Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1992.volume.12/vol12.iss301-350

Text File | 1992-04-28 | 914.2 KB | 22,807 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02982;
          8 Apr 92 3:23 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23847
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:40:08 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18799
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:39:53 -0500
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:39:53 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: The Alascom Story


This message was too long for inclusion in a regular issue of the
Digest. I hope you enjoy it.

PAT

 Date: Sun, 05 Apr 92 10:06:31 CST
 From: [e-mail] (Mike Riddle)
 Subject: The Alascom Story

 From the Fidonet FCC echo:
 Originally posted: 02 Apr 92 23:45:00
 Originally from: Don Kimberlin

Here's some info for those who get propagandized about how "the phone
company" or "AT&T" is the only telecommunications entity in the world
that accomplishes anything.  The following was received here today
from Alascom, the original "interstate" and "international" common
carrier for Alaska, that in addition to a pretty illustrious history,
has today become one of the world's most called-upon "fast response"
providers of transportable satellite stations for public
communications, even down to being the real communications earth
station provider during Desert Storm, operating quietly behind the
scenes while AT&T and MCI beat their breasts about "providing the
troops with phones from Saudi Arabia":

                   THE ALASCOM STORY

        "From telegraph wires strung across vast stretches of
wilderness to the emergence of satellites, fiber optics and
solid-state digital technology, telecommunications in Alaska have made
a quantum leap in a relatively brief span of time.

        "What is now Alascom began as the Washington-Alaska Military
Cable and Telegraph System (WAMCATS), a "talking wire" strung overland
across Alaska's wilderness and linked to a submarine telegraph cable
connecting Seattle with Juneau, Sitka and Valdez.

        "Congress passed the act that created WAMCATS in 1900 in order
to open communication channels between Alaska's isolated military
outposts and the rest of the nation.  A provision in the bill set the
conditions for the eventual foundation of a civilian system.  That
year the first operational telegraph link was completed, with 25 miles
of line (part of a $450,000 plan by the Army Signal Corps) strung from
Nome Military headquarters to the Port Safety outpost.

        "Three years later, land lines connected western Alaska,
Prince William Sound, the Interior and Southeast.  An unsuccessful
underwater telegraph cable had been laid in 1900 across Norton Sound
from Port Safety to Fort Saint Michael.  This early effort was ripped
apart by ice blocks, but replaced in 1903 with a new wireless system.
The Norton Sound radio link was the world's first application of a
permanent radio-telegraph link for public communications, earning it a
place in telecommunications history.

        "By 1905, 1500 miles of land lines, 2,000 miles of submarine
cable and 107 miles of wireless links comprised WAMCATS' unique and
growing network.

        "With the discovery of gold and subsequent law enforcement
problems at this early part of the century, WAMCATS' telegraph linked
San Francisco and Washington military headquarters with their
far-flung Alaskan outposts.

        "The military allowed commercial and non-military traffic on
the system, providing it did not interfere with military operations.
The Alaska Railroad, completed in 1923, pused development from the
port of Seward through Anchorage and into the Interior.  Eventual
increase in commercial traffic led to a telegraph link with Ketchikan
and established that community as the main relay point between Seattle
and Seward.

        "By 1916, half of WAMCATS' land line were abandoned in favor
of wireless stations, which reduced costs and increased communications
reliability in the harsh climates that made maintaining wire lines so
difficult.  For the next two decades, little growth was experienced as
Alaska withdrew from the limelight of the post-goldrush era.

        "During the 1930's, submarine cables, supplemented by radio
links, slowly replaced the `talking wire.'  To reflect the changing
technology, Congress renamed WAMCATS as the Alaska Communications
System (ACS) in 1936.

        "With the outbreak of World War II, Alaska's geographic
importance became evident to the nation`s leaders and substantial
activity in communications began once again.  The Alaska Highway
project was pushing forward and communications with the outside world
were vital to the war effort.

        "Communications links with the Lower 48 were upgraded in the
mid-1950's when AT&T laid a submarine telephone cable between
Ketchikan and Port Angeles, Washington.

        "When Alaska was granted statehood in 1959, Western Electric
had been operating the strategic White Alice Communications System
(WACS) for the government.  WACS provided circuits for remote military
installations and to villages that had been beyond reach of the Alaska
Communications System.

        "WACS provided the technology that could relay voice
communications over high mountain ranges.  This system functioned by
bouncing strong radio signals off the Earth's troposphere, a costly
process due to the huge amounts of power required to produce
sufficiently strong signals at a distance.  Used in conjunction with
the Distant Early Warning line of radars (DEW line), White Alice sites
featured ten-story-high troposcatter antennas, some of which are still
standing as silent monuments to a bygone technology.

        "Meanwhile, RCA had established itself in the state by winning
contracts to supply personnel and maintenance to scattered armed
forces communications sites.  As private enterprise became more
involved in Alaskan communications, the Federal government decided to
stop providing communications to the commercial and private sectors.

        "In 1969, Congress passed the Alaska Communications Disposal
Act.  Among interested bidders to purchase the Alaska Communications
System were General Telephone, Continental Telephone and RCA Global
Communications.  RCA was the successful bidder at a price of $28.5
million in cash and a pledge to immediately invest an additional $30
million for badly needed improvements to the then seriously overtaxed
and outdated ACS.

        "RCA had purchased rights to provide the state's commercial
traffic with a network including toll centers at Anchorage, Fairbanks,
Juneau and Ketchikan; a network of marine radio stations, a submarine
cable terminating in Southwest and a scattering of high-frequency (HF)
radio communications sites.

        "Concurrent with the purchase of ACS, RCA's pioneering
satellite technology in long distance communications made its debut on
the international scene.

        "RCA renamed its Alaska operating unit Alascom, and in 1973
purchased the Bartlett Earth Station, then the only one in Alaska and
Alaska's sole satellite link with the outside world.  Shortly
thereafter, Alascom contructed its own first satellite station at Lena
Point, near Juneau, bringing Alaska into the era of modern satellite
technology.

        "The first functional domestic satellite system in the nation
appeared later than year when Alascom began using the Canadian Anik II
satellite on a regular basis.  Howard Hawkins, the forward-thinking
president of RCA Alascom's parent company, RCA Communications, pushed
full speed ahead on plans to construct earth stations across Alaska on
a substantial scale.

        "By 1974 Alascom had constructed earth stations at Prudhoe
Bay, Nome, Bethel and Valdez.  The same year, RCA launched its own
satellites, SATCOM 1 and 2, and all of Alascom's satellite traffic was
switched to the new "birds."

        "In July 1976 RCA Alascom entered into an agrement with the
Department of the Air Force to lease most of the military's antiquated
White Alice facilities and replace them with 22 modern satellite earth
stations.

        "Replacement of the military's aging communications system was
largely completed by Alascom in the late 1970's; the earth stations
built to replace the White Alice system required construction in
formidable places.  For example, a year of pre-planning was needed to
get equipment to Shemya in the Aleutian Islands on the once-a-year
supply barge.

        "In the late 1970's, the federal government was beginning to
look at reshaping the domestic telecommunications industry to foster
competition.  The giant RCA Global Communications, which also operated
worldwide communications of many sorts, was ordered by the FCC to
divest itself of domestic satellite communications -- of which RCA
Alascom was a foremost part.  RCA American Communications (RCA
Americom) was formed as a totally independent corporation and given
the responsibility for handling all domestic satellite business of
RCA.

        "In June, 1979, RCA Alascom was purchased by Pacific Power and
Light Company (now PacifiCorp) of Portland, Oregon.  The purchase
price was $200 million cash and taking over $90 million of Alascom's
long term debt.

        "Meanwhile, Alascom had expanded its service by constructing
more than 200 earth stations and serving even the smallest rural
communities in the state.  Company pride and committment to Alaska was
never more evident than on October 27, 1982, when Alascom launched its
own satellite -- Aurora I -- the only satellite of its kind and
devoted exclusively to use by a single state -- Alaska.

        "Along with the new `bird,' Alascom's plant improvements had
vastly upgraded its satellite and terrestrial links within the state
and to interstate points.  A new multipurpose building in Anchorage
was constructed on Government Hill, consolidating all local Alascom
components in one complex.

        "Always forging ahead with new technology, Alascom established
the first satellite communications for offshore oil rigs in the
mid-1980's, developing a gyro-stablized satellite antenna that
compensated for the pitch and roll of the drilling vessels.

        "Live television, a given anywhere else in the United States,
arrived late in Alaska.  Entertainment programs were a week or two
late arriving in Anchorage by film or tape.  After showing in
Anchorage, the material was sent onward for even later showing in
Fairbanks and then Juneau.  National news was taped off the air in
Seattle and put on the first available northbound plane.  In most
cases, Walter Cronkite addressed his Alaskan audience a day later than
the Lower 48.

        "Today, live programming is beamed throughout Alaska using
Alascom's Aurora I, and events of interest to the world are beamed out
from Alaska; events like the visit of Pope John Paul, the rescue of
the trapped whales, and coverage of the Valdez oil spill all traveled
out via Alascom's Aurora I.  The same Alascom satellite is used to
relay long distance learning to remote sites throughout the state.

        "Presently, Alascom employs more than 700 people in Alaska and
operates more than 300 sites statewide with microwave and satellite
communications.  Alascom also works under contract for several
companies that require specialized communications at remote mining and
oil drilling sites.  Alascom also operates the state's marine radio
network and an aviation weather service for pilots.

        "In the last few years, Alascom has become known throughout
the global telecommunications industry as the experts on rapid
deployment of transportable earth stations, delivering them to remote
sites by air freighter or helicopter and setting up operation within
hours.  Alascom was called upon by the oil industry in Alaska to
provide remote communications from the tragic spill site in Prince
William Sound when the tanker Exxon Valdez lost its cargo in the
pristine Alaskan waters.

        "In 1989, Alascom was called upon by the U.S. Navy to fly its
transportable earth station to Puerto Rico to re-establish
communications devastated by Hurricane Hugo on that Caribbean island.
The same year, Alascom transportable earth stations and personnel were
deployed to Panama in support of the U.S. forces in Operation Just
Cause.

        "One year later, as the Iraquis invaded Kuwait, Alascom was
once again thousands of miles from home providing satellite
communications support to our Armed Forces operating in the Saudi
theatre as part of Desert Shield, and then Desert Storm.

        "On May 29, 1991, Alascom launched its second satellite --
Aurora II -- as a replacement for the aging Aurora I which was almost
out of station-keeping fuel after nine years of faithful service.  The
new satellite, more sophisticated and powerful than its predecessor,
will continue to provide a variety of telecommunications services to
Alaska's growing population.

        "More recently, Alascom entered the era of international
submarine fiber optic cables by linking its communications network
with a spur that runs off the North Pacific Cable that runs between
Portland, Oregon and Japan.  The Alascom spur, which lands at Seward,
Alaska, proceeds underwater to a point 1,900 miles south, where the
transPacific portion of the cable is tapped, using methods like those
employed for joining multiple European nations on transAtlantic
cables.  This connects Alaskans not only with the Lower 48 but also
directly with the Orient via the latest in digital fiber optics
technology.

        "The story of Alascom has been the story of growth.  In 1971,
when the company took its first few steps, Alaska's long distance
telephone traffic amounted to 5 million calls per year.  Today,
Alascom handles in excess of 95 million calls annually and is doing so
at substantial rate reductions from jsut 20 years ago.  Over that
short history, Alascom has lowered its interstate calling rates by 85%
while reducing intrastate calls by 25%.  A call that cost $10.00 in
1971 today costs only $1.56.

THE FUTURE:

        "The years ahead are full of promise and excitement.  As
Alaska enters the last decade of this century, plans are already being
laid for Alascom to enter the twenty-first century in the way WAMCATS
entered the twentieth century, full of dedication and committed to
serving its state and its people -- and now increasingly expanding
that scope to the world, wherever and whenever needed.


Origin: The Nebraska Inns of Court (inns.omahug.org) (1:285/27)












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04813;
          8 Apr 92 4:06 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21053
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:47:17 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03560
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:47:09 -0500
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:47:09 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #301

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 Apr 92 01:47:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 301

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: FCC Changes Rules For Cordless Phones (Don Sterner)
    Arbitrator Orders AT&T To Reinstate Workers (CWA News via Phillip Dampier)
    Incredibly High Mexican Phone Rates (John R. Levine)
    Voice Mail Loop (Randy Gellens)
    900-SPELLIT With a Computer (Jeffrey Mattox)
    Need Fast Info on Northern Telecom FiberWorld (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Text of S. 12 Sought (Cable Bill) (Bruce Klopfenstein)
    Privacy Question (Mike Koziol)
    Call for America's Libraries (Sandy Kyrish)
    Is Equal Access Available Everywhere? (Colin Tuttle)
    Help, I've Fallen !!!! (Jack Winslade)
    BellSouth Call ID Model 20 (Phil Padgett)
    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (John Nagle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: FCC Changes Rules For Cordless Phones
From: unkaphaed![e-mail] (Don Sterner)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 12:28:57 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy


[e-mail] (George S Thurman) writes:

> In a surprise move today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
> proposed that all persons using cordless phones must identify using
> the same guidelines now in effect for amateur radio operators: i.e.

Didja happen to notice the date of that message???


[e-mail] (Don Sterner)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, [phone]
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis


[Moderator's Note: Of course I noticed it! That's why I ran it, and
I'm sorry I was otherwise occupied on the first and could not run it
in a more timely fashion!  :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 18:01:57 -0500
Subject: Arbitrator Orders AT&T to Reinstate Workers


ARBITRATOR ORDERS AT&T TO RE-INSTATE HUNDREDS OF TECHNICIANS, PAY BACK WAGES

CWA (April 7) -- An arbitrator has directed AT&T to rescind the 1992
layoff of several hundred company technicians, pay their back wages
and abide by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement
negotiated with the Communications Workers of America (CWA) in 1989.
The ruling also will impact thousands of other workers who were forced
to transfer to other locations, according to CWA.

The total cost of the settlement is estimated in the millions of
dollars.  Coming within days of the re-opening of the nationwide
agreement for the 130,000 unionized workers in the company, the
decision adds more weight to union charges that the company has been
attempting to circumvent its agreement with both the CWA and the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) since that
contract was negotiated, declared CWA President Morton Bahr.

"The arbitrator quite properly found that AT&T had engaged in a
deliberate deception to proceed with a massive layoff without regard
to the seniority rights of our members," Bahr declared. The union is
determined that no employer can be permitted to dodge the requirement
of an agreement with impunity.

Arbitrator Patrick Hardin, in issuing the April 5 decision, reviewed
the bargaining history of the 1989 agreement and found that the
company had violated the spirit and the intent of the agreement after
the union had rebuffed AT&T's efforts to negotiate a less restrictive
seniority provision for one large group of technicians.

"By a substantial preponderance, the evidence shows that the parties
to the 1989 negotiations understood and agreed that the seniority
status of communications technicians with regard to layoffs would not
be impaired during the life of the agreement except by the consent of
the union," Hardin ruled.

CWA Vice President Jim Irvine (Communications and Technologies)
described the decision as a "tremendous boost" for the union's
bargaining teams now in talks with AT&T.  "The decision underscores
the importance of tough and committed bargaining, holding the
company's feet to the fire and forcing them, through every means at
our disposal, to honor those agreements.  We're delighted for the
technicians who will finally realize justice against an insensitive
and autocratic company.  We're pledged to achieve the same goals for
all of our members covered by these agreements."


Jeff Miller  Gaye Williams Mack [phone]
Communications Workers of America

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

Subject: Incredibly High Mexican Phone Rates
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 14:25:01 EDT
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


A recent message noted that it had cost nearly $50 to fax a three page
flyer to Mexico.  Partly that's because of bad connections, but mostly
it's because calls to Mexico are incredibly expensive.

For example, it cost $1.89/minute for the call to Tabasco.  A call to
Guatemala, which is farther away, is only $1.06.  Indeed, you can call
anywhere else in Latin America, for no more than $1.11.* (These are
all per-minute day rates, after the first minute.)

I note that Mexico is one of the three countries for which the rate
depends on where in the U.S. one is calling from, the other two being
Canada and Cuba.  Are we stuck with some strange ancient treaty that
sets the Mexican rates?


Regards,

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

* - Well, actually, it costs $2.99/minute to call the Falkland Islands
and it's anyone's guess what a call to Cuba costs if you can get
through, but they're peculiar cases since they're not dialable from
the U.S.

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Date: 07 APR 92 03:13
Subject: Voice Mail Loop


My roommate and I both work for companies that have Aspen voice mail.
One of Aspen's features is 'call notification', which lets you have it
call you at any number (internal or external) if you have (normal or
urgent) messages (at any time or during specific time windows).  Any
way, during a period when my roommate didn't have an answering machine
of his own (we each have our own lines) he had his phone
call-forwarded to his work number.

He forgot that he had also set Aspen to call him at home if he had any
messages.

Naturally, as soon as someone called him and left a message with
Aspen, it started calling him at home, which rang through to another
Aspen port.  It then talked to itself, leaving another message,
consisting of part of its call notification spiel (which is *quite*
long-winded).  Not having any limits on his mailbox, he accumulated a
*lot* of these.

You'd think Aspen could be made to realize when it is talking to
itself.

Aspen #1                                   Aspen #2

Hi, this is <name>.  I'm not in right now  This is a voice mail system with
but if you leave your name and number,     a message for <name>.  If this
I'll call you back as soon as I can./At    person is available, please press
the tone, please record your message.      1.  If this person is not available.
When you have finished recording, you      please press 2.  If you are an
may hang up, or, press 1 for more          operator, and need to transfer this
options,  [Beep]                           call, please do so now.  [Pause]
                                           [Entire message repeats several
                                           times]


Randy Gellens            [e-mail]
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 13:13:13 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Mattox)
Subject: 900-SPELLIT With a Computer


In Monday's {Wall Street Journal}, Daivd Stipp writes about trying to
win at 900-SPELLIT by using a computer.  He got the 21 words correct
in the allotted time, but was disqualified because the recorded
instructions say *you* must type the letters on your touch tone
*telephone*.  Stipp had the computer do the dialing, after he typed
the words on the computer's keyboard.  The 900-SPELLIT people check
their fast-dialing winners by asking them to play an impromptu game,
or they come and tape the person while playing to prove that he can
actually type the words on the telephone keypad that fast.  The
instructions do not specifically say you cannot use a computer,
however.

So, how about this:

Instead of connecting the computer to the telephone, wire the computer
to lights located next to each button on your telephone, then program
the computer turn on the lights in sequence to show you the correct
letters.  To synchronize the computer with your dialing, you could
have the computer listen to the line as you dial, or you could tap the
space bar with one hand as you dial with the other.  You'll be doing
all the dialing, and you can even let them videotape you!


Jeff

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Need Fast Info on Northern Telecom FiberWorld
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:04:37 GMT


My wife is a professional interpreter, and Thursday (Wednesday US
time) she will be interpreting for a gentlemen from Northern Telecom
at a trade show regarding NT's FIBERWORLD products.  She has been
given some preparatory materials (including product info in Japanese
for the S/DMS TransportNode, SuperNode and AccessNode) but is having a
hard time with them because she is not (not yet anyway) a telecom pro.
I do have a modicum of telecom knowledge (enought to understand and
explain the background of the products if I had English product
information) but I am having a hard time explaining some of the jargon
and background to her.

If there is a reader out there who can email me some information about
these products and the technology behind them, we would be most
grateful.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Klopfenstein)
Subject: Text of S. 12 Sought (Cable Bill)
Date: 31 Mar 92 01:45:45 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


I am interested in getting a copy of S.12 and its House counterpart.
This is the cable "Consumer Protection Act of 1992" or some similar
name.  Does anyone know if this is available electronically somewhere?

Thanks for your help.


Bruce C. Klopfenstein             |  [e-mail]
Department of Telecommunications  |  [e-mail]
322 West Hall                     |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green State University    |  [phone]; 372-2224
Bowling Green, OH  43403-0235     |  fax [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 17:01:11 EST
From: Mike Koziol <[e-mail]>
Subject: Privacy Question


I'll try to make this brief: A campus Safety department at a
university.  All calls to a single dispatcher are tape recorded with
out the "beep" every 15 seconds (our interprtation is that it is not
needed in NY state).  Incoming calls range from the mundane to "lower
level" felonies. On occasion our dispatchers have been known to make
personal phone calls while using these lines and "on the clock". The
shift supervisors have a desire to start monitoring incoming calls via
a speaker they want installed on their desk. Their office is
accessible to some employees not allowed to have access to
confidential information.

Also the office is within "ear shot" of interview rooms where victims,
suspects and visitors are placed. The dispatchers know that what they
say on the phone is taped but feel that this is much different than
active, one on one call monitoring.  It's also realized that a
personal phone call may be heard from the tape in the rare event there
is an investigation.

Question: Any legal, liability or ethical issues involved? I've heard
of some controversy about telephone operators being listened in on by
supervision but don't recall the outcome. Seems to me there is a
confidentiality issue.

Any help would be appreciated, e-mail gladly accepted if you don't
wish to post to the Digest.   Thanks.     Mike


[Moderator's Note: I imagine Dennis will pick this up and continue the
thread in Telecom Privacy ([e-mail]); but to give a
brief answer here, the general rule is that since personal calls have
no automatic right to be placed on an employer's telephones, and since
the purpose of the telephones in question is to respond quickly and
effeciently to emergency police matters -- and part of the effeciecy
in the response is as a result of training by supervisors who listen
on the lines -- the dispatchers have no valid complaint if
unauthorized calls are overheard in the process of monitoring
authorized calls.

I think a court would rule that it is unreasonable for the dispatchers
to complain of privacy violations when in fact such (personal) calls
tie up resources needed to respond to the public's welfare and in
effect make the perceived 'privacy rights' of employees placing
personal calls at their employer's expense more important than the
obligation of the Department to maintain control of its telephones and
respond effeciently to requests for police service.  If the employees
involved force this issue, an appropriate response from the Department
might be that employees must begin making personal calls during their
free time from pay telephones on the premises.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 02:07 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call for America's Libraries


I know this isn't a telecom topic per se, but I hope PAT will
acknowledge its importance and mobilize the humongous Digest
readership towards its goal.

April 5-11 is National Library Week.  You can voice your support for
continued public funding of public libraries by calling
1-800-530-8888. (Hearing impaired: 800-552-9097). An operator will ask
you to respond to a statement endorsing public libraries and will ask
if s/he can include your name in a letter to elected officials
encouraging continued library funding.  The number is nationwide so
CALL and keep library funding from the budget axe.


[Moderator's Note: Consider it done, and I second your request. I've
been active as a volunteer for the Chicago Public Library reading
service for visually impaired persons for many years. Please call.  PAT]

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

Subject: Is Equal Access Available Everywhere?
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:38:41 CDT (Tue)
From: [e-mail] (Colin Tuttle)


I have a question about equal access availablity.  A business
acquaintance who lives in an area near Oklahoma City.  The area is
part of the metro Oklahoma dialing area -- he has the same toll free
dialing area as someone who lived in Oklahoma City.  Because of the
MCI "Friends and Family" program, his father had suggested that he
switch to MCI to get the 20% discount.  When he tried to call he was
told that his prefix (405-277) did not offer equal access, and as such
he was unable to subscribe to MCI, (or Sprint, for that matter).  My
question is, why does he not have equal access?  Is Southwestern Bell
responsible?  Is there an FCC mandated date for equal access?

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

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 22:03:46 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Help, I've Fallen !!!!
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


Does anyone know if there is any secondary market for the Life Alert
<tm, I think> machines which are marketed primarily to seniors who
live alone?

This machine is an autodialer and speakerphone which is activated by a
remote control to alert a service bureau in case of emergency.  These
machines are/were heavily promoted in the (in)famous Help, I've Fallen
TV ads.

In other words, if Mrs. Fletcher wanted to sell her machine, would
there be a market?

Please reply by mail ([e-mail]) and I'll summarize to the
net if there is anything significant.


Good day!  JSW

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Padgett)
Subject: BellSouth Call ID Model 20
Organization: University of Fl, Department of Statistics
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:41:47


I just purchased a Bell South Model 20 Calling Line Identifier.  It
has a port on the back which is supposed to be for data -- it says it
can be hooked to a computer or a serial printer.  Does anyone know the
pin-outs of this device?  It has a standard four connector handset
modular plug on it.  Thanks,


Phil Padgett       Network Manager
[e-mail]   Division of Biostatistics  University of Florida

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 18:32:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


If you are called by a junk caller, you post the number to a USENET
group.  An application then downloads all junk numbers identified by
anyone on the net, and applies them to your incoming calls.  If this
could be made effortless, it could be really useful.


John Nagle

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #301
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07924;
          9 Apr 92 1:43 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07234
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:50:08 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30890
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:49:57 -0500
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:49:57 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #302

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 Apr 92 23:49:56 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 302

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    ISDN on DMS-100, was Re: ISDN in Houston, Texas (Bill Sohl)
    Re: ISDN in Houston, Texas (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: ISDN in Houston, Texas (David G. Lewis)
    Re: ISDN in Houston, Texas (Morris Meyer)
    Re: Need ISDN Phone With Extra Analog Port (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Need ISDN Phone With Extra Analog Port (David E. Martin)
    Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (Rob Warnock)
    Spread of ISDN (Castor Fu)
    Re: Future of Fax? (Steve Elias)
    Re: Future of Fax? (Paul Hutmacher)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: dancer![e-mail] (24411-sohl)
Subject: ISDN on DMS-100, was Re: ISDN in Houston, Texas
Reply-To: dancer![e-mail]
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 13:43:56 GMT


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

> Obviously, my first question was: "Well, how much would it cost to
> upgrade the DMS-100 to be ISDN capable, so that I can forgo the
> surcharge and have a monthly rate of $44.50 from my home?"

> S.W. Bell Answer: "Oh, I think it would be tens of thousands."

> My reply: "Are you sure it's not just a line card change and a
> software upgrade from Northern Telecom?"

> S.W. Bell Answer: "Well, we don't plan to upgrade that switch
> because we don't see a big market in the residential area."

> MY QUESTION TO THE NET:
> Does anyone KNOW what is involved in upgrading a DMS-100 from POTS
> to ISDN?

In addition to the ISDN line card, there are at least two significant
elements 1) the software upgrade and 2) the specific equipment
bays/modules that can accomodate the ISDN line line card.  Rather than
possibly state an inaccurate detail, I'll let someone else provide
specific Northern Telecom details.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.


Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: ISDN in Houston, Texas
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:53:39 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Hubert
Daugherty) writes:

> Obviously, my first question was: "Well, how much would it cost to
> upgrade the DMS-100 to be ISDN capable, so that I can forgo the
> surcharge and have a monthly rate of $44.50 from my home?"
> Does anyone KNOW what is involved in upgrading a DMS-100 from POTS to
> ISDN?

Well, we have a few DMS_100s here and I'm interested in upgrading them
to ISDN too ... since we own 'em outright, we (DEC) would have to pay
NT's upgrade charges.

Suffice to say that "tens of thousands" is low!  It's not just a line
card.  If you had a brand new one, it might be a line card plus
software, and their latest line card is BOTH ISDN and POTS on one, all
via DSP, so it's not even a line card!  But all of the ones in the
field have older line cards; plus there are several vintages of
shelves, drawers, etc.

Plus to have ISDN you need certain common equipment (packet handler).
Plus (the biggie) software.  NT, like any computer company, makes
money selling software licenses.  ISDN is implemented via various
licenses, each with a price.  I believe (offhand) that NT charges one
license fee per DMS-100, while AT&T charges a fee per 5ESS plus a fee
per remote switching unit, so NT's are cheaper to distribute.

But the switch vendors want to get some direct revenue back for their
ISDN investment.  So it costs well into six figures to upgrade one.
If the telco buys in bulk, the unit price can fall quite a bit, though.

Note that if the telco sees modest demand, they can put remotes or
even muxes off of one ISDN CO into multiple wire centers.  They
wouldn't have to charge the full foreign-CO rate if they didn't want
to.  But now we're getting off the topic ...


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: ISDN in Houston, Texas
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:51:03 GMT


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

> Does anyone KNOW what is involved in upgrading a DMS-100 from POTS
> to ISDN?

Disclaimer: since I work for AT&T, I obviously don't KNOW what is
involved in upgrading a DMS-100 from POTS to ISDN. However, I have
some anecdotal evidence.  In a previous life, I had a customer who
operated a Northern Telecom SL-100 PBX, which is the PBX incarnation
of the DMS-100.  They wanted to upgrade it to ISDN and were told that
it would require an upgrade to a DMS SuperNode (which, someone from
NTI correct me if I'm wrong, is essentially a brain transplant), which
would cost in seven figures.

That's why they became my customer ;-)


dave

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

From: [e-mail] (Morris Meyer)
Subject: Re: ISDN in Houston, Texas
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:14:59 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Morris Meyer)


Hubert Daugherty writes:

> MY QUESTION TO THE NET:

> Does anyone KNOW what is involved in upgrading a DMS-100 from POTS to
> ISDN?

> I would really like to telecommute at 64k bits from my NeXT computer
> to Rice.  But $1,362 dollars per year on my salary is too much.

Going from a AT&T 1AESS to a 5ESS switch costs in the millions,
whereas upgrading switch generics to support ISDN is much less.  From
what I understand, upgrading the switch generic is a software upgrade,
but still a very expensive software upgrade, since there isn't a huge
installed base of phone switches (as compared to PC's, Mac's, etc).


Morris Meyer - ISDN Project - NeXT Software - [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Need ISDN Phone With Extra Analog Port
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:25:12 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(American Infomation Exchange) writes:

> Here's the question: does anyone make an ISDN phone that has a
> digital port, and an analog port, in addition to the 'analog' handset
> on the phone.  I want the analog port to share the same channel as the
> digital port.  If this isn't available, then is there a device that
> takes an ISDN channel and turns it into a plain analog line?
> Apparently, it is quite easy to split the two channels up.  This
> device would be like an ISDN phone without the smarts.

I am not aware of an ISDN telephone set with an analog port on it --
many have data ports, but I don't think any are designed to allow
second phones to plug in.

However, there are a number of Terminal Adapters (ISDN equivalent of a
modem) that have analog ports.  Two examples that I'm aware of (no
endorsements implied!) are the TA120 from UDS Motorola and the Gandalf
Lanlink 5510.  The TA120 takes a V.35 or RS-232 line and maps it into
the 64 kbps data format of ISDN, and also provides a conventional
analog port to drive your telephones with.  The 5510 has an Ethernet
jack and a phone line; you use them in pairs (well, two can dial into
one, I think) to perform remote Ethernet bridging, while the remote
ends can also provide service to analog phones.

ISDN phones are not suitable for residences; ISDN doesn't allow
"bridging" more than one digital phone at a time onto one call.
(Multiple devices may contend for calls, but not share once answered.)
Thus a typical residential user is more likely to want to keep analog
phones!  But of course modems are only for compatibility with the
low-speed analog world.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:37:13 -0500
From: "David E. Martin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need ISDN Phone With Extra Analog Port
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,  Batavia, IL,  USA


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

> Here's the question: does anyone make an ISDN phone that has a digital
> port, and an analog port, in addition to the 'analog' handset on the
> phone.  I want the analog port to share the same channel as the
> digital port.

Several manufacturers (Hayes, etc.) make what are called terminal
adapters.  They allow you to make a circuit-switched data call over a
B-channel.  Most also have a built-in codec that converts a anolog
signal to the digital signal used by ISDN.  Be careful, some vendors
only have a port for an ISDN phone, not an analog one.

> What I want to do is always have the handset available for making and
> receiving calls.  Then I'd like be able to attach a modem to the other
> channel.  I want to use this modem for calling outside, non-ISDN,
> services.  Occasionally (when the modem isn't being used), I'd  like
> to be able to call other ISDN extensions using the digital port on the
> ISDN phone set.  (There's going to be a switch-box to switch the
> computer between the ISDN digital port and the modem port.)

If you have a large installation, you might consider setting up a
modem pool with a single ISDN number.  A user can call that number and
be connected to a modem that is in turn connected to a normal digital
line.  Then you don't have to duplicate modems and special hardware on
everyone's desk.


David E. Martin
National HEPnet Management                      Phone: [phone]
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory           FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 500; MS 234; Batavia, IL 60510  USA    E-Mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 06:14:32 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


[e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

> The Primary Rate ... U.S. standard is 23B + D, in Europe
> 31B + D. Contrary to what was posted earlier, a Basic and Primary Rate
> device cannot interoperate directly, because of differing data rates.

But they *can*! Any single B channel on either can call a single B
channel on the other. That's what "2B", "23B", and "31B" *mean*! All B
channels are 64kb/s. (Of course a given *call* may only be able to
carry 56kb/s, but that's another story.)

Now perhaps you were thinking that the D channels couldn't interoperate,
because on Primary Rate the D channel is 64kb/s and on Basic Rate it's
only 16kb/s. But all communications on the D channel is already packet
mode, so the rate adaption is built in.


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510      [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.      [phone]
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.   Mountain View, CA  94039-7311

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

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 11:09:06 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Castor Fu)
Subject: Spread of ISDN


We just got a "Personal" DECstation 5000/25 about a week ago, and
after some wrangling, finally got it all working.

One of the things that's interesting is that DEC has finally decided
to begin integrating sound into their machines, following the latest
trend towards multimedia (whatever that means).  On the back is a
connector with an icon of a telephone handset.  In fact, the
recommended device for audio input/output is a handset.  Plugging a
handset in works just fine, but since we don't yet have any software
for driving it; it doesn't mean too much yet.

What's more interesting is that there was a sticker covering another
connector.  Not wanting to leave such things alone, I removed the
sticker and found another jack labeled ISDN.  Presumably, when all the
software is together we might be able to use our workstation as a
glorified telephone with no additional hardware.

If Sun, HP, DEC and IBM and Apple all bundle ISDN hardware into their
computers, we might be able to get enough ISDN sets into the field so
that if the telcos would set reasonable rates for ISDN they would get
a lot of subscribers.


castor fu     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Elias)
Subject: Re: Future of Fax?
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:07:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sandy
Shaw) writes:

> He says that all his clients that send either long faxes frequently or
> many faxes, especially to international locations, end up switching to
> other forms of communication, network, e-mail, etc.

Perhaps they will just move towards computerfax, which will eliminate
the pain of sending those many/long faxes.

> I say that there are large numbers of firms that send large numbers of
> faxes all over the world and with more features and faxserver
> capabilities available, will continue to do so well into the future.

Agreed.

> Any opinions on this?  Any actual cases?  Is fax only the tool of
> smaller companies or departments, or is it destined to be (is it now)
> a prime-mover for some larger firms?

I can't point to specific examples. It is my opinion that it is
destined to remain a prime info-mover for large firms as well as small
ones.  You might like to talk to some folks at one of the fax server
hardware/software vendors.


eli    [e-mail] ; fax->email 508 294 0101


[Moderator's Note: I've seen or heard of some very large fax
operations. One large air freight company has five or six fax machines
in a rotary hunt group for their *incoming* stuff. That is, if the
first machine is busy, telco hunts the second line and second machine,
etc. Machines four, five and six are swapped around with the first
three now and then to insure equal wear and tear. The faxes are part
of their mailroom operation, and a couple clerks handle incoming and
outgoing fax as their full time assignment.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Hutmacher)
Subject: Re: Future of Fax?
Organization: Greater Montrose UFO Appreciation Society & Data Haven
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 00:09:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sandy
Shaw) writes:

> Is fax only the tool of smaller companies or departments, or is it
> destined to be (is it now) a prime-mover for some larger firms?

I can only speak for myself but as an inside salesman for a small pipe
supplier on the gulf coast I think fax is here for the next ten years
at least.  I use fax in preparing quotes (send me your bill of
material and I'll price it for you), in helping customers decide on
what they want (let me send you a picture of what I'm talking about),
for placing orders with my own vendors, and for anything else that
needs a "hard" copy.

When I first started sales some fifteen years ago we took long lists
over the phone and used mail and courier services to send documents,
literature, etc back out.

I now do business in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and Mexico because
of my fax machine.  All I do is program the machine to send the fax at
the most economical rate period and I've saved up to three or four
dollars just by faxing my overseas stuff.  I can interpret non-English
languages at my leisure and have a quote prepared for the client
before they get back to work the next day.

I don't know how I've gotten along without it.

The next wave in my industry is EDI (Electronic Data Interchange).
One of my EDI trading partners sends orders over the modem, my
software receives them and barcodes them, I deliver them and they use
a wand on the bar codes to receive the material.  I get my money in
ten days.  I love it!

The only thing EDI can't do yet is send a brochure.  That's why faxen
are here to stay, at least for awhile.


Paul Hutmacher  |     [e-mail]
Houston, Texas  |  {nuchat,lobster}!xcluud!paul

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #302
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11579;
          9 Apr 92 2:47 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17153
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:56:25 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24975
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:56:14 -0500
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:56:14 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #303

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 Apr 92 00:55:50 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 303

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Heath-Zenith Stores to Close (Jack Winslade)
    Auto Dialers Back (Monty Solomon)
    CWA Election Results (Phillip Dampier)
    Demand U.S. Sprint Allow Unionization (Nigel Allen)
    Automatic Dialout Problems Get BBS Sysop Arrested (Shaun P. Kelly)
    Moscow Hunting "Illegal" Modems (Nigel Allen)
    Verifying Busy Requires an AT&T Operator (Randy Gellens)
    Calling the Falkland Islands and Cuba (John R. Covert)
    Brown Supports Free Speech on Networks (Richard Wallace)
    New AT&T Videophone (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    An Anecdote From the Cord-Board Days (Richard McCombs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 21:54:29 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Heath-Zenith Stores to Close
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


According to Joseph 'Scoop' Blough, stringer for the {Omaha News}, all
retail outlets of Veritechnology Inc., DBA Heath-Zenith Computers,
will be closed effective immediately.  All employees will be laid off
except for certain management personnel who will assist with the
decommissioning of the stores.

Maintenance functions have been taken over by a third-party firm, and
H/Z will apparently retain some sales agants in some cities formerly
served by the Heath-Zenith stores.

The future of the mail-order division of Heath is uncertain at this
time.  It is speculated that the mail-order division will be closing
shortly as well.

This happens two years after Zenith Data Systems, parent company to
both Heathkit and Veritechnology, was sold by Zenith to Groupe Bull, a
large, European computer conglomerate.  One of Bull's first acts was
to alienate the hobbyist community which was or prime importance in
the success and growth of Heathkit and Zenith Data Systems.

In recent months, Groupe Bull has experienced a serious cash-flow
problem.  {Infoworld} recently reported that IBM (with cash-flow
problems of its own) infused millions into Bull in a bailout attempt.
IBM gained a significant amount of Bull stock as a result.

Fortunately for hobbyists, accessories, repair parts, and service for
Heath-Zenith machines from the earliest to the latest are available
from several sources.


Good day.       JSW


[Moderator's Note: This is very sad news. I'll miss those folks.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 06:40:19 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Auto Dialers Back


 From the 92 Apr 13 issue of {The National Law Journal}:

The Oregon Court of Appeals on April 1 struck down as violating free
speech rights a state law prohibiting businesses from using
computerized telephone dialers to market goods and services.  Because
the law "regulates commercial speech differently from other subjects
of speech, it is unconstitutional," the court said.  The law was
passed by the 1989 Oregon Legislature because of mounting consumer
complaints about the use of telemarketing computers.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 17:27:27 -0500
Subject: CWA Election Results


CWA CONVENTION DELEGATES RE-ELECT BAHR; ELECT EASTERLING AND
SECRETARY-TREASURER

Here is a rundown of today's CWA union election, taken from reports on
site from the CWA Convention in Miami Beach, Florida.

Re-Elected:         Morton Bahr by acclamation as President of
                    the Union for a 4-year term.

Elected:            Barbara J. Easterling, the first woman ever
                    to serve the role of Secretary-Treasurer.

Other Voting:

Victor Crawley, St. Louis, MO    - VP of five state District 6.
Sue Pisha, Denver, CO            - VP of 14-state District 7.
Janice Wood, Los Angeles, CA     - VP of three state District 9.

All other CWA officers were re-elected without opposition, and
delegates have changed the terms of office from three years to a one
time four year term.  In 1996, terms will revert to three years.

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

Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 20:10:39 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Demand U.S. Sprint Allow Unionization
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


[Thanks to Joe DeLassus of 1:100/355 for posting this to FidoNet's
ANEWS echo (activist/alternative news) -- NDA]

 Via The N.Y. Transfer News Service 718-448-2358, 718-448-2683

 From: Harel Barzilai <cmcl2!math.cornell.edu!harelb>

Note: IGC is the nonprofit Institute for Global Communications which
runs the PeaceNet and EcoNet networks.  If you are a Sprint customer
-- either SprintNet/TeleNet packet switching network for electronic
mail, OR for long- distance telephone and fax use -- please write them
as well! -- Harel

This is from PeaceNet's "labor.organize" -- there are over a dozen
"labor.*" conferences now part of the newly created LaborNet --
another Net which IGC is not running directly but rather providing
support for them to run by themselves. I am particularly interested in
connecting up my (and other) campuses' grad-student unionization
activsts with LaborNet -- Harel

March 23, 1992

Mr. William T. Esry
Chairman and Chief Executive Office
Sprint Corp.
P.O. Box 11315
Kansas City, MO 64112

Dear Mr. Esrey,

 The Institute for Global Communciations has joined the Sprint
Concerned Customer Association because we have learned that you are
unwilling to allow your employees to attempt to organize a union.

 We believe that the quality and reliability of our data
communications service depends on highly trained and dedicated
employees who function in a working environment of fairness and
respect.

 We are aware that Sprint employees are organizing a union to ensure
that they have a voice in setting decent working conditions, income
levels, benefits and personnel policies. We agree that such employee
participation and democracy in the workplace can greatly enhance both
employee productivity and the marketability of Sprint's product.

 We support this employee effort and call on Sprint management to
recognize the right of its employees to organize a union without
company interference. We urge the company to adopt a reasonable code-
of-conduct that will allow Sprint employees themselves to decide
whether they want to elect a union to represent themselves.

 Specifically we urge the company to remain neutral in any organi-
zational campaign and not encourage workers to oppose unionization. We
also call on Sprint to recognize the union that can prove its majority
support as the exclusive collective bargaining representative through
a show of union representation cards signed by a majority of
employees.

 As a customer of Sprint's services, I look forward to hearing from
you concerning the action plan to take in this regard.

  Sincerely,

   Geoff Sears, Executive Director Institute for Global Communications

  cc: Sprint Concerned Customers Association
      501 3rd Street, N.W.
      Washington, DC 20001


Origin: OneNet_St_Louis_MO_(314)776-0061 (1:100/355)

Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Shaun P. Kelly)
Subject: Automatic Dialout Problems Get BBS Sysop Arrested
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:22:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce
Albrecht) writes:

> There was a case in Minnesota a year or two back, where someone's BBS
> called a correctly dialed phone number for about three days, and kept
> getting incorrectly switched to someone's phone.  He reported it to
> the phone company, they fixed the problem, and the city attorney had
> him arrested for making harrassing phone calls.  Don't know the final
> outcome, though.

As it turns out, the number being dialed was correct, but due to a
noisy line or other problems, his computer, running a Citadel bbs,
managed to dial out to some number which, coincedentally, was
receiving obscene calls from someone ... and was thus being traced.

Apparently, an ignorant and overzealous (IMHO) DA was able to track
down the one number for the BBS off the trace, but wasn't able to find
the person making the voice calls -- but didn't really care much.

It did go to court, and last I heard the sysop was off with (possibly
a fine) and an agreement that it gets cleared off his record if
nothing happens again in a year.

Apparently, if you can't fund a hotshot lawyer, and if the DA gets to
pick jurors on the basis of not being able to recognize a phone wthout
a handcrank, anything can happen.

(This opinionated update brought to you by another Citadel sysop, one
of the bbs's which was being dialed through correctly ...)

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

Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 20:12:28 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Moscow Hunting "Illegal" Modems
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


[thanks to Joe DeLassus of 1:100/355 for posting this to FidoNet's
ANEWS echo (activist/alternative news) -- NDA]

Via The N.Y. Transfer News Service 718-448-2358, 718-448-2683

  From glasnost Tue Mar 31 21:28:02 1992
  COMMERSANT Weekly, No. 13, March 23-30 1992, p.14

Follows the translation of the article by Kirill Maslentsin published
by the Moscow Weekly Commersant.

 -== start of text ==-

 Starting from April 1st, the Commercial Service of the Moscow City
Telephone Network (Proizvodstvennoe Ob'edinenie MGTS) will detect the
unregistered modems. The experts doubt that this action, objectively
necessary, is manageable to be carried out quickly, because the
Commercial Service of the MGTS finds itself yet in the organizational
stage.

 According to Alexander Shambazov, Deputy Director of the PO MGTS,
approximately 100.000 modems are currently in use in Moscow. Shambazov
was unable to say how many of them had been registered. Up-to-date,
every Telephone Service node in Moscow used to register the modems
separately (usually, at owner's request), and MGTS does not have the
consolidated information.

 The Commercial Service, created recently by the MGTS, will compile
the general database on modem owners. This department will detect the
"ilegal" modems whose owners do not pay for the use of these devices.

 In Mr. Shambazov's opinion, companies which run the phone
communications networks, or sell the information contained in their
databases, and the companies who manufacture and sell the modems, will
help to detect the "ilegal" modems. The MGTS will request these
companies to submit their user lists. It is not excluded that MGTS
will obtain the required information, because all the companies
implied are interested to come to terms with the Telco. Shambazov
informed that MGTS has the modem detection equipment.

 The experts consider that the "modem hunt," on its early stage, won't
be very efficient, because the MGTS Commercial Service is still being
organized, and its structure is weak. Nevertherless, one may expect
that the frightened users of the "ilegal devices" will "plead guilty"
massively.

 According to the information obtained, the offenders won't be fined.
They'll simply be urged to conclude a contract (if the modem is
certified). The usage fee will be 1296 R/year for the self-financed
companies, and 324 R/year for the organizations financed by the State
budget. But if a company uses a modem for commercial purposes (for
example, selling the information), will have to pay 50.000 rubles per
year. Nothing was said with regard to the modems owned by the
individuals.

Phone of the PO MGTS: [phone].
Translated by Anatoly Voronov GlasNet Moscow

 -== end of text ==-

Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto (1:250/438)

Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Date: 07 APR 92 17:55
Subject: Verifying Busy Requires AT&T Operator


I had been getting a busy on a long-distance call for most of the day,
so I decided to have the busy verified, to see if I should keep
trying.  My 1+ carrier is Sprint, so I dial 0-0 and get a Sprint
operator.  I ask her if she can verify a busy for me, and she says "Of
course."  I give her the number, and she dials it and informs me that
yes, it is busy!

When I explained that "verify busy" means calling the LEC on an inward
line and having the line itself verified, she told me to "dial
1-0-2-8-8-0" to have this service done.  I said "You mean I have to
use AT&T?"  and she said "That's right, sir."  Almost like the
commercial!

(By the way, the line really was out of order.  AT&T confirmed it, and
my friend let me know a few days later that his AT&T answering machine
had run amok.)


Randy Gellens            [e-mail]
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself

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

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 09:22:17 PDT
From: John R. Covert  08-Apr-1992 1036 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling the Falkland Islands and Cuba


> Well, actually, it costs $2.99/minute to call the Falkland Islands
> and it's anyone's guess what a call to Cuba costs if you can get
> through, but they're peculiar cases since they're not dialable from
> the U.S.

The Falkland Islands have been dialable for a while -- country code
500.

AT&T rates are 3.46/2.69 8a-6p, 2.59/2.15 6p-12m, and 2.08/1.75 12m-8a.

Rates to Cuba used to be pretty cheap -- cheaper for the operator
placed calls to Cuba itself than for the direct dialed calls to
Guantanamo Bay.

But there seems to have been a rate increase to reflect the actual
cost of the operator handled calls.  For example, from the Boston area
calls to Havana cost: 5a-6p 4.93/1.60, 6p-5a 3.47/1.08.

Guantanamo Bay direct dialled rates are the same from anywhere in the
U.S.: 4p-10p 1.58/1.06, 7a-4p 1.18/.80, 10p-7a .95/.64


john

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 17:06:04 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Richard Wallace)
Subject: Brown Supports Free Speech on Networks


Me: Hey Jerry, does the First Amendment apply to computer networks?

Jerry Brown: What?

RW: Does the First Amendment apply to computer networks?

JB: Yes.  Yes it does.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 9:01:43 PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New AT&T Videophone


By now I'm sure you've all heard about the new AT&T picturephone, soon
to appear in all the AT&T phone stores and to retail at $1500 or so.

What I don't understand is why the model number is 2500. Are they
really not aware that the standard Western Electric Touch Tone phone
which has been around for 20 years (Pat?) has ALWAYS been called "a
2500 set" by everyone in the industry?


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report
Interop Company, 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040,
Phone: [phone]  FAX: [phone]  Email: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: At least that long. And if they know, they probably
don't care. No one else seems to these days.  PAT]

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

Subject: An Anecdote From the Cord-Board Days
From: [e-mail] (Richard McCombs)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 07:02:15 CDT
Organization: The Red Headed League; Lawton, OK


I just heard a story from someone who was a telephone operator during
the 1950's.

It seems that some kind of insect, possibly a silverfish was attracted
to the wiring. [Maybe it was the cotton they used for insulation?]
The operators used to try to shock the insects by touching the plug to
the insect and ringing to cord.  One lady unitentionally rang
someone's phone when she was trying to kill am insect, and when the
man at the other end answered the phone she said, "I'm sorry Sir, I
was trying to kill a bug [that was] in your hole."


Internet: [e-mail],      [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!rwsys!ricksys!rick,   {backbones}!ricksys.lonestar.org!rick
BITNET: bo836%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm  Fidonet: Richard McCombs @ 1:385/6


[Moderator's Note: Is that where the expression 'have you got a bug up
your switchboard' (or something like that!) came from?  :) Seriously
though, the term 'bug' as used in software programming does come from
the late 1940's when the old vacuum tube style computers had large
relays in them into which insects would crawl to hide; wind up getting
squashed and cause the relays to malfunction.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #303
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16042;
          9 Apr 92 4:14 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05910
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:17:41 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17304
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:17:26 -0500
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:17:26 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #305

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 Apr 92 02:17:25 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 305

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Alascom Story (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: Unix BBS List Wanted (Richard McCombs)
    Re: Unix BBS List Wanted (Chip Rosenthal)
    Re: All Circuits Are Busy (Phil Howard)
    Re: Worth it to Use Hotel Room Phone? (John Higdon)
    Re: ATT and Larry King (Phil Howard)
    Re: Area Code Splits (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: The Alascom Story
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:01:20 GMT


[I'll preface this with the disclaimer that I am a employee of
Alascom, Inc.  They pay me to twist knobs, not to voice opinions on
politics or business.  The knobs are theirs, these opinions are mine.]

In article <[e-mail]>:

My goodness, that story is enough to make us all blush!  But I do have
a few comments and clarifications:

> from Alascom, the original "interstate" and "international" common
> carrier for Alaska, that in addition to a pretty illustrious history,
> has today become one of the world's most called-upon "fast response"
> providers of transportable satellite stations for public
> communications, even down to being the real communications earth
> station provider during Desert Storm, operating quietly behind the
> scenes while AT&T and MCI beat their breasts about "providing the
> troops with phones from Saudi Arabia":

AT&T definitely has some bragging rights there too!  They own the
network in Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait.  When they needed "fast
response" they knew where to buy it, and so did the Department of
Defense.  But while Alascom owns the transportable earth stations and
the technicians who maintain them, AT&T manages the network.  They
deserve a large measure of credit for their part too.

I do remember reading a story in some industry rag about another
company that managed to get their first ES in Saudi up and running
within days (two if my memory is right) of hitting the ground.  They
were fairly proud of it!

We do it in two hours on a regular basis.  Anywhere in the world you
wish to pay for ...


>                   THE ALASCOM STORY


> "When Alaska was granted statehood in 1959, Western Electric
> had been operating the strategic White Alice Communications System
> (WACS) for the government.

WACS was built by WECO, but Federal Electric Company (ITT) got the
first three year maintenance and operations contract.  They then lost
out to RCA Service Company, who lost it back to FEC in 1969.  In 1976
RCA leased WACS on a terminal contract to purchase and replace the
entire system.

>        "In 1969, Congress passed the Alaska Communications Disposal
> Act.  Among interested bidders to purchase the Alaska Communications
> System were General Telephone, Continental Telephone and RCA Global
> Communications.  RCA was the successful bidder at a price of $28.5
> million in cash and a pledge to immediately invest an additional $30
> million for badly needed improvements to the then seriously overtaxed
> and outdated ACS.

>        "RCA renamed its Alaska operating unit Alascom, ...

RCA renamed it "RCA Alaska Communications, Inc.", not Alascom.
Alascom came years later when RCA sold it to Pacific Power & Light.

> purchased the Bartlett Earth Station, then the only one in Alaska and
> Alaska's sole satellite link with the outside world.  Shortly
> thereafter, Alascom contructed its own first satellite station at Lena
> Point, near Juneau, bringing Alaska into the era of modern satellite
> technology.

It would be very nice to say that RCA had all the good sense available
and was responsible for what happened.  It ain't so.  A few far
sighted people at the University of Alaska and in state government
gave them a push that couldn't be avoided (they tried).  RCA in fact
tried to install a very cheap microwave and VHF network ... and it
failed.

>        "In the late 1970's, the federal government was beginning to
> look at reshaping the domestic telecommunications industry to foster
> competition.  The giant RCA Global Communications, which also operated
> worldwide communications of many sorts, was ordered by the FCC to
> divest itself of domestic satellite communications -- of which RCA
> Alascom was a foremost part.

I would not characterize it as the "foremost part" ...

>  RCA American Communications (RCA
> Americom) was formed as a totally independent corporation and given
> the responsibility for handling all domestic satellite business of
> RCA.

>        "In June, 1979, RCA Alascom was purchased by Pacific Power and
> Light Company (now PacifiCorp) of Portland, Oregon.  The purchase
> price was $200 million cash and taking over $90 million of Alascom's
> long term debt.

This would lead one to believe that the sale was for the reasons
mentioned.  Not the case.  In fact RCA Alaska Communications was the
one and only regulated utility that RCA owned.  The prime reason it
was sold was because RCA had a very difficult time dealing with the
FCC and the Alaska Public Utilities Commission.  A *very* difficult
time.

That is just my humble (or not) opinion of course ... but it is true.

The purchase by PP&L was the occasion for the name Alascom, Inc.  I
really don't remember how long it was after that before Pacific
Telecom was formed as the owner of Alascom, and PP&L became Pacific
Corp (which of course is the parent of Pacific Telecom).

It is also interesting that PP&L immediately put one Charles Robinson
in overall charge of Alascom ... Chuck was an old time WACS employee
 ... who now runs the parent company itself, and still knows most of
the Alascom employees by first names.  (The rumor was that he was
given Alascom with the basic instructions that he would sink or swim
with it, and was given a completely free hand to run it as he wished.
He seems to swim very well.)

>        "On May 29, 1991, Alascom launched its second satellite --
> Aurora II -- as a replacement for the aging Aurora I which was almost
> out of station-keeping fuel after nine years of faithful service.

Wellllll ...  actually Aurora I crapped out before the scheduled launch
of Aurora II.  We ended up moving to a backup bird until Aurora II
went up.  The transition scheduled to take all summer was done in a
matter of a couple weeks when the loss of Aurora I became obvious.
Busy times it was!  (But that is a good demonstration of why we can
hire out to the likes of AT&T as a do anything anywhere and do it fast
outfit.  Just the normal environment here...)

> THE FUTURE:

>        "The years ahead are full of promise and excitement.  As

> serving its state and its people -- and now increasingly expanding
> that scope to the world, wherever and whenever needed.

Well, yes, but ...  not as Alascom, Inc.  The death warrant has not
been signed and delivered, but it is sitting on the judge's bench.
Alascom and AT&T have an agreement to sell the inter-state business
between Alaska and the lower 49 states to AT&T.  On or about the day
that sale is approved by the FCC and the APUC, Alascom will cease to
exist.  It will be "swallowed" by PTI Comm, the local exchange carrier
in Alaska owned by Pacific Telecom.  In fact Alascom is going to
swallow PTI Comm, but the name will be PTI Comm when it is done.


Floyd

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

Subject: Re: Unix BBS List Wanted
From: [e-mail] (Richard McCombs)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 06:33:06 CDT
Organization: The Red Headed League; Lawton, OK


[e-mail] (Garrett Meiers) writes:

> Does anybody have a list of UNIX Bulletin Board numbers? I have a list
> that's about five years old and quite outdated.

> [Moderator's Note: Whatever happened to the nixpub listings which used
> to appear in Usenet from time to time? Are they still being posted?  PAT]

Yes.  I don't get comp.misc or alt.bbs but I grab a copy every once in
a while using anonymous uucp.

> From the February, 28, 1992 edition ...

      Lists are available from any of the following:
            o  anonymous uucp from jabber.
                    [phone] [Telebit access]
                    login: nuucp  NO PWD   [no rmail permitted]
                this list: /usr/spool/uucppublic/nixpub.short
                long list: /usr/spool/uucppublic/nixpub
            o  "*NIX Depot" BBS on jabber.
            o  USENET, regular posts to:
                    comp.misc
                    alt.bbs
            o  the nixpub electronic mailing list.
                    to be included or deleted from this distribution,
                    send mail to [e-mail].
            o  anonymous ftp from GVL.Unisys.COM [128.126.220.102]
                    under ~/pub/nixpub/{long,short}
            o  archive server from cs.widener.edu.
                mail to [e-mail]
                Subject: or body of
                    send nixpub long
                 or
                    send nixpub short
                 or
                    send nixpub long short
                 or even
                            index nixpub


Internet: [e-mail],      [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!rwsys!ricksys!rick,   {backbones}!ricksys.lonestar.org!rick
BITNET: bo836%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm  Fidonet: Richard McCombs @ 1:385/6

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

From: [e-mail] (Chip Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: Unix BBS List Wanted
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 04:34:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Garrett Meiers) writes:

> Does anybody have a list of UNIX Bulletin Board numbers?

> [Moderator's Note: Whatever happened to the nixpub listings which used
> to appear in Usenet from time to time? Are they still being posted?  PAT]

Yes.  In comp.misc among other places.  It's also distributed via
mailing list; contact <[e-mail]>.


Chip Rosenthal  512-482-8260
Unicom Systems Development
<[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard )
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 92 23:58:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


pacdata![e-mail] (Jim Harkins) writes:

> The other night I set up my computer to rapid dial the number for U2
> tickets.  I set it to hang up immediatly on busy, and wait 5 seconds
> when not busy so I would have time to pick up the handset.  This
> didn't work as well as expected.  The problem was that about every 4th
> call gave me that recorded voice "We're sorry, all circuits are busy
> blah blah".  What I want to know is, what causes this to happen?
> Shouldn't I have just gotten a busy signal all the time?  Would have
> been much more convienant for me.

You would have gotten that recording even if you were calling some
other number across those same trunks.  Your local switch did not know
that the number you were calling was busy, and to have signaled busy
would have been misleading (and I would complain strongly about).

> By the way, I managed to make 400 calls in about an hour and a half.
> Never did get tickets tho :-( Oh well, I'm sure a broker will sell me
> good seats for $200 or so.

Fewer people got through to the other numbers they were calling during
that hour and a half.  This is a major reason this practice of dialing
should not be allowed.

What if an elderly person was not feeling well, and was calling
relatives to report this, and was not able to get through and later
that day died of a heart attack?

Actually I believe that places like ticket sellers should operate
things on an entirely different system.  There should be an open call
in period, where applications for a random drawing for the tickets be
made when it expected to sell out.  Mail in applications should also
be accepted, as well.  The period should always be at least a week and
end at least another week before the event, allowing time for the
drawing to take place at the selected people to be mailed their
tickets or come pick them up.

Getting tickets and such on a first come first served basis is just
not appropriate when demand exceeds supply like that.

The Dayton Hamvention operates this way for their flea market spaces.
They do not accept phone calls; everything is sent by mail.  The open
period is well over a month long, and a random drawing is used for the
non-commercial spaces.

Maybe we should start charging commercial phone customers for busy
signals received because their number is busy.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 18:44 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Worth it to Use Hotel Room Phone?


[e-mail] writes:

> I stayed at Edgewood, Maryland recently.  The hotel charged 30 cents
> for each local call from a room phone, and the nearby pay phones (C&P)
> charged 25 cents for a local call.

I just spent three nights in a Holiday Inn in Skokie, IL. On the table
is a card next to the phone that proclaims AT&T to be the carrier
chosen by the hotel for 0+ long distance calling. A sticker on the
phone warns that sixty cents is added to just about every kind of call
made from the telephone. Fair enough.

But upon making a calling card call (using a Pac*Bell card), the
kabong was accompanied by a spoken "HDN". After entering the card
number a voice said, "Thank you for using HDN". Ah ha! I pulled out my
AT&T CIID card and tried it again. Same as before except that after
entering the card number I got a long pause and then, "Thank you for
using AT&T".

The moral of this story would seem to be that one cannot believe what
one reads on signs in hotel rooms and that if one wants to REALLY use
AT&T, he should only use the CIID card.

Needless to say both AT&T and Holiday Inn are going to receive
letters.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: ATT & Larry King
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 92 23:43:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Someone has to pay, when resources are used up because people sit and
wait on a phone line:

1.  The caller, if the station answers, takes your name or topic, and puts
    on hold (listening to the show itself without the time delay).

2.  The station running the show (they usually avoid this).

3.  The telco/carrier.


The question is, who SHOULD pay?

I would suggest that one way for the program producers to handle this
is to take your name and number, and call you back when you are next
in line.  This way they only need two or maybe three lines, and would
generally have the costs pretty well fixed to two or three times the
show time at phone rates.

This would also cut down on the crank calls.

The big problem is the waiting.

I called in one show by radio one time and waited 1 hour and 20
minutes and never made it on.  The show came to an end.  It was not a
toll free line so I ended up paying for the call and got nothing out
of it.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 9:33:26 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits


I have referred the sender to the archive file
"history.of.area.splits", which will need updating for N0X/N1X in 813
in Florida and for the upcoming 404/706 split in Georgia.

610 and 710 are reserved for special uses; one for U.S. Government, as
I recall reading, and one for Canadian TWX?

210 has been announced (not in use yet) for split of 512 in Texas; San
Antonio goes into 210, and Austin stays in 512.

Either 810 or 910 will apparently be used for a split of area 313 in
Michigan.

909 has been announced (not in use yet) for split of 714 in
California; as I understand it, Riverside and San Bernardino counties
go into 909, and Orange County stays in 714.

917 is to be used for cellular, pagers, etc.; and is to be "overlaid"
onto existing area code 212 in New York City; also, Bronx is to be
moved from 212 to 718.  By the way, a Feb. 29 {Philadelphia Inquirer}
article ("Coming: Area codes for the '90s", written by Jeremy Gaunt of
the Reuters service, said that "the 917 area code already has been
handed out to some new customers, and some existing numbers will be
changed over the next few years"; I don't know when this will affect
phone-book call guides.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #305
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16150;
          9 Apr 92 4:15 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01652
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:48:08 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25911
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:47:57 -0500
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:47:57 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #304

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 Apr 92 01:48:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 304

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Gary Delong)
    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Rick Farris)
    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Chuck Bacon)
    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Ed "Duke" Cation)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Kenneth R. Crudup)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Warren Burstein)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Ron Dippold)
    Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal? (Robert S. Helfman)
    Re: Phone Line Surge Suppressors (Morris Galloway Jr.)
    Re: Phone Line Surge Suppressors (Mike Koziol)
    Re: Phone Line Surge Suppressors (Jiro Nakamura)
    Re: Cat Named George, 3 Way Calling, Speed Calling 8, etc. (Joel B Levin)
    Re: Cat Named George, 3 Way Calling, Speed Calling 8, etc. (Steve Elias)
    Re: Cat Named George, 3 Way Calling, Speed Calling 8, etc. (Linc Madison)
    Re: Questions About Call Waiting (Maxime Taksar)
    Re: Questions About Call Waiting (answers) (Linc Madison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 14:21:53 EDT
From: Gary Delong <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer


In TELECOM Digest Volume 12, Issue 301, Message 13 of 13 nagle@netcom.
com (John Nagle) writes:

> If you are called by a junk caller, you post the number to a USENET
> group.  An application then downloads all junk numbers identified by
> anyone on the net, and applies them to your incoming calls.  If this
> could be made effortless, it could be really useful.

Great idea! The TMs use data bases to make their cold calls, so why
shouldn't we use them to defend ourselves?

But rather than a news group, use a mailing list.  That way anyone
could send a e-mail note:

> To: stopit-request@goodsite
> Subject: add 617 555-1234 (housewreckers international)

And everyone on the list would get the update.  Of course you
could send  "Subject: send list"  to get the most up to date listing.

OK, John.  When does this go on-line?


Gary A. Delong ([e-mail])  |  [phone] x1579
SPECTRUM Support Engineer           |  Post Office Box 5005
Cabletron Systems, Inc.             |  Rochester, NH  03867

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

From: [e-mail] (Rick Farris)
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 19:18:51 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> dgdhome![e-mail]
(Don Davis) writes:

> 2. the size of the Call*Block list as provided by the Telco may be
>    inadequate (assuming that Dave's usage pattern is reasonable).
>    The ability to maintain this list in your own equipment, and to
>    directly control the ringing of your telephones might also be a
>    Good Thing, if it can be done practically.

What an awesome thought!  Have a pop-up application that you activate
when you pick up the phone.  A simple keystroke puts the caller on
your bad-list, and from then on (in conjunction with a call diverter),
your phone will never ring again for calls from that number.

And if it is a telemarketer, you can have some sort of voice mail
thingy that asks them to wait for a second, and then ties them up for
five minutes or so before dumping the line!


Rick Farris  RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014  voice [phone]
[e-mail]     ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris      serenity bbs 259-7757

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

From: [e-mail] (Chuck Bacon)
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:29:22 GMT


Hey, a new question!  I've been reading this list for months to see if
somebody else would ask this obvious question:

If I get a Personal 800 number for my residential phone, I understand
that I have access to ANI, not just CID.

Now would somebody please explain to me why that assumption is wrong?


    Chuck Bacon - [e-mail] ( alas, not my 3b1 )-:
        ABHOR SECRECY    -   PROTECT PRIVACY


[Moderator's Note: Your assumption is not wrong. You will get ANI with
your monthly phone bill, at least from many carriers. Real time ANI is
a bit more expensive, however.  So what do you want, to have telephone
sales people call on your 800 number so you can pay for being annoyed
as well?   :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed "Duke" Cation)
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 10:37:40 GMT


[e-mail] (John Nagle) writes:

> If you are called by a junk caller, you post the number to a USENET
> group.  An application then downloads all junk numbers identified by
> anyone on the net, and applies them to your incoming calls.  If this
> could be made effortless, it could be really useful.

And what if I chose to post all the numbers of people I wanted to
frustrate?  My mother-in-law ... my ex-wife ... my bank-manager ...
everyone in the IRS ...

Suddenly their calls are uncompletable.

Yeah, your right, that *IS* a good idea :) Where shall we start?  RFD:
comp.dcom.telecom.junk.numbers


Ed

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

From: [e-mail] (Kenneth R Crudup)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: Software Tool&Die, (Boston), MA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:51:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.
z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) says:

> How many out there have problems with callers hanging up the moment
> you answer the phone and say "hello"?

Sure do. Doesn't happen that many times, though.

> Any ideas on what most cases of the hang-up artist are?

Simple. People (namely girlfriends) checking to see if I'm where I
said I'd be. It's too coincidental to be otherwise.


Kenny Crudup, Unix Systems Consultant    [e-mail]
16 Plainfield St. Jamaica Plain, (Boston), MA 02130-3633
Home [phone]     Home Fax [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Date: 7 Apr 92 08:46:04 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


I think most of the hang-ups that I get are idiots who are sure that
if they don't hear person X's voice on the line that they must have
the wrong number (it is impossible that someone is visiting person X
and picked up the phone).  For extra points, some of them dial the
number again and repeat the process.  And so on until I switch the
answering machine to pick up after two rings.  Real bozos figure they
have now reached a new number and keep trying a bit longer.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:41:25 GMT

[e-mail] (Dave Leibold) writes:

> How many out there have problems with callers hanging up the moment
> you answer the phone and say "hello"? Any ideas on what most cases of
> the hang-up artist are? Autodialers looking for modem carrier?
> Obscene callers not getting the right kind of voice?

