
explained how the charge for Caller ID was reached.  According to him,
it was purely market research.  That is, through focus groups,
telephone surveys, and possibly other techniques, Bell Atlantic found
out what people said they would be willing to pay for Caller ID.
Based upon their reading of that research, they charge what they feel
the market would bear.  The perceived value of the service dictates
the pricing scheme.

I am very interested in other responses to Jeff's question regarding
the regulated aspect of pricing.


Bruce C. Klopfenstein          |  [e-mail]
Radio-TV-Film Department       |  [e-mail]
318 West Hall                  |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green State University |  [phone]; 372-8690
Bowling Green, OH  43403       |  fax [phone]

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

From: Perry Stokes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Two Line Solution
Date: 6 May 91 12:58:34 GMT
Organization: The Free Software Foundation


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Dave Levenson) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Leryo
> Malbito) writes:

>> Upon calling a COCOT, I got a telco tri-tone message stating something
>> to the effect of: "There are no incoming calls permitted to this
>> telephone ..." Da-Daa-Daa...

>> (I think this is the same type of message that Bell Atlantic provides
>> when you have been chosen as a CALL BLOCK(tm?)ed number ... eg, you
>> bother someone, then they block all future calls from your number.)

> Actually, NJ Bell (part of Bell Atlantic) provides a recording which
> is not preceded by the SIT tone, and says: "The number you are calling
> is not accepting calls at this time" if the called party has blocked
> calls from the calling party.

That system is never going to work as well as planned.  Rather than
giving a message saying something, the phone should just sound as if
it's ringing off the hook.  The offending party would just assume
they're never answering the phone.  If you have a message saying "They
don't want to accept your call.." then anyone with half a brain will
just try calling from another number. (pay phone, friends phone, etc)


Perry Stokes  [e-mail]   512-836-2163

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

Date: Mon,  6 May 91 10:27:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hollings and the RBOCs


In several recent messages John Higdon has asserted that Pacific Bell
is "guaranteed" a cushy rate of return.  While historically that was
true, it is no longer true as of 1991.  Both at the State of
California level and at the Federal level, Rate of Return (ROR)
regulation has been replaced by a system of price caps.  The price
caps have been set initially at a level which would guarantee a rate
of return of 11 - 13%.

However, the cap is AUTOMATICALLY cut each year in real terms by 4.5%
(Federal) or 6.5%(State).  Thus, unless Pacific Bell is continually
lowering its costs by at least that much, it will find itself making
less than the initial 11-13%.

In 1988 Nynex agreed to a price cap plan where it promised to cut
rates in real terms at the same rate as inflation -- about 4.5% per
year (What it actually agreed to was to freeze prices in nominal
dollars which amounts to the same thing.)  By the end of three years
its rate of return had dropped to about 8%, or less than you could get
by buying a truly no-risk Treasury Bond.  Nynex was unable to meet the
productivity target it had agreed to with the NY PSC and saw its
profits drop substantially.

Now before you laugh and say "Any fool should be able to cut prices by
4.5% per year given the rapid improvements in technology," remember
that as technology costs drop, the remaining labor costs (e.g. outside
plant repairs, operator services, etc.) become a higher and higher
percentage of the total.  Thus, further improvements in technology
have less and less impact on total costs.

I'm sure that there is plenty of slack at Pacific Bell so that it can
achieve 6.5% reduction in real terms for a few years.  It will be
interesting to see for how long they can keep it up.


Marvin Sirbu

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

Date: Mon, 6 May 91 10:53:55 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer


If answering service operators answer your phone, you may want to
instruct them regarding third-party and collect calls.

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

Date: Mon, 6 May 91 11:29:42 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Area Code For North Georgia


Columbus, Georgia (zipcode 319xx) is in 404, not 912.  So it will
apparently go into 706.  It's been said before: Phone prefixes and
area codes won't necessarily line up with county boundaries.
(Examples: The trouble with the people in New Castle County, Delaware
who are on 302-653, which is mostly in Kent County; and my finding
that Highland, Md., in Howard County, is on 301-854 and will NOT go
into 410.)

The rest of this message deals with the TRANSCRIBED ARTICLE only!

Notice that the local calling instructions from the big city (in this
case, Atlanta) will not change.  I don't know what the meaning of "had
to fight to get the 706 area code" is; 404 area already has N0X/N1X
prefixes, and when it starts running short again, it has to apply for
a split.

In the following excerpt, the second sentence is contradicted by the
messages you have seen in the Digest regarding N0X/N1X prefixes.
Unless there is an NPA + 7D setup for local calls across area code
borders, 404 is "legally" available as a prefix in 404, but out of
courtesy (to avoid confusion when you give a number out orally) is not
used as such there.

> The telephone system is simply running out of area codes and prefixes.
> Fewer are available than you might think because area codes can't be
> used as prefix numbers and prefix numbers can't be used as area codes.
> For instance, you'll never see a prefix that uses 404, the area code.

Local calling areas and long distance charges are NOT changed by a
split.  The METHOD for making some calls does have to change.

> The telephone company set the area code lines so people who now call
> Atlanta without paying a long-distance charge can continue to.

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

Date: Mon, 6 May 91 13:39:47 -0400
From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable & Wireless 800 Service (MCI and Telecom*USA, too)
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eddy J.
Gurney) writes:

[Stuff about C&W deleted]

C&W should be able to provide 800 service to any number since they
have it ring to a POTS line. The rep might have thought that you
wanted long distence service also ... which they don't offer from all
locations yet.

> I also called MCI about their "Follow Me 800" service, but the
> representatives did not have any information available at this time,
> and said "you will be hearing more about it."  I guess we'll see about
> that.  I wonder if this too, will be a "shared" 800 number, or if they
> will finally assign you your own number.

Follow Me will work with existing 'shared' 800 numbers starting May 15
and will cost $1 per change.  You can call Customer service and they
will chnage the ring number for you for up to 60 days. (It might be
90.)  They said if the system is up it should be changed within an
hour. You can also call two weeks in advance and give them an
effective time/date for any changes.

> So the search continues for an 800 LDC besides U.S. Sprint.  Any more
> suggestions?

You have a choice of ATC which resells Telecom*USA's $2.75 type
service or 'Call Home' which also resells the same service. I dont
have the rates or details of the programs anymore.  You can check with
Directory Assistance for the phone numbers. (ATC is only in the
southeast US).

Maybe you should also call AllNet at 1-800-773-2020 (I think) their
rates are close to C&W's I think.

Let me know what you decide.

> [Moderator's Note: Except that *existing* customers of Telecom*USA at
> the time of the MCI merger are still being serviced through
> Telecom*USA customer service, and they still let us add/delete or
> change around our 800 numbers as desired for $2.75 each.   PAT]

Telecom*USA would not let me modify my service. It started as a
Telesystem account to a SouthernNet account before it became
Telecom*USA. I still have a Telesystem calling card on it.

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

Date: Mon, 6 May 91 17:51:46 -0400
From: Ronald Greenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge?
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> I just got my AT&T Universal bill, and noticed that over 50% of the
> cost of my long distance calls is due to the 75 cent per-call
> surcharge which they tag onto all calling card calls. (I guess their

> Are there calling cards without this extra fee?

I use ITT as my long distance company.  Calls cost the same as from
home as long as I call 950-0ITT (then the phone number and
authorization code).  In theory, 950-0ITT does not work everywhere; in
such places you have to call an 800 number and pay a surcharge.  But
every place I have wanted to call from, the 950 number has worked;
basically any reasonable metropolitan area should be no problem.


Ron Greenberg        [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #338
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05583;
          7 May 91 4:05 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28286;
          7 May 91 2:31 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00700;
          7 May 91 1:27 CDT
Date:     Tue, 7 May 91 0:24:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #339
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 7 May 91 00:24:25 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 339

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Issues 324 and 325 [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Harold Barker]
    Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [Greg Oliveau]
    Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience [Jiro Nakamura]
    Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [G. M. Roeber]
    Re: Need Ideas on a Telecom Project For Kids [Daniel Jacobson]
    Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms [Mitch Wagner]
    Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN  [John Boteler]
    Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Mark Brader]
    COCOT's and California Law [John Bruner]
    Radio Shack Handheld [Ed Greenberg]
    600: 600 ohm Transformer : What Does it Mean? [Jon Sreekanth]
    212-516 Still There [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 May 91 23:39:13 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Issues 324 and 325


A numbering mixup has caused some confusion. Issue 324 came out last
Thursday. Due to illness, I did not send out any issues on Friday or
Saturday until late Saturday afternoon. I then sent 325, but it said
324 in the header (but 325 in the body). I immediatly corrected it and
mailed it again with 325 correctly shown in the body and the header.

So, you got two issues of 325, one of which was called 324. You should
have received the real 324 a couple days earlier.

With that in mind, search through your back issues. If you still feel
you did not get 324, please let me know and I will resend it.


PAT

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
Date: 6 May 91 20:14:29 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Simplicitas gratia simplicitatis) writes:

> The formatting operation must by its very nature destroy the old data.
> Formatting is a write operation that is done without reading to verify
> position.  It writes both the sector preambles and the data fields
> instead of only the data fields.  ...

This is true, of course, for the initial low-level format of a disk.
But a subsequent FORMAT command does nothing but rewrite the FAT and
directories to show that the file spaces is all available.  This is
why a "deformat" program (e.g., Mace) that keeps a copy of the FAT and
directories in inner cylinders can recover an accidentally-formatted
hard disk by simply copying the saved information back to the outer
cylinders.  Nothing will recover from a low-level format, of course
(although NSA and CIA supposedly have ways to even read this data by
examining the residual magnetism in the media between tracks -- but I
doubt it).


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer    | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                   | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348  USA      | Internet       hayes![e-mail]

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

From: Harold Barker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 18:47:03 GMT


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

> I ran a protocol analyzer during my session with Prodigy yesterday --
> about an hour's worth -- and saw no personal data being transmitted
> from my PC.  If anyone's interested I can post a few hundred bytes of
> the trace.

If Prodigy has an once of common sence they will have turned off this
feature (if it ever existed) as soon as this little discussion
started.


[Moderator's Note: At least I have an ounce of common sense! :) With
your message, we have to close this thread as some people tell me they
are starting to get bored to tears.  I am too.   Thanks.    PAT]

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

From: Greg Oliveau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge?
Date: 7 May 91 00:43:31 GMT
Organization: Teledyne Controls, Commercial Aircraft Products Division


[e-mail] (Joel Spolsky) writes:

> I just got my AT&T Universal bill, and noticed that over 50% of the
> cost of my long distance calls is due to the 75 cent per-call
> surcharge which they tag onto all calling card calls. (I guess their
> ads claiming you pay "only low AT&T rates" are a little bit
> dishonest).

> Are there calling cards without this extra fee?

Hmm.  I don't think my USSprint card has a fee - at least it's not
itemized as such.  Probably the 'setup' charge is hidden in the first
three minutes of use.


Greg Oliveau             Voice    213.820.4616.x2598
Teledyne Controls,         Fax    [phone]
Commercial Aircraft Products Division

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

From: Jiro Nakamura <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience
Organization: Shaman Consulting
Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 21:26:56 GMT


For my new line, I deliberately didn't order touch-tone service even
though I have touch-tone phones. It's ridiculous to get charged $2.20
(NYNEX) a month for something that saves NYNEX money by cutting down
on computation time. Once I get my line, I'm going to see if it
supports touch-tone anyway. If not, it's my modem/fax line anyway, so
it doesn't seriously bother me.

I think almost all new phones sold in the U.S. have touch-tone and
pulse.  Some have touch-tone only (el-cheapo (tm) brand). In Japan,
I've seen pulse only phones, but haven't seen a single one in America.


Jiro Nakamura                [e-mail]
Shaman Consulting            [phone]   VOICE
[phone] FAX/Modem

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission
Date: 6 May 91 15:34:09 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu (Nuclear Warrior) writes:

> I have been harboring an amusing idea for some time.  Wouldn't it be
> great if one of those rare individuals who wasn't motivated solely by
> personal and corporate greed was to create a full-service telephone
> company, hopefully providing long distance (and in some areas, where
> the LEC was especially lame, local service) at the lowest possible
> prices?

You do not need a rich philanthropist for this.  All you need is a
free market, with any entry barriers low enough to be surmounted by
startup capital.  Public utility monopolies were created in response
to high entry barriers (e.g., all that copper), with the theory that
one regulated company was better than no companies, or one surviving
unregulated one.[1]

Now, if technology has improved to the point that the barriers are not
so formidable as to preclude easy entry to the market, theoretically
we need merely point this out to the populace and the government, and
the market will be deregulated.  Then, the motivations of "personal
and corporate greed" will be the very agents that bring us this great
service.  Unfortunately, this is where economics is replaced by
politics.

And until the market is deregulated, even a rich philanthropist can't
bring you a competing service.

[1] Caveat: This applies to the American system.  Here, in France and
Switzerland, the PTT is just another government-run "service," and you
could no more compete with it than you could form your own police
force.  But then again, Adam Smith wasn't French.


Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research
e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail] | work: [phone]
r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: [phone]

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

Date: Mon,  6 May 91 20:52:24 EDT
From: Daniel Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Ideas on a Telecom Project For Kids
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel A
Margolis) writes:

> We have a program where we bring a few eighth-graders into our labs
> during the summer.  Last year, I was in charge of finding a project
> What kind of project can I give the students that will involve
> telecom?

Have 'em electronically thumb thru TELECOM Digest!  Then the rest of
USENET netnews.  It should leave them with the tele]communications
itch for good.

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

From: Mitch Wagner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms
Organization: UNIX Today!
Date: Mon, 06 May 91 18:33:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.
jp![e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead) writes:

> Any dedicated travelling
> modemer carries a small screwdriver for impromptu ECO'ing of hotel
> phones.  In a pinch, you can use a paperclip or the tang on the end of
> a Bic pen to worm the jack out.

Is that what you call the end of a pen? A "tang"? No kidding! :-)

Seriously, I find the end of the pen or paperclip works best. Why
burden one's self down with unnecessary supplies when one can as
easily forage off the land? (So to speak.)

> get into the room.

> Inveterate Motel-6 Modemer's can be recognised by dialing scripts in
> their terminal programs that look like this:

>         ATDT 6,1XXXYYYZZZZ,,,,,,,AAABBBCCCCDDDD

> This gets the outside line, dials the long distance number, waits long
> enough to get the bong (varies between five and seven seconds
> depending on the Motel 6), and dials a credit card number.  I wish all
> Hotel telephone systems were as simple and straightforward (and fair!)
> as the big 6's are... ;^)

And inveterate business travellers can be sometimes be spotted by
checking their comm dialing directories. I'm a GEnie addict, and a
private detective would find my ProComm dialing directory containing
numbers for GEnie nodes in Long Island, the San Francisco Bay Area and
Cambridge, Mass.

Why wouldn't something like the Motel 6 dialing scheme work on another
hotel?

I've never actually tried to charge a modem call, but it seems that
you could just program the following string in:

ATDT 9,1(XXX)YYY-ZZZZ,,,,,,,,,,AAAABBBBCCCCDDDD

With ABCD being the credit card number... and ,,,,, being the pause
for the bong.

That should work fine. Just about every hotel I've ever stayed in had
you dial "9" for outside, collect, 800 and credit card calls, and "8"
for long distance calls.

Oh, well. I'm due to travel next first week in June. I shall perform
the appropriate experiments and report back.


Mitch Wagner      VOICE: 516/562-5758
GEnie: MITCH.WAGNER   UUCP: [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN
Date: Mon, 6 May 91 15:21:11 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


Toby Nixon typed:

> Rich Szabo writes:

>> Can an ISDN line be used as a voice line so that I don't need a
>> POTS line in addition?

> You definitely don't need to keep a POTS line around once you have
> ISDN.

Unless the power fails at your location. Then, no more ISDN.

OOPS!


John Boteler   bote@csense                {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote
SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling

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

Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 00:01:00 -0400
From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


> Calls to the cities just outside Metro Toronto
> (Scarborough, Mississauga, etc) are now local, and will remain so, but
> these cities will be moving to 905.

Harrumph.  Scarborough is, of course, *in* Metro Toronto.  In case
anyone actually cares, the complete list of municipalities in the
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and which will therefore be
staying in 416 is: Borough of East York, City of Etobicoke (the k is
silent, incidentally), City of North York, City of Scarborough, City
of Toronto, and City of York.  The last is not to be confused with the
Regional Municipality of York, which includes all of the former County
of York *except* Metro Toronto, and will be in 905.

Names of municipalities eliminated in 1954 when Metro was formed, or
in 1966 when it was reorganized, many of which are still used for
postal address purposes, include: Agincourt, Don Mills, Downsview,
Forest Hill, Islington, Leaside, Long Branch, Mimico, New Toronto,
Rexdale, Swansea, Weston, and Willowdale.  These ex-places will all
remain in 416.  If you have the postal address of a place, it will be
in 416 if and only if its postal code starts with the letter M.
(Ignoring any anomalies at the Metro boundary, that is.)

Clear?

By the 1991 phone book, the prefixes in Metro Toronto are as follows.
Errors are mine.  461-3,5-7,9 means 461 462 463 465 466 467 469.

221-5,9; 231-7,9; 240-9; 250-3,5,6,9; 260,1,4-7,9; 281-9; 290-3,6-9;
321-4,6,7; 340,1,3,5,8; 350,1,3,9; 360-9; 391-9; 421-5,9; 431,8,9;
440-9; 461-3,5-7,9; 480-9; 490-9; 502-4,9; 510,2,5,6; 530-9;
581,3,5,6,8; 590-9; 601,3,4,9; 614; 620,1,2,6; 630,1,3,5,6,8;
650-4,6-8; 661,3,5,7; 674,5; 690,1,3-6,8,9; 724; 730,3,6,9; 740-9;
750-2,4-9; 760-3,6,7,9; 777,8; 781-5,7,9; 798; 860-9; 870,2; 920-9;
932,3; 941,4,7; 954; 960-9; 971-9; and 980-2.


Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 6 May 91 09:20:58 CDT
From: John Bruner <[e-mail]>
Subject: COCOT's and California Law


I just returned from a week in southern California.  The hotel in
which I stayed provided AT&T long-distance from the rooms with no
surcharge, which was great.  However, at one point I needed to use a
payphone on the premises to place a long-distance call.  I discovered
that they were all COCOT's "served" by ITI, and they all refused to
accept any long-distance carrier access codes.

Isn't this a violation of California law -- aren't all payphones, both
real utility phones and COCOT monsters, required to provide access to
all carriers?  If so, could someone send me a citation of the
appropriate statute?  I'd like to write a letter to the manager of the
hotel suggesting that they pressure the owners of the COCOT's (who
rented the payphone spaces under a long-term agreement with the hotel)
into cleaning up their act.


John Bruner    Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois
    [e-mail]        [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 6 May 91 07:53 PDT
Subject: Radio Shack Handheld


Douglas Mason <[e-mail]> asks about the Radio Shack
Handheld Cellular phone, comparing it to the Motorola 8000.

Just to set the record straight ... the RS handheld is made by Nokia.
Although it has the same form factor as the Motorola, it isn't one.

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: 600: 600 ohm Transformer : What Does it Mean?
Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 21:41:06 GMT


This is probably a simple question : what is the meaning of a spec
such as a transformer being 600 ohm : 600 ohm ? For example, some
telecom transformers (phone line interface transformers) are spec'ed
this way.

My understanding is if a transformer is ideal, it reflects the
secondary impedance to the primary. So, if a transformer primary is
connected to the telephone line, and the secondary is left open
circuited, the AC impedance that the telephone line sees is infinity,
right? If the secondary is shorted, the telephone line should see an
AC short; if the secondary is connected to a 600 ohm load, the
telephone line should see 600 ohm.

In summary, what does the magic 600:600 spec mean ? Any 1:1
transformer should be interchangeable, and line matching really means
the secondary should be terminated into the proper impedance.

What am I missing ?