How about someone dialing the wrong number, realizing that the answer
isn't the one they expected (like "Acme Industries, May I help you?"),
and being too impolite and/or embarassed to say "Sorry, wrong number."

I'd love to go out with you, but I'm attending the opening of my
garage door.


[Moderator's Note: The way I deal with silent hang-ups here is to
simply use *69 to call them back, and when they answer, ask them what
they wanted. Nine of every ten lie about it and claim they did not
call, but auto-callback has yet to lead me astray.  These are calls
from private residences by the way, not DID trunks or back lines on
PBX systems.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal?
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:41:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Heruld Fiskenmoskort) writes:

> Though many of you may have found that article humorous, I would like
> to raise the question of the legality of "scanning" numbers (not
> codes, awww!). Though there are supposedly laws against wardialing,
> what is unlawful about it?  I feel that if you are NOT allowed to scan

> [Moderator's Note: Life isn't fair, that's for sure.  I mean, what
> right do people have to go to bed at 3 AM like myself and make the
> assumption their phone won't ring for a few hours? :)  You and your
> war dialing program are hereby directed to abort!  :)   PAT]

Mr. Moderator, you must be a very trusting soul to leave your phone
ringer operative when you go to sleep. I cannot count the number of
times that I was awakened and mind-jangled by late night wrong
numbers, before I finally got smart and started putting my electronic
ringer on a BSR X-10 module and sending it into a black hole as my
last act before retiring for the night.  I have it scheduled to go
back on every morning at 6:00 am.

Needless to say, I sleep better now. (The answering machine gets it
all.  If it's the county coroner calling with bad news, it can wait
until morning.  If someone's dead, putting it off 'till morning won't
make 'em any deader!)


[Moderator's Note: I get very few wrong numbers in the middle of the
night, and the rare calls I receive between midnight and 8 AM are
likely to be important. See the above message. When I do get one at 3
AM (I can't remember the last time) I use *69 to call them back and
ask them to be more careful in the future.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Morris Galloway Jr.)
Subject: Re: Phone Line Surge Suppressors
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:44:14 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> As the things one hooks to the phone lines become fancier and more
> expensive, the risk of having them blown by a power surge (or
> lightning, or whatever) becomes more undesirable.

Both PanaMax and TrippLite offer combination A/C line and telco line
surge suppressors which retail for less than $50 and include a
guarantee (insurance, really) that they will replace not only the
suppressor, but the equipment connected to it if it gets zapped.

I'd definitely get one or the other for a modem hooked to a computer.


Morris Galloway, Presbyterian College

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

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 16:53:21 EST
From: Mike Koziol <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Line Surge Supressors


     I awoke in the middle of the night about a year ago to see green
sparks shhot out of a couple of outlets. A car had hit a utility pole
down the road and a high voltage line came in contact with the regular
flavor of power. I lost a scanner, a couple of X-10 power control
modules and an answering machine went brain dead on me. Since then I
have everything of value protected by surge supressors, including
phone lines and cable TV cable.

My TV picture was all snow one day. I bypassed the surpressor and
found that the surpressor had given it's life to protect the set. It
was manufactured by Panamax. Their response was that they would send
me a replacement in a like shipping manner that I used to send the
unit to them (I use Fed Ex, so do they, etc.). Within a week I had a
new supressor, no charge. Thay also have a insurance program that may
reimburse you if your equipment is damaged by the failure of their
product. I'll buy Panamax again. (Just a satisfied user, no affilia-
tion.)

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

From: [e-mail] (Jiro Nakamura)
Subject: Re: Phone Line Surge Suppressors
Organization: Shaman Consulting
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:41:11 GMT


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

> I have seen Radio Shack offers something ($12.95) that's line powered
> and one puts between phone line and device.  Advice on these?  Other
> sources?  Specs to look at? Any help is welcome.

It's not line powered. Rather, if it sees a surge, it dissipates the
excess energy through the ground line. Quite ingenious ...

I should really buy one, although I'm balking at paying $13 for an MOV
and plastic case (either with the above ingenuity factored in).


Jiro Nakamura            [e-mail] (NeXTmail)
NeXTwatch / Technical Editor    76711,542 (CIS)
The Shaman Group        [phone] (Voice/Fax)

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

Subject: Re: Cat Named George, 3 Way Calling, Speed Calling 8, Speakerphone
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 09:36:31 -0400
From: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> Yesterday I got a summary of available services from Pac Bell and
> apparently there is no speed calling 30 out here!  I wonder if NYNEX
> still offers it ...

I have it from N. E. Tel. in N. H., so it's available (unless I'm
grandfathered, which I doubt).


JBL

Internet: [e-mail]    |    USPS:  BBN Communications Division
UUCP:     [e-mail]    |           Mail Stop 20/5B
Fax:      [phone]    |           150 CambridgePark Drive
Voice:    [phone]    |           Cambridge, MA  02140

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

Subject: Re: Cat Named George, 3 Way Calling, Speed Calling 8, Speakerphone
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 10:10:35 PDT
From: [e-mail]


Thanks for the pointer.  Commstar is listed in the recent service
option list that I received, but the Commstar features were not
listed.  I'll RTFPB one of these days ... ;)


eli

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

Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 00:18:37 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Cat Named George, 3 Way Calling, Speed Calling 8, Speakerphone
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> Yesterday I got a summary of available services from Pac Bell and
> apparently there is no speed calling 30 out here!  I wonder if NYNEX
> still offers it ...

Yes, there is.  It's described under "Description of COMMSTAR Services"
in the front of your white pages.  (Page A14 in the San Francisco book)


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 5 Apr 92 19:42:30 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Maxime Taksar)
Subject: Questions About Call Waiting
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Maxime Taksar)


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Phil
Howard) writes:

> How does call waiting behave if:
> 1.  the called party is ringing from another caller calling them?

You would hear a busy signal.

> 2.  the called party is calling someone else and they are getting and
>    that call is ringing?

You would hear a busy signal.

> 3.  the called party is calling YOU at the same time?

You would hear a busy signal.

> 4.  same as #3 and you also have call waiting?

Same as #3.  (You would both hear a busy signal).

> 5.  the called party has forward-on-busy to YOU and you have call waiting?

Same as above.

This is how is works on a 1E, anyway.  I arrived at all these answers
long ago by experimenting.  The conclusion I arrived at, from my
experimenting, is that call waiting will go into effect if and only if
all of the following is true:

 - the subscriber has has completed a call (I assume this
   would be that the call has supervised).
 - call waiting has not been cancelled via *70
 - the subscriber does not already have someone 'on [call
   waiting] hold' or ringing through (with the subscriber
   hearing the CW tone).

For all other cases, the switch behaves as if call waiting didn't
exist.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points.


Maxime Taksar   KC6ZPS   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 00:41:03 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Questions About Call Waiting (answers)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> How does call waiting behave if:

> 1.  the called party is ringing from another caller calling them?

Caller gets a busy signal.

> 2.  the called party is calling someone else and they are getting and
>     that call is ringing?

Caller should get a busy signal while the called party is dialing and
while that call is ringing.  However, the caller may beep through
while the called party's first call is ringing (from personal
experience).

> 3.  the called party is calling YOU at the same time?

Either you both get busy signals, or the party with call waiting gets
a beep through the busy signal.

> 4.  same as #3 and you also have call waiting?

Should be, again, both get busy signals.  Local performance depends on
whether #2 holds, and also how perfectly synchronized the calls are.

> 5.  the called party has forward-on-busy to YOU and you have call waiting?

Again, you *should* both get busy signals, but your mileage may vary.


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #304
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04637;
          11 Apr 92 2:50 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25300
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:53:13 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00475
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:53:04 -0500
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:53:04 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #306

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:53:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 306

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Demand US Sprint Allow Unionization (Ken Levitt)
    Re: Question About Legal Bugging Techniques (Greg Beary)
    Re: Need Source For Old PBX (Mitel) Parts (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Commercial Networks Reachable From the Internet (Joshua E. Muskovitz)
    Re: MCI and Cellular One/Boston (Jim Rees)
    Re: Area Code Splits (David Niebuhr)
    Re: 900-SPELLIT With a Computer (Kenneth R. Crudup)
    Re: Polish Horoscopes From NJ? (Carl Moore)
    Re: Voice Mail Loop (Steve Spearman)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (John R. Covert)
    Re: Motorola Cordless Telephone (Jack Winslade)
    Re: Telecom From a Tropical Isle (Dan Ganek)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:20:09 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
Subject: Sprint vs. Unions


> The Institute for Global Communciations has joined the Sprint
> Concerned Customer Association because we have learned that you are
> unwilling to allow your employees to attempt to organize a union.

> We believe that the quality and reliability of our data
> communications service depends on highly trained and dedicated
> employees who function in a working environment of fairness and
> respect.

> Specifically we urge the company to remain neutral in any organi-
> zational campaign and not encourage workers to oppose unionization.

What a bunch of mindless clapp-trap.  Joining a union does not make
someone a highly trained and dedicated employee.  In fact there have
been cases where the opposite is true.

Publishing mis-information does not do your cause much good.  There is
no way Sprint could be "unwilling to allow employees to organize"!
There are strict National Labor Relations Laws which guarantee workers
the right to organize.

However, the employer has every right to make their opinion known
about unionization.  If the company "remained neutral" they would be
doing a dis-service to their stockholders and to their employees.
Hearing both sides of a debate produces a more qualified voter.

The writer of this article seems to not trust the workers at Sprint to
hear both sides of the issue and then make their own decision.


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390     UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail] or [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: As long as the employer limits itself to sponsoring
debates on the topic, all is well. But I have yet to see an employer
which wanted a union presence, and if it takes a very activist role in
attempting to defeat a union presence, then it may very well be guilty
under United States law of committing an unfair labor practice. In
this country, labor law says the employer must be *very careful* about
its attempts to keep a union out. Employees who complain that their
rights of speech and affiliation with a labor organization have been
'chilled' or imposed upon by a heavy handed employer will find the
courts sympathetic. Even a 'debate' works to the employer's
disadvantage at times since employees may be afraid to voice their
opinions of the union when their supervisor or manager is present and
will later complain of discrimination because of their views. So as
often as not, the employer takes no official position.    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 11:23:02 -0700
From: Radio Free Boulder <[e-mail]>
From: gbeary@flagg (Greg Beary)
Subject: Re: Question About Legal Bugging Techniques
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:22:57 GMT


If you are interested in how widespread legal wire taps are, the Feds
publish stats each year. The 1968 Omnibus Crime Bill that permits
wiretaping also outlines a reporting policy. I forget what they call
the document, but each year there is a report published that shows the
number of wire tap warrants issued by state and by county. If I
remember correctly, they also have to report how many were applied for
and how many were actually issued.

When I last saw the document (in about 1973), Westchester County in
New York was the high runner. Your local D.A.  should be able to tell
you, since they have to report all warrants.


Greg Beary              phone:    [phone]
US West Advanced Technologies     email:    [e-mail]
4001 Discovery Drive              fax:    [phone]
Boulder,   CO  80303

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 14:12:10 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Source For Old PBX (Mitel) Parts


Try {Telecom Gear}.  They are the want ads of telecommunications.  I
think a subscription runs around $15, if it hasn't gone up recently.

The address is:

Telecom Gear
Prestonwood Place
15400 Knoll Trail
Dallas, TX 75248

Fax   [phone]
Tel   [phone]


Pat Turner KB4GRZ  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 13:18:39 EDT
From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Commercial Networks reachable from the Internet


This is to follow up as I promised.

According to the responses I received,

These networks currently pass mail to/from the internet:

Fidonet, MCIMail, ATTMail, CompuServe, America Online, EnvoyMail
(Canada), Tymnet CompMail.

These networks will in the future pass mail to/from the internet:

AppleLink, GEnie.

These networks do not plan to pass mail:

Prodigy.

I do not know HOW to pass mail to/from these networks.  (see below)

If any of these are incorrect, please let me know at the address
below.  If you know of any other networks which are not listed, AND
you know what category they belong in, please let me know.  If you
know EXACTLY how to mail both TO and FROM any of these networks to the
internet, please send me a note explaining the process to someone who
is completely unfamiliar with that network.  Please include info on
what the address looks like to the local network, what and internet
address looks like to the local network, and what the local address
looks like to the internet.

Please send any of the above info to:  [e-mail]

I'll compile a how-to file from all of the responses, and if Pat
allows, I'll have it added to the archives for all to see.


josh

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: MCI and Cellular One/Boston
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 15:19:09 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Will Martin) writes:

> Hmmm. A loaner phone with the same number. This means two cellular
> phones with the same number, at least on a temporary basis. Doesn't
> this conflict with all the previous traffic on how it was impossible
> or would create unresolveable conflicts?

The conflict arises when you have two phones with the same number both
on the air at the same time.  A loaner phone is usually programmed
with the same phone number and the same ESN as the phone it's
replacing, and the original is kept off the air while the replacement
is on.

It's actually pretty easy to change the ESN in most phones, despite
what you might have heard.  Depending on the manufacturer, there are
usually some restrictions intended to reduce fraud.  Usually the ESN
must be copied from another phone rather than entered manually, and
there is often a limit on the number of times the ESN can be changed.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 07:53:53 -0400
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John S
Wylie) writes:

> Can anyone tell me when the following area codes go into use and
> where?

> 210, 610, 710, 810, 910, 909, 917
                                ^^^
New York City in late 1992 or 1993 and for cellular/pager use only.
In addition, 718 will absorb the Bronx which is currently in 212 which
will be for Manhattan only.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

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

From: [e-mail] (Kenneth R Crudup)
Subject: Re: 900-SPELLIT With a Computer
Organization: Software Tool&Die, (Boston), MA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:40:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> jeff.mattox%heurikon.
[e-mail] (Jeffrey Mattox) says:

> In Monday's {Wall Street Journal}, Daivd Stipp writes about trying to
> win at 900-SPELLIT by using a computer.

> The 900-SPELLIT people check their fast-dialing winners by asking them to
> play an impromptu game.

> The instructions do not specifically say you cannot use a computer,
> however.

> Instead of connecting the computer to the telephone, wire the computer
> to lights located next to each button on your telephone, then program
> the computer turn on the lights in sequence to show you the correct
> letters.

Even better -- just type in the word, and let the computer *display*
the numbers to dial. You feed in "impromptu" and get out "46-77-66-78-8",
(with the dashes for easy readability) which you just key in as fast
as you can type.


Kenny Crudup, Unix Systems Consultant    [e-mail]
16 Plainfield St. Jamaica Plain, (Boston), MA 02130-3633
Home [phone]     Home Fax [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 11:29:28 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Polish Horoscopes From NJ?


That's Hightstown (no "e"), NJ.  That is NOT a local call from
Murray Hill, NJ (908-582); the Moderator's Note should have
referred to the normal long distance rates, not to local call.

> In a weekly press in Poland personal horoscope advertisment number is:
> 001 609 490 78xx (xx from 00 to 09 and 49).

Wasn't it just in the last several months that something appeared
regarding similar service advertised in Spain for calls to 609-490?
Could someone dig that out?

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

From: [e-mail] (Spearman)
Subject: Re: Voice Mail Loop
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:42:16 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, RANDY%MPA15AB@TRENGA.
tredydev.unisys.com says:

> Naturally, as soon as someone called him and left a message with
> Aspen, it started calling him at home, which rang through to another
> Aspen port.  It then talked to itself...
> You'd think Aspen could be made to realize when it is talking to
> itself.

This is certainly possible.  The voice mail system that I work always
recognizes when it has reached another system of its own type and will
drop the call immediately.  I have no idea if Aspen can do this or may
have been misfunctioning or not be administered correctly, but it is
certainly not a hard problem.


Steve Spearman  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 09:22:15 PDT
From: John R. Covert  08-Apr-1992 1158 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany

> An example of such a number was 001-610-20404xx for personal
> horoscopes.  This number is definitely routed to the USA since 00 is
> the international access prefix and 1 is the country code for North
> America. The area code 610 does not exist, ...

Well, I think you have the number wrong.  I think it's 00-61-xxx, and
since there's at least one error, the extra "1", there may be other
errors.

As you suggested, I called USP Inc. here in Boston, who referred me to
their parent company in London "Innovative Communications Europe,
LTD", [phone].  I spoke to one of the directors, Sue Lloyd,
who tells me that they do provide a horoscope service for Germany, and
that it is in fact provided out of Australia.  She said that one of
the current numbers is [phone], which, in fact, does go to a
German language horoscope.  "1" numbers are not diallable from within
Australia.

Ms. Lloyd explained to me that Telecom Australia will provide this
sort of service to any company which wishes to be an information
provider.  Callers pay the normal call rate from their country to
Australia, and Telecom Australia gives a commission to the information
provider.  She said that I could contact Telecom Australia for more
details.

I wish I had paid attention to this before I went to Germany last
week, because I would have really loved to have tried the 001-610-...
version you posted.  Have _YOU_ tried it?  After all, from Germany you
can call it and see what you get, and as long as you only stay on the
line for up to 4.47 seconds it will only cost you DM0.23 (about 14
cents).

Please try the 001-... number and let us know.  I'll bet it's a mistake.


john

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

Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 11:04:18 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Re: Motorola Cordless Telephone
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


Several years ago, I did some experimenting with the idea of making
semi-secure telephone sets.  I experimented with ring modulators and
demodulators with the idea of using a frequency shift/inversion
process with different modulation frequencies as 'keys'.  This was in
the early 1970's, so it was without Ma's blessing, and the technology
was not what it is today.  I used mostly discreet components,
miniature AF transformers and such, mostly purchased from Radio Shark,
so the quality and consistency was not the best.

I found that by using a modulation frequency around 3000 Hz, a fairly
decent inversion could be obtained, and the result would pass down a
voice grade line fairly well.  The decoding was simple, and the
resulting audio was intelligible, but definitely had that 'SSB sound'
to it.  (The characteristic quality of ham radio single sideband, and
some who heard it said it reminded them of the way the Apollo
astronauts sounded when transmitting from the moon back to the earth.)

The encoded AF was pure gobbledegook.  I could recognize the cadence
of the speech, but it was impossible to discern any sounds.

Playing around with different modulation frequencies as keys yielded
two results.  One was a shift in pitch where the decoded audio was off
frequency, like Donald Duck, but still quite understandable.  The
other was when the significant portion of the audio was shifted
outside the passband of the phone network.  This gave the decoded
audio a mushy sound.  This varied quite a bit from CO to CO, and even
from call to call when calling some rather distant local COs.

The worst problem (which frustrated me enough to give up the idea) was
sidetone cancelling.  I wanted to balance the line to a degree that
the encoded sidetone was negligible and simply inject a non-encoded
local sidetone.  This is the project that convinced me (and I STILL
believe this) that balancing a two-wire line from the subscriber end
of the loop is strictly a black art.  When I would think I had it
balanced properly, I would inject local sidetone, and STILL have a
god-awful sound.  Listening to your own voice in your ear after
passing through TWO ring modulators is worse yet.  As I said, it was
good experience, but I never really got it to the point that it was
really usable.

I guess the people at Motorola used the same idea, but carried it out
to the point of completion.


Good day!         JSW

Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
DRBBS, Omaha   Daylight Savings Time SUCKS :-(  (1:285/666.0)

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Ganek)
Subject: Re: Telecom From a Tropical Isle
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:29:06 GMT


> Is it possible in practice to set up an ittsy bittsy bandwidth uplink
> dish in a remote area and communicate through a satellite to internet?
> I wish to remove myself with some gear to a tropical isle and see if
> it is possible to live on sun, sea, Usenet and email.
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> I am serious.  Is it possible and what would it cost?  If you don't
> know could you put me in touch with someone who might?

I suggest you try it first WITHOUT the latter two. I quite sure that
after a few days you will have hard time trying to figure out what the
purpose of them were.


dan ganek   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #306
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06241;
          11 Apr 92 3:34 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03530
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:23:55 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15090
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:23:46 -0500
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:23:46 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #307

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Apr 92 01:23:45 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 307

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Rop Gonggrijp)
    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Robert Wiegand)
    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Jack Decker)
    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Stephanie da Silva)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Bill Sohl)
    Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (Robert Wiegand)
    Re: 900 Service from Germany - Correction! (John R. Covert)
    Re: Worth it to Use Hotel Room Phone? (Dan Ganek)
    Re: Bundespost vrs. AT&T (was 900 Service in Germany) (Greg Lehey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Rop Gonggrijp)
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:11:32 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


[e-mail] (John Nagle) once wrote ...

> If you are called by a junk caller, you post the number to a USENET
> group.  An application then downloads all junk numbers identified by
> anyone on the net, and applies them to your incoming calls.  If this
> could be made effortless, it could be really useful.

What stops me or anyone else from sticking all the numbers for people
I don't like on the list (from a forged address?)? And more pressing,
what stops the people that don't like me from doing that to me? ;-)

You could design a system with public-key crypts so that you could
only trust numbers that came with signatures of people you trust, or
even groups of whom you trust the 'caretaker', who re-signs all the
numbers.

Then again: this whole discussion is one of finding the most
frustrating thing in life. If telemarketers went out, many people on
this forum would lose large part of their daily activities, if I
believe some of the posts here.


Rop Gonggrijp ([e-mail]), editor of        | fax:   [phone]
Hack-Tic Magazine (only on paper, only in Dutch) | VMB:   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:43:06 GMT


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> The system works like this: DNIS (similar to DID) and ANI records are
> extracted as soon as the call appears. The ANI is checked against a
> list of known "junk" callers. If the number is not found, the call
> rings an attendant (or goes to ACD if none is available). If the ANI
> data matches an entry on the list, the caller hears a recording saying
> that the call "cannot be completed at this time". Whenever a call
> comes in that does not get intercepted by the list and it turns out to
> be a new junk caller, the attendant hits a key and the number is added
> to the database.

[Stuff Deleted]

After some amount of time (one year) you should probably purge the
numbers from your data base. If the junk caller moves the number will
be given to someone else who may be a real customer, but will not be
able to call you.


Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.   uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 10:17:14 GMT


> For the past six months, my UNIX system has been quietly compiling a
> list of the numbers associated with inbound calls to my business and
> my residence lines.  Each inbound call record consists of one line of
> text that gets appended to an ascii file.  During the peak inbound
> calling time, I can run a tail -f of the file, and watch the inbound
> calls scroll by.

Take the next step.  Write a command for "add last call to black list"
for each line.  Also have provisions for manual additions to the black
list.  Make sure that your black list can handle a reasonable quantity
of numbers (10,000 is probably too small).  Now, when a call from a
blacklisted number comes in, have a modem (with auto-answer set OFF,
so legit callers don't get an earful of modem) on that line pick up
the phone and hang up.  Sending out lots of touch-tones is optional,
but if you do, be sure that whatever you send won't bother someone or
cost you a bundle if the caller hangs up before you dial.  (Dialing
"############" seems pretty safe.  Do not use 1-800-555-1212).

If you don't have a modem, how long would it take to pay for a cheap
1200 modem (and maybe an extra serial port to go with it) with the
money you save from not paying for Call Block, but doing it yourself
with a much longer blacklist?  The data transmission part doesn't even
have to work.


Gordon L. Burditt     sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:29:29 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Nagle) wrote:

> If you are called by a junk caller, you post the number to a USENET
> group.  An application then downloads all junk numbers identified by
> anyone on the net, and applies them to your incoming calls.  If this
> could be made effortless, it could be really useful.

I think things are starting to get out of hand.  I feared this would
happen.

WHEN are folks going to realize that the calling number has NO
particular relationship to the identity of caller?

Let me give you a not too farfetched example.  Salesman X rolls into
town, gets a motel room with "free local calls", and starts dialing
for dollars.  You get such a call at home or at work and promptly add
the number to your "trash this call" list.

Next week your Aunt Millie and Uncle Fred come to town and just happen
to get a room at the same motel.  They try to call you to let you know
they've decided to add you to their will.  They get your computerized
answering service which looks at the number and routes it to a
recording which says, in your voice, something like, "Sorry, we don't
accept calls from folks like you" and hangs up.

Okay, I'm being a bit dramatic for effect, but do you see the problem?

I see three real sources of concern:

1) Changed numbers.  You get a new phone number and unknown to you,
the last person to have it was a sleazy insurance agent who's on the
"blocked call" list of everyone in town.  So you never seem to be able
to get through to business establishments, and you don't know why.  I
think those who maintain their own "blocked numbers" list ought to at
least make sure there's a "drop off the list" date associated with
each number, that would be at maximum a year from the date the number
is put on the list.  Surely you can tolerate one call a year from any
particular telemarketer (you still don't have to actually converse
with him, you know).  As for the telephone company, when a number is
disconnected (or at least when it is reassigned), it ought to be
automatically erased from the "blocked call" lists of subscribers that
pay for call blocking.  The telco could even market this as an
advantage ("we keep your blocked call list current for you, and
automatically erase any disconnected numbers").

2) Calls that pass through small LD companies (resellers) that use FX
lines to complete calls.  If you block their number, you'll prevent
anyone from getting through to you that happens to land on that
outdial port.

3) For data calls, the numbers of outdials used by packet data
networks may be confused with the numbers of actual callers.  For
example, Johnny Twit calls you from Seattle using PC Pursuit, but it
shows up as a local number on your Caller ID.  When he finally manages
to tick you off and you block that number, you block all other calls
coming from that PC Pursuit outdial.

Also, how are you going to block calls from large telemarketing firms?
I can see it now ... they'll buy 100 phone lines (or more!)  and then
use a computerized outdialing system that makes sure that your number
is never called from the same line twice.  You'll fill up your blocked
call list with their numbers (which they'll change frequently ... the
telco records change charge will be cheap compared to the money
they're raking in) and find that they'll never recall you from the
same number, while you may be blocking legitimate calls from someone
who got their old number.

Want to get rich?  Just write the definitive anti-Caller-ID software
for sleazy telemarketers, that makes sure that no one is ever called
twice from the same line.  Who knows, you might get to share the same
compartment in Hell as the guy who invented the HOLD button ... in
fact, you might get to relieve him!  :-)

PLEASE ... if you didn't get anything else from this message, PLEASE
use a "drop dead" date for any number entered in a blocked call list.
It's not perfect but at least some poor sucker won't be forever
deprived of calling you (or your firm) because he happened to get the
number previously assgined to your least favorite telemarketer.

(I wonder if the phone company will start charging extra for "virgin"
phone numbers that have never been previously assigned?)  ;-)


Jack Decker    [e-mail]    FidoNet 1:154/8

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephanie da Silva)
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 05:27:33 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> I suspect that if one would add up all the "phantom hangup callers"
> and all the telemarketing people that I might block from my residence,
> the number would be closer to 100 than 10.

You get to block ten numbers?  Consider yourself fortunate.  I only get
to block three (I haven't used any of them yet).


Stephanie da Silva     Taronga Park * Houston, Texas
[e-mail]        568-0480   568-1032


[Moderator's Note: We get ten here in Chicago also.   PAT]

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

From: dancer![e-mail] (24411-sohl)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Reply-To: dancer![e-mail] ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 14:36:22 GMT


Most of the "hang-up" I get are in the office.  I suspect (because
I've done it myself) that many of those are cases where someone
forgets to first dial 9 (in a PBX or Centrex environment) and the
first four digits of the number being dialed are the same as the my
extension number.  The calling party begins to hear audible ringing
after the 4th digit and immediately hangs up.  At the same time, I get
at least one ring and, since the phone is right here on the desk, I
pick-up and get nothing, dial-tone, etc.

With the expansion of evolution of the numbering system in the USA
such that many area codes can be the same as central office codes, I'd
expect some increase along the same lines at home in those cases where
someone dialing a ten digit number forgets to first dial a '1'.  The
call may then begin to be routed on the first seven digits, if those
digits can be a valid phone number in that area code.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.


Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I had a centrex number, xxx-2635 many years ago
where I worked. The bar and grill on the first floor of the office
building, where the clowns in our office always went for lunch had the
phone number 263-5xxx. It never failed at 11:45 every morning, at the
start of the first lunch hour: <my phone rings> ... <I answer> ... a
voice on the other end said 'ah, fu--' and the phone would be hung up.
This poor simpleton was *always* forgetting to dial 9 first.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:50:24 GMT


[e-mail] (Rob Heape) writes:

>> I would assume this phone uses analog scrambling, as many of Motorola's
>> land mobile radios do.

> All this stuff about scrambling .. bah .. put the TX or RX signal on a
> scope and draw your own conclusions, it shouldn't be hard.

> As far as digital voice transport ... bahaha

> It takes serious bucks to do secure communications, serious is
> definetly greater than $250. Probably more like 3 or 5K.

It's not as expensive as you think. The GSM cellular system now going
into Europe uses a very good voice security system, and I expect to
see mobiles in the $1K range once full production gets going. All it
realy takes is one DSP, which costs <$50.


Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.    uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.

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

Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 07:49:15 PDT
From: John R. Covert  09-Apr-1992 1046 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Service from Germany - Correction!


Well, a friend in Germany just tried 00-1-610-204-04xx and it worked,
so apparently Sue Lloyd was incorrect, or USP Inc isn't the provider
of this service.  Typical for a telecommunications company to not be
able to provide correct information about what they are doing.

I also just tried it from France (19-1-610-204-0402) and from the U.K.
(010-1-610-204-0402) and in both cases I got a German recording, which
I only listened to for a couple of seconds.

I owe an apology to [e-mail].  And I wish I had more time
to check into this.

OK, we have managed to prove that this [phone] business is
coming from Canada.  Not surprising, since it's their TWX area code,
which they are apparently using for something else.


john

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Ganek)
Subject: Re: Worth it to Use Hotel Room Phone?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:34:56 GMT


>> I stayed at Edgewood, Maryland recently.  The hotel charged 30 cents
>> for each local call from a room phone, and the nearby pay phones (C&P)
>> charged 25 cents for a local call.

> I just spent three nights in a Holiday Inn in Skokie, IL. On the table
> is a card next to the phone that proclaims AT&T to be the carrier
> chosen by the hotel for 0+ long distance calling. A sticker on the
> phone warns that sixty cents is added to just about every kind of call
> made from the telephone. Fair enough.

We stayed at the Holiday Inn in Kenosha and they had the same little
card that said they used AT&T. The fine print, however, said the calls
would be made at OPERATOR ASSISTED RATES!


dan ganek    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Greg Lehey)
Subject: Re: Bundespost vrs. AT&T (was 900 Service in Germany)
Date: 9 Apr 92 10:22:00 GMT
Organization: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany


In article <[e-mail]> Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.
n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) writes:

>  However, most Germans simply don't realize how bad their phone
> service is.  I have Die Zeit and Der Spiegel for years, and the only
> telecom issues discussed are the cost of international calls, and how
> to bring East German telecoms "up to" the level of West Germany.

Indeed. To use the German proverb, `was ich nicht weiss macht mich
nicht heiss' (if I don't know about it, it doesn't worry me). The fact
is, of course, that telecoms have improved in every Western country
over the last few decades.

> Is there anywhere what DT has stated in writing that a major goal
> of the phone system is to have no record of call detail? Obviously,
> they're installing new capacity in Eastern Germany without regard to
> this issue (to the extent they ever realized it was an issue).

It's not clear whether people are really that worried about it. A lot
of this is initiated by journalists. I suspect that people would be
*very* interested to know who is calling them and to have a detailled
phone bill showing who they (and their teenage daughters) have called.

In any case, the Bundesp*st Telekom are very committed to ISDN, and as
far as I know they have every intention of implementing these details.


Greg Lehey     LEMIS    W-6324 Schellnhausen 2    Germany
Fax: [phone]   Tel: [phone]   Mail: [e-mail]
Claimer: The opinions expressed *are* the opinions of LEMIS

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #307
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05629;
          11 Apr 92 15:57 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05030
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 11 Apr 1992 13:59:08 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04381
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 11 Apr 1992 13:58:59 -0500
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 13:58:59 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #308

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Apr 92 13:59:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 308

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Jim Rees)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Future of Fax (Bill Pfeiffer)
    Re: Future of Fax (Brad Hicks)
    Fax-on-Demand/Target-Fax (Nigel Allen)
    Re: Voice Mail Loop Ptasnik
    Re: Voice Mail Loop (Laird P. Broadfield)
    Re: Verifying Busy Requires AT&T Operator (Mark D. Wuest)
    Re: All Circuits Are Busy (S. Spencer Sun)
    Re: New AT&T Videophones (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht)
    Re: New AT&T Videophones (Jack Dominey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 17:55:57 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Proctor & Associates) writes:

> The volume of this sort of fax traffic is getting to the point that we
> really need some brief "fax friendly" product data sheets that use
> bolder graphics with no background.

No, what we really need is to stop using such an inefficient means of
communicating.  It's pretty silly to take some piece of information
and transmit it as an image rather than as the information it
represents.  It increases the processing power needed on both ends,
and the transmission time.

What we need to do is send documents in a form closer to their
internal representation.  Something like compressed PostScript.  And
we need to send them in digital form wherever the communications
medium is digital, rather than as a digitized rendition of an analog
modulation of a digital form.

This message I'm writing now is 13336 bits.  I can send it that way,
or I can print it on paper, digitize the image, modulate that onto an
analog carrier, digitize that, and reverse the whole process at the
other end.  The efficient way, it's a few thousand bits.  The FAX way,
it's probably 3 million bits (one minute at 56 kbps).  That's an
efficiency of half a percent.  No wonder it cost you $50 to fax that
document to Mexico!

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:02:44 GMT


Let's see. Three full pages. I'll assume it's all text, at about 8
point (which is typical). That's 9 lines per inch, about 14 cpi. 11K
per page of text At 230 CPS (typical 2400 baud modem transfer) that's
51 seconds per page. You'd have gotten off for under $6 using email
instead of FAX.

At 9600 baud, it'd have all gone in the first minute. $2.

Wake up, folks, FAX is a massive botch. Work for better email services
instead of screwing around with broken-as-designed technology.


Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS.  [phone]/n/8/1.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Pfeiffer)
Subject: Re: Future of fax
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 2:27:13 CDT


It amazes me how much variation there is in the quality of
transmission/recep- tion there is with different fax machines.  I
often wonder whether it is the scanning of the transmitted page or the
printing at the receive end which causes the bulk of this
inconsistancy.

I have send faxes which show up on the other end _better_ looking than
the original, and some which are darned near unreadable.  I guess it
(fax transfer) still beats the US Snail-Mail for routine
corespondance, or something which has immediate urgency and must be
delivered immediately, but until the quality can become more uniform,
and more comparable with, say, photocopying, it will still be, IMHO, a
poor second to an actual mailed piece.

It seems like, for the price, these machines could produce a far
better end product than is generally realized.


William Pfeiffer    [e-mail]

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

From: mc!Brad_Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: Thu Apr  9 10:48:27 -0400 1992
Subj: Re: Future of Fax?


[e-mail] (Sandy Shaw) writes:

> He says that all his clients that send either long faxes frequently or
> many faxes, especially to international locations, end up switching to
> other forms of communication, network, e-mail, etc.

To a later note, TELECOM Moderator noted:

> One large air freight company has five or six fax machines
> in a rotary hunt group for their *incoming* stuff.

At MasterCard, we're a HUGE fax user; our lost and stolen card
reporting center upstairs works just like the mailroom that Pat
described, though I'd have to go upstairs and count to find out just
how many numbers there are in that hunt group (not my department, so I
don't have it memorized).

We also use fax heavily in negotiating settlements between
cardholders, merchants, and their respective banks, and in settling
MasterCard rules disputes.

Fax will probably NEVER go away here for handling replacement of lost
and stolen cards.  We need a communications medium that can handle
inbound and outbound signed forms from anywhere in the world on an
impromptu, one-time basis and to hundreds or thousands of banks in a
matter of minutes.  (Actually, a lot of our outbound fax has been
automated lately; the database that issues temporary replacement card
numbers faxes the the issuer reports to the banks via an email
service.)

We just put in SoftSwitch Central and SoftSwitch X.400 so all our
company email systems can communicate to any X.400 mailbox (and almost
any Internet mailbox) in the world; in fact, that's how I'm getting
this message out.  But the technical obstacles are immense,
particularly in the X.400 world that almost all non-US businesses
depend on.

How bad? Imagine if every time you dropped a letter in the mail:

(1) You had to know the exact spelling of every word of the address.

(2) Punctuation rules were idiosyncratic but no errors were tolerated.

(3) Each state or city formatted addresses differently, and if your
return address wasn't formatted EXACTLY right for your city's
conventions, and the recipient address wasn't formatted just as
precisely for their city's post office, the letter wouldn't be
delivered.

(4) Inclusion of extraneous or unnecessary detail in the address would
derail the message.  And,

(5) if you make any of the above errors, the message is not delivered
 ... but you AREN'T TOLD that it wasn't delivered.

Right now, X.400 email interconnections too closely resemble two
over-polite gentlemen standing side by side at a doorway.  "You go
first."  "No, I insist, after you."  The only really practical way to
guarantee that you get somebody's address right is to look at a
message that they send to you ... but how do they get YOUR address
right to do so?  You'd have to send them a message first, and hence
infinite regress.

What actually happens is that both sides try variations on the X.400
O/R address until a message gets through, usually in one to three
tries per side.

The guys at Bell Labs were smarter than we sometimes give them credit
for.  Phone numbers are elegantly designed for providing an
unambiguous, easy to read, consistently formatted network address.
Eric Arnum, of the newsletter {Electronic Mail and Micro Systems}, has
been campaigning for about a year now for the standards bodies to
throw out both the RFC 822 and the X.400 specs and give each email
vendor a three-digit "area code" and a seven or so digit "name space"
and let them assign it as they will.

Funny thing is, fax already comes with that "interface."

(Then you get into complexities over how to deliver anything other
than English-language text in plain ASCII, but I'm depressed enough as
it is.  I'll leave that for a future message.)


J. Brad Hicks
Internet: mhs!mc![e-mail]
X.400:    c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad

I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above
does not contain official MasterCard statements or policies.

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

Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 22:34:56 mst
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Fax-on-Demand/Target-Fax
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


I recently came across a Canadian company that's selling a
fax-on-demand service. An advertiser makes literature available by
listing a phone number for the fax-on-demand service and a separate
extension number for each piece of literature. A potential customer
calls the number with a touch-tone phone and enters the extension
number and the phone number of his or her fax machine. In this case,
you can call 1-800-361-8015, ext. 900 or [phone], ext. 900 if
Toronto is a local call for you, to request literature about
Target-Fax.

Similar systems from other companies can collect a Visa or MasterCard
number if the information provider wants to charge for the
information.  (I would hope that they can also validate the credit
card number by calculating a check digit or calling for authorization.
Otherwise, people would just select an arbitrary 16-digit number
beginning with 4 for Visa or 5 for MasterCard to avoid being billed
for the information.) I have also seen systems set up to send an
outgoing fax only to phone numbers that are local. If your fax machine
is long distance from the information provider, you can only get the
information by calling from your fax line and hitting the receive
button on your fax machine when the information provider is ready to
send the information.

If you want to call Target-Fax voice, call them at [phone].


msged 2.07     Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto (1:250/438)
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!250!438!Nigel.Allen
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Mail Loop


[e-mail] wrote:


> My roommate and I both work for companies that have Aspen voice mail.
> One of Aspen's features is 'call notification', which lets you have it
> call you at any number (internal or external) if you have (normal or
> urgent) messages (at any time or during specific time windows).
> He forgot that he had also set Aspen to call him at home if he had any
> messages.  Naturally, as soon as someone called him and left a message with
> Aspen, it started calling him at home, which rang through to another
> Aspen port.  It then talked to itself, leaving another message,
> consisting of part of its call notification spiel (which is *quite*
> long-winded).  Not having any limits on his mailbox, he accumulated a
> *lot* of these.

> You'd think Aspen could be made to realize when it is talking to
> itself.

I think Aspen can be set up to recognize itself.  We have two Aspen
systems at the University of Washington (one for campus and one for
the med center).  I am fairly certain that an aspen will not leave a
notification message on itself, and I have never gotten a complaint
from either a hospital user or a campus user that what you described
had happened.  Unfortunately the Aspen administrator is not available
to ask at this time.  Still, I seem to remember hearing that it is an
option that can be set.  As we have two aspens, perhaps we are more
likely to be concerned about the occurence than most single system
users.  If your Aspen administrators want to make this change and are
having difficulty, I will try to research it more.


Dave    [e-mail]

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


From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Voice Mail Loop
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 18:54:43 GMT


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

> You'd think Aspen could be made to realize when it is talking to
> itself.

Errrmmm, it does.  At least, ours does.  There's a *bip* in the
notification message that I'm told is what the incoming port uses to
detect circular calling; supposedly it's DTMF A.

I wonder if this is a version problem, or if the forwarding is taking
long enough that the first *bip* disappears.  Do you get the
notification message all the way through, i.e. "... another call will
be attempted later" or does it cut off after the first "press 1 if
this is you ..."?


Laird P. Broadfield     [e-mail]    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb

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

From: [e-mail] (mark.d.wuest)
Subject: Re: Verifying Busy Requires AT&T Operator
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:03:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> RANDY%MPA15AB@TRENGA.
tredydev.unisys.com writes:

> When I explained that "verify busy" means calling the LEC on an inward
> line and having the line itself verified, she told me to "dial
> 1-0-2-8-8-0" to have this service done.  I said "You mean I have to
> use AT&T?"  and she said "That's right, sir."  Almost like the
> commercial!

> (By the way, the line really was out of order.  AT&T confirmed it, and
> my friend let me know a few days later that his AT&T answering machine
> had run amok.)

(I couldn't resist this!)

Maybe if he had an MCI answering machine, MCI could have helped you! ;-)


Mark Wuest    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy
Organization: Princeton Univ. Class of '94
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 07:44:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
writes:

> pacdata![e-mail] (Jim Harkins) writes:

>> [Autodialed 400 times in an hour for U2 tix, got "All circuits are busy"]

> Fewer people got through to the other numbers they were calling during
> that hour and a half.  This is a major reason this practice of dialing
> should not be allowed.

> What if an elderly person was not feeling well, and was calling
> relatives to report this, and was not able to get through and later
> that day died of a heart attack?

Isn't 911 on a different system (so to speak) and thus not necessarily
interfered with during such high-dialing-activity periods?

> [should be a random drawing instead]
> Getting tickets and such on a first come first served basis is just
> not appropriate when demand exceeds supply like that.

This part makes a good deal of sense.  The Orioles did this for their
first game at Camden Yards this year (presumably drawing on past
experience when we almost made the '89 playoffs, which were sold
through the normal channels.  Called up Ticket Center, put on hold for
ten minutes, get put through to a human, and then the phone decides to
hang up on me.  Repeat.  Finally got a successful call after going
home).


S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. Class of '94 -  Dept. of Computer Science

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

From: [e-mail] (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht)
Subject: Re: New AT&T Videophone
Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:03:07 GMT


[e-mail] (Ole J. Jacobsen) writes:

> By now I'm sure you've all heard about the new AT&T picturephone, soon
> to appear in all the AT&T phone stores and to retail at $1500 or so.
> What I don't understand is why the model number is 2500. Are they
> really not aware that the standard Western Electric Touch Tone phone
> which has been around for 20 years (Pat?) has ALWAYS been called "a
> 2500 set" by everyone in the industry?

Perhaps they are waiting for some poor slob to order a batch of a
hundred 2500's?


Wolfgang Rupprecht    [e-mail] (or) wsrcc!wolfgang
Snail Mail:           39469 Gallaudet Drive, Fremont, CA 94538-4511

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Apr  9 13:21:37 EDT 1992
Subject: Re: New AT&T Videophones


In Digest #303, Ole J. Jacobsen <[e-mail]> writes:

> By now I'm sure you've all heard about the new AT&T picturephone, soon to
> appear in all the AT&T phone stores and to retail at $1500 or so.

> What I don't understand is why the model number is 2500. Are they
> really not aware that the standard Western Electric Touch Tone phone
> which has been around for 20 years (Pat?) has ALWAYS been called "a
> 2500 set" by everyone in the industry?

I suspect the people who christened the new product not only know
about the original 2500 set, but chose the name for just that reason.
They probably want to create the impression that the video 2500 is to
videophones what the 2500 set is to single-line handsets: basic,
reliable, standard, and all that good stuff.  The downside is some
confusion over the 2500 designation. How often will someone ask for "a
2500 set" and get the wrong one?

All of this is my speculation only; I have NO official AT&T information
on the subject.


Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA
[phone] AT&T Mail: !dominey or !bsga05!jdominey

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #308
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04697;
          12 Apr 92 3:14 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07487
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Apr 1992 01:28:11 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08653
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Apr 1992 01:28:01 -0500
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 01:28:01 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #309

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 Apr 92 01:28:05 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 309

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Dave Levenson)
    Call Blocking (Ken Levitt)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Andrew Klossner)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (S. Spencer Sun)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal? (Jack Decker)
    Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal? (Randall L. Smith)
    Re: Voice Drop-Outs on International Link (Stephen Page)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Date: 11 Apr 92 04:37:00 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, dgdhome!ddavis@uunet.
UU.NET (Don Davis) writes:

> P.S. - Dave, three questions:

Okay, I'll try to answer them!

> 1. What equipment you are using to deliver the Caller*ID data to your
>    UNIX system?

ClassMate, by MHE Systems Corporation.  This is a box the size of a
cigarette pack with a modular jack on one end, and an RS-232 plug on
the other.  It looks to the UNIX system like a Modem.  It produces one
line of ASCII text for each inbound call, showing the date, time, and
calling number.

> 2. How many numbers can you keep in the Call*Block list?

As offered by NJ Bell, Call*Block permits me to block calls from up to
six numbers.

> 3. Do you find the mechanism for reviewing/changing the Call*Block list
>    to be tedious, irritating, or difficult to use?

It is tedious at first, until one reaches the point where it is not
necessary to listen to the full text of every voice prompt from the
C.O.  Given the need to allow administration of the list from any
touch-tone phone, the mechanism is probably as good as any other they
might have used.

What I don't like is the feature interaction with hunting.  As
implemented here in 908-647 (1A ESS, Millington, NJ) if the called
number has blocked calls from the calling number, then if the called
number is not busy, the caller gets a recording that says "the number
you have dialed is not accepting calls at this time".  But if the
called number is busy, the call will hunt.  This makes it necessary to
subscribe to Call*Block on each line in a hunt group, and to
administer the list for each line, if there's a caller you really
don't want to hear from on any line.  I would prefer to see a blocked
call not hunt.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Nagle) writes:

> If you are called by a junk caller, you post the number to a USENET
> group.  An application then downloads all junk numbers identified by
> anyone on the net, and applies them to your incoming calls.  If this
> could be made effortless, it could be really useful.

I think that John Nagle has posted a brilliant idea!  Way to go,
John!!!  If we all pool our lists of junk callers, we should be able
to build up a huge list of of these relatively quickly.  I can see an
application much like the pathalias program (which today gathers
articles from the comp.mail.maps newsgroup, and updates the local uucp
routing database).

A couple of questions come to mind:

My definition of a junk call might be different from yours.  I wonder
if there's a universal way of categorizing this information, such that
individual recipients of the list can use it selectively.

For the present, the list need only be local to each LATA, as
inter-LATA Caller*ID is not yet implemented.


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA        Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 11:27:32 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
Subject: Call Blocking


If you use call blocking to block calls from me, what will I hear when
I call your number?

Will I get charged for the call?


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390     UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail] or [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The message here, which seems to be common, is "The
number you have dialed has activated call screening, meaning they are
not accepting calls at this time. Please try your call again later."
There is no inclusion of the number you dialed in the message, nor is
there any reference to *whose* calls are not being accepted.  Any
lines on your end which are part of the same billing group equally get
screened if I enter just your directory number. You don't get charged
for an incompleted call.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 12:15:21 PDT
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


> "The way I deal with silent hang-ups here is to simply use *69
> to call them back, and when they answer, ask them what they
> wanted. Nine of every ten lie about it and claim they did not
> call, but auto-callback has yet to lead me astray."

How would you know if it did, since there is no possible negative
evidence that you would considerable reliable?


Andrew Klossner  ([e-mail])
                 (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)


[Moderator's Note: Because the nine who lie about it are not very
convincing, and if I browbeat them they then always admit it.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: Princeton Univ. Class of '94
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 07:38:39 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: The way I deal with silent hang-ups here is to
> simply use *69 to call them back, and when they answer, ask them what
> they wanted. Nine of every ten lie about it and claim they did not
> call, but auto-callback has yet to lead me astray.  These are calls
> from private residences by the way, not DID trunks or back lines on
> PBX systems.   PAT]

I dunno, it seems to me that this might be flaunting a bit.  Barring
untrusting significant others, if the person doesn't call back I'd say
it's a good guess he or she had nothing important to say anyway, so
saying "What do you want" when chances are that the answer is "It was
a wrong number" is just rubbing it in their faces, IMHO.

I think it's generally true though that such hangups are incorrectly
dialed numbers, if it isn't happening with any sort of pattern.


S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. Class of '94 - Dept. of Computer Science


[Moderator's Note: Well, when I call a wrong number, I apologize, I
don't just disconnect rudely. They might try the same.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:11:01 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: The way I deal with silent hang-ups here is to
> simply use *69 to call them back, and when they answer, ask them what
> they wanted. Nine of every ten lie about it and claim they did not
> call, but auto-callback has yet to lead me astray.  These are calls
> from private residences by the way, not DID trunks or back lines on
> PBX systems.   PAT]

You are dialing a phone number.  Your finger slips and you misdial, or
you realize that you have misread the number.  You may not be sure
whether you have dialed a complete number.  What is the polite thing
to do next?

I claim that the correct action is to hang up as quickly as possible,
even in an area with rabid *69'ers.  The chances of avoiding ringing
altogether by hanging up soon enough are good enough that I feel it's
better to avoid bothering someone than wait for them to answer,
possibly waking them up, and apologize.

(This doesn't apply to those who wait for an answer, hear the wrong
voice, and hang up.  I'm still not decided whether I'd rather hear a
quick hang-up or some long-winded apology.)

If someone calls me and doesn't ask for someone by name, or asks for
the listed name on the phone, I generally lie about everything except
"Is this xxx-xxxx?" (If I don't answer or lie about that one, they're
going to call me again).  Usually they end up on indefinite hold
waiting for a nonexistent person or "the %s of the house".  Sometimes
I ask them "Do you commit telephone solicitation often?", which
usually causes them to hang up.

*69 may always get you the right residence, but it might not get you
someone useful to talk to.  ANI/Caller-ID-avoidance techniques such as
calling out on a modem line and Distinctive Ringing with a
ring-cadence switch will also defeat *69.  By the way, if 9 out of 10
people deny calling, how do you know *69 didn't screw up?


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: See earlier message this issue. Most who lie about
it are very unconvincing. I hear hesitation and surprise in their
voice. They have to think about their answer, which should be only a
simple 'yes' or 'no' to the question, 'did you just ring a telephone?'
I suggest to them in the future they take a second to apologize.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 17:16:52 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal?


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert S.
Helfman) writes:

> Mr. Moderator, you must be a very trusting soul to leave your phone
> ringer operative when you go to sleep. I cannot count the number of
> times that I was awakened and mind-jangled by late night wrong
>  numbers, before I finally got smart and started putting my electronic
> ringer on a BSR X-10 module and sending it into a black hole as my
> last act before retiring for the night.  I have it scheduled to go
> back on every morning at 6:00 am.

> Needless to say, I sleep better now. (The answering machine gets it
> all.  If it's the county coroner calling with bad news, it can wait
> until morning.  If someone's dead, putting it off 'till morning won't
> make 'em any deader!)

I have to agree with this.  I have a computer and modem hooked up to
my home phone line that goes up at midnight (if I'm not still up using
the computer!)  and down again at around 6:55 AM.  Well, last year my
wife's dad passed away in the middle of the night (this was not
unexpected, we knew that his death was rather imminent and she had
driven 300 miles to be with him only a week before) and her stepmother
just couldn't wait until morning to deliver the bad news.  She tried
several times but of course, she couldn't get through because the
modem kept answering the phone.

So rather than wait until morning, she called the State Police and
asked them to deliver the message.  They arrived just before 6 A.M.
and I answered the door.  Since they didn't actually leave a message
(they just said to call the stepmother at her home number), I called
and got the bad news, then woke my wife up so she could talk.  I
figure that because her stepmother couldn't get through at 3:30 A.M.,
my wife got another two and a half hours of precious sleep.

News of a death is hard enough on anyone and I really have to wonder
about the idiots who simply must call to deliver such news in the
middle of the night.  You know that in most cases the recipient is
going to take it hard anyway, so why cause them to lose sleep by
calling in the middle of the night (you KNOW they will never be able
to go back to sleep after receiving news like that!).  And my wife and
the stepmother weren't that close (her father had remarried relatively
recently and my wife hardly knew her stepmother) so I don't think she
was calling to cry on her shoulder; she just more or less gave her the
information and said goodbye.

By the way, I do wish there were such a thing as a modem that would
send the modem answer tone normally, but at the same time would listen
for touch tone digits until such a time as the other modem handshakes,
and if the caller is a human and taps in a preset code it would shut
off the modem answer tone and send a simulated ring tone out the
modem's speaker (or ring a phone that "hangs off" of the modem).  That
way, a line that was usually used for data (at least during a certain
time of day) COULD also be used for voice in the odd unusual
circumstance where this would be desirable.  My kids aren't old enough
to be out after midnight yet, but I can forsee a day when I might want
to have them (or certain other people) be able to "get past" my modem
IF THEY KNOW THE CODE.  But I don't want the delay of going through an
external switching device for the incoming modem calls, which make up
the vast majority of my after-midnight calls!

I really can't understand why nobody has made a reasonably-priced
modem that can also recognize touch tone digits on an incoming call
(in addition to an originate modem tone).  It shouldn't cost all that
much to add something like that, and I can think of several
applications where such capability might come in handy!


Jack Decker   [e-mail]    FidoNet 1:154/8

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

From: rls![e-mail] (Randall L. Smith)
Subject: Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal?
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:08:42 GMT
Organization: The Internet


[e-mail] (Robert S. Helfman) writes:

> Needless to say, I sleep better now. (The answering machine gets it
> all.  If it's the county coroner calling with bad news, it can wait
> until morning.  If someone's dead, putting it off 'till morning won't
> make 'em any deader!)
>
> [Moderator's Note: I get very few wrong numbers in the middle of the
> night, and the rare calls I receive between midnight and 8 AM are
> likely to be important. See the above message. When I do get one at 3
> AM (I can't remember the last time) I use *69 to call them back and
> ask them to be more careful in the future.   PAT]

Dear Mr. Moderator,

You've mentioned the *69 option twice in this newsgroup and finally
got my goat (whatever that means).

What the devil is *69?

Is it associated with CID implemented in *your* area or something *every*
phone subscriber should expect to be able to purchase?  I would *dearly*
love to be able to call cretins back to say, "You rang?".

An Ohioan w/o CID.


Cheers!

[e-mail]  <backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy  rls![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The newer generation of custom calling features,
known as CLASS, includes auto callback of (*69) the last call you
received, and (*66) the last number you called. Both features will
continue trying to connect for up to 30 minutes. You may have them
available sometime. Ask your telco when CLASS will be available.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Page)
Subject: Re: Voice Drop-Outs on International Link
Organization: Andersen Consulting (UK Practice)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 17:41:49 GMT


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

> from Australia (where I am!). ... -- it drops out when you stop
> talking, and there is a noticeable delay before the voice circuit
> re-opens, which chops off the first syllable of the next word.

I got fed up with this a few years ago, especially as I was paying A$2
per minute for my calls between UK and Australia. In particular, it
annoyed me that only one person could speak at a time. Just for the
hell of it I wrote a complaint to the manager of the Overseas
Telecommunications Commission in Brisbane, and he (J.L. Banks) replied
as follows:

"The phenomena you query is [sic] caused by the need to include 'echo
suppressors' on all long-distance telephone circuits. As you may know,
a proportion of the 'received' signal in any telephone service tends
to be picked up by the transmitter and is therefore amplified and
re-transmitted back to the sender. In normal circumstances this is
virtually simultaneous with the main conversation and causes no
problem.

In a long-distance circuit, however, there is a finite delay in the
above and an 'echo' is the result, particularly when a satellite path
is in use. To reduce the echo problem an echo is used on each circuit
to cancel this echo.  Unfortunately this has the effect you describe
of an apparent 'half-duplex' circuit, even though we do in fact use a
full four-wire system for all international calls.

Development of more efficient equipment -- including echo suppressors
 -- is an ongoing challenge and it is probable that substantial
improvements may eventuate when ISDN or digitized voice channels
become the norm in the early '90s but until then I'm afraid you will
have to paraphrase Figaro -- 'one at a time for clarity's sake'."

Well, that was written on 2 January 1987 -- and his predictions
certainly haven't come true yet! (Although the letter is a model of a
helpful explanation ...)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #309
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07320;
          12 Apr 92 4:32 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24289
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:33:31 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26743
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:33:20 -0500
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:33:20 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #310

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 Apr 92 02:33:18 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 310

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Pac*Bell Employees Win Big From Radio Station's Contest Lines (S. Rhoades)
    Time on Hold...Hold...Hold... (Bill Berbenich)
    Ericsson in Albany Connected to NY? (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Immediate ANI From Your 800 Number (Bob Yazz)
    Outrageous Telephone Rate For Local Calls ([e-mail])
    AT&T AnyHour Saver -- Plan Details (Stan Brown)
    Nokia P-30 Pinout Query (Bill Nickless)
    SWB and BBSs (Peter Marshall)
    Cellular One Security??!! (Larry Rachman)
    Software v.27ter Scrambler (Dale Bryan)
    Anyone Have Bellcore's Doc For New Area Codes? (Dave Leibold)
    CCITT Standards on Internet (Gunnar Bostr|m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve L. Rhoades)
Subject: Pac*Bell Employees Win Big From Radio Station's Contest Lines
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:03:43 GMT


The local radio today carried an interesting story.

An Los Angeles area radio station has these $1000 give-aways running
throughout the day.  It seems that some Pac*Bell employees figured out
a way to have an advantage over "Joe Random" caller.

Pac*Bell is being very tight lipped about how it was done.  It would
seem that the employee's physical location had something to do with it
and many employees were involved.  (Clipping on at the frame?)

Their request line number is (800) 232-xxxx.  I show 800-232 belonging
to AT&T.  Maybe it just translates to a 7-digit POTS number and the
Pac*Bell employees got the POTS number(s) ?

This could give the callers an advantage if 800-232 was set up as a
"Choke" prefix; i.e.  Returning an "All Circuts are Busy" to those
callers routed through AT&T.  (But wait, I didn't think AT&T was
allowed to carry INTRA-Lata traffic?!)

The radio station, K-EARTH 101, stated it would withold the prize
awards until this mess is straightened out.

Thoughts? Comments?


Internet: [e-mail]           | Voice-mail: [phone]
UUCP: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!tybalt!slr | USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca.  91023

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

Subject: Time on Hold...Hold...Hold...
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 10:45:19 BST
From: [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I have a proposal to make.  Lately, I have been put on hold for what
seems to be an interminable amount of time by various businesses.  I
became annoyed and perplexed, wondering how much more time I would
spend waiting to be answered.  There is no reliable way to know, in
most cases.  Indeed, a few months back I had tried to call a local
cellular carrier, Bell South Mobility.  BSM touts 24-hour service to
their customers, so I decided to wait on hold.  I held for 45 minutes
and still nobody came on to help.  To make a long story not quite so
long, they had received a bomb scare and evacuated the office, yet the
Call Director still dutifully queued up incoming calls on hold.  How
was a caller to know?  The building sat empty for a number of hours
while the police bomb squad searched for the non-existent device.  All
the while, no callers were the wiser.

I propose that after five minutes on hold, hang up.  Once enough
boiler room managers get wind of this, things will change.  I am not
so pompous as to not expect some reasonable wait in many cases, but my
time is more important to me than anyone else's.  I don't feel that
sitting in a seemingly-endless telephone hold queue is a good way for
me to spend that time.

Calls to Word Perfect Corp. and other places with smart systems would
be exempt from my grass-roots drive.  At least with WPC's system, you
know it will be "three minutes more," for example.  So at least tell
me how long the wait will be and I will be more understanding.

Am I way off-base?  Please let me know what you think via e-mail and
I will tally and summarize to TELECOM.


Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab   |  Telephone:   [phone]
Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332    |
uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill |  Group 3 fax: [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]         |           or: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Someone apparently forgot to flip the necessary
switch on the ACD so that callers would receive a message saying
'the offices are closed at this time ...'. Some systems also have a
tape available saying 'due to a temporary problem, our phone system is
unavailable at this time; please try again in a few minutes.'   PAT]

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

Date: 9-APR-1992 04:44:57.39
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ericsson in Albany Connected to NY?


In case any Cell One/NY (or other McCaw/Ericsson system customers) are
going to the Albany area, Cell One/Albany now seems to be connected,
via the North American Cellular Network (NACN?) to the NY system.

Well, sort of ...

You can't get calls there, UNLESS you are on another call already.
That is, if your phone is just sitting there, powered ON, and someone
attempts to call you, they will get a BUSY signal.

However, if you are engaged in a conversation, and you receive a call,
you will get a Call-Waiting tone, and you will be able to answer the
call and converse.

Call-Forwarding works fine, as does three-way calling.

Cell One/Albany has supposedly been connected to some other Ericssons(?)
for a while now ... they seem to be making the connection to NY and
potentially other systems as well.

As an aside: If you are driving up US-7 north from Bennington, VT, the
Albany systems (A and B) come in quite well for a while. Cell One/VT
also has added a new tower in Manchester, VT, so you can get rather
good to excellent coverage for most of US-7, from the Mass border all
the way up to Canada. (There still are a few gaps).

Compare this with US-7 in Western Mass and CT, where there is very
limited service. And US-7 in CT goes through Litchfield county, a
rather well-off retreat for many NYC "notables". You would think that
people would be rushing to service US-7 in Litchfield rather than a
much longer (and less populated) strip of US-7 in Vermont.

Finally, if you are in the area, and are a NY customer, you CAN NOT
get calls on the Metro Mobile systems of Pittsfield/Williamstown or
Franklin County.  The [phone] port in Pittsfield goes to Rhode
Island (!), and the other ports (413-531/Holyoke MA, 203-930/Hartford,
and 203-856/Norwalk CT) BLOCK Cell One/NY numbers.

You used to be able to get calls automatically there, but due to the
Bell Atlantic takeover on Metro Mobile, they can't seem to do that
now.  So basically there is no way to get calls there.
(Call-Forwarding works fine, though.)

I'll call Metro tomorrow to "inquire" about this...After they take 30
minutes to realize that they do indeed have a system in Pittsfield and
another in Franklin County, Mass, maybe they can provide some
answers ... (Other than: "Is your phone on? Is it set on 'A' or 'B'?"
 .... Ahhhhhh! )

And Metro Mobile actually wants to join the NACN ... well, you think
there are problems now, wait till THEY hook up! ;)

Anyhow, if anyone from Cell One/Albany goes to NYC, I'd like to know
how your phone is working down there.


Doug  [e-mail]  //  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Yazz)
Subject: Immediate ANI From Your 800 Number
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 20:06:48 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Your assumption is not wrong. You will get ANI with
> your monthly phone bill, at least from many carriers. Real time ANI is
> a bit more expensive, however.

What companies are currently offering real-time (immediate) ANI on 800
numbers, and how much more is "a bit more expensive", Pat?

I am aware of only MCI providing this, and requiring a T1 link to do
so.  This is out of my acceptable price range for a residential 800
number.

I really like my Cable & Wireless programmable 800 service, and I
think that there wouldn't be much other than software for their system
to make available the last n calling numbers by calling the same
computer that you call to reprogram the "normal" phone number that
your "programmable 800" number routes to.)

But they don't provide this service.

Any suggestions?

Bob Yazz


[Moderator's Note: I don't know how much more 'real time ANI' would
cost. I know my two 800 numbers cost around two dollars per month each
plus the cost of calls, and my billing at the end of the month has a
breakdown by number of callers. That's all I need or care about.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Outrageous Telephone Rate For Local Calls
Organization: Makalu Mountain Hermitage, Mt Makalu, Nepal
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 23:43:36 GMT


Hello netters,

What is a reasonable rate for local phone calls?  Stanford charges $11
plus one time $35 installation charges, for unlimited calls ... Pacific
bell charges about $8 for the same services.

Some Stanford students are suing the University communications
services, which has a monopoly on telephone service to the University
and all the dorms.

But get this: a friend in Illinois, in area 618-236-xxxx is having to
pay: $55 installation charge + $16 per month PLUS A PER CALL CHARGE of
0.045 ... is this reasonable?  How could Illinois Bell charge so much
more than Pacific Bell?

I would like to hear from someone who has had to get a phone conection
in the above mentioned area.

Thanks all.


shiela "mad at phone company"


[Moderator's Note: Saying that the university telecom department has a
'monopoly on the phone service at the university' is like saying that
you have a monopoly on the phone service at your home. The university
is not a telco; they are a customer of the telco and the telecom
office is the administrator of the service. Comparing rates between
them and Pac Bell is difficult in a small forum like this since there
are many variables to take into consideration regards service, local
area of calls, etc. Before comment on the Illinois customer can be
meaningful, it would help to know exactly *what* makes up the service
the person is getting for $16. I have IBT residence service and my
bill for 'service' (not including usage) runs close to $100 per month
for two lines and numerous features.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 22:41:59 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Subject: AT&T AnyHour Saver -- Plan Details
Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA


AT&T's brochure for the AnyHour Saver (SM) Plan came in the mail today.

It says explicitly that to make up the hour covered by the $10 monthly
fee, "Calls made Monday through Friday between 8AM and 5PM are counted
first, then calls made during the evening Monday through Friday
between 5PM and 11PM, and finally calls made during the night and on
weekends."

Additional minutes are charged at 20 cents a minute 8AM-5PM weekdays
and 11 cents a minute at all other times.  This applies to
direct-dialed interstate calls including calls to USVI and Puerto
Rico.  "Calls not covered include: operator-assisted,
person-to-person, calling card, directory assistance, cellular, 700,
900 and 976 calls."

For comparison, under Reach Out America only calls between 10 pm and 8
am were at the 11 cent rate; evening calls were at a discount from
AT&T standard rates -- not to mention the fact that I had to be sure
enough of my calls were made after 10 pm to use up my hour.

There's a 5% discount from regular AT&T rates on "direct-dialed calls
to over 250 countries and locations" and on "AT&T direct-dialed long
distance calls in your own state."  That covers more than I might have
thought: AT&T carries calls from Cleveland Heights to Hudson, a
distance of maybe 20 miles.

BTW, there was no charge to convert to this plan from my Reach Out
America 24-hour plan ($8.70 a month), and it was set up the day after
I called to request it.  The brochure gives the phone number as 1 800
222-0300 (punctuated thusly).


Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 08:13:59 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bill Nickless)
Subject: Nokia P-30 Pinout Query


The Nokia P-30 "Handportable" Cellular Telephone has a charging stand.
In that charging stand is an RJ-?? connector, which I believe can be
connected to a hands-free option.  Does someone have a pinout for that
RJ-?? connector, or better yet, has someone succesfully connected a
modem to this phone?

I suspect that modems like the Telebit Qblazer could easily deal with
the in-band signaling and handoffs common to cellular communication.
But I have to hook it up first.  :)


Thanks,

Bill Nickless  System Support Group  <[e-mail]>  [phone]

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

Subject: SWB and BBSs
From: caladan!seanews![e-mail] (peter marshall)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 13:13:11 PDT
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News & Mail


An item in the 3/24/92 {Communications Daily} indicates "Southwestern
Bell in Missouri has filed new tariff with PSC to allow computer
bulletin board (BBS) operators to use residential lines," and to take
effect 4/10.

The 3/11 SWB filing would allow residential-based BBSs to operate at
residential rates if no remuneration is directly or indirectly
solicited or required, and use is confined to four or fewer flat-rated
residential lines.

The article indicates that BBSs not meeting these requirements would
have to pay business rates.

According to {Communications Daily}, the new tariff provisions were
negotiated bwtween SWB and representatives of BBS operators, and
define "BBS" as "a data calculating and storage device(s) utilized as
a vehicle to facilitiate the exchange of information through the use
of ... [SWB] facilities."

The article notes that the "BBS language is part of high-grade
Information Terminal Service originally aimed at business users with
computers, but interpreted by BBS operators as targeted at them. SWB
originally had wanted to make new service mandatory for computers with
modems, but new proposal ... makes it optional."