Thanks,


Jon Sreekanth
Assabet Valley Microsystems            Fax and PC products
346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752        508-562-0722
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 6 May 91 15:58:45 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 212-516 Still There


I was in Grand Central Station yesterday.  212-516 prefix, on two
phones for "25 cents, 30 seconds, anywhere in NY state" is still
there.  Notes posted on it say no incoming service (that's why we
figured it was OK to use a nearby area code as a prefix).  It also
says:

No local    calls
   operator

with "No" and "calls" being twice the height of the stacked words
"local" and "operator".

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #339
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02478;
          8 May 91 5:26 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05889;
          8 May 91 3:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24032;
          8 May 91 2:42 CDT
Date:     Wed, 8 May 91 2:23:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #340
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 May 91 21:23:11 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 340

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CLASS in Pac*Bell [Jim Gottlieb]
    Weird Payphone [Bernard Fran Collins]
    RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A? [Christopher Tengi]
    Identify This Instrument [Donald Ekman]
    Eighth-wave, or Quarter-wave? [Harris Boldt Edelman]
    Washington/Baltimore Cellular One Update [John Boteler]
    PET Codes for a Motorola PMR2000 Beeper [Greg Maples]
    AOS Regulation [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management? [Amanda Walker]
    GTE Hawaiian Tel Takes Action Against "Slamming" [Timothy Newsham]
    You're All A Bunch of Terrorists [Jim Bowery, Info-Nets via J. Phil Miller]
    Long Distance Carrier Near Philadelphia [Carl Moore]
    Panasonic "832" Program Docs Wanted [Chris Chung, via Douglas S. Reuben]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: CLASS in Pac*Bell
Date: 6 May 91 22:07:31 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


A Pacific*Bell product announcement states in part:

    Pacific Bell plans to equip over 7,000,000 lines in California
    by the end of 1991 with these new COMMSTAR Custom Calling
    Features [the usual CLASS features].

    Pacific Bell plans to make these services available to the 213,
    818, 415, and 408 area codes of LATAs 1 and 5 in 1991.  We
    expect to add area codes 714 and 805 in LATA 5 and 707 in LATA
    1 by the end of 1992.

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

From: Bernard Fran Collins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Weird Payphone
Date: 6 May 91 22:23:33 GMT
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF


Over the weekend I had reason to visit an old mansion in Baltimore.
While there, I asked to use a public phone and was directed to a broom
closet which contained what appeared to be an overgrown touch-tone
deskphone.  There was a slot to take quarters and a sticker that said
local calls only.  I found that a dial tone was given when the
receiver was lifted.  But when trying to dial out normally, the phone
would only produce one DTMF unless the number I pressed was 0.  If I
pressed 0, it would let me continue; otherwise, the keypad was
disabled.  I never tested the thing by actually depositing a quarter
in it.  But I did not have to.  I found that I could dial anywhere I
wanted, local, LD, credit card, international etc., as long as I kept
the key touches very short in duration.  They had to be short enough
to slip by the phone's decoder but long enough to be detected by the
CO.  This phone was a piece of junk.  In about one minute I was able
to bypass its skimpy security and dial anywhere I wanted.  Of course,
I am an honest person and would never take advantage of such a
situation.  It is quite useful for such establishments to have
payphones for use by the public.  But devices such as these
unfortunately make possible the ripoff of their unwary owners.


Skip Collins, [e-mail]

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

From: Christopher Tengi <[e-mail]>
Subject: RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A?
Date: 6 May 91 21:25:22 GMT
Organization: Princeton University - CIT


Can anybody out there post the definitive method of pairing (with
color code) for the AT&T PDS scheme?  I saw a post in comp.dcom.lans
that gave the following diagram:


                      WH OR WH BL WH GR WH BR
                      OR WH GR WH BL WH BR WH
             (RJ-45F)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
              pairs:  T2 R2 T3 R1 T1 R3 R4 T4
                       +--+  |  +--+  |  +--+
                             +--------+


The trouble I have is with pair 4.  Which pin is really tip, and
shouldn't it be white/brown?  Also, is pair 2 really on pins 1 and 2,
or is it on 3 and 6?


Thanks,

Chris
UUCP:      ...princeton!tengi        VOICEnet: 609-258-6799
INTERNET: [e-mail]        FAX:      [phone]
BITNET:      TENGI@PUCC

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

Date: Mon, 6 May 91 19:40:47 PDT
From: Donald Ekman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Identify This Instrument


Somewhere along the line I've acquired an old telephone instrument,
which I can't identify as to where it might have been made and used.
Perhaps someone can help me.

It's an Elliot Ness style, upright phone, with separate transmitter
and receiver, the latter being suspended from a fork on the side.
There is no dial, but the instrument obviously was intended that one
might be fitted, at least as an option, so presumably it does not
predate the Strowger switch.

Inside the (rather heavy) base plate is a simple wiring diagram, and
various bits of notation, the most prominent of which says:

   TELE No. 150  (MARK Z34)
   When the DialAuto No. 10 is not fitted,
   terminals T & TD must be strapped.

In the wiring diagram, the transmitter is identified as Trans No. 1,
while the receiver is identified as Recr Bell No. 1A.

Anybody know where this thing comes from?  And when?

Thanks,

Donald E. Ekman           | Disclaimer:  Loral
Space Systems/Loral       | doesn't think I have
Palo Alto, CA  USA        | any opinions.  They
[e-mail]  | are probably right.

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

Subject: Eighth-wave, or Quarter-wave?
Date: 6 May 91 19:24:15 PDT (Mon)
From: Harris Boldt Edelman <[e-mail]>


PAT often refers tentatively to the small, stub- or button-like
antenna for his cellular handheld set as an 1/8-wave antenna.

It's perhaps time to nip an incipient TELECOM-legend in the bud, and
suggest that the little antenna is more likely to be a helically-wound
1/4-wave, than any kind of 1/8-wave.

Anyone want to confirm this?


Harris   [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Washington/Baltimore Cellular One Update
Date: Mon, 6 May 91 15:28:01 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


Cellular One decided to join MCI in the "By the way, we forgot to tell
you about these changes" department, effective June 1, 1991.

Plan U, the Unlimited Plan, is no more as a stand alone plan.
Existing subscribers will be 'grandfathered' to $39.95/month plan P1,
but will be placed under a 500 minute cap. Above this cap, rates will
be $0.55/minute prime and $0.05/minute non-prime.

*** Cellular One Prime Time is now the same as Bell Atlantic,
    0900 to 2100 hours weekdays. ***

You will be able to get a 'rider' on other existing plans to get Plan
U, which will have no cap. For example, if you have a typical
business-use plan now, you will be able to add unlimited service onto
it for $35/month extra.

Other changes no doubt have yet to come to light, but from where I
sit, this removes any substantive differences between the wireline and
non-wireline carriers in the National Capital area.  One point in
favor of BAMS is their recent expansion of service on the Eastern
Shore, essentially allowing subscribers to place non-toll calls to
Ocean City and Salisbury, Maryland for example.

Get the rundown from Cell One for all the details; I could be totally
screwed up on this info :)


John Boteler   bote@csense                {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote
SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling

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

From: Greg Maples <ddtisvr![e-mail]>
Subject: PET Codes for a Motorola PMR2000 Beeper
Organization: DuPont Design Technologies Group
Date: Mon, 6 May 91 22:02:44 GMT


Well, I received very few responses to my last posting, so here goes.
What I want to do is to be able to send specific alphanumeric
sequences to my Motorola PMR2000 beeper.  There are two 40 character
lines of display.

The vendor is absolutely confused and unable to answer my questions
about how this is done.  About all they can tell me is "Wee sell a
MS-DOS program that 'reprograms' (hah!)  your modem to do this... you
can also buy a terminal for a phone line to send out messages."  This
is really dumb.

I've heard that there is a version of the UNIX program 'tip/cu' that
knows how to reformat the codes this beeper wants from standard ascii.
If this exists, I'd like to know where I can get it.

Also, I need to find out what the 'PET' protocol is ... this is
apparently what the beeper understands for command sequences.  Does
anybody know anything about this?

This is a Motorola product.  Is anybody from Motorola listening?


Thanks,

Greg Maples                      | These are my opinions, not yours. Keep your
Systems Group Leader             | hands off 'em. They're also not the opinions
DuPont Design Technologies       | of my employer or yours. So there. (c) 1991
[e-mail]      | The preceding is an opinion which is mine.

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

From: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>
Subject: AOS Regulation
Date: 7 May 91 04:07:36 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


 From a Southwestern Bell bill insert (capitalization mine; theirs was
all caps):

A new law that protects your rights as a telephone customer was
recently signed by President Bush.

The "Telephone Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act" is the
Federal Government's response to customer complaints about the
practices of some companies that provide operator services.

For example, this law ensures that the company handling an
operator-assisted, long-distance call is identified twice before a
customer incurs any charges.  Previously, there was no Federal law
requiring identification of the company.

When you dial a Southwestern Bell telephone operator to place a
long-distance call, you may hear a mechanized voice state the company
name.  An operator will then come on the line to assist you.


Gordon L. Burditt
sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

From: Amanda Walker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management?
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 08:32:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim
Budler) writes:

> I don't think you can say she doesn't understand "how courtesy applies
> to public communication".

Well, I was very ... underwhelmed with how she presented herself on
GEnie during most of this brouhaha.  Granted, I only became aware of
it at the end of March, and went and read stuff retroactively, but to
be quite honest, it left with with the desire to avoid interacting
with her on any basis.  Maybe this is a snap judgement on my part, but
it is one based on her own actions.

> GEnie management said "shut up or we'll pull your account, too",
> undoubtedly to make the ex-Prodigy folk feel at home.

Well, I didn't see it that way, although Bill Louden did have an
outburst that was pretty unprofessional.  I think he was provoked, but
I agree that he acted inappropriately.

> I like GEnie, but also don't think she cried wolf. I think she had a
> dispute with a sysop, and neither person involved knew how to take it
> off-line and resolve it properly.

This I certainly agree with.

> The boss got dragged in, and then he didn't know how to handle it
> properly, either.  This is really a case of interperson dispute.

No argument here.

> The fact that one person was a person of authority, and his boss backed
> him, made it a national issue.

I think it was aggravated by many of the people who got involved, and
turned a private dispute into a public crusade.  Luckily, it seems to
have pretty much died down without having caused any real damage.

> At this point GEnie's "boss" GE Information Services has stepped in
> and replaced Bill Louden as General Manager, while denying it is due
> to this.

Chuckle.  I guess Bill just wanted a change of scenery.  I have to
admit he was not an optimal choice for dealing with irate users :).


Amanda Walker             [e-mail]
Visix Software Inc.         ...!uunet!visix!amanda

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

Date: Mon, 6 May 91 23:15:46 hst
From: Timothy Newsham <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE Hawaiian Tel Takes Action Against "Slamming"


This month's telephone bill included a surprising little notice,
considering it's GTE and all :)

   -- Quote mode on --

For Your Information...

In the past, you selected a carrier for your long distance service,
such as AT&T, MCI, U.S. Sprint, etc.  Since then, we have become aware
of consumer concerns regarding unauthorized changes in customers' long
dis- tance carriers.  These occurrences are rare, but can be confusing
to customers.

If you sign and return an authorization form, which is available from
GTE Hawaiian Tel, it will be put on file to prevent a change in your
designated long distance provider without your prior written
authorization.

This optional authorization form and service is offered to GTE
Hawaiian Tel customers free of charge.  The normal charge will apply,
however, if you change your long distance provider.

To obtain an authorization form, or if you have any questions, please
call our Equal Access Help Center at [phone].

[GTE logo] Hawaiian Tel                     Communications Excellence

    -- Quote Mode Off --

So, is this a PR thing or did a law pass forcing BOCs to do this?

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 6:15:41 CDT


Pat - I don't recall if you read info-nets, but if you didn't see this, or
don't have it in the que, you might be interested in it for posting.
 -phil


 Date: Mon, 6 May 91 15:03:43 PDT
 From: ames!scubed!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
 Subject: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists


Just thought y'all might like to see this in case you either weren't
aware of it or hadn't seen the actual language:



Senate Bill 266

Mr. Biden for himself and Mr. DeConcini introduced the following bill
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

A BILL

To prevent and punish domestic and international terrorist acts, and
for other purposes.

Section 1. Short Title.

This act may be cited as the "Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Act of 1991".

< lots of death penalties and fun draconian things >

Title II -- Preventing Domestic and International Terrorist Acts
Subtitle B -- Electronic Communications
Sec. 2201. Cooperation of telecommunications providers with law
enforcement.

        It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic
communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications
service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the
government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other
communications when appropriately authorized by law.

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

You might consider writing your Senator and/or Representative and
expressing your opinion on this piece of, uh, legislation.


Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce

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

     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

Date: Tue, 7 May 91 10:13:26 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Carrier Near Philadelphia


A default long distance company I have seen very recently (on at least
one pay phone in the Middle Atlantic area -- I live in Delaware) is
another firm I haven't heard of, but is quite close by:

Call Technology Corp.
100 Stevens Drive
Lester, PA 19113

This would put it near the Philadelphia International Airport.

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

Date: 7-MAY-1991 16:03:36.47
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Panasonic "832" Program Docs Wanted


Hi...

I'm posting for a friend of mine. Please send responses to his address
below.

Thanks in advance for any help!


 From: Christopher Chung <[e-mail]>

I have a Panasonic Model 832 Cellular Phone.  I have been having some
trouble trying to figure out how to reprogram it.  If anyone has any
information on to access the program mode on the phone, I'd greatly
appreciate hearing from you.


Thanks,

Chris    Internet: [e-mail]    Bitnet: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #340
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05486;
          8 May 91 6:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01547;
          8 May 91 5:00 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac05889;
          8 May 91 3:50 CDT
Date:     Wed, 8 May 91 3:25:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #342
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 May 91 03:24:53 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 342

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Security Conference [CTC Wang Labs]
    Media Errors in SJGames Raid by Secret Service [Brett Slocum]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Carl Moore]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Collect and Third-Party Screening [Kath Mullholand]
    MCI Halts Billing For Sex Lines [Henry Mensch]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 May 91 18:48 GMT
From: CTC Wang Labs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Security Conference


You are invited...

The Communications Fraud Control Association presents it's Seventh
Annual Conference:


                     TELECOM SECURITY '91
                     ====================

                       June 19-21, 1991
                   Le Meridien, New Orleans


      CFCA, the nation's clearinghouse for communications fraud
information, is proud to present Telecom Security '91, its seventh
annual conference to provide up-to-date remedies for newly discovered
vulnerabilities.

      Join industry security specialists, engineers, lawyers, vendors
of protective services and products, and members of the law
enforcement community at the nation's most comprehensive conference
focusing on curtailing telecommunications fraud.

      You will learn how to safeguard today's telephone systems, and
see the latest telecommunications security products and services.
Don't miss it.


                             AGENDA
                             ======

Wednesday, June 19
==================

12:30-2:30 p.m.    The Unblocking of 10XXX.
                   -----------------------

                   Stimulated by the fact that the FCC is required to
                   determine by July 17 the manner in which 10XXX
                   should be unblocked, discussion will cover how
                   fraud is committed over non-LEC pay telephones and
                   through hotel PBXs, including measures that could
                   effectively curtail this fraud, with probable
                   costs and benefits.


3:00-4:30 p.m.     DISA Fraud Update.
                   -----------------

                   How PBXs are being compromised by this insidious
                   form of intrusion; the latest in system
                   safeguards, and what ICs, LECs and vendors can do
                   to curb this abuse. Discussion will cover the
                   petition to the FCC associated with the recent
                   Pacific Mutual case.


4:45-5:30 p.m.     An Update On International Fraud.
                   -------------------------------

                   Chairman Don Jones, of the Forum for International
                   Irregular Network Access (or FIINA), reviews fraud
                   trends and the crime scene in overseas markets.
                   FIINA is an international consortium dedicated to
                   cooperating for the purpose of reducing fraud on
                   the world's telecommunications networks.


Thursday, June 20
=================


9:00-10:30 a.m.    Billing Validation Strategies For The 1990's.
                   ------------------------------------

                   An explanation of how validation strategies work,
                   in view of the transition from an X.25 System to
                   LIDB, and associated risks and how such strategies
                   could affect third party billing and AOS post-
                   billing fraud.


11:00-Noon         Explaining Security Costs & Benefits.
                   ------------------------------------

                   How to obtain the resources needed for
                   investigations and security. Covers methods for
                   determining the dollar value of prevention by
                   properly presenting financial impact, while
                   estimating the cost of losses and the benefits of
                   security measures, and how to best present it to
                   management.


2:00-3:30 p.m.     What Makes A Prosecution Successful.
                   -----------------------------------

                   A review of the process, from arrest to trial. Why
                   some approaches work, while others don't.


4:00-5:30          Social Engineering.
                   ------------------

                   New versions of an ongoing fraud that entails
                   manipulating information in order to steal
                   proprietary data will be presented, followed by an
                   explanation as to the most effective ways to apply
                   different communications media to warn customers
                   of new scams, with the appropriate protective
                   measures.


Friday, June 21
===============


8:30-10:00 a.m.    Securing the Digital World.
                   --------------------------

                   Covers current ISDN voice and data penetration
                   levels and applications. Introducing subscriber
                   services. How ISDN will affect carriers in the
                   next decade.


10:15-11:00        Cellular Fraud.
                   --------------

                   An explanation of why some units are more
                   vulnerable, with a review of the latest
                   countermeasures. Fraud trends, including the
                   growing involvement of organized crime and the use
                   of illegal tumbling devices.


11:00-Noon         What's On Your Mind?
                   -------------------

                   An opportunity to discuss issues involving legal,
                   investigative and early detection systems and the
                   forms of service theft not covered in the
                   conference. Questions submitted at registration
                   (see form for details) will be addressed
                   initially. If time allows, questions will be
                   permitted from the floor.


      Widely regarded as the nation's authority on all aspects of
telecommunications fraud, CFCA helps prosecute offenders, implement
protection, publicize consumer advice, assist police and promote
international understanding.

      The group's brochure series on specific problems; it's faxed
weekly Fraud Alert and journal Communicator are the nation's only
periodicals devoted to telecommunications crime issues. This is CFCA's
31st conference dealing with timely, high-tech crime topics in the
past six years.


                         REGISTRATION
                         ============

Due to the sensative subject matter covered in this conference,
CFCA reserves the right to screen participants who are not
association members. No one will be admitted without first having
been approved by the conference staff.

All payments and registrations must be received by June 14, 1991.

Registration Fees:
-----------------

                         Prepaid            After
                         by May 26          May 26
                         ---------          ------

Members                  $495               $545
Eligible Nonmembers      $595               $645
Law Enforcement          $145               $195


To receive a registration form, please call CFCA at [phone].


           Communications Fraud Control Association
           ========================================

              7921 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 300
                        McLean, VA 22102
                         [phone]


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

From: Brett Slocum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Media Errors in SJGames Raid by Secret Service
Organization: csdd
Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 10:23:03 -0500


With regards to the 911 Investigation involving Craig Neidorf
and Steve Jackson Games:

The following list recently appeared on the Illuminati BBS
(512-447-4449).  It was written by Steve Jackson. Many of you will
know some of this, but I thought it would be good to clear up all
this:

THE TOP TEN MEDIA ERRORS ABOUT THE SJ GAMES RAID             5-03-91

As this story has developed, occasional errors creep into news stories
 - and many of them have taken on a life of their own. Some reporters,
working from their clipping files, have turned out stories that are
almost 100% free of facts. There are a lot of those floating around ...
but here are our Top Ten.

10. Steve Jackson Games is a computer game company.

    No we're not. None of our games are computer games. We use
computers to WRITE the games, like every other publisher in the '90s.
And the game that was seized, GURPS CYBERPUNK, was about computers.
But we' not a computer game company any more than George Bush is a
gardener.

9. GURPS Cyberpunk is a computer game.

    No it's not. Aieeeeee! It's a roleplaying game. It is not played
on a computer. It's played on a table, with dice.

8. We're out of business.

    No we're not. It's been reported that we are bankrupt, or filing
for bankruptcy. It was very close, and we're not out of the woods by
any means - we did have to lay off half our staff ... but we're not
dead yet.

7. We were raided by the FBI.

    No we weren't. We were raided by the US Secret Service. The FBI
had nothing to do with it. (In fact, when Bill Cook, the assistant US
attorney named in our suit, was doing his "research," he talked to the
FBI. They told him he didn't have a case. We have this from FBI
sources!)

6. Some of our staff members were arrested by the Secret Service and
charged with hacking.

    No they weren't. No member of our staff was arrested, indicted, or
charged. Nobody was even QUESTIONED after the day of the raid.

5. This was part of Operation Sun Devil.

    No it wasn't. Sun Devil was a totally separate project, aimed at
credit card fraud. Because it had a neat name, it got a lot of
headlines.  Since computers were involved, some reporters got the two
confused. The Secret Service helped the confusion along by refusing to
comment on what was, or wasn't part of Sun Devil. Sun Devil was not a
"hacker" investigation. So says Gail Thackeray, who was its spearhead.

4. The raid was after GURPS Cyberpunk.

    No it wasn't. The Secret Service suspected one of our staffers of
wrongdoing, using his computer at home. They had nothing connecting
his alleged misdeeds with our office, but they raided us anyway, and
took a lot of things. One of the things they took was the GURPS
Cyberpunk manuscript. Their agents were very critical of it, and on
March 2 in their office, one of them called it a "handbook for
computer crime."  Since their warrant was sealed, and they wouldn't
comment, our best guess was that they were trying to suppress the
book. They did suppress it, though apparently it was through
bureaucratic inertia and stonewalling rather than because it was a
target of the raid.

3. There was a hacker threat to sabotage the 911 system.

    No there wasn't. This story has been cynically spread by phone
company employees (who know better) and by Secret Service spokesmen
(who probably believe it, because they still don't understand any of
this). They're using this story to panic the media, to try to justify
the illegal things they've done and the huge amount of money they've
spent.

    What happened was this: A student got access to a phone company
computer and copied a text file - not a program. This file was nothing
but administrative information, and was publicly available elsewhere.
Bell South tried to value it at $79,000, but in court they admitted
that they sold copies for under $20. There was no way this file could
be used to hurt the 911 system, even if anybody had wanted to. To say
otherwise shows an incredible ignorance of the facts. It's as though a
banker claimed "This criminal made an illegal copy of the list of our
Board of Directors. He can use that to break into our vault."

2. We have an employee named Lloyd Blankenship.

    He spells his name Loyd, with one L.

And the Number One "false fact" ever reported about this story . . .


1. Steve Jackson Games is the second largest game company in the USA.

    Don't we wish!


Brett Slocum <[e-mail]>  or <uunet!ssdc.honeywell.com!slocum>
NOTICE: my address has changed!
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This one's mine, not my company's."

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

Date: Tue, 7 May 91 11:00:31 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud


540 (the one in NYC and NY suburbs, that is) is apparently not as well
known as 976 prefix and 900 "area code".  Besides, 201-540 is a
"regular" prefix in Morristown, NJ, and it's necessary for the ads for
New York 540 to state that such programs are not available in NJ.

So it would be relatively easy to pull a "fast one" telling
people in NY to call a 540 number, right?

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Date: 7 May 91 09:19:48 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (76012,300 Brad Hicks) writes:

> I see no lies and no coercion.  The people who were charged got what
> they paid for, a $55 audiotex message.  Is there anybody in Manhattan
> who can afford a pager who doesn't know that 540 numbers are toll
> calls?  If there are two thousand yuppie scum who are stupid enough to
> return a page to a toll number, and they do this for no reason other
> than that they were asked to, how can it possibly be illegal or even
> unethical?

Oh get real, Brad.  There was clear fraudulent intent here.  Said
"entrepreneur"'s intent was to trick people into calling the 540
number, collect the $55 a call, and abscond with the money.  There
wasn't coercion, but there was a definite lie.  The fact that the
intended targets were "yuppie scum" is immaterial (and an ad-hominum
argument -- you should be ashamed!) to the issue.  And in point of
fact, "540" is much less well known that "900."

This swine was using the telephone to blatantly defraud people in a
callous and totally inexcusable way, and I hope he gets a day in jail
on each of the 50,000 counts, served CONSECUTIVELY.  I'll admit, he
was an ingenious swine, but that's beside the point.

If anything, this case points out the need for regulations on charge
lines such that 1) they must state up front how much the call will
cost, and 2) hangups within a certain grace period are not charged.
RESPONSIBLE service providers are already doing this.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 11:19:53 EDT
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Collect and Third-Party Screening


We just received our April bill.  We have screening on 300 phones, and
received bills for ten of them.  A total of fourteen calls were
billed.  Two were collect calls from "MTL PQ" billed by AT&T (No
credit will be given -- international calls aren't covered by the
screening.)  Nine are calls that were allowed to be dialed by the
operator to independent phone companies.  (Credit possible, depending
on the exact circumstances.)  Two are collect calls billed by Operator
Assistance Network on behalf of AMNEX (? American Express, Maybe ???).
(New England Tel says no credit will be issued.  Exact quote -- "We
give you curb-a- charge so that we won't bill you, but Other Companies
will bill you because they don't have access to our screening."  This
is from oudr intelligent, educated rep -- no sarcasm -- who knows her
stuff, not some drone.)  The last call is collect, billed by Zero Plus
Dialing, Inc.  (Their 800 customer service number returns a busy
signal when dialed.)

Just another day in the life.


Kath Mullholand      UNH  Durham, NH

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

From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 15:00:15 -0700
Subject: MCI Halts Billing for Sex Lines


In an article in today's {San Fransisco Chronicle}, a different reason
is offered for MCI's decision to not provide billing service for
900-service providers ... "An MCI spokeswoman said that the MCI policy
would cover programs and advertisements, either recorded or live,
"that offer sexual stimulation or sexual arousal."

They go on to say that "the companies will continue to handle calls
for other kinds of 900 services."

Now, who's telling the truth here?


Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / <[e-mail]>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #342
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05680;
          8 May 91 6:54 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01547;
          8 May 91 4:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05889;
          8 May 91 3:50 CDT
Date:     Wed, 8 May 91 3:00:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #341
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 May 91 03:00:07 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 341

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Disclosure of Customer Information [Robert Jacobson]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Nigel Allen]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Ed Hopper]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Kirk Davis]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Andrew Peed]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Peter da Silva]
    The Phone Company and Personal Information [David Gast]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Disclosure of Customer Information
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle
Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 03:24:28 GMT


In California, the Telephone Privacy Act, passed in 1986, makes it
absolutely illegal for telephone companies to disclose personal
calling records or any other personal information, other than what
is found in the published directories, without the customer's consent
or a court order.


Bob Jacobson

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

Date: Mon, 6 May 91 23:09:37 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  Note that I don't hold PAT morally responsible for having 'printed'
it, but Mr. Moderator, were you asleep at the switch? I would think
your background, attitudes and dedication to weeding out articles
would have raised an alarm in your mind.


[Moderator's Note: Yes, it raised alarms. But after thinking about it
from both angles, I decided to go ahead with it. Maybe tomorrow I will
explain why.  Unofficially and off the record I was told this evening
that AT&T continues to review the matter, and that the {New York Times}
made an inquiry on this at AT&T corporate offices.  More details when
I have them and am free to discuss them.   PAT]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 04:25:06 GMT


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

> We all had to read and sign the operators non disclosure stuff, and it
> definately handled cases like his.  It was immediate grounds for
> dismissal.  It was spelled out in clear terms.  Accessing records
> without cause, disclosure of records of calling patterns to any third
> parties, or disclosure of phone calls was not only against rules, it
> was illegal and we could be procusuted, and a reference to the
> appropriate statue for my state was stapled to the booklet.

I understand this, and think it is proper, however ... how then can
one of the LD carriers call me and say: "Mr. Kaufman, we have analyzed
your long distance calling pattern -- and you can save $x by
subscribing to our service".

Surely, what's ok in one context must be ok in another.  Maybe we just
never knew that it was possible. I don't condone making this kind of
information public, but I can't get outraged over it because I always
expected it to happen.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 6 May 91 17:33 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada


My two cents worth: I think Randy Borow acted improperly, but I don't
think any serious harm was done.

I was disturbed when I saw the original message, and considered
sending a message to Patrick.

A footnote to this incident for privacy activists: I believe that the
Telegraph Act (federal Canadian legislation, probably passed in the
first quarter of this century) makes telegraph company employees swear
an oath to keep messages confidential.  In that sense, I think that
anyone who deals with sensitive information about other people,
whether they work for a hospital or telecommunications company, has an
obligation to make sure that any information they disclose about their
work does no harm. Saying something in private to Patrick would have
done no harm; posting something publicly about the calling patterns of
a telemarketing company that could not be identified would probably do
no harm. While the telemarketing company in this case did not lose
anything by having its calling patterns disclosed, I think AT&T
suffered by appearing to be a telecommunications carrier whose
employees don't keep proprietary information confidential.

That having been said, Randy didn't do this out of a desire for
profit. He deserves to be yelled at by his boss, not fired.


Nigel Allen   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue May  7 09:46:20 CDT 1991
Subject: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!


I too was shocked by Randy's disclosure of proprietary customer
information.  Such an action is definitely NOT condoned by AT&T.  In
fact, it is a violation of the AT&T "Code of Business Conduct" which
all employees review and sign periodically.

The problem here is the failure of the individual.  Randy apparently
is (perhaps "was") employed by the marketing organization and
therefore had legitimate business reason to access this information.
He did not, however, have legitimate cause to invade the customers
privacy by disclosing information on that customer to others without a
need to know.

Some other comments about access by AT&T employees to confidential
information caused me to engage in some reflection about security of
that information.  Let me tell you my perceptions.

As an employee of Computer Systems, I have access to certain automated
systems that are used by various elements of the company.  For
example, I have access to DOSS, the ordering/records system for PBX
and computer customers.  I do not have access to (nor do I even know
the names of) the long distance records systems.  I don't need to
know, therefore I can't get in.

This is typical of all AT&T systems.  While security was somewhat lax
in some non-critical areas a few years ago, all corporate systems now
require individual accounts and passwords.  You can only get an
account by having appropriate management authorization and a need to
know.  Thus, I can look at equipment records, but not long distance.

I do have access to general marketing information for long distance,
pbx and computer systems.  General marketing information is not
customer specific.  Instead it's things like price lists and tariffs,
product announcements and some design tools.

In other words, I couldn't do what Randy did as my division has no
need for access to these systems.

Was it a breach of trust? Absolutely.  Unfortunately a moment of
indiscretion may end up costing Randy quite a bit.  That is
unfortunate.  I hope he is only reprimanded and not terminated.  I
fear the latter, however.


Ed Hopper    AT&T Computer Systems    (Speaking only for myself.)

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

From: kirk davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!
Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation
Date: Tue, 07 May 1991 19:38:31 GMT


Pat,

   I've been a reader of the digest for while now, but this is my
first posting (A lurker speeks!). I've enjoyed your comments &
postings and I hope you don't take offense to this.

   I've gotta say when I read the original post, my jaw dropped. I
couldn't believe a ATT employee could make a mistake like this.

   I also feel that Pat made a almost equal mistake in not bouncing
the message back. It's always been my impression that one of the
reasons this group is moderated is to keep people from getting into
trouble (blue box, red box, etc ... there I said it and I'm *glad* I
said it).

   So this guy is a ATT employee (target) who posted first and thought
about it later. Half the people on the net are guilty of this.


   I'd suggest we let it go ... even still we all know what's going to
happen.


Kirk Davis ([e-mail])

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

From: Andrew Peed <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!
Date: 7 May 91 14:58:01 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


Now hold the phone, folks.

IF the telephone customer in question had been a private citizen, I
too would be outraged at Mr. Borow's publishing of this information.

HOWEVER, American Consumer Services (or whatever it calls itself) is
operating as a public-service company, and as such is (or should be)
open to public scrutiny. I see absolutely NO problem with Mr. Borow's
publishing what he did.

This is information that anyone off the street could concievably get,
either by asking the company directly, or if necessary by going
through the Better Business Bureau or even legal channels.

If I remember my American Government lecturer's comments correctly,
the Constitution of the United States explicitly guarantees the right
of privacy to INDIVIDUALS, not corporations. As I see it,
corporations, particularly those that operate in the public interest,
should be open books for us, the public, to read and base our consumer
behavior upon.

(Now look what you've made me do. I've gone and ended a sentence with
a preposition. If my high school English teacher hunts me down and
kills me, it'll be all your fault.)

 From what Mr. Borow posted, I think that we can gather that their
product is a run-of-the-mill scam, but that their operating procedures
are all above board. I don't have any problem with that; let the buyer
beware.


Andrew B. Peed         Motorola, Inc.
 ..!uunet!motcid!peed     Cellular Infrastructure Group
[phone]         1501 W.Shure Dr., Arlington Heights, IL, 60074

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Wed, 8 May 1991 02:59:09 GMT


Well, I must say this was a pretty dumb thing to do. The adrenaline
rush at realising he could help these poor folks on the net obviously
blew his judgement out of the water. Of course, the response from our
favorite direct marketer is probably punishment enough...


Peter da Silva.   Taronga Park BBS  [phone]/n/8/1
 Taronga Park.

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

Date: Tue, 7 May 91 21:41:45 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Phone Company and Personal Information


I agree that it was improper for an AT&T employee to post information
about a telephone user's account to this forum if that information was
obtained from confidential AT&T sources.  We should take a larger view
of the episode and consider if his personal actions are really so out
of line when compared to corporate policy.  At one time I believe that
these actions would have been completely out of line with respect to
corporate policy, but with current plans to sell ANI, CID, TTGI, and
the like the emphasis on privacy has been reduced.  (The following is
quoted from Marc's article referenced below).

"Protection of Personal Data in the United States," by William Caming
(The Information Society, pp.117-119, vol, 3., no. 2 (1984)).  Mr.
Caming was for many years general counsel for AT&T.

"In testimony before the Privacy Commission, I said in behalf of AT&T
that we unreservedly pledged ourselves to . . .  ensure that the Bell
System's commitment to the spirit of "Fair information" principles was
being fully realized. . . .

"Over the years, the Bell System has staunchly supported the concept
that the protection of its customers' communications and business
records is of singular importance.  Time and time again, we have
stressed to the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission and
on other public forums that the preservation of privacy is a basic
concept in our business. . .

"Access to these records is rigorously restricted.  They are not
released except pursuant to subpoena, administrative summons, or court
order valid on its face. . . . Exceptions to the foregoing policies
are extremely few in number."

                   ----- end of quoted text -----

The problem in large part, I believe, is because telephone companies
like most of commercial America do not believe in privacy.  Marketing
is perceived to be more important than privacy.  Yesterday's paper had
a front page article about a person who was stealing mail and then
collecting credit cards by filling out the unsolicited credit card
offers.  The paper noted that this one person could have caused up to
$200,000 damage.  While that figure may be and probably is inflated
and while I certainly do not condone the actions of the mail thief,
part of the problem has been caused by the very actions of the credit
card companies.  If they did not go around invading consumer's privacy
and then sending out unsolicited and unwanted offers that the PO will
not forward to the correct address because they are third class mail,
these thieves would not be able to go around and fill them out.

Last year I sent an article to the Digest which was written by Marc
Rotenberg of CPSR.  (I believe that article is available as
rotenberg.privacy.speech in the telecom archives).  Part of that
article was a letter to Dr. Bonnie Guiton in the US Office of Consumer
Affairs.  He was writing primarily against selling TTGI (Telephone
Transaction Generated Information).  The telephone companies want to
sell information about every single call every single person makes.
While we can be shocked and outraged that an AT&T employee would
provide information about an allegedly sleazy business's phone
records, why don't we make the same fuss when the telephone companies
propose to sell this information to anyone who will pay including
sleaze?

Many readers of this forum believe that AT&T should be able to sell
ANI information on incoming 800 numbers.?  How would these readers feel
if AT&T proposed to sell 800 calling patterns to anyone that wanted to
buy them?  Some readers of this forum believe that local telephone
companies should be able to sell CID info to the receiver of a phone
call even if the caller objects.  Suppose that the telephone companies
proposed to sell CID info to anyone who wanted to buy?  Suppose that
the company you call starts selling this information?  The problem is
that society has not thoroughly debated much less decided that the
protections of the Communications Act of 1934 should be eliminated.

As Marc wrote: Perhaps the clearest statement in support of telephone
privacy can be found in the original Federal Communications Act of
1934:

   No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any
   communications and divulge or publish the existence, contents, sub-
   stance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted
   communication to any person.  (Section 605).

   As the Congress recognized in 1934, telephone privacy means
   more than simply protecting the contents of the communication from
   unlawful disclosure.  The confidentiality of phone communications
   extends as well to toll record information, and the broader category
   of TTGI.

John Stanley seems to support my argument that marketing is more
important than privacy when he writes:

   While the passing of this information between LD carriers for use
   in marketing LD services might be arguably ethical, using one's
   position within AT&T to broadcast this stuff to the general public
   certainly is NOT.

I hardly see how passing the information between LD carriers can
possibly ethical.  Does marketing suddenly make an ethical activity
ethical?  Additionally, passing the info among LD carriers could be
construed as collusion under the anti-trust laws.  If I call someone,
I expect that information is private and confidential.  Finally, I can
hardly agree that the marketing department should be privy to any
information that the general public should not be.  As a result,
marketing departments should not receive personally identifiable
information.


David

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #341
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00751;
          9 May 91 5:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11465;
          9 May 91 3:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23132;
          9 May 91 2:25 CDT
Date:     Thu, 9 May 91 1:25:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #344
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 May 91 01:25:25 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 344

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience [Derek E. Terveer]
    Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Spreading Rumors (Was: Prodigy) [Ron Dippold]
    Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists [Tom Gray]
    Re: Eighth-wave, or Quarter-wave? [cylink![e-mail]]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Mike Andrews]
    Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Weaver Hickerson]
    Re: Long Distance Carrier Near Philadelphia [Tim Irvin]
    Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Tony Harminc]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Michael B. Scher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Derek E. Terveer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience
Organization: Joel's Home System
Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 17:58:56 -0500


[e-mail] (Jiro Nakamura) writes:

> For my new line, I deliberately didn't order touch-tone service even
> though I have touch-tone phones. It's ridiculous to get charged $2.20
> (NYNEX) a month for something that saves NYNEX money by cutting down
> on computation time. Once I get my line, I'm going to see if it
> supports touch-tone anyway. If not, it's my modem/fax line anyway, so
> it doesn't seriously bother me.

I agree.  For my data line, I specifically ordered it with just pulse
and not tone because I didn't want to pay the extra few bucks a month
for something that would be practically invisible to me.  My (Unix)
system does all the dialing whenever it wants and I don't supervise
it.  And it matters little to me whether the dial portion of a
particular call at 3am took 1.2 seconds or 4.7 seconds.

The only potential disadvantage that I see is if I want my Unix box to
call long distance and use some sort of calling card code number or
something like that that requires touch-tone.  Haven't run into that
problem yet in over five years of running this system.


derek    [e-mail]

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms
Date: 8 May 91 00:59:04 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mitch
Wagner) writes:

> I've never actually tried to charge a modem call, but it seems that
> you could just program the following string in:

> ATDT 9,1(XXX)YYY-ZZZZ,,,,,,,,,,AAAABBBBCCCCDDDD

> With ABCD being the credit card number... and ,,,,, being the pause
> for the bong.

If you put in ten commas (as you mention), you're going to be pausing
so long that the operator will have come on the line after the bong
tone, and s/he won't appreciate getting blasted with your credit card
number!  If you use commas, you will have to tinker with it at each
hotel to get the number of commas right, so that the credit card
number starts to dial within about five seconds after the bong in
order to avoid getting the operator.