[] SEANEWS - Seattle Usenet News + Mail - [phone] []
caladan!seanews![e-mail]  or  seanews![e-mail]

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

Date: 09 Apr 92 16:38:57 EDT
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular One Security??!!


I've just been informed by Cellular One that I've been 'selected' for
a free two-month trial of their voice mail. All I have to do to access
it is dial my cellular number 516-528-ABCD, press #, and enter my four
digit security code.

What is the security code? You guessed it, ABCD!  Don't these people
ever learn??

I took them up on the freebie, but you'd better believe I'm going to
change that 'security' code about one nanosecond after the service is
activated. I wonder how many other users will be as paranoid?


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dale Bryan)
Subject: Software v.27ter Scrambler
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:40:15 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego


Does anyone have a software scrambler for the CCITT V.27ter standard.
I am looking for the algorithmic implementation or a good reference
which describes how to implement it.  I have tried the CCITT Standards
Handbook, but it is not explicit enough.


dale bryan
email:[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 20:24:44 EDT
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anyone Have Bellcore's Doc For New Area Codes?


Some time ago, Bellcore released a document outlining plans for the
new area code structure to take effect in 1995. This sounded like a
Technical Advisory or something similar, with a comment period ending
at the end of April.

Does anyone have a copy of this document, or could indicate where one
might be found? I heard rumours that this proposal could be freely
copied around for discussion purposes, but I could be wrong on that.

I would have picked this up direct from Bellcore, but without access
to 800 521-CORE from here, and with their POTS line soaking
international callers for time spent listening to music on hold,
perhaps someone on the Digest might be able to help. Thanx.


[e-mail]

[P.S. Perhaps someone at Bellcore should set up an e-mail account for
such inquiries and/or orders ... since they're linked to the nets
already.]

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

From: Gunnar Bostr|m <[e-mail]>
Subject: CCITT Standards on Internet
Organization: Telia Research Sundsvall AB
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 13:14:37 GMT


I have heard that the CCITT standards should be available for
anonymous FTP. Can someone provide the Internet-address please.
Thanks.


Gunnar Bostrom
Telia Research AB        E-mail: [e-mail]
Box 883                         Tel: [phone]
S-851 24 Sundsvall, Sweden      Fax: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: And I have heard the sponsor of these files decided
to take them down and not have them available on line any longer. Is
there any updated news on this?    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #310
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04358;
          12 Apr 92 17:54 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06687
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Apr 1992 16:06:17 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15384
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Apr 1992 16:06:09 -0500
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 16:06:09 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #311

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 Apr 92 16:06:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 311

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    High Quality PCs For Control Upgrade in Costa Rica Telco (David W. Barts)
    Seeking Used Teltone Line Simulator (Joe McGuckin)
    Satellite Communications to Africa? (Larry Jewell)
    Cellphone ESN Xfer (John Gilbert)
    Phone Home (tm): New Telephone Toy (Jon Sreekanth)
    Mass. Lottery-by-Phone Illegal? (Boston Globe via Monty Solomon)
    Cellular Conference Call From Plane? (Boston Globe via Monty Solomon)
    Where the Term 'Bug' Came From (Nicolas Tripon)
    The Term `Bug' Originated With Edison (Dan Hoey)
    The Jargon File on Bugs (was Cord Board Anecdote) (Mark Brader)
    Mystic Marketing Quits ANI Billing (Linc Madison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 08:31:46 -0700
From: David W. Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: High Quality PCs For Control Upgrade in Costa Rica Telco


[This posting originally appeared in the SWL-L mailing list and I am
forwarding it to the Telecom Digest.  As the sender of this message
apparently does not (yet) subscribe to the TELECOM Digest, all
responses should be E-mailed directly to him.  -- David B.]

 From: Harold Sanchez <[e-mail]>

We are trying to upgrade the electromechanical public telephone
exchanges in Costa Rica by substituting their control parts.

The control parts are being changed by PC's or compatibles + I/O
interfaces + programming. Comercial PC's and compatibles are used.

The substitutes work very well due to the simple tasks they have to
perform.  This gives us plenty of scope for improvements.

Prototype modules have being tried with real telephone traffic.

Now we need highly reliable parts for prototipes to be tried during
long periods. Where can we get these (PC motherboards, power supplies,
disk drives and controlers, I/O interface cards, modems, etc.)? Any
military grade PC's?

Thanks in advance for any help.


Harold Sanchez          hsanchez@ucrvm2
Unidad de Investigacion y Desarrollo
Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad
Costa Rica

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

From: oilean.oilean![e-mail] (Joe McGuckin)
Subject: Seeking Used Teltone Line Simulator
Organization: Island Software
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:54:07


I guess the subject says it all. I could use either the two line or
the four line version.


Joe McGuckin      oilean![e-mail]
Island Software   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Satellite Communications to Africa?
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:03:58 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center


We are exploring various methods to send data to field reserchers in
Africa and I've been wondering if there is a field portable satellite
receiver system which can be used to connect our site in Indiana with
a site running on a generator in Cameroon?

(If this is just plain impossible, tell me gently, I only know I have
a need for this kind of system, I don't know if it can be done.)
Suggested consulting sources would be appreciated.  We would also be
interested in more ambitious sites in the urban areas in Central
Africa, and eventually in equatorial areas elsewhere.

Serious responses will be given futher information.

Thanks for allowing me the bandwidth,


Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN)  JEWELL@PURCCMACE   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John)
Subject: Cellphone ESN Xfer
Organization: Motorola, Inc. LMPS
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:52:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Will Martin) writes:

> Monty Solomon <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> They are offering a new service called Maintenance Plus with the following
>> benefits for $5/month:

>>    Use of a loaner phone (same number) if repair will take > 1hr;
>>    ...      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                   NOTE

> Hmmm. A loaner phone with the same number. This means two cellular
> phones with the same number, at least on a temporary basis. Doesn't
> this conflict with all the previous traffic on how it was impossible
> or would create unresolveable conflicts?

> Or are these people updating the cellular database during the period
> the loaner is in force to change the pointer from phone number to
> serial number to that of the loaner, and then changing it back again
> after the loaner is returned? If so, that proves this database update
> is so trivial that no cellular company has any business charging
> anything for doing this when a new phone is "installed" ... :-)

Newer models of Motorola phones have a service feature where the ESN,
NAM and repertory memory can be transferred from a broken phone into a
"Universal loaner." This is done over the radio bus using a special
transfer cable kit.  After the personality is transferred to the
loaner, the ESN in the broken unit changes to FFFFFFFF.  The serial
number in the broken phone will be reset to 00000000 by the Motorola
depot after the phone is repaired.  The ID of the receiving unit must
be 00000000 to receive a new ESN.


               BROKEN PHONE    UNIVERSAL LOANER
ESN             821EBED4        00000000     before
transfer        FFFFFFFF        821EBED4     after
to loaner

repair at       00000000
depot

ESN transfer    00000000        821EBED4    before
to customer     821EBED4        00000000    after

If the processor or memory has died and transfer doesn't work, the
phone must be returned to the Moto depot and a new ESN may come back
on the phone.


John Gilbert  KA4JMC
Secure and Advanced Conventional Sys Div
Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, Illinois [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon Sreekanth)
Subject: Phone Home (tm): New Telephone Toy
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:32:04 GMT


I bought this at a local department store (Lechmere, in the Boston
area, $14.99) and thought readers would be interested.

It's a small plastic pendant, about 1 1/4" by 2" and about 1/2" thick,
with a chain and a clip at the other end of the chain. Almost like a
largish keychain. On one face of the pendant, there's a miniaturized
telephone keypad, with a large key marked home.  The reverse side has
an aperture for DTMF dialing sound to emerge.

The idea is that you clip this gadget on a kid, and if they get lost,
they can use it at a public telephone to call home (in case they
didn't remember their phone number).

The box has a picture of a small child holding the device at a
payphone. The spiel says "Allows children, even if they don't know
their number, or how to use a telephone, to phone home". It also lists
several endorsements on the back from Missing Children ... Help Center,
Vanished Childrens Alliance, etc.

In smaller print, it explains : operator assisted calls -- touchtone
service only. Batteries included.

They claimed there was a programming manual, but my box didn't have
one. Pressing the home key dials a number right now, I haven't tried
to trace what that default number is.

Inside the unit are two button cells, a small speaker, a ceramic
resonator, and some SMT parts. I couldn't find any chip, but there is
a black blob of waxy looking stuff (what's it?) which may conceal
something. Mfr. is Nimrod International, Clarksburg, NJ.  (I have no
connection with them).

Any comments? The gadget won't work on a pulse phone, and their
caution about "operator assisted calls" means they probably prefix
calls with 0. Is it simpler to just teach kids to dial 0?


Jon Sreekanth

Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc.
5 Walden St #3, Cambridge, MA 02140
[phone]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:36:27 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mass. Lottery-by-Phone Illegal?


 From the 92 Apr 11 {Boston Globe}:

A state Senate investigative committee, charging that Treasurer Joseph
D. Malone's administration violated numerous state and federal laws
and regulations when it launched a new operation to sell lottery
tickets by telephone, yesterday called for the service to be shut down
immediately.

Noting that Lottery-by-Phone uses a 900 number to take bets, Norton
[Sen. Thomas C.  Norton] also critized Malone for letting the Lottery
operation become linked with the "900-number service industry, an
industry widely associated with adult telephone sex lines and
boiler-room sweepstakes operations."

The Lottery's contract with National Interactive Systems to operate
Lottery-by-Phone was signed in October 1990, when Crane [Bob Crane,
former state treasurer] was still in office.  But New England
Telephone formally objected to helping collect bets through its
customers' bills.  In November 1991, after approval by the state
Public Utilities Commission, Lottery-by-Phone began taking bets.

Through Lottery-by-Phone, bettors can call a 900-exchange (sic) number
and place a bet in one of the Lottery's games.  The cost of any bet,
plus a service fee, is added to a bettor's phone bill.

Malone said Lottery-by-Phone was begun on a one-year trial basis.  As
for the idea of shutting down the service immediately, Malone
suggested it would make more sense to wait until the contract expires
in November and then not extend it.

On Monday, the Senate will take up two bills aimed at curbing
Lottery-by-Phone.


Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:26:12 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Conference Call From Plane?


In an 92 Apr 11 {Boston Globe} article about the NHL strike:

"Reportedly pressured by up to 100 of his rank-and-file members to get
back to the table, Goodenow flew here from Toronto late Thursday
night, conduction a conference call with his team delegates while
aboard the flight to LaGuardia Airport.  Shuttle diplomacy via
cellular phone."

Do you think they meant Airphone?

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

From: Nicolas Tripon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where the Term 'Bug' Came From
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 18:47:44 BST


> [Moderator's Note: Is that where the expression 'have you got a bug up
> your switchboard' (or something like that!) came from?  :) Seriously
> though, the term 'bug' as used in software programming does come from
> the late 1940's when the old vacuum tube style computers had large
> relays in them into which insects would crawl to hide; wind up getting
> squashed and cause the relays to malfunction.  PAT]

Some time ago, this subject was discussed on alt.folklore.computers;
it was thought that admiral Grace Hopper was the inventor of the term.
It seems that the computing community adopted it from radar engineers.


Regards,

Nicolas Tripon

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

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 18:19:41 -0400
From: Dan Hoey <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Term `Bug' Originated With Edison
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC


In Telecom Digest v12n303 PAT notes:

> [...Seriously though, the term 'bug' as used in software programming
> does come from the late 1940's when the old vacuum tube style
> computers had large relays in them into which insects would crawl to
> hide; wind up getting squashed and cause the relays to malfunction. PAT]

The term `bug' for a malfunction of electronic equipment dates back
to the 19th century: Thomas Edison used the term with respect to
telegraphy.

PAT seems to have gotten a garbled version of the story in which a
technician at the Mark I project taped a relay-raddled moth into a log
book; he punningly labeled it the ``first actual bug found.''  Admiral
Grace Hopper, who also worked on the Mark I, liked to tell the story
accurately, but less-careful reporters have distorted it into a story
of the origin of the term, even crediting her with the coinage.

I understand she specifically denied that rumor in a recorded
interview, which was rebroadcast on NPR shortly after her death.  If
anyone can provide more specific information about the interview or
the rebroadcast, please email it to me.


Dan Hoey    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:44:00 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
Subject: The Jargon File on Bugs (was Cord Board Anecdote)
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


> [Moderator's Note: Is that where the expression 'have you got a bug up
> your switchboard' (or something like that!) came from?  :) Seriously
> though, the term 'bug' as used in software programming does come from
> the late 1940's when the old vacuum tube style computers had large
> relays in them into which insects would crawl to hide; wind up getting
> squashed and cause the relays to malfunction.  PAT]

Not so.  At least one such incident did happen, but the term "bug" was
already established.  From the Jargon File, release 2.9.9:

 :bug: n. An unwanted and unintended property of a program or
    hardware, esp. one that causes it to malfunction.  Antonym of
    {feature}.  Examples: "There's a bug in the editor: it writes
    things out backwards."  "The system crashed because of a hardware
    bug."  "Fred is a winner, but he has a few bugs" (i.e., Fred is
    a good guy, but he has a few personality problems).

  Historical note: Some have said this term came from telephone
    company usage, in which "bugs in a telephone cable" were blamed
    for noisy lines, but this appears to be an incorrect folk
    etymology.  Admiral Grace Hopper (an early computing pioneer better
    known for inventing {COBOL}) liked to tell a story in which a
    technician solved a persistent {glitch} in the Harvard Mark II
    machine by pulling an actual insect out from between the contacts
    of one of its relays, and she subsequently promulgated {bug} in
    its hackish sense as a joke about the incident (though, as she was
    careful to admit, she was not there when it happened).  For many
    years the logbook associated with the incident and the actual bug
    in question (a moth) sat in a display case at the Naval Surface
    Warfare Center.  The entire story, with a picture of the logbook
    and the moth taped into it, is recorded in the `Annals of the
    History of Computing', Vol. 3, No. 3 (July 1981), pp. 285--286.

    The text of the log entry (from September 9, 1945), reads "1545
    Relay #70 Panel F (moth) in relay.  First actual case of bug being
    found".  This wording seems to establish that the term was already
    in use at the time in its current specific sense --- and Hopper
    herself reports that the term `bug' was regularly applied to
    problems in radar electronics during WWII.  Indeed, the use of
    `bug' to mean an industrial defect was already established in
    Thomas Edison's time, and `bug' in the sense of an disruptive
    event goes back to Shakespeare!  In the first edition of Samuel
    Johnson's dictionary one meaning of `bug' is "A frightful
    object; a walking spectre"; this is traced to `bugbear', a Welsh
    term for a variety of mythological monster which (to complete the
    circle) has recently been reintroduced into the popular lexicon
    through fantasy role-playing games.

    In any case, in jargon the word almost never refers to insects.
    Here is a plausible conversation that never actually happened:

    "There is a bug in this ant farm!"

    "What do you mean?  I don't see any ants in it."

    "That's the bug."

    [There has been a widespread myth that the original bug was moved
    to the Smithsonian, and an earlier version of this entry so
    asserted.  A correspondent who thought to check discovered that the
    bug was not there.  While investigating this in late 1990, your
    editor discovered that the NSWC still had the bug, but had
    unsuccessfully tried to get the Smithsonian to accept it --- and
    that the present curator of the History of American Technology
    Museum didn't know this and agreed that it would make a worthwhile
    exhibit.  It was moved to the Smithsonian in mid-1991.  Thus, the
    process of investigating the original-computer-bug bug fixed it in
    an entirely unexpected way, by making the myth true!  --- ESR]


Forwarded to Telecom by Mark Brader, [e-mail], utzoo!sq!msb


[Moderator's Note: Mark, my special thanks for taking the trouble to
prepare and send this along. It made my day!   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 20:59:06 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Mystic Marketing Quits ANI Billing


It seems that everyone's favorite $120 flat rate psychic line will no
longer charge against your phone bill.  A call to their "800" number
gets a recording telling you that the charge is $120 and can be
charged to your major credit card.  When you reach the billing menu,
you are prompted to enter "1" to bill to your major credit card.  You
used to be prompted to enter "1" for credit card or "2" to bill to
"the phone you are using"; pressing "2" anyway now reaches a recording
that "that feature is not available."


[Moderator's Note: What a loss!  :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #311
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11316;
          12 Apr 92 20:39 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19395
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:00:59 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12061
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:00:52 -0500
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:00:52 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #312

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 Apr 92 19:00:47 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 312

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Thoughts About ISDN (Bob Frankston)
    Massachusetts to Close Down Non-Compliant COCOTs (John R. Levine)
    Massachusetts AG Acts to Hang Up COCOTs (Monty Solomon)
    Tie TCX-128 Phone Switch (Jeffery L. Wisniewski)
    Candadian LD Plans Wanted (Ian Evans)
    Smart On-Hold Device at Hertz (Rob Knauerhase)
    Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? (Joshua E. Muskovitz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Thoughts About ISDN
Date: Sun 12 Apr 1992 14:11 -0500


Prescript: I've been putting these comments together for a while, but
at some point, I've got to ship the product even if it is not perfect
nor complete.  With that caveat in mind, I'm submitting this
commentary on ISDN and the rest of the universe.

I've just read through D.P.U. 91-63-B of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Department of Public utilities which is the response to
the ISDN filings.  I've already Prodigy's briefs on the subject.
Though the language was a bit long winded, it was, to my surprise,
fascinating.  I don't know how these compare to what the situation is
in other states, but there is some spirited opposition to NET's
attempt to sell ISDN services at a high rate.  The Prodigy filing also
incorporated some of Mitch Kapor's research.

I should also strongly emphasize that I am not a lawyer, I'm not well
versed in regulatory law.  I'm more a dabbler/kibbitzer in these
matters, then an expert.  Given all that, I'll attempt to give a
biased summary of the filings and my reactions.  More my reactions
than summary.

The basic position of NET is that ISDN is an optional offering that
should be priced at competitive rates.  Where competitive means "what
the market will bear".  Prodigy's position is that ISDN should be a
basic part of the communications infrastructure and should be priced
at a rate that would encourage its use, or at least, not discriminate
against its use.  NET referred to Prodigy's view as a "field of
dreams" wherein Prodigy expects that if ISDN were available, people
would flock to it.  NET claimed its studies showed that there are
people who would pay high rates for ISDN and thus it should be priced
for the known customers.  I call this "railroad pricing" referring to
the days when the railroads were in decline and kept increasing their
rates to get the same return from fewer passengers and thus reduced
the number of passengers etc.  Even worse, for communications
offering, providing only one hand so that people can experiment with
clapping has its limits.

There is much discussion on what the actual costs of ISDN deployment
are.  This gets complicated because the costs of ISDN components vary
due to accounting considerations as well as purchase price variations
due to one time offers, quantity discounts and startup costs.  The
distinction between hardware, software and other components is not
clear, so I resort to the technical term "stuff".  The fact that these
are not broken out makes it hard to evaluate some of the claims.

The DPU seems to be caught in the middle.  It seems to buy into the
infrastructure argument but is very conservative on limiting NETs
rates since NET must be allowed to recover its costs.

Now a word from our sponsor -- me.  I had a number of disparate
(knowing how bad spelling is on the net, I should point out that that
is not a typo for desperate) reactions to reading these filings.

One question is whether ISDN is the right service for data.  Some of
the DPU discussion was on the relationship of ISDN as a data transport
with switched 56KB (an example of high priced service).  But there was
no discussion on how to provide a connectivity other than point to
point bulk data transfer.  I realize the advantage of concentrating on
ISDN issues is that there is at least some agreement on what ISDN is
 -- a necessary prerequisite for rational debate.  Given the grief that
NET is giving over ISDN deployment, asking for really different
services seems to be an uphill battle.

Which brings us to NET as a consumer buying merchandise off the shelf.
It seems that once they've bought into an exchange (often the DMS-100)
they are captives of their maintenance plan with the exchange.  I
can't imagine them buying anything nontrivial from anyone but
Northern-Telecom for its DMS-100 COs.  It doesn't seem they have much
negotiating leverage.  It would be nice to see the CO become a more
distributed entity that allowed more mixing and matching from
different vendors.  For now, at least, it is not clear how to build
such a system.  This further concentrates debate on off-the-shelf ISDN
because alternatives are problematic.

NET whines about the difficulty of providing ISDN, yet they seem to
have no problems if you want Intellipath and Centrex, both of which
are ISDN-based services.  This seems to be far from a level playing
field.  I'd like to see a situation in which NET couldn't base any of
its services on ISDN unless others gain the same access.  Of course,
the fact that the ISDN services seem to run in the same switch as ISDN
itself means that they can provide the services without the
complexities of providing ISDN to third parties.  This goes back to
the issue of the monolithic CO.  Perhaps ISDN can be a mechanism for
brining CO capabilities outside the physical (or even logical) machine
so that the protocols necessary for these services are provided at
arms length and thus provide a mechanism for a marketplace.

This issue of ISDN as a set of protocols for implementing a
marketplace is an interesting one but not fully fleshed out in the
current ISDN protocols.  It should receive explicit attention in its
own right. Given all this, it still galls me to see NET refer to
capabilities by their service product names rather than the generic
features.  It also recalls the problems that "good' COCOTS have in
trying to compete with NET in the pay phone business since NET gives
itself a great deal on the costs of phone calls (of course, the fact
that Massachusetts still mandates $.10 for NET pay phones is probably
also a factor -- something that bespeaks a strong DPU which might make
the state a good place for ISDN advocacy).

The cellular phone network offers an interesting case study.  In
following the discussions of features of the cellular phone network,
it feels like amateur night wherein features are cobbled together by
kludging together disparate systems.  A lot of the feature set depends
on whether one happens to have an Ericsson or Motorola switch and what
sort of jumpers have been placed between them.  I get the impression
that many features are implemented by placing a PC (personal computer)
offnet and having it send back DTMF codes.  I see this a symptom of
the complexity of making any changes in the network.  At least, in the
network as currently architected

The ISDN and cellular problems illustrate the problem of what happens
when one buys a complete service from a monopoly.  Unlike the PC world
of mix and match, you get all or nothing.  A long term agenda should
be to go beyond simply breaking of ATT to architecting a communications
infrastructure that consists of components.  This is very very
difficult, especially when coupled with requirements for reliable and
predictable service.  It is less clear that the current approach is
more amenable to graceful evolution.

A more modest approach is to encourage competition on the local loop.
Perhaps the RBOCs should be divested of their control of the right of
way and instead, all parties would have equal access to the
communications right of way at a physical level.  Access at a logical
or signal level is more complicated.  We'll see some of this in action
now that Cable companies are becoming more of a force for loop
competition.  Cable company monopolies are anther topic I won't get
into here.

Back to my Ox.  The current network is designed for voice
communications with services like switched 56KB being viewed as
expensive premium services.  But the reality is just the opposite.
Voice is very demanding of the network whereas data communications is
very forgiving of delays and can recover from errors (OK, voice can
tolerate many errors that give data fits).  So why is voice cheap and
data expensive?  There are some answers in the current network
architecture but these are not intrinsic.

The other aspect is the circuit switched model for data
communications.  Admittedly it is possible to get an X.25 connection
that does provide a switched service but I'm not confident that it is
sufficiently standard for me to assume I can make a very cheap quick
connection to a service and be charged accordingly.  If I want to get
one stock price, how much overhead is involved?  If I want to keep
simultaneous connections to multiple services is there a holding
charge?  I realize that there is a contradiction between my asking for
a raw service from telco and the ability to then buy enhanced services
from other parties.  But is the raw service copper to the CO and a
voice path or is it a datapath.  If a third party provides the packet
service, do all messages have to travel through the network and then
get redispatched?  Are there sufficient standards for things to "just
work"?

This brings us to the concept of intra CO tariffs. These do exist for
Centrex and might exist for early ISDN capabilities which can be
supported within a switch but which must await protocol upgrades
(SS7?) in order to communicate with other exchanges.  I can image that
a call within the exchange being essentially free but having a
significant charge to call the next town.  Or should social policy
minimize this?  We already have the example of cable TV systems where
I simply cannot get broadcasts from the next town -- a very bad
precedent but something we accept as if it were natural rather than a
kludge while we await BISDN (where BISDN is a code word for switched
video but not limited to ISDN protocols).

Postscript.  I've seen mention that NET has adopted ISDN pricing that
is akin to standard message unit service but haven't seen the details.
I've also received a brochure from Nynex touting Basic Exchange
Service which seems to be their ISDN Centrex replacement that lists a
menu of features that you can select 3 of plus optional features.  Of
course, it is these services that are being offered, not "raw" ISDN.

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

Subject: Massachusetts To Close Down Non-Compliant COCOTS
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 14:14:56 EDT
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


Yesterday (Friday) the {Boston Globe} printed in a sidebar that the
state Attorney General was asking the DPU to tell New England Tel. to
shut off service to 72 COCOTs around the state, because the COCOTs
didn't provide free 800 and local directory assist and other familiar
complaints.  It didn't explain how he chose the particular COCOTs to
attack.  Directory Assistance is a particular sore point because it's
free from telco pay phones but costs 34 cents/call after the first 10
calls per month from other lines.

Today there is a piece on the front page saying that some legislators
claim that the new 900 number to buy state lottery tickets is illegal.
There's been a lot of back and forth -- NET wouldn't provide service
unless the DPU ordered them to, which they did.  There are laws
forbidding the use of phone lines for gambling, and it's not clear how
they interact with the laws authorizing the lottery.  The lottery
commission claims it's a tempest in a teapot, the total amount of 900
business so far is tiny.  I'm not surprised at that, since the 900
number costs considerably more than the face value of the tickets, and
lottery tickets are available at face value at nearly every food,
liquor, book, and variety store in the state.  The Mass. lottery is
otherwise considered well run, assuming that you think that a state
lottery is a good idea in the first place, and the per capita ticket
sales are the highest in the country.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:26:16 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mass. AG Acts to Hang Up COCOTs


 From the 92 Apr 9 {Boston Globe}

Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger wants to disconnect
72 privately owned commercial telephones throughout the state,
including Boston, the South Shore and Springfield.  The phones --
COCOTs, or customer-owned coin-operated telephones -- are not owned by
New England Telephone.  The phones allegedly violate state law by
charging for directory assistance, failing to provide access to 800
toll-free numbers and by not providing emergency calling instructions
and rate information.  Harshbarger has asked the state Department of
Public Utilities to order NET to disconenct service to the phones.


Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 15:09:17 EDT
From: Jeffery L Wisniewski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tie TCX-128 Phone Switch


I was wondering if anyone out there has (or has any experience with)
an old Tie TCX-128 phone switch.  I am particularly interested in the
SMDR capabilities, DISA line abilities, and if it is possible to add
single line station cards to the switch.

I am trying to integrate a voice mail system with the old switch.  The
company has no tech or even user manuals with the switch.  I am also
curious as to if the system can support BLF (busy lamp fields) to
indicate mail waiting and if so what the commands to do it are.

If anyone has any ideas, or a tech manual for sale :), it would be
much appreciated!  Thanks in advance.


Jeffery L. Wisniewski                              [e-mail]
Disclaimer:  "My ideas are my own.  They do not reflect the ideas or
              opinions of my educator, employer, or the little green
              man sitting next to me."

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

Subject: Canadian LD Plans Wanted
From: [e-mail] (Ian Evans)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:56:00 -0400
Organization: Baudeville BBS - Toronto, Canada via UUPCB Gateway
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ian Evans)


Does anyone know of any companies that offer long-distance savings
plans for Canadian business besides Bell?  I spoke to a Bell rep today
and they wanted a 32.50 "administration" charge for a 15% discount.

Any help would be appreciated.


CompuServe ID: 73117,545 UUCP: bville!ian.evans
INTERNET:[e-mail]  OTHERS: [e-mail]

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

From: Rob Knauerhase <[e-mail]>
Subject: Smart On-Hold Device at Hertz
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 17:49:29 CDT


Hertz car rental company has a separate desk for multi-month rentals.
After calling the usual number for Hertz, I asked for the "multi-month
desk" and was connected to a machine which gave me the usual "your
call is important to us" spiel.  However, after that, it said "You
will be connected in less than <pause> two <pause> minutes" and then
went to music-on-hold.

When it said "two minutes" I actually ended up waiting about :45.  The
other time it said "one minute" and I waited 2:35. (OK, so I'm a geek
 -- I timed it both times.  What else am I to do while on hold? :)

I assume the device knows how many people are in the queue and bases
its estimate on that, but I wonder if the standard deviation of
call-durations to the multi-month desk is really low enough to have
this be at all accurate?


Rob Knauerhase           University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
[e-mail]       Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group

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

Date: Fri, 9 Apr 92 10:27:58 EDT
From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not?


It may well be that I erroneously reported that America Online has a
gateway to the Internet.  The last five notes I received each said
that they had never heard of one and could I give more details.  The
answer is, of course, no I can't.  I was simply passing on info I
received previously.  Would whoever sent me the relevent info, PLEASE
send it again?  Barring that, what would seem to be the most plausible
explanation would be that AppleLink has split into a corporate
version, still called AppleLink, and a commercial version, now called
America Online.  It would appear (from the info sent to me, but still
word of mouth) that AppleLink (the corporate half) DOES have a link to
the Internet, but that America Online does not.  Would someone on
those nets find out for sure one way or the other and let me know?


josh

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #312
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12954;
          12 Apr 92 21:19 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00018
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:35:36 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11122
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:35:28 -0500
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:35:28 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #313

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 Apr 92 19:35:25 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 313

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Robert S. Helfman)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (S. Spencer Sun)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Peter da Silva)
    Hang-up Caller or Bothersome C.O.? (Jim Redelfs)
    Re: Mexican Rating DB and Pricing Software ([e-mail])
    Re: Incredibly High Mexican Phone Rates (John Slater)
    Re: Call Detail Recorder (Steve Watt)
    Re: Auto Dialers Back (Phil Howard)
    Re: Questions About Call Waiting (Louis Linneweh)
    Re: Questions About Call Waiting (Kath Mullholand)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:53:10 GMT


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

> I think most of the hang-ups that I get are idiots who are sure that
> if they don't hear person X's voice on the line that they must have
> the wrong number (it is impossible that someone is visiting person X
> and picked up the phone).  For extra points, some of them dial the
> number again and repeat the process.  And so on until I switch the
> answering machine to pick up after two rings.  Real bozos figure they
> have now reached a new number and keep trying a bit longer.

What I really love are the idiots who dial my number, I say hello,
they ask for whoever they're trying to reach, I ask "what number are
you trying to reach", they hang up, immediately call back, I say "if
you'd stay on the line so we could find out if this is the number you
think you dialed, we wouldn't waste any more time" and THEY GET
ATTITUDE! One crazy female crack-head (there was no doubt of it)
actually threatened me, said she knew people in the Rollin' 60's
(serious L.A. Crips sub-set), said she'd have them "burn down yo'
m----- f---'n house". I asked her how she was so sure where I live and
she said she has friends in the phone company. She called back twice
(I put on the answering machine) and I guess she had to go get her
next rock (for you eastern folks, that's her next dose of crack),
because she stopped calling. That was six months ago, and I guess my
house would have burned down long ago if she was 1) serious and 2)
remembered the number.

That' almost as bad as the telemarketers who get upset that I hang up
and call me back to tell me I'm rude. I'M RUDE?

There are an awful lot of people out there whose mama did not raise
them right!

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: Princeton Univ. Class of '94
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 07:52:18 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Well, when I call a wrong number, I apologize, I
> don't just disconnect rudely. They might try the same.   PAT]

This is a very valid point; however, you might consider the
possibility that the calling party has realized his/her error in
advance of your picking up the phone.  Now, there is a certain
recognized delay between when you take the phone away from your ear
until you actually put the phone down on the hook (I believe for
billing purposes they allow you two seconds to do this?) ... has it
occurred to you that maybe the other person just happened to hang up
while you were in the act of picking up the phone?

This also explains those phone-rings-once-but-no-one's-there
phenomena.

I seriously doubt that *most* people intentionally wait until someone
answers before disconnecting.

OK, granted this cannot be made to apply to all circumstances ... if
the person clearly waits until you say "Hello" and then hangs up,
that's a completely different situation.

But hell, people are human.  If you have no reason to believe that the
intent was malicious (and assuming you don't have a rabid case of
paranoia and/or bloated sense of self-importance) then give the poor
guy/gal the benefit of the doubt.

> [Moderator's Note: See earlier message this issue. Most who lie about
> it are very unconvincing. I hear hesitation and surprise in their
> voice. They have to think about their answer, which should be only a
> simple 'yes' or 'no' to the question, 'did you just ring a telephone?'
> I suggest to them in the future they take a second to apologize.  PAT]

I don't for a moment condone their lying (I don't see what's so hard
about apologizing either ...).  But I question the necessity of
pestering the person with *69 in the first place.  Unless you have
some personal ends to satisfy by doing so, I really think it's not
needed.  With all due respect, this appears to me to be an ego-related
sort of thing ...

If it was anything worth saying, the person's going to call back.  If
not, you can assume it was a wrong number.

Is it really going to bother you so much if someone rings the phone,
hangs up just as you pick it up, and then doesn't call back?  No doubt
you are seized with an uncontrollable obsession to find out who could
possibly have dared to dial a wrong number.

So, the recap is, sure, if you actually do *69 and they try to BS
about it, then they're being pretty silly about it, but in the end I
think using *69 and saying "Did you just call me and why did you hang
up" is pretty gratuitous to begin with.

Anyway, I've pretty much said my piece, will kick back and see what
responses this brings but probably will not say much more about this.

> [Moderator's Note: Because the nine who lie about it are not very
> convincing, and if I browbeat them they then always admit it.   PAT]

(OK, so I lied about not saying more.)

See?  This is my point.  Why do you have to browbeat them?  I don't
see what sort of gratification this could bring about, nor do I see
any purpose this might server.  Great.  You have outwitted and
shredded the defense of a telephone mis-dialer.  Congratulations.

Dunno, I can't imagine myself deriving any satisfaction from such a
situation.  Personal thing, I guess.


Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. Class of '94 - Dept. of Computer Science

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 13:21:41 GMT


Regarding the Moderator's use of *69 to call back people who ring and
hang up ...

Frankly, Pat, I think you're being a twit. What are you trying to
accomplish by this? What is your goal in rubbing people's nose in
their clumsiness and phone-shyness?


(Taronga Park BBS)  ([phone]/n/8/1)
([phone] Trailblazer)  (Peter da Silva)

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

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 22:47:58 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jim Redelfs)
Subject: Hang-up Caller or Bothersome C.O.?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


Although MOST calls with no caller on-line when answered are likely
generated by a REAL caller, don't dismiss the possiblity that such a
call CAN be generated by the TelCo's Central Office switch.

Generated by what we "affectionately" called The L.I.T. Machine, these
"calls" were never a problem until the proliferation of The Cheapie
Chirper phone.

"My" Western Electric #2B ESS switch was programmed to perform a Line
Insulation Test (L.I.T.) each night around 10:30pm.  It would run up
and down the idle lines performing a brief loop test.  The resulting
printout was used when things were slack to identify (and maybe even
REPAIR!) existing and potential trouble spots (wet, buried splices --
mostly).

The good, old 500s and 2500s didn't give a hoot about this automated
line test, but the chirpers raised hell.  They would chirp and squawk
(briefly) as the test equipment manipulated the loop.  This is in the
same league as using a pulse dial phone to make a call in one room and
hearing the cheapie phone in the other room emit a sharp "chirp" with
each pulse across the pair.

I received infrequent but regular reports from customers that they
were getting bogus calls in the middle of the night.  Further
questioning on my part (what time does it usually occur, was it REALLY
a FULL ring [or two], etc.)  determined if they were being bothered by
the L.I.T. or a REAL caller.

In a couple of cases, I was actually successful in having a telephone
number EXCLUDED from the program so that the hapless customer would be
bothered no longer.  Most of the other affected subscribers, when
informed of the REASON for the "trouble", were willing to either live
with it or use it as the excuse they'd been waiting for to DUMP that
phoney telephone!

Since the 2B was replaced with a #5 ORM (Optical Remote Module), the
problem has not recurred.


JR  Tabby 2.2  MacNet Omaha  402-289-2899  macnet.omahug.org  (1:285/14)

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

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 22:07:03 SST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Mexican Rating DB and Pricing Software


> In the course of our work with Telefones de Mexico

If I may make bold to ask, pray what is the work you are doing with
TelMex? I am interested to know the outcome of the privatization of
the company. Eg, lower rates, better service, etc.

'Trust it's nothing confidential my enquiring mind is enquiring into.

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

Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 13:40:58 BST
From: [e-mail] (John Slater - Sun UK - Gatwick SE)
Subject: Incredibly High Mexican Phone Rates


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (John R. Levine)
writes:

-> Indeed, you can call
-> anywhere else in Latin America, for no more than $1.11.*

-> * - Well, actually, it costs $2.99/minute to call the Falkland Islands

Hmmm ... The Falklands in *Latin* America? I seem to recall there was
a little disagreement about that between Britain and Argentina in
1982 ...


John Slater   Sun Microsystems UK

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Watt -- KD6GGD)
Subject: Re: Call Detail Recorder
Organization: Steven Watt, Consultant   San Jose, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 07:16:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Robert M. Hamer) writes:

[ looking for an SDMR box ]

> Direct, and they claim they don't carry such a thing.  Does anyone
> know where I can buy one?

If you're good with a soldering iron, there was one presented in the
last two issues of {Radio-Electronics} (I think).  The company that
was selling kits is:

Digital Products Company
134 Windstar Circle   Folsom, CA     95630

The kit (called "Digi-Call") records outgoing number dialed, and
duration of call.  It recognizes both tone and pulse dialing.  It also
allows incoming calls to be billed to an account by pressing "*nnnn"
(n = any DTMF digit) during the call, and it creates a record with the
duration and account number of the call.  It's a nifty piece of
hardware.  Runs with an 80C51, a wall blob, and a battery backup.  The
only "glitch" that I've found is that you can NOT leave it hooked up
to the RS232 port of your computer if you want it to watch the phone
line.  This "glitch" is well-documented, and has to do with keeping
the line impedance high.  RS232 ports have a bad habit of being
grounded.

There are a few minor patches to be made to the board (at least as of
the one I received last month), but they aren't hard to do.  A few
blue wires wandering around.  One major patch (because of a supplier
surprise) that requires cutting a trace also came through.  However, I
received that patch without having to ask for it.  I'm impressed with
the quality of the kit, overall.

Anyhow, I've built one of these things, and it seems to work fairly
well.

Oh yeah.  The kit (PC board, parts, and software for PC compatible) is
(if I remember correctly) $169.

Just a satisfied customer.


Steve Watt  KD6GGD     [e-mail]
 ...!apple!wattres!steve  ...!mips!wattres!steve  ...!decwrl!gigo!wattres!steve

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard )
Subject: Re: Auto Dialers Back
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 00:46:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Monty Solomon) writes:

> From the 92 Apr 13 issue of {The National Law Journal}:

> The Oregon Court of Appeals on April 1 struck down as violating free
> speech rights a state law prohibiting businesses from using
> computerized telephone dialers to market goods and services.  Because
> the law "regulates commercial speech differently from other subjects
> of speech, it is unconstitutional," the court said.  The law was
> passed by the 1989 Oregon Legislature because of mounting consumer
> complaints about the use of telemarketing computers.

My argument for trying to reverse this would be that auto-dialing
constitutes an action that occurs prior to speech, and is used to
force someone to listen.  This is equivalent to grabbing someone on
the street and turning them your way in order to get them to listen to
what you want to say.  IMHO, restriction and prohibition of
auto-dialers does NOT infringe on the free speech rights in the First
Amendment any more that restriction or prohibition of grabbing people
for the purpose of telling them something would be.

I think this thread line is heading towards misc.legal.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Indeed, that is where it should be continued by
interested participants.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Louis Linneweh)
Subject: Re: Questions About Call Waiting
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:51:44 GMT


[e-mail] (Phil Howard) writes:

> How does call waiting behave if:

How call waiting behaves depends upon when the original call can be
considered "stable" (or "in conversation state") for the party being
waited on.  If both parties of the original call are served by the
same switch this normally means the call must be answered.  (Remember
that the ringback tone comes from the called office, but in this case
that is the same as the calling office, so both parties will have
state changes when the called party answers, after which the call is
stable.)

If the call is between switches, the calling party of the original
call will (by most types of switches) be considered stable upon
completion of outpulsing and placed in conversation state (to listen
for call progress tones from the distant end).  Therefore, call
waiting is active during distant: ringback tone; busy signal; recorded
announcement; etc.  With SS7, some of these call progress tones (e.g.
busy or network congestion tone or announcement) may be given locally
(at the calling party's switch) so the call would not be considered
stable.  In other implementations, answer supervision is required, so
un-answered calls will never be interrupted by call waiting.

So now the answers:

> 1.  the called party is ringing from another caller calling them?

The party trying to call wait on a ringing line will get busy tone.
(The called party is not in a stable conversation state, so call
waiting is not active.)

> 2.  the called party is calling someone else and they are getting and
>     that call is ringing?

If the original call is intra-office (to someone served by the same
switch) the original calling party is not yet stable (getting local
ringback tone) and the call waiting attempt will result in busy (call
waiting not yet enabled).  If the original call was inter-office, most
switches will consider the calling party of the original call stable
and enable call waiting immediatly after outpulsing, so call waiting
notification can interrupt distant call progress tones, including
ringback tone.  The waiting party will hear ringback tone.  (Other
implementations require answer, so the waiting party will just get
busy tone.)

> 3.  the called party is calling YOU at the same time?

Intra-office: both get busy tone.  Inter-office: called party gets
busy tone; if your call arrived before he finished outpulsing, you get
busy tone; if after, you get ringback tone and the called party gets
call waiting allert interrupting busy tone.  (Or both get busy tone if
the implementation requires answer.)

> 4.  same as #3 and you also have call waiting?

Intra-office: both get busy tone.  Inter-office: both could get call
waiting, but more likely is one will get busy tone interrupted by the
call waiting alert of the other who hears ringback tone.  (If answer
is required to enable call waiting, both get busy tone.)

> 5.  the called party has forward-on-busy to YOU and you have call waiting?

Intra-office: busy tone.  Interoffice: ringback tone interrupted by
call waiting alert.  Flash to answer and you can alternately hold
yourself (but can never talk to yourself because you can't cut through
a three-way connection :-).  (If answer is required to enable call
waiting, all the joy is gone and you just get busy tone.)  :-(


Lou Linneweh, Motorola Inc.

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

Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 8:25:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Questions About Call Waiting


And how does call waiting work if you have a teenager?

Well, mom calling home gets a busy signal, because kid is using call
waiting as an ad hoc conference calling feature.  If used in
conjunction with other kids with call waiting, they can (in theory)
have a kind of chat line going (I've heard of it working for four).
Naturally, they have to be pretty patient -- which doesn't seem to be
a problem when it comes to phriends!


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #313
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22619;
          13 Apr 92 1:16 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00958
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:25:14 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20427
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:25:06 -0500
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:25:06 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #314

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 Apr 92 23:25:05 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 314

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Future of Fax (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Future of Fax (Joel Upchurch)
    Re: Future of Fax (Bob Frankston)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Bob Frankston)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Robert Lindh)
    Re: Immediate ANI From Your 800 Number (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Immediate ANI From Your 800 Number (John R. Levine)
    Re: Immediate ANI From Your 800 Number (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: CCITT Standards on Internet (Garrett Wollman)
    Re: CCITT Standards on Internet (Martin McCormick)
    Re: CCITT Standards on Internet (Carl Malamud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Future of Fax
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 03:56:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> mc!Brad_Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.
attmail.com writes:

> How bad? Imagine if every time you dropped a letter in the mail:

> (1) You had to know the exact spelling of every word of the address.

For Internet mail this isn't a problem ... the address is rarely more
than 20 characters long. For X.400 this is a problem, and is the
reason I consider X.400 broken-as-designed technology. With X.500
it'll be usable, but RFC822 will still be better.

The rest of the problems are also X.400 related.

As for switching from RFC822 to PSTN-style addresses ... forget it. I
can recall dozens of RFC822 addresses reliably, for people I email. I
can't even recall the phone number for Intel customer support (and I
call it every couple of days) unless I convert it from "1-800-INTEL4U",
but I can pull up "[e-mail]" and I communicate with HIM
maybe once a month.

Numbers are HARD to remember.

> Funny thing is, fax already comes with that "interface."

Yeh. And I can't remember our own FAX number at Ferranti.

> (Then you get into complexities over how to deliver anything other
> than English-language text in plain ASCII, but I'm depressed enough as
> it is.  I'll leave that for a future message.)

Check out my .signature ...

/F{findfont exch scalefont setfont}def /S{moveto show}def /T{/Times-Roman F}def
6 T (Have you hugged your wolf today?)468 20 S 9 T (Taronga Park BBS)24 35 S 10
/Courier F(`-_-')488 40 S ( 'U` )488 30 S 6 T ([phone]/n/8/1)24 27
S ([phone] Trailblazer)24 20 S 12 T (Peter da Silva)24 45 S showpage


[Moderator's Note: Usually lengthy signatures are truncated in the
Digest. I am leaving this one as an exception because of the
illustration being given.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Future of Fax
From: upchrch![e-mail] (Joel Upchurch)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 02:52:38 EDT
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL


[e-mail] (Bill Pfeiffer) writes:

> It amazes me how much variation there is in the quality of
> transmission/reception there is with different fax machines.  I
> often wonder whether it is the scanning of the transmitted page or the
> printing at the receive end which causes the bulk of this
> inconsistancy.

I think the scanning process has a lot to do with it. I have a one
page sample a friend send to me using WinFax Pro. I then copied it
onto regular paper. I can't see any difference from laser output
unless I hold it closer than 1.5 feet from my face. Bypassing the
scanning process and using font technology like ATM and Truetype, that
can render the font to the resolution of the output device, make about
a 200 percent difference in the resulting output. The output looks
better than what comes off a 24 pin printer, which isn't too shabby.

Of course if more people thought about the document would look like at
the other end and used the fine button more often it would also help a
lot. I set my fax machine to default to fine.


(If your mail bounces use the address below. My map entry is new.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
[e-mail] {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel [phone]

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Future of Fax
Date: Sun 12 Apr 1992 08:52 -0500


As I've said before in this Digest, I agree that X.400 addressing is
arcane.  The phone number is a much more reasonable model for
addressing.  Ironically, one of the reasons for the X.400 address is
that attempt to simplify messaging by combining directory lookup with
addressing.  Thus one can use subsets of the address as a way to reach
the recipient.  You only need know the surname or the user id (if they
are unique).

I see the domain address as being more like phone numbers, with the
ability to use a larger character set.  If nothing else, a domain
address is simpler to place on a business card.  As a side note, MCI
addresses look very much like phone numbers -- I'm sure that is not
totally coincidental.

On the topic of Fax itself, Fax is just another form of email.  In
X.400 it is a G3 body part.  I presume it will be a standard contents
type in MIME.  Thus you will see Fax machines disappear and replaced
by image handling as part of the evolution from fly paper to plain
paper to bits.  This will happen because it benefits one party without
imposing requirements on the other party.  Between consenting parties
email is available but not required.  It will happen more slowly than
it should (i.e., is economically compelling) because of inertia.

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Date: Sun 12 Apr 1992 08:57 -0500


In defense of Fax, faxes are severely compressed using coding that is
tuned to typewritten documents.  The most widely used email systems
lack the richness of representation and the simplicity available to
the Fax users.  I haven't tested the particular message that Jim Rees
sent, but I'd guess a 10k to 15K size for a corresponding fax.  This
depends on fonts used and other details.  While this is still an order
of magnitude above his ASCII size, we're talking about a second or
three at 56KB (7K Bytes/Second)

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:53:02 GMT


[e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:

> Wake up, folks, FAX is a massive botch. Work for better email services
> instead of screwing around with broken-as-designed technology.

I communicate with my office in Wilmington several times a day.  If
what I have to send is a simple message, or perhaps a "binhex'd" file,
then I email.  Otherwise, I fax.

Fax has the advantage that, as it is a lowest common denominator, it
can send _anything_.  If I need to send a copy of a letter I got in
the mail, or some sketches, back to the US, I have three choices.

1) Mail it.  One week, and about $1 + .25c a page.
2) Fax it.  30 seconds a page, about 50-75c a page (at night).
3) Lesse.  Buy a scanner.  Scan the documents into the computer.  Do
   OCR on the text.  Reformat everything into a file.  Compress the
   file, then expand it back into printable characters (binhexing),
   then log onto my mailserver and send it.  The emailing is damn
   near free, but the hassle ain't worth it.

Fact is, email currently can't do it all.  Yes, fax is bitwise
inefficient, but it does have the advantage that it works and can send
just about anything that can go on paper.

The future:

What I want to see, and what I would pay reasonably serious bucks for,
is a machine that is all of the following:

    A Photocopier
    A Scanner
    A Fax Machine
    A Postscript Printer (at least 600dpi)
    A High Speed Modem

And that understands both direct-connect modeming and how to send
email -- So I can write a letter on my Mac, digitally sign it, and say
"deliver to this address/phone number" and the machine would
automatically deliver in the best/fastest/cheapest manner possible.

In the meantime, I will render unto email what is emailable, and unto
fax what is not.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Lindh)
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 11:54:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter da
Silva) writes:

> Wake up, folks, FAX is a massive botch. Work for better email services
> instead of screwing around with broken-as-designed technology.

I think this could be a service sold by a email-system. (To receive
email and send it as a FAX to given telephone number.)  Could
telemarketers be a bigger problem compared with today, if this service
exist and is made available (mostly a US-internal problem?) ?

Standard disclaimer: "Only my personal opinion, of course."

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Immediate ANI From Your 800 Number
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 15:07:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Yazz) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: Your assumption is not wrong. You will get ANI with
>> your monthly phone bill, at least from many carriers. Real time ANI is
>> a bit more expensive, however.

> What companies are currently offering real-time (immediate) ANI on 800
> numbers, and how much more is "a bit more expensive", Pat?

> I am aware of only MCI providing this, and requiring a T1 link to do
> so.  This is out of my acceptable price range for a residential 800
> number.

So far as I know, all carriers that provide billing number delivery
and/or dialed number delivery to 800 customers require a direct
connection to the carrier's switch (e.g. a T1); it can be either a
straight T1, in which case the information is delivered inband, or an
ISDN PRI, in which case the information is delivered out of band in
the SETUP message.

The service is not offered on what we call "switched egress" 800 (800
service where the 800 number is translated to a POTS number and routed
to the serving LEC for completion -- residential 800 services work
this way), because the network connections to pass this information
between he IXC and LEC networks -- SS7, the same as needed for
"interLATA CLASS" -- are not yet deployed sufficiently widely.

Conceivably, at some point in the future when SS7 Network Interconnect
reaches more widespread deployment, you could imagine 800 service
providers providing billing number or dialed number delivery to
switched egress 800 numbers; however, there is a technical limitation
in that the existing specifications for Caller ID only permit delivery
of one number, which is assumed by the LEC to be the calling party
number.  An IXC could populate that with a billing number before
passing it out to the LEC if it so desired; however, dialed number
could be tougher.

As usual, these points are not meant to represent AT&T's position,
policy, or future business plans ...


David G Lewis                              AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail] or !att!houxa!deej     Switching & ISDN Implementation

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

Subject: Re: Immediate ANI From Your 800 Number
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 12 Apr 92 13:47:55 EDT (Sun)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> What companies are currently offering real-time (immediate) ANI on 800
> numbers, and how much more is "a bit more expensive", Pat?

For AT&T Megacom 800, the feature is called INFO-2 and costs two cents
each for the first 60,000 calls per month and 1 cent each thereafter.
You need a Primary Rate Interface (i.e. T-1) to get it.  Megacom is
their second highest end 800 service, handling up to 1800
calls/minute.

This comes from a copy of Tariff No. 2 that they sent as part of a
response to a complaint about charging for 800 calls, in which they
explained that there's never a charge from AT&T for an 800 call (the
mistake with 800-555-5555 excepted) but they can't control what
subscribers do with the numbers they receive.

Something nobody has explained is how outfits that send out bills for
800 calls, e.g. the sweepstakes validator or the expensive fortune
teller, get the names and addresses that correspond to the numbers.
The AT&T tariff says they only provide the number.


Regards,

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


[Moderator's Note: There are lots of cross references around which
match the number to a name and address. In addition, I think many of
them have cut a deal with some telco to buy the receivables and handle
them through inter-company settlements between telcos.  Sleazy!  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 15:10:46 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Immediate ANI From Your 800 Number


Bob Yazz writes:

> What companies are currently offering real-time (immediate) ANI on 800
> numbers, and how much more is "a bit more expensive", Pat?

> I am aware of only MCI providing this, and requiring a T1 link to do
> so.  This is out of my acceptable price range for a residential 800
> number.

AT&T offers this service, called Info-2 only on ISDN PRI trunks.  MCI
and US Sprint will delever this service to you using MF (in band)
signaling.  I think PRI ISDN is optional.  This, of course, will still
require a dedicated line, but they might provide it on a 56/64 or
analog POTS line.  I am not aware of any compinies offering ANI to
residential lines, but it is possible.


Pat Turner    [e-mail]     KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA

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

Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 13:17:52 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: CCITT Standards on Internet
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility


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

> [Moderator's Note: And I have heard the sponsor of these files decided
> to take them down and not have them available on line any longer. Is
> there any updated news on this?    PAT]

CCITT co-sponsored a feasibility demonstration (hah, hah) for on-line
standards with some company whose name I forgot.  Then CCITT decided
that it had seen enough of the demonstration, and terminated the
project.  I have heard nothing about it since, but I would expect any
announcements of service resumption to appear in comp.archives and the
IETF mailing list.

(Of course, the Internet community has had on-line standards since
1970, and has amply demonstrated the feasibility of this approach, but
remember that CCITT's primary goal of late has seemed to be more the
enrichment of European PTTs rather than making technically superior,
publically accessible standards.)


Garrett A. Wollman - [e-mail] - uvm-gen!wollman

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

Subject: Re: CCITT Standards on Internet
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 06:41:08 -0500
From: [e-mail]


I had been following the case of the CCITT documents being available
on-line.  It is true that the sponsor did withdraw them.  It was my
impression that the trial went well and that, one day, when a good
mechanism is in place to keep them updated, they will be back.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
Oklahoma State University Computer Center Data Communications Group

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

Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 08:30:40 PST
From: [e-mail] (Carl Malamud)
Subject: Re: CCITT Standards on Internet


This is a complicated situation, so I hope you'll excuse the verbose
reply.

The ITU gave permission at the last INTEROP to put the standards on
the Internet.  A group of volunteers put the CCITT standards up on a
server donated by Sun.

The service was quite successful, with over 21 other servers going
online.  Our machine sent out files to 2000 hosts in over 36 countries
(we had a mail server, so we could reach beyond the core Internet).

It was so successful that the ITU bureaucrats got scared and pulled
the plug on us Dec. 31, 1991, less than 90 days after we started.
Pulled the plug means that they sent me a letter which "cancelled the
experiment."  I forwarded that note on to the other servers under the
theory they should make their own decisions about exposing their
institutions to a possible legal liability.

We haven't quite given up, however.  Two countries have become
standards havens, places where the national body has decided that
*sovereign nations*, not the ITU, have the the authority to decide who
gets the standards in what format and how much they shall pay.  To
avoid controversy, the countries are only distributing standards to
their citizens, thus avoiding any international copyright squabbles.

The proper thing to do at this point is lobby your national
representative, asking (demanding) that they put standards online.  In
the USA, the Office of Technology Assessment (a research arm of the US
Congress) has just issued a study which concludes with a policy
recommendation that the distribution of standards be formally
separated from the production of those standards.  In other words,
ANSI wouldn't set the price.


Carl

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #314
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24124;
          13 Apr 92 1:52 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27125
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:07:31 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27208
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:07:23 -0500
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:07:23 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #315

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 13 Apr 92 00:07:21 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 315

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: SWB and BBSs (Peter da Silva)
    Re: SWB and BBSs (Sean Donelan)
    Re: Demand US Sprint Allow Unionization (Bruce Perens)
    Re: Phone Line Surge Suppressors (Martin McCormick)
    Re: Pac*Bell Employees Win Big From Radio Station's Contest Line (J Higdon)
    Re: All Circuits Are Busy (Jim Harkins)
    Re: Privacy Question (Mark W. Schumann)
    Re: Cellular One Security??!! (Randal L. Schwartz)
    Re: Cat Named George, 3 Way Calling, Speed Calling 8, etc. (David Niebuhr)
    Re: NXX Comes to South Jersey (Carl Moore)
    Re: Commercial Networks Reachable (Cliff Barney)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: SWB and BBSs
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 13:30:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> caladan!seanews!rocque@
seattleu.edu (peter marshall) writes:

> The 3/11 SWB filing would allow residential-based BBSs to operate at
> residential rates if no remuneration is directly or indirectly
> solicited or required, and use is confined to four or fewer flat-rated
> residential lines.

There goes the stupid line limit again. Four lines instead of three,
but they're milking it for all it's worth. If anyone on this list gets
a chance to discuss this with their local PUC, make sure they do their
best to scotch this serpent. If anyone on this list is part of the
group of sysops involved in this case, would you care to explain what
you got in exchange for this?  Or did SWB just browbeat you into
submission?


Peter da Silva

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

From: [e-mail] (Sean Donelan)
Subject: Re: SWB and BBSs
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:32:42 CDT
Organization: Data Research Associates, St. Louis MO


In article <[e-mail]>, caladan!seanews!rocque@
seattleu.edu (peter marshall) writes:

> define "BBS" as "a data calculating and storage device(s) utilized as
> a vehicle to facilitiate the exchange of information through the use
> of ... [SWB] facilities."

I figured it would happen, SWBT starts offering a "voice-mailbox"
service and the following month comes out with a definition that could
cost people with answering machines connected to their residential
lines extra.

I guess I should put a ":-)" on that, but it does show the difficulty
of writing a usable legal definition.  Most answering machines are
microprocessor controlled, and are designed to facitilate the exchange
of information through telephone facilities.  Some will even calculate
the number of calls received, and count the number of rings before
answering.  Who knows what SWBT would charge if they found out you had
a FAX machine on a residential phone line.


Sean Donelan,  Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: [e-mail]      Voice: (Work) [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Perens)
Subject: Re: Demand U.S. Sprint Allow Unionization
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 06:05:15 GMT


Pat,

Since you have published "Demand U.S. Sprint Allow Unionization", I
suggest you allow someone to speak against that point.

Unions turn people into commodities. Instead of an individual, with a
unique set of qualifications and skills, you become a faceless
"communications worker".

I'm sure many Sprint workers are terrified of the Union. They won't
fight it, because they know that they can come to harm if they are
identified as anti-union.

I will write to Sprint supporting the independent workers, and urging
them to resist the union. I hope many others do so, as well.


Bruce Perens

I speak for myself, not for anyone else, especially not my employer.
I don't allow anyone else to speak for me!


[Moderator's Note: There's your piece, and you won't get any arguments
from me. I've never belonged to a labor organization, and would
probably resign my employment and seek work elsewhere rather than be
forced to join one. I realize that is not an option for everyone. As
there are two sides to every coin, I am happy to print the CWA news
items sent here and related stories, but I can't imagine them doing
anything worth my time to join. I'll grant you unions have improved
working conditions for many people over the years. Not me, though.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Phone Line Surge Suppressors
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 09:04:28 -0500
From: [e-mail]


After some recent discussion of the merits of surge suppressors, it
would be good to remind those readers who might be new to electronics
what black magic surge suppressors can perform.

     Surge suppressors take a couple of common forms.  One type is the
solid-state suppressor which consists of some ceramic material that
acts as an insulator at whatever voltage is normal for the circuit but
starts to conduct if the voltage exceeds the threshold.  A surge
suppressor for a telephone line, for example, would act as if it isn't
even there at 48 volts or during ringing voltage, but will start to
conduct at, say, 200 volts.  The surge suppressor for a RS-232 line
might look very much like the one used for the telephone line, but it
would spring into action at, perhaps, 15 or 20 volts.

     The other common type of surge suppressor is the spark gap.  This
is a device which is sort of like the spark plug in an automobile
engine.  Two pieces of metal are mounted so that they are close enough
that if the voltage across them reaches a critical point, the air will
ionize and form a miniature lightening bolt.  Refined versions of this
type of zapper have the gap inside a tube filled with an inert gas
such as xenon, but the idea is the same.

Since lightening strikes and other electrical catastrophes don't
always neatly happen the way one might think, a good surge suppressor
must have components that could handle a voltage which might appear
between any external connection and any other.  On a telephone line,
this means that the suppressor must zap any surge which appears
between tip and ring or both tip and ring to Earth.

     If one has a surge suppressor that will zap any and all
overvoltages between any and all external connections, there is still
one more consideration.  How long does the destructive voltage have to
be there before the suppressor will conduct?  The answer to that
depends upon what material the suppressor is made of and the wire
length between the zapper and the device it is protecting.  The
shorter the wire length between the surge suppressor and the
electronics being protected, the more likely it is to do its job.  No
matter how good the surge suppressor is, it can only draw a finite
amount of current over a period of time before it overheats and
self-destructs.  The sickening description by a recent poster of what
happens when a high-voltage primary feeder contacts a secondary
residential service drop is the kind of situation for which no surge
suppressor was designed to survive.  Another impossible situation is
the case of a direct lightening strike.

     For years, electric utility companies have been using both the
spark gap and the solid-state type surge suppressors on commercial and
residential power lines.  These devices aren't much different than the
ones in your computer's power supply except that they are designed to
survive much bigger hits.  Sometimes one of the ceramic types will
fail and start conducting continuously.  When this happens, the heat
sets off a 22 caliber cartridge inside the suppressor which blasts the
ground terminal away and breaks the path.  Power line repair folk need
only drive along the road looking for dangling ground terminals to
know which lightening arresters have joined the enemy and need to be
replaced.

     In short, (See a pun if you find it), surge suppressors are great
things to have on your telephone and power lines.  They are probably a
little over sold because most quality electronic equipment has such
devices already built in, but they surely don't hurt anything.  The
amateur radio magazine "QST" published by the American Radio Relay
League has had many good articles about serge suppressors over the
last few years.  Consult your local library.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
Oklahoma State University Computer Center Data Communications Group

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

Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 11:03 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Employees Win Big From Radio Station's Contest Lines


[e-mail] (Steve L. Rhoades) writes:

> This could give the callers an advantage if 800-232 was set up as a
> "Choke" prefix; i.e.  Returning an "All Circuts are Busy" to those
> callers routed through AT&T.  (But wait, I didn't think AT&T was
> allowed to carry INTRA-Lata traffic?!)

It could also be a Pac*Bell 800 number where PB carries the intra-LATA
traffic and AT&T handles the rest. I have such a number (800-282) and
the payment goes to Pac*Bell. It is directed to a dedicated POTS
number, which the "insiders" probably looked up.

However, as a sidebar, I assume you were joking about IEC's not being
allowed to carry intraLATA traffic. Technically, the tariffs only
prohibit the IEC from OFFERING to carry or advertising that they will
carry intraLATA traffic. The hard reality is that many larger firms
routinely use AT&T, MCI, Sprint and others to carry all of their
intraLATA calls. And they save a bundle doing so. All it takes is a
trunk-side connection to one of the IEC's switches and the deed is
done. And Pac*Bell cannot do anything about it (except use harsh
language on occasion).

This is the main reason that Pac*Bell is so desperate to get its
"intraLATA competition" package passed by the PUC. It is not trying to
save anyone money; it simply wants to hold onto the business that is
steadily slipping away as more and more companies are fed up with the
confiscatory rates for intraLATA calls. Nearby toll call prices in
California are the biggest ripoff in the country. Pac*Bell has learned
the hard way that no matter what the rules or tariffs, if you price a
commodity far enough above reasonable market value, there will be
those who find a workaround.

> The radio station, K-EARTH 101, stated it would withold the prize
> awards until this mess is straightened out.

As well they should! I guess ripping the station off for its nearby
toll calls was not enough!


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

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

From: pacdata![e-mail] (Jim Harkins)
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy
Organization: Pacific Data Products
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:04:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
writes:

>> <using a computer to speed dial trying to get U2 tickets.>

> Fewer people got through to the other numbers they were calling during
> that hour and a half.  This is a major reason this practice of dialing
> should not be allowed.

How are you going to prevent it?  I have a computer, I have a modem.
If I didn't have ProComm I could easily write a C program to speed
dial and put it on a BBS.  Didn't they try to pass a law that
bumblebees can't fly?

> What if an elderly person was not feeling well, and was calling
> relatives to report this, and was not able to get through and later
> that day died of a heart attack?

I thought that was the whole point of setting up a separate exchange.
Had that ticket-selling method affected my normal phone usage when I
wasn't trying to get tickets then I'd scream bloody murder.  As it is
then only the one exchange should have been flooded.  It doesn't seem
reasonable for police/fire/ambulances to share an exchange with radio
stations/ticket sales/etc.

> Actually I believe that places like ticket sellers should operate
> things on an entirely different system.
> Getting tickets and such on a first come first served basis is just
> not appropriate when demand exceeds supply like that.

Agreed.  I'm not a U2 phan, and didn't know what I'd do with the
tickets.  I just knew they'd be valuable.  Sitting by my phone reading
the paper is one thing, but I'd never have gone down to the box office
to buy them.  I have to wonder how much U2 contributed to the problem
with their artificial shortages.  Of course, the real solution is to
outlaw ticket scalping but that has nothing to do with telecom.


Jim Harkins             [ucsd|uunet]!pacdata!jim
Pacific Data Products   pacdata![e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 21:31 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Mark W. Schumann)
Subject: Re: Privacy Question
Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Publi Access UNI* Site


[e-mail] (Mike Koziol) writes:

> Question: Any legal, liability or ethical issues involved? I've heard
> of some controversy about telephone operators being listened in on by
> supervision but don't recall the outcome. Seems to me there is a
> confidentiality issue.

Our Moderator noted:

> the dispatchers have no valid complaint if unauthorized calls are
> overheard in the process of monitoring authorized calls.

> If the employees involved force this issue, an appropriate response
> from the Department might be that employees must begin making personal
> calls during their free time from pay telephones on the premises.  PAT]

It would seem that a reasonable compromise would be to allow personal
calls only if they can be shown not to interfere with public safety
(burden on the employee) and with the *explicit* proviso that the
calls may be monitored in real-time as well as taped.  I think it
wouldn't be too difficult to ensure the security of the supervisor's
speaker-phone as well.


Mark W. Schumann/3111 Mapledale Avenue/Cleveland, Ohio 44109-2447 USA
 ...!wariat!catfood         [e-mail]          CIS 73750,3527

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

From: [e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Cellular One Security??!!
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz)
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:35:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, 74066.2004@CompuServe
(Larry Rachman) writes:

>  I've just been informed by Cellular One that I've been 'selected' for
>  a free two-month trial of their voice mail. All I have to do to access
>  it is dial my cellular number 516-528-ABCD, press #, and enter my four
>  digit security code.

> What is the security code? You guessed it, ABCD!  Don't these people
> ever learn??

> I took them up on the freebie, but you'd better believe I'm going to
> change that 'security' code about one nanosecond after the service is
> activated. I wonder how many other users will be as paranoid?

GTE Mobilnet is even worse.  The default password for *all* accounts
is "GTEM" (4836).  Of course, you can't get there without the
cell-phone owner forwarding the phone (there's no landline access,
sigh), but I wonder how many people leave it at the default for
simplicity.

Just another cellphone user,


Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III
[e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn

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

Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 11:16:19 -0400
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Cat Named George, 3 Way Calling, Speed Calling 8, etc.


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel B Levin)
writes:

> [e-mail] writes:

>> Yesterday I got a summary of available services from Pac Bell and
>> apparently there is no speed calling 30 out here!  I wonder if NYNEX
>> still offers it ...

> I have it from N. E. Tel. in N. H., so it's available (unless I'm
> grandfathered, which I doubt).

NYTel has speed calling 30 also so I figure that the whole of NYNEX has
it.


Dave

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

Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 15:41:18 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NXX Comes to South Jersey


I did not find 609-300 in the March 1992 Elizabeth call guide.  How
recent is that Princeton (N.J.Bell?) phone book which you used?

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

Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 23:43:17 PDT
From: Cliff Barney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Commercial Networks Reachable From Internet


I have sent a message to AppleLink from Peacenet via the Internet.  So
perhaps that link is already in place.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #315
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14722;
          13 Apr 92 22:22 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29126
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:19:41 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17081
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:19:24 -0500
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:19:24 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: The Great Chicago Flood


Another "I hate Monday morning!" for Chicagoans today. Like the fire
in 1871 which began late Sunday night and devastated the downtown area
throughout the day on Monday, this latest crisis almost 122 years
later had its origin in a small leak in an ancient (1880), unused and
nearly forgotten (since the early years of this century) tunnel system
under the streets of the downtown area which late Sunday night began
eroding the walls of the tunnel, culminating in a major cave-in of the
tunnel walls at approximatly the point where the tunnel under Kinzie
Street crosses the Chicago River. The cave-in, at about 6:30 AM Monday
morning soon began allowing river water to flood into the various
branches of the tunnel. And like the fire, the economic loss here
today has been horrific. We now believe the damage caused by the flood
will exceed the economic damage from the fire, if the fire damage were
measured in 1991 dollars.

By shortly after 7 AM Monday, several highrise office buildings in the
downtown area began getting water into their second and third
sub-basements; the subterranean areas where the building engineering
facilities are maintained; the place where electrical service comes
into the buildings and the furnace, air conditioning and plumbing
begins.  Most of the older highrise buildings downtown in fact have
entrances to the old tunnel system, dating back to the early years of
this century when coal was delivered to the building furnaces through
the underground labrynith which literally follows almost every street
in the area.

It soon became obvious that efforts by sump pumps in the various
buildings would not contain the onrush of water, which poured into the
tunnel through the gaping hole under the river at the rate of many
millions of gallons of water as of Monday noon. As of mid-afternoon,
the 'leak' had been slowed, but at this writing (7 PM Monday) the
water level continues to rise slowly.  For the first several hours,
water poured into the tunnel system -- and consequently into the
basements of the buildings downtown -- at the rate of four feet per
hour. Most buildings downtown at this point have water ** 30 - 40 feet
** deep in them, with the electrical, heating and air conditioning/
circulation systems largely in ruins as a result. Most of the building
mechanicals are completely submerged. Elevator service is out on two
counts; one, the electricity is shut off to the entire downtown area
while Edison attempts to survey the damage; and two, because the
elevator pits are submerged in water sometimes to the first floor
level in the affected buildings.

The major department stores downtown are Marshall Field's and Carson
Pirie Scott. Both had their basement stores completely submerged under
several feet of water, and as of early afternoon the water had begun
to seep up onto the main floors of both stores. Also completely closed
down and evacuated are the Board of Trade Building, Sears Tower, The
Art Institute of Chicago (which suffered extensive damage to items on
display or stored in its basement), City Hall, The State of Illinois
Center, and many others. The Chicago Transit Authority subway system
is closed until further notice, with the 'north/south - Howard' subway
trains being rerouted over the elevated tracks on Wabash Avenue, and
the 'Ohare/Congress' subway shut down completely.

Although all electrical and gas service in the affected area (from the
Chicago River on the north to Adams Street on the south, and from
Michigan Avenue on the east to Dearborn Street on the west) is off to
prevent injury to workers, Illinois Bell service is operating, since
the phone company did not have any cables in the tunnel. Where the
affected buildings had their phone service enter in the basement of
the building, the phones are out ... but the telco itself is
operating. Businesses with switchboards and/or electronic phone
systems of course are without phone service.  Water service is
operating, but citizens have been urged to boil their water before
drinking it since there is severe danger of contamination due to the
very nasty water in the Chicago River.

HOW THEY FOUND THE LOCATION OF THE 'LEAK':  Although it was obvious by
early Monday morning that water was coming from somewhere, it took
about an hour by engineers for the City of Chicago to locate the
exact place, and the location was found when a whirlpool was seen in
the river by the Kinzie Street bridge. Imagine if you will, a large
tub of water -- a bathtub completely full, perhaps. Now, pull the plug
from the drain and observe the whirlpool; or flush your toilet and
observe the water swirl in a circle as it drains out. That same thing
is what they found where the bottom had fallen out of the river.

HOW THEY ARE STOPPING THE 'LEAK': As of late Monday, the leak had been
slowed down to a relative trickle ... the water continues to rise in
the buildings downtown, but it has slowed down a lot. They have
tugboats in the river loaded with concrete, gravel, sand and sandbags.
They are dumping all this stuff into the river, right over the hole.
Their hope is that like a bathroom drain which plugs up and allows
nothing to pass, the quick setting cement mix they are using will fill
the hole. It is impossible for them to tell for sure what is happening
down there since it would be suicide for any diver(s) to attempt to go
down in the river at that point or the tunnel system to investigate.

In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers opened locks on the river
which allow the river to drain out, with water flowing downstream into
the Des Plaines (and later) the Mississippi River. The locks opening
into Lake Michigan have been closed to prevent more water from
entering the river from the east. They hope to lower the river level
to the point it becomes safe for divers to go into the place where the
hole exists.

GETTING RID OF THE WATER:  They have not yet decided what to do. Many
of the affected buildings have started using pumps to bring the water
up to street level and out into the street sewers. This sort of
amounts to emptying out the Atlantic Ocean using a garden hose, but
the idea is they may be able to save some of their mechanicals that
have not yet been submerged in water. The so-called 'deep tunnel'
system was constructed here a few years ago as a way to relieve
flooding from the rain during the spring and summer, and they have
found some places where the deep tunnel (which can hold a two billion
gallons of water until such time as the sewer system is able to
process it) comes within a mile the old tunnel system. They think it
may be possible to dig between the two and cause the tunnel water to
flow into the deep tunnel.

This is at best, very 'iffy' ... and at present there is no official
word from the city on precisely *how* they plan to evacuate the water.

On the subject of evacuation, all downtown buildings were evacuated
beginning at 9 AM; with some on the outer edges of the flood area
waiting until almost 11 AM when the city requested that a larger area
than previously anticipated be evacuated as well. Electrical service
was cut at 10:55 AM when it became obvious it had to be done
immediatly. In most of the buildings, including the Sears Tower,
people had to be evacuated by walking down many flights of stairs.
People were caught in elevators and they were eventually evacuated as
well.

PROGNOSIS:  For the immediate future, very poor. It is now official
that all electricity in the downtown area will be off for at least the
next 24-48 hours. First all the water has to be drained, then the very
elaborate and sophisticated electrical systems in the various
buildings dried out. They are estimating that once they start draining
the water (see above, they have not yet figured out how to drain it
all out or how long it will take), at least a day or two will be
required before any electrical service can be restarted. Building
managers have reported that damage to elevators is extensive, and
although limited elevator service can be restarted once the electric
service is back, there will be at least a week or two of repairs
before the buildings are somewhat back to normal.

BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES:  The downtown area was in a state
of massive confusion Monday morning as police with loudspeakers urged
the evacuation of all buildings downtown. Mobs of people jammed aboard
the busses to go home or wherever. In all the buildings, one could see
the entire populace of the offices therein flowing down the stairways
and elevators. The suburban commuter trains at the Illinois Central
station were shut down from the flood (this is an underground station)
but they were able to restart the trains and get rid of the water
there by about 2 PM. By shortly after noon however, most people had
left the area, and the downtown seemed very eerie from the quietness
of the empty buildings.

City Hall was evacuated except for essential personnel about 10 AM, as
was the State of Illinois Center across the street and the Cook County
Government offices (Daley Center). Governor Edgar has appealed to
President Bush for emergency disaster assistance for Chicago. Mayor
Daley went to the scene of the 'leak' to confer with workmen for much
of the morning; and early Monday afternoon appeared in a press
conference carried on television and radio to assure Chicagoans that
the government was continuing to function and attempting to gain
control of the disaster going on. Although City Hall continues to
remain evacuated except for telephone operators, Fire Department
personnel and the Mayor's Office of Information and Inquiry, hourly
press conferences are being held in Daley Plaza with the Mayor, the
Chief of Police, and city department heads participating. The main
headquarters of the Police Department (and the 911 service) are
located elsewhere, and not affected. Fire calls from 911 are being
handled as usual by transfer to the fire dispatchers in City Hall, who
along with the phone operators and the Information Office are working
by flashlight, candles and without water or bathroom facilities.

FIXED AND BACK TO NORMAL IN A DAY OR TWO?  I don't think so. I really
feel things will be screwed up for several days, perhaps a week as the
buildings get drained of water (remember, they have yet to figure out
*how* to drain them short of pumping it all out into the street sewer
system which would easily take a couple days), emergency electrical,
gas and elevator service get restarted, etc.

JUST ON THE RADIO:  The Art Institute of Chicago has announced they
are 'closed indefinitly' due to the flood which apparently has caused
massive damage to much of their collection in the basement exhibition
area. Jeeze ....

The more optimistic merchants and business places downtown have put up
signs saying 'closed for the day' ... but the majority of businesses
have signs announcing 'closed until further notice'. The Board of
Trade and the Mercantile Exchange will attempt to re-open for business
on Tuesday in temporary quarters, at least for the purpose of calling
the session to order and permitting traders left in limbo on Monday to
finish their transactions; then they will close.

The radio and television stations are covering this full time, however
Channel 7 and Channel 26 are both located in the disaster area and
their transmissions are sporadic as they change their emergency
generators from time to time. Also radio station WLS is in the
affected area.

On the phone scene, the worst IBT seems to be experiencing is
extremely slow dial tone and 'all circuits busy' as everyone tries to
get through to their friends, employers, employees, etc.

More news tomorrow if anything of significance happens. Suffice to say
the downtown area remains closed, with several hundred police officers
on duty to prevent looting and keep people out of the area who have no
business downtown. Most offices will remain closed on Tuesday and
persons are urged to remain away from downtown until further notice.
The Palmer House Hotel has been evacuated along with a couple other
hotels in the affected area.

And how was your Monday?   :)



Patrick Townson

















Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01483;
          14 Apr 92 4:35 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28155
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:46:10 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02084
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:46:02 -0500
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:46:02 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #316

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Apr 92 02:46:02 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 316

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Lookee What Michigan Bell Put in My Bill (John Palmer)
    Denmark Service Codes to Change 1st May 1992 (David Leibold)
    Telephone System Foibles (RISKS via Monty Solomon)
    ISDN at Residence (Glenn Rempe)
    Chicago River Flood Impact (Toby Nixon)
    FAX on Mister Rogers -- Start 'em Young! (David Ofsevit)
    Using Headset w/ATT Office Phone? (Andrew Purshottam)
    Etymology of `Bug' and Bugs of Etymology (Dan Hoey)
    The "Best Psychic Line" Didn't Predict This ... (Randal L. Schwartz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Palmer)
Subject: Lookee What Michigan Bell Put in My Bill
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing System, Clinton Township, MI
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 02:35:46 GMT


The following insert was sent with my April Michigan Bell Bill:

"How New State Law Impacts Business Customers"

News about the new Michigan Telecommunications Act that went into
effect this year has been widely reported in the media. The new law
replaced a nearly 80-year-old statute which had governed
telecommunications in Michigan since 1913. It gives Michigan Bell new
freedom to compete by allowing for quick changes in prices and the
introduction of new products and services faster than ever before.

The very first action Michigan Bell took under the new law was a sharp
reduction in price of long distance calls within Michigan's area
codes -- and the promise to cut prices later again this year. More
announcements quickly followed.

In this brochure, we want to fill you in on some of the changes that
we made so far under the new Michigan Telecommunications Act ... and
tell you to keep watching, because there will be many more to come.

LONG DISTANCE PRICES REDUCED

Beginning January 1, Michigan Bell reduced the prices of long distance
calls within the area code by $20 million annually.  Another cut of
more than $20 million is targeted for later this year.  Overall, the
reductions will amount to a cut of more than 10 percent in prices
customers pay for long distance calls within their area codes. One
result of these price cuts is that it no longer costs more to call
from Detroit to Ann Arbor than it does to call from Detroit to Los
Angeles

[Note: Thats a LIE! I checked the new rates and they are the SAME AS
THEY WERE BEFORE 1-JAN!!!]

This was a major annoyance for customers...and one that was long
overdue to end.

AMERITEC VALUE CALLING PLAN IS IMPROVED

Business customers of all sizes stand to be big winners with new
features of the Ameritec Value Calling Plan (AVCP). Until now, large
and medium size businesses have been the main customers for AVCP. But
improvements to the plan now make it attractive to a wide variety of
of customers. small businesses which average as little as five hours
of in-area code long distance calling a month, can benefit from the
improved AVCP. At the same time, businesses which use 250 or more
hours of long distance will see even greater savings with attractive
new rate bands at the high usage end. Enhancements to the Ameritec
Value Calling Plan could bring $10 to $15 million in savings annually
to long distance customers.

PRICE CHANGES FOR PREMIUM OPERATOR-ASSISTED CALLS

For the first time in nearly 10 years, the price of Michigan Bell's
premium, operator-assisted calls has gone up. Even with the increases,
our operator-service prices in nearly all cases are well below what
other providers of these services are charging. Effective February 1,
the charge for collect calls, operator-dialed calls, calls billed to a
third number and requests to the operator for "time and charges" on a
call is $1.65. Calling card and operator-timed calls from coin phones
cost 65 cents, and person-to-person calls cost $3.00. (These prices
are in addition to any applicable local or long distance charges.) To
have an operator verify that a number is busy now costs $1.40. And if
you ask an operator to interrupt a conversation on a busy line, the
cost is $2.80.

PRICE CUTS, NEW DISCOUNT PLANS LET YOU SAVE AT HOME, TOO

When you leave work at the end of the day, that doesn't mean your
telephone savings have to come to an end. The $20 million reductions
in long distance prices we announced in January applies to residence
as well as business customers (that will be true of our second round
of price cuts later this year as well).  And we've also introduced two
new optional plans designed specifically for residence customers who
make many calls to nearby communities.  New Circle Calling 20 provides
up to seven hours of zone and long distance calling up to 20 miles
away for just $20/month. Circle calling 30 offers a 30-percent
discount on zone and long distance calls up to 30 miles, and also
includes 30 minutes of zone and toll calling-all for $3/month. So,
wether you're at work or at home, Michigan Bell has big savings
possibilies for you!

   -------[END OF BROCHURE]--------

Question: I've already exposed one lie in this thing. What are the
other ones? You know MBT only advocates what will put more bucks in
their pocket, and take more out of ours. Mr/Ms Congressman: PLEASE
keep HR3515 moving!!!


CAT-TALK Conferencing System   | E-MAIL: [e-mail]
[phone] (USR HST)      | MICHIGAN NETWORK SYSTEMS, INC.
[phone] (TELEBIT PEP)  | 800-736-5984  FAX: [phone]
********EIGHT NODES*********** | TELEBIT, DIGIBOARD, ISC UNIX, MICROPOLIS

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 02:39:02 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Denmark Service Codes to Change 1st May 92


The recent Copenhagen directory, by the telco KTAS, notes that the
service codes of the form 00xx will be changing 1st May 1992 mostly to
codes of the form 1xx. The overseas code is presently 009+, thus the
change would seem to be in preparation for conversion to the European
standard overseas access code of 00+ (though I didn't notice anything
offhand to indicate that 00+ will take effect immediately, perhaps
until the change of 00xx codes settles somewhat).

A few examples of new numbers (subject to translation from the
directory):

                                 Old    New (after 1 May 92)
Emergency/Alarm                  000    112
Data Repair                      0025   145
Telex Repair                     0027   146
Talking Clock                    0055   155
KTAS info                        0030   140
Directory Asstce/Name & #        0033   118
Dir. Asstce/Holld., Norw., Swed. 0038   113
Dir. Asstce/Faroe Is., Grnland.  0039   114
Dir. Asstce/Telex?               0024   164
TDD Operator                     0032   123
Overseas info                    0029   141
Weather (depending on location)  0053   153
  "                              0054   154
  "                              0056   156
Sports                           0052   152

Some other codes exist for radio/marine telephone uses, other
information services, telegram, conference, etc.

Mention was made to continuing changes in the Denmark numbering.
Although the country is now on a national eight-digit numbering scheme
(no area codes used, similar format as France outside Paris), some
numbers appear to be still changing, as lists of number series are
mentioned with new number series beside them.


Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:42:23 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone System Foibles


Excerpt from RISKS DIGEST 13.39

 Date: 12 Apr 92 11:52 GMT
 From: [e-mail] (Tri-Valley Macintosh Users Group,UG)
 Subject: Telephone System Foibles (RISKS-13.38)


I recently had two experiences with the telephone systems that leave
me wondering if anyone knows what they are doing.  I tried to make a
call from a pay phone outside a restaurant in Sunnyvale, CA, using my
calling card.  The call wouldn't go through.  The operator (from an
alternative phone service) said that their computer showed I was
trying to make a call from a correctional institution.  I guess to
avoid toll fraud, prisoners aren't allowed to make calling card calls.

In my next phone bill, (from an alternative phone service) there was a
billing on my calling card for two calls made from Ada Mich.  I've
never been there and so had the charges deleted and changed my pin
number.  However after looking at the numbers listed, I found one was
to a friend in San Jose.  I now believe that the alternative phone
service's computers somehow read some local calls as being made from
Ada, Michigan.

What I'd like to know is how I can get all my calls misread so my
phone bill will be cut in half?

However, even though this seems amusing, it makes one wonder just how
inaccurate the alternative systems are.  If they make these screwups,
how many more do they make that are not detected?


James Zuchelli

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

Subject: ISDN at Residence?
From: [e-mail] (Glenn Rempe)
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:25:23 MST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Hi,

I hope you will all tolerate a question from a new guy to ISDN.  In
the next few months I plan to buy a new adapter designed by Hayes to
work with my NeXT computer to provide both POTS and basic rate ISDN in
a small package for less than $300.  I wanted to see if anyone out
there knows what the availability of ISDN is for residential users in
Long Island, New York (Huntington, Dix Hills) and in Washington, D.C.
(and bordering Maryland and Virginia).  Is ISDN available in these
places and if so what should I expect a basic rate connection to cost
(Installation, monthly fee, equiptment costs, extra premium service
costs, etc)?  I understand that I will need an NT1 (?), will the phone
company provide this as part of the service, will I have to rent it
from them, or will I have to buy it outright?  Is the cost per minute
of use for an ISDN line any different than for POTS?

Thanks for any help you can give a NewGuy trying to get a handle on
availability and costs.

You can respond here or by E-Mail (or NeXTmail if you are so blessed!).

Thanks in advance,


Glenn    [e-mail]
GLENN D. REMPE   UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   NeXTMAIL WELCOME!

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chicago River Flood Impact
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:39:58 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


Pat, I hope you have the time to report for all of your loyal readers
on the impact of today's flood in downtown Chicago.  Any central
offices flooded?  Any news on the impact on telephone service?


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Please see the special mailing I did early Monday
evening on this subject. The phones were by and large unaffected, at
least at telco level, although subscribers with wires in the basements
of buildings got knocked out. My friends at CRIS Radio got knocked off
the air; they are under several feet of water in the studios and it
appears we will be off the air until further notice. Most of the
Pedway (the underground shops between Michigan Avenue on the east and
the State of Illinois Center on the west) is completely submerged
under several feet of water. Marshall Field's has suffered a loss of
about 500 thousand dollars in merchandise from their basement level
shops, and I don't think things will return to normal for some time.
Fortunatly, the Chicago Public Library was a bit south of the flood
area and suffered only minor damage to their basement stacks; but
unfortunatly the Art Institute of Chicago suffered major damage to
their collection on the lower level of the museum.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 08:54:23 PDT
From: David..LKG1-3/L04 <[e-mail]>
Subject: FAX on Mister Rogers -- Start 'em Young!

    I was eavesdropping on my four-year-old as she was watching
MisterRogers (children's show on US public TV) this morning, and right
in the middle of a "Land of Make-Believe" skit they were showing how
you could use a FAX machine to accomplish a simple message exchange.
The machine was a toy, but they did get the idea across at the
pre-school level.  This is a pretty icky show, and one of the
characters oozed: "Oooh, I just love this machine."

    They didn't get into issues like junk FAX.  What'll they show
next -- eletronic mail?  CNID??


David Ofsevit

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

From: autodesk!bermuda![e-mail] (Andrew Purshottam)
Subject: Using Headset w/ATT Office Phone?
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:45:52 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc.


Hi, a friend of mine has an ATT office phone, #75650, of the sort
often called "digital" phones, not exactly sure what that means.  The
handset is connected to base by standard four wire modular line
w/standard modular plug. However, he can't seem to get his old fry's
headset adapter to work with it. Anyone know if ATT has played games
with pin assignments to make this impossible, or know of available
convertors?

If this is a FAQ, please point.


Thanks,

Andrew Purshottam  - Autodesk, Sausalito CA
phone: [phone] X2161  email: [e-mail]
"The views expressed are those of the speaker."




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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 16:39:55 -0400
From: Dan Hoey <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Dan Hoey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Etymology of `Bug' and Bugs of Etymology
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC


In TELECOM Digest v12n311 I wrote:

> The term `bug' for a malfunction of electronic equipment dates back
> to the 19th century: Thomas Edison used the term with respect to
> telegraphy.

Which led our esteemed moderator to change the subject of my message
from ``The term `Bug' '' to ``The term `Bug' originated with Edison''.
But the latter statement is not what I meant.  I don't know that the
usage originated with Edison.  For all I know, the usage of `bug' to
mean a flaw in design or construction may have preceded the 19th
century.  On the other hand, I don't know that Edison *didn't* invent
the usage, either.  I only mentioned Edison because his use of the
term contradicts the etymology involving 20th century insects.

I appreciate PAT's attempt to tweak up the subject, but I don't want
to start another bogus bug story.  Let us instead take this as an
example of how easily a minor misunderstanding can turn into a
misleading assertion.  Now can we get back to bugging the phones?


Dan Hoey <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: Actually, your message arrived here with only the
single word 'Bug' on the subject line ... not as you suggest, "The
Term 'Bug'" ... and since one word subjects are not very descriptive
and the gist of your message seemed to be that Edison was the first
person using the term to the best of your knowledge, I thought that my
line described the topic better than just 'Bug'.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: The "Best Psychic Line" Didn't Predict This ...
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz)
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:46:45 GMT


The 800 number for the 900-like 800-service that charges $120 for a
20- to 30- minute private "psychic reading" is dead.

One wonders if they were shut down for illegal activities or lack of
revenue.

Does anyone now have an 800 number that reads the phone number to you?
I found that feature most useful.  ("Psychics agree, you are calling
from five-zero-three-seven-seven-seven-zero-zero-nine-five." :-)


Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III
[e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #316
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20237;
          15 Apr 92 1:49 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21095
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:50:11 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18132
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:49:49 -0500
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:49:49 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #317

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Apr 92 23:49:41 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 317

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Hayes BBS Accessible via ISDN; ISDN Sysop Purchase Program (Toby Nixon)
    Interesting Caller-ID Twist: Blocking at the Far End (Roy Smith)
    What CO Equipment is Needed to Send Caller-ID? (Jim Rees)
    Massachusetts REALLY Cracks Down on COCOTs! (Scott Fybush)
    Using Answering Machine With Panasonic KX-T123211D (Monty Solomon)
    Autodialer Recommendations Needed (Al Stangenberger)
    No Calling Card Surcharge if no Choice of LD Carrier? (David Bernholdt)
    976-Type Exchanges (Kath Mullholand)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hayes BBS Accessible via ISDN; ISDN Sysop Purchase Program
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:43:33 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


Attached are two new Hayes press releases regarding accessibility of
our support BBS via ISDN, the availability of ISDN products under our
BBS sysop purchase program, and a new version of our ISDN system
adapter.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]


HAYES MICROCOMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC.
P.O. Box 105203
Atlanta, Georgia 30348
Press Inquiries: 404/840-9200
Customer Service:  404/441-1617
Fax [phone]
Beth McElveen / Peggy Ballard


                 HAYES FIRST TO OFFER ISDN ACCESS TO
                PRODUCT SUPPORT BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM
           -        -        -        -        -        -
           Expands Sysop Program to Include ISDN Products

        ATLANTA, GA, 13 April 1992 -- Hayes Microcomputer Products,
Inc.  today announced that Online With Hayes, the company's product
support Bulletin Board System (BBS), can now be accessed through ISDN,
making Hayes the first vendor to offer this type of electronic
support.  In addition, Hayes announced that its Sysop Program provides
qualified BBS System Operators (Sysops) with discounts of up to 50
percent on Hayes ISDN PC Adapter and ISDN System Adapter.

        The company has installed ISDN lines in addition to the
existing lines, which include 800 number toll-free service.  Online
With Hayes serves over 50,000 customer calls a month and is available
24 hours a day for customers to receive answers electronically from
Hayes applications consultants and technical support engineers.  The
BBS also provides technical information on ISDN, modems, local area
networking and communications software, as well as allows Hayes
customers to electronically register product warranties and order
small product parts.

         "The Regional Bell Operating Companies have de-classified
deployment plans for ISDN, which indicates that by the end of 1992
over 50 percent of the business telephone lines in the United States
will be capable of having ISDN service," said Hayes President Dennis
C. Hayes.  "Customer service has always been a top priority at Hayes,
and as ISDN becomes more widespread, we want to make Hayes easily
accessible for our ISDN customers."

        Access to Online with Hayes through the ISDN lines is
currently available at 404/729-6525.  ISDN customers in the Atlanta
area may call into the BBS over an ISDN data channel.  Other customers
may call with a modem and access the BBS via a modem attached to the
voice channel of the ISDN System Adapter on the BBS.  ISDN access
through Switch 56K services will be made available for ISDN users
outside the Atlanta area as the telephone network connections are
implemented during the next several months.  This Switch 56K service
will allow connections between the United Kingdom, France, Japan, and
a number of other countries.

        High-quality customer support is available through Hayes
Customer Service in the U.S. at 404/441-1617, in Canada at
519/746-5000, and at Hayes ISDN Technologies in San Francisco at
415/974-5544.  Customers worldwide may also access Online with Hayes
in the U.S. at 404/HI MODEM, 800/US HAYES or 404/729-6525 (ISDN
users), in London at 081/569-1774, and in Hong Kong at 852/887-7590.

        Best known as the leader in microcomputer modems, Hayes
develops, supplies and supports computer communications equipment and
software for personal computer and computer communications networks.
The company distributes its products in over 60 countries through a
global network of authorized distributors, dealers, VARS, system
integrators and original equipment manufacturers.

                                  ###

HAYES MICROCOMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC.
P.O. Box 105203
Atlanta, Georgia 30348
Press Inquiries: 404/840-9200
Customer Service:  404/441-1617
Fax [phone]
Beth McElveen / Peggy Ballard


          HAYES ANNOUNCES ISDN SYSTEM ADAPTER VERSION 1.1
           -        -        -        -        -        -
           Enhances ISDN Capabilities for Macintosh Users


        ATLANTA, GA, 13 April 1992 -- Hayes Microcomputer Products,
Inc.  today announced Version 1.1 of Hayes ISDN System Adapter.  Hayes
ISDN System Adapter Version 1.1 comes packaged with the Macintosh
configuration program to accompany the DOS configuration program
previously available, as well as Hayes ISDN Tool, a connection tool
for use with Macintosh Communications Toolbox.  In addition, this new
version provides Caller ID for data communications, along with other
improvements for easier operation.

        Hayes ISDN System Adapter is an external multimedia adapter
with superior voice and data capabilities that supports both AT&T and
Northern Telecom ISDN switches and fully implements Hayes Standard AT
Command Set for ISDN and Hayes AutoStream.  Both DOS and Macintosh
configuration programs provide an easy means to install and initialize
the adapter.  Hayes ISDN Tool for the Macintosh Communications Toolbox
provides complete access to the advanced data features of ISDN System
Adapter by allowing users to perform data communications from
applications that support the Macintosh Communications Toolbox.

        "Business and Government users are quickly recognizing the
benefits of implementing ISDN for both local area network and
multimedia applications in addition to its high speed data
capability," said Hayes President Dennis C. Hayes.  "Hayes is
committed to providing enhanced ISDN products to serve the needs of
our growing number of ISDN customers and Version 1.1 of the System
Adapter and the Macintosh Communications Toolbox support represent our
continuing investment in this technology."

        Hayes ISDN System Adapter Version 1.1 will be available in the
U.S. and Canada in May 1992 for an estimated retail price of US$1599
and CDN$2199.  The Macintosh utilities will also be available in May
at no charge by downloading the files from the ISDN section on Hayes
Bulletin Board System at 800/US HAYES, 404/HI MODEM or 404/729-6525
(ISDN users).  Current ISDN System Adapter customers can purchase a
Macintosh support kit for US$55 and CDN$75.  Version 1.1. firmware
upgrades are available to existing ISDN System Adapter customers for
US$50 or CDN$65.  To purchase the ISDN System Adapter, the Version 1.1
firmware upgrade or the Macintosh support kit, call Hayes Customer
Service in the U.S. at 404/441-1617 or in Canada at 519/746-5000.

        Hayes provides high-quality customer support through
applications consultants and technical support engineers at Hayes ISDN
Technologies in San Francisco at 415/974-5544.  Hayes also offers
24-hour electronic support through Online With Hayes, Hayes Bulletin
Board System, in the U.S. at 404/HI MODEM, 800/US HAYES or
404/729-6525 (ISDN users), in London at 081/569-1774, and in Hong Kong
at 852/887-7590.

        Best known as the leader in microcomputer modems, Hayes
develops, supplies and supports computer communications equipment and
software for personal computer and computer communications networks.
The company distributes its products in over 60 countries through a
global network of authorized distributors, dealers, VARs, system
integrators and original equipment manufacturers.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 14:31:12 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting Caller-ID Twist: Blocking at the Far End


    Here's an interesting twist on blocking Caller-ID.  Mac
Connection has a two-page spread in the front of their catalog talking
about how wonderful CID is, and how it will help them speed your order
processing.  It's the usual bit about how they will already know your
name and account number as soon as they answer the phone, etc.

    The interesting part is that they acknowledge that some people
consider it an invasion of privacy, and if you request it, they will
do CID blocking from their end!  They still get the CID info, but if
your phone number is on their stop list, they won't use the
information.  They show a picture of an Order Entry screen with a
dialog box in the middle saying "Caller ID blocked at customer
request.  Please process order manually".

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: What CO Equipment is Needed to Send Caller-ID?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 19:19:11 GMT


I had thought that only a digital switch could deliver caller-ID, but
someone mentioned getting it on a 1A ESS (the best CO switch in the
world).  Is that possible?  So that got me to thinking, what equipment
is needed at the CO end to send caller-ID?  Presumably it's just the
"mo" part of a modem, possibly attached to the ring generator.  Is
there a pool of these that get switched to individual lines as needed?
Does it require a new line card?

Caller-ID is not yet available in my exchange (a 1A of course), but
*67 started returning dial tone rather than reorder about three weeks
ago, so I guess they're getting ready.  I don't intend to subscribe.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:30 EDT
From: Scott Fybush <[e-mail]>
Subject: Massachusetts REALLY Cracks Down on COCOTs!


According to the UPI Broadcast wire, Saturday 11 April 1992, not only
is Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger ORDERING NETel to
cut off service to some of the worst COCOT operators in the state, but
apparently has ordered NETel to freeze new COCOT connections for an
unspecified length of time.

I'm excited.  Of course, it merits mention that Massachusetts is one
of the few states left in which there's a strong economic incentive
left to not use a COCOT for a local call.  Local calls from NETel
phones cost 10 cents.  I've never seen a COCOT here charging less than
25 cents.  Maybe that explains why we're not quite as badly plagued by
the things as some other states (although it seems to be getting worse
here).  I still wouldn't shed a tear to see any of the pieces of junk
go away.


Scott Fybush -- [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 01:22:52 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using Answering Machine With Panasonic KX-T123211D


I am trying to use a Panasonic answering machine with the Panasonic
KX-T123211D EMSS and am experiencing a couple of problems.  None of
these problems occurred when the machine was directly connected to a
CO line before the EMSS was installed.

The answering machine is supposed to immediately disconnect and stop
recording when the caller hangs up.  It is also supposed to ignore
disconnects during the outgoing message and not bother recording the
hang up.  It no longer recognizes the disconnects and records the
internal busy signal (error tone?) from the EMSS and appears to time
out on the VOX.  I tried configuring the machine for both CPC modes A
and B.

This answering machine also has a transfer feature where it will call
another number after a message is left.  The machine is set up to call
my cellular phone.  If I don't answer the phone and the answering
machine reaches my Message Plus recording, the line appears to get
immediately disconnected when the Message Plus tone is played at the
end of the Message Plus OGM.  The machine doesn't seem to notice that
the line has been disconnected and continues to rewind and play back
the transfer OGM several times waiting for the security code to be
entered.  It gives up after a minute and tries again with the same
results.

When I manually dial the cellular phone and get the Message Plus
recording and tone, the line is not automatically disconnected.
Again, I tried both CPC modes.

Has anyone else here experienced any problems using an answering
machine with the Panasonic KX-T123211D EMSS?

Any ideas?


Thanks.

Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 22:45:55 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Al Stangenberger)
Subject: Autodialer Recommendations Needed


Our campus is addressing the problem of notification of key personnel
in case of emergencies.

Since the type (fire, flood, power outage, ...) and location of
emergencies varies, I was thinking of suggesting some sort of
auto-dialer connected to a database so that, for example, if power
failed in the northwest corner of campus the operator could trigger a
database query which would cause an autodialer to telephone key people
in the affected area and play a message asking them to call in for
further information.

My "ideal system" would also respond to DTMF responses from the called
parties so that the operator could tell whether the message had
reached a live person or an answering machine. ("If you are a live
person, press 1 now ...")

Does anybody know of potential vendors or have experience with such a
system?


Thanks.

Al Stangenberger                    Dept. of Forestry & Resource Mgt.
[e-mail]          145 Mulford Hall - Univ. of Calif.
uucp:  ucbvax!ucbviolet!forags      Berkeley, CA  94720
BITNET: FORAGS AT UCBVIOLE          [phone]  FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 17:01:39 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: No Calling Card Surcharge if no Choice of LD Carrier?


I presently have AT&T (with Reach Out America plan) as my 1+ carrier.
I will soon be moving into university housing, where I don't have a
choice of LD carrier.  I would like to continue on AT&T ROA, but I
don't care to pay the calling card surcharges.

Seems to me I once read here about an AT&T program that would let me
avoid the surcharges on the grounds that I didn't have any other way
to access them.  If this is so, does anyone know the name of the
program?  I called AT&T, but the rep was unaware of any such plan.

Any other ideas would be appreciated too.  My phone will be on the
university's switch and their LD carrier is MCI.  Internal
(university) calls require the last five digits, 9 + local number for
off-campus, and 8 + number + six-digit code for LD calls.


Thanks,

David Bernholdt            [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project        [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611        904/392 6365

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 7:58:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: 976-Type Exchanges


The following is a list of 976 exchanges.  The list was printed in the
recently published book called "Toll Fraud and Telabuse" and I've
copied it from an AT&T customer advisory:

 NPA  NXX           NPA  NXX
(202)-915          (507)-960
(206)-960          (508)-940
(207)-940          (512)-766
(208)-960          (516)-540,550,970
(212)-540,550,970  (518)-540,550,970
(215)-556          (602)-676,960
(301)-915          (603)-940
(303)-960          (605)-960
(307)-960          (607)-540,550,970
(308)-960          (617)-550,940
(315)-540,550,970  (703)-844
(401)-940          (716)-540,550,970
(402)-960          (718)-540,550,970
(410)-915          (719)-898
(412)-556          (801)-960
(413)-550,940      (804)-268,844
(504)-636          (817)-892
(505)-960          (914)-540,550,970

Source: Haugh, Burney, Dean, Tisch (1992).  "Toll Fraud and Telabuse"
           (Vol. 1, p. 340).  Oregon: Telecommunications Advisors, Inc.


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #317
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24553;
          15 Apr 92 3:57 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08019
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:08:20 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20479
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:07:56 -0500
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:07:56 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Day Two of the Flood


Well, the finger pointing, rumors, innuendo and downright lies have
begun in the battle to glean 'the truth' behind the collapse of the
tunnel wall early Monday which left downtown Chicago flooded and
without power as the third day gets underway.

At a City Hall press conference Tuesday, a person was named as the
villian responsible, and publicly fired by the city from his
employment in the engineering department. He complains he was made a
scapegoat to cover up for the failure of others to listen to warnings
about leaks in the tunnel as long as eight weeks ago.

Then there is the as yet unamed 'construction company' which was doing
work to shore up the Kinzie Street bridge, and it was their heavy
machinery digging nearby which 'must have caused the disturbance which
caused the wall to collapse ...'

The older buildings downtown which got flooded may very well come out
to be in better condition than some of the newer places where the
foundations were constructed differently, using cheaper materials and
'modern ways of construction'. It would be a shame to see something
like the 80 story Amoco Building have to be completely torn down
before it fell over and collapsed in a heap as a result of a greatly
weakend foundation ... but that's life in the big city, I guess. Of
course no one is willing to speak the truth when it is their own oxe
being gored ... and difficult questions put to city officials never
get answered on their own merit. Instead, they turn it around, and
challenge the credentials of the person asking:  who are you? who sent
you here? what is your educational background and your past experience
which allows you to dare question what we are saying?  The question
itself never does get answered, of course.

Or try asking those whores of the print media at the {Chicago Tribune}
why they said something stupid in their newspaper about sabatage being
ruled out as the cause of the collapse ... 'but the mayor held a press
conference,' they wail ... 'they had charts and graphs and told us
that was not the case at all ...'

Of course we know that (a) only Mayor Daley can have experts working
for him, like those in the city engineering department, and that (b)
the City Hall press relations department would *never* lie to the
{Chicago Tribune} about anything ...

Yet people we know in the Fire Department and Police Department --
people with no axe to grind either way are flatly condradicting what
the city is saying, but doing it privately to selected people in the
media. We're hearing several things, all of which City Hall is flatly
denying; but on the other hand, what has a Chicago police officer to
gain by saying:

The police are investigating sabatage by a disgruntled and fired
ex-employee of the City ... of course there are hundreds of those
people, politics being as they are in Chicago, and your ability to
work a polling place and get out the vote on election day being far
more important than your college degree in civil engineering and your
work related experience with underground tunnels, etc.

What would a wagon man (a police officer who drives a paddy wagon
around the city on call to officers effecting an arrest or in response
to a 'man down' (intoxicated or sick person lying in the street, etc)
have to gain by pointing out he had carried two bodies to the county
morgue who were apparently homeless people living in the tunnels and
'the paper work got lost or mixed up on the way ...'

Yet at the city press conference today the question was asked point
blank, 'Mister Mayor, we know there are dozens, maybe hundreds of
homeless people who have discovered the old tunnel system and make
their home down there. Were any of them killed in the flood?'

And the answer, note how it avoids the question ... 'do we know that?
do we know there are a large number of homeless people living in the
tunnels?'  'the police have never reported that ...'  And then a
denial there any deaths at all 'due to the accident caused by the
carelessness of the man we are discharging today' ...

You see, to admit there are (or were?) large numbers of homeless men
living down there requires an admission that we have lots of homeless
people in Chicago and no plan for them ... none at all. After all, we
stopped giving public aid money here; not even the $150 per month we
used to give. The idea of men living in tunnels underground and coming
out at night to scavenge for food in trash barrels is very disconcerting
to our city fathers. If we do not have such a thing, then by extension
we could not have had any going back underground and falling into an
eternal sleep about four in the morning; to never wake up again when
the onrush of water first came past them an hour or so later ...

So when city employees who work in the tunnel say there are areas
under the city they do not like to go to alone, or without carrying a
weapon with them because there have been instances of a man jumping
out of a dark corner in front of them with a knife in his hand, ...
well, they must be liars.

When a wagon man says he took two bodies to the morgue picked up near
an obscure tunnel entrance on Canal Street and the paperwork never
seemed to reach the medical examiner's office ... he is a liar also.
Where are his credentials? What could he possibly know about how the
computer prints up those documents, etc?  Don't bother us with details
about reciepts given to the wagon men when they drop off their 'cargo'
at detox, the county jail or the morgue ...

And if a police captain says his snitches on the street suggested he
look at sabatage, well ... you know the answer ... the mayor's office
said that was not true, and they sing a solo accompanied by the gospel
choir at the Tribune .. 'they had maps!  they had charts! a lazy and
incompetent worker caused it all!' ...

And then the temerity of the man who asked about the condition of
foundations in some of the buildings  ... 'no problem at all! our
experts tell us that blah blah ...'

And what about earth so eroded at this point that we might expect
street cave-ins from now till doomsday?  'if you are such an expert on
this, I'm sure our engineering people would have hired you by now to
share your skills ...'

And the best one perhaps of all: 'how could there have been sabatage?
why, any person down there trying to knock a hole in the wall would
have been killed when the water came in ...'

Simple: an explosive device with a timer could have been put there
earlier, oh, say sometime early Sunday morning, 24 hours before. It
might have been the so-called 'disgruntled city worker'; it might have
been a disturbed homeless person; it might have been anyone.

'Mister Mayor, will there be any problem with rats coming out on the
streets since their nests were disturbed and washed away?' 'no, none
at all ... rats are good swimmers, they'll survive.'

What about the homeless people? Are they good swimmers, will they
survive?   Oh, I forgot that's not the proper sort of thing to ask;
after all what would I know about those things? Where are my
credentials to ask such things? I'm a troublemaker I guess, like Emma
Jones who when asked her occupation thought about it a minute then
said, 'occupation? I'm a hell raiser ...'

Edison tells us the electric service downtown will come back on 'any
day now'.  Does anyone remember the 1988 Mother's Day fire at Illinois
Bell, and how emergency service would be up and running in 2-3 days,
only to finally be restored over a week later, with full service
taking a month to bring back on line?  Hell, they don't even have all
the water pumped out yet, and since the city has been unable to figure
a way to get it out of the tunnels (it will take about a week to dig a
connection between the tunnels and the Deep Tunnel sewer reservoir),
it appears the building owners in the process of pumping out their own
buildings will wind up taking most of the reserve left in the tunnels
along with it.

Downtown today we saw large hoses (fire department type) snaking up
out of building basements and into the street where water gushed out
flooding the street as it ran into nearby sewers. The intake hole in
the river has been plugged to the extent the leak has slowed to almost
a trickle, and crews were able to enter the tunnel and barricade it on
both sides of the hole.

Marshall Field announced today they will remain closed indefinitly at
their State Street flagship store until cleanup is finished. Their
loss to date has been about $500,000 in merchandise alone, not
counting lost wages and sales. Losses overall are in excess of one
hundred million dollars at this point from lost wages and sales in the
stores downtown. Most companies are continuing to pay their employees
at least for another day or two. If they will do so next week, should
the disruption continue that long is not certain.

Certainly it will be well into next week before elevator service and
full electrical power from temporary systems is in place.

And people still ask me why it is I want to leave Chicago once and for
all ** so badly ** -- 'my' Chicago has been gone for twenty years now,
maybe longer.  But the mayor tells us everything will be fine, and the
{Chicago Tribune} has the maps, charts and graphs to prove it.


Patrick Townson











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22129;
          16 Apr 92 4:08 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01875
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:39:38 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07418
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:39:16 -0500
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:39:16 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #318

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Apr 92 01:39:03 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 318

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The March of the Telephone Trucks (TELECOM Moderator)
    New AT&T Small Business Plans (Andy Sherman)
    AT&T Sues Aggregator (Andy Sherman)
    Consumer Action, AT&T, Sprint, and 800 Rebilling (Andy Sherman)
    Another Missouri Discount Plan (Will Martin)
    More Cellular Gotchas (Michael Scott Baldwin)
    US Statement on Lifting Telecom Ban on Vietnam (Herb Jellinek)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:06:57 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: The March of the Telephone Trucks


Last report on the flood. I get too depressed thinking about it. Although
Illinois Bell and the various LD carriers suffered no damage at all
from the flood, plenty of their downtown customers did, and phone
service in the affected area has been spotty. Conditions range from
constant busy signals due to lines shorted out in water to lines which
are operating but so thick with cross-talk its unbelievable.

Dial tone is still slow arriving at times, but getting better. The
short span of time between going off hook (I'm talking about the
downtown COs now) and getting dial tone is when the cross-talk is the
worst. Go off hook, listen to at least two other people talking,
sometimes four!, and when dial tone arrives the cross-talk is gone. It
will all dry out eventually, they say.

Places with key systems or PBX devices relying on electricity are
still out if the building is without electricity, but several more
places came back on line today. Others will be restored on Thursday
and Friday. The odd results obtained when dialing a downtown number
right now include (in a case where there is a Rolm PBX with a bunch of
DID lines) just dead silence when you call that exchange. A very odd
intercept message will be heard at 312-781-1000, the main switchboard
number for Marshall Field. By sometime Thursday it may be gone, so you
may not be able to hear it. After the three tones, a message says,
'due to the collapse of a retaining wall which caused a flood in
downtown Chicago, your call cannot be completed at this time; please
check news reports for when service will be restored.'

Carson's got one phone line up and running today. Their main number is
answered on a single line phone set up in the store somewhere. Both
stores will be closed until further notice.

About half the affected area was back to semi-normal today with
electrical service on, but the better places to eat lunch were still
closed down, and the places serving both pre-packaged food (potato
chips in bags, etc) and cooked food were selling that stuff but had
signs up saying 'only prepackaged food; no cooked food or beverage
until okayed by city inspector.' City inspectors are visiting all
these places before allowing them to resume food sales or beverages
made from water, etc. The McDonald's on Randolph will re-open on
Thursday per a sign in the window.

Telephone trucks everywhere ... I saw at various places three huge
semi-trailer trucks with the Illinois Bell label on them and their
cables snaking up out of manhole covers. Snaking in the other
direction were large hoses -- the type the fire department uses --
pumping water out into the street sewers. There were several of these
pumping operations going on on just about every block downtown, all
being powered by portable generators set up in the street. Walking
down the street, you simply have to walk around large pools of water
splashing out from the buildings; make your way around and over the
fire hoses, the wooden barricades blocking the sidewalks and the
Edison and Bell crews with their holes in the street standing open.
There was a constant background noise from the sump pumps running,
some of which were quite loud, as were the temporary workers standing
around them.

ATMs are working except for those connected to phone wires otherwise
affected. But in a bit of cheerful news, more and more office lights
came on as the afternoon passed, and even Marshall Field, whose main
store still is standing dark with hoses snaking in and out of all the
doorways had lights on the upper floors. They apparently got enough
electricity and phone service into the building that the credit office
workers could resume their duties.

Other stores downtown with essential phone areas such as credit
approval and customer service (to handle their branch stores in the
area) have relocated elsewhere for the duration. Some, like Carsons
expect to have essential phones turned on Thursday morning, even if
the employees have to walk up eleven flights of stairs to get to the
office!

On the subject of walking up the stairs, our ABC affiliate here,
Channel 7 is right in the middle of the disaster zone. They ran for
more than 48 hours on backup generators, and although most of the
employees simply stayed away, the engineering staff and the on-air
personnel kept coming in ...and they are on an upper floor in the
State/Lake Building.

Not only are the owners of sump-pump and hose companies getting rich
from this, so are the sign-makers. Most stores had signs up in the
window saying 'closed today', 'closed until further notice' or giving
directions to wherever they had relocated. The telephone repair crews
are making a huge amount of overtime pay, working as long as they
wish, along with their counterparts from Edison, and the patient
souls operating the City of Chicago Public Information and Inquiry
service at 312-744-4000. (That number was out of order for perhaps 9
hours between Monday and Tuesday; IBT ran special lines into City Hall
from the street so those lines could be answered at the rate of about
five hundred calls per hour).

We expect the phones and electric to be entirely back to normal by the
weekend, but then we expected that back in 1988 in the Mother's Day
fire in Hinsdale, and it took a bit longer than anticipated.

Meanwhile the city fathers have admitted, 'yeah, well maybe we will
find a few dead people down there once the water receeds' ... just
maybe, mind you!'  <wink> ...


Patrick Townson

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: New AT&T Small Business Plans
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 08:14:22 EDT


Taken from an AT&T announcement:

 AT&T today added four new long-distance options for small business
customers to what is already the widest array of calling service
choices and discounts available.  Called AT&T Partners in Business
Program, the new services bring to 30 the AT&T long-distance offerings
that can be tailored for small businesses.  "We are showing small
businesses, those who are currently our customers and those who are
about to be, that AT&T is determined to provide the best value in the
marketplace," said Joseph Nacchio, president of AT&T's Business
Communications Services unit.  "We believe each business customer
wants a communications solution designed for their individual needs,"
Nacchio said.  "We don't believe one size fits all."

The new long-distance options, available for customers spending as
little as $25 monthly, are: -- Partners in Business Area Code Option,
which gives customers who sign an 18- month contract a 20% discount
each month on all long-distance calls to the domestic area code they
dial most frequently. -- Partners in Business PRO(R) WATS Partners
Option combines existing PRO WATS discounts with an additional
discount of 20% on all calls to a list of telephone numbers selected
by the customer.  That list can contain as few as one or as many as 20
domestic telephone numbers and one international country.  For
international calling customers receive a 10% discount off standard
period rates on all calls to the country of their choice, including
Canada or Mexico. Partners in Business PRO WATS Term Option gives PRO
WATS customers an additional 5% discount in exchange for signing an
18-month contract.  Customers receive discounts on all direct-dialed
interstate and international calls across all rate periods.  Partners
in Business CustomNet Option, designed for multi-location customers,
offers a 10% discount on all calls to the area code the customer dials
most frequently, as well as volume discounts of 10% on usage above
$200 monthly and a 12% discount on all usage of more than $2,000
monthly.


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!

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: AT&T sues aggregator
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 08:17:07 EDT


Taken from an AT&T announcement:

AT&T Friday filed suit in U.S. District Court alleging that One Stop
Financial Corp. of Little Falls, N.J., had deceived long- distance
telecommunications customers.  The suit alleges One Stop Financial
intentionally created the mistaken impression it is affiliated with
AT&T, made unauthorized use of AT&T's trademarks and service marks,
and "slammed" customers, by advising AT&T that an AT&T customer wished
to switch to One Stop Financial, when the customer had not authorized
the change.  This is the first time AT&T has filed such a suit against
an aggregator or reseller, as companies who resell services tariffed
by the FCC are known.


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!

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Consumer Action, AT&T, Sprint, and 800 Rebilling
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 08:24:20 EDT


[ Submitter's Note: I assume that this means that forces of reason on
high have prevailed and no market-critter will in future suggest that
800 customers do politically incorrect billing things from 800
numbers. ]

Taken from an AT&T announcement:

Consumer Action (CA) has joined forces with AT&T and Sprint to fight
misuse of toll-free 800 numbers.  Today, each organization is calling
public attention to the potential for abuse of toll-free numbers and
to describe the steps they are taking to protect consumers who call
800 numbers.  According to CA Director Ken McEldowney, "The problem we
are fighting is the use of 800 numbers to bill for 900-type
information services.  There have never been charges for making calls
to 800 numbers.  However, in the past month we have heard of phone
services in which callers to 800 numbers were charged on phone bills
or look-alike phone bills for information received over the phone."


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: Tue, 14 Apr 92 8:15:48 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Missouri Discount Plan


Another mass mailing "to Southwestern Bell customers" has been
received in the St. Louis, MO area, this one from VarTec Telecom of
Dallas, offering discount calling intrastate and interstate, similar
to the one from Show-Me Long Distance that we discussed on the list a
month or so ago. The access code for these folks is 10811. (This is
yet another code not in the latest "10xxx" list in the Telecom
Archives.  Could someone who has access to the complete code database
please generate a current list for Pat to put into the Archives?)

I called VarTec at 800-583-8811 (for what it's worth, "583" is in the
npa.800 matrix as "Teleco") to get quotes for an intrastate Missouri
call to compare with Show-Me's rates. Again, I used the St.Louis City
 -- Warrenton (314-351 to 314-456) example my wife calls each week.
VarTec's rates are practically identical to Show-Me's:

            First Minute        Add'l Minutes Each
Day            $    .35            .20

Evening                .28            .16

Night/Weekend            .23            .14

The day and evening rates are about a cent less per minute than
Show-Me, while the night/weekend rate is just about the same.

VarTec's gimmick is that the 11th call costs only 1 cent. But there
are restrictions. That 1-cent call must be under 10 minutes in length.
Their software keeps track of your calls and, after 10 calls have been
logged, it flags your account for a 1-cent call. If the next call is
over ten minutes, that counts as the next call in the 10-call cycle,
and you can accumulate potential 1-cent calls over a period of months,
if all your calls are longer than 10 minutes. Since my wife usually
talks for at least half an hour on these weekly calls she makes, this
would be our situation. When you eventually make a less-than-10-minute
call, that is billed at 1 cent. This logging can mix interstate and
intrastate calls. Billing is a page enclosed with the SW Bell bill.

VarTec claims that their rates for interstate calls "are guaranteed to
be lower at all times than the lowest comparable 1+ rate for either US
Sprint, MCA, or AT&T." Show-Me's literature states their interstate
rates are 10% lower than 1+ AT&T, but VarTec doesn't give a specific
percentage -- claiming lower rates than MCI or Sprint, too, though,
would probably put their rates just about the same level, I would
think ...

We'll give them a try. My wife has used Show-Me for at least two long
calls so far, and was quite pleased with the line quality. We'll try
VarTec this coming weekend and see if there is any noticeable
difference. (Actually, I am guessing that these people are resellers,
and the same lines are in use no matter if we use SW Bell, Show-Me, or
VarTec; if I'm wrong in that, I'd like to be corrected and see
details.)


Regards,

Will   [e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 13:33 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: More Cellular Gotchas


Add these to your list of "Things to Watch Out For" with cellular
service.  I have Cellular One service in NJ (A), which I like better
than Bell Atlantic or NYNEX (B), but there are still problems:

1. On the brochures, they say they don't charge airtime for calls
unless they are answered or you wait 40 seconds.  Well, if you place a
0+ calling card call, you *always* get charged airtime.  Even if you
calling card wasn't validated.  Even if you hang up before the
"<blong>".  Even if the number is busy, no answer, or invalid.
"That's different" they say.  Really?  Now that they force you to use
0+ to call certain areas (NPA 809 at least), this makes it such a joy.

2. Voice mail does *not* get activated if your phone is turned off or
goes out of service while ringing.  The caller gets reorder, or
silence then a hangup.  If you're NoSvc *before* you start ringing, it
goes directly to voice mail.  If it rings four times, it goes to voice
mail.  But if it rings once or twice, then you go NoSvc, you lose.
Again, voice mail fails to catch calls that aren't completed.

3. Call forwarding to NPA 908 is not working, at least from my 201-404
mobile.  It works to NPA 201 and 212 and probably others.  I use *71
to forward, and *710 to unforward.  I was wondering how to forward to
an international number, and they couldn't tell me.  *710<anything>
gives me the confirmation tone, but always unforwards, so *71011
doesn't work (it's misleading too).  Also, you cannot dial *71-1-NPA;
it must be *71-NPA- ...

4. When you call forward, you can't get to your voice mail from a land
line, because you dial your own mobile number to access it.  However,
you *can* still get to it from your mobile by dialing your mobile
number but with 111 as the area code.

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

From: Herb Jellinek <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Statement on Lifting Telecom Ban on Vietnam
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 11:12:27 PDT


[Forwarded from the SEAsia-L bitnet list <[e-mail]>]

 Date:    Tue, 14 Apr 1992 06:37:00 -0700
 From:    "Vietnam Publications" <[e-mail]>
 Subject:      US statement on lifting telecom ban on Vietnam


Released by the Indochina Project

                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

           Office of the Assistant Secretary/Spokesman

For Immediate Release                              April 13, 1992

            STATEMENT BY MARGARET TUTWILER/SPOKESMAN

            VIETNAM -- LIFTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS BAN

   The U.S. will grant an exception to the U.S. economic embargo with
Vietnam to allow U.S. telecommunications links with Vietnam to be
established. Payments to Vietnam will go into blocked accounts pending
full lifting of the embargo. This action will facilitate humanitarian
contact between the American/Vietnamese community and their family
members still in Vietnam.

   Our decision to lift the telecommunications ban is in response to
positive steps by Vietnam on POW/MIA issues, as well as Vietnam's
continued support of the Cambodia peace settlement. Our step
demonstrates U.S. intent to fulfill our commitments as Vietnam
fulfills its commitments. It is in keeping with the established U.S.
policy for a step-by-step process of normalization of relations with
Vietnam.

   We expect the Vietnamese to respond with continued and intensified
efforts to achieve the fullest possible accounting for all our missing
Americans. Over the coming weeks and months, we will consider
additional confidence-building steps as Vietnam fully implements the
agreements reached between Foreign Minister Cam and Assistant
Secretary Solomon in Hanoi on March 5, 1992.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #318
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24324;
          16 Apr 92 5:05 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28002
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:23:33 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29232
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:23:05 -0500
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:23:05 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #319

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Apr 92 02:22:30 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 319

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Call for Papers - MASCOTS'93 (Patrick Dowd)
    Overwite Caller ID Memory Registers (Richard Nash)
    PA Caller ID History (Jack Decker)
    Roaming in Australia (John R. Covert)
    Metropolitan Fiber Systems and the Great Chicago Flood (Nigel Allen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Patrick Dowd)
Subject: Call for Papers - MASCOTS'93
Reply-To: `[e-mail]'
Organization: UB
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:10:58 GMT


         PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS

International Workshop on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer
          and Telecommunication Systems (MASCOTS'93)

 Part of the 1993 SCS Western Multiconference on Computer Simulation
      (Sponsored by the SCS, IEEETCSIM, IEEETCARCH, ...)
(ACM, IEEECS, IFIPWG, ORSA cooperation/sponsorships have been requested)
             January 17- January 20, 1993
      Hyatt Hotel, La Jolla, San Diego, California, USA.


SCOPE:

The workshop MASCOTS'93 is expected to be a major event where
researchers, developers and experts with interests in systems design,
modeling and analysis, simulation, performance evaluation and various
applications will meet to consider one of the current important
themes: modeling, analysis and simulation of computer/communication
systems of the present and future.

Performance, robustness and reliability predictions of computer and
communication systems of future in particular are both important and
extremely challenging.  Modeling, analysis and simulation are widely
applicable to problems in the specification and design of computer and
communication systems; however, traditional modeling, analysis and
simulation strategies need to be closely scrutinised for their
robustness, efficiency and practical applicability in areas of future
computer/communication systems. Some techniques are evolving and new
approaches are emerging to satisfy the requirements of these
ever-expanding areas.

TOPICS:

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

Modeling/Analysis/Simulation of Systems such as:

 -- Multiple Processor Systems
 -- High-Speed Computer Networks and Distributed Systems
 -- Massively Parallel and Scalable Systems
 -- Systolic structures and SIMD/Vector Machines
 -- Fault Tolerant Systems
 -- Real-Time Systems
 -- Artificial Neural Networks
 -- Parallel, VLSI and RISC/CISC architectures
 -- Large, Distributed, (Incomplete) Data-base Systems
 -- Application systems like DSP/AI applications and expert
    systems/Vision and Image Processing Systems/Robotics and Control etc
 -- Complex and heterogeneous systems
 -- Novel architectures/advances in technologies
 -- Telecommunication/communication systems

Advances in Modeling Techniques such as:

 -- Analytic (Performance, Reliability and Performability) Modeling
 -- Specification and validation techniques as in network protocols,
    logic design etc.
 -- Discrete Simulation
 -- Numeric Simulation and Visualization Techniques
 -- Intelligent Simulation Techniques with Knowledge as the key

AUTHOR INFORMATION:

Papers that deal with these themes, both methodological and specific
case study-oriented, are solicited.  We are especially interested in
papers on innovative modeling and/or simulation techniques that are
expected to survive the onslaught of technological advances and remain
current for a reasonable period of time.

The workshop will have prominent guest speakers, presentations of
refereed papers, panel sessions, tool and poster presentations.  In
addition, there will be tutorials on introductory and advanced topics.

All submissions will be reviewed.  We shall provide blind referring.
Put names, affiliations and addresses for correspondence (postal and
electronic) of authors on a separate cover. Papers must not exceed 12
double-spaced pages. Provide an abstract and 3-4 keywords.  Authors of
accepted papers will have to present their papers at the workshop. A
best paper award will be made.

A limited number of posters/short papers can also be admitted.  For
posters, an extended abstract of maximum 4 double-spaced pages must be
submitted. Full-length papers and poster abstracts will appear in the
proceedings to be published by the SCS.

Proposals for tutorials must contain a brief description of the theme,
target audience, proposed time duration and an outline of the
presentation.  Panel proposals should be based on a current theme that
can generate a lively discussion. A brief position statement from the
each panelist of a panel will be included in the proceedings.

A selected set of high-quality papers, tutorials, state-of-the-art and
invited lectures (revised and enlarged) will be published as a hard
cover book, by Kluwer Academic Publishers, shortly after the workshop.
Send four copies of your papers and posters to the Program Committee
Chair, Jean Walrand at the address given below. Panel session
proposals and proposals for tutorial, should be sent to the respective
Chairs. Special session proposals should be directed to Kallol Bagchi,
Technical Co-Chair.  All other inquiries should be directed to the
Publicity Chair.

There will be a Tools Fair at MASCOTS'93.  Tools accepted for
presentation should be demonstrated on a computer system or shown on a
video tape.  All submissions on tools must contain the details of the
necessary equipment. Send abstracts on tools to one of the Tools Fair
Managers.  Brief descriptions of selected tools including pictures
(max. 1 double-spaced page) will also appear in the proceedings.

Schedule:

June 30, 92:  Special sessions proposals due
July 15, 92:  Deadline for submissions of papers/tutorial
              and panel proposals/tools
Sept. 15, 92: Notification of acceptance
Oct. 15, 92:  Deadline for camera-ready copy

General Chair                             Program Committee Chair

Dr. Herb Schwetman                      Prof. Jean Walrand
MCC                                       Department of Electrical Engineering
3500 West Balcones Center Drive             and Computer Sciences
Austin, TX 78759  USA                     267M Cory Hall
email: [e-mail]                        University of California
Phone. +(1) 512-338-3428                  Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
Fax. +(1) 512-338-3885                    email: [e-mail]
                                          Phone: +(1) 510-642-1529
                                          Fax: +(1) 510-643-8426
Technical Co-Chairs

Dr. Kallol Bagchi                      Dr. Doug DeGroot
Institute of Electronic Systems           Advanced Technologies & Components
Aalborg University,                       Texas Instruments
Fredrick Bajers Vej 7,                    6550 Chase Oaks Blvd.
DK 9220, Aalborg Ost, Denmark.            MS 8435
email: [e-mail]                    Plano, TX 75023, USA
[e-mail]                       email: [e-mail]
Phone. +(45)98 15 85 22                   Phone: +(1) 214 575 3763


Tutorial Chair                            Panel Chair

Prof. Kishor Trivedi                      Prof. Dharma Agrawal,
Department of Computer Science            Department of Electrical
  and Electrical Engineering                and Computer Engineering
Duke University                           North Carolina State University
Durham NC 27706, USA                      Box 7911
email [e-mail]                    Raleigh, NC 27695-7911, USA
                                          email: [e-mail]

Publicity Chair                           Treasurer

Dr. Patrick Dowd                          Dr. Anup Kumar
Dept. of Electrical and                   Engineering Math and Computer Science
  Computer Engineering                    Univ. of Louisville
State University of New York at Buffalo   University of Louisville
Buffalo, NY 14260  USA                    Louisville, Ky 40292
email: [e-mail]               email:[e-mail]


Tools Fair Managers

Dr. Thomas Braunl                         Dr. Manu Thapar
IPVR                                      HP Research Labs.
U of Stuttgart,Breitwiesenstr. 20-22      1501 Page Mill Road
D-7000 Stuttgart 80,Germany               Palo Alto, CA 94304  USA.
email:[e-mail]  email : [e-mail]

Program Committee

Dharma Agrawal (NC State U)
Kallol Bagchi (AUC, DK)
Nader Bagherzadeh (UCI)
Jim Burr (Stanford U)
Thomas Braunl (U Stuttgart, D)
Giovanni Chiola (U Torino, IT)
Doug DeGroot (TI)
Ed Deprettere (U Delft, NL)
Patrick Dowd (SUNY, Buffalo)
Larry Dowdy (Vanderbilt U)
Michel Dubois (USC)
Paul Fishwick (U  Florida)
Rhys Francis (CSIRO, Australia)
Geoffrey Fox (Syracuse U)
Mary Girard (MITRE Corp.)
Wolfgang Halang (U Groningen, NL)
Mark Holliday (Duke U)
Bob Jump (Rice U)
Charlie Jung (IBM, Kingston)
Charlie Knadler (IBM, Rockville)
Anup Kumar (U Louisville)
Benny Lautrup (Bohr Institute, DK)
Darrel Long (UC, Santa Cruz)
Vijay Madisetti (Georgia Tech.)
Marco Ajmone Marsan (Poly. Torino, IT)
Mary Lou Padgett (Auburn U)
Roger Shepherd (INMOS, UK)
Lambert  Spaanenburg (U. Stuttgart, D)
Tom Stiemerling (London City U, UK)
Shreekant  Thakkar (Sequent)
Manu Thapar (HP, Palo Alto)
Kishor Trivedi (Duke U)
Hamid Vakilzadian (U Nebraska)
Steve Winter (Poly. C. London, UK)
Bernie Zeigler (U Arizona)
George Zobrist (U Missouri Rolla)


If you  are  interested in  receiving  further  announcements of  this
workshop, please, return  (preferably  by  E-Mail) the filled   up form
printed below.


INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP   ON  MODELING,   ANALYSIS  AND SIMULATION   OF
COMPUTER AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS (MASCOTS '93) :


Please, put me on your mailing list for this workshop.


       Name: __________________________________________________________

Affiliation: __________________________________________________________

    Address: __________________________________________________________

             __________________________________________________________

  Telephone: ____________________

        Fax: ____________________

     E-mail: ____________________


I intend to submit a paper to MASCOTS '93:    YES [ ]      NO [ ]


Dr. Kallol Bagchi                        Dr. Patrick Dowd
Institute of Electronic Systems          Dept. of Electrical and
Aalborg University                         Computer Engineering
Fredrick Bajers Vej 7                    SUNY/Buffalo
DK 9220 Aalborg Ost, Denmark             Bell Hall
Phone: [phone], Ext. 4901        Buffalo, NY 14260
Fax:   [phone]                   Phone: +(1) 716 636-2406
email: [e-mail]                   Fax:   +(1) 716 636-3656
[e-mail]                      email: [e-mail]

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

From: trickie![e-mail] (Richard Nash)
Subject: Overwite Caller ID Memory Registers
Date: 4 Apr 92 19:20:15 GMT
Organization: Not an Organization


  Is it possible to send Bell202 FSK to the called parties' CID unit
while they are off hook?  If so, by transmitting a steady stream (with
proper CID protocol), it would be possible to 'fill up' the CID
registers with perhaps your calling number, or maybe all zeros
(000-000-0000) if you wanted to 'mask' the calling number.  Or does
the unit only capture data while the line is on-hook?


Richard Nash             Edmonnton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:                     trickie![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Sorry, it is not possible to do what you suggest.
The data is only sent when the called party is still on hook. If they
go off hook before the second ring, the Caller-ID data is lost.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 16:21:54 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: PA Caller ID History


The following message is from the Fidonet FCC echo:

 Original From: Don Kimberlin
       Subject: PA Caller ID History

Caller ID is a topic that raises all sorts of emotional controversy.
In Pennsylvania, it ran up against a real roadblock when it seemed to
violate that state's privacy laws.  Most recently, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court has upheld lower court rulings that Caller ID is in
violation of privacy laws. (It has been said by some reporters that
the Pennsylvania laws are modeled after Federal laws.)

 ...Here's a chronology of the rocky road Caller ID has traveled
to its present impasse in Pennsylvania (PUC = Public Utility
Commission; ALJ = Adminstrative Law Judge):

Jan. 1989 - Bell of PA files tariff for Caller ID with no
        blocking provision.

Mar. 1989 - Complaints prompt the PA PUC to suspend Caller ID
        tariff.

Sep. 1989 - PUC's ALJ recommends allowing callers to block
        transmission of their number to avoid violating PA's
        wiretap laws.

Nov. 1989 - PA PUC rejects ALJ's recommendation and allows Caller
        ID with no blocking.

Dec. 1989 - Four parties ask Commonwealth Court of PA to review
        the PUC's decision.  Judge orders stay of Caller ID
        pending resolution.

May  1990 - Commonwealth Court rules that Caller ID violates state
        wiretap laws.