What I do instead is use the "@" dial modifier, e.g.:

   ATDT 8W0XXXYYYZZZZ@AAABBBCCCCDDDD

The "@" (Wait for Quiet Answer) dial modifier is supported in most
modems today.  It causes the modem to pause, listening for some sound
in the call progress signalling band, followed by five seconds of
silence, and then continue (five seconds are required to differentiate
a "quiet answer", used in some direct inward system access features,
from the normal four-second pause between ringback tones).  The BONG
tone triggers it in most modems, because the last part of the BONG is
a decaying dial tone (which falls in the call progress band).
Sometimes the five seconds is too long and the operator comes on the
line, but usually just trying again works OK.  If it turns out that
the operator ALWAYS comes on the line before five seconds of silence
has expired, you don't have much choice but to revert to a series of
commas (and tinker until you get them right, and hope that the time it
takes the hotel PBX to send you to AT&T is fairly consistent).

You could, of course, always use ONE comma, and then use the S8
register to set its length.  This may make it somewhat easier to
"tinker", without having to edit the phone number.

FYI, I'm calling into our Vax in Atlanta right now, charging the call
to my corporate AT&T Calling Card, having used the method described
above.  Works great.  Only blasted the operator one time so far this
trip!


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer    | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                   | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348  USA      | Internet       hayes![e-mail]

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

From: Ron Dippold <qualcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Spreading Rumors (Was: Prodigy)
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 8 May 91 03:52:05 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Louis J. Judice 04-May-1991 0845) writes:

> The oddest thing about this is when you ask someone who flies into
> your office "would you REALLY believe that IBM/Sears would REALLY do
> such a thing", the answer is always - "Well, No, of course not". "So,
> why forward the article?"

The easy response to this is that corporate policy is not always what
ends up being implemented.  If the constomer representatives are so
incredibly ignorant about Prodigy and Prodigy policies (as they were
shortly before this hit the news), it's makes you wonder how far up
the ladder this goes.  In addition, we know all about those wacky
programmers ( :) ), such as the one who got Microsoft in big trouble
with his "Warning, pirated copy, wiping hard disk" message or whatever
it was.

On the surface, it would be really, really, stupid for Prodigy to
engage in information theft, wouldn't it?  Yep.  So:

 Infoworld Magazine reports that Soap Opera Now, a weekly newsletter
 covering TV soaps, has sued Prodigy Services Company. Apparently,
 Prodigy started an online soap opera service last August and a
 number of stories from Soap Opera Now began appearing online
 verbatim. Michael Kape, editor of the 6500 subscriber weekly
 arranged for publication of a totally fictitious story with the
 consent of the story's subject. According to Kape, it appeared on
 the Prodigy service with virtually the same wording. The lawsuit
 seeks damages of $38 for each of Prodigy's 700,000 subscribers.
 Prodigy refused to comment on the story.


Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks.     |     Ron Dippold

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists
Date: 8 May 91 17:13:40 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J.
Philip Miller) writes:


>        It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic
> communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications
> service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the
> government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other
> communications when appropriately authorized by law.

All this really states is that the government should have the right to
wire tap if it gets a search warrant. I don't see anything draconian
about this.

You may also note that this text does NOT specicifically refer to
encryption. How can the government wire tap a subscriber multiplexer
system and not violate the privacy of many innocent people. This text
could be read to include this case. The equipment provider must
provide means that enable the government to intecept a single party
whithout infringing on the rights of others. Privacy boxes such as
these are now provided to prevent users of public WAN's from having
access to all of the data on the net. Only information destined to a
node is allowed to pass the privacy box.

All that this text really does is to bring wire tapping into the
current era of multiplexers and shared bandwidth. If this technology
is available, the government would be compelled to use it. it could
not cite compelling national interest to intercept all communications
on a link. It would have to limit itself to a specifically restricted
set of communications.

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

From: Operator <cylink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Eighth-wave, or Quarter-wave?
Organization: Cylink Corp.
Date: Wed, 8 May 91 17:44:26 GMT


> It's perhaps time to nip an incipient TELECOM-legend in the bud, and
> suggest that the little antenna is more likely to be a helically-wound
> 1/4-wave, than any kind of 1/8-wave.

The antenna could be a 1/4 wave, but definitely not helically-wound.
That would needlessly reduce the efficiency of the antenna.  If it has
that little coil in the middle, it could be one of several
combinations.  It could be a half wave stacked on top of a 1/4 wave,
or 5/8 over 1/4.  If there is also a lump at the base of the antenna,
possibilities increase to 1/2 over 1/2, 5/8 over 5/8, 5/8 over
1/2.

The best way to tell is to measure the antenna with a ruler.


[Moderator's Note: The antenna is 1/2 inch in length. It got broke
accidentally, so I opened it up to look inside. It appears to be many,
many feet of wire wrapped around a core in the center.  The company
selling them referred to it as a '1/8 wave loaded antenna'.   PAT]

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

From: Mike Andrews <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Date: Mon, 06 May 1991 04:09:51 GMT


The excrement has hit the fan.  This Prodigy legend was reported on
CNN today.

A representitive of Prodigy denied emphatically that they were
collecting *any* information on their subscribers.  The CNN reporter
ended the report with Prodigy's statement that they were fixing this
problem in their software, adding sarcastically, "a problem that they
deny they have..."

As was mentioned on PBS's "Nova" a few weeks ago, Prodigy DOES collect
information on its members.  It tracks the demographics of the user
and where they go in the service to find the customer's interests so
that the ads that appear are tailored to those interests.  There was
no mention of whether Prodigy sells that information to others.

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

Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This?
Organization: Holos Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA
Date: 7 May 91 09:46:55 EDT (Tue)
From: Weaver Hickerson <holos0![e-mail]>


Concerning these telemarketing sleazes.  I have a friend who, after
getting his MBA (Accounting) and MHA (Hospital Admin), went to work
doing stuff like this.  Much to the chagrin of his father the
endocrinoligist.

The common theme seems to be you get something for nothing, which we
all know does not happen.  He's called me from work a few times to
chat, and you can always hear several sales pitches going on around
him.

"Did you know that you should feel incredibly lucky that we chose you
to be the winner of a free (only $199.00) vacation at a hotel in
Florida, which we have an arrangement with that we will buy empty
rooms for $10.00 a night?"  (I read between the lines)

Part of the appeal of their sales pitch now is that, if the customer
does not have a checking account (no ACH transfer), and no credit
card, they provide a 1-900 number for the customer's convenience.
Just call the number and the $199.00 will be billed to your phone
bill.  What a benefit!  Oh, and that's not all.  They'll also send by
a FedEx courier to pick up your money.  Every angle covered.

I wonder if he could arrange for me to visit the "service center".  It
would probably be enlightening.  Oh well, at least he's not working
for the "credit repair" service anymore.  That one cost him some
lawyer's fees and restitution, after he was arrested for "owning and
operating a credit repair service", which he neither owned or
operated.  The owner had already split town.  They spent all their
time calling up people with poor credit and guaranteeing that they
would either arrange financing for a car or refund the $250.00 (cash)
payment.

Maybe I can get him to post an "insider's view".


Weaver Hickerson   Voice [phone]   :  ..!edu!gatech!holos0!wdh

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Long Distance Carrier Near Philadelphia
Date: Wed, 08 May 91 11:50:10 EDT
From: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest V11 #340, Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes:

> A default long distance company I have seen very recently (on at least
> one pay phone in the Middle Atlantic area -- I live in Delaware) is
> another firm I haven't heard of, but is quite close by:

> Call Technology Corp.
> 100 Stevens Drive
> Lester, PA 19113

> This would put it near the Philadelphia International Airport.

I will probably regret admitting this, but that is my brother-in-law's
firm.  It is an AOS/COCOT company, with a big portion of the business
devoted to prisons.  You're correct about the location, right smack
dab next to the Philadelphia Airport.  It is not a new company; he has
been aound since the before the early days of COCOTs (back when the
PUCs were trying to figure out what to do with these guys.)  Prior to
that Call Technology was a long distance consulting firm (your
business calls XX, YY, and ZZ the most, so IXC ABC would be the best
company for these routes, etc.)

Just to save my reputation here, I also am not a fan of COCOTs (not
that I would admit that at our Thanksgiving family reunions).  I do
generally look for that "genuine Bell" logo on pay-phones.  But from
looking at his operation, I'd have to (biasedly) say that Call Tech.
is a pretty tame critter in a jungle of sleazoids.


Tim Irvin    NORTHSTAR    Dartmouth College

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

From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 00:01:00 -0400
Subject: Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993


> If you have the postal address of a place, it will be
> in 416 if and only if its postal code starts with the letter M.
> (Ignoring any anomalies at the Metro boundary, that is.)

Except for companies like mine who plan to run an entire building
(data centre) on FX lines across the boundary.  So even though our
data centre address is in Markham and has an "L" postal code, the
phone numbers will all remain in 416.  This brings up several
potential glitches: what happens when someone dials 911 (ANI/ALI will
show the address of our Toronto building where the PBX trunks are;
callers trying to look up our number in the Markham directory won't
find it (unless we pay for a listing there); etc.

> << list of Metro Toronto prefixes deleted >>

I wonder what's going to happen to cellular prefixes when the 905
split happens.  Currently I don't think most cellular subscribers
think too hard about exactly where their phone is based.  Perhaps some
Metro subscribers will discover that they've really been outside
Toronto all this time.


Tony Harminc
(Reminder: only my eMail address is in Montreal; I'm in Toronto)

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 91 12:11:12 -0400
From: "Michael B. Scher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud


[e-mail] writes:

> 540 (the one in NYC and NY suburbs, that is) is apparently not as well
> known as 976 prefix and 900 "area code".  Besides, 201-540 is a
> "regular" prefix in Morristown, NJ, and it's necessary for the ads for
> New York 540 to state that such programs are not available in NJ.

> So it would be relatively easy to pull a "fast one" telling
> people in NY to call a 540 number, right?

   Quite correct.  Actually most of the Morristown, NJ 540 numbers
belong to MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, so the scam with beepers was
even more pointed.  Many of the beeper-holding people could well have
been MD's "tricked" into calling in for an emergency.  The joke's
really a lulu if you begin to think of it like that.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #344
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01048;
          9 May 91 5:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23132;
          9 May 91 2:24 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12475;
          9 May 91 1:10 CDT
Date:     Thu, 9 May 91 0:33:54 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #343
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 May 91 00:33:46 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 343

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why the Bong? [Edwin D. Windes]
    Re: Why the Bong? [Carl Moore]
    Re: Why the Bong? [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Mark Eckenwiler]
    Re: 600: 600 ohm Transformer : What Does it Mean? [Rolf Meier]
    Re: Digest Reader Annoys Authorities in El Lay [Barry Margolin]
    Re: Hollings and the RBOCs [John Higdon]
    Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [John R. Levine]
    Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [David E. Sheafer]
    Re: Paradyne FDX 2400 Modem Power Supply Needed [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: CLASS in Pac*Bell [Jason Hillyard]
    Wanted: Suppliers For Panasonic Key Systems [Kent Hauser]
    Bellcore and the NNX Area Codes [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue,  7 May 91 10:36:00 EDT
From: Edwin D Windes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why the Bong?
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Bernard Fran Collins) writes:

> Perhaps this has been discussed before.  Is there a good reason why a
> credit card call must contain a pause in the dialing in order to wait
> for the bong?

The telephone number is collected by your local office.  The card
number is collected at an operator system.  Before you hear the bong,
your local switch has to route the call out to an operator system, and
the equipment that collects your card number has to be connected to
your call.  Lots of work to do.

> Why can't the card number be delivered to the LD
> carrier without such a pause?

If a LD carrier is handling the call, they collect the card number
after the call reaches their operator system.  Ever hear the new
"bong/AT&T..."?

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

Date: Tue, 7 May 91 11:05:05 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why the Bong?


The bong you hear after dialing (optional LD carrier access code+) 0 +
NPA + number (or 0+number where permitted in place of 0+NPA+number) is
a prompt for one of two things:

1. Punch in credit card number.

2. Get a human operator on the line for collect, third party billing,
   person to person call, or to take credit card number if you cannot
   punch it in (as on rotary dial phone).

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why the Bong?
Date: 8 May 91 03:25:07 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Bernard Fran Collins) writes:

> Perhaps this has been discussed before.

Well, yes it has. But not for a while.

> Is there a good reason why a credit card call must contain a pause
> in the dialing in order to wait  for the bong?  ... bong really do
> anyway?

The local carrier isn't interested in your credit card number, so you
have to wait till the LD carrier is listening.

You just might be on a circuit that has a tone to pulse converter
active that needs to be shut off. The BONG tone is actually the # key
to knock off the TT->DP converter, and then it fizzles off to sound
distinctive.  Someone will probably publish the exact specs again.

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

From: Mark Eckenwiler <panix![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 12:28:38 GMT
Organization: The Witherspoon Excludables


In article <[e-mail]> peanut![e-mail]
(Daniel Senie) writes:

> The City, of course, bought the phones and computers, and didn't hire
> any additional operators. Response time did not improve.

> When I lived in NYC, I always kept the phone numbers for the local
> police and fire stations near the phone. If there was an emergency you
> really didn't want to risk life and property on 911 response times.

Recent experience bears out this observation.  Last December, there
was a fire in one of the Brooklyn subway tunnels. Literally dozens of
citizens called 911 to request fire and ambulance assistance -- the
primary danger being *extreme* smoke inhalation -- only to get no
answer, to get cut off during a transfer, or to get the response that
squad cars were on the way.  When the proper emergency services were
eventually dispatched, they were sent at first to a station on a
*different* subway line.

A number of passengers died, as I recall.  There was a *HUGE* series
of recriminations after the fact, and 911 is being (in theory)
revamped, although NYC's present budget woes probably preclude any
meaningful improvement.


Mark Eckenwiler    [e-mail]    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck

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

From: Rolf Meier <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 600: 600 ohm Transformer : What Does it Mean?
Date: 7 May 91 13:10:13 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jon
Sreekanth) writes:

> In summary, what does the magic 600:600 spec mean ? Any 1:1
> transformer should be interchangeable, and line matching really means
> the secondary should be terminated into the proper impedance.

You are essentially correct.  However, for telephony, the reference
impedance is usually 600 ohms (or sometimes 900 ohms), and so you want
to easily know the matching impedance.

Therefore, a 1200:600 transformer is the same as a 2:1 transformer,
but the former figure more easily shows that it will match 1200 ohms
to 600 ohms.

Also, the dc resistance of telephony transformers is around 40 ohms,
which is much less significant at 600 ohms as if it was used for 8
ohms.  So, another reason for using 600:600 is to indicate that it is
for high impedance applications.  Don't try to use it for your stereo
speakers.


Rolf Meier    Mitel Corporation

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

From: Barry Margolin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Digest Reader Annoys Authorities in El Lay
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 16:19:18 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Schnell)
writes:

>     GTE's Cox said the company is not sending corrected bills because
> of the high cost involved, but he said that the company will determine
> how much each customer has been overcharged and will credit customers
> beginning June 7 with the overcharge amount plus 3% interest.
 ...
> [Ron's note - Gee, 3% interest after three months.  I wish my credit
> card would give me that rate.  I don't really like the fact that
> people are being forced to loan money to the phone company.  They
> should really be forced to give a higher percentage.]

Unless they meant 3% annualized interest, it's actually a pretty good
deal.  3% after three months is equivalent to 12.5% interest annually.
While credit cards generally get more than this from you, it's better
than most investments, and it's effectively tax free (they're not
going to send a 1099, are they?).  And people who waited until close
to the end of the March billing cycle before paying, but pay early in
the June cycle, will only have leant the month for about 2-1/2 months,
which works out to over 15% APR.


Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.
[e-mail]   {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

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

Date: Tue, 7 May 91 10:43 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Hollings and the RBOCs


Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]> writes:

> In several recent messages John Higdon has asserted that Pacific Bell
> is "guaranteed" a cushy rate of return.

> However, the cap is AUTOMATICALLY cut each year in real terms by 4.5%
> (Federal) or 6.5%(State).  Thus, unless Pacific Bell is continually
> lowering its costs by at least that much, it will find itself making
> less than the initial 11-13%.

And guess who wrote this procedure in general and in detail. And then
fought tooth and nail, making promises that still have not been kept
to convince public opinion and the regulatory bodies to embrace it.
Currently, the profits are obscene under the price cap regulation.
Bells all over the country have blown vast portions of labor forces
out the door.  Labor costs have dropped DRAMATICALLY and equipment
costs and maintenance have dropped as well and yet -- and YET -- the
average LEC customer is paying MORE for his service than five years
ago. It does not take a master mathematician to uncover the fact that
RBOCs are cleaning up.

> In 1988 Nynex agreed to a price cap plan where it promised to cut
> rates in real terms at the same rate as inflation -- about 4.5% per
> year (What it actually agreed to was to freeze prices in nominal
> dollars which amounts to the same thing.)

Compared to the headroom of the intitial agreement and the real
difference between cost and revenue this is chump change.

> By the end of three years
> its rate of return had dropped to about 8%, or less than you could get
> by buying a truly no-risk Treasury Bond.  Nynex was unable to meet the
> productivity target it had agreed to with the NY PSC and saw its
> profits drop substantially.

As determined by whom? When was the last time you ever heard of a full
audit of an LEC by either legislative or regulatory entities? How
short your memory is (or how gullible you are)! Nynex, if you will
recall, got zinged for its "creative accounting" (which was so blatant
that it did not require a full audit) in which it sold equipment to
itself via its unregulated division at list-plus prices. This had the
effect of showing a substantial expense on the part of the regulated
side, reducing profits considerably. Where did all this ratepayer
money go?  To the unregulated division, of course.

And this was just something one RBOC got caught at. This is most
likely the tip of the iceberg in regards to telco scams. It might even
have been done so that Nynex would be caught and would take the heat
(and light) away from some more nefarious schemes.

BTW, if Nynex told the PUC-equivalent that it could no longer survive
under the current regulations, do you suppose it would be told "too
bad"?

> I'm sure that there is plenty of slack at Pacific Bell so that it can
> achieve 6.5% reduction in real terms for a few years.  It will be
> interesting to see for how long they can keep it up.

If the Hollings bill passes, it should survive indefinitely and then
some. The telephone company will just take care of us as it used to.
In whatever manner it chooses.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 7 May 91 11:30:47 EDT (Tue)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> Hmm.  I don't think my USSprint card has a fee - at least it's not
> itemized as such.

FON card calls are surcharged about 75 cents, similar to AT&T and MCI
calls.  If you have Sprint Plus, the volume discount plan, FON card
calls are counted toward the total call volume that determines the
discount for direct dialed calls, but the FON card calls themselves
don't get the discount.


Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl

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

From: "David E. Sheafer, Class of 1989" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge?
Date: 7 May 91 09:45:41 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
net (Greg Oliveau) writes:

> [e-mail] (Joel Spolsky) writes:

>> Are there calling cards without this extra fee?

> Hmm.  I don't think my USSprint card has a fee - at least it's not
> itemized as such.  Probably the 'setup' charge is hidden in the first
> three minutes of use.

  The US Spring FONcard charges .50, .75 or 1.25 for the call
depending on if it is interLATA call or an IntraLATA call and if you
are using a rotary phone.

  If memory serves me right most calls are charged an additional .75,
same as AT&T.


David E. Sheafer
internet:  [e-mail]   or  uucp:      samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b
GEnie:     D.SHEAFER             Cleveland Freenet:    ap345

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 91 02:45 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Paradyne FDX 2400 Modem Power Supply Needed


        In Digest v11 iss315, [[e-mail]] asks:

> Does anyone know where I might get a power supply adapter for a
> Paradyne FDX 2400 MODEM manufactured by ARK Products. I bought it at a
> Flea Market with docs but no address for ARK. ??

        While this may be one idividual's request, there are quite a
few ARK FDX 2400 modems in closets around the country simply because a
new power supply could not be easily found.  This reply will hopefully
be useful to more than one inquirer:

        ARK Electronic Products of Melbourne, FL was absorbed by
Paradyne of Largo, FL which was subsequently purchased by AT&T.
AT&T/Paradyne can still provide replacement power supply adapters for
FDX 2400 units.  We recently obtained two, but it took some time and
probably will cost us significant money for what the item is.