Aug. 1990 - Separate appeals are filed with the PA Supreme Court,
        where they are later consolidated into one case.

Mar. 1992 - PA Supreme Court upholds ruling that Caller ID
        violates wiretap laws.

Who knows what's really ahead for Caller ID in Pennsylvania -- and
perhaps elsewhere, if (as one might expect) other states begin to
follow the Pennsylvania lead?


WM v2.02/91-0073
Origin: AET BBS - [phone], 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16)

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

Jack Decker    [e-mail]     FidoNet 1:154/8

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 16:57:14 PDT
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Roaming in Australia


Recently the question "is there roaming in Australia" came up, and the
answer wasn't immediately available, so I spent some time
investigating this.

Visitors from New Zealand and Singapore may roam for AUS$3/day and
 .29/minute.

If you're from anywhere else, things are not so simple.

Telecom Mobilnet will first send you to the government agency Austel,
who will contact the manufacturer of your phone to obtain written
certification that your phone is identical to a model actually
approved for sale in Oz.  Austel specifically told me to forget about
Radio Shack and Panasonic phones.  You must also provide proof to
Austel that you have had the phone in service outside Australia for at
least four months (present copies of bills).

Austel will then allow your phone to be connected to the network.
Telecom Mobilnet seems to think that at this point you go to a dealer
to have the phone programmed.  Whether you then pay the roamer rates
or whether you have to sign up for regular service, and what you might
be charged for all of this, is not evident.

Austel basically suggested that short-term visitors from the States
rent a phone upon arrival.

Austel claims to be working on a roaming agreement with Hong Kong and
with Cantel in Canada, but doesn't have a clue about how to deal with
the large number of U.S. carriers.


john

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: Metropolitan Fiber Systems and the Great Chicago Flood
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Metropolitan Fiber Systems, the bypass carrier that started in Chicago
and has since expanded elsewhere, got its start by running fiber optic
cable in the coal tunnels beneath Chicago -- the same ones that were
flooded on Monday.

Has the company's Chicago network been wiped out, or did it survive
the flood? I assume that the fiber itself would survive, but that any
electronics immersed in the flood waters would be destroyed, unless
very well waterproofed.


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044


[Moderator's Note: I have seen not a word about them in the papers
but I rather suspect they were totally wiped out. Certainly the
electonics would be gone, and I don't have much optimism about the
fiber. The heavy force of water, traveling very fast as it pushed its
way through the tunnels would have probably destroyed everything in
its path. And the tunnels still being full of water, no one is able to
say with any assurance what condition things will be in down there
when people can safely inspect them. They had only been able to enter
a small area Wednesday for the purpose of of barricading the area
where the water was entering. Perhaps Don Kimberlin or someone else
who is familiar with their service could get some information for us
on this.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #319
******************************











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01251;
          17 Apr 92 6:21 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12410
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:29:47 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09981
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:29:22 -0500
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:29:22 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #320

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 Apr 92 04:29:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 320

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CWA Responds to President (CWA News via Phillip Dampier)
    GTE Workers Send Message to Annual Meeting (CWA News via Phillip Dampier)
    AT&T Job Cuts Cost Taxpayers $3 Billion (CWA News via Phillip Dampier)
    AT&T and Sprint Fight 800 Call Charges (John R. Levine)
    Comp.society.privacy Passes Voting (Dennis G. Rears)
    GTE Offers Personal Secretary (Corinna Polk)
    I'm Having Fun With My School's Phone System (Michael Rosen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:58:48 -0500
Subject: CWA Responds to President


STATEMENT FROM CWA PRESIDENT MORTON BAHR REGARDING BUSH'S EXECUTIVE
ORDER ON AGENCY FEE PAYERS

13 April 1992

We find it more than a little ironic that President Bush has issued
such an unnecessary and intrusive Executive Order, and has instructed
the Department of Labor to issue regulations outside of their
jurisdiction, when he has decided to delay enforcement of many other
regulations that are far more important.

One sure sign that this is a political maneuver is that Mr. Bush is
trying to go outside of the normal channels for enforcing the law.
The NLRB is the agency charged with enforcing the National Labor
Relations Act, which is the statute under which the Beck case was
decided.

This action is unheard of: Mr. Bush has never issued an order
requiring employers to inform workers of their right to organize
unions, for example.  We are not sure if Mr. Bush has the authority
under the law to do what he has done, but if he wants to inform
workers about their rights under the National Labor Relations Act,
then he should require that all of those rights be posted.  Such
information ought to be comprehensive.

The Communications Workers of America is obeying the Beck decision,
which, interestingly enough, has has very little impact on our union,
because we had an active policy on these matters prior to that
decision.  We represent over 600,000 workers, and only about one
quarter of one percent has ever asked for a dues rebate, although we
have publicized this option for ten years.

We don't think for a minute that the Bush Administration is genuinely
concerned about workers' rights.  Bush is simply trying to hobble
labor unions with all sorts of unnecessary paperwork, for purely
partisan objectives.  It's just not right, and it is not fair to
America's working people.

CWA represents over 600,000 workers in telecommunications, printing,
publishing, media health care and the public sector in the United
States and Canada.

For more information, contact:

Jeff Miller
Gaye Williams Mack
Communications Workers of America
[phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:58:48 -0500
Subject: GTE Workers Send Message to Annual Meeting


GTE WORKERS SEND JOB SECURITY MESSAGE TO COMPANY'S ANNUAL MEETING

WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 15 -- Thousands of GTE employees and family
members sent a message to the company's annual meeting today,
delivered in the form of proxy shares brought by Communications
Workers of America Vice President T.O. Moses, who addressed the
meeting on their behalf.

Moses spoke to the contradictions between GTE's stated desire to
provide quality service and their "abysmal" treatment of employees,
the people who must provide that service to the customers:

    "Quality employers do not tell their employees in one
     breath that 'we are all in this boat together' while
     granting its top 41 officers golden parachutes for a
     'change in control' situation, then in the next breath
     treat the employees like disposable diapers to be
     tossed aside after being used."

    "Quality employers do not replace a workforce that is
     qualified, dedicated, active, loyal, and responsive
     with a host of gypsy outside vendors who hold no
     commitment or loyalty to the company, the customer,
     or the community where they are replacing regular
     employees."

    "A quality employer does not deplete the tax base of a
     community by transferring jobs en masse to other
     locations without considering and working for alternative
     solutions to maintain a workforce in those communities."

    "A quality employer in one breath does not proclaim its
     employees are the company's most valued asset, that they
     value their input, then in the next breath announce a
     Process Re-Engineering Strategy that excludes the
     employee body and its representatives from participating
     in meaningful decisions that will not only impact the
     company's future, but theirs as well."

Negotiations for a new three-year contract with GTE Southwest began on
Tuesday, March 31, 1992 in Irving, Texas, and talks with GTE
Iowa-Nebraska begin later this month.  These are the first of several
rounds of negotiations to be held in 1992 and 1993 with GTE, for new
contracts covering a total of about 30,000 union represented workers
nationwide.

GTE, the largest U.S. telephone holding company, is a financially
strong, growing, successful corporation.  In 1991, GTE saw significant
increases in profits, revenues, return to shareholders, productivity,
and acquired new assets.  GTE paid $945 million for a share of the
Venezuelan phone company in 1991, and consumated a $6.2 billion dollar
merger with Contel. Profitability per employee is estimated to exceed
$35,000 per worker in 1991.

GTE's telephone operations are the key to the company's success,
providing an overwhelming share (85 percent) of their profits.

"Our members, whose hard work has made millions for GTE, deserve a
fair contract that protects their standard of living and insures
employment security now and in the future," Moses stated.

CWA represents over 600,000 workers in telecommunications, printing,
publishing, media, health care, and the public sector in the United
States and Canada.


For more information, contact:

Jeff Miller
Gaye Williams Mack
Communications Workers of America
[phone]

Ben Turn
[phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:04:45 -0500
Subject: AT&T Job Cuts Cost Taxpayers $3 Billion


AT&T JOB CUTS COST TAXPAYERS $3 BILLION, THREATEN QUALITY SERVICE, CWA
CHARGES

DALLAS, APRIL 15 -- Despite AT&T's steady growth and profitability,
the company's job cuts since the 1984 Bell System break-up have cost
American communities more than $3 billion, the Communications Workers
of America charged.

CWA Vice President James Irvine addressed the AT&T shareholders
meeting today in Dallas, speaking in support of a union-backed
resolution to request that AT&T establish a Facilities Closure and
Relocation of Work committee, including outside Board members and
employee representatives to weigh decisions on plant and office
closures, movement of work, and downsizing of the workforce.

Irvine, head of CWA's 100,000 member AT&T bargaining unit, said the
corporation has jettisoned 123,000 jobs over the past eight years, and
he cited an independent research study that found that each lost AT&T
job costs local governments more than $27,000.

The study, conducted by the Midwest Center for Labor Research of
Chicago, involved an examination of AT&T layoffs and closings in a
sampling of large and small cities.  The locations were New York,
Kansas City, Cleveland, Houston, North Andover, MA, and San Leandro,
CA.

The costs include lost tax revenues, increased outlays for social
benefit programs, and lost business revenues in the respective
communities.

The study also found a ripple effect in the communities where plants
closed.  More than 850 ripple effect jobs were lost for every 1,000
plant people laid off.  Also noted was that 1/3 of off-roll employees
will be unemployed one year later, and 1/5 will be jobless two years
later.

"I believe we as AT&T's owners have an obligation to have all
alternatives explored before downsizing," Irvine stated in his
remarks.  "An obligation not only to employees but to the communities
that will be affected."

Irvine urged the AT&T shareholders to support the union's resolution,
despite the board's recommendation against it, citing the changes
within AT&T organizations from year to year, "traumatizing employees
in both the union and in lower levels of management, based on
particular managers' views of how the business should be run to suit
their needs on that day."

Irvine went on to say: "We have seen consolidations occur laying off
people in several locations only to find a year or two later that
there is truly a need, in the new managers' view, to have the work
diversified across the country to be closer to the customers, then
causing surpluses or layoffs in the location of the consolidated
group," Irvine continued.  "We can look at the newest announcement of
the layoff of 6,000 operators.  I believe there is a lot of room in
this case to integrate other work into operator services, not only
keeping work inside AT&T but also enhancing the jobs.  The work I
refer to is telemarketing work which is presently contracted outside
of AT&T."

"We recently saw a joint venture established in Tampa, Florida, which
caused surpluses of technicians.  This joint venture sold out AT&T's
equity in the General Business Systems.  That was a decision
absolutely contrary to the best interest of AT&T.  You simply cannot
grow a business or be competitive by selling out equity."

"A few years ago, we saw the split of the large business group and the
general business group which caused surpluses and diminished service
to the customers, and now I understand that business is being brought
back together."

"We've all seen the bad press about blackouts and how the diminished
service has caused customers to leave AT&T.  {The Wall Street Journal}
has graphically reported these issues, and even they suggest that
workers have been cut too severely."

Citing a full page ad in yesterday's {New York Times} signed by Lee
Iacocca, Irvine urged support for establishment of the joint
committee, and quoted the ad: "You can buy technology.  You can't buy
experience, loyalty, and pride.  Those are the real ingredients of
quality.'  Let's fold all of those ingredients into downsizing
decisions."

CWA members across the country stood up at their worksites
simultaneously at 11:30 AM Eastern Time, in support of Irvine's
message.  Members also wore red today to symbolize their solidarity.

CWA represents over 600,000 workers in telecommunications, printing,
publishing, media, health care, and the public sector in the United
States and Canada.


For further information, contact:

Jeff Miller
Gaye Williams Mack
Communications Workers of America
[phone]

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

Subject: AT&T and Sprint Fight 800 Call Charges
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 16:33:50 EDT
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


{Newsbytes} reports that AT&T and Sprint are working with a group
called Consumer Action to stop caller charges on 800 calls.  They note
that as 900 numbers are increasingly regulated, some providers are
turning to 800 numbers instead.

AT&T and Sprint are discussing with the FCC tariff language which
prevents billing for 800 calls unless there is a previous relationship
between caller and callee or the caller agrees to pay with a credit
card.

Consumer Action also wants these tariff changes codified in federal
law.


Regards,

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


[Moderator's Note: In the next issue of the Digest today, I have an
article by Don Kimberlin on this same topic, of '800 Scamming'.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 16:31:28 EST
From: "Dennis G. Rears " <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comp.society.privacy Passes Vote


  The vote on the newsgroup comp.society.privacy (moderated) passed.
The newsgroup will be created on Monday, 20 April.  The first article
will be a welcome message and the charter.

  Depending on submissions, there may be one final issue of telecom-
priv. It will be replaced with the Computer Privacy Digest with an
email address of comp-privacy@pica.  army.mil and the request address
of [e-mail].  For the next 90 days the
telecom-privs address will work.

  All comp.society.privacy submissions will be forwarded to
[e-mail] just like all comp.dcom.telecom submissions
are forwarded to [e-mail].  I will publish the email list
in digest form and send to the newsgroup individual articles.

  If there is a strong objection to the folding of the telecom-priv
list into comp-privacy, I will consider keeping it as a separate list.
Based on past responses I don't think there will be any.  All
subscribers will be moved over to the new list.  I would ask that drop
requests be held until you start receiving comp.society.privacy at
your site.

  I am actively soliciting articles on fresh topics for the first
issue.  I am looking for fresh topics that will stimulate discussions.

The charter for the new group:

comp.society.privacy    Effects of technology on privacy (Moderated)

   This newsgroup is to provide a forum for discussion on the effect of
   technology on privacy. All to often technology is way ahead of the
   law and society as it presents us with new devices and
   applications.  Technology can enhance and detract from privacy.
   This newsgroup will be gatewayed to an internet mailing list.


            Dennis G. Rears
MILNET:   [e-mail]     UUCP:  ...!uunet!cor5.pica.army.mil!drears
INTERNET: [e-mail]    USPS:  Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
Phone(home): 201.927.8757       Phone(work): 201.724.2683/(DSN) 880.2683
USPS:        SMCAR-FSS-E, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806


[Moderator's Note: And my best wishes to this new newsgroup and Digest.
Long time TELECOM Digest readers will recall that Telecom-Priv had its
beginning as an offshoot of this Digest. I'm happy for Dennis that it
has worked out so well with the hard effort he has given it.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Corinna Polk)
Subject: GTE Offers Personal Secretary
Date: 16 Apr 1992 10:53:42 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


GTE has begun offering their 'Personal Secretary' service in the Los
Angeles area (and maybe elsewhere, but I don't know). It offers basic
voice-mail service like PacBell's Message Center, but it also offers
personal alarm service, which acts kinda like a 976-WAKE service, and
you can set it to call you each day at a certain time. Also, it offers
a 'Personal Reminders' feature which allows you to record a reminder
for yourself like "Call mom, it's her birthday") and program it to
call you on a certain day and time to play the message back. The
service is being offered at $5.95/month and right now there is no
service charge for startup (normally $15). Mine is supposed to be
connected tomorrow, although I haven't received any of the promised
documentation.

Hopefully it will fare better than The Message Center did in it's
inital offering.

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: I'm Having Fun With my School's Phone System
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 05:01:02 GMT


Wow, I'm learning new things about our phone system every day ... well
not every day, but you get the idea.  I found out that from offices
and front desks of dorms, dialing *1 will force call waiting on an
on-campus phone whose line is busy.  Dialing #1 will redial the call
from any phone.  Unfortunately, #1 won't redial my access code as
well.  I've thought of a great way to get through to my radio
station's request line for contests, etc.  Since the #1 is faster than
my own phone, I would dial the 800 number first, then hang up on busy
and dial #1, then redial the #1...:)

BTW, does anyone know what type of system my school might be using?  I
tried calling telecommunications and asking but I didn't get a good
answer.  I've heard of one such type called Meridian.  I don't know if
this is it or not. Features include call waiting that must be answered
with a flash and then *4 (quite annoying, why not just a flash?),
dialing 9 for direct calls, 8 for 0+ calls, and Audix is available.


Mike

   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #320
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04821;
          17 Apr 92 7:49 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15987
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 17 Apr 1992 05:47:41 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23289
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 17 Apr 1992 05:47:20 -0500
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 05:47:20 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #321

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 Apr 92 05:47:15 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 321

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    800 Number Scammery (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker)
    Sparc Audio Output and Telephones (Samir Agarwal)
    New Form of Caller*ID Available (Sue Welborn)
    Methods of Accessing the Internet From Tymnet (Chris Patti)
    Interesting Book on Deregulation (Jim Haynes)
    German Country Code Only 49 Now (Wolfgang R. Schulz)
    Integretel Duplicate Billing (Carl Moore)
    California Assembly Bill on Telemarketing (Howard Gayle)
    Info Needed: Commercial Internet Access (Ikuro Aoki)
    Phoning Vietnam From the USA (Senator Charles Robb via Nigel Allen)
    Telenova PBX Question (Android Rubin)
    Ringback Service in Montreal (Christian Doucet)
    CCITT and X.25 with VxWorks (Patrick Boylan)
    Data Over Cellular (Lynne Gregg)
    Pagers Question (William Henze)
    "Click!" or Apology (Jim Redelfs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 17:19:09 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Number Scammery


This message originally appeared in the Fidonet FCC echo:

 Original From: Don Kimberlin
       Subject: 800 Number Scammery

Another of the several forms of fraud being conducted by telephone
these days is a "switch" scheme on 800 numbers.  Since the public is
well-lulled into "knowing that all 800 calls are free," inventive
scammers have found several ways around it.

One reported recently in {Telephone Engineer & Management} magazine
concerned an outfit that advertised an 800 number to attract
college-aged males, then turned out to be a porno call place.  It used
(apparently) the interstate Caller ID service that MCI has been
quietly selling with its 800 service, to trap the number of the
calling party, then a second trick to get the porno service billed
back to the caller by the originating local phoneco.  The calls showed
up in the freely exchanged settlements between phonecos as calls to
the town of "Entertain, Kansas."  That "crack" in the phoneco billing
mechanism may have been plugged, but who knows what other ones have
opened?

Another appears in the May, 1992 edition of {Seventeen} magazine, a
publication purchased by America's most notorious group of telephone
addicts, teen-age girls.  On page 16, the following notice appears:

                         TO OUR READERS

        "In our March issue we featured an ad promoting a _free_ call
to an 800-number advice line for girls and guys: `Dating Etiquette of
the 90's.'

        "Before accepting this ad, we asked to see the script -- what
callers would hear when they dialed the 800 number.  What we read was
fine -- just advice on dating etiquette.  After we reviewed the
script, the recording was changed without our knowledge, and callers
were informed that further advice was available by making a toll call.
As this was inconsistent with our understanding, we requested that the
advertiser delete the reference to the toll call from the message.
Our request was refused.

        "It was only after careful evaluation of the product that we
accepted this ad, and we did so in good faith.  We are outraged and we
apologize.  Please be assured that the best interests of our readers
are always our first consideration regarding anything we publish in
SEVENTEEN.

                        -The Editors

Looks like the inventiveness of telephone scammers knows few
bounds, and it is tripping up all sorts of well-intended business
around the nation ...


WM v2.02/91-0073
* Origin: AET BBS - [phone], 87,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16)

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

Jack Decker   [e-mail]    FidoNet 1:154/8

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

From: [e-mail] (Samir Agarwal)
Subject: Sparc Audio Output and Telephones
Organization: Mentor Graphics Corp. - IC Group
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:48:18 GMT


I have known this newsgroup about five minutes now. So if this
question does not belong here, please spare me the flames.

Does the following make any sense:

What (if anything) happens if I hook the audio output (wires only) of
a sparc to the telephone cables and run a program that produces the
appropriate tones for a number that one has to call on the phone.

1. Nothing happens
2. Potentially screws up sparc
3. Potentially screws up phone
4. Dials the number.

Is this documented/attempted before? Any suggestions and sources for
further info will be greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

Samir

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

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 09:22:45 CST
From: [e-mail] (Sue Welborn)
Subject: New Form of Caller*ID Available


We are located in Omaha, Nebraska and last week we received a flyer
from US West that announces the availability of Caller*ID with the
display of both the number and the name of the calling party beginning
April 7th.

You can keep the service as it is now for $5.50/mo or for $5.95/mo
have both name and number displayed.

US West has made special arrangements with the manufacturer for Caller
ID customers to purchase a new display for $59.95 (plus tax and
shipping) and when you return your existing display unit (provided it
was a US West model 125C or 125BX) to the manufacturer, you will
receive a $20.00 rebate to make your cost $39.95 plus tax and
shipping.

The trade-in offer is good through June 30, 1992 and they have
provided an 800 number to order the new unit.

You can also lease the new unit from US West for $3.00/mo plus a
one-time handling charge of $6.75.


Sue Welborn  Internet: [e-mail]  Fidonet : 1:285/666.3

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

From: Chris Patti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Methods of Accessing the Internet From Tymnet
Organization: A humble guest of the Free Software Foundation
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:56:42 GMT


Hello.  I'm a college student that will be graduating in one month and
moving to a less than metropolitan area.  As such there are no local
Internet Dial-ins and I have been trying to do research on methods
that I could still maintain my net access using Tymnet.

Our town only has a Tymnet node.  Telenet doesn't think our area is
big enough it would seem (Outer Worcester County, Massachusetts,
Leominster, Fitchburg, etc) But we *DO* have a Tymnet node.

I've heard various suggestions from various people on the topic, and
since I have read discussions on this group about Starlink/Tymnet
before I figured this might be the place to look..

The suggestions I've gotten have basically been: (a) become a StarLink
subscriber and use it to call the dial-in that I currently use, or (b)
get an NUI and use Tymnet's dial-ins, or even better find a company
that has an x25 -> internet gateway they'd be wiling to sell time on.

Does anyone have any pros/cons to either approach? Ideally I'd love to
somehow get a flat-fee type service similar to what PSI provides to
it's customers (unfortunately their closest dial-in is an area code
away.)

I would appreciate any suggestions anyone could give me, Please send
email (as well as posting to the group if you feel the suggestion
could be of use).


Thank you in advance,

[e-mail]
Chris Patti | [e-mail]: A guest of the Free Software Foundation

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

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting Book on Deregulation
Date: 15 Apr 92 06:10:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


I just got a copy of "The Telecommunications Deregulation Sourcebook"
by Stuart N. Brotman, Artech House, ISBN 0-89006-205-6.  It's not new,
copyright date is 1987, but has lots of interesting material, such as
the Carterfone decsion and the entry of MCI into the business.  It is
divided into three sections: broadcasting, cable TV, and common
carriers.


[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Wolfgang R. Schulz)
Subject: German Country Code Only 49 Now
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 10:22:16 MESZ


As of today, the country code 37 of the former "German Democratic
Republic" has vanished. 49 is the only existing one in all of Germany
after April 15th 1992. Many area codes in the eastern parts had to be
changed, but for callers from the west they are all domestic
destinations now. Even Berlin is just (0)30 for everybody, no longer
(00)37-2.

The only remaining curiosity is, that those making out-of-town calls
WITHIN the eastern part of Germany, still have to use the old domestic
area codes for some time. So quite a number of locations in East
Germany have two different city codes for the time being.


Wolfgang R. Schulz, Theodor-Koerner-Weg 5, 2000 Hamburg 61, Germany
Phone: [phone]***Fax: [phone]***MCI Mail: 241-2526
Internet:[e-mail]**Bang:..unido!mcshh!wrs**[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 10:02:57 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Integretel Duplicate Billing


Last September, I made a 0+ call from a COCOT at Lansdale, PA on the
215-362 prefix (to 215-839-1210, WCAU radio).  I got billed for a
1-minute call on my November phone bill (part of the bill sent out by
the local phone co.); charge, including all taxes, was $4.69 (yuk).
That was paid, but the same call has now appeared on my April phone
bill.  I called 800-736-7500, the number appearing on my bill, and no
account could be found for me when I called; I was told to mail copies
of those bills to Integretel (Inquiry Services), P.O. Box 611987, San
Jose, CA 95161-1987.


[Moderator's Note: Let us know about the integrity of Integratel when
you have resolved this with them.    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 08:57:32 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Howard Gayle)
Subject: California Assembly bill on Telemarketing
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Assembly bill 3494 by Mike Gotch (D, San Diego) would prohibit
telemarketing calls to numbers provided by subscribers who state they
don't want such calls.  Each violation would be punishable by a fine
up to $1000.

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

From: [e-mail] (ikuro aoki)
Subject: Info Needed: Commercial Internet Access
Organization: /homes/aoki/.organization
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:33:38


Dear Netter:

I am looking for US commercial companies which provide Internet access
service. I needs the direct access to Internet from a Japanese company
in Tokyo.  Connections will be made by international telephone
'dial-up'.

The company's name, E-mail address, phone number, access fees...  any
information will be welcome.

Please E-mail me, [e-mail].

Thanks.

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: Phoning Vietnam From the USA
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Press release from U.S. Senator Charles Robb

 Sen. Robb Praises End of Vietnamese Telephone Ban
 Contact: Peggy Wilhide of the Office of Sen. Charles Robb,
          202-224-8025

   WASHINGTON, April 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Sen. Charles S. Robb
(D-Va.) praised the Bush administration's decision to lift a ban
prohibiting U.S. citizens from telephoning Vietnam directly, giving
more than 20,000 Virginia Vietnamese-Americans telephone access to
their families and friends overseas.

   Robb introduced a Senate bill to provide for direct
telecommunication between Vietnam and the United States, and has
worked to convince the administration to lift the ban.

   "United States citizens have direct telephone access to Iraq, Cuba,
Libya, Syria, South Africa and Iran, yet they can't call Vietnam
unless they pay exorbitant black-market rates," said Robb.  "Lifting
the telephone ban should have been one of the first steps we took as
we began the process of normalizing relations with Vietnam."

   Some 700,000 Vietnamese Americans will be affected by the
administration's decision.

   Previously, the administration had proposed waiting until Phase II
of the Vietnamese normalization roadmap to lift the ban.  Phase II was
not set to begin until U.N. Peacekeepers are well established in
Cambodia.  No other part of Phase II has been implemented.

 /press release distributed by U.S. Newswire  202-347-2770/

(end of forwarded press release)

Does anybody have more information about this? I understand that
people who wanted to phone Vietnam from the U.S. used to have their
calls routed through Canada or some other third country.


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

From: [e-mail] (Android Rubin)
Subject: Telenova PBX Question
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:21:02 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA


Hello,

If anywhere, it's someone on Usenet that will still be using a
Telenova PBX ...

I need to know how to setup music-on-hold.  I've been all over the
admin utils, but nothing seems to do it.

The manuals got lost during our last move (about two years ago), and,
as you know, the company is DOA.

Let me know if anyone has any ideas.  Appreciate the help!


Andy  [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 21:07:24 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Christian Doucet)
Subject: Ringback Service in Montreal


I made some interesting experiments with the ringback number here in
Montreal. My exchange is 514-731 and I believe it's a DMS-100 as most
Bell Canada's switches are.

The ringback number is based on the phone number that you are using.
The first two digits are always 57X-XXXX and the last five are taken
from your OWN phone number thus 731-1234 would become 571-1234.

But it's not that easy to get it to ring you back.  When you dial that
number (57X-XXXX), it gives you a SECOND dialtone.  If you then hang
up for precisely one second (it's more than a flash), and then take the
phone off hook, you will hear a weird tone.  If you hang up for good
at that point, It will ring you back a few seconds later.

The funny thing is that we also have Caller*ID in Montreal and
when you use the ringback, you'll get 012-345-6789 displayed on your
Caller*ID device!

I thought you would like to know.


Christian Doucet ----- [e-mail] | Hydro-Quebec
System Administrator - [e-mail]        | voice: + 1 514 858 7704
I speak for myself! -- #include <disclaimer.h>   | fax  : + 1 514 858 7799

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

From: [e-mail] (Patrick Boylan)
Subject: CCITT and X.25 with VxWorks
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:47:06 GMT


Has anyone used VxWorks with CCITT or X.25 based communications?
Could you just let me know.  I don't need any great details (although
I wouldn't mind).  Thanks in advance.


Patrick Boylan, Consulting Engineer, FAE Asia/Pacific
Wind River Systems   1010 Atlantic Ave. Alameda, CA 94501
[e-mail]    [phone]

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

Date: 15 Apr 92 12:34:55 EDT
From: Lynne Gregg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Data Over Cellular


Is it feasible to use cellular service to transmit data?  If so, what
about cost and reliability considerations?


Thanks,

Lynne Gregg

Email to me at [e-mail] will be summarized and
submitted.

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

From: [e-mail] (William Henze)
Subject: Pagers Question
Date: 15 Apr 1992 13:11:10 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


I'm seeking general information on paging devices.  Does anyone know
of a good source for background info on pagers?  Perhaps some journal
or magazine article?  (My boss asked me to research this for him.) I
personally know nearly zilch about pagers other than their very basic
function.  I believe Motorola is the number-one manufacturer of the
devices?  Any information is greatly appreciated.


Bill Henze    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 06:45:00 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jim Redelfs)
Subject: "Click!" or Apology
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


> [Moderator's Note: Well, when I call a wrong number, I apologize, I
> don't just disconnect rudely. They might try the same.   PAT]

For YEARS, until my children grew older, overheard me a few times, and
browbeat ME out of doing it, I always said, "I'm sorry -- I have a
wrong number.  Please excuse the ring!"
                                       (sigh)
Old Toll Operator habits die hard!


JR  Tabby 2.2  MacNet Omaha  402-289-2899  macnet.omahug.org  (1:285/14)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #321
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07332;
          17 Apr 92 8:51 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04692
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:28:52 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22291
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:28:16 -0500
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:28:16 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #322

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 Apr 92 06:27:45 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 322

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Paul Cook)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Brad Hicks)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Andrew Klossner)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Charlie Mingo)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Bryan Montgomery)
    Re: Future of Fax (Stuart Lynne)
    Re: Overwrite Caller-ID Memory Registers (John R. Levine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 10:10:58 EDT


On 12 Apr 92 11:54:48 GMT, [e-mail] (Robert Lindh)
said:

> I think this could be a service sold by a email-system. (To receive
> email and send it as a FAX to given telephone number.)  Could
> telemarketers be a bigger problem compared with today, if this
> service exist and is made available (mostly a US-internal problem?)

The service already exists.  ATTMAIL users may send mail to fax!number
(/Attention name ) for fax delivery.  The MCI Mail and Sprint Mail
users on the list can tell you if similar services exist there.


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!


[Moderator's Note: Some Internetters have tried emailing to the
address fax![e-mail] only to find that it just won't work.
Both AT&T Mail and MCI Mail screen mail coming in addressed to the
premium services they offer. Someone has to pay for it!   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 17:57 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas


[e-mail] (Jim Rees) writes:

> This message I'm writing now is 13336 bits.  I can send it that way,
> or I can print it on paper, digitize the image, modulate that onto an
> analog carrier, digitize that, and reverse the whole process at the
> other end.  The efficient way, it's a few thousand bits.  The FAX way,
> it's probably 3 million bits (one minute at 56 kbps).  That's an
> efficiency of half a percent.  No wonder it cost you $50 to fax that
> document to Mexico!

No, the reason it cost so much to send the fax was 1) the customer has
a fax machine, not a modem and software for converting Postscript
files, 2) their machine stepped down to 1/4 speed, and 3) our data
sheets have graphics with these blue backgrounds behind detailed
pretty pictures.  The machine spends forever trying to "read" the blue
background.  That is why I said we probably need to come up with some
fax-friendly data sheets.

[e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:

> Let's see. Three full pages. I'll assume it's all text, at about 8
> point (which is typical). That's 9 lines per inch, about 14 cpi. 11K
> per page of text At 230 CPS (typical 2400 baud modem transfer) that's
> 51 seconds per page. You'd have gotten off for under $6 using email
> instead of FAX.

You missed some important points in my original post.

I was not sending to my own office, I was sending to some anonymous
potential customer in Mexico who asked me to send a data sheet to his
fax machine.  He did not have a modem or email.  I cannot force my
potential overseas customers to abandon their fax machines.

I was not sending text.  The part that was text was a lot smaller than
8 point!  You may recall that I said that if it were text, I could
have saved money using MCI Mail fax service, which will not charge me
extra for attempts, cutoffs, or machines that step down to 2400 bps.

Part of the reason it was so expensive was the nature of the graphics
in our data sheets, which is why I mentioned that "that we really need
some brief 'fax friendly' product data sheets that use bolder graphics
with no background".  By background, I mean the pretty shading and
borders that accompanies our detailed graphics.

> Wake up, folks, FAX is a massive botch. Work for better email services
> instead of screwing around with broken-as-designed technology.

That's why we list our email address on all of our product data sheets
and catalogs.  But we never get email from customers, unless they see
a post with our address on TELECOM Digest.

But email doesn't help us send product data sheets to overseas
customers with fax machines.

[e-mail] writes:

> I think this could be a service sold by a email-system. (To receive
> email and send it as a FAX to given telephone number.)  Could
> telemarketers be a bigger problem compared with today, if this service
> exist and is made available (mostly a US-internal problem?) ?

This is what MCI Mail fax service does, which I mentioned in my
original post as a nice alternative for overseas text-only faxes sent
to locations where the lines are bad, or they don't have separate
phone numbers dedicated to fax machines.


Paul Cook                         206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates         MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.            fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317    [e-mail]

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

From: mc!Brad_Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: Mon Apr 13 09:58:23 -0400 1992
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas


In TCD 12.314, [e-mail] (Robert Lindh) suggested:

> I think this could be a service sold by a email-system. (To receive
> email and send it as a FAX to given telephone number.)

Already exists.  On CompuServe, send mail to ">FAX:nnx-nnn-nnnn".  On
AT&T Mail, send mail to "mhs!fax!nnxnnnnnnn".  On MCI Mail, fill in
the name followed by "(EMS)", then at the EMS prompt enter "FAX", then
at the MBX prompt enter the phone number.  Price runs around $2 per
page; there is an extra charge for letterhead, and they send text
only.

Hmmm ... I wounder would would happen if somebody on FidoNet sent mail
to UseNet at 1:114/15.0 with "To: mhs!fax!<number>@attmail.com" on the
first line?  Maybe Internet users have fax email, too ...


J. Brad Hicks
Internet: mhs!mc![e-mail]
X.400:    c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad

I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above
does not contain official MasterCard statements or policies.


[Moderator's Note: What you are suggesting won't work. It *used to*
work, in the early days of the gateway between Internet and both MCI
and AT&T Mail ... until they caught on. Now they screen them out.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:10:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Robert J Woodhead) writes:

> What I want to see, and what I would pay reasonably serious bucks for,
> is a machine that is all of the following:

>    A Photocopier
>    A Scanner
>    A Fax Machine
>    A Postscript Printer (at least 600dpi)
>    A High Speed Modem

Me too. I've sent letters to all the major FAX and copier companies
and told them this. I REFUSE to buy a scanner and laser printer that I
can't use as a scanner and laser printer. Just stick a serial or
parallel port on that FAX and you've got a sale. It can't raise the
price more than $50.

> In the meantime, I will render unto email what is emailable, and unto
> fax what is not.

I've had to fax a total of two documents over the past several months.
One would have done better as email, but the person at the other end
didn't have a modem. I've received several documents as FAX, and twice
asked that docuents be sent physical mail instead because I knew that
the FAX wouldn't have good enough quality. I have a 24 pin printer
that I can use to render postscript with a higher resolution than any
FAX machine. When I need a scanner I'll buy a scanner.

Of course, all my computers except for one ancient Mac run operating
systems that let them reliably run stuff (like printing) in the
background no matter what applications I'm using. I'm sure that if I
was running DOS or Windows or System 7 I'd have to break down and buy
a standalone FAX.

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

> I think this could be a service sold by a email-system. (To receive
> email and send it as a FAX to given telephone number.)

I believe both AT&T Mail and MCI Mail have services like this.

The problem is that neither AT&T Mail nor MCI Mail are as convenient
as just FAXing. We need a commercial email system for MS-DOS that's as
easy and convenient as UUCP Mail is on UNIX.


Peter da Silva

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:32:47 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter da
Silva) writes:

> Wake up, folks, FAX is a massive botch. Work for better email services
> instead of screwing around with broken-as-designed technology.

I disagree.  Fax has been around a heck of a lot longer than email, so
there is a much larger installed base.  The main advantage of fax is
that "normal people" can use it with a very small investment in
training.  If I want to send a simple message via fax, I scribble it
out on a piece of paper, insert it in the fax machine, pick up the
phone, dial the call, then press "start".  That's it.  And installing
the fax machine was as simple as buying it, setting it on the table,
and plugging it into the power and phone jacks.

Email, on the other hand, is INCREDIBLY difficult.  I need a computer,
or at least a terminal, and a LAN or modem.  I need software.  I need
it all installed and working, which is far beyond the capabilities of
a "normal" person.  I need an "account" on an email system, usually by
pre-arrangement.  I need significant training in how to type (just
TYPING is very intimidating to a lot of people!), how to operate the
software, how to address messages (including a multitude of arcane and
ridiculous formats), etc.  I have to deal with relatively high costs
(international email might be cheaper than international fax, but it
is generally the opposite for domestic, especially if you're using a
commercial email service). If something goes wrong, I have to try to
decode cryptic failure messages that only a consultant could love.

Email may have many advantages over fax, but human factors aren't
among them.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:55:02 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


> What we need to do is send documents in a form closer to their
> internal representation.  Something like compressed PostScript.

It's coming.  Before too long, you'll see PostScript printers with
RJ-11 jacks.  Send a PostScript job with operators to select a FAX
number, and it will dial that number.  If the other end is a similar
PostScript printer, it will send the PostScript, otherwise it will
send G3 FAX.

This introduces several interesting new problems.  One: PostScript is
a complete programming language.  How do you keep hackers from
connecting to your FAX/PostScript machine and screwing with it?  The
proposed solution is a password mechanism.


Andrew Klossner  ([e-mail])
     (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:42:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas


[e-mail] writes:

> In defense of Fax, faxes are severely compressed using coding that is
> tuned to typewritten documents.  The most widely used email systems
> lack the richness of representation and the simplicity available to
> the Fax users.  I haven't tested the particular message that Jim Rees
> sent, but I'd guess a 10k to 15K size for a corresponding fax.  This
> depends on fonts used and other details.  While this is still an order
> of magnitude above his ASCII size, we're talking about a second or
> three at 56KB (7K Bytes/Second)

   Where does this 56 KB come from?  As you may know, Group III
faxmodems (v.29) run at 9600 (half-duplex), and the proposed Group IV
faxmodems (v.17) will run at 14400.  Realistically, a 14400 modem will
not manage more than 1500-1700 cps, so a Group IV fax should take at
least ten seconds a page, while the corresponding text-only version
would take only two seconds a page.

   Then you have to add in the fact that most faxes use a cover-sheet,
which translates into a 15K header.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 14:49:14 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas


In issue 314, Robert Eoodhead wrote:

> [e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:

>> Wake up, folks, FAX is a massive botch. Work for better email services
>> instead of screwing around with broken-as-designed technology.

> I communicate with my office in Wilmington several times a day.  If
> what I have to send is a simple message, or perhaps a "binhex'd" file,
> then I email.  Otherwise, I fax.

> The future:

> What I want to see, and what I would pay reasonably serious bucks for,
> is a machine that is all of the following:
>
>   A Photocopier
>   A Scanner
>   A Fax Machine
>   A Postscript Printer (at least 600dpi)
>   A High Speed Modem

My colleagues and I were talking about such a device just the other
day.  We already have the postscript printer connected to a LAN. What
we reall wanted was a scanner which could photocopy using the printer,
but more importantly fax the many companies not on the internet.
Currently, we ma well use a PC to generate the fax, print it off then
fax it -- what a waste of a poor defenceless tree!!

Does any one know of such a machine? If there isn't one, how come? Any
entrepuners out there?


Bryan Montgomery

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

From: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Future of Fax
Organization: Wimsey
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:13:30 GMT


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

> On the topic of Fax itself, Fax is just another form of email.  In

I like to take the topical point of view that fax IS the de-facto
standard for email (as in electronic mail). It is widely available,
widely used, and has far more market penetration than anything else.

As much as I'd like to work on a better eMail system like X.400 or
SMTP/TCP/IP or RFC822/rmail/uux or even Fido/Sealink the fact remains
that right now fax is where it's at if you want to send a document to
someone, somewhere, right now.

Of course I do have a bit of an axe to grind here. I do make my living
writing fax software. But I arrived here by way of wanting to do email
software. And will go back to REAL email when I can make a better
living doing that.

Having said that I'll go put on my asbestos suit before hitting the
send key :-)


Stuart Lynne                                         [e-mail] van-bc!sl
Wimsey Information Technologies                604-937-7785(V) 604-937-7718(F)
ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:~ftp/pub/wimseypd        Installable PD Software for SCO UNIX

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

Subject: Re: Overwrite Caller ID Memory Registers
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:17:00 EDT (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


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

> Is it possible to send Bell202 FSK to the called parties' CID unit
> while they are off hook [and spoof the readout]?

> [Moderator's Note: Sorry, it is not possible to do what you suggest.
> The data is only sent when the called party is still on hook.

Seems to me that the answer really depends on the design of the CID
readout.  If the readout only listens for the 202 modem frequencies,
you could probably spoof it at any time in the conversation.  To be
spoof-proof, or at least spoof-resistant, it'd have to have some
combination of a short timeout after the ring voltage and a check that
the DC under the modem frequencies was high enough voltage to
represent off-hook.  But if they did that, it wouldn't work with
cheesy pair gain devices that don't provide full voltage.


Regards,

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #322
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16745;
          19 Apr 92 15:01 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18902
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 13:23:08 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31909
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 13:22:55 -0500
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 13:22:55 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #323

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 Apr 92 13:22:55 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 323

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Robert S. Helfman)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Rob Bailey)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Leslie Mikesell)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (With a Twist) (Harry P. Haas)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Edward Bertsch)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Michael Rosen)
    Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal? (Jiro Nakamura)
    Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal? (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal? (Ronald H. Davis)
    Re: Time on Hold...Hold...Hold... (John A. Weeks III)
    Re: Time on Hold...Hold...Hold... (Dave Strieter)
    Re: Outrageous Telephone Rate For Local Calls (Rudy Rumohr Jr.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 02:01:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter da
Silva) writes:

> Regarding the Moderator's use of *69 to call back people who ring and
> hang up ...

> Frankly, Pat, I think you're being a twit. What are you trying to
> accomplish by this? What is your goal in rubbing people's nose in
> their clumsiness and phone-shyness?

Exactly the same goal as rubbing a dogs nose in its crap when it "does
it" in the wrong place. Aversion therapy, I believe it's called.

And, hell, it works pretty well with dogs! If every creep out there
knew that they would incur PAT's wrath when they screw up, they'd be a
little more careful when dialing. (Actually, I agree with a lot of
what he says, most of the time. Being a flaming white liberal, I find
his views on right-to-privacy a little galling -- just to the right of
William Rehnquist!  [Just a little ribbing, PAT! I know you can take
it!])


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for your note, I guess. To be on the safe
side, I am opening a file on you also!  :)   PAT]

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

Date: 13 Apr 92 01:38:25 EDT
From: Rob Bailey, WM8S <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates


Like Pat (ich ;^>), I, too, am perturbed by hang-up callers. I usually
don't bother unless it's a repeat offender (how do I know? Via
Caller*ID interface to PC and some neat software I'm still testing),
then I get mad. My number is 925-2y2x and Shoney's (real popular 24 hr
family restaurant) is 925-2x2y. When I get a call from a repeat
offender, I answer "Thank you for calling Shoney's" and have been
known to take people's orders. Remember, now, all you prospective
flamers: we're not talking about the occasional dialing mistake, but
the repetitive lack of even minimal concern for others by repeatedly
dialing my number instead of the restaurant's.

But the other night, I missed the cue from the PC and decided to call
back a particularly bad repeat offender. When I called back and said
"Did you want something?" and hung up (not the most mature thing to
do, but it sure was fun), he called back (with an attitude!) and said
"I have this way of telling whose calling and I want you to stop
calling here"! The nerve of this jerk. Any suggestions for how to
handle the next time he calls? "Thank you for calling Shoney's, Dave,
but we don't take orders from people like you."? Thoughts?

Please, no flames. They only serve to encourage me. If you disagree
with my treatment of repeat dork-dialers, then you're entitled to not
call them back. When you move into a town and get a number one digit
off of the time or something like that, you'll probably change your
mind pretty quick.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 18:53:07 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Ron Dippold) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: The way I deal with silent hang-ups here is to
> simply use *69 to call them back, and when they answer, ask them what
> they wanted. Nine of every ten lie about it and claim they did not
> call, but auto-callback has yet to lead me astray.  These are calls
> from private residences by the way, not DID trunks or back lines on
> PBX systems.   PAT]

Umm, if nine out of ten of the people you reach claim not to have
called you, how can you justify the claim that you haven't been led
astray???

I usually hang up immediatly after the third ring if I expect an
answering machine or auto-transfer device to switch me somewhere else
and I don't want to leave a message.


Les Mikesell    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: They can deny it as much as they want. The
Caller-ID box and auto-callback has never been wrong yet. They lie
about it because they are embarassed and know they did the wrong thing
by calling then ringing off without speaking. Oh yes, I have also run
across the ones's who then called me back saying they had 'this way of
telling who was calling', and I tell them so do I, and to take care in
the future.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (HAAS)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates (With a Twist)
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:37:43 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute


Bad (phone) manners can be very annoying -- frustrating and irritating if
you have to stop something involved to answer the phone ... but explain
this:

I got a call at work (Georgia Tech Research Institute) the other day.
I answered "Georgia Tech, This is Harry". A woman's voice said "Hello,
Mr. Haas?" I said "Yes?" Then CLICK. The woman had mispronounced my
name, so I know it was not someone that knew me.  I tried not to let
it bother me, but I was truely quite P.O.ed. If she'd only called me
at home! If I could put CLID on my work line!

So what the heck was she trying to find out?  I truely doubt that the
state of Georgia was checking to see if I was in my office (as I'm
usually not, anyway!)

I now answer my phone with a simple "Hello?"


Harry P. Haas  GTRI/RIDL/EB   |    Georgia Tech Research Institute
Research Engineer II          |    Georgia Institute of Technology
404-528-7679                  |    Atlanta Georgia, 30332
[e-mail]          |    "What makes it DO that?!" - Bones


[Moderator's Note: She was probably a skip-tracer looking for you on
behalf of a creditor or an attorney somewhere. Her assignment was most
likely to simply locate your whereabouts or place of employment; not
to get into a discussion with you about the merits of whatever it is
*her* employer wants from you. I had one of those calls some months
ago; a woman called early Saturday morning, asked for me by name and
when she confirmed it was me, hung up. I used auto-callback, got an
attorney's office downtown; had a receptionist play games with me
(remember this was early Saturday, not a weekday with a full crew
there so she *knew* who was and was not in the office). I finally got
through to the woman who called me (I recognized her voice), and she
flatly denied calling me, even though I got her to admit she was a
bill collector for the attorney, and was 'making phone calls' that
morning. I told her off good.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 22:28:46 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Edward Bertsch)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates


> [Moderator's Note: The way I deal with silent hang-ups here is to
> simply use *69 to call them back, and when they answer, ask them what
> they wanted. Nine of every ten lie about it and claim they did not
> call, but auto-callback has yet to lead me astray.  These are calls
> from private residences by the way, not DID trunks or back lines on
> PBX systems.   PAT]

Yes, but not everyone has *69.

Here in Minnesota, I don't think anyone does.  *69 is a side-feature
of Caller-ID systems, no?


Edward A. Bertsch ([e-mail])   Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc.
Operations/User Services          1200 Washington Avenue South
[phone] work               Minneapolis, Minnesota  55415
[phone] voice mail


[Moderator's Note: *69 is one of the CLASS features, as is Caller-ID.
Some places have *69 but not CID (we had *69 for several months before
we got CID), but everyone with CID also has *69.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:40:47 GMT


I was getting hang-ups in my dorm room the last weekend of spring
break a little while ago.  I had a sneaky feeling that maybe it was my
roommate's ex, now a "fatal attraction" case, hanging up upon hearing
my voice and not his.  She's quite annoying ... calling at 4 AM
sometimes.  I never did find out whether or not I was right, the calls
have stopped though ...


Mike

   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

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

From: [e-mail] (Jiro Nakamura)
Subject: Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal?
Organization: Shaman Consulting
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:15:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Jack Decker <Jack@myamiga.
mixcom.com> writes:

> I really can't understand why nobody has made a reasonably-priced
> modem that can also recognize touch tone digits on an incoming call
> (in addition to an originate modem tone).  It shouldn't cost all that
> much to add something like that, and I can think of several
> applications where such capability might come in handy!

Damark (and others) sell a little box that you can put before your
phone line that only lets people who know your three digit security
code ring your phone. Others, I believe, get forwarded to your
answering machine to be screened.


Jiro Nakamura            [e-mail] (NeXTmail)
NeXTwatch / Technical Editor    76711,542 (CIS)
The Shaman Group        [phone] (Voice/Fax)


[Moderator's Note: I had one of those about ten years ago when they
first came out. Mine was from a company called International Mobile
Machines of Bala Cynwyd, PA. Anyone know where they went?   PAT]

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal?
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:14:36 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, Jack Decker <Jack@myamiga.
mixcom.com> writes:

> By the way, I do wish there were such a thing as a modem that would
> send the modem answer tone normally, but at the same time would listen
> for touch tone digits until such a time as the other modem handshakes,
> and if the caller is a human and taps in a preset code it would shut
> off the modem answer tone and send a simulated ring tone out the
> modem's speaker (or ring a phone that "hangs off" of the modem).

> I really can't understand why nobody has made a reasonably-priced
> modem that can also recognize touch tone digits on an incoming call
> (in addition to an originate modem tone).  It shouldn't cost all that
> much to add something like that, and I can think of several
> applications where such capability might come in handy!

TIA TR-29.2 is actively working on a standard for voice functions in
modems.  In addition to digitized voice input and output, the standard
will also define the AT commands, parameters, result codes, etc., for
DTMF input and output, Caller ID, distinctive ringing, and various
other call control functions.  When this standard is done (hopefully
this summer), I think you'll see inexpensive modems from MANY
manufacturers with these features.

I should note that it is unlikely that the modem itself would
"recognize" the DTMF codes and produce a ringing tone through the
modem speaker; the more likely implementation is that the modem will
deliver DTMF "result codes" to the software to let it know that DTMF
tones are being received, the software will match them against a list
of functions or "passwords", and if the software has been programmed
to do so, it will try to attract human attention by making appropriate
noises through the computer's speaker (not the modem's speaker).


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 16:53:00 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Ronald H Davis)
Subject: Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal?
Organization: AT&T


TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: The newer generation of custom calling features,
> known as CLASS, includes auto callback of (*69) the last call you
> received, and (*66) the last number you called. Both features will
> continue trying to connect for up to 30 minutes. You may have them
> available sometime. Ask your telco when CLASS will be available.  PAT]

Automatic callback was not offered by Ohio Bell at the beginning of
this year and, as far as I know, is still not available. In fact,
Ohio Bell seems to be behind the times in terms of optional features
offered to customers as they don't offer any "advanced" features: call
waiting, call forwarding, and speed calling; and that's about it.


at&t bell laboratories, naperville il, usa     att!ixstar!ronald

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

From: plains!umn-cs!newave![e-mail] (John A. Weeks III)
Subject: Re: Time on Hold...Hold...Hold...
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:10:32 GMT
Reply-To: plains!umn-cs!newave![e-mail] (John A. Weeks III)
Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN


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

> I propose that after five minutes on hold, hang up.  Once enough
> boiler room managers get wind of this, things will change.  I am not
> so pompous as to not expect some reasonable wait in many cases, but my
> time is more important to me than anyone else's.  I don't feel that
> sitting in a seemingly-endless telephone hold queue is a good way for
> me to spend that time.

There is no way that you could ever get cable TV that way.  Every
cable system I have ever dealt with seems to have a huge call hold
time.  I usually feel lucky if I spend less then 15 minutes on hold
with my current vendor.


John A. Weeks III               [phone]             [e-mail]
NeWave Communications, Ltd.           ...uunet!umn-cs!kksys!tcnet!newave!john


[Moderator's Note: No cable TV suits me fine! Somehow I survive with
more than a dozen over the air channels, many AM/FM radio stations, my
tape player, computer terminals, newspapers, etc.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Strieter)
Subject: Re: Time on Hold...Hold...Hold...
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:24:27 GMT


This reminds me of the time a few years ago when my wife called a
well-known retailer to check on a credit problem.  The call was
answered by "Mary" who asked my wife to hold while she looked in the
files.  Well, 20 minutes later my wife figured she had waited long
enough and, leaving the first phone off the hook, called the retailer
back on a second phone and asked for Mary.  The response?  "Mary's at
lunch right now."


Dave Strieter, AG Communication Systems, POB  52179, Phoenix AZ  85072-2179
These are not my employer's opinions. They're my opinions, not my advice.
UUCP:..!{ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!samsung!romed!asuvax | att}!gtephx!strieterd
Internet: gtephx![e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 23:23:24 -0400
From: "Rudy Rumohr Jr." <[e-mail]>
Organization: So. Central Rain
Subject: Re: Outrageous Telephone Rate For Local Calls


[e-mail] wrote:

> What is a reasonable rate for local phone calls?  Stanford charges $11
> plus one time $35 installation charges, for unlimited calls ... Pacific
> Bell charges about $8 for the same services.

Just thank <deity of your choice> that you're not in NYNEX-land.  I
just had the need to re-establish my service (I'm moving *again*) with
New England Telephone in Massachusetts (Dracut, 508-957) and they're
now up to $37.07 installation and $18.34/mo. for "unlimited local"
service.  No additional bells and whistles there ...

> But get this: a friend in Illinois, in area 618-236-xxxx is having to
> pay: $55 installation charge + $16 per month PLUS A PER CALL CHARGE of
> 0.045 ... is this reasonable?  How could Illinois Bell charge so much
> more than Pacific Bell?

"Reasonable" is usually defined by your friendly local public
utilities commission ...


Rudy Rumohr Jr.        Datacomm Engineer        [e-mail]
[phone] until 25 April anyway...             -or-  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #323
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18973;
          19 Apr 92 15:49 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29206
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 14:10:21 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10533
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 14:10:11 -0500
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 14:10:11 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #324

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 Apr 92 14:10:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 324

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? (Rob Knauerhase)
    Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? (Brad Hicks)
    Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? (Cliff Barney)
    Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? (Linc Madison)
    Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? (Bill Pfeiffer)
    Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Thoughts About ISDN (Rob Warnock)
    Re: Thoughts About ISDN (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: ISDN at Residence? (Bill Sohl)
    ISDN References and Technical Books Wanted (Vincent M. Tkac)
    Re: ISDN at Residence? (Mitch Kapor)
    Re: ISDN on DMS-100 (Gregory E. Woodcock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Rob Knauerhase)
Subject: Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1992 02:28:09 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joshua E.
Muskovitz) writes:

> Barring that, what would seem to be the most plausible
> explanation would be that AppleLink has split into a corporate
> version, still called AppleLink, and a commercial version, now called
> America Online.  It would appear (from the info sent to me, but still
> word of mouth) that AppleLink (the corporate half) DOES have a link to
> the Internet, but that America Online does not.  Would someone on
> those nets find out for sure one way or the other and let me know?

Occam's Razor holds true here (as long as you agree with the "most
plausible" part above ...

AppleLink is a service by which authorized Apple dealers, and some
developers of Apple-compatible products, can get information and
updates from Apple.  It is open only to the parties mentioned above.

AppleLink Personal Edition was a service run for Apple by Quantum
(something; the second word of the corporate name escapes me.  They're
the same people who ran QuantumLink for Commodore computers), with a
primary focus on Apple II-line computers.  When Apple pulled out of
that venture, Quantum renamed it America OnLine and opened it up to
Macintosh and (later) Mess-DOS based machines.  It continues to exist
today; it requires a special "user-friendly" terminal package not
unlike Prodigy, but devoid of advertising and censorship.

AppleLink E-mail is gatewayed to the Internet.  America Online (nee'
AppleLink Personal Edition) is not.


Rob Knauerhase           University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
[e-mail]       Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group

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

From: mc!Brad_Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: Sat Apr 18 09:43:33 -0400 1992
Subject: Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not?


In TCD 12.312, "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]> said:

> Barring that, what would seem to be the most plausible
> explanation would be that AppleLink has split into a corporate
> version, still called AppleLink, and a commercial version, now
> called America Online.

This is confused and way, way out of date information.

AppleLink is a service of Apple Computers, Inc.  It's not cheap, and
it is marketed primarily to Apple's registered developers and major
corporate customers (like us: MasterCard has two addresses, B0186 for
us in Tech Services and MASTER.DEV for the programmers over in
development), but it is available, for about a year now, to anybody
who wants it.  I think you can get an application for an ID by sending
mail to [e-mail].

The applelink.apple.com address, by the way, is the Internet gateway
to all AppleLink accounts; another of my addresses, as you might guess
from what a said above, is [e-mail].  AppleLink users
address mail to the Internet by appending "@INTERNET#" to the end of
any standard Internet address, so if I were sending this message from
our B0186 account, I'd be addressing it to [e-mail]@INTERNET#.

Back when AppleLink was NOT available except to major corporate
accounts, registered developers, educators, and user groups, Apple
talked about the idea of co-founding another service, which was
supposed to be called Personal AppleShare.  Eventually Apple pulled
out of the deal, but the other investor(s) had enough going to finally
come out with their own service, originally marketed heavily to
Macintosh users but now available with a Windows front-end, called
America Online.  Apple Computer, Inc.  has no affiliation with America
Online.

America Online is a general purpose informat service; they're not so
much competing with AppleLink as it is with Prodigy and CompuServe.
You can pick up America Online signup kits in most software stores;
it's actually pretty inexpensive.

I let my America Online account drop about a year ago, when I had to
cut back on my online services bills or go under.  At that time, they
had no Internet connection.  Hopefully, somebody with a current
account (or, mirable dictu, somebody in AO's management) will let us
know whether or not the rumor is true that America Online subscribers
are now or will soon be Internet addressable.

On a related issue: there used to be an online service called MACNET,
later called CONNECT.  They were pretty similar to America Online,
with Mac and Windows front-ends; unlike AO, they did have an Internet
connection through DASNET (though I forget how the addressing worked).
They kept hiking their rates at a time when everybody else was cutting
rates, so we dropped them.  Are they still in business?


J. Brad Hicks
Internet: mhs!mc![e-mail]
X.400:    c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad

I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above
does not contain official MasterCard statements or policies.

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

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 21:35:48 PDT
From: Cliff Barney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not?


There is no connection between America Online and AppleLink.  The
former is ais owned privately; the latter is run by General Electric
Information Systems (GEIS) for Apple Computer.

AppleLink does have an Internet gateway.  I don't think America Online
does.

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

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 02:03:47 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not?
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> josh ([e-mail]):

> It may well be that I erroneously reported that America Online has a
> gateway to the Internet. ...  Barring that, what would seem to be the
> most plausible explanation would be that AppleLink has split into a
> corporate version, still called AppleLink, and a commercial version,
> now called America Online.

No, this is entirely wrong.  AppleLink is a network set up and
administered by Apple Computer for use by its employees and various
companies who produce products for Apple hardware.  It is connected to
the Internet, as host "applelink.apple.com"

America On-Line is a commercial service, analogous to CompuServe, with
no ties to Apple Computer, except that Macintoshes were the original
target market for AOL, along with an Apple II area.  They have since
expanded into the DOS world.  There is no connection between AOL and
AppleLink whatsoever, except that many companies are on both.  As far
as I can discern, AOL is not on Internet for mail in either direction
 -- I logged onto my account and found no information to such effect.


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]  ==  LincM on AOL

One small footnote to this subject is that CompuServe is now *ON* the
internet, not merely connected to it.  Mail to CI$ used to be
gatewayed through saqqara.cis.ohio-state.edu, but it now gets
connected directly to iha.compuserve.com.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Pfeiffer)
Subject: Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not?
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 18:30:51 CDT


This may not be much help, but a recent communication from a gentleman
who is ON America Online tells me that the Internet gateway is
currently being 'tested' and it might be as short as a week or two
until it is up and running.  The validity of this info is uncertain,
but he does seem to know what he is speaking about.

Hope this helps.


William Pfeiffer    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 09:03:38 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not?


A friend of mine asked me about America Online.  It seems that his
mother wants to investigate what it was and how it worked.  He
mentioned that he thought it was like Compuserve.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Thanks in advance.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093


[Moderator's Note: Although I know very little about it, from messages
coming in to me here I gather it is 'a lot like' Compuserve.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 10:52:45 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: Thoughts About ISDN
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


[e-mail] writes:

> This brings us to the concept of intra CO tariffs [for ISDN]. I can
> image that a call within the exchange being essentially free but having
> a significant charge to call the next town.  Or should social policy
> minimize this?

For all that we out here criticize Pac*Bell, note that their inter-CO
intra-LATA pricing for ISDN data calls (to be sure, 56kb/s not 64kb/s,
absent universal SS7) is exactly the same as for voice calls. As one
rep told me, "We think that's only fair, since it uses exactly the
same resources." [Well, if you think the *voice* rates are fair... ;-}]

Said rep also warned us to do a little research before selecting a
default ISDN IEC (inter-LATA), but was scrupulously careful not to
recommend anyone by name. "Some of them charge the same for a data
call as voice, the way we do, but some charge much more."


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510    [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.    [phone]
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.  Mountain View, CA  94039-7311

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 23:58:52 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts About ISDN


Bob Frankston writes:

> Which brings us to NET as a consumer buying merchandise off the shelf.
> It seems that once they've bought into an exchange (often the DMS-100)
> they are captives of their maintenance plan with the exchange.  I
> can't imagine them buying anything nontrivial from anyone but
> Northern-Telecom for its DMS-100 COs.  It doesn't seem they have much
> negotiating leverage.  It would be nice to see the CO become a more
> distributed entity that allowed more mixing and matching from
> different vendors.  For now, at least, it is not clear how to build
> such a system.  This further concentrates debate on off-the-shelf ISDN
> because alternatives are problematic.

I don't agree with this. Companies such as Reliance, ADTRAN, and
others have made line cards for CO's for sometime now.  The Reliance
DAML, a digital pair gain system, uses signaling very similar, if not
identical, to the 2B1Q of the ISDN U interface.  Of course if the CO
doesn't have the correct generic it would have to be upgraded as well.
I think BCS31 is required to be totally Bellcore compliant.

On another note, I remember reading that NT would provide free line
cards to upgrade CO's to ISDN-ONE.  I know I save the article, and
could probably find it if anyone is interested.


Pat Turner    [e-mail]     KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA

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

From: dancer![e-mail] (24411-sohl)
Subject: Re: ISDN at Residence?
Reply-To: dancer![e-mail]
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 13:09:13 GMT


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

> I hope you will all tolerate a question from a new guy to ISDN.  In
> the next few months I plan to buy a new adapter designed by Hayes to
> work with my NeXT computer to provide both POTS and basic rate ISDN in
> a small package for less than $300.  I wanted to see if anyone out
> there knows what the availability of ISDN is for residential users in
> Long Island, New York (Huntington, Dix Hills) and in Washington, D.C.
> (and bordering Maryland and Virginia).  Is ISDN available in these
> places and if so what should I expect a basic rate connection to cost
> (Installation, monthly fee, equiptment costs, extra premium service
> costs, etc)?

Availability in specific locations can only be answered by the local
telephone company serving the location you are interested in (eg.
probably NY Tel for Long Island, NY and C & P for the Washington DC
area).  Likewise, fees, installation charges, etc. are the function of
each companies rates as filed with the applicable utility commission.

> I understand that I will need an NT1 (?), will the phone
> company provide this as part of the service, will I have to rent it
> from them, or will I have to buy it outright?

In the United States, the FCC determined that the NT1 should be
considered "customer equipment."  The "regulated" telephone company
does not provide the NT1.  An NT1 may be available through the local
company's unregulated subsidiary as well as from other vendors.

> Is the cost per minute of use for an ISDN line any different than
> for POTS?

The "usage" rates are determined by the type of call you make at any
specific time.  If you make a "POTS" call, the rate for that call is
the same as POTS.  If you make a 64 (or 56) kilobit data call, there
may be different rates for those calls, if there's a different rate
charged for those type calls.  Finally, packet data calls have their
own (usually) tariff or rate structure.  The "bottom-line" is that you
will need to check the tariff (rates) for the specific location you
want and for the types of calls you will be making.  They can and do
vary between different telephone companies.


Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.

Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  [e-mail]

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

Organization: Youngstown State University
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 12:47:55 EDT
From: Vincent M. Tkac (SR) <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN References and Technical Books Wanted


Greetings,

   I am looking for an up to date description of ISDN.  Can anyone
suggest some books, articles or papers on the subject?


Thanks in advance,

Vincent M. Tkac   [e-mail]

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

From: Mitchell Kapor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN at Residence?
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:27:34 GMT


A residential ISDN tariff for Washington D.C. is expected to be filed
by Bell Atlantic within the next few months.  I don't know whether the
N.Y.  tariff is out of limbo.  It was suspended pending the outcome of
the Massachusetts rate case.  With Massachusetts now offering ISDN,
perhaps NYNEX will refile in N.Y. if they haven't already.

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

From: "Gregg E. Woodcock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN on DMS-100
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 09:23:41 -0500


I'm not sure about for a DMS-100 but for a DMS-250 (Supernode) ISDN
capability involes not only new line cards and new software but also
new peripherals for the D-channels.  The regular POTS line peripherals
(DTC's) are capable of carrying the B-channels but you need a brand
new peripheral (DTCI) to carry the D-channels.  There may be
additional hardware neccessary; I'm not sure...but this is the bare
minimum that is required.  I have no idea about the cost involved
other than it is a *very* large amount by individual standards (maybe
not by corperation standards).

P.S. SL-100's can also be made ISDN PRI capable.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #324
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21691;
          19 Apr 92 16:46 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23969
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:11:00 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23877
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:10:50 -0500
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:10:50 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #325

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 Apr 92 15:10:50 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 325

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CCITT Standards on Internet (Toby Nixon)
    Re: CCITT Standards on Internet (Andrew Klossner)
    Re: CCITT Standards on Internet (Robert Thurlow)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Mark Cheeseman)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Paul Cook)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Rob Warnock)
    Re: Lookee What Michigan Bell Put in My Bill (Jim Rees)
    Re: Lookee What Michigan Bell Put in My Bill (James R. Saker, Jr.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CCITT Standards on Internet
Date: 18 Apr 92 13:44:17 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, Gunnar.Bostrom@sundsvall.
trab.se (Gunnar Bostr|m) writes:

> I have heard that the CCITT standards should be available for
> anonymous FTP. Can someone provide the Internet-address please.

To which our esteemed Moderator appended:

> [Moderator's Note: And I have heard the sponsor of these files decided
> to take them down and not have them available on line any longer. Is
> there any updated news on this?    PAT]

You're exactly right, Pat.  The ITU is continuing to work on
electronic availability of standards directly through the data center
in Geneva rather than through third parties.  It is my understanding
that they are close to starting a beta test of the service.
Significant issues remain unresolved, however, particularly in the
areas of charging and copyright.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: Re: CCITT Standards on Internet
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:10:05 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


No news, but some deep background.  ANSI firmly refuses to make its
standards available in machine-readable form because sales of ANSI
standard documents provide most of their income.  (They're a
non-profit organization, but it costs money to run the office.)
Perhaps other standards organizations have similar quandaries.


Andrew Klossner  ([e-mail])
 (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: CCITT Standards on Internet
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:48:44 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Carl Malamud)
writes:

> The ITU gave permission at the last INTEROP to put the standards on
> the Internet.  A group of volunteers put the CCITT standards up on a
> server donated by Sun.

> It was so successful that the ITU bureaucrats got scared and pulled
> the plug on us Dec. 31, 1991, less than 90 days after we started.

One more tidbit I'll add with your indulgence, Patrick: only a subset
of the standards were available during the experiment, and the quality
of the standards documents available was not that high.  The CCITT is
notorious for killing trees rather than making attempts to use
electronic means of preparing the standards, and this made it risky to
bet your project on the documents you could get via FTP.  That is part
of the reason for pulling availability; mangled standards aren't going
to help anyone.  I've heard of plans to fix this so that server said
to be in the works for Geneva will do the job properly.


Rob Thurlow, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1992 19:06:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Toby
Nixon) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter da
> Silva) writes:

>> Wake up, folks, FAX is a massive botch. Work for better email services
>> instead of screwing around with broken-as-designed technology.

> I disagree.  Fax has been around a heck of a lot longer than email, so
> there is a much larger installed base.

This is true, but has nothing to do with whether FAX is a botch or
not.  Horses have been around longer than cars or bicycles, and can go
more places than either, but there's no way you could run a city of three
million people with them. The horse exhaust problem got really bad
around the turn of the century ...

> The main advantage of fax is that "normal people" can use it with a
> very small investment in training.

Which is why I said "work for better email technology".

> If I want to send a simple message via fax, I scribble it
> out on a piece of paper, insert it in the fax machine, pick up the
> phone, dial the call, then press "start".

That depends on the culture. If I want to send a FAX I have to go
write it up, dig up a cover sheet, take it upstairs, give it to a
secretary, and hope they get around to it. If I want to send Email I
type "mail [e-mail]"

> That's it.  And installing the fax machine was as simple as buying
> it, setting it on the table, and plugging it into the power and phone
> jacks.

> Email, on the other hand, is INCREDIBLY difficult.  I need a computer,
> or at least a terminal, and a LAN or modem.

Which is all cheaper than a FAX machine, and as easy to set up.

> I need software.  I need it all installed and working, which is far
> beyond the capabilities of a "normal" person.

What, just plug in two power cords and two cables? That's easier than
setting up a stereo!

> I need an "account" on an email system, usually by pre-arrangement.

Which is easier than getting your phone connected.

Now the mail system user interface generally sucks, which is where we
get into the REAL problem and where improvement needs to be made.
Getting rid of X.400 is a necessary step (even if it's a hideously
hard one), X.400 is really hard for people to deal with.

> Email may have many advantages over fax, but human factors aren't
> among them.

Oh yeh? What's my phone number? Without looking it up ...

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Proctor & Associates) writes:

> You missed some important points in my original post.

No, I didn't miss anything.

> I was not sending to my own office, I was sending to some anonymous
> potential customer in Mexico who asked me to send a data sheet to his
> fax machine.

Yep. The problem is that Email doesn't have a nice front-end and
common addressing format outside the Internet.

> He did not have a modem or email.

Actually, he did have a modem. It was just locked up in some
all-in-one box.

> I cannot force my potential overseas customers to abandon their fax
> machines.

I realize that. But *we* can work to resolve the problems with Email
and thus make it desirable for them to do so.

I've already brought this up, but what would you say to a box that
worked like this:

It's set up as a FAX machine: you turn it on and leave it on. It
presents the equivalent of an anonymous-UUCP login sequence, and drops
into G protocol ... this would be the Email equivalent of the UUCP
front-end negotiations. It's got some RAM or a printer (or even hooks
into an existing FAX machine, if they have some sort of interface).

You can address it from Usenet as "name@phone-number", or just enter a
phone number from another equivalent box. You send mail simply by
sitting down at it and typing "mail peter@7135680480" (with the usual
shorthand).

With a 2400 baud modem and a screen it could be made MUCH cheaper than
any FAX, since it doesn't need high resolution I/O devices.

An email machine ... with FAX as a fallback position.


Peter da Silva

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

From: Mark Cheeseman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Organization: Your Computer Magazine, Sydney, Australia
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 92 02:37:51 GMT


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

> It's coming.  Before too long, you'll see PostScript printers with
> RJ-11 jacks.  Send a PostScript job with operators to select a FAX
> number, and it will dial that number.  If the other end is a similar
> PostScript printer, it will send the PostScript, otherwise it will
> send G3 FAX.

It's here! I saw a neat little box the other day, under the name
'Castelle' (or something similar). It had RS-232, RS-422 and
Centronics inputs, as well as a ThinNet port that behaves as a Novell
print server. PostScript in, Group III fax out.

Of course, something like this only solves half the problem -- what do
you do at the other end with a bitmap of letters that could be in any
font, any size, and have been grunged beyond all recognition by the
worst of the world's phone systems? OCR is getting better, but if it
could ever decipher some of the faxes I receive, I'll eat my fax
machine!


Mark Cheeseman, Technical Editor, Your Computer
[e-mail]    packet: [e-mail]
Phn: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  Fido: 3:712/[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 18:58 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas


mc!Brad_Hicks/OU=[e-mail] writes:

> On MCI Mail, fill in the name followed by "(EMS)", then at the EMS
> prompt enter "FAX", then at the MBX prompt enter the phone number.
> Price runs around $2 per page; there is an extra charge for
> letterhead, and they send text only.

Actually, it is a little simpler than that, and for domestic fax, the
price is even cheaper.

If you enter a name that MCI Mail does not recognize, it prompts you
for several options, and you just select FAX.  Or you can enter the
name followed by (fax) and it will prompt you for the country.

We are on the high usage plan, so a 28 line fax sent within the USA
costs us 25 cents, and that is only charged after the fax is
successfully sent.  No charge for disconnects, machines that step down
to slower rates, retries for up to *twelve hours*, or anything else.
The high usage plan costs $10.00 per month, and includes 40 "free"
messages.  The cover sheet is also free.

Here is a sample of MCI Mail's fax rates for a few overseas
destinations:

Effective 9/18/91 $ RATES $   (A half page is 28 lines; 80 chrs per line)

                  1st  Add'l                 1st   Add'l
                  Half  Half                 Half  Half
Country           Page  Page     Country     Page  Page

Austria           2.30  1.00     Bahamas     1.90  0.90
Brazil            3.00  1.00     Canada      0.90  0.65
England (UK)      1.50  0.45     Guatemala   2.85  1.05
Japan             2.50  0.75     Mozambique  6.50  1.75
Nicaragua         2.85  1.05     Singapore   4.00  1.10
USA (Continental) 0.50  0.30     Zimbabwe    3.10  1.20

So if I need to send a typewritten message to a machine in Brazil that
steps down to 1/4 speed, is on a noisy, non-dedicated line that
frequently disconnects in the midst of a transmission, MCI Mail fax is
definitely a relief.  If I want to send a similar message to Japan
during the economy rate time, I can save a little bit by dialing
direct with my fax machine.


Paul Cook                 206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates      MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.         fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 00:37:24 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


[e-mail] (Andy Sherman) and The Moderator write:

> The service already exists.  ATTMAIL users may send mail to fax!number
> (/Attention name ) for fax delivery.

> [Moderator's Note: Some Internetters have tried emailing to the
> address fax![e-mail] only to find that it just won't work.

However, as a former AT&T Mail subscriber, I know they *do* allow UUCP
systems to be "subscribers", with all mail routed through that node to
AT&T Mail being charged to the UUCP system's owner. And I caught
someone routing UUCP mail through my system to AT&T Mail (though not
to the FAX), so it's probably possible. [I since put screening on *my*
system to not allow non-local mail to go to AT&T Mail ... and then
dropped it entirely a couple of years later, for other reasons.]


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510        [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.        [phone] before May 8, 1992
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.        [phone] after May 8, 1992
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311    "...has changed. Please make note of it."

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Lookee What Michigan Bell Put in My Bill
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 03:27:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Palmer) writes:

> The following insert was sent with my April Michigan Bell Bill...
> Question: I've already exposed one lie in this thing. What are the
> other ones?

One big lie that really annoys me is the idea that all these long
distance "plans" are somehow saving us money.  If you plot price per
minute against number of minutes consumed each month for each of the
plans, you will see that the bottom of this curve represents the
lowest price if you've selected the optimum plan for your usage
pattern.  Why doesn't Michigan Bell just charge everyone along the
bottom of that curve?  They expect people to select a plan based on
their estimated use.  Once you have a plan, then you are likely to
increase your use during slack months, to reach the minimum for your
plan, since the price is the same everywhere below the minimum.  This
increases use of the network, and therefore revenue to the phone
company.  So don't believe it when they tell you that they are "saving
you money."  If that's what they wanted to do, they would eliminate
all the plans and adjust rates to the bottom of the price/usage curve.

Of course, all the phone companies play this game, so we can't really
single out Michigan Bell.

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

From: [e-mail] (James R. Saker Jr.)
Subject: Re: Lookee What Michigan Bell Put in My Bill
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1992 04:31:49 GMT


This sounds like Michigan is following in the footsteps of Nebraska,
as laid down in 1987 with the deregulation of rate controls and new
service introduction. About three weeks ago, I attended a luncheon
where our International Center for Telecommunications Research branch
(out of the Univ. Nebraska at Omaha) presented its assessment of the
impact of 1987's legislation -- five years later.

Not surprisingly, they found that the two largest carriers in the
state (US West and Lincoln Telephone & Telegraph) held rates
(residential and business) stable while increasing new technology
sooner than in neighboring states on the average. However, they found
the smaller carriers had significantly increased rates (my carrier,
incidently, increased residential 91% and business 97% from 1987)
while decreasing expenditures for capital investements (such as new
switches, etc.).

One theory is that while US West and LT&T command a large enough
region which, given the incentive, could backlash to the extent that
reregulation would be imposed, the smaller telecoms don't have such
controls.

Furthermore, it appears that the smaller telecoms are using their new
revenues gained from their monopolistic enterprise (telecom) to
subsidize endeavors in competitive markets (such as telecom
engineering, telecom billing, etc.).

The conclusion of the investigators was that the state needs to "drop
the other shoe" and allow competition in local markets if it wishes to
deregulate price controls.

> The very first action Michigan Bell took under the new law was a sharp
> reduction in price of long distance calls within Michigan's area
> codes -- and the promise to cut prices later again this year. More
> announcements quickly followed.

I'm curious if anyone followed Mich Bell's rates prior to
deregulation.  Right before the 1987 dereg in Nebraska, US West won an
appeal which resulted in significant rate increases (actually placing
them higher than neighboring states at the time). According to the
researcher, it wasn't surprising that they were not pressured to
increase rates following the deregulation.

I'd be curious to learn of other experiments nationally -- especially
if any state has been bold enough to "drop the other shoe."

In all fairness, I should add that our largest telecom, US West, has
been quick to add new services since the deregulation, such as Caller
ID, ISDN, and yes ... even CommunityLink;-) (US West's Minitel online
system).


Jamie Saker        [e-mail]
Executive Director  The Penny Network Foundation
P.O. Box 138        Blair, NE 68008-0138    [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #325
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23875;
          19 Apr 92 17:38 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30074
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:54:17 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22818
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:54:06 -0500
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 15:54:06 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #326

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 Apr 92 15:54:01 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 326

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Overwrite Caller ID Memory Registers (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Overwrite Caller ID Memory Registers (John McHarry)
    Re: Overwrite Caller ID Memory Registers (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Ron Bean)
    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Harry Haas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 92 14:40:14 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Overwrite Caller ID Memory Registers
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

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

>> Is it possible to send Bell202 FSK to the called parties' CID unit
>> while they are off hook [and spoof the readout]?

>> [Moderator's Note: Sorry, it is not possible to do what you suggest.
>> The data is only sent when the called party is still on hook.

> Seems to me that the answer really depends on the design of the CID
> readout.  If the readout only listens for the 202 modem frequencies,
> you could probably spoof it at any time in the conversation.  To be
> spoof-proof, or at least spoof-resistant, it'd have to have some
> combination of a short timeout after the ring voltage and a check that
> the DC under the modem frequencies was high enough voltage to
> represent off-hook.  But if they did that, it wouldn't work with
> cheesy pair gain devices that don't provide full voltage.

   John, you didn't read PAT's response carefully.  The CID unit
SHOULD only respond to incoming data WHILE THE ASSOCIATED HANDSET IS
ON-HOOK.  At that point in a call, there is NO connection from the
calling party's line to the called party's line.  You'd just be
sending data into the "audible ring" generator.  {On cheap PBX-
derived "switches", sending information during audible could result in
transmission to other telephones also listening to "audible"...}
Current requirements are for CID CPE to stop data reception when a
connected telephone goes "off-hook".  So existing units only have to
detect an off-hook switch-hook, not some complicated signal from the
CO, in order to disable reception.  But that's changing ...

**** Notice to parties interested in the Caller-ID interface ****

   Let me take the opportunity here to let those folks who are REALLY
interested in the Caller-ID interface ("REALLY" means you might
actually be willing to pay a few dollars for some documents, instead
of just demanding free stuff) know what's new and evolving in this
area.

   Bellcore is currently soliciting comments on a several ideas
involving CO to Analog CPE communication.  In general, these are
concerned with equipment requirements (CO, CPE *and* the stuff that's
"in-the-loop").  These requirements only address a small portion of
the POSSIBLE applications; Bellcore isn't saying why some of the
requirements are there.  Maybe they don't have an application YET, or
maybe some vendor wants to drive the rest of the industry ...

   The "Caller-ID signaling" revisions alter the requirements for
Caller-ID equipment at the Customer end and the CO end.  They also
place requirements on equipment in-the-loop, such as Digital Loop
Carrier, Fiber-In- The-Loop, Remote Concentrators, etc.  Other TAs
provide some of the usage requirements for the equipment, dealing with
"Calling Identity Delivery" (Calling Party Number and/or Name),
delivery during Call Waiting, delivery of information while on-hook
and not ringing, etc.

   There are also requirements for what Bellcore calls the "Analog
Display Services Interface (ADSI)", a CPE-CO BI-DIRECTIONAL data
capability during a call.  This MIGHT be used to give ISDN-like call
progress and other information on analog lines.  It's major purpose is
to give analog line customers a "screen" interface to their CO.  It is
possible (but tricky) to send data end-to-end with the Caller-ID -type
interface, but that's not it's primary intent.  The BI-Directional
ADSI appears to be designed to support only CPE-to-CO information/data
capabilities, currently in support of "current telephone services"
(Service Order, Incoming Call Management, etc.)  But this would be an
obvious candidate for a total "information provider" interface,
possibly having the CO translate direct ASCII information from a
database/operator system to the required interface signals.  Any
provision for end-to-end signaling would probably be accidental, and
could be removed from the final requirements.  If end-to-end with
either interface is a priority for you, maybe you should comment on
the TAs.

   What TAs are available? Here's a list {my comments in braces}:

- TA-NWT-000030, Issue 3, "Voiceband Data Transmission Interface
Generic Requirements", April 1992, RFC 92-29, comments due by
June 30, 1992.  This is a proposed revision to a previous TA
(TA-NWT-000030, Iss. 2) and original TR-TSY-000030 requirements.
Bellcore does not have an expected date for release of the TR,
but I would expect 1/93 or so, if industry disagreements can be
resolved.

{The TA has CO requirements for what is currently used for the calling
number/calling name CO-to-CPE interface for an analog The current TR
only covers data delivery while on-hook during ringing (between first
and second ring cycle).  The TA proposes a mechanism for data delivery
during on-hook-idle and talking states.  It is compatible with
existing "boxes" only during the on-hook-ringing state.  (An example
of creeping featurism???)

The TA also requires that line multiplexors (e.g., Digital Loop
Carriers) be modified to support a new TA-NWT-507, "Functional
Criteria for Digital Loop Carrier Systems", Iss. 5, Nov. 1991.  This
requires a through-connection from CO to CPE line even without any
ringing or call connection between the two channels.

Appendix A of the TA is a revision of SR-NWT-002024, "CPE
Compatibility Considerations for the SPCS-to-CPE Data Transmission
Interface", Iss. 1, April 1992.  The SR is just released, and now some
not-obviously-related TA is proposing revisions!  If you are a vendor
interested in SR-NWT-002024, it appears you must comment on the TA-30
Appendix, unless you want to accept the new version of SR-2024 without
comments!!  There are MAJOR changes.  The App. suggests that Call-ID
memory be large enough to store information on an average day's calls
(Bellcore doesn't specify that number ...), that the display be
multi-line so that all information on a single call can be displayed
at once, that the display be backlit or illuminated.

The requirements appear to allow information transfer from the far-end
party during a call.  During transmission, the CPE-to- handset/keypad
path is muted.  The timing is pretty critical, however.  There are
also requirements for inhibiting the data reception/acknowledgement
when an extension is off-hook, and a suggestion that the CPE have an
on/off switch that would allow disabling of the off-hook data
detection.  So if your answering machine is hooked up as an extension
 -- not through the CPE -- the "hacking" of the CPE would be prevented
for calls while you are away.  This would also minimize the
interference during a caller's recording when a second caller "call
waits" your answering machine.  But to receive the Caller-ID-on-call-
waiting information, all the extension telephones would have to be
connected through the CPE.}

- TA-NWT-001273, Issue 1, "Generic Requirements for an SPCS to CPE
Data Interface for Analog Display Services", ??? 1992, RFC 92-10,
comments due by May 21, 1992.  The comment period began Feb. 28, 1992,
but I'm not sure it got released in a "timely" fashion.  The TR is
expected to be released in November 1992.

{I haven't seen this one.  However, it appears to also have a
companion CPE document, SR-INS-002156, "CPE Compatibility
Considerations for the Analog Display Services Interface (ADSI)".  It
specifically provides for "data transmission ... over the voice path
consisting of an analog loop facility between the customer premises
and a serving local SPCS."  Don't know if it supports end-to-end
signaling, but Bellcore has advertised for CPE vendor participation in
a trial in Red Bank, NJ starting about April 30, 1992.  Interesting
that the TA is out on something Bellcore is still testing ...
potential applications include:

"display-assisted telephone service ordering, activation and
modification {egads, Customer Data Changes??}; telephone service
profile management; and incoming call management.  Bellcore plans to
publish results of these experiments."

Interested parties were to express interest by April 10, 1992,
but you could still contact:

Ronnie Potter, Bellcore
331 Newman Springs Road, Room 1C-409,
Red Bank, NJ 07701-7030

for further information on the trial.}


- TA-NWT-000057, "Functional Criteria for Digital Loop Carrier
Systems", Issue 5.  Don't have the RFC #, and comment period may be
over.  This contains the information for use of OSI on idle lines as
an indication that on-hook data transmission is beginning on
non-ringing terminals.

TAs can be ordered from:
   Bellcore
   Document Registrar
   445 South Street - Room 2J-125
   P. O. Box 1910
   Morristown, NJ 07962-1910

Takes three or four weeks(!), and the RFC number is helpful, if known.
You can also register as a vendor and receive future like-topic TAs
automatically.


Al Varney - the above represents my opinion, and not AT&T's....


[Moderator's Note: In fact, in the message thread I started on this a
couple months ago, I noted the only way I was able to intecept the
audible signals on my end at all was by leaving the phone on hook and
tapping the line, with the output of the tap running to the modem
(which was left off-hook, but after the tap.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John McHarry)
Subject: Re: Overwrite Caller ID Memory Registers
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:26:13 GMT


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

> To be spoof-proof, or at least spoof-resistant, it'd have to have
> some combination of a short timeout after the ring voltage and a check
> that the DC under the modem frequencies was high enough voltage to
> represent off-hook.  But if they did that, it wouldn't work with
> cheesy pair gain devices that don't provide full voltage.

If the thing is at least partially line-powered, a 9v zener in series
with it would cut off when the phone went off-hook (looks like a
short).  I use this to disable my answering machine when I pick up.

On the other hand, if it still works when off-hook, it might be usable
for short text messages, like some pagers.


John McHarry ([e-mail])

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 08:15:45 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Overwrite Caller ID Memory Registers


Think about the problem first.  Your voice doesn't doesn't spoof the
"dem", and it is sure to contain plenty of energy in the right bands,
so the "dem" it probally is shut off as the loop voltages drops below
a threshold.  If not the info would be overwritten as soon as you said
hello. Try picking up the line on a slow speed modem and speak a few
words.


Patton Turner    KB4GRZ    [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 16:48:11 CDT
From: Ron Bean <norvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix![e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Jack Decker) writes:

> In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
> Nagle) wrote:

>> If you are called by a junk caller, you post the number to a USENET
>> group.  An application then downloads all junk numbers identified by
>> anyone on the net, and applies them to your incoming calls.  If this
>> could be made effortless, it could be really useful.

> WHEN are folks going to realize that the calling number has NO
> particular relationship to the identity of caller?

   I think you'd be further ahead to take the opposite approach, and
give everyone you know an "access code" (call it an "extension number"
for the techno-illiterate), and route all other calls to your
answering machine (or maybe /dev/null).

   Your phone would be answered with a recording that says something
like "Dial your extension now. If you don't know your extension, write
to [your P.O. Box, City, State, Zip] <CLICK>".  If you're feeling
generous, you could allow unknown callers to leave a message. If you
have Caller-ID, certain "trusted" numbers could bypass the recording,
or be routed to the modem or fax machine. I assume this would require
a dedicated PC with a voicemail board, or maybe some kind of PBX.

   If you give everyone a different access code, you'd have a crude
type of "Calling-Person-ID", regardless of whose phone they were using
that day. Or you could just have one code for relatives, another for
companies you do business with, etc.  Telescum and hangup-artists
won't bother trying to crack the code, they'll just move on.

Quote of the Day:

"This is the Finn's phone program, and the Finn, he's not here.  You
wanna download, you know the access code already. You wanna leave a
message, leave it already." (from "Count Zero", chap.25)


[e-mail] (Ron Bean)
{harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod

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

From: [e-mail] (HAAS)
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:16:23 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary
Delong) writes:

> In TELECOM Digest Volume 12, Issue 301, Message 13 of 13 nagle@netcom.
> com (John Nagle) writes:

>> If you are called by a junk caller, you post the number to a USENET
>> group.  An application then downloads all junk numbers identified by
>> anyone on the net, and applies them to your incoming calls.  If this
>> could be made effortless, it could be really useful.

> Great idea! The TMs use data bases to make their cold calls, so why
> shouldn't we use them to defend ourselves?

> But rather than a news group, use a mailing list.  That way anyone
> could send a e-mail note:

This is a good idea -- BUT ... it would probably only stop the "legit"
cold-callers.

The problem is that most of the really irritating and illegal
solicitors are constatly changing their phone lines.  A few complaints
to your state PSC will usually result in the termination of the
solicitor's phone service.  At which point the solicitor simply
changes his P.O. box and gets a new line.  Keeps the PSC pretty busy.

I've had "Caller-ID" since it became available in Georgia. I've
written a program for my own use that has been great. It runs in
MS-Windows, logs all calls, and pops up a window with information on
the calling line (if known) or an input box if unknown (more features
to follow).  I find it well worth the investment.

So far, I've had two occasions to stop telemarketers.

I've received two automated solicitations (illegal in Georgia) in the
last three months which originated locally. A quick letter to the
Georgia PSC resulted in termination of the solicitor's service.  Since
the PSC can only disconnect service, the "companies" simply get a new
line at a new location.  Since the calls I reported might be
considered a form of fraud, my letters to the GPSC were forwarded to
the Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs which can do a more than
simply terminate service. I have received feedback from that office
and investigation is on-going.

I found the GPSC to be friendly, helpful, and effective (a surprise.)
And I was also surprised that the GOCA actually called me for
additional information.  I have also noted a decrease in the number of
junk calls I've received.  :=)

Another good note ... Georgia initially offered no form of blocking. I
understand blocking is now available (though I don't know what form it
will take.)  If we can just get a consensus among the states so that
interstate service can be provided, CLID may become a valuable service
for all concerned.


Harry P. Haas  GTRI/RIDL/EB   Georgia Tech Research Institute
Research Engineer II          Georgia Institute of Technology
404-528-7679                  Atlanta Georgia, 30332
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #326
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26913;
          19 Apr 92 18:48 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13151
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 17:02:48 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16681
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 17:02:38 -0500
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 17:02:38 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #327

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 Apr 92 17:02:38 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 327

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Interesting Caller-ID Twist: Blocking at the Far End (James Gustave)
    Re: Interesting Caller-ID Twist: Blocking at the Far End (Ronald H. Davis)
    Re: New Form of Caller-ID Available (Steve Forrette)
    Caller-ID Comes to Area Code 516 (David Niebuhr)
    Text of Ohio Decree on Caller-ID (Stan Brown)
    Re: Immediate ANI From Your 800 Number (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Privacy Question (Michael Rosen)
    Re: Mystic Marketing Quits ANI Billing (Michael Rosen)
    Re: Pac*Bell Employees Win Big From Radio Station Contest Line (Rob Bailey)
    Re: Pac*Bell Employees Win Big From Radio Station Contest Line (Jim Haynes)
    Re: The Jargon File on Bugs (was Cord Board Anecdote) (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Telephone Toy (Adrienne Voorhis)
    Re: Motorola Cordless Telephone (Martin Harriss)
    Re: Mass. Lottery-by-Phone Illegal? (Robert Virzi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: James Gustave <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting Caller-ID Twist: Blocking at the Far End
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:05:37 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


I believe you can do it yourself by placing the call through the
operator ...

"Hi operator, I'm having trouble reaching 800-800-3333, could you make
it for me ..."

I think the number won't show up on their equipment if you do this.

Is that right?


Jim Speth    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: So are you 'Jim Speth' or 'James Gustave'?  What
you are saying is correcct, the Caller-ID will not show up, and you
get to pay operator-assisted rates on your call plus any operator
surcharge which applies for your convenience.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 17:15:59 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Ronald H Davis)
Subject: Re: Interesting Caller-ID Twist: Blocking at the Far End
Organization: AT&T


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Roy Smith) writes:

> Here's an interesting twist on blocking Caller-ID.  Mac
> Connection has a two-page spread in the front of their catalog talking
> about how wonderful CID is, and how it will help them speed your order
> processing.  It's the usual bit about how they will already know your
> name and account number as soon as they answer the phone, etc.

> The interesting part is that they acknowledge that some people
> consider it an invasion of privacy, and if you request it, they will
> do CID blocking from their end!  They still get the CID info, but if
> your phone number is on their stop list, they won't use the
> information.  They show a picture of an Order Entry screen with a
> dialog box in the middle saying "Caller ID blocked at customer
> request.  Please process order manually".

My understanding is that if the call is long distance, Caller-ID
information wouldn't appear anyway.  Not that it's not technically
feasible using common channel signalling over the long distance
network, but it seems that the BOCs realize a tidy sum of money in
commissions by acting as collecting agents for the long distance
operators.

A nice little scam, I suppose, but if the long distance folks had
direct access to CID info on people using the network, they'd be able
to bill you directly and cut out the middleman and pocket the
difference.  Since the BOCs service local customers, they've clearly
got no incentive to cut themselves out of a piece of the action just
to potentially save their poor (and involuntarily faithful) customers
a few dineros here and there.


at&t bell laboratories, naperville il, usa   att!ixstar!ronald


[Moderator's Note: You've got some things wrong. One, the calling
number *is* frequently passed along; the other telcos en route just
choose to not give it to the end user. Two, the phone number in and of
itself is not adequate to send a bill. Send it to who, where?  Under
the rules, the local telcos must share their data base with long
distance carriers for billing purposes on request.  No choice in the
matter either way, whether your phone is listed or non-pub.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 15:25:50 pdt
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Form of Caller-ID Available
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> We are located in Omaha, Nebraska and last week we received a flyer
> from US West that announces the availability of Caller*ID with the
> display of both the number and the name of the calling party beginning
> April 7th.

Does it display the name based on the billing records or the directory
listing?  What about unlisted numbers?  What about payphones?

While not a perfect solution, I think that this goes a long way to
solving a lot of the Caller-ID opponents' objections as to the
usefulness of the service.  Calls from the police or a payphone
(possibly from a stranded child) can be answered even though the
calling number is not recognized.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: But this also gives new ammunition to opponents of
Caller-ID who might have been sort of lukewarm before. The number only
is meaningless if it is non-pub. The called party still has no actual
identity of the caller. With the name provided as well, now he can
look it up in the book and get the address if the number is listed.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 07:45:29 -0400
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Caller-ID Comes to Area Code 516


In the course of a conversation yesterday with a NYTel Business Office
representative (I was inquiring about the "Smart Phone" product) and
found out that while it isn't available in the 516 area code, it will
be in July ("Smart Phone" is the "buzzword" for CLASS service).

Since I intend to subscribe to this on my main phone, I'd like to know
some of the places where I can get the display box other than at the
local telco outlet.

Please e-mail to either address below and thanks in advance.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093


[Moderator's Note: Radio Shack sells them, as do the big chain
discount stores like K-Mart. Montgomery Ward also has them, which is
where I bought my two units (home and part time office).   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Subject: Text of Ohio Decree on Caller-ID
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 7:38:31 EDT


PAT tells me that he'll be putting this in the Telecom Archives.

Those of you with Usenet access may want to get it from
misc.consumers, where the subject line is the same as the above, with
"part ___ of 3" appended.


Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems                     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It was put in the archives today. The Telecom
Archives can be accessed using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: Immediate ANI From Your 800 Number
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 07:59:34 EDT


On 9 Apr 92 20:06:48 GMT, [e-mail] (Bob Yazz) said:

> What companies are currently offering real-time (immediate) ANI on 800
> numbers, and how much more is "a bit more expensive", Pat?

> I am aware of only MCI providing this, and requiring a T1 link to do
> so.  This is out of my acceptable price range for a residential 800
> number.

I seriously doubt that anyone is offering real-time ANI on a
single-line residential 800 number.  AT&T provides real-time ANI on T1
connected 800 numbers using ISDN as the delivery protocol.  I don't
know what Sprint does, but surely somebody reading the Digest must.
(like Higdon?).

> I really like my Cable & Wireless programmable 800 service, and I
> think that there wouldn't be much other than software for their system
> to make available the last n calling numbers by calling the same
> computer that you call to reprogram the "normal" phone number that
> your "programmable 800" number routes to.)

Why is it that telecommunications and computer professionals say "not
much besides software" with a straight face?  "Not much besides
software" can be quite a lot indeed, especially for a long distance
carrier.  Remember that they don't write the software for the
switches, they buy it from the switch vendors.  A custom feature such
as this will cost big buckaroos to any company willing to ask AT&T,
Northern Telecom, Siemens, etc., to develop it, since those vendors
will spend big buckaroos to do so.

> But they don't provide this service.

They can't afford to.  Maybe the situation will change when basic rate
ISDN is readily available.  Delivering real time ANI to an ISDN local
exchange number rather than a POTS number would probably be feasable.
(No that's not a commitment from AT&T to do so.  I foam at my own
mouth).

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Re: Privacy Question
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:30:09 GMT


911 records all incoming calls, outgoing calls I don't know.  But I
doubt many 911 operators make personal calls, their job is a very
important one and I'm sure they know it.

Back when I was in middle school (I think 8th grade), these two kids
were caught for making a prank call to 911.  They traced the payphone
they called from to the school and somehow these two turned up.  So,
they take these guys down to the 911 center and make them listen to
tapes of distressed, etc. callers who have called 911.  Kind of a
scare tactic, show them how serious 911 is and why they shouldn't
screw with it.


Mike

   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Re: Mystic Marketing Quits ANI Billing
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:47:04 GMT


Well, it's no longer operating at all now.  Nada ... zip.  I tried
calling it recently and got an intercept recording.  Damn, now I can't
find out the phone numbers of my area COCOTs ...


Mike

   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

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

Date: 18 Apr 92 01:29:14 EDT
From: "Rob Bailey, WM8S" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Employees Win Big From Radio Station's Contest Lines


Before Charleston (WV) made the transfer to an electronic switch (long
ago, despite NY'kers rumors that the state is 30 years behind the
times [Charleston was, according to C&P, the first city in the world
with Equal Access]), when the local radio station had pizza and
concert ticket give aways, I discovered that, by pressing the switch
hook for only a short amount of time, I could fall back to the fourth
digit in the dialing sequence. In other words, I could press the
switch hook down not quite long enough to clear the call and would
only have to dial the last three digits of the number. Frequently, I
would be (during a heavy-call period, even) every other or every third
caller. "You're caller 2", "You're caller 4", ...

The receptionist that physically distributed the prizes stopped
looking at the DJ's log after a while; I could just walk in and say
"Pizza" and she'd hand over a coupon. Cheating? I don't think so.
Using technology available to all? Yeh, that's it.


Rob   [e-mail]

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

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Employees Win Big From Radio Station's Contest Lines
Date: 18 Apr 92 17:12:18 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


As reported in the paper here, the radio station was awarding the
prize to the seventh caller.  So perhaps the telco employees were
monitoring the line, counting off the first six calls, and then
putting through their own.


[e-mail]     [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: The Jargon File on Bugs (was Cord Board Anecdote)
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:56:59 CDT (Sun)
From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)


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

> [There has been a widespread myth that the original bug was moved
> to the Smithsonian, and an earlier version of this entry so
> asserted.  A correspondent who thought to check discovered that the
> bug was not there.  While investigating this in late 1990, your
> editor discovered that the NSWC still had the bug, but had
> unsuccessfully tried to get the Smithsonian to accept it --- and
> that the present curator of the History of American Technology
> Museum didn't know this and agreed that it would make a worthwhile
> exhibit.  It was moved to the Smithsonian in mid-1991.  Thus, the
> process of investigating the original-computer-bug bug fixed it in
> an entirely unexpected way, by making the myth true!  --- ESR]

I'm the person who asserted it was at the Smithsonian. It might have
been at the NSWC in 1990, but it was definitely in the Smithsonian in
1978, when I passed through Washington while interviewing at various
East Coast colleges (and in fact spent my entire time in Washington at
the Smithsonian, while my folks checked out more traditional sights).
Why it was moved from the Smithsonian between 1978 and 1990, I do not
know, but it was there in 1978. I saw it, and read the notation by to
the bug, and my recollection matches the official version of the
entry.

Eric: please correct this entry.

Pat: please post this as a public response to the current entry in the
    Jargon File.

Anyone else: if anyone could trace the movements of the bug during the
    period in question, I'm sure it would be enlightening.


Taronga Park BBS  [phone]  (2400/n/8/1)
[phone] Trailblazer    Peter da Silva

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

From: Adrienne Voorhis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Toy
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 10:34:03 EDT
Organization:  Albert Einstein College of Medicine


     Jon Sreekanth reportyed that for about $15 a parent could buy a
battery powered gizmo that would dial a child's home address if he
were found lost.  This pendant had a picture of a child at a
telephone, so the adult that found the child could presu mably figure
out that the pendant could make the call.

     The idea is cute, but sounds gimmicky.  Wouldn't it be better for
the child (and cheaper for his parent) to just have the child wear a
pendant with the child's home address?


[e-mail] (*Bob Voorhis)

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

From: [e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Subject: Re: Motorola Cordless Telephone
Reply-To: bdsgate![e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Organization: Beechwood Data Systems
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 14:41:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> jack.winslade%drbbs@ivgate.
omahug.org writes:

> Several years ago, I did some experimenting with the idea of making
> semi-secure telephone sets.  I experimented with ring modulators and
> demodulators with the idea of using a frequency shift/inversion
> process with different modulation frequencies as 'keys'.  This was in
> the early 1970's, so it was without Ma's blessing, and the technology
> was not what it is today.  I used mostly discreet components,
                                           ^^^^^^^^
How very appropriate for a secrecy system :)

Sorry, I couldn't resist!


Martin    uunet!bdsgate!martin

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Virzi)
Subject: Re: Mass. Lottery-by-Phone Illegal?
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:59:50 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Monty
Solomon) writes:

> From the 92 Apr 11 {Boston Globe}:

> A state Senate investigative committee, charging that Treasurer Joseph
> D. Malone's administration violated numerous state and federal laws
> and regulations when it launched a new operation to sell lottery
> tickets by telephone, yesterday called for the service to be shut down
> immediately.

  ... some details omitted ...

> On Monday, the Senate will take up two bills aimed at curbing
> Lottery-by-Phone.

I heard a similar story on the local radio news.  Apparently there are
state laws prohibiting the use of a telephone to place bets.  I get a
real chuckle out of this because 'the phones' are used when a bet is
placed in the store.  The machines are linked to a central computer
via a high-speed data network, which I think is provided by NET
(anyone know for sure?).

So I guess the NET position is that they are willing to be a silent
partner in a gambling operation, so long as their name is not
associated with the operation directly.  And doesn't that mean Malone
and crowd have broken the law by allowing, even promoting, gambling
using a telephone?

Just wondering.  Usual disclaimers regarding my employer apply.


Bob Virzi   [e-mail]      ...!harvard!bunny!rv01

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #327
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03728;
          19 Apr 92 21:34 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09916
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 19:44:07 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24140
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 19:43:51 -0500
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 19:43:51 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #328

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 Apr 92 19:43:45 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 328

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More Cellular Gotchas (Steve Forrette)
    Re: More Cellular Gotchas (John Higdon)
    Re: What CO Equipment is Needed to Send Caller-ID? (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: What CO Equipment is Needed to Send Caller-ID? (John Higdon)
    Re: Nokia P-30 Pinout Query (Jim Rees)
    Re: Phone Home (tm): New Telephone Toy (Jon Sreekanth)
    Re: Questions About Call Waiting (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Canadian LD Plans Wanted (Peter Sleggs)
    Re: Satellite Communications to Africa? (Harry P. Haas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 03:36:56 pdt
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Cellular Gotchas
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> Michael Scott Baldwin writes:

> Add these to your list of "Things to Watch Out For" with cellular
> service.  I have Cellular One service in NJ (A), which I like better
> than Bell Atlantic or NYNEX (B), but there are still problems:

> 1. On the brochures, they say they don't charge airtime for calls
> unless they are answered or you wait 40 seconds.  Well, if you place a
> 0+ calling card call, you *always* get charged airtime.  Even if you
> calling card wasn't validated.  Even if you hang up before the
> "<blong>".  Even if the number is busy, no answer, or invalid.
> "That's different" they say.  Really?  Now that they force you to use
> 0+ to call certain areas (NPA 809 at least), this makes it such a joy.

This is because the AT&T calling card system returns answer
supervision just before it gives the bong tone, so there's really no
way for the cellular carrier to correctly bill, as they don't get
meaningful feedback as to when the call is completed.  It sounds like
your carrier bills upon answer supervision or after 40 seconds,
whichever comes first.  If this is the case, then may I recommend
using a Sprint FON-card for calling card calls.  Sprint's system
(accessed via 800-877-8000) doesn't return answer supervision until
the actual called number answers -- the process of entering the called
number and calling card number occurs in an unsupervised state.  You
may want to put your card number in a speed dial entry to get
everything in within 40 seconds.

> 2. Voice mail does *not* get activated if your phone is turned off or
> goes out of service while ringing.  The caller gets reorder, or
> silence then a hangup.  If you're NoSvc *before* you start ringing, it
> goes directly to voice mail.  If it rings four times, it goes to voice
> mail.  But if it rings once or twice, then you go NoSvc, you lose.
> Again, voice mail fails to catch calls that aren't completed.

Same thing happens to me with Cellular One of Seattle.

> 4. When you call forward, you can't get to your voice mail from a land
> line, because you dial your own mobile number to access it.  However,
> you *can* still get to it from your mobile by dialing your mobile
> number but with 111 as the area code.

Perhaps they have a back door number that you can use to access voicemail
when it's unreachable via your own number.  Although they don't publish it,
my cellular carrier told me what it was when I asked.

Also, here's more news on a new feature of the McCaw National Network
that I discovered last week: I was roaming with my Seattle phone into
Sacramento, and had no-answer transfer turned on to a Sac landline.
If I dialed the Sac roam port and entered my Seattle number, the call
would transfer to my no-answer transfer landline number.  Previously
it has been the custom that roam ports won't honor any forwarding
options that you have turned on for your home number, even if you are
in a city where calls to your home number would find you if you were
on the air.  I'm not sure if ANY roam port on the National Network
will forward as you like, or only the one in the city where you're
roaming at the moment, but I would imagine it's the latter.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 10:10 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: More Cellular Gotchas


[e-mail] writes:

> 1. On the brochures, they say they don't charge airtime for calls
> unless they are answered or you wait 40 seconds.  Well, if you place a
> 0+ calling card call, you *always* get charged airtime.  Even if you
> calling card wasn't validated.  Even if you hang up before the
> "<blong>".  Even if the number is busy, no answer, or invalid.
> "That's different" they say.  Really?  Now that they force you to use
> 0+ to call certain areas (NPA 809 at least), this makes it such a joy.

This is probably negotiable. The reason that you are charged
regardless on a 0+ call is that supervision is returned immediately
upon the IEC trunk seizure. Therefore, it matters not whether your
card is accepted, whether the party answers, or whether you just hang
up.

Some time back, GTE Mobilnet notified its customers that "as a fraud
prevention measure", it was no longer permitting direct-dialed
international calls. You would have to use a calling card for the IEC
(and pay operator assisted rates). I merely called the business office
and said that if this was the case, my two cellular phones would be
moved to Cellular One forthwith.

The next day, I received a call from a manager who told me that my
particular service would be reactivated for IDDD. It was.


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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 14:33:57 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: What CO Equipment is Needed to Send Caller-ID?
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

> I had thought that only a digital switch could deliver caller-ID, but
> someone mentioned getting it on a 1A ESS (the best CO switch in the
> world).  Is that possible?

   Certainly is possibly the best CO switch -- it's nice to hear that
18 years of my life were spent on a product someone likes ... oh, you
mean is caller-ID possible on 1A ESS(TM)?  Well, since it was
developed, tested and first deployed on 1A ESS, I guess it's possible.

> So that got me to thinking, what equipment is needed at the CO end
> to send Caller-ID?  Presumably it's just the "mo" part of a modem,
> possibly attached to the ring generator.  Is there a pool of these
> that get switched to individual lines as needed?

   Darn, was it that obvious???  A pool of "data-transmission-capable"
ringing circuits is used, instead of the normal ringing pool, for
calls to "caller-ID" subscribers.

> Does it require a new line card?

   Gee, what's a line card?? :-) The equivalent to a line card in 1/1A
ESS is a small part of the large plug-in first stage of the switching
fabric, basically a latching reed relay, a sensor and a power/ground
interface.  Once you have dial tone, this whole mechanism is switched
out of the circuit -- it just provides a cut-through connection to the
rest of the switching fabric.  Therefore, responsibility for
power/ground and supervision is also transferred to equipment that is
not permanently associated with any particular line.  Guess you could
call it a "distributed line card" architecture. :-)

   Caller-ID just requires the "special" ringing circuits, the I/O
connections to those circuits (to deliver the data to be transmitted)
and the associated switch software.


Al Varney - the above is not the official opinion of AT&T

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

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 08:18 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: What CO Equipment is Needed to Send Caller-ID?


[e-mail] (Jim Rees) writes:

> I had thought that only a digital switch could deliver caller-ID, but
> someone mentioned getting it on a 1A ESS (the best CO switch in the
> world).  Is that possible?

Any switch capable of handling SS7 (which is everything from a 1A on
up) can deliver caller-ID. The actual sending of the 202-like data is
trivial; what counts is that the switch have the logic and the ability
to sort out the stream.

> Does it require a new line card?

For older switches, some new cards are required.

> Caller-ID is not yet available in my exchange (a 1A of course), but
> *67 started returning dial tone rather than reorder about three weeks
> ago, so I guess they're getting ready.  I don't intend to subscribe.

*67 has been working around here for more than a year. As of this
date, it is anyone's guess when or even if we will ever get Caller-ID.
All that *67 function means is that the newer generic has been loaded
and per-call block has NOT been disabled.

Remember, the lack of these advanced features is not a technical
matter. The overwhelming majority of subscriber lines in the SF Bay
Area are CLASS-capable and SS7 has been fully deployed for a couple of
years now. At least when your switch is ready, you will get the
services. California, on the other hand, is the land of the
Politically Correct where any new technology inspires a scene similar
to the sequence in '2001' that features the monolith and the ape-like
creatures.

Oops -- got carried away. Yes, the 1AESS can do just about everything.
It can even do ISDN with an NEC adjunct. Pac*Bell tested it in
downtown San Francisco.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Nokia P-30 Pinout Query
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 20:07:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
anl.gov (Bill Nickless) writes:

I suspect that modems like the Telebit Qblazer could easily deal with
the in-band signaling and handoffs common to cellular communication.
But I have to hook it up first.  :)

Funny you should mention this.  I was just doing some experiments with
my Qblazer and Outback this morning.

I think it's safe to say that you can't get a v.32 (or v.32bis)
connection at 9600 bps or above over a cellular link.  I've never been
able to get a connection at these speeds, and I've tried with a
Qblazer, a T2500, and a T3000.

v.22bis (2400 bps) works fine, and with v.42bis compression, you can
do pretty well.

The modem people I know say it should be possible to get a v.32bis
connection at the 4800 bps fallback speed over cellular.  The problem
is that most v.32/v.32bis modems, including the Qblazer, won't
negotiate slower speeds during handshake.  There are some modems that
are capable of doing this (I've heard), but I don't know which ones.

There is also a cellular modem made by Microcom that uses v.32-like
modulation at 4000 bps (I think) and includes v.42bis compression.
And there's always PEP if you don't mind half-duplex, but we don't
normally see more than 8000 bps with it.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon Sreekanth)
Subject: Re: Phone Home (tm): New Telephone Toy
Organization: The World
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1992 23:11:16 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jon Sreekanth) writes:

> Inside the unit are two button cells, a small speaker, a ceramic
> resonator, and some SMT parts. I couldn't find any chip, but there is
> a black blob of waxy looking stuff (what's it?) which may conceal

Several readers wrote saying it was most probably a chip directly
bonded to the PCB.

> "a black blob of waxy looking stuff" is the container for the chip.
> For really cheap chips, it's cheaper to just bring leads out of the
> silicon die, mechanically solder them in, and put an epoxy blob over
> the whole mess.

>    The black waxy blob is epoxy which covers the chip which is
> bonded directly to the PC board. This is so to speak a hybrid. It is
> known as "Chip on Board".

> Probably potting epoxy, or a similar material.  It very probably
> conceals a small surface-mount (SMT) or flat-pack integrated circuit
> chip, which is soldered directly to the traces on the circuit board.


Thanks,

Jon Sreekanth
Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc.      Fax and PC products
5 Walden St #3, Cambridge, MA 02140    [phone]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 17:38:06 pdt
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About Call Waiting
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


>> How does call waiting behave if:

>> 2.  the called party is calling someone else and they are getting and
>>    that call is ringing?

> You would hear a busy signal.

[stuff deleted]

> This is how is works on a 1E, anyway.  I arrived at all these answers
> long ago by experimenting.  The conclusion I arrived at, from my
> experimenting, is that call waiting will go into effect if and only if
> all of the following is true:

> - the subscriber has has completed a call (I assume this
> would be that the call has supervised).

This can vary between switches of the same type.  Either it is a
software settable configuration option, or it is dependent on the
generic (probably the former).  From my experience, Pacific Bell's
switches work as you describe above in that answer supervision must
have occurred for an outbound call before an incoming call will beep
through with call waiting.  This was on both a 1AESS and a 5ESS.
However, I am currently served by a US West 5ESS that allows call
waiting as soon as you finish dialing the number (perhaps when the
originating register goes away), without regard to whether or not
answer supervision has occurred.

Personally, I like Pacific Bell's choice on this issue.  I find that
if I get a call waiting tone while I'm ringing someone else, it's
awkward.  Do I hang up and answer the incoming call?  Do I ignore the
incoming call and just let it ring? (the person may not call back as
they would if they got a busy signal).  Do I ask the person who
answers the outgoing call to hold? (very rude!)  By not allowing call
waiting until after my outgoing call answers, an incoming caller gets
a busy signal, and will usually try again (often quite quickly if they
know I have call waiting).

This is also an issue with conference calling.  With Pacific Bell,
your flash is ignored until the outbound call answers.  I think the
primary reason that this was done was so people can't try to have some
phun by conferencing two outbound calls, and listening while the
callees argue as to who called whom, or by conferencing an error
recording with some unsuspecting person.  I find that this choice is
personally convenient as it allows me to abandon a call with just a
quick flash.  If you always can do a conference call, then you must
stay on hook for what seems forever to avoid placing the first call on
hold.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Canadian LD Plans Wanted
From: [e-mail] (Peter Sleggs)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1992 11:36:36 -0400
Organization: Bellatrix Systems Corp., Mississauga, ONT Canada


[e-mail] (Ian Evans) writes:

> Does anyone know of any companies that offer long-distance savings
> plans for Canadian business besides Bell?  I spoke to a Bell rep today
> and they wanted a 32.50 "administration" charge for a 15% discount.

I got a call from Unitel Telecom, they 'claim' a savings of 'up to
33%'.  Toronto area only I believe for now, discounts are less to USA
and to the rest of the world.

I have signed up and am still waiting for my package with the full
info, I will report on it once I have used it if there is a demand.
Email if more info is desired.


[e-mail] or torag!beltrix!peters

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

From: [e-mail] (HAAS)
Subject: Re: Satellite Communications to Africa?
Date: 18 Apr 92 01:56:54 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute


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

> We are exploring various methods to send data to field reserchers in
> Africa and I've been wondering if there is a field portable satellite
> receiver system which can be used to connect our site in Indiana with
> a site running on a generator in Cameroon?

Try:    Houston International Teleport, Houston TX
        713 438-3600

I think they've sold off many of their transportables -- but if they
can't help you, they will know who can.


Harry P. Haas  GTRI/RIDL/EB   |    Georgia Tech Research Institute
Research Engineer II          |    Georgia Institute of Technology
404-528-7679                  |    Atlanta Georgia, 30332
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #328
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05382;
          19 Apr 92 22:11 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05251
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 20:22:59 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02870
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 20:22:45 -0500
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 20:22:45 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #329

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 Apr 92 20:22:45 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 329

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 900 Service in Germany (Wolf Paul)
    Re: Using Answering Machine With Panasonic KX-T123211D (Dan Pearl)
    Re: No Calling Card Surcharge if no Choice of LD Carrier? (Frank T. Lofaro)
    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Richard Nash)
    Re: Finland Competitive Long Distance Proposal (Charles Sederholm)
    Re: Massachusetts REALLY Cracks Down on COCOTs! (Bob Frankston)
    Re: All Circuits Are Busy (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Outrageous Telephone Rate For Local Calls (David L. Hanson)
    Re: NXX Comes to South Jersey (David Esan)
    Re: Ringback Service in Montreal (Rick Broadhead)
    Re: All Circuits Are Busy (Ken Abrams)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Wolf Paul)
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Wolf Paul)
Organization: Alcatel Austria - Elin Research Center, Vienna
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:04:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John R. Covert 08-Apr-1992 1158) writes:

> Well, I think you have the number wrong.  I think it's 00-61-xxx, and
> since there's at least one error, the extra "1", there may be other
> errors.

> I wish I had paid attention to this before I went to Germany last
> week, because I would have really loved to have tried the 001-610-...
> version you posted.  Have _YOU_ tried it?  After all, from Germany you
> can call it and see what you get, and as long as you only stay on the
> line for up to 4.47 seconds it will only cost you DM0.23 (about 14
> cents).

)Please try the 001-... number and let us know.  I'll bet it's a mistake.

Well, I just tried it, using the 001-610 area code (from Austria,
which has the same international access code as Germany, so this is
the US from here, as well!), and it works. Got a Horoscope in German.

So I doubt the Australians are the only ones involved in this ...


Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center         [e-mail]
Alcatel-Elin Research Center     [phone] (w)
Ruthnergasse 1-7                   [phone] (fax)
ELIN RESEARCH        A-1210 Vienna-Austria/Europe        [phone] (h)

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Pearl)
Subject: Re: Using Answering Machine With Panasonic KX-T123211D
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:30:23 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Monty
Solomon) writes:

> I am trying to use a Panasonic answering machine with the Panasonic
> KX-T123211D EMSS and am experiencing a couple of problems.  None of
> these problems occurred when the machine was directly connected to a
> CO line before the EMSS was installed.

> The answering machine is supposed to immediately disconnect and stop
> recording when the caller hangs up.  It is also supposed to ignore
> disconnects during the outgoing message and not bother recording the
> hang up.  It no longer recognizes the disconnects and records the
> internal busy signal (error tone?) from the EMSS and appears to time
> out on the VOX.  I tried configuring the machine for both CPC modes A
> and B.

I notice MY answering machine exhibiting this behavior as well.
Before, when someone hung up, the machine would immediately detect it,
and do end-of-message processing.  Now, there is a delay of about ten
seconds, then a recorded click of some sort, then the "beep" for
end-of-message.

This behavior started about two months ago.  My central office?
FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS (i.e., the office of the original poster).

I about three weeks ago, I called the business office -- they knew
nothing, and referred me to repair.  They knew nothing.  It sounds
like a change in the central switch software to me!!


Dan Pearl  **  Stratus Computer, Inc.  **  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:57:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank T Lofaro <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Calling Card Surcharge if no Choice of LD Carrier?


In comp.dcom.telecom 13-Apr-92 [e-mail] wrote:

> I presently have AT&T (with Reach Out America plan) as my 1+ carrier.
> I will soon be moving into university housing, where I don't have a
> choice of LD carrier.  I would like to continue on AT&T ROA, but I
> don't care to pay the calling card surcharges.

    Don't you mean that you don't have a choice of default long
distance carrier? I think you might be able to do (for AT&T long
distance from the university switch) 9+10288+1+areacode+number. Or do
they block 10XXX codes (unlikely, and I think possibly a violation of
equal access laws) or not have equal access capability in the local
exchange (I'd think also unlikely)? You *might* even be able to have
just your line switched if you and all your roommates concur and make
an agreement with the housing office.

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

From: trickie![e-mail] (Richard Nash)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Date: 6 Apr 92 03:36:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jack Decker) writes:

> One can imagine an obvious potential for fraud here.  For example, a
> kid could call home collect and when asked for his name, reply "when's
> dinner?".  When the announcement was played, the parent (or whomever)
> could reply "Six thirty" which of course would not be recognized as a
> valid response, after which the caller would just hang up, abandoning
> the call (that's a trivial example and the best I can think of on
> short notice, I'm sure that someone with more imagination could think
> Michigan Bell's automated equipment (as used in lower Michigan) seems
> to be smarter; it doesn't cut an audio path from the called party back
> to the caller until the call has been accepted.  This still would
> allow delivery of a short one way message from the caller to the
> called party, but you'd never know if the message was received (after
> all, the dog could have knocked the phone off the hook when it rang,
> for all the caller would know).  But in the system used in Canada,
> you'd know that called phone was answered, who answered it (provided
> you could identify the voice), and they could acknowledge receipt or
> even pass useful information back in the opposite direction!

> Either Canadians are more honest than U.S. residents (I really doubt
> that they're THAT much more honest, especially considering the number
> that come over here to Sault, Michigan to shop, and then smuggle back
> their purchases!), or else Bell Canada really blundered when they put
> that system in!  Wonder if this is a system used only in Canada (pity!)
> or if some of the U.S. telcos have a similarly insecure system?

It is not that Canadians are more honest, but that the AABS is totally
optional as to how it is configured.  Optionally, the calling party
can hear the called parties acceptance/rejection of the automated
solicitation, or can be configured as described in the above Michigan
example.  During the initial introduction of the service, it was found
that this phase of the call resulted in a large percentage of
confusion. The calling sub had absolutely no idea why the call failed
to be accepted.  Rather than futher antagonize the sub, the telcos
wanted to gain as large as possible acceptance of the new automation
so decided to allow the option.  Rest assured, once everyone becomes
used to the system, if a significant measure of fraud is detected, the
telcos will switch the option off.  This action would be justified by
loss of revenue statistics as observed by fraud operational
measurements.

I only speak for myself.  The above expressed opinions are fictional
and do not represent any company to the best of my knowledge.


Richard Nash       Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:           trickie![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Sederholm)
Subject: Re: Finland Competitive Long Distance Proposal
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:13:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Dave.Leibold@f524.n250.
z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) writes:

A bit of news in a recent {ITU Telecommunication Journal} noted that
there is an application to provide a competing long distance network
within Finland. A group called Kaukoverkko Oy, owned by 50 private
local telephone companies, with Datalie Oy, a fibre optic trunk
network for special uses within State-owned PTT areas, is proposing to
give 50% of Finland access to its network within six months of
approval, and all of Finland within two years.

Yes that should be correct. [To a large extent] the same ownership
set-up is also behind another monopoly-breaking effort in the mobile
communication area.

The private share-holder company Radiolinja Oy has now established
gsm-services in: the Helsinki metropolitan area, Turku, Tampere, Oulu
and now most recently Jyvaskyla. Those of you (all?) not familiar with
Finnish geography the listed towns are the biggest in Finland
(allthough a few major ones are still not in the list - e.g. Vasa).
The gsm services also cover some of the most important roads linking
the above listed cities.

Radiolinja Oy in June, 1991 reported that they were the first ones to
have established gsm, according to the agreement on implementing the
European gsm digital mobile network. At that time the services were
only available in the parts of the Helsinki area.


Charles Sederholm
[e-mail]       Phone (nat): 90-1390012      Fax (nat): 90-4513293
                          (int): [phone]      (int): [phone]
                    Institute of Industrial Automation; Room Y228
                    Helsinki University of Technology
                    Otakaari 1; SF-02150 Espoo; Finland

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Massachusetts REALLY Cracks Down on COCOTs!
Date: Wed 15 Apr 1992 09:06 -0500


I sent in some submissions last year about COCOTs vs local calls in
New England.  The $.25 that they charge for local calls vs the $.10 is
not an example of gouging.  Just the opposite, it is a sign that the
playing field is not at all level.  Finding the culprit is harder.
NET charges the COCOTs too much for the local call for them to compete
with NET.  But then NET would (I presume) be glad to charge the $.25
that the rest of the country pays if the DPU would allow them.

Remember that COCOT might actually provide some advantages over NET if
they were allowed.  In the example I cited last year, the COCOT tried
to provide cheaper LD calls but had to charge more for local calls to
not lose money on them.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:49:48 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, pacdata![e-mail]
(Jim Harkins) writes:

>> What if an elderly person was not feeling well, and was calling
>> relatives to report this, and was not able to get through and later
>> that day died of a heart attack?

> I thought that was the whole point of setting up a separate exchange.
> Had that ticket-selling method affected my normal phone usage when I
> wasn't trying to get tickets then I'd scream bloody murder.  As it is
> then only the one exchange should have been flooded.  It doesn't seem
> reasonable for police/fire/ambulances to share an exchange with radio
> stations/ticket sales/etc.

Start screaming, Jim.  Even if 911 were a separate exchange (which it
is not, just a separate prefix) it would not help.  If more than about
25% of the subscribers in your exchange are 'demon-dialing' a busy
number in the same or a different exchange, your local exhange
facilities will be overloaded to the point where your chances of
reaching anybody are substantially reduced.

The correct solution is two-fold. 1. Prohibit 'demon-dialing' to the
extent possible.  2. Use 'choke' numbers when a U-2 or similar event
is expected to cause demand peaks.  If you don't prohibit
'demon-dialing' then the originating end overload becomes a problem in
any switch with shared resources.  If you use choke numbers, then
demand peak activity will be kept under control at the originating
office, and will have less impact folks who are trying to call other
numbers.


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA        Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (David L. Hanson)
Subject: Re: Outrageous Telephone Rate For Local Calls
Organization: Process Control and Instrumention, Amoco Corporation
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:56:36 GMT


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

> What is a reasonable rate for local phone calls?  Stanford charges $11
> plus one time $35 installation charges, for unlimited calls ... Pacific
> bell charges about $8 for the same services.

> Some Stanford students are suing the University communications
> services, which has a monopoly on telephone service to the University
> and all the dorms.

> But get this: a friend in Illinois, in area 618-236-xxxx is having to
> pay: $55 installation charge + $16 per month PLUS A PER CALL CHARGE of
> 0.045 ... is this reasonable?  How could Illinois Bell charge so much
> more than Pacific Bell?

> I would like to hear from someone who has had to get a phone conection
> in the above mentioned area.

I was not very pleased with the local phone service that Illinois Bell
offers versus what it offered by SWB in Denver.  In Denver, we had
unlimited local calls (no additional cost) from Boulder to Castlerock
covering the whole Denver area (something 60 miles from north to
south).

Here, the consumers and the PUC were dumb enough (in my opinion) to let
Illinois Bell go to measured service.  Every call gets some charge and
most get a per minute charge in addition.

I don't have my bills in front of me but my impression is that the
montly charges (before measured service is added in) is higher with
Illinois Bell than it was in Denver with SWB (unlimited).


David L. Hanson       Internet --> [e-mail]
Amoco Corporation     X.400    --> A=attmail,P=amoco,S=Hanson,G=David,I=L
PO Box 3011, MC B-1   Phone    --> [phone]
Naperville, IL 60566   Any opinions expressed are my own!

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

From: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Subject: Re: NXX Comes to South Jersey
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:36:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 315, Message 10 of 11

> I did not find 609-300 in the March 1992 Elizabeth call guide.  How
> recent is that Princeton (N.J.Bell?) phone book which you used?

609-300 is Atlantic City.  It has been in place since 9/28/91.
609-400 was installed the same day.


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 19:49:21 EDT
From: Rick Broadhead <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringback Service in Montreal


[e-mail] (Christian Doucet) writes:

> The funny thing is that we also have Caller*ID in Montreal and
> when you use the ringback, you'll get 012-345-6789 displayed on your
> Caller*ID device!

Same thing here in Toronto!  I'm on exchange (416) 487.  Could someone
explain this?


Rick Broadhead    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: That does not happen in Chicago using ringback. We
just get a blank Caller-ID screen.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Abrams)
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1992 20:47:57 GMT


> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
> writes:

(using a computer to speed dial trying to get U2 tickets.)

> How are you going to prevent it?

There ARE laws on the books in many places that prohibit rapid repeat
dialing but, as you pointed out, they are largely inenforceable.  Like
a lot of other nasty habits, the only answer is education as to the
evils it inflicts on others.  Alas, for that to work, the people
involved must first CARE about the affect their actions have on
others.

> I thought that was the whole point of setting up a separate exchange.

This approach only offers partial protection.  It does not protect the
various end offices from having three million people all go for
dialtone at the same time AND repeating it every ten seconds ad
infinitum.  If we designed the network to cope with things like this,
you wouldn't like the increase in your phone bill as it would require
three to four times the present investment in equipment.


Ken Abrams        bradley!pallas!kabra437
Springfield, IL   (voice) 217-753-7965

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #329
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08548;
          19 Apr 92 23:33 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29557
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 21:40:22 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04191
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Apr 1992 21:40:09 -0500
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 21:40:09 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #330

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 Apr 92 21:40:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 330

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Metropolitan Fiber Systems and the Great Chicago Flood  (Phydeaux)
    Re: Metropolitan Fiber Systems and the Great Chicago Flood (Bill Nickless)
    Re: The March of the Telephone Trucks (Charles McGuinness)
    Re: The March of the Telephone Trucks (Carl Moore)
    Re: The Great Chicago Flood (Paul Cook)
    Re: The Great Chicago Flood (Brad Hicks)
    Re: The Great Chicago Flood (Eric W. Douglas)
    Re: 976-Type Exchanges (Phillip Dampier)
    Re: 976-Type Exchanges (Carl Moore)
    How Do I Find the Cost to Call a 900 Number? (John C. Fowler)
    Re: 800 Number Scammery (Carl Moore)
    Re: German Country Code Only 49 Now (John R. Covert)
    Re: Telenova PBX Question (Kenneth J. Baas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 09:20:00 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)
Subject: Re: Metropolitan Fiber Systems and the Great Chicago Flood


> Metropolitan Fiber Systems, the bypass carrier that started in Chicago
> and has since expanded elsewhere, got its start by running fiber optic
> cable in the coal tunnels beneath Chicago -- the same ones that were
> flooded on Monday.

> Has the company's Chicago network been wiped out, or did it survive
> the flood? I assume that the fiber itself would survive, but that any
> electronics immersed in the flood waters would be destroyed, unless
> very well waterproofed.

I just heard an advertisement for them on the radio.  Apparantly, they
are not only still operating but they are trying to take advantage of
the problems other carriers have experienced and get new business.  No
mention was made of the fact that their cables run in the now-flooded
tunnel system.


-- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W  h:828 South May Street  Chicago,  IL 60607  312-733-3090
w:reb Ingres 10255 West Higgins Road Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Nickless)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 11:41:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Metropolitan Fiber Systems and the Great Chicago Flood


Did anyone notice that the flood happened on Monday the 13th?

Ah.  Now I'm sure the conspiracy theorists will be saying that the
flood was caused by Illinois Bell trying to wipe out the bypass
carrier competition.

Is there anything like these tunnels available to Southwest Bell or
Pacific Bell?  John?

Lots of :) for the humor impaired.

Pat, do you know where I can get one of those Cellular One T-shirts
that say "I Swam The Loop" ?  They were giving them away this morning
on WGN Radio.


Bill Nickless  System Support Group  <[e-mail]>  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Those shirts were a specially produced item by Cell
One and WGN Radio (720 AM). You'd probably have to ask the station.
The tunnel situaton is unique to Chicago in terms of the numbers of
them and the miles covered. They are under every downtown street.  PAT]

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

From: Charles McGuinness <jyacc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The March of the Telephone Trucks
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 10:05:40 EDT


The Moderator reports problems companies in Chicago are having.  Typical
is the following quote:

> Carson's got one phone line up and running today. Their main number is
> answered on a single line phone set up in the store somewhere. Both
> stores will be closed until further notice.

What I find interesting is the rather low-tech solution here.  When
lower Manhattan had its power outage in August of 1990, our office
here was out of power for almost a week.  We simply had NY Tel reroute
our *local* numbers to our office in New Jersey (a completely different
RBOC land, even), and moved a small staff out there until the power
was restored. (Of course, we also had our 800 numbers forwarded there
too.)

Why doesn't Carson's, Marshall Fields, et al, simply have their downtown
numbers forwarded to some unaffected location?


[Moderator's Note: I guess they needed at least a phone or two in the
lobby of the buildings for use by the security guards, building
engineers and other limited personnel on duty. Carson's got their main
listed number working and it is being answered by someone sitting at a
desk in one of the first floor entranceways on State Street.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 8:03:53 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The March of the Telephone Trucks


Just NOW, I tried the Marshall Field number (312-781-1000) and did get
the three-tone intro (any name for it? this signals a phoneco error
message) and a different message (but still cannot be completed at
this time).


[Moderator's Note: As of Friday, they had 781-1000 back in service
with an answering machine on the line giving up to the minute details.
They managed to get electricity in the tenth floor offices and a
couple phones up there also; I guess they are ground-start type lines
with little buttons to push when you want a dial tone.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 15:01 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Great Chicago Flood


Our Moderator writes:

> Another "I hate Monday morning!" for Chicagoans today. Like the fire
> in 1871 which began late Sunday night and devastated the downtown area
> throughout the day on Monday, this latest crisis almost 122 years
> later had its origin in a small leak in an ancient (1880), unused and
> nearly forgotten (since the early years of this century) tunnel system
> under the streets of the downtown area which late Sunday night began
> eroding the walls of the tunnel, culminating in a major cave-in of the
> tunnel walls at approximatly the point where the tunnel under Kinzie
> Street crosses the Chicago River.

Last year I got a call from someone who wanted to buy our ringdown
circuits for use in the Chicago freight tunnels.  Since they stopped
using them for making deliveries to downtown buildings in the 1950s,
they had been sealed up.  But now there is a fiber optic network down
there, since this provides a convenient conduit to the downtown
buildings.

I was curious about the tunnels.  I had heard of them, but wanted to
know more about them.  He recommended a very interesting book, which I
got through the Seattle Public Library on inter-library loan from a
college in Eastern Washington.  The book is called FORTY FEET BELOW,
by Bruce Moffat, published in 1982 by Interurban Press.

This is a great book!  It has lots of maps and pictures of the
egg-shaped tunnels, which are only about 6 to 8 feet high, as I
recall.  A narrow gauge railroad ran beneath the streets in 40 miles
of tunnels, at the peak of its operations earlier in this century.
There is a fascinating historical text about the Chicago Tunnel Corp,
and its rise and fall.


Paul Cook                        206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates        MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.           fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The book is fascinating and I recommend it to
anyone who wants a more precise picture of the places which got
flooded. Basically the water went into the basment of all those
buildings which had been serviced by the Chicago Tunnel Corporation
many years ago.   PAT]

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

From: mc!Brad_Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: Tue Apr 14 09:24:06 -0400 1992
Subject: Re: The Great Chicago Flood


Keep an eye out for either news or cover-ups regarding deaths by
drowning.  I didn't know that Chicago had such a tunnel system, but
here in St. Louis we have a similar setup that was used for
underground storage and maintenance of a shared steam heating system
up until the mid 20th century ... and it's an open secret that there
are hundreds of homeless men living in it, getting in and out through
improvised tunnels and concealed entrances.

The descriptions of Chicago's tunnel system that I saw sounded like
exactly the kind of place that the more independent and resourceful
homeless tend to find out about and take advantage of.  (In my mind, I
can't help but think of them as "housing hackers.")  And if there were
people sleeping down there, or trying to recover their belongings,
while the water was rising 4 feet per hour, then they will find
bodies.  But will they admit it?