        The reason for this delay and cost is that in an unfortunate
design choice, the ARK designers chose an unusual plug ... the one
that was on the Chief Engineer's TI 57 calculator (remember those?).
As a result, when the TI warehouse ran out of replacement calculator
power supplies, the world ran out of FDX 2400 power supply adapters.

        Paradyne did later, however, get more made, and if they are
now again out of stock, the source data for that unit with the oddball
plug is: Ault (transformer manufacturing) Inc. part 326-4026-T11.

        In fact, the FDX 2400 is essentially a board laid out by
Rockwell for use of its chip set, and probably operates on 9 Volts AC.
The Ault transformer is a 26 VAC, 40 Volt-Amp unit, which is
center-tapped, and seems to have the FDX 2400 using only half its
secondary.

        Thus, if you have a small bit of skill, you can probably open
up an FDX 2400, and find it has only two wires from the board to the
oddball power connector, and try running the modem for a short time on
9 Volts of batteries. (The current needed is too much for a single 9
Volt transistor radio battery.)  If it operates, just find yourself a
safe source of 9 Volts AC, and you've done the job.

        The ARK FDX 2400 is a very feature-rich modem, so be prepared
to spend some time figuring out how to option it and use all the
things it offers you.

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

From: Jason Hillyard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CLASS in Pac*Bell
Date: 8 May 91 18:32:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim
Gottlieb) writes:

(re: Commstar)

> Pacific Bell plans to make these services available to the 213,
> 818, 415, and 408 area codes of LATAs 1 and 5 in 1991.  We
> expect to add area codes 714 and 805 in LATA 5 and 707 in LATA
> 1 by the end of 1992.

Are there any plans for area code 619?

Jason Hillyard    [e-mail]

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

From: Kent Hauser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Suppliers For Panasonic Key Systems
Date: 7 May 91 17:37:05 GMT
Organization: Twenty-First Designs, Wash, DC


Could someone recommend a good supplier for the Panasonic key system
equipment?  I need both the system unit and feature phones.

Thanks.


Kent Hauser            UUCP: {uunet,sundc,uupsi}!tfd!kent
Twenty-First Designs        INET: [e-mail]
[phone]

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 91 16:36:49 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bellcore and the NNX Area Codes


(No, NNX area codes have not come yet; 310,410,510, not yet in use at
this writing, still fit the N0X/N1X form.)

Could someone review the plan for NNX area codes?  Specifically, is
Mexico still to get the pseudo-area-codes of 52x where x is not
necessarily 0?  The first slew of NNX area codes is to be of form NN0,
with the past-or-current idea that some area codes will thus be able
to retain 1+7D (intra-NPA long distance) by not using PREFIXES of NN0
form.  Bellcore has or had something to say about the NN0/NNX format,
right?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #343
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27573;
          10 May 91 4:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20236;
          10 May 91 2:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05558;
          10 May 91 1:42 CDT
Date:     Fri, 10 May 91 1:25:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #345
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 10 May 91 01:25:12 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 345

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Higdon Hurt in Motorcycle Accident [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Robert M. Hamer]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Ed Hopper]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [David L. Phillips]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [David Esan]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Dan Herrick]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Christopher Lott]
    Controversy: Sleaze vs. Public Trust [Bill Cattey]
    Re: The Phone Company and Personal Information [David Snearline]
    Last Laugh! Name of New Merged NCR/ATT Leaks Out! [Donald Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 May 91 0:33:06 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Higdon Hurt in Motorcyle Accident


I am sorry to report that our friend John Higdon was hurt in an
accident involving his motorcycle a few days ago, and had to be placed
in the hospital. He was wearing his helmet, so the accident was not as
bad as it might have been.

He was released from the hospital Thursday, and is resting at home. We
all wish him a speedy recovery. He said he'll be taking a few days off
from writing to the Digest until he has recovered from the accident.


PAT

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 91 08:18 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records PUblic!!


kirk davis <[e-mail]> wrote:

>   I also feel that Pat made a almost equal mistake in not bouncing
> the message back. It's always been my impression that one of the
> reasons this group is moderated is to keep people from getting into
> trouble (blue box, red box, etc ... there I said it and I'm *glad* I
> said it).

I, too, feel it would have been appropriate for you to bounce the note
back to Randy with a "Are you absolutely sure you want to do this?"
message.  In my view, one of the reasons you moderate ought to be to
help protect us from doing anything really stupid.  This was, on
Randy's part.  He'll probably get canned.  I'm not at all saying it's
your fault; it's his.  But we all do something really stupid at some
time in our lives, and if someone is in a position to ask "Are you
really sure you want to do it?" I think it appropriate.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed May  8 11:09:59 CDT 1991
Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!


Andrew Peed <motcid![e-mail]> writes:

> Now hold the phone, folks.

> IF the telephone customer in question had been a private citizen, I
> too would be outraged at Mr. Borow's publishing of this information.

Nonsense, all customers have a right to privacy.  Just because a
person or group of persons forms a corporation to do business does not
mean that they are not entitled to privacy.

> HOWEVER, American Consumer Services (or whatever it calls itself) is
> operating as a public-service company, and as such is (or should be)
> open to public scrutiny. I see absolutely NO problem with Mr. Borow's
> publishing what he did.

What in the world is a "public-service company"?  True, these people
are probably typical telemarketing sleaze (TTS for short), but that
does not abrogate their rights.  Why should they be open to public
scrutiny?  If they break the law, sure.  But this type of invasion is
inappropriate.  I am, quite frankly, alarmed at this attitude that the
sin of capitalism is an excuse for all types of excess.

> This is information that anyone off the street could concievably get,
> either by asking the company directly, or if necessary by going
> through the Better Business Bureau or even legal channels.

I think that's stretching it by a mile.  I doubt that the company in
question would give you that information, particularly if you advised
them that you intended to publish it to Telecom.  The BBB is, of
course, a joke.  They have virtually no investigative ability and
certainly no authority.  Pursuing legal channels would require that
one show cause as to why one needed this information and why one had a
right to this information.  I doubt that anyone in this case,
including the original recipient of the call, would be able to support
such a request in court.

> If I remember my American Government lecturer's comments correctly,
> the Constitution of the United States explicitly guarantees the right
> of privacy to INDIVIDUALS, not corporations. As I see it,
> corporations, particularly those that operate in the public interest,
> should be open books for us, the public, to read and base our consumer
> behavior upon.

I am not sure your lecturer knows what he is talking about.
Corporations are "persons" under the law.  They can own property and
exercise a number of other rights.  I know of no place where a court
has specifically held that corporations, simply because they were
corporations, had no right to privacy.  Would you really want that?
Without a corporate right to privacy, a letter you send to your bank,
for example, could be opened at the post office for the amusement of
all.


Ed Hopper     [e-mail]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1991 13:56:12 EDT
From: "David L. Phillips" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!


In article <[e-mail]>, motcid![e-mail]
(Andrew Peed) says:

> IF the telephone customer in question had been a private citizen, I
> too would be outraged at Mr. Borow's publishing of this information.
> If I remember my American Government lecturer's comments correctly,
> the Constitution of the United States explicitly guarantees the right
> of privacy to INDIVIDUALS, not corporations.

In fact, if I remember MY lecturer's comments (from far too long ago)
as well as more recent business dealings, in law, corporations are
treated as persons.  That is one of their main differences from
partnerships and proprietorships.  So they have the same right to
privacy as the rest of us.

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

From: David Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!
Date: 7 May 91 18:02:27 GMT
Reply-To: David Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John
Palmer) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 335, Message 7 of 8

> WHAT THE HELL IS THIS!! Do all of you realize what Mr. Borow just
> did!!!
> He used his privilege as an AT&T employee to access PRIVATE telephone
> records about a subscriber of AT&T and has now broadcast them to the
> entire world

I too was shocked by the original article and wondered where Randy got
the information.  I think that this could be construed as industrial
espionage.  Think about it, if your competition knows that you are
calling a certain number or numbers often they can use this to figure
your future plans or beat you to the punch.  They could also intrude
on personal issues (the CEO is calling his/her new girlfriend/
boyfriend (you may pick and choose, any combination could be
embarrassing)) that could adversely affect the continuation of the
business.

My vote is that Randy's actions were wrong.


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

From: HERRICK, DANIEL <abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!
Date: 9 May 91 09:41:57 EST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jeff Sicherman) writes:

>   Note that I don't hold PAT morally responsible for having 'printed'
> it, but Mr. Moderator, were you asleep at the switch? I would think
> your background, attitudes and dedication to weeding out articles
> would have raised an alarm in your mind.

I spent some time thinking about Pat's position with this little
imbroglio.  My first thought was that Pat could have kept things less
drastic for his informant by just returning the posting saying he
could not publish such a thing.

However, this action would have left both of them open to blackmail -
Pat for possession of contraband, his informant for having extracted
it and then tried to coverup.  Pat would never be able to demonstrate
that he had destroyed all copies, and he sent a receipt for the
original.

Second possibility.  Pat could have told his informant his action was
improper and passed the information on to some authority in AT&T
(postmaster@host is one possibility), while not publishing.  This
introduces the possibility of the informant being taught some wisdom
without being fired.  However, the story would have leaked out.  There
would have been screams of a coverup.  AT&T lower-middle management
might have tried to suppress the event without dealing with the
systemic problem of inadequate controls on sensitive data.

Third possibility.  Pat does what his informant asked him to do when
he submitted the contraband.  Publish it to the world.  And pursues
whatever private action he considers appropriate.  The informant has
to be fired.  Pat is not responsible for this event.  comp.risks will
have a new topic.  AT&T will have to answer publicly for bad design
and controls.  The fallout will include non-technical management at
many companies noticing that they should understand the safeguards on
sensitive data.

Summary.  Pat had an ethical choice.  All paths he could have chosen
had undesirable results.  I think the one he chose was well chosen.


dan herrick     [e-mail]

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!
Date: 10 May 91 03:25:02 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

> In that sense, I think that
> anyone who deals with sensitive information about other people,
> whether they work for a hospital or telecommunications company, has an
> obligation to make sure that any information they disclose about their
> work does no harm.

And who decides whether the disclose did harm?  Who gets to play
"God?"

> Saying something in private to Patrick would have done no harm.

Again, sez who?  Who knows what Patrick, or anyone else might be
tempted to do with the information?  The reason there are RULES about
confidentiality is to reduce the temptation to play God!

> While the telemarketing company in this case did not lose
> anything by having its calling patterns disclosed, I think AT&T
> suffered by appearing to be a telecommunications carrier whose
> employees don't keep proprietary information confidential.

I'd disagree with your first point -- I'm willing to bet that said
company's lawyers would disagree too, if they found out about it.
You're right on point two, though.  The loss to AT&T could be quite
significant.

> That having been said, Randy didn't do this out of a desire for
> profit. He deserves to be yelled at by his boss, not fired.

What Randy "deserves" is to be treated like any other employee who
committed this infraction of "the rules."  Whether or not the
disclosure was "harmless" is besides the point.

[e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> disclosure of records of calling patterns to any third
>>                                                  -----
>> parties, or disclosure of phone calls was not only against rules, it
>> was illegal and we could be procusuted, and a reference to the
>> appropriate statue for my state was stapled to the booklet.

> I understand this, and think it is proper, however ... how then can
> one of the LD carriers call me and say: "Mr. Kaufman, we have analyzed
> your long distance calling pattern -- and you can save $x by
> subscribing to our service".

Mark, in this case, you are the party of the second part, not the
infamous party of the third part.  It's perfectly OK for the phone
company to tell you "we've looked at how YOU make phone calls with US
and you can save money" but not for THEM to tell US what phone calls
YOU made.

        (Geez, I shudda been a lawyer ;^) )


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 91 12:41:52 -0400
From: Christopher Lott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!!


Hi Pat,

Here's my vote, if you're tallying them:

You blew it.  A moderator shouldn't post something this inflammatory.
Mr too-eager-att-employee is in deep doo-doo, and it could have been
avoided.  If I were to send some slime in that libels various folks,
you'd reject it.  He libeled himself, in essence, and you sent it.

Don't be personally offended, please.  I think you do a great job.
But you were waaaaaay out to lunch that day.


chris...

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

Date: Mon,  6 May 1991 19:56:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bill Cattey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Controversy: Sleaze vs. Public Trust


I received a call from what I now know to be American Consumer
Services.  I would like to do anything I can to get them shut down.
Even though what they are doing may well be perfectly within the
letter of the law, it is a sleazy scam and I'd like to purge the world
of such abuse.

I think that John Palmer and Robert Woodhead are overreacting to Randy
Borow's posting.  I suspect that if I did a little digging, I, a
non-employee, could obtain the very same information he did.  (I might
have to tell a lie almost as bad as the one that our telemarketers
tell when they say the've already called me when they have not.)

I think that Mr. Borow has unfortunately exposed himself to undue
risk.  The information he gives us doesn't really add to the story,
and it has the potential for getting him in trouble for exposing what
may be private records.

I think the REAL tragedy will be if Mr. Borow is prosecuted
(persecuted?) while the American Consumer Services continue to attempt
to dupe the unsuspecting consumers.

Let us please discuss legal and reasonable ways to help shut down
American Consumer Services, and leave Mr. Borow alone after his
possible breach of trust in his enthusiasm for trying to help nail
them.


Bill Cattey

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

From: David Snearline <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Phone Company and Personal Information
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering
Date: Wed, 8 May 1991 10:47:21 GMT


Along with the rest of the readers of the TELECOM Digest, I too was
shocked when I read the Randy's post regarding the calling patterns of
the local telemarketing scam.  While I do not condone posting
confidential information to the net, I am glad that he did, for the
very reason that it reminds us how easily "private" information
regarding our lives is accessed.

The particular information that Randy posted was interesting, but not
particularly damaging.  I am sure that in this age of electronic
information, far more sensitive information is distributed to
individuals or corporations whom we would rather not have it.  Randy's
particular mistake was broadcasting the information in a public place,
substituting the invasion of privacy on the part of the telemarketer
for his own.

Hopefully the net community will learn from this experience.


David Snearline   CAEN Network Operations
University of Michigan Engineering

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

Date: Thu, 9 May 91 23:21 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last Laugh! Name of New Merged NCR/ATT Leaks Out!


Here's some "inside" news that's making the rounds of AT&T plant
employees today.  The name of the new merged AT&T/NCR is going to be:
Cash Registers And Phones --- figure out the short form for yourself!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #345
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17457;
          10 May 91 23:31 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14116;
          10 May 91 22:08 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32432;
          10 May 91 20:55 CDT
Date:     Fri, 10 May 91 20:52:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #346
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 10 May 91 20:52:38 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 346

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Transatlantic Calling History [Dave Marthouse]
    Re: AT&T Call Manager Service [Jack Dominey]
    MFJ Info Services [Peter Marshall]
    Line Noise Problem [Steven Gutfreund]
    410 Area Code in Maryland [Shih-ping S Sun]
    Transformer Impedence Matching [Bud Couch]
    BC Telephone Phase Out Rotary Phones [Mathew Zank]
    Deregulation in Telecom [David Gast]
    Interesting Hotel Phone [Steven King]
    Inexpensive Data Connections Needed [Lou Birk]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Marthouse)
Subject: Transatlantic Calling History
Date: 7 May 91 13:37:23 GMT
Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc.  Fords, NJ


I would like information on the first transatlantic call from North
America to Europe. When was it made? What mode was used? I assume it
was radio. If so, what form of modulation was used and what frequency
was it on? Any other technical or historical information would be
appreciated.


Dave Marthouse    Internet: [e-mail]
Fidonet: dave marthouse 1:107/323   Packet ax25: n2aam @ w2emu-4.nj.usa.na

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue May  7 08:46:01 EDT 1991
Subject: Re: AT&T Call Manager Service


Replying to an ongoing thread, recently added to by Sander J.
Rabinowitz <[e-mail]>:

> Is this a new service that's starting up only in certain geographical
> areas? The above dialing sequence produced the usual AT&T calling card
> prompt, and the extra four digits appear to be discarded.

> [Moderator's Note: When I used it here (0 + NPA + 7D - pause for tone
> - enter 15xx), the call was processed, and the billing came to my line
> the following month with notations on the bill entitled 'account code
> xx', where 'xx' was the two digits I had entered after the '15' when
> making the call.  It appears nothing further is required to use this
> service.   PAT]

A quick check of the latest AT&T sales brief, dated 2/7/91, shows that
our Moderator is once again correct.  Here's a summary of what I
found:

   - No sign-up is required.  If the service is available in your area,
     you can start using it immediately.

   - The service can use two or four digits; as Pat described it,
     the format would be 0 + NPA + 7D (tone) 15xx OR 15xxxx.

   - It's available to customers using DDD, PRO WATS, or Reach Out
     America if the customer is either directly billed by AT&T, or
     by a former Bell Operating Company.  Call Manager is apparently
     not available in GTE or other independent company areas.
     EXCEPTION:  NYNEX and SNET only provide Call Manager billing to
     PRO WATS customers.

The biggest drawback to the service that we small business salesdrones
have seen is that the codes are optional.  Many of our customers would
like to use forced authorization codes instead.


Jack Dominey   AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA
v: 404-496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey or bsga05!jdominey

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

Subject: MFJ Info Services
From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 May 91 07:47:04 PDT


Per the 4/8 edition of TELECOMMUNICATIONS WEEK, there have been two
days of oral argument before Judge Greene on 4/18-19 focused on issues
of the MFJ's info services restriction.

Some of the ten topics Greene outlined for oral argument included: "In
determining whether the lifting of the information services
restriction would be anticompetitive, to what extent may the court
consider and what weight may it give to the pre-divestiture history,
 ... and regional company anticompetitive acts, if any, since 1984?"

"What weight is the court required to give to the views of the
Department of Justice on legal, factual,or mixed issues?"

"What opportunities, if any, exist for the subsidization of
information services in funds or in kind from monies received by the
regional companies as a result of their regulated telephone
activities?"

"May a regional company acquire and use for the development or
marketing of information services information obtained about customers
in the course of its regulated business?"

"By what specific methods could regional companies discriminate
effectively against particular classes of competing information
services providers?"

"Do telephone information services constitute a separate market, or
are they part of a broader information services market?"

"What is the current status and effectiveness of FCC and state
regulations with respect to information services?"

"Can cable, cellular, or other technology at this time provide
sufficient access to information services to decrease or eliminate the
dependency of information services providers on the local exchange
system?"


                    halcyon![e-mail]
  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA

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

From: Steven Gutfreund <[e-mail]>
Subject: Line Noise
Date: 7 May 91 16:55:09 GMT


We have been experiencing significant problems with FAX SEND/RECIEVEs.
This conisist mostly of chopped in half pages and failed
send/recieves.

I suspect line noise. Does anyone have any advice that would be
effective in getting New England Tel to look into this? Any particular
directions I can give them to make them consider this seriously?


Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund          [e-mail]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA          harvard!bunny!sgutfreund

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

From: Shih-ping S Sun <[e-mail]>
Subject: 410 Area Code in Maryland
Date: 7 May 91 18:56:57 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Being stuck here at P.U., I have missed most of the stuff about 410 in
MAryland ... at the risk of being repetitious, could someone bring me
up to date on exactly what areas will be affected?

The latest I had heard was that:

    - 410 will be implemented in NOvember 1991 but you can still use
either 301 or 410.

    - in November 1992, you MUST use 410 to dial 410 numbers.

Has this changed?  Is it accurate at all?

S. Spencer Sun - P.U. '94 - #1 @6909 WWIVnet - 609/258/8877

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Transformer Impedence Matching
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 18:48:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jon
Sreekanth) writes:

> This is probably a simple question : what is the meaning of a spec
> such as a transformer being 600 ohm : 600 ohm ? For example, some
> telecom transformers (phone line interface transformers) are spec'ed
> this way.

> My understanding is if a transformer is ideal, it reflects the
> secondary impedance to the primary. So, if a transformer primary is
> connected to the telephone line, and the secondary is left open
> circuited, the AC impedance that the telephone line sees is infinity,
> right? If the secondary is shorted, the telephone line should see an
> AC short; if the secondary is connected to a 600 ohm load, the
> telephone line should see 600 ohm.

> In summary, what does the magic 600:600 spec mean ? Any 1:1
> transformer should be interchangeable, and line matching really means
> the secondary should be terminated into the proper impedance.

The RESISTANCE (ohms) of the wire in that transformer. The keyword in
your question is "ideal". It is possible to make transformers that
approach ideal. Unfortunately, at audio frequencies, this means lots
of iron and copper. (Reminds me of the old joke about AE at Northlake:
truckloads of coal, iron and copper ore in the back door, *tons* of
step-by-step out the front.) For both cost and size purposes,
compromises are made which result in some portion of the impedence
seen at the terminals being the resistive components of the
transformer. How significant this portion is is a function of the
impedences being matched.

The transformer you cited as 600:600 has perhaps two or three ohms of
resistance in the windings of each side. This is acceptable at 600
ohms, but would cause serious problems if someone attempted to use it
at 50 ohms.


Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox   If my employer only knew .. standard BS applies

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

From: Mathew Zank <[e-mail]>
Subject: BC Telephone Phase Out Rotary Phones
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System 408 241-9760
Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 21:06:45 GMT


British Columbia Telephone says it will phase out basic rotary desk
telephones, also after june it will not be able to supply refurbish
rotary telephones to new customers.

Matthew Zank - Eau Claire, Wi
Internet: [e-mail] -or- [e-mail]
UUCP: apple!netcom!zank    BITNET: zank%netcom.com@CUNYVM

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

Date: Tue, 7 May 91 14:46:20 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Deregulation in Telecom


Over the past several months there have been repeated posts to the
effect that decreasing regulation will result in lower communication
costs.  I don't believe it and past evidence does not support it.

First off, in CA the PUC granted GTE and PacTel deregulation to a
large extent.  Prices have not fallen.  The quid pro quos from the
deregulation deal have not happened.  In fact, I believe that GTE is
in the process of proposing that the monthly charge go from about
$10.00 to $25.00.  An increase of only 250%.  :-( (This change also
seems to go against the spirit of the deregulation deal if I
understand that deal correctly).

Second, AT&T was granted some deregulation.  Another one of these "if
we have deregulation we will have incentive to work more efficiently."
Instead of lowering its prices as much as it would have before
deregulation, however, AT&T has decided to just keep the extra
profits.

Daniel R. Guilderson wrote:

> Let's deregulate the telecommunications industry...  We'll throw the
> phone companies, the cable companies, the LAN/WAN companies and anyone
> else who wants a peice of the action into a battle royal.  The
> competition will be so vicious that prices will have to fall.  Eventually
> there would be a shakeout and we would be left with a few very lean and
> mean competitive communications companies.  Any new technologies would
> then be offered quickly as a competitive advantage.

It sounds good on paper, but I don't believe that the real world works
like this.  What happens is that the big boys push the upstarts out of
business and formally or informally start a cartel.  Consider
Airlines.  We deregulated and many new airlines formed.  Now most of
them are out of business.  The remaining airlines are hardly lean (the
upstarts that are now out of business were lean) and they don't have
to be because in most major markets one or two airlines control almost
all the landing slots.  In St. Louis, for example, TWA has something
like 83%.  They got this penetration by merging with the number two
carrier in St.  Louis.

Long lines has been much the same.  Most of the smaller carriers have
been forced out of business and now we have the situation where there
is at least an implicit understanding in the market place that it
makes no sense to lower prices because AT&T will lower its prices as
well and the result will not be an increase in market share, but lower
profits.

Additionally, I do not believe that having just a few competitors ever
leads to technological advance as quickly as when there are many
competitors.  Consider cars when there were for all practical purposes
only the big three.  Consider cars now when there are many more
competitors in the U.S. market.  Consider main frame computers
dominated by one company with several smaller ones.  Now consider
microcomputers and workstations with many, many competitors.  You can
do things on a microcomputer today that you still cannot do on main
frames.  After the shake out, "any new technologies would" *not* "be
offered quickly as a competitive advantage."

I think that John Levine is right on target:

> A plausible outcome of this scenario is that everyone except the deepest
> pockets would end up bankrupt, and we'd be left with AT&T and the RBOCs
> more monopolistic than now.  Or maybe General Motors or IBM.


David Gast

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting Hotel Phone
Date: 7 May 91 13:13:23 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, Arlington Hgts IL


Just came back from Ann Arbor and my sister's commencement from the
University of Michigan.  (And her transition from a starving college
student to a starving high school teacher.)  She put me up in the
Comfort Inn, which has a very interesting phone system.

First off, this hotel is reasonably new.  I'd say less than two years
judging from the location and construction.  The door locks are mag
stripe readers and the keys look like credit cards.  This is a
technology whose time has not yet come.  I got the key to work only
about 75% of the time, my sainted-but-not-technologically-inclined
mother had about a 50% hit ratio.  At one point the mag stripe on my
key got corrupted and would open the outside door (which would take
any room key) but not our room door.

But on to the phones.  The room, a standard cheap-rate double room,
had three phones.  One by the beds, one on the desk, and one in the
bathroom.  (Remember the HP "What if?" television ads from a few years
back?  You know, where the HP engineer is driving through the desert
and gets and idea, phones back to the office and says "What if...?"
just before the voice over kicks in?  I think the same ad should be
re-done using that bathroom phone.  But I digress.)  The bathroom and
bedside phones were standard hotel offerings, but the desk phone was a
slick Siemens model.  I've never seen its equal in a $50 a night room,
or even in more expensive hotel rooms.  It had a couple dozen speed
dial buttons.  Most were programmed with room service, housekeeping,
etc.  The leftovers had local businesses, like Pizza Hut.  No
advertising on the phone, just a button labelled "Pizza Hut".  Nice.

The phone had a 12 digit display of the number you were dialing,
last-number redial, and speakerphone!  It also had a connect-time
clock, but a little experimentation showed that the clock just
recorded time from roughly one ring.  It didn't sense supervision,
just assumed your party would pick up by one ring.  As long as that
clock isn't the billing clock I'm happy.  No RJ-11 jack on the phone
for data, but the phone plugged into the wall with RJ-11 that you
could easily pull.  Come to think of it, the wall plate had two RJ-11
jacks so you didn't even have to bother unplugging the phone.

The sheet next to the phone mentioned that local calls were 75 cents
(boo hiss!), and there was a 75 cent surcharge for long distance.  It
didn't mention a surcharge for 800 numbers or calling cards, but I
wouldn't be surprised to see it.  I used my calling card a few times,
but my dad paid for the room and I never saw the bill.  The AOS used
was "Telesphere", which I didn't trust longer than it took me to dial
10288.  I got AT&T and happily made my calls.  The sheet did say that
Telesphere was the default long distance carrier, but I don't think it
mentioned how to reach the other ones.

Top points for hardware, but the software (billing) is still par for
the course.  At least hotel designers (one hotel designer, at any
rate) are taking the information age into account when they build new
hotels!


Steven King, Motorola Cellular  (...uunet!motcid!king)

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

Date: Tue, 7 May 91 07:58:10 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Inexpensive Data Connections Needed


I am looking into connecting unix to unix long distance and the least
expensive connection I can find is PC Pursuit. Does anyone have any
comments on this or other telcommunication means that work well for
connecting via anon uucp or regular PC BBS. The real purpose is to
run uucp and FTP but I have almost given up on an inexpensive FTP and
have only been able to find hosts that will FTP for an extra monthly
charge.


Send replies to: [e-mail]
Lou Birk     Sumneytown, Pa

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #346
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23548;
          11 May 91 2:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10544;
          11 May 91 0:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09613;
          10 May 91 23:09 CDT
Date:     Fri, 10 May 91 22:09:53 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #347
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 10 May 91 22:09:26 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 347

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Did AT&T Sacrifice Randy? [TELECOM Moderator]
    *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? Free? [Mark Seiden]
    Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Teleputing via Don Kimberlin]
    Japan and Modems [David Gast]
    Keith Spicer to Resume Chair of Canadian RTC [Globe & Mail via Chas. Mingo]
    Expansion of PacBell's Local Calling Area [John C. Fowler]
    Re: How is the Cost of Features Calculated? [Steve Forrette]
    Re: The Phone Company and Personal Information [Steve Forrette]
    Re: RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A [Bob Schreibmaier]
    Pac Bell Pays 7% Interest [Howard Gayle]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 May 91 21:09:51 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Did AT&T Sacrifice Randy?


So the story goes, a reporter from the {New York Times} called AT&T
this week to speak with Randy Borow about the fiasco ... and was told
by someone, "He doesn't work here anymore..."

I've been told AT&T planned to take some sort of disciplinary action
this Wednesday past. I guess they did. Perhaps Randy was sacrificed as
an example for other employees tempted to shoot their mouth off for
fun or profit.

Randy has not been in touch with the Digest since *the* message
appeared, so personal verification is not possible right now. I do
wish he would contact us. Understanably, he is embarrassed at this
point, and probably not wanting a lot of contact with us ... but he'll
be welcome when he wishes to return to the group.


PAT

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

From: Mark Seiden <qtny!dagobah![e-mail]>
Subject: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? Free?
Date: 8 May 91 00:48:16 GMT
Organization: Seiden and Associates, Inc, Stamford, CT


I am curious (yellow) about * prefixed calls on cellular phones.
Has anyone got a list?  Are they uniform across service providers? (fat
chance) ... I noticed that some of the California providers have
traffic information lines, etc.

Doug Reuben recently pointed out that although *611 is free, one
*might* be charged a roaming charge, which is then removed when one
complains. Are all of the *-prefixed calls free (and supposed to be
free of roaming charges?)

Does anyone know how these are implemented?  When they translate to a
real phone number, is there any way of determining the translation?

When I was recently in New Orleans, Bell South Mobility advertised
that 911 was "always free."  (It was unclear whether roamers would be
charged a roaming fee.) Is this typical practice?



[Moderator's Note:  In many large urban areas 911 won't work correctly
from cell phones -- at least the dispatchers cannot get a reading on
your location. Here in Chicago, *999 gets the Minutemen, a division of
the Illinois State Police who handle expressway and interstate highway
duty. 911 gets a recording saying to call the operator to report the
emergency. And 911 is never 'free' ... to the caller, yes, but the
charges are always reversed to the emergency agency, at least from
landline phones. I assume cellular is the same where 911 is available,
such as New Orleans.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 91 01:56 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent


        The "Hayes AT Command Set," a defacto standard used by
virtually every dial-up modem for more than a decade, has had some of
its functions patent protected, but that has not kept it from being
virtually freely used.  Perhaps Hayes has kept a low profile on the
matter, preferring to let its name be spread by such wide use.
However, some news did recently occur that Hayes will, on occasion
protect its rights.  The following is excerpted from an electronic
newsletter called {The Teleputing Hotline}, dated April 30, 1991:


                 "HAYES WINS DOUBLE DAMAGES IN PATENT SUIT

        "The Hayes modem standard now has the force of law.  U.S.
District Judge Samuel Conti doubled damages owed by Everex Systems,
VenTel and OmniTel to Hayes Microcomputer Products for "willful
violation" of the Hayes modem patent.  The patent, for an escape
sequence with guard time, is at the heart of the `Hayes AT' command
set since it specifies how a PC will go from the online mode to the
command mode.  Hayes compatibility has become a de facto standard in
PC modems of all speeds.  Conti, who also awarded Hayes court costs,
said that willful infringers must not be allowed to wait five or six
years, then pay a low 1.75% royalty to the owner of a valid patent.

"Dennis Hayes said that, since a jury found in January his patent was
valid, `a number of people have come forward and talked to us about
licenses. Some have been concluded agreements and some negotiations
are underway.'  The defendants in San Francisco will appeal, and Hayes
must also defend itself in Minneapolis against another infringer,
Multitech.  Hayes added that the U.S. policy, increasing protection
for copyrights and patents, is now being emulated worldwide."

                            -----------
        (Those interested in obtaining a subscription to {The
Teleputing Hotline} can contact the publisher at: 215 Winter Avenue,
Atlanta, GA 30317; FAX: [phone]; Phone: [phone]; MCIMail:
409-8960; GEnie: nb.atl; CompuServe: 76200,3025.)

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

Date: Tue, 7 May 91 20:14:25 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Japan and Modems


> Looking through the ads of a Japanese computer magazine, I was puzzled
> by the high cost of modems compared with North America.  No US brands
> were for sale.  Can anyone explain the nature of this situation?

I know that U.S. made modems like telebits work in Japan because I
have used them in Japan.  You really should not decide what is
available and/or what works based on who is advertizing in a
particular magazine.  It is also possible that some U.S. companies
have sold the rights to market their modems in Japan to another
compnay or that there are joint venture projects such as Fuji-Xerox
that do not include the American name.  Finally, you do not mention if
you read Japanese, but if you don't it is possible that the Japanese
in the ads would have explained the situation.

At any rate, one can buy U.S. modems in Japan.

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Keith Spicer to Resume Chair of Canadian RTC
Date: 07 May 91 18:04:28


 From the Toronto {Globe and Mail}, May 7 1991, at B6

"SPICER TO TAKE [CANADIAN RADIO & TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION] CHAIR AGAIN

Former chief dismisses 'fairy tale' of commission revolt should he return.

     "Keith Spicer has served formal notice that he plans to resume
his job as the country's chief broadcast regulator on schedule,
despite rumours earlier this year that his return would spark mass
resignations among CRTC commissioners.

     "Dismissing the rumours of a revolt as 'a fairy tale organized by
one commissioner,' Mr. Spicer said yestersay that he had informed the
Clerk of the Privy Council, Paul Tellier, last Friday that he plans to
resume his position as chairman of the Canadian Radio and
Telecommunications Commission effective July 1.  He added that he
confirmed this in a letter yesterday.

     "He refused to name the CRTC commissioner in question.

     "Mr. Spicer unexpectedly resigned from the CRTC chairman's job
effective last Nov. 1 -- after only 14 months at the helm -- to head
the Citizens' Forum on National Unity.  However, in making that
appointment, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said that Mr. Spicer would
return to his CRTC post once the forum had completed its work.

     "Mr. Spicer will have to be formally reappointed CRTC chairman
before he reassumes his duties.

     "There have also been some rumblings that some of the statements
he has made while running the national unity forum might have angered
the Prime Minister and his staff.

     "While acknowledging that some members of the Prime Minister's
staff 'might like to shoot the messinger,' Mr. Spicer said in an
interview from Ottawa that he doubts Mr. Mulroney would withdraw the
written commitment he made to return him to the CRTC.

     "He added that it will take another four to seven weeks to
complete his national unity report.

     "While expecting to resume his duties officially as of the
beginning of July, he said he would like to take a few weeks holiday
'to recover some perspective.'

     "He also said that he had informed current CTRC chairman David
Colville over the weekend of his intention to return.  'I hope and
expect he will stay with the CRTC,' he added.

     "Mr. Colville confirmed through a CRTC spokesman that he and Mr.
Spicer had talked but said that would be inappropriate to comment
further until an appointment is made.

     "There were rumours several months before Mr. Spicer left the
CRTC that the commission was in disarray and that most of the
commissioners were allied against him.  However, he dismissed those at
the time as third-hand gossip of the sort that greets new chief
executives at any company or organization.

     "As for the more recent talk, which surfaced in late March, Mr.
Spicer said yesterday that he had done 'some checking through friends
there [at the CRTC] and it's totally unfounded ... there is absolutely
not the slightest threat of a mass resignation.'

     "Although Mr. Spicer would not name names, there is speculation
that the source of the rumours may have been CRTC vice-chairman
Fernand Belisle, who is widely thought to have designs on the top job
himself.  However, the CRTC spokeman said Mr. Belisle had no comment
on the matter.

     "During his first stint as CRTC commissioner, Mr. Spicer appeared
to make a good impression on members of the TV production community
and on consumer lobbyists who had felt that the regulator had grown
too cosy with the broadcasters and cable-TV companies it regulates.

     "However, not surprisingly, he appeared to win few friends in the
regulated industries.  In particular, he battled with cable companies
when the CRTC decided to lower the boom on cable rate increases about
a year ago."

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

Date: Tue, 7 May 91 22:26:58 PDT
From: "John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Expansion of PacBell's Local Calling Area


Pacific Bell will be expanding its local calling area from eight miles
to twelve miles beginning June 1.  I just got my notice today
detailing all the wonderful new exchanges that are soon to be free
local calls.

The funny thing, though, is that "976" is included as a free exchange
in my list!  I have to wonder how much confusion that will cause.

"Mommy, can I dial this number I saw on cartoons?"

"I don't know, honey; is it on the list of free numbers?"

"Yep."

"Okay."


John C. Fowler, [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 91 01:20:19 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How is the Cost of Features Calculated?
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


> The price is determined by what people are willing to pay.  In long
> distance service, AT&T provides a benchmark.  Someone else who wants
> to persuade you to buy their service and not AT&T's has to do one of
> the following:

>      1.  Convince you their service is better than AT&T's and worth
>          a higher price than AT&T charges.

>      2.  Convince you that they will give you comparable phone service
>          to what you have been getting from AT&T for a comparable price
>          and they will be nicer to you than AT&T is.

>      3.  Convince you that you will be happy with their lower quality
>          phone service because it costs so much less.

I think that one pricing technique has been left out:

       4.  Set your price at two to three times AT&T's rate, and
           illegally program your COCOT or Hotel PBX so that the
           caller cannot reach AT&T.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: But hopefully soon, the programming of public
systems so that AT&T cannot be reached will be treated as a vey
serious offense and dealt with accordingly.  I suspect AT&T is staying
away from 800 access and insisting on equal availability via 10288 for
very good reason. I think it is part of a game plan to force the hand
of the sleaze purveyors, to make them comply.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 91 02:33:41 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Phone Company and Personal Information
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> Many readers of this forum believe that AT&T should be able to sell
> ANI information on incoming 800 numbers.?  How would these readers feel
> if AT&T proposed to sell 800 calling patterns to anyone that wanted to
> buy them?

I think this would be improper.  The reason I support the
unconditional delivery of ANI for incoming 800 calls is that the
recipient is paying for the call.  If someone doesn't want to be
identified, they shouldn't ask someone else to pay for the call.
Revealing the information to a third party without the caller's
permission is another issue entirely.


Steve Forrette,  [e-mail]

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

From: Bob Schreibmaier <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A
Date: 8 May 91 12:46:29 GMT
Organization: QRM Central, Middletown, NJ


> Can anybody out there post the definitive method of pairing (with
> color code) for the AT&T PDS scheme?  I saw a post in comp.dcom.lans
> that gave the following diagram:


>                      WH OR WH BL WH GR WH BR
>                      OR WH GR WH BL WH BR WH
>             (RJ-45F)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
>                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
>              pairs:  T2 R2 T3 R1 T1 R3 R4 T4
>                       +--+  |  +--+  |  +--+
>                             +--------+

> The trouble I have is with pair 4.  Which pin is really tip, and
> shouldn't it be white/brown?  Also, is pair 2 really on pins 1 and 2,
> or is it on 3 and 6?

I used to work on PDS about umpteen years ago (back when I had a
job!).  Let's see if my memory serves correctly.

If I can map the pins assignments on the 8-pin jack to where they go
on a 110A connector block (replacement for the old 66 blocks) we can
get this right.  It's a very strange mapping and I have no idea about
where it came from historically.