I also saw in this morning's {St. Louis Post-Disposal} (ok,
Post-Dispatch) that the mayor's office admitted last night that
several city workers had tried to report this when it was a tiny leak,
as early as several weeks ago.  Betcha it turns out that the workers
were union and the supervisors who sat on it were Democratic political
appointees.  This is going to get irancontra'd, and somebody unpopular
is going to get stuck holding the bag.

If this turns out to be more expensive than the Great Fire, will the
insurance companies sue the city for not fixing it when they could?

By the way, how good is the concrete in the foundations of those
skyscrapers?  Will it withstand being submerged in fast-running water?
Or godz forbid, will they find out that (for example) the Amoco
Building's foundation is cracked and washed out, and have to dismantle
an 80 story building before it falls over?


J. Brad Hicks
Internet: mhs!mc![e-mail]
X.400:    c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad


[Moderator's Note: The city has already begun the process of denial
regarding homeless people drowned in the tunnel. And the insurance
companies are not too worried; after all most businesses downtown did
NOT have flood insurance. Why *should* a business on the tenth floor
of a downtown building have flood insurance?  IBT has flood insurance
for their property however, so much of their expenses will be covered.
I guess Edison has flood insurance also.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric W. Douglas)
Subject: Re: The Great Chicago Flood
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 10:17:06 PDT


Patrick-

Please keep us updated on the flood if you have time ... I saw your
original post, and am very intersted. The bloody news last night only
had a twenty second segment on it, then blew it off in light of
something else.

Any news of new developments would be great.


Eric W. Douglas             Technojock               [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]
AppleLink: STUDIO.D      Compuserve: 76170,1472       AOL: EWDOUGLAS


[Moderator's Note: As of matter of fact, about mid-morning Sunday the
word came -- not from the city, but rather, the private company doing
the work -- that the leak has officially been plugged. They
successfully blocked off the three directions in the tunnel under the
river where the water could flow. Now we wait two days to see if the
seals will hold; then over the next *fifteen* (yikes!) days pump the
water from the tunnel *and* building basements very slowly in strict
coordination between the pumps, etc to avoid sudden changes in
pressure and walls collapsing, etc.  The city held a press conference
at about 11 AM covered live by all the television stations. See my
article in misc.misc Sunday overnight/Monday morning for more info.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:22:16 -0500
Subject: Re: 976-Type Exchanges


> In response to a message from: [e-mail]

> The following is a list of 976 exchanges.  The list was printed in
> the recently published book called "Toll Fraud and Telabuse" and I've
> copied it from an AT&T customer advisory:

> (716)-540,550,970

Here in Rochester Tel Land, we have two "976-type" exchanges not
listed here. 971 is the home of the local sex-a-thon lines, heavy
breathing at $2.00 a minute.  Rochester Tel's message services, a/k/a
Time & Temp and Weather are on the 974 exchange. Those are charged by
message unit, approximately 9 cents a call.

Interestingly enough, Rochester Tel has a service available free of
charge called "The Informer," which competes against some of its own
services.  This is basically the equivalent of the {USA Today} service
with news, weather, sports, and stock information with movie reviews,
games, etc., tossed in for good measure. That is available on (716)
777-3000.

The competing yellow page directory, the Talking Phone Book has a
likeminded service, with free time announcements on [phone].
The code for time is 1111.

It's interesting to see that we are getting for free what many other
communities have available for a quarter a minute or more.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 14:35:26 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 976-Type Exchanges


I noticed a 915 prefix listed in both 410 and 301 in Maryland.  I
called the C&P helpline at 800-477-4704, but it calls 915 "unassigned".

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

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 20:20 GMT
From: "John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Do I Find the Cost to Call a 900 Number?


Just how does one find out how much it costs to call a particular 900
number?

I got a new Epson printer, and the only number they list for customer
service is a 900 number (900-988-4949), but they conveniently leave
out the cost information for calling that number.

So I call a local (GTE) operator, who claims that they can't look up
the costs from their end: only the long distance carrier knows for
sure.  A scan of the TELECOM Archives shows that 900-988 belongs to
MCI, so I call an MCI operator (10222-0) and ask for the cost of
Epson's number.  After I explain to the operator and her supervisor
that indeed, MCI does offer 900 service, they claim they can't help,
so they transfer me to MCI customer service.  Hold.  Finally, a
customer service operator comes on, and again, I ask the amount it
costs to call Epson's 900 number.  She tells me to call my local
telephone company, and I tell her that they told me to call her.  More
hold.  She comes back on after a couple of minutes, saying that she
can't give me the information, but she gave me _another_ 900 number to
call to find out more about MCI 900 numbers.  She wouldn't say how
much that 900 call would cost, either.

So other than by dialing these mysterious numbers and waiting for the
next month's bill, is there a way to determine the cost of an MCI 900
number?


John C. Fowler, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Why not call Epson at their main corporate office
and ask *them* how much they charge for the 900 number?   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 13:35:13 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Number Scammery


"Entertain, Kansas"?  What phone prefix was this?  There are some
strange place names around, but given the context of this, I would
assume "Entertainment" instead of a place name.  There was something
(related or unrelated?) about a number in the Kansas City area several
issues back?

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 06:22:15 PDT
From: John R. Covert  17-Apr-1992 0922 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: German Country Code Only 49 Now


> As of today, the country code 37 of the former "German Democratic
> Republic" has vanished. 49 is the only existing one in all of Germany
> after April 15th 1992.

Well, not completely.

From France it is still necessary to dial with +37; this is also true
if calling via AT&T from the U.S.  Dialing via +49 does not work yet.
I've opened an AT&T trouble ticket.

Calls via +49 351 (instead of the old code +37 51) to Dresden do work
from Switzerland, from Mercury lines in the U.K. (haven't tried BT),
and from Sprint and MCI in the U.S.  +37 still works as well; I don't
know how long the permissive dialling period is supposed to last.

I'm amazed that it was possible to use "+49 30" for all of Berlin.  I
would have expected them to keep the city divided into "+49 30" and
"+49 32" (or 030 and 032 within Germany) because I would have thought
that duplicate numbers would have cropped up in the interim.


john

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

From: [e-mail] (Kenneth J Baas)
Subject: Re: Telenova PBX Question
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 10:47:32 EDT


It all depends on which model Telenova PBX you are using.  If it is a
LEXAR try:

    JWP Telecom
    Newbury Park, CA
    800-735-3927

For a DBX-1200 or DBX-5000 you can try JWP since thsy are still a
distributor, or you can call the factory.  It is:

    Digital Voice Corp.
    1201 N. Stemmons
    Carrolton, TX  75006
    214-446-6300

I administrate a DBX-5000 and the company is anything but DOA.  If you
have a DBX-1200/5000 I can probably help with the MOH.


Kenneth J Baas                 Tel: [phone]
Telecommunications Dept.    Fax: [phone]
Calvin College            Internet: [e-mail]
3201 Burton SE            Compuserve:  71760,3456
Grand Rapids, MI  49546

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #330
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19150;
          21 Apr 92 2:59 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01011
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Apr 1992 00:31:59 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24835
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Apr 1992 00:31:47 -0500
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 00:31:47 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #331

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 21 Apr 92 00:31:45 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 331

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? (David Paigen)
    Re: Etymology of `Bug' and Bugs of Etymology (Charlie Mingo)
    Are Long Distance Rates Published Anywhere? (Ira Heffan)
    Help Wanted With Autoswitch (Philippe Udressy)
    ISDN - Information Required (Allan Christie)
    German Fees to U.S. 40% Cheaper as of May (Wolfgang R. Schulz)
    800 Number Portability Issues (Michael R. Kenny)
    Fax "Ring Director" Wanted (Kent Kantarjiev)
    Mexican Phone Question (Peter Clitherow)
    Telephony Pursuits (Phydeaux)
    Good Morning, Vietnam (AT&T Today via Herb Jellinek)
    Cellular Telephone Rates For Disabled People (Brian Lingard via J. Decker)
    Downtown Phone Prefix as Foreign Exchange in Airport (Carl Moore)
    AT&T Starlan TCP/IP Installation (Triavtafullos Linos)
    ATM Discussion Group (Ming Yin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 92 14:26:35 PDT
From: [e-mail] (David Paigen)
Subject: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection?


This just came up in a meeting.  Someone mentioned that we had a
64Kbps line for data from site A to site B, but that 64Kbps also had
voice running over it.  I said, "No, voice requires 64Kbps, there
would be no room left for data."  I was told that voice requires only
8Kbps per channel.  Furthermore, the theoretical maximum information
load you could push through a 3000 Hz bandwidth connection is 6Kpbs.

Well, none of this sounds right to me.  So I pose my question to the
net.wisdom of this group.

Assumptions:
    - a 'voice phone connection' is 3000 Hz to 6000 Hz
    - 1 Kbps means I can transfer 1024 random bits per second

Questions:
    - How many bps does a 'voice phone connection' require?
    - If the answer is less than 19.2Kbps, how does a telebit work?

Inquiring minds want to know!


David Paigen    TRW Financial Systems    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 21:27:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Etymology of `Bug' and Bugs of Etymology


[e-mail] (Dan Hoey) writes:

> I don't know that the usage originated with Edison.  For all I know,
> the usage of `bug' to mean a flaw in design or construction may have
> preceded the 19th century.  On the other hand, I don't know that
> Edison *didn't* invent the usage, either.  I only mentioned Edison
> because his use of the term contradicts the etymology involving 20th
> century insects.

    The OED I (1988 Supp.) does give Edison indirect credit for the
first printed usage of the term 'bug' in the sense of "a defect or
fault in a machine plan or the like:"

  1889 _Pall Mall Gaz._ 11 March 1/1   "Mr. Edison, I was informed, had
  been up the two previous nights discovering 'a bug' in his phonograph
  --an expression for solving a difficulty, and implying that some
  imaginary insect has secreted itself inside and is causing all the
  trouble."

So you weren't far off the mark after all.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 92 09:15:31 -0400
From: [e-mail] (ira heffan)
Subject: Are Long Distance Rates Published Anywhere?


Does anyone out there know if long distance phone rates are published
anywhere? (especially in computer-accessable format.)

I'd be interested in comparing the rates of the long distance
companies that all clain to be the cheapest: ie SPRINT, MCI, ATT, etc.

Thanks for any info (email would be especially helpful, and I can post
a summary.


Ira Heffan   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: All the telcos are required to publish their
tariffs and rates, and make these publications available to the
public. Most will send brochures on request. You can also inquire at
the FCC; all the telcos have their rates filed there as well as with
many state commissions.   PAT]

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

From: "[e-mail]"@uni2b.unige.ch
Subject: Help Wanted With Autoswitch
Date: 20 Apr 92 16:19:27 +0200
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland


I have bought a Autoswitch (Fax-phone-Tad) in USA. I want to use it in
Switzerland but I have some problems:

With the line cord in the 'LINE' plug, I don't have any tonality in my
phone even in my fax.  The LED is flashing ON/OFF (2sec/0.5 sec) but I
don't know if it is a sign of problem.

Has anyone a solution?

The autoswitch's reference is:
  Eliminator Autoswitch TF 300b
  (US model 12V)

Thanks in advance.

Email address : [e-mail]
                Philippe Udressy - Switzerland

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: ISDN - Information Required
Date: 20 Apr 92 01:56:14 +0930
Organization: University of South Australia


Hi,

I have only recently started reading this newsgroup.  I have a Masters
student who is studying the application of ISDN Package Service in
Adelaide.  She is having some difficulty finding references, articles,
etc. for her lit. review.  Can you help with information on papers,
reports, articles on ISDN?

I will summarize and post to the group if you consider this useful.

By the way, can anyone elaborate on the Broadband-ISDN technology that
is capable of running at data rates of up to 620 Mbps!

Thanks for any assistance.


Allan Christie                      ||  Internet:  [e-mail]
University of South Australia       ||  Fax:       [phone]
GPO Box 2471, ADELAIDE, AUST. 5001  ||  Phone:     [phone]


[Moderator's Note: We've had numerous discussions about ISDN here in
the Digest since the first of the year. I suggest you being by using
anonymous ftp to the Telecom Archives:  ftp lcs.mit.edu and pulling
the past couple hundred issues of the Digest, then grepping for
phrases such as ISDN and related terms.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Wolfgang R. Schulz)
Subject: German Fees to U.S. 40% Cheaper as of May
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 16:17:08 MESZ


The German PTT (Deutsche Bundespost Telekom) announced an approximate
40% decrease of their charges for a call to the U.S. and Canada from
May 1st 1992. The length of a message unit (costs DM 0.23 or $ 0.14)
is then seven seconds rather than 4.442 seconds. This comes up to $
1.26 per minute (seven days a week, 24 hours a day), and is less than
dialed calles by AT&T or MCI at daytime.

It is obvious, that the Telekom is not doing this as a big favour or
gift to its customers, but due to tough competition by callback
services in the U.S. and the more and more spread calling cards from
AT&T and MCI.

The AT&T Calling Card until recently was only available for Germans,
if they had either a Diner's Club card or a VISA from "Banco Santander
S.A.".  Now AT&T distributes flyers in Germany, that you may ask for a
free card with ANY major credit card. One can apply for the card by
calling the tollfree number 0130-838888, or by writing to AT&T
Deutschland GmbH AT&T Calling Card Service Eschersheimer Landstr. 13
6000 Frankfurt 1.


Wolfgang R. Schulz, Theodor-Koerner-Weg 5, 2000 Hamburg 61, Germany
Phone: [phone]***Fax: [phone]***MCI Mail: 241-2526
Internet:[e-mail]**Bang:..unido!mcshh!wrs**[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (michael r..kenny)
Subject: 800 Number Portability Issues
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:22:48 GMT


Since 800 number portability is supposed to happen in less than a
year, I am wondering if anyone knows of any official documentation
that outlines the surrounding issues. Specifically as to how 800
number "ownership" or "right-to-use" will be handled.

Will all current numbers in use belong to the entity that is using
them and all unassigned numbers be put into a first come first served
bucket?

What is the plan (if any) to handle 800 number distribution in a
portable environment?


Thanks,

Mike Kenny, mkenny\@cbnewsb.att.com, attmail!kennym

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

Subject: Fax "Ring Director" Wanted
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 08:42:07 PDT
From: "Chris Kent Kantarjiev" <[e-mail]>


My mom recently purchased a fax machine for her home. I installed a
new jack for her, plugged in the machine, and everything works fine.

Except for the fact that she often receives faxes from Germany at 4am
in the morning, and has to manually set the fax machine to receive
after being awakened enough to answer the phone and recognize the
remote machine's beeping!

I know that there are boxes on the market that will answer the phone,
listen for a fax attention tone, and either direct the call to the fax
machine or simulate a ring to other attached equipment.  That's fine
for a dedicated line; my mom has the fax machine on the single line
that runs into her home.

Is there a box that will "do the right thing" for this situation? Or
is there one that I can adapt for the purpose? It so happens that the
jack I installed is just downstream of a linegrabbing device for her
alarm system, so I could conceive of inserting a directing device here
that would drive all the extensions in the house, if there's a box
that is willing to drive four or five phones.

Or is there another way (short of installing a second line)?


Thanks,

chris

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter Clitherow)
Subject: Mexican Phone Question
Reply-To: <bellcore![e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore - IMS, Morristown, NJ
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 15:52:33 GMT


I was just in the Yucatan last week, and was a little confused by the
phone setup: Telefonos de Mexico has a new sort of phone where you can
make long distance calls yourself. It has a ten digit keypad that
seems to transmit MF (of some sort -- compatible with US DTMF?) and an
extra button to the left, labeled "marque" or something similar.

There are "LADA"s which seem to roughly correspond to area codes,
except that I think you must use the marque button to distinguish the
end of a LADA from the following number.

There are further curiosities: in the current Merida phone book, the
listing for the locality of Dzidzantun (LADA 991) shows amongst
others:

EXPENDIO DE GASOLINA SAN LUCAS
   Calle 21 No 90 CP 97500..................5    (phone number is "5")

and later on:

TELEFONOS DE MEXICO SA DE CV
   Domicilio Conocido CP 97500.........5-0159

How (other than timeout) are calls to these numbers routed?  Further,
the locality of Dzilam Gonzalez also has a LADA of 991, and there is a
customer:

CASTILLO BAEZA TOMAS
   Calle 21, No 83, CP 97600................5

What am I missing here that would let me distinguish these numbers?


peter clitherow, [e-mail], [phone], DQID: H07692
bellcore, 445 south street, room 2f-085, morristown, nj 07962

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 08:45:14 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)
Subject: Telephony Pursuits


Someone gave me a set or 'playing cards' called 'Telephony Pursuits'
which is a Trivial Pursuits type game with Telephony type questions.
Has anyone ever seen this before?  It comes from AT&T Technical
Training in Dublin, Ohio.  All I have are the cards, and I'd be
interested in finding any other parts to the game that I may be
missing.


   *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W  h:828 South May Street  Chicago,  IL 60607  312-733-3090
w:reb Ingres 10255 West Higgins Road Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500

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

From: Herb Jellinek <[e-mail]>
Subject: Good Morning, Vietnam
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 13:32:01 PDT


Here's AT&T's announcement of their new service to Vietnam, via
soc.culture.vietnamese and seasia-l.  Thanks to [e-mail]
and alsun8![e-mail]:

*** GOOD MORNING, VIETNAM -- AT&T signed an agreement with Vietnam
officials to reopen direct communications service between the U.S.
and Vietnam for the first time in 17 years.  The signing took place
three days after the U.S. announced a decision to lift its ban on
telecommunications with Vietnam.  AT&T said the start of service
hinges on acquiring all necessary U.S. regulatory approvals, but that
it hoped to offer limited direct-dial service in a few days by sending
calls through third countries.  The company said direct links could be
available in a matter of weeks. [WSJ] [AT&T will offer international
direct dialing, operator-assisted and AT&T Calling Card calls to
Vietnam from the United States and collect and AT&T Calling Card calls
from Vietnam.  Eventually, the company also is planning to offer AT&T
USADirect Service and facsimile service.  AT&T will use 210
undersea-cable, microwave and international satellite circuits to
provide service.]

*** AT&T said its service will be priced from $1.77 to $2.91 a minute,
based on time of day and length of call.  Once phone service is
restored to Vietnam, only North Korea and Cambodia will remain cut off
from U.S. phone lines.  AT&T recently received U.S.  approval to
restore service to Cambodia and now is trying to negotiate an
agreement with Cambodian authorities. [NY Daily News]

 From AT&T Today.


[Moderator's Question: Herb, this may be an impertinent question, but
are you in any way related to the Herb Jellineck with the radio program
each week on WNIB (97.1) here in Chicago? The name is not common.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 16:10:31 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Telephone Rates For Disabled People


The following message is from the PHONES conference carried on
RelayNet and Fidonet.  It raises come interesting points about
cellular service pricing.

 Original From: Brian Lingard
       Subject: CELL TEL RATES/DISABLED

I am interested in whether any cellular companies in the U.S. offer
reduced rates to subscribers with disabilities.

Bell Cellular and Cantel both offer a deal with 30 minutes free
airtime and no monthly network connect fee to disabled subscribers.

On Cantel, you get 30 minutes additional air time in addition to the
Cantel plan you already have.

On Bell Cellular you get their silver package free: 30 minutes of air
time; no network access fee and both networks waive the activation fee
(usually the activator gets a commission from the network anyway).

The cell tels here also have after hours/weekend deals with $50 per
month buying all the air time you can use between 8:00 pm and 7:00 am
weekdays and all day weekends and holidays*.

*The cell tel's idea of a holiday and other people's can vary.

So I wonder what the rate situation in the U.S. is?

I did some very preliminary enquiries with cell tel firms a while ago
and found U.S. cellular rates are actually higher than in Canada (a
real switch).


Thanks.

73 88 de Brian & WooF

PCRelay:CRS -> #460 RelayNet (tm)
4.11           Canada Remote Systems * Toronto, Ontario
Mosaic v0.99/l
* Origin: *Cloud Nine BBS* 9 Gig on line 713-855-4385 (1:106/99)


Jack Decker   [e-mail]   FidoNet 1:154/8

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 15:31:54 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Downtown Phone Prefix as Foreign Exchange in Airport


There are at least two present or former cases of an airport having a
branch (of the main, downtown post office) operating on site with its
phone number being part of the DOWNTOWN exchange.  I have noticed this
at:

Pittsburgh, PA (branch post office on 412-644, but physically in or
near the Carnegie exchange; because of the distance, I am cur- rently
unable to check what's used on pay phones at the terminal there)

Washington, DC (at Dulles Airport is/was 202-523 being used for the
branch post office there; Dulles has its own exchanges in area 703 in
Virginia).


[Moderator's Note: At O'Hare Airport, all the phones in the terminals
are Chicago/312/IBT numbers. In some remote areas of O'Hare, they are
Chicago/312/Centel numbers. As soon as you step outside the bounds of
the airport you are in 708, usually IBT but Centel in some places.
That's because we say O'Hare is in Chicago, even though physically it
is in Rosemont, IL.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Triavtafullos Linos)
Subject: AT&T Starlan TCP/IP Installation
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1992 16:24:41 GMT


We are a California State University Senior Software Project class
attempting to install TCP/IP on a PC-Based AT&T Starlan Network. We
have most of the files needed but are not sure how/where to start. If
you have any info please send it. Thanks!

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

From: [e-mail] (Ming Yin)
Subject: ATM Discussion Group
Date: 18 Apr 1992 11:47:50 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


I heard there is an ATM discussion group and am very interested in
joining such discussion group. Appreciated if anyone has information
on how to join the discussion.


Ming Yin
TRW - System Engineering Lab.
Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #331
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19932;
          21 Apr 92 3:11 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11555
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Apr 1992 01:05:23 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02355
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Apr 1992 01:05:08 -0500
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 01:05:08 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #332

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 21 Apr 92 01:05:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 332

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Electronic White Pages (Credit Card Management via Leroy Donnelly)
    New Applications of Voice Recognition Technologies (RISKS via Jack Decker)
    More on GTE Personal Secretary (Corinna Polk)
    48 Hours Television Show Looking For Phreaks (Jack Decker)
    Dayton Hamvention, April 24-26 (Macy Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 05:46:50 CST
From: [e-mail] (Leroy Donnelly)
Subject: Electronic White Pages
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


The following was extracted from the April issue of {Credit Card
Management}:


                  PHONE NUMBERS VIA COMPUTER
                      BY ELIZABETH KLEIN


    Keeping tabs on cardholders is critical for card issuers,
especially when it comes to handling delinquencies.  Several new
services have sprung up that allow bank credit issuers, retailers,
collection agencies, and other creditors to tap directly into the
directory-assistance data bases of the seven regional phone companies.

    These services, known as electronic white pages, offer the most
up-to-date telephone listing available.  So far, few companies in the
credit card industry have installed the services, and those that are
trying them out are close-mouthed about them, so actual performance is
hard to measure.  But a handful are testing them and others say the
services could help them verify card applications and improve their
chances of collecting on delinquent accounts.

    Vendors of electronic white pages include Directory Net Inc., an
Atlanta-based subsidiary of Telecomm Australia, AT&T Co., and
FastData, a joint venture between Stamford, Conn.-based Donnelly
Marketing Inc. and card processor First Data Corp.  Vendors say the
credit card industry is key target market, though they are also
marketing to other creditors, telemarketers, and fund raisers.  "The
credit card industry is our number-one market," says Larry J. Mancini,
president and chief executive of Directory Net.

    Electronic white pages technology has also sparked interest among
the major credit bureaus.  Trans Union Credit Information Co. is
currently developing such a capability, which would add on to its
ATLAS skiptracing service.  Officials at Equifax Credit Information
Services would not disclose whether they are working on an electronic
white pages product, but said the company is closely following the
development of the technology.  And TRW Information Systems and
Services is currently analyzing the possible benefits of adding a
electronic white pages services to its existing line of skip-tracing
products.

    Behind the emergence of electronic white pages is a growing demand
for large volumes of consumer phone numbers, as well as a recent
Supreme Court decision declaring that telephone directories may not be
copyrighted.

    In the past, creditors and collectors could search for phone
numbers of delinquent customers by calling directory assistance or by
using services that compile all phone books.  But those numbers may be
months out of date, in contrast to electronic white pages.  "Our
information is accurate as of the night before," says Mancini.

    Directory Net's on-line service runs on a personal computer, work
station, or mainframe computer, and offers several levels of search,
from city to metropolitan area to state.  The service searches an area
for addresses and phone numbers, offering up to ten matches for each
last name.  The company, which began offering its service six months
ago, eventually wants to enhance it with on-screen maps and so-called
nearby searches, which yield the phone number of neighbors.

    FastData sells users information on 95 million American
households, including specialized information listing individuals who
have moved recently.  FastData is adding directory Assistance Plus, an
on-line electronic white-pages service now being tested by major
customers.  Because of its huge database, directory Assistance Plus
can also offer phone numbers of neighbors.  Users can access Directory
Assistance Plus via PC or through parent company First Data's card-
processing network.  "We wanted to offer our customers a seamless way
to find the information they need," explains Jordan E. Ayan, vice
president of Donnelly Marketing's FastData Subsidiary.  "Directory
assistance was a missing piece."

    AT&T's online Find America service, introduced in 1990, also runs
on a PC.  The company says the service is geared to high-volume users
of directory assistance, those that make 7,000 or more inquiries per
month.  For such companies, repeated calls to directory assistance are
"very, very time-consuming," says an AT&T spokesman.

    Vendors say their service cost less than directory assistance and
can manipulate the information so it is more useful to users.  For
example, the services and call up all numbers and address for a given
name in a given area code, whereas telephone operators give out only
two listing per name.  But some features are hindered because the
regional phone companies refuse to sell the service certain
information.  For example, only two phone companies will release phone
numbers of nearby neighbors.

    Also, the services are less useful in sparsely populated areas
where one area code covers many towns.  Several states, like Arizona,
have just one area code, so creditors must narrow their search to a
particular city.  Still, Mancini says studies show that 95% of
individuals who move do not move far.

    Certainly, creditors and collection agencies spend plenty on
directory assistance.  Costs range from 55 to 65 cents a call.  At
Capital Credit Corp., telephone costs are 4% of overall expense.  The
collection agency's Chicago office which employs 100 collectors,
spends $36,000 per month on telephone service, of which one-third is
for long-distance directory assistance.

    Directory Net charges 33 cents per minute of access, plus 35 cents
per computer screen of information.  FastData has not yet established
a pricing scale for Directory Assistance Plus, but says it charges 10
to 25 cents per connection for Fast Data alone, and will not charge
Directory Assistance Plus users unless they locate the correct phone
number.  AT&T's Find America costs a flat $500 per month, plus $22 per
hour of access, plus 35 to 40 cents per screen of information.

    Directory Net says its service is efficient for users that spend
at least $300 to $400 per month on directory assistance alone, while
FastData says its service will work for companies that spend at least
$1,000 on all their skip-tracing activities.

    That's enough to command the attention of card issuers and
collectors.  But most are skeptical.  Says David M. Friedlander,
senior vice president and chief operating officer with Capital Credit
Corp.: "I'm interested (in electronic white pages) and think it may be
a useful tool, but I want to see hard results based on national tests
first."


Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
DRBBS, Omaha   R.I.P. Heathkit  1926 - 1992  :-(  (1:285/666.0)


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has offered this service for many
years here in Chicago under the name 'Directory Express', and aims it
to high volume users, charging (I think) by the hour on line. The
information shown is the same the DA operator sees.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 92 21:37:05 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Applications of Voice Recognition Technologies


In RISKS-FORUM Digest  Wednesday 15 April 1992  Volume 13 : Issue 40
the following article appeared:

 Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:32 EST
 From: Saul Tannenbaum <[e-mail]>
 Subject: New Applications of Voice Recognition Technologies

One of our local NPR (WBUR) stations had, in its morning news report, a story
about a company that was developing a new twist in the application
of voice recognition technologies. [I don't include the name of the company
as I wasn't taking notes, and wouldn't want to needlessly slur the
wrong company, or even the right one by my errors of recollection.]

Their goal is to develop a system that would be able to recognize not the
words, but who the speaker is. The applications they envision would include
control of parolees and those under house arrest, as well as the replacement
of PINs. This is how they envision their system working:

o The person who is to be monitored goes physically to the office
  doing the monitoring and records a set of words.
o When the time comes for the person to be monitored to report in,
  they make a phone call to a computer system.
o Caller-ID identifies who is supposed to be calling and
  their alleged physical location.
o The system presents random challenge sentences that include some
  of the words used in step one. (One example: The purple television
  is exciting. "Television" and "exciting" would have been recorded.)
o The system then isolates the pre-recorded words, compares the
  vocal characteristics and identifies the speaker.

Interesting concept. The company was quite proud that they had taken what has
been a serious problem with voice recognition (voices are so different) and
turned it into a technological advantage. It was asserted that a number of
state correctional departments are interested in this as a replacement for
the electronic bracelets that are now sometimes used to monitor house arrest
and that have been discussed at length in RISKS.

The news report indicated that this system would be secure, as the comparison
of vocal characteristics is not fooled by normal voice mimicry. It was also
felt that, while parolees, for example, could be compelled to speak silly
meaningless sentences into the phone, it might not be possible to do this
generally so as to replace PINs.

This system seems so easy to defeat that I feel I must be missing something.
When you go to record your words, bring your own micro-cassette recorder
so that you've got an accurate list of the challenge words. Record and
digitize them in your home personal computer. When time comes to report
in, have your computer call their computer. Their challenge system seems
quite structured (it already knows who you are supposed to be from the
caller ID), so program your machine to wait for the challenge sentences.
Recognize the right words from the list of the ones you've prerecorded,
and synthesize a response based on replaying the challenge sentence,
inserting your prerecorded words as necessary.

This technology is likely not within the reach of  your average parolee, but
should this system be used to authorize large financial transfers, the risk
of fraud should be obvious.

Saul Tannenbaum, Manager, Scientific Computing
[e-mail]
USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University

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

I can tell you one very simple way to defeat this system: Call
Forwarding.  Basically, when you forward a call, it's as though there
were two calls placed, one from the originating phone to the called
phone, and one from the called phone to the number the call is
forwarded to.  For example, if you forward calls from your phone to a
number that's a toll call for you, you'll pay the toll charge on the
call, and that's true even if the number you forward to would be in
the local calling area of the person trying to call you.  In effect,
the caller would pay the toll charge for a call from his phone to
yours, and you'd pay the charge for the call from your phone to
wherever you're forwarding to.

Now let's say that your friendly neighborhood drug dealer is under
house arrest using this system, and he's required to call in every
four hours.  No problem.  He hires a neighborhood kid to sit by his
phone, and at the appropriate time, he calls home and has the kid set
up call forwarding to the automated system at the parole office (a
computerized system could also be set up to do this, but I'm
deliberately keeping this scenario as low-tech as possible).  Then he
calls his home number again, the call is forwarded, and the Caller-ID
captures the number that the call was forwarded from, rather then the
location that Mr. Dealer is really at.  He could be anyplace in the
world that has reliable telephone connections back to the United
States, using this system!  For that matter, he could be on a cellular
phone walking down the street or tooling down the highway!  Some
arrest, eh?

And, of course, it wouldn't work any better if the parole office
computer calls him.  In fact, it might make things easier, since he
could just call-forward the call to his portable cellular phone or a
phone at whatever location he's at.

So, either something's missing in the description of the operation of
this system, or it was designed by folks who have no understanding of
how the telephone system operates.

Personally, I would not consider ANY system that depends upon a
telephone line originating or terminating at a particular location as
particularly secure.  I certainly would never want to see such a
system used for anyone guilty of any sort of felony violation!


Jack Decker  [e-mail]   FidoNet 1:154/8

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

From: [e-mail] (Corinna Polk)
Subject: More on GTE Personal Secretary
Date: 18 Apr 1992 12:03:46 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


Well, now I've got my GTE Personal Secretary service connected and
answering my phone calls. Of course, GTE, in it's infinite wisdom,
informed me that the documentation on how to use this service will not
arrive until "a day or two" after the service is established,
never mind that this thing is already intercepting my phone calls.

I have managed to figure most of the features out, however. I think
that it's interesting (and maybe Message Center works like this as
well) that when I call for my messages from my home phone, I only need
to tell it my password.  Not that I wouldn't expect GTE to know my
phone number, but I didn't expect it to be connected to the voicemail.

I also learned (far too early this morning) that if you use the
wake-up call function, it does not distinguish between weekdays or
weekends. It would be awfully nice to be able to set it to certain
days of the week as opposed to seven days a week.

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 92 20:39:42 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: 48 Hours Television Show Looking For Phreaks


The following message was seen in the Fidonet PHONES echo, and I
thought it might be of some interest to TELECOM Digest readers.  Maybe
the media is finally about to blow the lid off the myth that cellular
telephone conversations have anything remotely resembling privacy (one
can only hope)!

 Original From: Steve Fleckenstein
       Subject: 48 Hours

I recently recieved the following note on my BBS from Mary Noonan:

The CBS News program 48 Hours is looking for scanners or hobbyists who
listen to and preferably record cordless and cellular phone
conversations.  If there is anyone out there willing to demonstrate
and talk about it on camera please contact me at 212-975-2241.

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

I was also informed that the show was centered on the theme of
privacy.

Steve

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

Jack Decker  [e-mail]   FidoNet 1:154/8


[Moderator's Note: I wonder if this will be one of those hatchet jobs
like the one that happened to poor Craig Neidorf. I'd be careful about
going on television to demonstrate anything I know how to do!   PAT]

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

From: fmsys![e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
Subject: Dayton Hamvention
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 92 20:25:31 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


wb8foz and I want to invite any and all c.d.t. readers going to the
Dayton Hamvention to stop by our flea market spot - #2821

We can't promise to have any extra beer {unless, of course, YOU bring
it ;-} but if you enter our prize drawing you could win a slightly
used green 500 set of your very own ... (Second prize is a pair of
them ...)

Look for the "ftp spoken here" sign ...

[For those of you on Mars (or in Higdon-land ;-), the Dayton Hamvention
is the world's largest convention of amateur radio operators. It has
25,000+ attendies, and features an electronics_of_all_flavors flea
market with about 2000 spaces. It's held 24-26 April in the Dayton, OH
area.]


Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 [e-mail] [e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #332
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21782;
          21 Apr 92 4:03 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29069
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Apr 1992 01:45:35 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10217
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Apr 1992 01:45:25 -0500
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 01:45:25 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #333

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 21 Apr 92 01:45:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 333

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hang-up Pirates (With a Twist) (Stan Brown)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (With a Twist) (Fanning Donald)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Michael Scott Baldwin)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Robert S. Helfman)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Martin McCormick)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Donald H. Locker)
    Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal? (Syd Weinstein)
    Re: Commercial Networks Reachable From the Internet (Michael C. Berch)
    Re: Anyone Have Bellcore's Doc For New Area Codes? (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: 976-Type Exchanges (Kath Mulholland)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 92 11:13:01 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates (With a Twist)
Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA


> [Moderator's Note: ... when she confirmed it was me, hung up. I used
> auto-callback, got an attorney's office downtown; had a receptionist
> play games with me (remember this was early Saturday, not a weekday
> with a full crew there so she *knew* who was and was not in the
> office). I finally got through to the woman who called me (I
> recognized her voice), and she flatly denied calling me, even though I
> got her to admit she was a bill collector for the attorney, and was
> 'making phone calls' that morning. I told her off good.  PAT]

This makes me think of an old Robert Heinleinism: "Never try to teach
a pig to sing.  You'll only waste your time and annoy the pig."


Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems                     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Yeah, I've heard that one before and in thinking
about my experience afterward have to agree with Heinlein.  Thanks for
sharing that quote.   PAT]

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

From: Fanning Donald <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates (With a Twist)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 21:18:01 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: She was probably a skip-tracer looking for you on
> behalf of a creditor or an attorney somewhere. Her assignment was most
> likely to simply locate your whereabouts or place of employment; not
> to get into a discussion with you about the merits of whatever it is
> *her* employer wants from you. I had one of those calls some months
> ago; a woman called early Saturday morning, asked for me by name and
> when she confirmed it was me, hung up. I used auto-callback, got an
> attorney's office downtown; had a receptionist play games with me
> (remember this was early Saturday, not a weekday with a full crew
> there so she *knew* who was and was not in the office). I finally got
> through to the woman who called me (I recognized her voice), and she
> flatly denied calling me, even though I got her to admit she was a
> bill collector for the attorney, and was 'making phone calls' that
> morning. I told her off good.   PAT]

Good move!  As a former Skip-Tracer I know how that works; also you
could take their licence if you can somehow prove it, (i.e. a log or
bill) ... it is against the law (at least in Colorado) for us to call
before 8am or 8pm to the time zone we are calling. Also you might want
to call your bank and ask for an option on your account that they
don't allow skip-tracing on your accounts especially your bank
accounts and credit card accounts. That will piss off any skip or
collector really good..They can't do anything. But if they are good
friends or aquaintainces with your bank on the other hand ...


[Moderator's Note: All the applications for credit I have ever filled
out include the statement by the creditor, 'you agree we may exchange
information we may exchange information with other creditors ...'  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 92 17:03 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates


One should be careful when calling back someone who just called you.
I received a call from someone who wanted to know why I just called
them.  They got an answering machine hang up that showed up on their
Caller-ID box with my home phone number, so they called me right back.
I didn't make that call!  "Liar!" you might say.  Nope.  At home I
have Identa-Ring, which allows another number to ring on the same line
with a distinctive ring pattern.  I also have Call Forwarding; with
that, you can set it (at order time) to forward either both numbers,
or the main number only.  I have it forward the main number only.
During the day, I call forward my home number to wherever I happen to
be (work, cellular, etc).  The Identa-Ring number is for my spouse,
who is at home during the day.

So my spouse called someone from home.  The *main* number is sent in
Caller-ID, which is *my* number.  The recipient gets paranoid and
calls back, but that call gets forwarded to me at work.  Now *I* get
harassed because the person doesn't believe that I didn't just call
them!  I don't know what's been going on with the phone at home.  This
person just didn't want to believe me and kept asking if I was a
business or not.  Maybe they thought I was a tele- marketer.  I have
Caller-ID at work too (ISDN), but I didn't recognize the number.
Maybe I should have harassed them for harassing me?  Heh heh!  As it
turns out, it was a legitimate call; my spouse just didn't feel like
talking to an answering machine.  So please folks, don't jump to
conclusions and beat up people like me.

A while ago someone mentioned two answering machines talking to each
other and suggested a complicated cat-based scheme with receivers
being knocked off-hook, etc.  With the new Call-Return and Call-Repeat
features, it is very easy to do this without any feline intervention.
When I dial *66 (or *69), NJ Bell will call back the last number that
I called (or called me).  If that number is busy, it will wait 30
minutes for it to become free, then distinctively ring me back (3
short; Caller-ID displays the remote number).  If I answer that ring,
it then proceeds to ring the remote party.  All I have to do is
*66/*69 and leave the house or not answer in time: when the called
party becomes free, my phone ring-ring-ring's a few times.  My
answering machine picks up as it should.  NJ Bell then promptly starts
ringing the other party.  Their answering machine picks up.  Voila!

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 16:50:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Rob Bailey, WM8S) writes:

> Like Pat (ich ;^>), I, too, am perturbed by hang-up callers. I usually
> ...we're not talking about the occasional dialing mistake, but
> the repetitive lack of even minimal concern for others by repeatedly
> dialing my number instead of the restaurant's.

> ... When you move into a town and get a number one digit off of the
> time or something like that, you'll probably change your mind pretty
> quick.

Sounds familiar. When I first moved to my present house (in L.A.), I
picked two easy numbers (I had the PacBell -- then Pacific Telephone
 -- lady read me numbers from her 'available' list until I found two
that I liked). The number I picked for my primary phone ended in
 -- 19111 and immediately started getting this rash of wrong numbers.
People would say 'Green's? Hello, is this Green's?' I would ask what
number they wanted and they'd say "Green's". I'd say "No, not the
name, the number".  And they'd still say "Green's". I finally gave up
after a couple of weeks and switched to the other number as my
primary. Only months later did I happen to notice a soul-food take-out
place on my way back from Saturday shopping. Sure 'nuf, same prefix,
but -59111.  It's called "Greens" of course, not "Green's".

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

Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 92 11:16:33 -0500
From: [e-mail]


During the last 25 years, The town of Edmond, almost part of Oklahoma
City, has grown with all the careful planning of an over-booked rock
concert.  In pre-DDD days, all Edmond numbers started with PL4.  By
the time my family moved there in 1968, all numbers started with 341.
With growth, Southwestern Bell opened up 340 and 348 as new prefixes.
The last four digits of my parent's number were identical to the
number of a family with about 500 grade-school children who got calls
constantly.  Usually, there was no problem with telling the caller
that he needed to call 348-xxxx.  One day, I was visiting my parents
house when the phone rang.  I answered and a child's voice asked for
one of the members of the 348 family.  I explained the error and they
thanked me.  Ten seconds later, the phone rang again.  Same call, same
kid, same routine.  Ten more seconds passed and the phone rang again.
In exasperation, I picked it up and said, in my best mechanical voice,
"I'm sorry, but the number you have just dialed is the same wrong
number as the last two numbers you have dialed.  Please dial 348 and
everything will work better.  Thank you."  I heard a gasp at the other
end followed by the clunk of the handset.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group

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

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 92 22:34:48 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Donald H. Locker)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc., Chelsea, MI


In article <[e-mail]> Peter da Silva writes:

> Regarding the Moderator's use of *69 to call back people who ring and
> hang up ...

> Frankly, Pat, I think you're being a twit. What are you trying to
> accomplish by this? What is your goal in rubbing people's nose in
> their clumsiness and phone-shyness?

Unfortunately, I have become somewhat paranoid since my house was
burgled by someone who used the single-ring technique to figure out
when I was likely to be out.  I would have loved to have had *69
available back then in order to give him/her pause.  Make it look like
I knew who it was!!  I think it is too often NOT clumsiness or
phone-shyness, rather maliciousness.


Donald
#include <disclaimers.h> // Though I and my employer are indistinguishable

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

From: [e-mail] (Syd Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 15:57:54 GMT


TELECOM Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: I had one of those about ten years ago when they
> first came out. Mine was from a company called International Mobile
> Machines of Bala Cynwyd, PA. Anyone know where they went?   PAT]

IMM is still around, and making fixed station radio phones like
cellular, but for places to expensive to wire and it uses different
freqs and is encrypted, etc ...

I have no idea if they still make the machine you mentioned.  I am
sure 215 directory assistance can provide a current phone number for
them.)


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.3PL11
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 2.4 Release: Mid?? 1992
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd      Voice: [phone], FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael C. Berch)
Subject: Re: Commercial Networks Reachable From the Internet
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:11:51 GMT
Organization: IntelliGenetics, Inc., Mountain View, California, USA


[e-mail] (Joshua E. Muskovitz) writes:

> According to the responses I received,

> These networks currently pass mail to/from the internet:
 [...]
> These networks will in the future pass mail to/from the internet:
 [...]
> I do not know HOW to pass mail to/from these networks.  (see below)
 [...]
> If any of these are incorrect, please let me know at the address
> below.  If you know of any other networks which are not listed, AND
> you know what category they belong in, please let me know.  If you
> know EXACTLY how to mail both TO and FROM any of these networks to the
> internet, please send me a note explaining the process to someone who
> is completely unfamiliar with that network.  Please include info on
> what the address looks like to the local network, what and internet
> address looks like to the local network, and what the local address
> looks like to the internet.

At one point this task was taken on by someone named John. J. Chew of
the University of Toronto ([e-mail]) who regularly
posted a document called the Internetwork Mail Guide to Usenet
newsgroups comp.mail.misc and news.newusers.questions.  It was
exceptionally useful and well-organized and covered address formats,
gateways, and the like.

However, from all I can tell, this has not been published recently,
but is still available by anonymous FTP from the host ra.msstate.edu,
in the file pub/docs/internetwork-mail-guide.  It should still be
quite useful.

By the way, gateway for AppleLink currently exists -- from the
Internet send to [e-mail].  This is for the "real"
AppleLink only, that is, Apple employees and Apple developers and
information providers.  The former "AppleLink Personal Edition" is
now, I believe, known as America Online and is not connected to
AppleLink.


Michael C. Berch    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 12:47:03 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Anyone Have Bellcore's Doc For New Area Codes?
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(David Leibold) writes:

> Some time ago, Bellcore released a document outlining plans for the
> new area code structure to take effect in 1995. This sounded like a
> Technical Advisory or something similar, with a comment period ending
> at the end of April.

Actually, the document addresses the assignment of NPAs within the
already-announced "Interchangable NPA" structure.  In other words, it
doesn't talk about the new structure so much as the use of the new
structure.

> Does anyone have a copy of this document, or could indicate where one
> might be found? I heard rumours that this proposal could be freely
> copied around for discussion purposes, but I could be wrong on that.

> I would have picked this up direct from Bellcore, but without access
> to 800 521-CORE from here, and with their POTS line soaking
> international callers for time spent listening to music on hold,
> perhaps someone on the Digest might be able to help. Thanx.

   The document is a Bellcore document only because Bellcore is the
current North American Numbering Plan Administrator.  The document is
NOT part of the normal Bellcore Document structure.  It would appear
that copies could be requested from:

   Fred Gaechter
   NANP Administration
   Bellcore - Room 1B234
   290 West Mr. Pleasant Avenue
   Livingston, New Jersey  07039

However, since the comment period is past, perhaps you would want to
just ask for a copy of any future documents from the NANP Adm.  Of
course, they might not be free ... funding of the NANP Adm. is the
first issue Bellcore wants addressed by a proposed NANP Advisory
Council.

   By the way, Bellcore allows orders to be FAXed on [phone] or
by mail at:

      Bellcore Customer Service
      60 New England Avenue
      Piscataway, NJ 08854-4196
  (Prepaid orders in US funds checks or money orders only, or US plastic)

   General inquiries regarding their documents should go to:
      District Manager
      Information Exchange Management
      Bellcore
      445 South Street, Rm 2J-125
      P.O. Box 1910
      Morristown, NJ  07962-1910     Telephone: [phone]

   Technical inquiries (on the content of TRs, for example) should be
directed to the address identified in the individual TRs.

> [P.S. Perhaps someone at Bellcore should set up an e-mail account for
> such inquiries and/or orders ... since they're linked to the nets
> already.]

   Only if you will accept being billed for each inquiry ... :)


Al Varney -- of course, this has nothing to do with AT&T's position(s)
             on any issue.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 8:32:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholan)
Subject: Re: 976-Type Exchanges


Interesting.  After posting that list of 976-type exchanges, I
received *many* mail messages saying one of two things:

1)  Known exchanges in the writer's area weren't listed, and

2)  Listed exchanges were actually unassigned.

Were there any accurate nxx's on the list?


kath mullholand     university of new hampshire   durham, nh

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #333
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19439;
          23 Apr 92 3:46 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09640
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 23 Apr 1992 01:55:21 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13541
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 23 Apr 1992 01:55:12 -0500
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 01:55:12 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #334

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 Apr 92 01:55:12 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 334

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line (Sharon Crichton)
    9-1-1 Basics (Paul Cook)
    Cellular Charges (Michael Scott Baldwin)
    Answering Machines and Key Systems (David Ptasnik)
    900 Numbers For Re-sale (Chris Calley)
    Caller*ID Packet Information Request (Goggan
    800 Wrong Number to Private Residence (Brian Litzinger)
    Not 1-800-1-RECYCLE (Carl Moore)
    Heinlein, Harrumph! (Was Hang-up Pirates) (Robert L. McMillin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Sharon Crichton)
Subject: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 17:06:35 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


When I opened my April Ohio Bell telephone bill, guess what I found
waiting for me? Ten unauthorized third party billing charges -- seven
listed on my local service, three on my long distance portion! (AT&T)
The extra charges added up to about $30.  Naturally, I called Ohio
Bell right away to have the charges removed and third party call
blocking put on my line, and AT&T to have the long distance charges
removed.  Each of the calls was marked as "third party from Dayton,
Ohio" and the operators traced the origin to a payphone. But I do know
which numbers they called, printed plain and clear right on my bill :-)

My question to telecom readers: How was it possible for someone to get
authorization to bill my line when I was not even home during some of
the call times listed? And the other times, it was late at night and I
was probably asleep but never heard the phone ring? I could not have
been shoulder-surfed, since I have never used my Ohio Bell calling
card (even though I carry it with me for emergencies). Did they just
look up my number in the phone book, crack into the Ohio Bell system
for a week, then use another number? The charges are all during a one
week period, so I would suspect that they might be using a different
number each week. I just don't have the cracker/phreak mentality to
figure out how they did it.

BTW, the operators provided me with the name of the person the thieves
were calling. I'm sorely tempted to ring him up and yell at him, but I
don't want to muddy the situation up further. Two people were recently
arrested here in Kettering for cracking into the credit agency
computers -- I wonder if my charges were done by that ring of people?
(see the latest issue of comp.risks, which partially discusses this
latest group of crackers and their damages.)

ABTW, I think that I can win the prize for having the lowest average
monthly long distance charges of any regular telecom reader - anyone
have anything lower than $3? :-) The AT&T operator even asked me if
that was my normal amount of long distance usage. Of course, she then
went into her spiel about thanking me for using AT&T and mentioning
all these great calling plans if my monthly usage should rise above $8 :-)


Sharon Crichton           Mead Data Central
[e-mail]      P.O. Box 933
uunet!meaddata!sharonc    Dayton, OH 45401   FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 92 19:40 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: 9-1-1 Basics


A couple of clarifications on how 9-1-1 works.

[e-mail] (Michael Rosen) writes:

> 911 records all incoming calls, outgoing calls I don't know.  But I
> doubt many 911 operators make personal calls, their job is a very
> important one and I'm sure they know it.

9-1-1 trunks are set up for incoming service only.  Industry standards
dictate that if in operator accidentally goes off-hook on an idle
9-1-1 trunk, the trunk must return fast-busy at 120 IPM to the
operator.

If a call is abandoned by the calling party during a call, the trunk
must return 60 IPM (normal) busy to the operator.

[e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:

> Even if 911 were a separate exchange (which it is not, just a
> separate prefix) it would not help.  If more than about 25% of the
> subscribers in your exchange are 'demon-dialing' a busy
> number in the same or a different exchange, your local exhange
> facilities will be overloaded to the point where your chances of
> reaching anybody are substantially reduced.

9-1-1 service is supposed to be over non-blocking facilities, which
means that all calls are over individual dedicated trunks from the
caller's office to the switch which serves the 9-1-1 PSAP (Public
Safety Answering Point).  So if enough folks are going off-hook at the
same time in the office of the caller originating the 9-1-1 call, then
there may be a few seconds (or longer) of delay in getting dialtone.
But the dedicated trunks are supposed to insure that if the network
(inter-office trunks) is busy because of a general overload of
traffic, the only thing that can block the 9-1-1 calls is OTHER 9-1-1
calls from the same originating C.O.

Your mileage may vary.  One time I got a call from a rural county that
did not want to pay for the dedicated 9-1-1 trunks from a small step
by-step CO to the PSAP many miles away.  They wanted the trunks to
seize an auto-dialer that would dial an 800 number used for the
sheriff's office!  Since this was a step office, the auto-dialer would
be rotary dialing 11 digits after 9-1-1 was dialed by the caller,
adding a long delay to the call setup.  Since this call would go over
the normal public switched network, the PSAP would lose the Called
Party Control that is so vital to 9-1-1 service.  I cannot imagine
that this would be legal, but that is what they insisted on doing.


Paul Cook                        206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates        MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.           fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 92 16:37 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cellular Charges


Yes, it appears that Cellular One charges for 0+ calls because both NJ
Bell and AT&T answer immediately, before the <blong>.  A writer
suggested using Sprint, which doesn't answer until the called party
answers, but that would be heresy for me (an AT&T employee)!  Anyway,
now I'm wondering why the AT&T and NJ Bell systems work this way.  A
previous thread of mine asked about those 800 services which don't
answer until navigating several levels of voice menus (800 CALL ATT,
etc) -- this is the Call Prompter service which is implemented in the
network itself.  So why can't the calling card systems work this way
as well?  It would save me time pouring over my cellular bills and
having them credit back to me those 0+ calls that were not completed.

As to why I am using 0+ calling in the first place: both cellular
carriers here in NY/NJ block direct dial access to NPA 809 (the
Carribbean).  NB: I *can* direct dial Canada, and other countries
using 011.  This is *not* the same as international dialing
restriction, which I can get on my account if I want it.  Customer
service has been trained to say it's an AT&T restriction, and AT&T
says that they cannot block it, but an Ericcson tech told me that it
is actually a U.S. Treasury or FBI restriction on cellular carriers,
and that *all* direct-dialed calls to NPA 809 are blocked.  Period.
He also says that calls to *certain* countries (India, Pakistan) are
blocked, but I haven't tried dialing them.

Could all you cellular phone users out there in Telecom land do me a favor
and try to dial [phone] directly?  It's a non-working number, and
you'll know you got through when you get a Spanish non-working number
announcement (no SIT tones, strange) followed by an English one.  If what
they tell me is correct, then lots of you should not be able to do this,
and your carrier won't be able to turn this on for you.  Please respond
to me via email with your results.

Another weaker reason to use 0+ dialing is that I cannot apply my
Reach Out plans to my cellular long distance bill.  Actually, I wonder
if calling card calls from a cellular count as inter-state calls
anyway.

More gotchas: I have a corporate discount (5%) which they say is
applied to monthly service and airtime.  Well, it only applies to the
base plan, not to any extras like Voice Mail, and it only applies to
*home* airtime, not roamer airtime (where it would save the most).  Of
course, they don't tell you this until you ask *specifically*.  Sigh.
Also, once the corporate discount paperwork finally went through (it
took a few months!), they did not apply the 5% back to the beginning
of the account until I called up about it.

The Voice Mail problems I reported earlier (dropped calls if your
phone goes away during ringing) appear to be fundamental.  I offered
to split the cost of Voice Mail ($7/mo) with Cellular One until the
problems are resolved (maybe never).  They didn't have a problem with
that.  Oh, and they do have another way to access Voice Mail: +1 201
314 MAIL.  I don't think it's a secret.

I must say that Cellular One of NY/NJ has been *exceptional* in giving
me no hassles when I call in to complain or get credit.  That in
itself is worth my business.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 15:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Machines and Key Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Monty
Solomon) writes:

> The answering machine is supposed to immediately disconnect and stop
> recording when the caller hangs up.  It is also supposed to ignore
> disconnects during the outgoing message and not bother recording the
> hang up.  It no longer recognizes the disconnects and records the
> internal busy signal (error tone?) from the EMSS and appears to time
> out on the VOX.  I tried configuring the machine for both CPC modes A
> and B.

I have a Panasonic answering machine behind a Panasonic key system and
observe the same pattern.  If you put the answering machine in front
of the key system (connect it directly to the phone line instead of to
a station port), then your machine will go back to working the way you
are used to.  If you want the machine to answer more than one line,
and therefore need to hook it up to the key system, then I suspect
that you will have to live with these changes.

I suspect that the answering machine is looking for changes in
voltages on the line to know when you pick up, or when a caller hangs
up.  When you plug the machine into the key system, it no longer gets
to directly monitor the voltage on the line between the phone company
and the telephone.  Instead it is monitoring the voltage on the
intercom path coming out of the key system.  When the key system
passes the call to the answering machine, the key system provides the
current.  Thus when the caller hangs up, there is no change to the
machine.  Eventually the key system realizes that the caller dropped
off, and sends a reorder tone to your answering machine, which then
eventually drops off.  When you pick up the phone after the machine
starts to take a message, you are just creating a conference call, so
the voltage to the machine is (relatively) unaffected.

It really isn't the fault of the answering machine or the KSU, it's
just that things work differently in shared line facilities.  I should
note that my technical training is quite limited, but I have great
confidence in my understanding of this one.  If I have significantly
erred, I'm sure the more technically minded folk out there will set me
on the right path.


Dave    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Calley)
Subject: 900 Numbers For Re-sale
Date: 20 Apr 92 21:10:45 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


I ran across an article posted in another newsgroup from someone who
is attempting to resell 900 numbers.  Actually, he is charging a
monthly fee based on revenue generated plus a base rate for the use of
one of these numbers.  Does anyone have information on the legality
and/or the TELCOs policies of such activity.


Thanks,

Christopher A. Calley    email: [e-mail]

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

Organization: Central Michigan University
Date: Monday, 20 Apr 1992 19:15:00 EDT
From: John Goggan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID Packet Information Request


I'm just about to begin working on a Caller*ID program to go with a
Caller*ID-to-RS232 interface.  Anyways, I haven't got the $25.00 right
now for Bellcore's technical reference (TR-TSY-000030 I believe), so
if possible, could someone pass the information on to me?  Concerning
things such as the "Carrier Seizure bytes" ($55) and information on
the "Message Type" byte ...

I'd also just like to state my thanks to Rob Bailey for taking time to
offer his Caller*ID-to-RS232 schematic and info. to anyone who
requested it ... thanks!


John Goggan  [[e-mail] OR [e-mail]]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Litzinger)
Subject: 800 Wrong Number to Private Residence
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 19:47:52 GMT


 From my list of ever new experiences:

I dialed 1 800 257 6086 in an attempt to reach IR Data Systems, a
computer rental company.  Instead I reached a private residence with a
number wholly unrelated to the aforementioned 800 number.

My phone displays the number dialed, so I was certain I didn't misdial
and the private party indicated that they didn't have an 800 number.

I dialed the number a second time and got the same party.

The question is:  How does this happen?
          Whom do I report the problem to?
          Who is paying for this call?

I should have asked the party what city/state they were in.  I'm in
San Jose, CA, and my LD is AT&T.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: What has happened is that the company you are
calling probably had the POTS number previously where you are reaching
the private residence now. The company changed their local phone
number (or quit, went out of business, etc) and either failed to tell
the 800 carrier about it, or told the carrier but the carrier failed
to turn off the in-wats number. The LD carrier is continuing to accept
traffic to that number and instead of intercepting it ('not in service
at this time; check your dialing procedures, etc') is continuing to
outdial to it to what they presume is still their customer. Its like
you changing your phone number but your friends failing to change what
their autodialer does to call you, and continuing to get the old
number. I've dialed many 800 numbers only to get a local telco
intercept saying the number I dialed <not 800> was not in service.
Call the company you are trying to reach via their POTS number and ask
what their 800 number is ... I'll bet it is something different now.
Who is paying for the call:  If the LD carrier's accounting department
turned it off, but the plant did not, then no one is paying for it. If
the accounting department still has it on, then bills are being sent
to the company you were trying to reach. Whoever manages their phone
system may or may not be too stupid to challenge it.  My recommendation
is that you not waste your time complaining unless you want to be
humored and bounced around between people who know nothing.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 92 12:04:33 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Not 1-800-1-RECYCLE


I drove through Queen Anne's County, Maryland (eastern-shore, heading
for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Washington DC) recently and stopped
at a set of recycling bins which I had seen on an earlier trip.  The
phone number displayed for information was 1-800-1-RECYCLE, as I re-
called from the earlier trip, and that is indeed a 1 displayed just
before the word "RECYCLE" but should be an "I" instead.  I verified it
by calling 1-800-I-RECYCL just now and serving notice of the incorrect
number.  (That translates to 1-800-473-2925.)


[Moderator's Note: Do you think they knew what you were talking about;
they cared, or that they considered you some kind of crackpot trying
to harass them, etc?  Let me know if they change the sign.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 01:22:23 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Heinlein, Harrumph! (was: Hang-up Pirates (With a Twist))

On Mon, 20 Apr 92, Stan Brown <[e-mail]> wrote:

> This makes me think of an old Robert Heinleinism: "Never try to teach
> a pig to sing.  You'll only waste your time and annoy the pig."

Harrumph, I say!  This came from the pen of that esteemed writer, Mr.
Mark Twain, who told the truth, mostly, with some stretchers.


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #334
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21389;
          23 Apr 92 4:42 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08795
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 23 Apr 1992 02:43:05 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05200
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 23 Apr 1992 02:42:55 -0500
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 02:42:55 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #335

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 Apr 92 02:42:56 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 335

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New Chief of FCC's Common Carrier Bureau (NY Times via Monty Solomon)
    FTC Accuses Phone Solicitors of Deception (NY Times via Monty Solomon)
    1-900 Numbers Available (misc.consumers, Waley Young via Monty Solomon)
    Annex and CBX Questions (Cristiano Verondini)
    Germany to License Third Cellular Network Operator ([e-mail])
    Telephones in Airports (Robert M. Hamer)
    Digital-Phone to Analog-Phone Converter Wanted (Michael A. Covington)
    Request For Information on Digital Communication (Ullas Gargi)
    Forgotten Strowger Switch Discovered (Alan Frisbie)
    Does Cellular Antenna Choice Affects Battery Life? (John L. Shelton)
    ISDN Standards Wanted (Bob Vogel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 06:27:41 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Chief of FCC's Common Carrier Bureau


 From the 19 Apr 92 {New York Times}:

At a time of rapid change in communications, the FCC has named a new
top regulator to overhaul rules for the $150 billion telephone
industry.

The regulator, Cheryl A. Tritt, will take over on May 1 as chief of
the FCC's common carrier bureau.  She is replacing Richard Firestone,
who is joining a Washington law firm, and she is expected to try to
push through an ambitious agenda to deregulate telecommunications and
promote greater competition.

Some time this summer, the FCC is expected to introduce a package of
new rules aimed at allowing new concerns to compete against
traditional local telephone companies.  It is a difficult job,
however, because it requires untangling a complex web of
Government-imposed price subsidies that limit the ability of
traditional telephone companies to make hardnosed business decisions.

The FCC is also trying to complete action on a rule to allow telephone
companies to carry cable television programming.  That measure has
aroused intense opposition from the cable industry as well as from
many cities, who fear they will lose power over local cable companies.

Ms. Tritt, who is 44 years old, is the first woman to head the common
carrier bureau.  She spent the last two years as special assistant to
the FCC's chairman, Alfred C. Sikes.  Before that, she was assistant
vice president for regulatory affairs in the Washington office of the
GTE Corporation, the nation's largest operator of local telephone
companies.

While there, she was responsible for two big initiatives.  The first
was to win approval for an experimental system in Cerritos, Calif., to
bring television programming and other services into homes over
high-capacity optical fibers.  The second was to win approval for a
license to operate GTE Airfone, the first airplane phone service.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 06:36:25 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: FTC Accuses Phone Solicitors of Deception


 From the 19 Apr 92 {New York Times}:

Several Daytona Beach, Fla., companies and their owners have been
charged by the FTC with deceptively marketing travel packages to
consumers nationwide through a network of telephone salesrooms.  The
Florida Attorney General, Robert A.  Butterworth, also has files
charges against the companies.

According to the FTC, people were told by postcard that they had won a
vacation to Florida or the Bahamas.  To take the trip, however, the
consumer has to purchase a package for about $400, spend "a substantial
amount of money" beyond the package cost and comply with many
conditions not disclosed by telephone salespeople.  The callers
obtained consumers' credit card numbers, the FTC says, by asserting
that card numbers would be used only to verify credit standings.  In
fact, the consumers' accounts were billed for the cost of the travel
package.

The FTC complaint was filed April 1 in the United States District
Court in Orlando against Passport Internationale and several other
companies associated with it, including Passport Travel Club, Passport
Premium Plus and Gemini Internationale.

During its inquiries, the FTC reports, it received assistance from the
attorneys general of Florida and other states, numerous Better
Business Bureaus and the staffs of Visa and Mastercard.  Copies of the
compaint are available by calling the FTC's public reference branch in
Washington at 202 326 2222.

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

From: [e-mail] (Waley Young Z.)
Subject: 1-900 Numbers Available
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 07:19:49 GMT


[Moderator's Note: Found in misc.consumers by Monty Solomon and passed
along for our amusement ...  PAT]

      |---------------------------------------------------------|
      |             GREAT BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY                  |
      |  operating your own 900 number and earn big cash        |
      |---------------------------------------------------------|

  You probably have heard about how tremendous revenue-generating
power of 1-900 numbers are. By dialing 1-900 numbers, people pay to
get the information they want. If you have a 900 number, you can
provide people with your information and get cash from them.

  We own several 900 numbers and I have three of them to rent out. If
you know anything about the 900 number industry, you recognize the
uniqueness of the offer we are making available to you.  900 numbers
are typically very difficult to obtain directly from long distance
companies. Long waiting list, large deposit, expensive equipment, call
minimums and monthly fees are typical obstacles encountered when
trying to establish 900 number service.

  The opportunity we are offering to you needs NO up-front fees,
set-up fees, equipment cost, monthly fees, or even call minimums!

  The things you need to do are quite SIMPLE -- you just need to have
the information you wish to provide to people, record you message from
your own telephone, advertise you number properly, and enjoy
collecting the money generated by YOUR 900 number.

  We will be charging you a rental fee as little as $120 per month.

  That sounds exciting? Following are some figures that might help you
to make up your mind to start your own 900 number business:

  Suppose you have 30 calls per day (this is a modest estimate.).
Average length per call is 3 minutes. The total revenue generated by
the number each month is:

     $2.00 per minute * 3 minutes/call * 30 calls/day * 30 days = $ 5400

  37.5% of this amount goes to long distance call carrier and the service
bureau. So the total amount you get per month is:

     $5400*62.5% - $120 ( rental fee) = $3255

  This is only an modest estimate. Actually most people are benifiting
much more than the figure mentioned above. You want to be one of these
people?

  Right now you know how powerful operating a 900 number is. So do not
miss this chance. The number of lines available is only 3. Be quick
before they are taken.

  If you are interested in this opportunity of have any question about
it, please do not hestate to e-mail to the following address:

      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: So how come he doesn't just think up some
information and put those three lines in service himself if they are
so profitable?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Cristiano Verondini)
Subject: Annex and CBX Questions
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 11:24:10 GMT


I would like to know more about Annex and about CBX. What are they,
how can I connect to them, how machine are addressed ...

Thanks in advance,


Cris

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

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 14:49
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Germany to License Third Cellular Network Operator


The German Ministry of Postes and Telecommunications will license a
third cellular network operator. The third network which will be
called "E1" has to use the DCS-1800 standard aka PCN (Personal
Communications Network). The network will operate in the 1.8GHz
spectrum and will be available nationwide in Germany. Other European
countries will also licence such operators in their countries that
work with the same standard.

At present there are two cellular operators. The first is the German
PTT DEUTSCHE BUNDESPOST TELEKOM which is also the operator of the
telephone network. DB TELEKOM operates two networks, the C-Netz which
was introduced in 1986 and the new D1-Netz which uses the European GSM
standard.

The second operator is MANNESMANN MOBILFUNK which is in part owned by
the American LEC Pacific Telesis. It operates the D2-Netz which is the
direct competitor the DB TELEKOMs D1-Netz.

As of today both new networks (D1 and D2) are not operational. This is
mainly caused by the lack of mobile phones. Due to the European GSM
standards (the first time in cellular telephony) there are changes
happening on a daily bases. So there are no 100% testing requirements
available. Another reason is that the German company ROHDE&SCHWARZ was
not able to complete there GSM testing equipment in time.

The licensing of MANNESMANN as a private company has triggered some
interesting developments in Germany. MANNESMANN has a license to
operate a cellular network, but MANNESMANN has no license to operate
its own links (cables) between their switching facilities. So MANNES-
MANN has to lease those links (2MB links) from DB TELEKOM. Last year
DB TELEKOM published its rates for those links. Since those rates were
beyond what MANNESMANN had expected, the German Secretary of P&T told
DB TELEKOM to lower its rates by 60% (!!). After controversial
discussion DB TELEKOM had to lower its rates by 56%. But even after
this rate reduction MANNESMANN claims that those rates are still to
high compared to most foreign countries. According to MANNESMANN
calculations MANNESMANN could operate its own microwave network at 20%
of the current DB TELEKOM rates. After several months the Sec of P&T
licensed MANNESMANN to operate its own microwave links. This license
will also be part of the new "E1" license. The interesting thing about
this microwave license is that the so called "transmission" monopoly
of DB TELEKOM will be affected. But the Sec of P&T told the press that
this license would just be an extension of the radio link from the
switch to the subscriber. In fact that is not true. But right now
German policyis not willing to further deregulate the telecommunications
industry. So this somewhat strange statement from the Sec of P&T makes
a lot of sense in that respect.