The 110A block actually is easier to understand in that it is laid out
as tip-ring pair 1, tip-ring pair 2, tip-ring pair 3, and tip-ring
pair 4.  Like so:

     1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8
     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     110A block
     T1  R1  T2  R2  T3  R3  T4  R4

The mapping of the eight-pin modular jack to 110A is:

8-pin            110A

  5 (T1)          1
  4 (R1)          2
  1 (T2)          3
  2 (R2)          4
  3 (T3)          5
  6 (R3)          6
  7 (T4)          7
  8 (R4)          8

So, actually, Tip of pair 4 is on pin 7 and Ring is on pin 8.  In the
PDS wiring scheme, pair 4 is typically used for powering of adjuncts
via a power supply either connected locally or placed in a satellite
closet.  Usually had -48 volts on pin 7 and ground on pin 8.  However,
it was also used with the 355B and 355BF protective adapters for
RTS/CTS hardware flow control with the AIM4 boards on the AT&T
Information Systems Network packet data switch (if you have any
interest).

Lessee now ... regarding your question of color codes, I believe you
have them right, but my memory is foggy on that one.  But your pairing
is correct.  Pins 4-5 are pair 1, pins 1-2 are pair 2, pins 3-6 are
pair 3, and pins 7-8 are pair 4.

I sure hope this helps rather than confuses more!


Bob Schreibmaier K2PH  | UUCP:     ...!attmail!dxis!k2ph
a.k.a. "The QRPer"     | Internet: [e-mail]
Middletown, New Jersey | ICBM:     40o21'N, 74o8'W

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

Date: Thu, 9 May 91 16:02:51 PDT
From: Howard Gayle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pac Bell Pays 7% Interest
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I just got new service from Pacific Bell.  I chose to pay an $80
deposit rather than answer credit-application type questions.  They
claim they'll refund the deposit in one year, with 7% interest.  This
is a higher interest rate than any local bank money market account I
know of.  Too bad they won't take a bigger deposit! :-)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #347
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25670;
          11 May 91 3:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20510;
          11 May 91 1:31 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10544;
          11 May 91 0:21 CDT
Date:     Fri, 10 May 91 23:33:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #348
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 10 May 91 23:33:08 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 348

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Answering Machine Software [Brenda Ramsey]
    Quarter Waves, Eighth Waves, Ocean Waves ... [Ed Greenberg]
    Looking at Anterior Technology and Geoffrey Goodfellow [Alan Reiter]
    Pactel and Group W Cable in Chicago [Andrew Daniel]
    Cordless Modem? [Andrew Klossner]
    AT&T Goofs on Mailing [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing [Tony Harminc]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brenda Ramsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Machine Software
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 8 May 91 15:42:46 GMT


I am looking for software to will run on a PC (IBM, or clone, Mac)
which can accomodate at least 80 voice mailboxes.  Something where
each user forward his/her phone to a dedicated number onto which the
pc is attached.

Currently our phone system is Northern Telecom and they do offer a
voice mail option, but it is rather expensive for all the users who
would want to use it.

Vendors, comments, suggestions will all be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.


Brenda Ramsey  [phone]    UCLA Computer Science Department
[e-mail]      ..!(uunet,ucbvax,rutgers)!cs.ucla.edu!ramsey

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 8 May 91 09:05 PDT
Subject: Quarter Waves, Eighth Waves, Ocean Waves


A previous poster commented that the short stubby antenna on a
handheld cellular phone is a helically wound 1/4 wave, rather than a
1/8 wave as had been previously posted.  He asked for confirmation.

I don't think it would unwind to an exact quarter wave, but it would
be about right, and it will be the correct length for the best
possible match, which is what is desired.  Unfortunately, as a
vertical antenna, it needs a ground plane, and it doesn't have one.
Thus it won't be all that efficient.

A much better antenna for a handheld is the six inch or so jobbie that
is fat for the lower half and thin for the upper half.  What we have
here is a center-fed, half-wave, vertical dipole, drawn below
horizontally:

                <---- down to radio // up to sky --->

        --------------------------\
    ===============================+-------------------------
        --------------------------/

The === represents feedline, and the center of the feedline is
connected to the upper (rightmost) radiator.  The shield of the
feedline is connected to the lower (leftmost) hollow section, at the
center.  This antenna will be much more efficient than the stubby one,
since the lower section of the dipole acts as a ground counterpoise.

Considering the fact that you've got .6 watts and you're trying to
make it out of the shopping center half the time, the best thing you
can do for your cellular service is a good antenna.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: What about amber waves of grain?  My problem with
the larger antennas is that I carry the phone under my jacket, and
each time I bend over I stab myself with the antenna as well as abuse
the antenna by causing it to get a little bent out of shape.  PAT]

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

Subject: Looking at Anterior Technology and Geoff Goodfellow
Date: Wed, 08 May 91 09:10:32 MST
From: Alan Reiter <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: Geoffrey Goodfellow passed along an advance copy of
the article below, which is will be appearing in the next issue of
{Mobile Data Report}. It will also appear in the mobile data
conference.  PAT]


PC, RF Companies Testing E-Mail Gateway Service


     A small Silicon Valley company wants to be the country's leading
"middleman" connecting electronic mail networks with mobile
communications systems.  Anterior Technology in Menlo Park, Calif.
isn't well known on the East Coast and has only five employees, but
it's talking to such big names as Pactel Paging, Poqet Computer,
Skytel and Ardis to test wireless e-mail services.

    The founder and president of Anterior, Geoffrey Goodfellow, is one
of the few people who are familiar with both computer and mobile
communications.  He established Anterior in 1988 to provide e-mail and
electronic communications hub services.  So far, his primary customers
include corporations that want to connect their local area networks
(LAN) with other LANs via Internet.

    Internet is a major online network serving educational and
research institutions. It's not like the relatively slow public e-mail
networks and the "ante" to go on line is generally more expensive.
For example, Internet subscribers usually generally lease lines for
transmission speeds of 56,000 bits/second or 1,440,000 bits/second
(T1), say Goodfellow.  The leased lines and higher-speed modems are
expenses many companies can't justify, which is why they use Anterior.

    Anterior has one 56,000 bits/second leased line and will be
leasing another one.  The company also has a rack of 10 Telebit
Trailblazer modems operating at 19,200 bits/second.  Well known
software companies, such as Oracle and Autodesk, along with "one-room
consultancies," primarily in the San Francisco Bay area use Anterior's
gateway services, says Goodfellow.  Anterior also provides gateway
services to such e-mail networks are MCI Mail, AT&T Easylink Services
and Telemail.

    Recently, some mobile communications companies have been testing
electronic mail integration over Anterior.  The Menlo Park firm
receives the messages, formats them and sends them over such networks
as Pactel, Skytel and Ardis.  E-mail transmissions over wireless
networks certainly is not a new topic, but there has been a
significant increase in interest by paging operators.

    The nationwide paging company, Skytel, has been testing with
Anterior for almost two months, says Jai Bhagat, executive vice
president and a director at Mobile Telecommunication Technologies,
Skytel's parent company.  So far, the tests seem to be going well, but
Skytel hasn't decided what to do it the tests are successful," Bhagat.

    Last month, Skytel announced that the Federal Communications
Commission would allow the company to implement a second nationwide
900 MHz channel.  Skytel has some 93,000 pagers on its original
channel, but only a handful -- perhaps 100 -- are alphanumeric.

    The problem of spectrum congestion is the overriding factor.  With
a second channel, Skytel is exploring a variety of enhanced data
services.  The company also hopes that the speed of current paging
systems, 1,200 bits/second, will be increased four or five times
within the next few years.

    Will high-speed pagers be able to work on the same channel as
today's units?  "That's the million dollar question," says Bhagat.
Today, pagers at 512 bits/second and 1,200 bits/second can operate on
the same channel.

    Goodfellow has been testing ten Motorola Advisor pagers for e-
mail transmissions.  The Advisor is "too complicated ... it has too
many buttons," he says.  Goodfellow's not the only person who's
criticized the Advisor for being overly complicated, but the Advisor
is one of slickest pagers on the market.

    Mitch Kapor, founder of Lotus Development Corp. and ON Technology
and chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is using one of
the ten pagers.

    The packet-switched RF operators, such as Ardis and Ram Mobile
Data, have been interested in the the concept since their companies
were established.  Ardis has held "first preliminary discussions with
Geoff", and will be signing up Anterior as a software developer, says
Mike Fabri, a marketing manager at Ardis in Lincolnshire, Ill.  Ardis
will begin testing his system this year, Fabri says.

(sidebar)
                   Goodfellow's Passions

    Goodfellow has been interested in computing and mobile
communications since his high school days, and is one of the
relatively few people who are familiar with both types of networks.
He dropped out of high school during his senior year to take a jpb as
a weekend computer operator at Stanford Research, Inc. (SRI) in 1974.
He began using electronic mail system (Arpanet) since he was 17, and
spent lots of time hanging around SRI during his school days.

    Goodfellow was a member of the senior research staff at SRI's
Computer Science Laboratory.  He became interested in wireless
communications some 20 years ago when he saw a picture of a prototype
Motorola Dynatac portable cellular phone in the cover of Popular
Science.

    When he was in Hawaii in 1974 he used a Texas Instruments Silent
700 acoustically-coupled terminal transmitting at 300 baud, and
borrowed an Aloha packet radio to access his e-mail at SRI in
California.  In 1981, he began using the Metragram alphanumeric pager
and always thought of it as an extension of his electronic mailbox.

    While American Radio Telephone Service (ARTS) first started
testing cellular in the Baltimore/Washington, D.C. area, he wrangled a
tour of its Columbia, Md. facility through a friend of his in the
Pentagon, Goodfellow began friendly with the ARTS engineering staff,
and in the early 1980s he was able to borrow some of the first
Motorola Dynatac's to use when he visited Washington for SRI.  (ARTS
was granted the first non-wireless cellular license and is now known
as Cellular One).

    When ARTS started commercial operation in 1984, he ordered a
$4,000 Dynatac sent to him via overnight mail -- even though he was
based in Menlo Park and no cellular service was even available.
Goodfellow just wanted to have the phone to use when in Washington.

    Through ARTS, he knew Andrew H. Lamothe, Jr., who helped design
the early system.  Goodfellow left SRI in 1986, and for three months
in 1986 worked at Cellular Radio Corp., which Lamothe established.
Goodfellow also worked on cellular roaming/handoff standards.

    He is co-author of The Hacker's Dictionary: A Guide to the World
of Computer Wizards.

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

From: andrew daniel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pactel and Group W Cable in Chicago
Date: 8 May 91 16:36:25 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


Has anyone heard anything lately about Pactel's bid to purchase Group
W Cable in Chicago?

Also, I am writing my thesis on telco/cable cross-ownership, from a
consumer policy oriented angle.  I am examining the positions held by
the telcos, cablecos, NLC, and the FCC.  If anyone has any info about
this subject I would really appreciate it if you could send it along
to me.

Thanks in advance for your help.


Drew Daniel     BGSU      School of Mass Communication

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

From: Andrew Klossner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on Cordless Modem
Date: 8 May 91 17:07:58 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


I just got my first cordless phone (an AT&T unit, very nice!) and a
good laptop, and started wondering if anyone manufactures a
connection.

Has anybody heard of a mechanism for connecting a laptop's internal
modem to a cordless phone?  This would be useful for, say, sitting out
in the back yard reading news without having to string a phone line.

(I know about *cellular* modems, but that's much too expensive.)


  -=- Andrew Klossner   (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)    [UUCP]
                        ([e-mail])   [ARPA]

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

Subject: AT&T Goofs on Mailing
Date: Wed, 8 May 91 19:58:52 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


I received an interesting letter from an American Transtech, a
division of AT&T, today. Some weeks ago, I had received an annual
report from NYNEX. The only thing is, I'm not a NYNEX stockholder. I
tossed it out.

The letter read:

   Recently, you may have been surprised to receive a copy of the 1990
   NYNEX Annual Report at your home or business. We apologize for having
   inadvertently mailed the report to you and would like to take a moment
   to explain how the mailing error occurred.

   As a mailing agent for NYNEX and many other large corporations,
   American Transtech is responsible for delivering millions of annual
   reports to selected individuals each year. NYNEX, like all our
   clients, provides us with a computer tape containing the names and
   addresses of people who will receive its report, and that information
   is used to prepare mailing labels.

   Unfortunately, through an oversight on our part, we inadvertently used
   the wrong tape for the NYNEX mailing, substituting one provided by
   another customer. We discovered our mistake too late to prevent
   delivery of the NYNEX report to you.

   American Transtech takes full responsibility for this error, which was
   beyond the control of NYNEX. We can assure you that this was an
   isolated incident, and that no personal information about you was
   released publicly or duplicated in any way. We apologize for any
   inconvenience this may have caused you.

                            ------

Aside from the tie to two phone companies, I found this letter
interesting for several reasons.

   1) It would appear that AT&T still does things for the RBOCs, albeit
      at an arms length.
   2) I found the last paragraph fascinating.

Here's a company that had an operator screw up and mount an incorrect
tape.  Most companies would have dropped the matter, yet AT&T assures
us that no personal information was released or duplicated. I wish
more companies were that sensitive to privacy issues.

Personal Comment: I thought the timing was opportune, given the recent
Digest incident. I also think that people have come down too hard on
Randy. When I saw the original message, I sent Randy a note saying
that I found it interesting but thought it _might_ be sensitive data.
He quickly replied that he screwed up. Nobody is perfect. Calling in
Robert Allen, corporate security and {The New York Times} (!!!!!) on
the poor guy is a bit overkill.


Ken Jongsma                 [e-mail]
Smiths Industries           [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan      ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken


[Moderator's Note: Especially the {NY Times}.  All the news that fits,
they print. Perhaps you heard that the paper is being prosecuted on
criminal charges in Florida (since they do business there selling
papers, they are under the jurisdiction of the law in that state) for
having printed the name of the rape victim in the Kennedy / Smith
case.  I think AT&T might have handled Randy's case more leniently had
not the Times stuck their nose into the matter.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 08 May 91 12:21:19 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing


KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]> wrote:

> We just received our April bill.  We have screening on 300 phones, and
> received bills for ten of them.  A total of fourteen calls were
> billed.  Two were collect calls from "MTL PQ" billed by AT&T (No
> credit will be given -- international calls aren't covered by the
> screening.)  ....

Back in the "good old days" there was a scheme to prevent collect
calls to coin phones: within each CO prefix one entire thousands block
was set aside for coin phones, and operators had a list of which
numbers were suspect.  (For far away places they had to contact Rate &
Route who had grand master lists, or even sometimes inward operators
if the place was really out of the way.)  So for instance in many
areas all numbers of the form NNX-0XXX were at least potentialy coin
phones and a collect call to such a number would not be completed
without further checking.

This scheme certainly worked internationally.  Now I assume this
information is all in a database somewhere - surely they can't still
be using the "thousands digit" scheme, can they?  So if calling card
numbers can be verified internationally in a second or two, why can't
collect and third-party prohibition be handled similarly ?


Tony Harminc


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell still puts all their coin-phones in
the 9xxx range for the reason you mention.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #348
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12240;
          12 May 91 3:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09501;
          12 May 91 1:44 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03215;
          12 May 91 0:35 CDT
Date:     Sat, 11 May 91 23:36:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #349
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 May 91 23:35:51 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 349

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Privacy Debate Moved to Other List [Telecom Privacy List Moderator]
    Best Telco PR Video ... and Guess Who Made It [Robert Jacobson]
    Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists [Andy Oakland]
    Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists [Michael H. Riddle]
    Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists [Bud Couch]
    Re: Calling 905 from 416 Area [John R. Covert]
    Re: Calling 905 from 416 Area [Carl Moore]
    Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [John Nagle]
    Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience [John McHarry]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 May 91 23:14:17 EDT
From: Telecom Privacy List Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Privacy Debate Moved to Other List


  I think it is time to move the discussion about Randy Borow's
posting about a company's phone traffic to telecom-priv.  For those of
you who have heard not about telecom-priv, it is a maillist dedicated
to issues of telecom privacy.  To get on the list send a request to
[e-mail].

  I think the key questions on this are:

    o Should the posting have been made?

    o Should the posting have been trashed by the Telecom
Moderator?  (  Sorry Pat, even though I agree with your decision it is
probably something that should be discussed.)

    o Does the fact that the company in questions is a sleazeball
company have any bearing on the issue?

    o If the rumours are true about Randy being "sacificed' (sp) are
true did AT&T overreact?


dennis (Dennis Rears  -> moderator of telecom-priv)

P.S. God do I hate 2400 baud!!!!


[Moderator's Note: About 30 messages in the queue here as of Saturday
night were moved over to Randy in bulk; he will be sorting things out
and running them starting probably Monday. The backlog here *even with
those messages moved out* is still at an all time high.  There have
been numerous software problems again in the past few days.   PAT]

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Best Telco PR Video ... and Guess Who Made It
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle
Date: Sun, 12 May 1991 03:07:35 GMT


Recently I had occasion to speak at the ComForum sponsored by the
National Engineering Consortium.  The NEC, headquartered in Chicago,
is a sort of unofficial think tank for the telecommnications industry.
During this event, a composite video was shown, to illustrate the many
new services being created by the telephone companies.  (The tape, by
the way, is available from the NEC, under terms I do not know.)

On the tape there was the obligatory wallscreen monitor (a sort of
giantized version of the Knowledge Navigator), interminably dull
documentaries on voice-actuated this and that being developed in
laboratories, and a couple of dazzling but (so far as I could tell)
experiments being carried out at various universities in the video
field.

What really caught my eye was a 12 minute human interest story, set in
the year 2010 AD, about the collaborative design of a toy rabbit.  Oh,
so trivial, you say.  But the film actually became more complex.  The
apparently Japanese designer had a Caucasian wife and a Eurasion
daughter; the yuppie toy company executives, supposedly (one thinks)
in Los Angeles, are eventually joined by their Asian boss.  So where
is everyone?  The point sinks in pretty quickly: in the
telecommunications world of the future, at least on this video,
location and nationality are less and less relevant.  By the way, the
designer's daughter, at home while she recuperates from a cold, solves
the design problem stumping development of the multimillion dollary
cuddly.  Happy Endings all around.

Simply the best -- and most human -- promotional tape ever made by a
telco.  So are you surprised to learn it was produced by NTT, the
Japanese telephone company?  Not me.


Bob Jacobson

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

From: Andy Oakland <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 9 May 91 12:45:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> mitel!Software!grayt@uunet.
uu.net (Tom Gray) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J.
> Philip Miller) writes:

>>        It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic
>> communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications
>> service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the
>> government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other
>> communications when appropriately authorized by law.

> All this really states is that the government should have the right to
> wire tap if it gets a search warrant. I don't see anything draconian
> about this.

> You may also note that this text does NOT specicifically refer to
>encryption.

Actually, this "sense of Congress" resolution has been causing us here
at MIT Project Athena great distress, because it effectively bans
certain types of encryption.  We're working on "privacy enhanced
email," which is email guaranteed to be unreadable by anyone except
the person to whom it was directed.

Thanks to public and private key encryption, even the system operator
can't read these messages.  But since the resolution demands that the
"plain text" of all messages must be available to the government, this
privacy enhanced mail effectively becomes illegal!


Andy Oakland    Project Athena Advanced Development Group  [e-mail]

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

From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Thu, 9 May 1991 13:32:22 GMT


In <[e-mail]> Tom Gray <mitel!Software!grayt@
uunet.uu.net> writes:

>>        It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic
>> communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications
>> service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the
>> government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other
>> communications when appropriately authorized by law.

This is probably one of those bills where a lot of concerned people
will disagree on the effect, but I for one disagree with you.
Perhapas my disagreement is founded on over twenty years' experience
in military communications, which is admittedly a specialized subset
of the profession.

Anyway, the phrase "plain text" has a rather particular meaning.  I've
 /never/ heard it used except to differentiate from cipher text.  ( I
use "cipher" in a general sense, to include codes, although
technically they are different.)

Part of the reason for concern is that this section appears in the
middle of a bill (238Kbytes on my disk) that addresses:

(quote)
                                     S. 266
                                 1991  S. 266
 SYNOPSIS:
    A BILL
To prevent and punish domestic and international terrorist acts, and for
                  other purposes.
(unquote)

Additionally, substantially the same language:

(quote)
                1991 S. 618 MARCH 15, 1991 -- VERSION: 1
                    PART II-ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
SEC. 545. COOPERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS WITH LAW
          ENFORCEMENT.

  It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic
communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications
service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the
government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other
communications when appropriately authorized by law.

(unquote)

appears in an even longer bill, S. 618 (238Kbytes) dealing with:

(quote)
                                    S.  618
                                  1991 S. 618
 SYNOPSIS:
    A BILL
                  To control and reduce violent crime.
(unquote)

Perhaps its the conspiracy theorists at work, but many of us see this
"sense of the Congress" as granting a "hunting license" to NSA.
Perhaps you remember the discussion (continuing even today in
sci.crypt and elsewhere) whether the NSA designed the DES so it could
be broken.  Given their ability to place Secrecy Orders on
cryptographic devices, those that would not trust some government
agencies find it easy to believe the allegation that Biden and
Deconcini mean exactly what they say -- they want government agencies
to break any cipher text.

For example, while I haven't heard of it, I wouldn't be surprised to
hear that some drug operations used digital voice encrypted radios in
their operations.  They are well-enough organized in other aspects of
their business.

The problem is that secrets can't be held forever, and if there is a
way to break it, then the "enemies" of legitimate users of
cryptography are less secure.  Trade secrets and industrial espionage
aren't exactly rare terms these days.  Some people just feel that no
one has a reason to listen in on their calls for any reason.  When
ISDN comes a little more into service, digitial encryption will become
(I think) affordable for the masses.  The RSA patent expires in a few
years, and for text it's fairly workable.

Finally, as a legal thought, if a court ordered a wire tap, the
agencies could recover the ciphertext, and if evidence were
sufficient, I'm sure they could then order production of the keys.  (I
know this is less workable in practice, since destruction of
superseded keys should be a priority.)

Anyway, whether or not the bills get enacted, there /is/ sufficient
reason to become concerned.


            <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>

[e-mail]                  |   University of Nebraska
ivgate!inns![e-mail]  |   College of Law
[e-mail]  |   Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Thu, 9 May 1991 17:21:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J.
Philip Miller) writes:

-> (A proposed Senate resolution:)

[Moderator's Note: Text omitted here. See prior messages.  PAT]

In article <[e-mail]> Tom Gray <mitel!Software!
[e-mail]> writes:

> All this really states is that the government should have the right to
> wire tap if it gets a search warrant. I don't see anything draconian
> about this.

> You may also note that this text does NOT specicifically refer to
> encryption.

On the contrary, the phrase "plain text contents" specifically refer
to the proposal that encryption providers should (must?) provide a
back door through which the encryption can be compromised.

The interesting (to me) speculation is how the timing and content of
this proposal relate to Motorola's proposal to sell STU-3 equipped
telephones to the general public so that they can carry on
conversations privately over cellular phones. [the STU-3 is a DES
encryption digatal voice unit].  It is known that certain Federal law
enforcement agencies are very unhappy over that proposal.

(Which leads into the Computers, Freedom and Privacy thread ...) Why
should there be a PRESUMPTION that electronic communication is NOT
subject to privacy when such things as the US Mail are specifically
private by law.

[There's a mailgroup for privacy issues, right? how much traffic does
it get?  I might subscribe if it doesn't take all day to read ...]


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: Yes, there is such a list. See the first message in
this issue.  Write to '[e-mail]'.   PAT]

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: You're All a Bunch of Terrorists
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Thu, 9 May 1991 15:48:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J.
Philip Miller) writes:

[Moderator's Note: Text omitted. See earlier messages this issue.  PAT]

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

> You might consider writing your Senator and/or Representative and
> expressing your opinion on this piece of, uh, legislation.

The U.S. Congress is just now catching up to the third world on this
one. Although most people see this as a requirement that any
encrypting method used be "breakable" by NSC, it also seems to say
that telecom switching equipment should allow easy access (read:
wiretapping) by government officials. I have seen a number of RFP's
for switching equipment issued by Taiwan, Malaysia, and Indonesia (and
I have heard that other countries RFP's are similar) which require the
ability to remotely monitor *any* call at any time. Software was also
*required* that allowed this remote site to scan the call record
database.

You don't have a problem with this, do you? After all, an honest
person has noting to hide.


Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox  If my employer only knew...   standard BS applies

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 91 12:28:44 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  10-May-1991 1502" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Calling 905 from 416 Area


> Amusingly, when I dial 1+905+7D from here (416) I get routed to a
> message from 619 saying that the dialing procedure for Mexico has
> changed - use 011+52+, in English and Spanish.  Somehow you'd think a
> switch in what will be the new 905 would be the first to be updated!

Something is wrong here.  When I dial 1+905 from a REAL 416 phone, I
immediately get the recording "We're sorry, your call cannot be
completed as dialled."  Right after the 1-905.  No more digits
required.  And this has always been the case, even before 905 and 706
were taken out of service.

The old 905 and 706 area codes NEVER worked from Canada; they were
special area codes that worked from the U.S. only.

I suspect that Tony is calling from a PBX with some sort of smart
routing.  Apparently his PBX has some lines to some point in the U.S.,
which it uses for calls to non-Canadian area codes.


john

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 91 15:58:49 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling 905 from 416 Area


OK, I have revised the bottom of my area-code-history file to read:

On February 1, 1991, area codes 706 and 905 (used in the U.S. for
calling parts of Mexico) were discontinued.  Country code 52 was to be
used in their place.  This made 706 and 905 available for use
elsewhere.

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

From: John Nagle <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN
Date: 9 May 91 07:09:07 GMT


csense![e-mail] (John Boteler) writes:

> Unless the power fails at your location. Then, no more ISDN.

> OOPS!

     No, ISDN sets can be powered from the phone line.  The power
situation is ingenious.  Normally, you can draw (I think) 400ma
off-hook from an ISDN line.  This should be enough for a reasonable
phone, and maybe a digital answering machine as well.  If the CO has a
power problem (maybe when commercial power is out) the DC polarity of
the line is reversed, and you can then draw only some lesser amount of
power.  Maybe your dial light will go out.  But the phone should still
work.

     Now, which ISDN phones properly comply with the spec?


John Nagle

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

From: John McHarry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA
Date:  9 May 91 11:54:35 GMT


"Derek E. Terveer" <[e-mail]> writes:

> I agree.  For my data line, I specifically ordered it with just pulse
> and not tone because I didn't want to pay the extra few bucks a month

> The only potential disadvantage that I see is if I want my Unix box to
> call long distance and use some sort of calling card code number or
> something like that that requires touch-tone.  Haven't run into that

Most autodial modems, eg. Hayes compatible, can be set to switch to
tone for the second part of the sequence.  I used to do that quite
often.  I have one phone that switches to tone for the remainder of
the current call only when you key in # with the switch set to dial
pulse, cute.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #349
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14444;
          12 May 91 4:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04905;
          12 May 91 2:51 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09501;
          12 May 91 1:44 CDT
Date:     Sun, 12 May 91 1:02:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #350
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 May 91 01:01:46 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 350

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [S. H. Schwartz]
    Re: 50K Counts of Wire Fraud [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Weaver Hickerson]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Charles Bryant]
    1-900-SPACE-SCAM Case Settled [Ed Hopper]
    Omaha Utility Victim of Phone Fraud [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer [David Neal]
    Re: Higdon Hurt in Motorcyle Accident [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Higdon Hurt in Motorcyle Accident [Jonathan White]
    Re: Why the Bong? [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. H. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Organization: Expert Systems Lab., NYNEX Sci. and Tech., White Plains NY
Date: Wed, 8 May 91 16:59:30 GMT


> I see no lies and no coercion.  The people who were charged got what
> they paid for, a $55 audiotex message.  Is there anybody in Manhattan
> who can afford a pager who doesn't know that 540 numbers are toll
> calls?  If there are two thousand yuppie scum who are stupid enough to
> return a page to a toll number, and they do this for no reason other
> than that they were asked to, how can it possibly be illegal or even
> unethical?

Slow down, hotshot.  I didn't know that 540 = toll until an operator
told me.  In fact, up to a few years ago, 540 was the exchange for
automated ringback.  And I am most certainly -not- a yuppie, not to
mention a "yuppie scum," as any of my colleagues can tell you.  :-)))

I don't live in Manhattan, and I don't have a pager, but if someone
left an apparently local number on my ans machine, I wouldn't think
twice about calling back.  I won't speculate about the legality of
this event, as my employer has a particular interest in telephony, :-)
but I hope this guy gets what he deserves.



S. H. Schwartz                [e-mail]
Expert Systems Laboratory        914-683-2960
NYNEX Science and Technology Center    White Plains,  NY 10604


[Moderator's Note: What the guy did was certainly not very nice, but I
cannot really see the difference between what he did and someone who
calls a large number of people at random with a recorded announcement
saying to call a 900 number, then quickly glossing over the cost of
the call (to the 900 line). Surely with the recorded voice calls
urging one to call a 900 number there will be children who call
without permission and people who still are not aware of the cost. If
the folks who urge you to call a 900 number don't get prosecuted, then
neither should the joker who paged a bunch of people to call his 540
number.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 9 May 91 06:54 PDT
Subject: re: 50K Counts of Wire Fraud

> Quite correct.  Actually most of the Morristown, NJ 540 numbers belong
> to MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, so the scam with beepers was even
> more pointed.  Many of the beeper-holding people could well have been
> MD's "tricked" into calling in for an emergency.  The joke's really a
> lulu if you begin to think of it like that.

I work in a group of 40 pager equipped folks.  We range from telecom
literate folks who maintain the Wide Area Dialup and PBX, to temps who
move machines and plug in cables.  We have people who don't understand
AOS's, people who don't understand long distance carriers, even people
who use (gasp) COCOT's!

We work in Santa Clara, in the 408 area (please make a note of it.)
One thing we all DO know, is that up about half way through Sunnyvale
is an imaginary line separating 408 from 415.  If we get a page that
says 764- 5003, chances are we'd realize that it's in 408.  After all,
we work there.  We recognize we're being paged from work.

I'd imagine it's easier than that when there's a river -- an actual
body of water -- that you have to pay a buck or two to get over (or
under, for that matter) -- in the way.  If I were in NYC, and were
paged to my employer, the hospital in New Jersey, my first reaction
would be "Oh damn, I have to make a long distance call to find out
what they want now."

Nonetheless, I want to disagree with the poster who said that the
callers who answered their pagers got what they deserve.  They _are_
innocent victims by definition, since they didn't know that the call
was going to be expensive.  I hope they make an example of the perp.
It was de---thhhh---picable.

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

Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Organization: Holos Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA
Date: 9 May 91 14:38:09 EDT (Thu)
From: Weaver Hickerson <holos0![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(76012,300 Brad Hicks) writes:

> Is it my imagination, or is wire fraud what the Secret Service
> charges you with if they don't like you but can't think of anything
> else?

Is it my imagination, or is wire fraud what the SS charges you with
when you have committed wire fraud?

 (Description of guy speed dialing exchanges to leave messages on pagers.)

> Note that according to Eric Arnum, in this case an "entrepreneur" has
> "victims".  Entrepreneurs don't have victims, they have customers or
> clients.  Only criminals have victims.

I'd say they were definitely victims, of a lowlife criminal.

> The only other place I've seen this particular usage was from a
> Communist Party member complaining about the black market in Moscow.
> He meant the same thing, too: people paying fair market price for a
> good or a service they received.

> I see no lies and no coercion.  The people who were charged got what
> they paid for, a $55 audiotex message.  Is there anybody in Manhattan
> who can afford a pager who doesn't know that 540 numbers are toll
> calls?  If there are two thousand yuppie scum who are stupid enough to
> return a page to a toll number, and they do this for no reason other
> than that they were asked to, how can it possibly be illegal or even
> unethical?

Brad, this is the most ignorant thing I have ever seen.  "Yuppie Scum"
as you call them, if having a pager is the data point, might be an ER
doctor or nurse, a plumber, a janitor, HONEST WORKING PEOPLE.  Some
people have a pager so the wife can call them to order Haagen Daas on
the way home.  Some pagers allow you to dial the last paged number by
pressing a button on the pager, without ever looking at the number.
The "entreprenuer", in my opinion, is the scum in this picture.  And
you sir, are running close second.

Next time you're in the emergency room and your doctor is paged,
imagine if he suddenly stops to think ... "Is that a toll call, or
not.  Hmmmm??".

Nah, couldn't happen as long as your doctor is a "yuppie scum".


Weaver Hickerson   Voice [phone]   :  ..!edu!gatech!holos0!wdh

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

From: Charles Bryant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Organization: Datacode Communications Ltd, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Thu, 9 May 91 09:24:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.
jp![e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead) writes:

> This swine was using the telephone to blatantly defraud people in a
> callous and totally inexcusable way, and I hope he gets a day in jail
> on each of the 50,000 counts, served CONSECUTIVELY.  I'll admit, he
> was an ingenious swine, but that's beside the point.

Perhaps we need a sense of proportion. That's 136 years. I don't see
how he could be given a more severe sentence. That would mean that you
consider it as bad as if he had murdered all of the people he
defrauded.  Note that it was inevitable that he would be caught so
there is no need for a huge penalty to serve as a deterrent to others.
A fine should be perfectly adequate.


Charles Bryant ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri May 10 15:52:35 CDT 1991
Subject: 1-900-SPACE-SCAM Case Settled


KTRH Radio in Houston reports that a deal will be cut today between
the operators of the "win-a-ride-on-a-Soviet-Spacecraft" 900 number
contest and the Harris County District Attorney.  The deal drops
criminal charges in return for the promise not to conduct such a
contest again and to refund money to all who participated in the
previous contest.

In addition, any money not claimed by the public by August will be
split between the Texas Attorney Generals office and the Harris County
DAs Office as illegal gambling proceeds.


Ed Hopper

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

Date: Wed, 08 May 91 22:12:31 CST
From: Jack Winslade <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Omaha Utility Victim of Phone Fraud
Reply-to: ivgate!drbbs![e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


 From the front page of the evening {Omaha World-Herald}, May 8, 1991

Long Distance Scam

OPPD LEFT HOLDING BILL FOR THOUSANDS OF CALLS

By James Allen Flannery, World-Herald Staff Writer

Thousands of telephone calls -- including a substantial number to
foreign countries -- were illegally charged last month to an 800
number assigned to the Omaha Public Power District.

The FBI, which is investigating the calls, said a number of other
businesses -- particularly on the East Coast -- are similarly being
victimized.

"Because telephone technology is changing, the ways people accomplish
fraud are changing," said a spokesman for US West in Omaha.

People familiar with the phone scam said callers gain access to
elaborate voice mail systems, punch in certain phone extensions and
receive access to open lines that allow them to dial anywhere in the
world at the victim company's expense.

An FBI spokesman said ferreting out the abusers would be difficult.

"There's not much domestic law enforcement authorities can do unless
the company that provides the service and the victim company can
identify the subject placing the call."

OPPD officials said they think they have taken corrective action.
They estimated that the utility has been charged "tens of thousands of
dollars" for fraudulent calls.

An exact accounting was being prepared Wednesday.

"We discovered late last week that there was an excessive number of
international long distance calls being billed to our account by
people who had accessed our computer system," OPPD President Fred
Petersen said.

"Bizarre things have happened with our telephone system," he said.
Somebody has figured out a way to access our system.  We're working
out a way with US West, AT&T, and the FBI to stop it completely."


BUSY WEEKEND

About 1000 telephone calls were placed Saturday and another 1000
Sunday through OPPD's 800 number.  That is about 20 times the normal
weekend volume.

OPPD officials declined to disclose the destination of the calls.
Persons familiar with the scam said a number of calls were to the
Dominican Republic.

Communications workers for the utility spotted the fraud last week
when OPPD received its monthly telephone bills.

OPPD's security force was alerted.  Then the FBI and the toll fraud
division of US West in Denver were contacted.  Petersen said OPPD
immediately reduced the number of lines on which 800 calls can be
placed.  Normally, he said, there are 10 such lines.  But some of the
lines remained open over the weekend so investigators could monitor
the calls and try to determine where they were coming from.


EAST, WEST COAST LINES

People familiar with the probe said the calls appeared to be coming
from telephones on the East Coast and West Coast.

OPPD is basing its estimates of the extent of the fraud on the number
of apparently illegal calls in the first few days of April.  Calls
made then showed up in the utility's last telephone bill.

"Outside callers were able to access by calling our long-distance
number, or 800 number, and getting an outgoing line," OPPD spokesman
Gary Williams said.

He said the 800 number was established about three years ago to
provide energy assistance information to OPPD customers in 13 Nebraska
counties.

Williams said OPPD has monitored calls and is taking action "to
protect the system."  He declined to be specific.

Where did the calls originate ?  "WE're playing close to the vest on
that, Williams said.


UNDER REVIEW

He said there was nothing to indicate that OPPD employees placed the
calls.  "It is under review how we will pay for it," Williams said.

"I don't think we're embarrassed by it," he said.  "We're angry about
it as we would be with any improper use of our facilities.  From what
I hear, we're not the only outfit it's happened to."

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

Good Day!       JSW

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 91 15:51 CDT
From: David Neal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer


In this month's SouthWestern Bell Bill, there is note explaining that
the PUC has ruled that 976/900 calls must be blockable for free on a
one time per line basis. The page specifically states you can only
turn blocking on or off for both 976 and 900 calls.  Subsequent
requests for changes in service are billable, but no mention of cost
was made.

A pre-paid postage ballot is also enclosed for you to check and return
should you want to change your current service, ie, to go from
non-blocking (the default for 99% of the world, no doubt) to blocking.

All in all pretty nice, but it took a PUC ruling :-).


David Neal - Unix Contractor at large -- [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 91 00:01:44 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Higdon Hurt in Motorcyle Accident
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:

> I am sorry to report that our friend John Higdon was hurt in an
> accident involving his motorcycle a few days ago, and had to be placed
> in the hospital. He was wearing his helmet, so the accident was not as
> bad as it might have been.

Did anyone get the license number of the Pac*Bell truck that hit him ? :-)

> He was released from the hospital Thursday, and is resting at home. We
> all wish him a speedy recovery. He said he'll be taking a few days off
> from writing to the Digest until he has recovered from the accident.

Seriously, even when his posts seemed borderline bellanoia, he gives a
lively jolt to the sometimes mundane tone of daily postings. I hope
the accident hasn't blunted his sword or led him to see the true way
of corporate fealty.

Get feisty (again) soon.


[Moderator's Note: It looks like John is back ... we have a message
from him in this issue.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 11 May 91 12:58:05 -0400
From: jonathan white <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Higdon Hurt in Motorcyle Accident


Glad to hear that John Higdon will be o.k. Is there a snail mail
address for cards?


jonathan


[Moderator's Note: See his signature in the final message of this
issue.  But please! Let's not turn this into a Craig Shergold thing
with zillions of cards from all over the world.  Why not send email
instead? He'd probably like it just as well.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 91 22:28 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Why the Bong?


Bernard Fran Collins <[e-mail]> writes:

> Is there a good reason why a
> credit card call must contain a pause in the dialing in order to wait
> for the bong?  Why can't the card number be delivered to the LD
> carrier without such a pause?

This is because only the credit card number is given to the IEC
directly by customer. When you dial '0+7D/10D', that part of your
input goes to the LEC, not the long distance company. The local LEC
switch connects to the appropriate IEC and then transmits that number
to them.

At that point the customer is connected directly to the IEC, which
"Ka-Bongs" signifying a request for the calling card number via DTMF.
The pause it necessary to allow the LEC to do the requisite switching
and signaling of the IEC.

> Is there a shortcut?

No, you must wait for the switching to complete between the LEC and
IEC before you input the card number.

> What does the bong really do anyway?

The leading edge of the bong is a '#' DTMF tone pair, the purpose of
which is to disable any DTMF-Pulse converters that may be used by the
LEC to complete the call so that they do not interfere with your
credit card key-in.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #350
******************************