The third license will only be granted to a new and private operator.
So the existing operators DB TELEKOM and MANNESMANN are not allowed to
apply for the licence. This is another sign that the Sec of P&T wants
to create more competition. If the the new "E1" network will be
considered as a direct competitor to the D1 and D2 networks there will
be no additional license. If that is not the case then there could be
a fourth license. In that case DB TELEKOM and MANNESMANN would also be
allowed to apply for that license. From my own knowledge I anticipate
that "E1" will not be considered as a direct competitor since its
technical characteritics does not allow the same quality of service of
the GSM networks D1 and D2. Especially roaming is quite critical in
the PCN network. Since there will be more cells (due to the high
frequency) and more subscribers (due to the low price of mobile
phones) roaming in cars could create some trouble.  Actually the "E1"
network has a capacity of around 30 MILLIONS subscribers. So the "E1"
network could become a "people's cellular network" and it could
substitute the existing telephone network.

If anybody of you are interested in a copy of the DRAFT license you
may send a fax to the German Secretary of P&T which will then send
you that information.

    The fax number is [phone];

    The address is:

    Bundesminister fuer Post und Telekommunikation
    BONN
    BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND (Germany)

Your faxes should look "professional" so that they will send you
the required information. BTW, the information is written in
GERMAN!

Bye,

Juergen

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

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 09:34 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephones in Airports


Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> writes:

> Washington, DC (at Dulles Airport is/was 202-523 being used for the
> branch post office there; Dulles has its own exchanges in area 703 in
> Virginia).

To start a new thread, I note that Baltimore-Washington International
(BWI) airport has pay phones (not COCOTs) some of which are local to
Washington DC and some of which are local to Baltimore.  I remember (I
think) that Akron-Canton airport has some pay phones (not COCOTs) local
to Akron and some to Canton.  What other airports have similar
characteristics?

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Digital-Phone to Analog-Phone Converter Wanted
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 04:46:10 GMT


We would like to install an answering machine at our secretary's front
desk.  Her phone is an AT&T Merlin (?) digital unit (gray and silver).

Is there some kind of adapter that will enable us to connect the
answering machine right there?  Right now it's on an analog line in
another office.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. |  [e-mail]  |  ham radio N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602  U.S.A.

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

From: ULLAS GARGI <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request For Information: Digital Communication
Date: 20 Apr 92 13:26:28 MDT
Organization: Utah State University


Dear netters,

Any of you having any info on which universities have strong programs
in communication, digital communication, spread spectrum systems or
related fields, please send the ones you know of to me:

        [e-mail]

Thanks,

Ullas Gargi

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

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 92 09:50:50 PST
From: Alan Frisbie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Forgotten Strowger Switch Discovered


I was cleaning out my garage a few weeks ago and discovered a
brand-new (mid-60's), in the original box, Strowger switch (without
the contact bank).  Do you think anyone would be interested in this
not-quite antique?  If I recall correctly, it is from General
Telephone.


Alan E. Frisbie               [e-mail]
Flying Disk Systems, Inc.
4759 Round Top Drive          [phone] (voice)
Los Angeles, CA 90065         [phone] (FAX)


[Moderator's Note: I don't know ... let's ask.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John L. Shelton)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 09:35:17 -0700
Subject: Does Cellular Antenna Choice Affect Battery Life?


We lost the regular antenna for one of our handheld cellular phones,
so I've been looking for a new one.  My choices seem to be:

*  Regular antenna (about 9 inches)
*  Hi-gain antenna (about 18 inches)
*  Stub antenna (about 1/2 inch)

It occurred to me as I've been thinking, that the antenna choice could
affect battery life.  Consider: using a stub antenna, I'll put out a
weaker signal (less of the signal directed toward the cell site.)
Thus the cell site may be more tempted to tell my handheld to boost
power to a higher level.

The high-gain antenna beams more signal in the "right" direction, so
may cause the cell site to instruct the handheld to reduce power.

On the other hand, since I rarely hold the handheld vertical, the
high-gain antenna may be defeating the purpose, since the best signal
will no longer be parallel to the ground.

Does this make any sense?


John


[Moderator's NoteL In an area with a high concentration of cellular
service like Chicago, the little stub (actually a load in there which
simulates a one-eighth wave antenna) is more than adequate. I like it
because I no longer get stabbed in the ribs with the larger antenna I
was using, wearing the phone under my coat and bending over, etc.   PAT]

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

Date: 21 Apr 1992 21:47:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: BOB VOGEL <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Standards Wanted


I would like to obtain a copy, preferably electronic, of the current
(or most current working draft) of the ISDN standard and BISDN draft
stand ard of the CCITT.  Do you have it or can you advise me of where
it is available?  My apologizes for not including this with my last
message.  Thank you for your help.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #335
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05577;
          24 Apr 92 9:41 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29815
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 24 Apr 1992 07:27:12 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03550
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 24 Apr 1992 07:27:03 -0500
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 07:27:03 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #336

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 24 Apr 92 07:27:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 336

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    USWEST Wants to Hose Me! (Scott Colbath)
    Question Concerning the Costs of Number Change (Paul Harts)
    White House Telecomms (Kauto Huopio)
    CPSR Sues NIST For DSS Information (David Sobel)
    Employer's Long Distance Company (David Niebuhr)
    Sprint's New Global FON Card (Bill Huttig)
    New Cell User Needs Informarion (Ken Levitt)
    Interface Phone Line Audio to Workstation Audio? (Bob Clements)
    Israeli Pay Phones: Pay as You Go (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Fax/Modem/Voice Switch From Damark? (Dean Carpenter)
    Help: Cheapest Way to Call Home (Tatsuya Kawasaki)
    Submitting Bills For Information (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Can a Mobile Telephone From the U.S. be Used Anywhere Else? (Anthony Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Scott Colbath)
Subject: USWEST Wants to Hose Me!
Date: 22 Apr 92 17:37:51 GMT


    I currently have two phone lines going into my home. One for
calls and one for my modem. Outside the house there appears to be 25
pair cable comming up to the junction box with the connections for my
two lines.

    I wanted to add a third line for my daughter. She gets all the
phone calls in the house and figured it was time she had her own line.
USWEST said "No problem" when I called to order the line and they said
there would be a technician out in a couple of days to add the line at
the house. I got a new phone number right then to boot. I received a
phone call the morning they were supposed to show up. The USWEST
person said there was no available lines in my neighborhood and they
would have an engineer look into the feasability of getting the job
done.

    Well ... the USWEST people called the other day and said it
would cost ME over one thousand bucks to have the line put in due to
the fact that they would need to add another "station" in the
neighborhood.

    Is this something I should be footing the bill for? What about
the empty lots in my neighborhood where houses will eventually be
built? If I didn't get the line and pick up the tab, would some new
homeowner get stuck with it? It appears to me that eventually another
station (whatever that is, maybe someone could clarify) will be needed
due to expansion of the neighborhood regardless of my current needs.

    Any input here is greatly appreciated. Please reply to
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I think if there are wire pairs available, they are
to be given to customers who request them. I do not think wire pairs
to vacant houses, etc can be held aside on the premise that someone
may eventually someday need service there. Of course, that's assuming
the vacant lots and/or houses you are referring to have pairs that are
multipled in the 25-pair cable at your residence, but they probably
are. I'd appeal the decision if I were in your place.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 17:25:12 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Paul Harts)
Subject: Question Concerning the Costs of Number Change
Organization: PTT Research, Groningen


In Holland a change of number, regardless of whether the number you
change to is secret or not, costs about $20. Considering the fact that
a number change is a minor adjustment done in software these days, I
think this is quite a high price.

Could anybody email me about the costs involved with a number change
in for example the US, Norway, Belgium, France, etc?


Thanks,

email: [e-mail]
mail : Winschoterdiep OZ 46
       P.O. 15000
       9700 CD  Groningen
       Netherlands

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

From: [e-mail] (Kauto Huopio)
Subject: White House Telecomms
Date: 23 Apr 92 00:51:07
Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland


I guess this subject has been handled here many times, but anyway:

Can anyone tell c.d.t about the White House telecomms system, like are
there any direct lines to the Oval Office, are all calls traced (or
just Caller-ID'd) etc ...


Kauto Huopio ([e-mail])
Mail: Kauto Huopio, Punkkerikatu 1 A 10, SF-53850 Lappeenranta,Finland

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

Organization: CPSR, Washington Office
From: David Sobel <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 18:48:35 EDT
Subject: CPSR Sues NIST for DSS Information


     Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) filed
suit today against the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) and the Department of Commerce, seeking disclosure of "all
documentation and research materials that NIST used and/or developed
to evaluate technology in choosing a digital signature standard."  The
Freedom of Information Act case was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.


     NIST published a notice announcing its proposed DSS last August
and solicited public comments on the proposal.  CPSR asked the agency
to release the requested information to facilitate a more informed
public discussion of the standard.  The National Security Agency has
since acknowledged that it played a leading role in the development of
the proposed DSS.  NIST has refused to release the requested records
on the grounds that disclosure would interfere with the agency
decision-making process and reveal proprietary information contained
in pending patent applications.


    David Sobel      Legal Counsel CPSR Washington Office

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

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 10:59:21 -0400
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Employer's Long Distance Company


My employer's contract with AT&T for LD service is up for renewal soon
and I'm wondering how I would stand if the carrier is anything else
when I make a personal call using my AT&T card.  Will I be forced to
the other one or is my employer required to connect me to AT&T.

 From what I've read in the DIGEST, I tend to think that I am allowed
to make my calls over AT&T.


Thanks in advance;

Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093


[Moderator's Note: Freedom of choice in LD carriers only extends to
phones you are paying to use (hotels, COCOTS, etc) -- not to phones
you are using with the permission of someone else (employer). The
person paying for the service (in this case, your employer) gets to
decide who the carrier(s) will be. In the case of hotel phones,
COCOTS, etc, the service is being resold and you are paying for it;
therefore you get to choose the carrier. Your employer is NOT required
to connect you with anyone, or even let you use the phone at all.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 12:43:17 -0400
From: [e-mail] ( Bill Huttig)
Subject: Sprint's New Global FON Card


I was watching TV last night and saw a Sprint commercial (The sound
was turned off as I was on the phone) and noticed that the card has a
International Number on the bottom like the NEW AT&T card ... anyway
 ... I called Sprint to have them send me replacement cards for the
ones I have (I seldom use Sprint as I prefer MCI F&F as dial one plus.
There several other carriers that I use. I just keep the account for
emergency use since they have their own fiber around here.) Anyway,
the rep said you can dial the 10333 PIC and then 0+ and use either
your BOC card or the FON card ... it worked ... I tried my BOC
restricted card and they did not honor the restriction ... MCI does
and says you are not authorized to dial this number.

ATC also honors it ... MetroMedia doesn't give you a tone at all.

Does anyone know when MCI is going to get the new international
numbers?

What is the dialing procedure for users from other countries to use
AT&T or SPRINT here in the US? Dial 0+ number plus the 89card number?

Carbon all replies here to me please.


Bill

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

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 00:08:10 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
Subject: New Cell User Needs Information


I just got my first cell phone today and I wish I had paid more
attention to cell phone topics in past digests so I wouldn't be such a
novice now.

I have a Motorola bag phone model S2770A and Nynex phone service in
area code 508 (Eastern Massachusetts).

Here are my questions so far:

1.  How can I get programming information for this phone?  Is this
    information somewhere in the Telecom Archives?  I would like all
    of the information that is available, but I am most in need of
    knowing how to change the locking code.

2.  The phone came with two antennas, an 8 inch that is used for portable
    operations and a magnetic mount for car use.  In that the antenna
    connector is somewhat recessed into the bag, I find it very difficult
    to change antennas.

    a.  Is there some sort of quick disconnect adaptor I could get that
        would make it easier to swap antennas?

    b.  Assuming that most all of my travels will be in relatively
        populated areas of Eastern Mass., what problems would I have if I
        just didn't bother with the 2nd antenna and sat the bag phone with
        the 8 inch antenna on the car seat?

3.  Will I get charged for incoming or outgoing calls which are not
    completed?


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390     UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

Subject: Interface Phone Line Audio to Workstation Audio?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 17:38:56 -0400
From: [e-mail]


Here is another "Where can I get a box that does X" question.  The "X"
in this case is coupling a phone line to a workstation audio port
under computer control.

We'd like to get the audio from a phone extension into/out of a Sun
Sparcstation's /dev/audio port.  The workstation would need to see the
ringing indication from the box and be able to cause the box to go on
and off hook.  If the box could also receive/generate DTMF signals
that would be nice, too, but not absolutely required.

The Black Box Catalog lists a device that does the DTMF part and the
RING & ON/OFF HOOK part, but doesn't couple the audio to an external
connection.  It has a built-in phrase generator for voice responses.
It's controlled over an RS-232 connection.  So that's close, but not
good enough.

Another approach is a ham-radio-style phone patch, but those are
generally not computer controlled.

And of course there are the various PC-based things like the Watson
and other telemarketing boxes, but we want to get to a Sparc, not a
PC.

So, if you've seen such a device, I'd appreciate hearing about it.


Thanks,

Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]  (w) [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 18:16:15 -0400
From: krfiny![e-mail]
Subject: Israeli Pay Phones: Pay as You Go


With the recent discussion about using pay phones and getting called
back to deposit more money ...

I was in Israel in 1977, but the payphones looked like they were from
the 50s to 60s, so I doubt they have changed much.

The Israeli phone system is run by the Post Office.  The payphones
don't take coins.  They use phone tokens that are sold at the post
office, and are apparently rationed.  The tokens are aluminum, with a
slot along one side and a hole in the center and a dial pattern around
it (obvious international symbol :-),

You put in the tokens and they go into a slot with a window so you can
see how many remain.  I think it can hold ten.  During a call, the
tokens are consumed at a rate depending on the distance and length of
the call.  Since the slot can hold several tokens, you can deposit
tokens while the call is in progress.  When you're out of tokens, the
call is disconnected.  If tokens remain, lift a lever and the unused
tokens are returned.

Using tokens is clever especially considering the inflation rate in
Israel.  They can increase the cost of the tokens, and even handle
different currencies without changing the payphones.  Since there's
only one denomination of token, it has been said that even two people
could not feed it tokens fast enough for a really long distance call.

I understand that in Japan, there are "debit" cards available for
payphones that have animation characters on them!  If they're sold by
vending machines, then you have animymity(sp?)  aninyminity (sp?)
anonymous-ness (sp?)  privacy and the convenience of credit-card-style
calling.


Jeffrey Jonas   [e-mail]

PS: I just moved to yet another apartment.  I don't have room for all
the computers, so I had to rip some apart.  You have to take apart a
computer to really appreciate how well it's built.  The heft of the
metal in the subchassis, the way the connectors click apart so neatly,
yup, the old computer were works of art and all that hand assembly
really shows.

That's why I tell my family and friends to hold on to their old
phones.  You can't buy phones with metal bases any more.  One brand of
phone manufacturer even puts a large lead weight in their phones to
give the the required "heft" while still using molded plastic cases.
Yeesh!

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

From: [e-mail] (Dean Carpenter)
Subject: Fax/Modem/Voice Switch From Damark?
Organization: Areyes, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 01:33:13 GMT


In the latest (April 20) issue of {Infoworld} is a Damark ad that is
offering an ESS fax/phone switch for $69.99 down from $179.99.  The ad
claims that it will distinguish between voice and data signals,
switching automatically between phone, fax and modem.

Is anyone familiar with this item?  Is it any good?  The Damark people
can't answer *any* questions about it (of course).

I'm assuming that it works by picking up the line as soon as it rings
and listening for a couple/few seconds.  If it doesn't hear a data
signal it then passes through to the phone which would then ring
normally.  I guess.

If it *does* hear a signal it will route it appropriately to the fax
line or modem line.  *Is* this how it works?  Does it work well or is
it a dog?  Is it even a good price?


Dean Carpenter    uunet!areyes!deano  [phone]
Areyes, Inc.    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (& Kawasaki)
Subject: Help: Cheapest Way to Call Home
Organization: Brigham Young University
Date: 21 Apr 92 10:03:49


Does any have any information about the rate on international calls?

I am planning to go back home to Japan.  I am trying to find the
cheapest rate to call the USA from Japan.

Once I was told that if you have direct access to KDD, the Japanese
version of international telcom, the rate is cheaper although I have
not confirmed that yet ...

So I decided to take my calling card, since it seems that MCI, friend
and family deal, seems give me the best deal.  On AT&T I get only 10%
off from their rate, which was still higher than the US Sprint regular
rate.

Does anyone have any input?


Tatsuya   [e-mail]    EMT:901006  Ham: N7UQJ

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

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 18:17:36 -0400
From: krfiny![e-mail]
Subject: Submitting Bills for Information


In Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 288, Message 12 of 12 the
Moderator noted:

> And people in Spain are petitioned in advertisements to call a number
> in New Jersey/USA to speak with a Tarot practitioner.

Dagnabbit -- somebody beat me to it!  I have a Tarot deck and Caller-ID,
so what's to stop me from going into the Tarot business and charging
the caller like a 900 number (other than my sense of honesty and risking
the wrath of the TELECOM readers :-)

That real underlying question is: What must I do to be recognized by
the regional phone company as an "Information Provider" so I can bill
people via their phone bills?

With all these 800 numbers charging like 900 numbers, there must be
some "misunderstanding" or "creative interpretation" of when to accept
billing from information providers.  I'd love to profit from this.
Why should the big companies have all the fun?


Jeffrey Jonas    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Anthony Lee)
Subject: Can a Mobile Telephone From the U.S. be Used Anywhere Else?
Date: 22 Apr 92 06:19:53 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Is it possible to purchase a mobile telephone in the U.S. and used it
in another country?  What are the procedures?  What are the different
standards and different frequency bands etc.?  Are there any countries,
in my case Australia, where the import (private) of mobile telephones
is illegal ?


Thank you.

Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: [e-mail]    voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, University of Qld,
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia


[Moderator's Note: Actually, in quite a few countries, the use of cell
phones from the USA is banned without permission and special
arrangements. I'd say as often as not, cell phones from the USA are
not welcome in other countries, and sometimes, they even get
confiscated when you go to that country!   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #336
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06219;
          24 Apr 92 9:55 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11111
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 24 Apr 1992 07:55:13 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06177
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 24 Apr 1992 07:55:06 -0500
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 07:55:06 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #337

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 24 Apr 92 07:55:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 337

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? (John Higdon)
    Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? (Sandy Kyrish)
    Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? (R. Frankenberger)
    Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? (Robert Wiegand)
    Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? (David G. Lewis)
    Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? (Maurice Givens)
    Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? (Michael Salmon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 11:52 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection?


[e-mail] (David Paigen) writes:

> This just came up in a meeting.  Someone mentioned that we had a
> 64Kbps line for data from site A to site B, but that 64Kbps also had
> voice running over it.  I said, "No, voice requires 64Kbps, there
> would be no room left for data."  I was told that voice requires only
> 8Kbps per channel.

There are many schemes now for compressing a voice channel in 8kbps.
They sound like holy hell, but the words ARE intelligible. I know of
several companies that routinely have mulitple voice channels AND data
flowing over an international 64 kbps connection. No big deal.

> Furthermore, the theoretical maximum information
> load you could push through a 3000 Hz bandwidth connection is 6Kpbs.

Where did you get this? Remember that a telephone circuit has an
ANALOG response to 3KHz. This means that within that bandwidth there
are amplitude and phase variances in addition to waveform zero
crossings.  You are erroneously equating bps to Hz of audio frequency
response.

> Assumptions:
>     - a 'voice phone connection' is 3000 Hz to 6000 Hz

As a matter of fact, most interoffice connections do not quite make it
to 3000 Hz.

>     - 1 Kbps means I can transfer 1024 random bits per second

Correct.

> Questions:
>     - How many bps does a 'voice phone connection' require?

Depends upon how accurately you wish to represent the audio. If you
want "toll grade" quality, then you will need 64 kbps. If you can
tolerate less then you can use less bandwidth. We are not talking
about frequency response of the line; we are concerned here with
noise, distortion, and "gating" effects.

>     - If the answer is less than 19.2Kbps, how does a telebit work?

A high speed modem such as the Trailblazer Plus uses many tricks.
First consider this: if it takes a 64 kbps data stream to provide a
high quality voice channel, it stands to reason that there nuances in
that audio that requires this high data rate. Think of high speed
modems as utilizing those nuances to convey data. So in addition to
the raw frequency response of the voice channel, you have those
previously described amplitude and phase qualities that can "carry
data".

Obviously, you cannot pass 14 kbps over a voice channel that is
represented by 8 kbps. Why? Those phase and amplitude components are
stripped or distorted by the compression process. The high speed modem
in such a case would fall back to a much-reduced throughput. You do
not get something for nothing.

The important thing to remember is that bps (or baud) counts the
number of changes of state per second. This is usually zero crossings
in an RS232 line. An analog wave form has much more information than
that within its waveform. At any given instant, the waveform can be at
some measurable point on the graph. High speed modems cleverly convert
this "extra" information into more bps.


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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 16:57 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Many Bits/Sec for a Voice Connection?


Your person who said a 3000 Hz bandwidth could only support 6 Kbps
left out some of the equation.  The equation would be:

3000 Hz sampled at twice the highest frequency = 6000 samples/sec.
Each sample is described by an eight-bit word.  6000 samples x 8
bits/sample = 48,000 bits per second.

This is how 64 kbps got started in the first place: 4000 Hz is 8000
samples/sec, x 8 bits = 64,000 bits/sec.  Borrow a bit per sample for
control -- 56 kbps.

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Brett Frankenberger)
Subject: Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection?
Date: 21 Apr 92 14:45:34 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
Paigen) writes:

> This just came up in a meeting.  Someone mentioned that we had a
> 64Kbps line for data from site A to site B, but that 64Kbps also had
> voice running over it.  I said, "No, voice requires 64Kbps, there
> would be no room left for data."  I was told that voice requires only
> 8Kbps per channel.  Furthermore, the theoretical maximum information
> load you could push through a 3000 Hz bandwidth connection is 6Kpbs.

> Well, none of this sounds right to me.  So I pose my question to the
> net.wisdom of this group.

> Assumptions:
>    - a 'voice phone connection' is 3000 Hz to 6000 Hz
>    - 1 Kbps means I can transfer 1024 random bits per second

> Questions:
>    - How many bps does a 'voice phone connection' require?
>    - If the answer is less than 19.2Kbps, how does a telebit work?

> Inquiring minds want to know!

Normal digitized voice is done at 64Kbps.  (8000 8-bit samples per
second).  This provides basically the same as a noiseless analog
connection, and can handle all modem traffic as good as a noiseless
analog connection.  Voice can be compressed to 32Kbps using a
compression algorithm known as ADPCM (Adaptive Differential Pulse
Coded Modulation).  The quality of voice here is almost as good as
full 64Kbps (generally, you can't tell the different for a true voice
connection).  However, with ADPCM, high speed modems cannot be used
(faster than 4.8Kbps) and Group III faxes will fall back to 4800 bps
(instead of the normal 9600).

32Kbps ADPCM is probably the lowest acceptable for 'toll-quality'
voice. (I don't know if commercial carriers use it or not.  There does
exist equipment that will detect high speed modems (>4.8Kbps) and
route the call over a non-adpcm link, and route other calls using
ADPCM.)

It is also possible to digitize voice at lower rates (the lowest I
have seen is 8 kbps).  At these lower rates, the voice quality is
noticeably lower, and data transmission (with modems) is virtually
impossible (maybe 300bps -- I don't know).

Specifically in regard to your questions: (1) 8Kbps - 64Kbps depending
on the quality you want, and (2) Over digital voice trunks, it
doesn't, unless they are 64Kbps.  Also, in regard to your second
assumption, 1 Kbps is 1000 bits per second in most telecom usage (i.e.
A T1 line carries 24*64000 bits per second, not 24*64*1024 bits per
second).


Brett  ([e-mail])

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

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 10:14:57 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection?


David Paigen writes:

> Furthermore, the theoretical maximum information
> load you could push through a 3000 Hz bandwidth connection is 6Kpbs.

The limit on 3000 Hz bandwidth from the Nyquist limit is 6 kbaud, not
6kbps.  This limits the number of signals, not the number of bits.
Shannon's limit limits the number of bps and depends on the SNR of the
line. Using compression you can send even more information across the
link.

> - a 'voice phone connection' is 3000 Hz to 6000 Hz

Nope, part 68 requires something like 18dB attenuation @ 4kHz, Phone
lines are often assumed to be 400Hz to 3400Hz, although the higher
frequencies are going to start rolling off.

>     - 1 Kbps means I can transfer 1024 random bits per second

Yes.

>     - How many bps does a 'voice phone connection' require?

In the USA audio is digitized using u law (non linear) encoding at
just under 64 kbps.  This is not a minimum, I have seen voice encoded
as low as 19.2 kbps to multiplex it on a dedicated 56 kbps line.
Using vocoders, rather than codec's, will drop this below 9600 bps.

>    - If the answer is less than 19.2Kbps, how does a telebit work?

Telebits depend on 64 kbps digitizing, they will lose throughput as
the audio is digitized slower.


Pat Turner     KB4GRZ     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection?
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 13:34:58 GMT


[e-mail] (David Paigen) writes:

> This just came up in a meeting.  Someone mentioned that we had a
> 64Kbps line for data from site A to site B, but that 64Kbps also had
> voice running over it.  I said, "No, voice requires 64Kbps, there
> would be no room left for data."  I was told that voice requires only
> 8Kbps per channel.  Furthermore, the theoretical maximum information
> load you could push through a 3000 Hz bandwidth connection is 6Kpbs.

> Assumptions:
>    - a 'voice phone connection' is 3000 Hz to 6000 Hz
>    - 1 Kbps means I can transfer 1024 random bits per second

> Questions:
>    - How many bps does a 'voice phone connection' require?
>    - If the answer is less than 19.2Kbps, how does a telebit work?

A normal digital telephone voice channel is 64Kbps. However, by using
voice compression it is possible to reduce the bit rate to 8Kbps.
There will be some loss in voice quality, but the voice is still quite
understandable.


Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.    uunet!motcid!wiegand

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 16:43:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
Paigen) writes:

>Assumptions:
>    - a 'voice phone connection' is 3000 Hz to 6000 Hz

Incorrect assumption.  A voice connection is generally assumed to be
from 0+ Hz to 4 kHz.

>    - 1 Kbps means I can transfer 1024 random bits per second

> Questions:
>    - How many bps does a 'voice phone connection' require?

Using the sampling theorem (a.k.a. Nyquist's sampling theorem), to
perfectly recover a 4kHz signal requires sampling at 8kHz, or 8000
samples per second.  If those samples are then encoded using 8 bits
per sample (8 bits per sample because that's what AT&T decided to use
when it invented the T1 carrier system back in the '60s), you end up
with 64kb/s.  So a 4kHz audio signal digitized in this manner will
result in a 64kb/s signal which can be recovered errorlessly, subject
only to quantization noise.

However, it is possible to use various kinds of compression and other
types of coding to reduce the required bit rate.  ADPCM (Adaptive
Differential Pulse Code Modulation) will provide voice quality
imperceptably degraded (although high speed modems will experience
perceptable degradation) at 32kb/s.  Various systems used especially
for satellite and undersea systems use supression of quiet systems to
carry voice at an effective bit rate of about 12.8kb/s.  Some
teleconferencing systems will use compression to carry voice at as low
as 8kb/s, to leave 56kb/s available for video on a 64kb/s channel.

So the answer is "it depends".  64kb/s is required to carry 8 bit per
sample digitized voice without sampling error, but lower bit rates can
carry voice with various degrees of degradation.

>    - If the answer is less than 19.2Kbps, how does a telebit work?

Different subject.  A Telebit modem puts digital data on an analog
line.  A digital line is used to carry digitally-encoded analog
signals.  In the first case it's digital on top of analog; in the
second it's analog on top of digital.  (Playing fast and loose with
terminology, but you get the picture.)

As to "how does a Telebit work", I leave that as an exercise to the
reader ;-)


dave

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

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 08:21:56 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Maurice Givens)
Subject: Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection?


If no encoding (other that the normal 8-bit pcm encoding) is used then
64 Kbits/sec are nedd (and used0 for voice connections.  Howevere,
ADPCM and vector quantization (VC) coding are extensively used.  With
ADPCM 32 Kbits/sec are used for voice connections.  This is a means of
doubling the circuit capacity without physically changing the circuit.
VC is used to obtain voice-grade quality at 16 Kbits/sec, 8 Kibts/sec
and 4.8 Kbits/sec.  These methods use stochastic code books in the
coding to reduce the number of bits and are called sub-rate coders.
Work is progressing on reducing further the number of bits needed to
transmit voice-grade signals.  BTW, these methods have proven to be
poor coders for modem-type signals.


<insert usual disclaimer>

Maurice Givens

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Salmon)
Subject: Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael Salmon)
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 07:20:23 GMT


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

 (comments deleted, see earlier comments this issue)

Usually a voice 'phone connection is 300 Hz to 3400 Hz and that gives
rise to the 8000 samples per second that are used in standard pcm.
Each of these samples is 13 bits (if memory serves correctly) but
encoded as 8 bits (7 plus 1 that toggles between control and data in
the US I believe). This gives us the 64Kbps that is usually quoted.
However this is a channel that is not intended to reproduce speach but
rather as an audio connection and it is in fact a bit better than
required.  Some work has been done using linear predictive coding to
transmit speach and there it was found that recognisable speach could
be sent using 16Kbps and that the speaker could be recognised with
24Kbps. Speach is also characterised by long periods of silence,
approximately half the time in fact and this fact can also be
exploited, there have been devices that compress n speach channels
into (n/2-1) channels, the extra being required for control.

As to the Telebit modem, there you are dealing with something
different. Data transfer depends upon the signal to noise ratio of the
link. Again from memory the S/N ratio for commonly available lines is
theoreticaly 9600 bps, modems attempt to improve this using adaptive
equlization and echo cancellation. I believe that it is the telebit
modem that uses many slow modems with narrow bandwidths to acheive its
speed. It in fact switches modems in and out depending on the state of
the line so that its capacity varies with time. Some modems also apply
data compression to their data stream to achieve apparently higher
rates.

Coming back to the original discussion of voice channels we see that
noise is introduced both in the quantitising and compression stages.
Some countries may also mix digital and analog routes giving rise
noise at each conversion and the digital switches themselves can
introduce noise if the incoming and outgoing links aren't
synchronised. All these reasons are why modems are so slow compared to
the 64Kbps or 56Kbps channels that are used to carry the data stream.


Michael Salmon
#include    <standard.disclaimer>
Ericsson Telecom AB    Stockholm

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #337
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26015;
          26 Apr 92 1:57 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08467
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 25 Apr 1992 23:27:41 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07366
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 25 Apr 1992 23:27:27 -0500
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 23:27:27 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #338

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 25 Apr 92 23:27:20 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 338

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Metropolitan Fiber Systems and the Great Chicago Flood (Michael Graven)
    Re: Metropolitan Fiber Systems and the Great Chicago Flood (Corinna Polk)
    Re: Metropolitan Fiber Systems and the Great Chicago Flood (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Interesting Caller-ID Twist: Blocking at the Far End (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Interesting Caller-ID Twist: Blocking at the Far End (Ronald H. Davis)
    Re: New Form of Caller-ID Available (John Rice)
    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Todd Inch)
    Re: Immediate ANI From Your 800 Number (John Higdon)
    Re: Mystic Marketing Quits ANI Billing (Paul Houle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Michael J Graven)
Subject: Re: Metropolitan Fiber Systems and the Great Chicago Flood
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael J Graven)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 16:23:00 GMT


Bill Nickless ([e-mail]) writes:

> Pat, do you know where I can get one of those Cellular One T-shirts
> that say "I Swam The Loop" ?  They were giving them away this morning
> on WGN Radio.

Yesterday I picked up a flyer at the local dime store from a firm
downtown selling t-shirts concerning the "FLOOD '92."

The front says "Dam Chicago," and the back says "April 13, 1992: City
commisioners misinterpret Chicago's growing 'crack' problem."  There's
some graphic of a cracked river basin.

The advertised order number is [phone] (Visa, MC) and under the
legend "You survived the flood, Now buy the t-shirt" the contact
number for dealers and info is [phone].


Michael     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Corinna Polk)
Subject: Re: Metropolitan Fiber Systems and the Great Chicago Flood
Date: 25 Apr 1992 14:20:50 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


According to a story I saw on CNN, it was a communications company
working in the tunnels several months ago who had videotapes of the
"leak" as it was just beginning. They apparently had given the tapes
over to the (im)proper authorities at least six months before the big
leak happened. Didn't catch the name of the comm company, but I do
believe they were running fiber.

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Metropolitan Fiber Systems and the Great Chicago Flood
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 12:52:12 GMT


> The tunnel situaton is unique to Chicago in terms of the numbers of
> them and the miles covered. They are under every downtown street.  PAT]

Well, I suspect that Paris and Rome have more tunnels, but they're
full of dead bodies instead of cables. Insert tasteless joke about
dead homeless people and the Chicago catacombs here ...

Houston has a fairly extensive tunnel system, too. Unfortunately for
Southwestern Bell, it's above the water level (basements haven't
proven too popular in Houston, what with it being built on a swamp and
all).


Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS. [phone]/1032

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Interesting Caller-ID Twist: Blocking at the Far End
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 14:22:43 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Ronald H Davis) writes:

> My understanding is that if the call is long distance, Caller-ID
> information wouldn't appear anyway.

This is currently correct.

> Not that it's not technically feasible using common channel
> signalling over the long distance network, but it seems that the BOCs
> realize a tidy sum of money in commissions by acting as collecting
> agents for the long distance operators.

The first part -- that it's technically feasible -- is correct; the
second, that the reason is because LECs collect for IXCs, is not.  In
addition, it implies something else which is not exactly correct.

First, regarding calling party number (the "caller-ID information").
Calling party number is not delivered on interLATA calls because
Signaling System 7 interconnections between LECs and IXCs are not yet
deployed in depth.  (My friends who know these things tell me that
there are trial connections in place, but they're extremely limited).
No SS7 interconnection means no transport of calling party number.

Second, relating to billing.  Billing consists of two functions,
basically: recording usage information and processing this information
to generate a bill.  Recording means marking in a record somewhere (a
switch, usually; sometimes an attached processor) call related
information -- who called whom, when, for how long, etc.  Processing
means taking all this raw data and turning it into a bill to send to a
customer.  Collecting the money is yet another function, but let's
leave that aside for now.

Interexchange carrier switches have recording capabilities and can do
all the necessary recording to generate the billing data.  To be able
to process the bill, one field of the data must be the billed
customer.  Customers are identified with ten digit billing numbers.
The IXC has this number -- it's what's sent to them via ANI on
originating Feature Group B or D calls.

No further information is needed to do the recording function.  To do
the processing function some additional information is needed -- what
PAT refers to in his note, about associating a name and address with
the billing number and all that -- but note that the delivery to an
IXC of calling party number has nothing to do with the capability of
an IXC to create a billing record, and vice-versa.

Delivery of billing number, via ANI or SS7 charge number parameter,
*is* required to enable the IXC to create a bill, but that's a
different ball game entirely.

Billing is actually far more complex than I've represented it here -
for instance, you also have access usage recording on the part of the
LECs to bill the IXCs for exchange access; thousands of additional
fields for resource usage tracking; and who-knows-what-all-else; I've
simplified it on purpose ...

> [Moderator's Note: You've got some things wrong. One, the calling
> number *is* frequently passed along; the other telcos en route just
> choose to not give it to the end user.

Um, you do too, Pat.  Calling number is very *in*frequently passed
along; *billing* number is very frequently passed along.  While for
residential customers the two are usually the same, they are never
*guaranteed* to be the same.

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

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 16:58:34 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Ronald H Davis)
Subject: Re: Interesting Caller-ID Twist: Blocking at the Far End
Organization: AT&T


> [Moderator's Note: You've got some things wrong. One, the calling
> number *is* frequently passed along; the other telcos en route just

Hmm. .. my mistake, I thought SS7 connectivity was required.

> choose to not give it to the end user. Two, the phone number in and of
> itself is not adequate to send a bill. Send it to who, where?  Under

It's my understanding that there are several "reverse" white pages
servers distributed around the country which are able to take a dn and
determine who owns it and where they are (at least the billing
address).  This is presumably an integral part of the proposed "950"
service in which one would be able to, say, call Domino's Pizza
(heaven forbid!!) on a national dn which would be routed to the
Domino's Pizza nearest to your location (cellular callers would seem
to present a special challenge here).

> the rules, the local telcos must share their data base with long
> distance carriers for billing purposes on request.  No choice in the
> matter either way, whether your phone is listed or non-pub.  PAT]

I'm aware that local telcos routinely give out information to resolve
billing disputes between a customer and the long distance carrier.
But if this info is always available to the long distance carrier (in
particular, at the time that the call is placed), why don't they
maintain their own calling records and bill the customer directly (and
thereby cut out the middleman)?


at&t bell laboratories, naperville il, usa    att!ixstar!ronald


[Moderator's Note: Well, sometimes they do. One problem though that
comes up is let's say they get a call from 123-4567 who they have
never seen before, and handle it.  They ask the local telco 'who is
123-4567' so they can send that person a bill. They keep that
information in their data base for future reference. The person moves
and/or changes their number, and eventually, someone new gets
123-4567. When the new owner of the number makes a call through the
same carrier, the first thing the carrier will do is look in their
data base, find the number, say 'no problem, it is on file' (but with
the *old* owner's name and address), and send him the bill! He
protests of course, the carrier goes back to telco for *current*
information on 123-4567; gets the new owner's name and address; and
charges the new owner of 123-4567 who complains the carrier took three
or four months to bill him for the call! Some carriers feel it is
simply easier to charge the call to the inter-telco holding account
intended absolutely for 123-4567 without reference to the current
subscriber.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: New Form of Caller-ID Available
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 22:35:31 GMT


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

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

>> We are located in Omaha, Nebraska and last week we received a flyer
>> from US West that announces the availability of Caller*ID with the
>> display of both the number and the name of the calling party beginning
>> April 7th.

> [Moderator's Note: But this also gives new ammunition to opponents of
> Caller-ID who might have been sort of lukewarm before. The number only
> is meaningless if it is non-pub. The called party still has no actual
> identity of the caller. With the name provided as well, now he can
> look it up in the book and get the address if the number is listed.  PAT]

Illinois Bell has also announced availability of this service. (Pat
did you notice it in your last bill?) Don't remember the date, but
soon.


John Rice         K9IJ    |  "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
[e-mail]     |   MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially
(708)-940-9000 - (work)   |   Not my Employer's....
(708)-438-7011 - (home)


[Moderator's Note: Sometime early this summer.  But I think our
version of it will only give the name *and* number of the caller if
the number is listed; otherwise it will give the number and the phrase
'non-published'. Of course if *67 is prepended then it will continue
to say 'private' like it does now and nothing more. At least that's
the way I'm hearing it; things may change.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 23:15:58 GMT


Regarding "dumping" unwanted callers on an 800 line, John Higdon
writes:

> If the ANI data matches an entry on the list, the caller hears a
> recording saying that the call "cannot be completed at this time".

Why "cannot be completed . . ."?  Why not a more direct approach, such
as: "We will not accept a call from your number." or somesuch?

IMHO, "Cannot be completed at this time" means try again later, and
since you never want to hear from these callers again and are paying
the toll charges for them to call you this would seem undesireable.


[Moderator's Note: Using your phraseology, you offer the caller a
direct invitation to go to another phone and try the call from there.
This is the same reason when an IBT subscriber adds a number to their
call screening list the intercept message says 'the called party is
not accepting calls at this time ...' rather than a specific reference
to not accepting calls from the offending line in particular.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 22:03 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Immediate ANI From Your 800 Number


[e-mail] (Andy Sherman) writes:

> I seriously doubt that anyone is offering real-time ANI on a
> single-line residential 800 number.  AT&T provides real-time ANI on T1
> connected 800 numbers using ISDN as the delivery protocol.  I don't
> know what Sprint does, but surely somebody reading the Digest must.
> (like Higdon?).

Higdon sez: Real (as opposed to phoney?) time ANI data is only
available on a trunk-side connection to an IEC switch. Your typical
residence/small business 800 number is simply a local telco POTS
(station-side connection) to which an 800 translation has been
pointed.

Now, how does one get a trunk-side connection? By having it delivered
directly from an IEC switch. This can be via microwave, ordinary
metallic circuits (but they are soooo expensive), or by the pound, as
it were, using T1, otherwise known as "HiCap". For not much more than
the price of that ONE metallic circuit, you get twenty-four channels
in a T1. Hence, T1 is the usual method of choice for direct IEC trunk
delivery. Now just TRY to get digital entrance facilities at your
residence. I have been through that wringer, thank you.

So ... who offers what? As Andy points out, AT&T delivers ANI ONLY via
ISDN. This helps that company sell lots of System 85s. Sprint offers
it as inband signaling utilizing MF tones. MCI will supply it any way
you like: MF or DTMF. But only on a trunk-side connection, hence the
need for T1 (or short haul microwave or ?????).

> Why is it that telecommunications and computer professionals say "not
> much besides software" with a straight face?  "Not much besides
> software" can be quite a lot indeed, especially for a long distance
> carrier.

And remember, that IS just a telco POTS delivering the final product
to your home. Think of it as gauze through which none of the features
you want will pass. As Andy points out, ISDN will create a new stadium
in which the ball game is played. But then, as is the case with CLASS,
you may be up against all of those who know better than ourselves what
is best for us. Even with ISDN, they will all still be out there,
scratching their sides with their knuckles (when they are not dragging
them on the ground), will confuse the term 'privacy' with 'anonymity',
and will just say "no" to you getting that information that is useful
to you.


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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 19:09:53 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Mystic Marketing Quits ANI Billing
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
unc.edu (Michael Rosen) writes:

> Well, it's no longer operating at all now.  Nada ... zip.  I tried
> calling it recently and got an intercept recording.  Damn, now I can't
> find out the phone numbers of my area COCOTs ...

    I found out that all of the COCOTs in my area actually have
their real phone numbers on display.  Most of them accept calls too,
even the one that was giving away free calls a month ago (Already
posted to the digest about that).  Yesterday I was looking at the same
phone and I saw a sign on it that said the local operator can be
reached by dialing 0 and talking to the AOS operator and asking her to
put you through to a local operator.

    Of course, I had to try this, and then I heard a rather loud
tone that sounded quite a bit like 2400 or 2600 Hz.  The tone buttons
on the phone locked up and I listened to silence for about twenty
seconds when I heard a synthesized voice say "US West"...  It didn't
pause for a calling card number after this, but connected me directly
to an operator.  Now, I'm rather curious about how this works.  Does
the tone signal the COCOT to hang up and redial the real operator?  Or
does the tone reset the trunk line, which after a certain waiting
period connects you to a real operator?  The line didn't have that
distinctive tandem line sound, so I'm not sure if they are really
using SF/MF signalling or anything of the sort.

    One way or another, it seems like it might be a serious
security threats to the outstanding members of our soceity who own
COCOTS.  Maybe somebody could build a gadget which would block calls
from COCOTS using special tones.  Worse yet, if the tone I heard
really was 2600 Hz, a really evil electronics genius might build a
device to send MF tones down the line and take it over by feeding it a
false ANI dump.  Maybe a sicko receiving an unsolicited collect call
at 3 in the morning from a COCOT might blow the operator and caller
off with a ***gasp*** blue box.  Besides, all those winks coming from
the AOSes must really keep the SST detector at local phone company
security busy.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #338
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29090;
          26 Apr 92 13:45 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07730
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 12:02:11 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05447
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 12:02:03 -0500
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 12:02:03 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #339

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 Apr 92 12:02:05 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 339

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line (Eric Thompson)
    Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line (Brian Troxell)
    Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line (Andrew M. Boardman)
    Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line (Carl Moore)
    Re: Israeli Pay Phones: Pay as You Go (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Israeli Pay Phones: Pay as You Go (Dick Rawson)
    Re: Israeli Pay Phones: Pay as You Go (Josh Backon)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Esa Holmberg)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Chris Johnston)
    Re: Ringback Service in Montreal (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Ringback Service in Montreal (Carl Moore)
    Re: Ringback Service in Montreal (Tom Gray)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 00:56:40 -0700
From: Eric Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility


In article <[e-mail]> Sharon wrote:

> When I opened my April Ohio Bell telephone bill, guess what I found
> waiting for me? Ten unauthorized third party billing charges -- seven
> listed on my local service, three on my long distance portion! (AT&T)
> The extra charges added up to about $30.  Naturally, I called Ohio
> Bell right away to have the charges removed and third party call
> blocking put on my line, and AT&T to have the long distance charges
> removed.  Each of the calls was marked as "third party from Dayton,
> Ohio" and the operators traced the origin to a payphone. But I do know
> which numbers they called, printed plain and clear right on my bill :-)

This happened to me a few months ago, here in SF Bay Area Pac Bell
land.  There was only one number called, and the originating phone was
a payphone.  The destination was a local number, and upon calling it I got
an answering machine of someone whose character sounded like it was
indeed of a questionable nature ...

Pac Bell happily removed the $1.14 charge and attributed it to some
other number (perhaps the destination?).  All I really know is that I
found it sort of annoying at the time, but didn't get into detail with
Pac Bell as to how it could have happened, etc.

I think they are banking on the idea that there are people out there
who don't check their phone bills very closely.  Since I had no other
toll calls on the bill, it was obvious to me ... but my parents, for
example, make hundreds of toll calls and might easily have missed it,
and someone would have had a free call.


Eric

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

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 8:59:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line


In the front of our phone book (NYNEX, page 27 for Portsmouth/Exeter)
it says:

"You may have long distance charges billed to a third telephone number
provided that telephone is not a coin phone.  Dial the call, and when
the Operator comes on the line, say you'd like to charge your call to
a third number.  Then give the Operator that number including the Area
Code.

"When making a third-number call from a public (coin) telephone, the
Operator must verify the charge by calling the third number and
confirming that the charges will be accepted.  if there is no
confirmation, the Operator cannot complete the call unless you make
other billing arrangements: you can pay the coin rate, use your
Calling Card or make the call collect."

The first paragraph says nothing about needing *authorization* from
the third party you choose to bill.  The people that gave your number
didn't even do anything illegal -- they were simply following TPC's kind
suggestion to say they'd like to charge their call to a third number.

TPC only verifies the calls if there's a chance they'll be left
holding the bag.  *Notice*, they don't even verify if it's from a
semi-public (subscribed coin) phone.

If we *really* want to end the practice of third party billing, I
suppose we should charge *all* of our long distance calls per TPC's
guidelines.  Since they have to investigate and rebill all the ones
that end up on unauthorized bills, maybe they'll find it's too
expensive to continue supporting third number billing.


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Brian Troxell)
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line
Date: 23 Apr 92 15:09:10 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta, GA


I have had to call third-party billing many a time over the last few
years due to my lack of a calling card, and my experience has been
that operators just don't call for verification _at all_.

I have only had operators call for verification twice out the tens of
third-party billed calls that I have made. It is terribly easy to find
an operator who doesn't make the effort.

Disclaimer: all of my third-party billed calls were legit, and not
billed to persons unaware of the charges.


Brian Troxell
2000 Powers Fy Rd.  Suite 200
Marietta, Ga 30067  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Please note that sometimes as a courteous gesture,
the operator will extend your call, *then* while you are talking, make
an inquiry from the billed number, and say nothing to you about it
unless the billed number rejects your charges. So it may be more of
your calls were verified than you realize, being checked in the
background.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 17:06:07 EDT
From: andrew m. boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line


Interested parties might note that the current NY Telephone automated
implementation of third-party billing does *not* do a verify if the
source of the call is anything other than a coin line, the idea being,
I suppose, that if it's a fraudulent call, it can be charged back to
the originating line ...


andrew

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

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 10:03:49 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line


A long time ago, I had one unauthorized third-party charge on my phone
bill.  It was from a Newark (Delaware) pay phone (I figured this out
because it was 302-366-9xxx) to Detroit, Michigan.  I did not receive
any request for authorization of this charge, and I had the charge
removed.

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

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 13:34:58 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Israeli Pay Phones: Pay as You Go


> That's why I tell my family and friends to hold on to their old
> phones.  You can't buy phones with metal bases any more.  One brand of
> phone manufacturer even puts a large lead weight in their phones to
> give the the required "heft" while still using molded plastic cases.
> Yeesh!

ITT/Cortelco and Comdial both still make 2500 sets with steel bases.
They may be a little lighter now, but plastic just doesn't weigh as
much as bakelite, and DTMF dialers are much lighter than the old
rotary dialers.  Both companies manufacture their phones in the US,
ITT is in Corinth, Mississippi, and Comdial is in Virginia.  These
phones are available from Greybar, North Supply, etc. for about $30.


Pat Turner    KB4GRZ    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dick Rawson)
Subject: Re: Israeli Pay Phones: Pay as You Go
Date: 24 Apr 92 19:34:41 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)


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

> You can't buy phones with metal bases any more.  One brand of
> phone manufacturer even puts a large lead weight in their phones to
> give the the required "heft" while still using molded plastic cases.

Reminds me of the National Park garbage cans with an 8-inch length of
railroad rail fastened inside the lid ... to give enough "heft" to
resist the wind in Death Valley.


Dick

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Israeli Pay Phones: Pay as You Go
Date: 26 Apr 92 09:18:42 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem


Public pay phones in Israel just made it to the 21st century. The
Israeli PTT (Bezek) is setting up thousands of pay phones that use
magnetic cards that come in different denominations (20, 50 and 100
message units).

Israeli pay phones *were* quite primitive in that until recently the
majority required the use of phone tokens that had to be purchased at
post offices. The biggest joke is that about 16 (??) years ago, then
Israeli Minister of Communications Shimon Peres was on an official
visit to England where he was shown a new magnetic card pay phone.
After showing his surprise and enthusiasm, he asked who manufactured
the card and was told "by an Israeli kibbutz" !


Josh Backon   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Esa Holmberg)
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Organization: University of Turku, Finland
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 23:39:55 +0300


[e-mail] (Charlie Mingo) writes:

> faxmodems (v.29) run at 9600 (half-duplex), and the proposed Group IV
> faxmodems (v.17) will run at 14400.  Realistically, a 14400 modem will

Group III faxes use 9600 bps, but at least the two Group IV faxes we
have at work, can both use up to 64 kbps. One of them is ISDN-only,
the other can also be used on Diginet & X.25 ... that makes
approximatly two or three seconds per one A4-page.


Esa Holmberg   OH1LTM     Internet: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Packet: [e-mail]   Elisa: Holmberg Esa TTL
fax: [phone]  --------- Diana-fax: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 92 11:16:06 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter da
Silva) writes:

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

>> I think this could be a service sold by a email-system. (To receive
>> email and send it as a FAX to given telephone number.)

> I believe both AT&T Mail and MCI Mail have services like this.

> The problem is that neither AT&T Mail nor MCI Mail are as convenient
> as just FAXing. We need a commercial email system for MS-DOS that's as
> easy and convenient as UUCP Mail is on UNIX.

   Peter, you must have missed the huge AT&T Mail Access Plus ad
campaign.  :-) This is a DOS-based collection of software that that
supports:

 -off-line E-mail preparation, revision and management of DOS-
  resident folders/files,
 -back-ground receive/send capability,
 -a terminal emulator for use with AT&T Mail and/or UNIX(rg) PMX/PC,
 -a personal directory (phone #s, addresses, IDs, notes, etc.),
 -utilities for message formatting and construction of messages
  with 'binary' or other attached file types,
 -text/binary file transfer without a message, {like plain UUCP}
 -text 'form' creation, distribution and 'form fill-out' tools,
 -mail service through a combination of:
    AT&T Mail Service (a commercial email system supporting FAX and
          paper delivery-[same day/overnite/USMail], an X.400 Gateway
          interface, IBM PROFS & 3780 interfaces, local & international
          X.25 packet interfaces, remote printer access and PostScript/
          DITROFF document support, a text-to-voice interface via any
          touch-tone telephone, US/international Telex delivery, etc.),
    STARMail - a PC, etc. LAN mail service,
    AT&T Mail PMX/PC (Private Message Exchange, a UNIX-based mail server)
         available for 3B and AT&T 386 WGS UNIX systems -- others may be
         available)

   Capabilities similar to the DOS-based Access Plus software are
available to Apple Macintosh users with 'AT&T Mail Access III'.  I
won't list any mail/email/telephone contacts, to reduce the
"commercial" nature of this posting ...

   Virtually all secretaries here run the Access Plus software with
the Background send/receive option on.  They get notified via a TSR
when mail arrives, regardless of the active application (well,
almost).  Sending mail is as easy as moving a document into the OUT
folder.  Sending word-processor documents is just as easy.  The
secretaries all interface to an AT&T 3B UNIX system via ISDN, and they
have only positive things to say about it (compared to previous
support systems).

> Of course, all my computers except for one ancient Mac run operating
> systems that let them reliably run stuff (like printing) in the
> background no matter what applications I'm using. I'm sure that if I
> was running DOS or Windows or System 7 I'd have to break down and buy
> a standalone FAX.

   The developing Amiga FAX support might save you from this, Peter.
Unfortunately, AT&T Mail Access Plus is not available for Amigas or
3B1/UNIX-PCs.  FORTUNATELY, they have real UUCP.

   You all know that Macintosh is an Apple-licensed trademark, that
MS-DOS is rg-tm of Microsoft, that IBM is rg-tm of International
Business Machines (and that PROFS is one of it's trademarks), that
PostScript is a rg-tm of Adobe Systems, that UNIX is rg-tm of USL,
that Amiga is a rg-tm of Commodore-Amiga, which is in turn a rg-tm of
Commodore Electronics Ltd., and that AT&T is a trademark of AT&T.


Al Varney - above is my opinion, and that of one anonymous secretary,
            and certainly not that of AT&T.

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Johnston)
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 21:11:25 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Toby Nixon)
writes:

> And installing the fax machine was as simple as buying it, setting it
> on the table, and plugging it into the power and phone jacks.

I invite Mr. Nixon to try to program my fax machine with the time of
day, my company name, and my company phone number.

Anybody notice that the timestamp on most faxes is off by an hour?

cj


[Moderator's Note: Daylight time just started three weeks ago ...
folks will get around to correcting the time on their fax machine
sometime this summer ... if not, then at the end of October it will be
right back on the correct time again!  :) PAT]

------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 92 22:11:08 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringback Service in Montreal


Rick Broadhead <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> The funny thing is that we also have Caller*ID in Montreal and
>> when you use the ringback, you'll get 012-345-6789 displayed on your
>> Caller*ID device!

> Same thing here in Toronto!  I'm on exchange (416) 487.  Could someone
> explain this?

What you call the ringback number is actually used to test several
things, including DTMF, coin lines, grounded tip or ring, etc.

It seems very reasonable that a Call Display test has been added to
the repertoire.


Tony H.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 9:27:57 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringback Service in Montreal


The original message referred to use of 57x in area 514 for ringback.
But I find that 514-575 is St-Regis, Quebec.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Gray)
Subject: Re: Ringback Service in Montreal
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 12:48:28 -0400
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Christian Doucet) writes:

[about finding a ring back number in Montreal]

> The ringback number is based on the phone number that you are using.
> The first two digits are always 57X-XXXX and the last five are taken
> from your OWN phone number thus 731-1234 would become 571-1234.

> The funny thing is that we also have Caller*ID in Montreal and
> when you use the ringback, you'll get 012-345-6789 displayed on your
> Caller*ID device!

The 57X-XXXX number is a loop test number. It is used to trigger a
series of loop tests directly from the set. One dials it and uses
flashes to be taken through a series of tests (resistance to ground,
balance etc). The results are returned as tones. At the end of the
sequence, the tester will hang up and the set will be rung.

Presumably the test has been extended to include the Caller-ID unit.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #339
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04987;
          26 Apr 92 14:43 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09340
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 13:01:24 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07689
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 13:01:17 -0500
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 13:01:17 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #340

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 Apr 92 13:01:13 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 340

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: White House Telecomms (Bob Sherman)
    Re: White House Telecomms (James M. Simpson)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (James Hartman)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Jim Harkins)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Kevin L. McBride)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Michael L. Cole)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (A. Lyons)
    *69 Nails a Harrassing Caller (was Hang-up Pirates) (David Niebuhr)
    Re: New Applications of Voice Recognition Technologies (David G. Lewis)
    Re: New Applications of Voice Recognition Technologies (Steve Forrette)
    Re: New Applications of Voice Recognition Technologies (Dave Levenson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bob Sherman)
Subject: Re: White House Telecomms
Date: 25 Apr 1992 05:09:21 -0400


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kauto Huopio)
writes:

> I guess this subject has been handled here many times, but anyway:

> Can anyone tell c.d.t about the White House telecomms system, like are
> there any direct lines to the Oval Office, are all calls traced (or
> just Caller-ID'd) etc ...

Yes, there are direct lines to the Oval office, they are the same type
of centrex lines as in the rest of the White House, and all have the
same prefix ...

No, all calls are not traced, nor are all calles caller ID'd (at least not
at this time) ...

There are also what are often called "signal" phone lines going into
the Oval office. These are provided by the signal corps, and while I
don't care to go into details on the signal lines, surfice it to say
that you can't escape from those things. They are in the White House,
the homes of top support people from the White House, in their hotel
rooms when traveling, and I have even known them to be installed by
the pool bars of hotels during vacation stays if that is where many of
the staff folks were hanging around. In addition they are connected
to beepers.

When the President wants to reach someone on staff, they do not have
to dial one's commercial number, they just ring the direct signal line
to the home, plane or where-ever, no answer you say??? Then the beeper
goes off, and the person grabs the nearest signal phone or quickly
calls the switchboard from where-ever they are.

When the President goes on a trip, signal lines are installed at all
points where-ever they are going to be. These are direct lines, not
dial outs. They also install their own switchboards in the cities he
will visit.

One time when trying to reach someone at the White House, I called the
switchboard number, identified myself, and asked for my party (who I
thought would be in his office). About 15 seconds later there he was,
while we were talking he asked me to stand by for a moment, and I
heard him talking to someone else, I asked him "where are you" and he
responded "I'm in Air Force One, and we are shooting touch and go's in
Texas, getting ready for the Presidential trip next week..  The other
person I heard him talking to was the tower on the radio and that was
what prompted me to ask where he was.


[e-mail]   MCI MAIL: BSHERMAN

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

From: [e-mail] (James M. Simpson)
Subject: Re: White House Telecomms
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 15:15:22 GMT


I don't know about the Oval Office, but you can pick up your phone at
home and dial Dan Quayle's office, if you know the number. At least
that's what a local newspaper here claimed. There was a story about
some PR type at a college who wanted DQ to speak at some function. So
she called her local congresscreature and asked for Quayle's office
number. By mistake, she was given his private number. She was quite
shocked when she dialed it and a voice answered "Dan Quayle."
Apparently the Veep was a little surprised, too. (I know, I know, why
would anybody want to talk to him anyway?) No, the paper did not
publish the number."


[Moderator's Note: Now and again it happens the switchboard screws up
and gives out Bush's centrex number also ... not often though. And in
the past, underground-type newspapers have reprinted pages from the
White House/Executive Office Building internal phone directory (where
Bush and Quail are listed). The White House is a public place; people
take tours there all the time and pick up things such as phone
directories left laying around. If Bush's office or residence quarters
numbers get published somehwere, the numbers get changed.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 18:18:35 -0400
From: krfiny![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates


> How many out there have problems with callers hanging up the moment
> you answer the phone and say "hello"? Any ideas on what most cases of
> the hang-up artist are? Autodialers looking for modem carrier?
> Obscene callers not getting the right kind of voice?

> That's the sort of stuff that promotes CNID and Call Return and the
> other fine CCS7-based services.

Oy, here we go again!  Pat -- we've got to get you some artificial
intelligence auto screener and reply maker because this is becoming a
FAQ.

I offer a few explanations for this behavior:

    1) lack of manners/courtesy on the caller's part when not
hearing the voice expected;

    2) lack of ability on the caller's part to reply in English.
Perhaps they spoke only Chinese.  Even then, it would be polite to say
"sorry" in their native language before hanging up.

    3) the caller misdialed and hung up as soon as possible, but
the switches are so darned fast these days, your phone may have
started to ring as the connection was being torn down.  Many times, I
have dialed a number and felt "that didn't feel right, did I just dial
a 2 or a 5?"  and rather than risk a wrong number, I hang up as fast
as possible and redial.  This is particularly true since the number
arrangement of the touch tone phone is opposite that of the calculator
and computer keyboards.


Jeffrey Jonas   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
From: unkaphaed![e-mail] (James Hartman, Sysop)
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 18:19:03 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy


Back in the dorms, when I started getting annoying calls, I'd just put
my computer on and switch the modem to auto answer.  People would
figure it out after five or six tries ...  :-)


[e-mail] (James Hartman, Sysop)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, [phone]
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis


[Moderator's Note: Back in the days when I ran a couple BBS lines
(1980 to 1985) I had a lady call my modem number four or five times --
from a payphone, yet -- losing her 25 cents each time. She finally
called up repair service and turned me in for having an out of order
line. I'll never forget the repair supervisor calling me on my other
number: 'Pat, you have a modem on your other line don't you? ..' I
told him I did, and he told me about this lady not only calling to
report me out of order -- but making a follow-up call the next day to
'see if they fixed the problem yet ...' And she even asked how to go
about getting her money back that she lost on the calls.   :)   PAT]

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

From: pacdata![e-mail] (Jim Harkins)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: Pacific Data Products
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 01:01:06 GMT


About ten years ago I was getting three or four hangups per night
after moving into a new apartment complex.  After about two weeks of
this I was cleaning my gun in the living room when I noticed my drapes
were wide open.  I closed them and finished up. A few days later I
realized the hangups had stopped.  To this day I don't know if the two
incidents are related; I would certainly hope not.


Jim Harkins             [ucsd|uunet]!pacdata!jim
Pacific Data Products   pacdata![e-mail]


Moderator's Note: I hope so too. There are sick people in the world
who peep through the windows at you then make scary calls to uh,
'follow up' on whatever is on their deseased mind.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin L. McBride)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: GhostBuster Central - Southern NH Usenet Access, Nashua, NH
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 22:27:40 GMT


I have quite the opposite problem.  Rather than Hang-up Pirates, I
seem to have a hang-on pirate.

This person/persons/paranoid schizophrenic computer/who knows what
began dialing a modem line on my system about two weeks ago.  There
seems to be no intent to crack into my system because I have not been
getting any login failed audit messages.  The remote machine simply
dials in, connects at 2400 baud (to my T2500), hangs on the line as
long as possible, and re-dials a few minutes later.  Last night/this
morning my T2500 was tied up for 17 hours by this twit.  This created
a rather significant log-jam of news.  (I feed seven other sites.)

We don't have Caller-ID here and *69 doesn't work.  Is there anything
I can do to find out who or what is calling me and make them stop?

FYI, I'm located in Nashua, NH and my local phone company is New England
Telephone (NYNEX).

Thanks for your help.


Kevin L. McBride  President    MSCG, Inc.  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: When a call comes in, try going on manually at 2400
baud and giving a few c/r's, type out a line or two asking for an
answer, etc.  Also give a control-E (who are you?)  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael L. Cole)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: SCS-DataComm
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 15:07:30 GMT


Why is there such a paranoia/hysteria about a ringing telephone?  I
always thought that the best way to defeat someone persistant was to
add a subtle change to the daily pattern, such as change your phone
number, or drop your service for a couple of weeks.  It's a slight
inconvenience to you and your acquaintances, but a major pain to
someone thinks they have you.

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 00:33:30 PDT
From: [e-mail] (A Lyons)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates


How do you get the *69 callback feature?  Is it available in Los
Angeles?  This sounds like a good idea.  I have had a number of hangup
calls in the past and it would be nice to call them back just to find
out who they are.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Ask the business office if 'automatic call-back',
and other CLASS (enhanced custom calling) features are available in
your area. If so, get them; if not, so sorry!    PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 12:08:52 -0400
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: *69 Nails a Harrassing Caller


Thanks to a note by PAT in an earlier post that some of the CLID
features might be available but not advertised before the starting
date of CLASS, I found that *57 and *69 work in the 516-281 exchange.

Last night, I was afforded the opportunity to put *69 into play on an
anonymous phone call.  When I did the *69 deal, I got the culprit who
denied calling us (of course).  I then asked to speak to her mother
and told her that I considered that call to be harrassing and that I
am already in touch with the telco about having a tap placed on my
line due to other problems.

She (the mother) immediately stated that she would speak to the little
brat (my words).

On a related note: I tried *67 and one other (escapes me at the
moment) and get the message "RA1 Channel 3 or vice-versa).  *60 gets a
fast busy.

Again thanks for letting me have the upper hand with a caller.


Dave

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: New Applications of Voice Recognition Technologies
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 17:19:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Jack Decker <Jack@myamiga.
mixcom.com> writes:

> In RISKS-FORUM Digest  Wednesday 15 April 1992  Volume 13 : Issue 40
> the following article appeared:

[Regarding using calling number delivery to "locate" a person
(nominally a convicted criminal), and using Call Forwarding to defeat
this process ...]

> Basically, when you forward a call, it's as though there
> were two calls placed, one from the originating phone to the called
> phone, and one from the called phone to the number the call is
> forwarded to ... Then he [the person being tracked]
> calls his home number again, the call is forwarded, and the Caller-ID
> captures the number that the call was forwarded from, rather then the
> location that Mr. Dealer is really at.

No, it doesn't.  On interactions of calling number delivery with call
forwarding, the number which is delivered is the original calling
party number, not the forwarding number.  Furthermore, it's only
delivered if there is SS7 connectivity between the calling office and
the forwarding office.  Otherwise, it'll show up as 'out of area',
which would be kind of a giveway.

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 14:30:32 pdt
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Applications of Voice Recognition Technologies
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

[ article about house-arrest prisoner verification done by Caller ID and
caller-specific voice recognition deleted ]

> I can tell you one very simple way to defeat this system: Call
> Forwarding.

> Now let's say that your friendly neighborhood drug dealer is under
> house arrest using this system, and he's required to call in every
> four hours.  No problem.  He hires a neighborhood kid to sit by his
> phone, and at the appropriate time, he calls home and has the kid set
> up call forwarding to the automated system at the parole office (a
> computerized system could also be set up to do this, but I'm
> deliberately keeping this scenario as low-tech as possible).  Then he
> calls his home number again, the call is forwarded, and the Caller-ID
> captures the number that the call was forwarded from, rather then the
> location that Mr. Dealer is really at.  He could be anyplace in the
> world that has reliable telephone connections back to the United
> States, using this system!  For that matter, he could be on a cellular
> phone walking down the street or tooling down the highway!  Some
> arrest, eh?

But this is not really true.  It is my understanding that the Caller
ID information is passed with the call over call forwarding, so that
the person with a Caller ID display gets the number of the line
actually calling, not the line that was the last hop in call
forwarding.  One of the big reasons this has to be done is for Centrex
users who have their calls no-answer and busy transferred to their
secretary.  It would be quite useless if the secretary always got the
number of the line that forwarded the call, no?  So, it is the number
of the actual originating number that gets displayed.  With SS7, this
is not difficult to do.

I guess this is another example of how ANI differs from Caller ID.
When we get to the point where IXCs have SS7 connections with the LECs
and have regulatory approval for inter-LATA Caller ID, a number that
forwards a call to an inter-LATA location will pass its own number as
the ANI, and the original caller's number as the Caller ID number.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: New Applications of Voice Recognition Technologies
Date: 25 Apr 92 02:59:42 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jack Decker) writes:

regarding an article which appeared elsewhere

> One of our local NPR (WBUR) stations had, in its morning news
> report, a story about a company that was developing a new twist in the
> application of voice recognition technologies. [I don't include the
> name of the company as I wasn't taking notes, and wouldn't want to
> needlessly slur the wrong company, or even the right one by my errors
> of recollection.]

The local NPR station is hopelessly out of date.  This is not new.
Voice recognition has been used for speaker verification, and
specifically for parolee identification, for at least five years.

> This system seems so easy to defeat that I feel I must be missing
> something.

> Recognize the right words from the list of the ones you've prerecorded,
> and synthesize a response based on replaying the challenge sentence,
> inserting your prerecorded words as necessary.

This is not a trivial problem.  The challenge sentence is not in a
voice your recognizer has heard before, or even always in the same
voice.

> I can tell you one very simple way to defeat this system: Call
> Forwarding.  Basically, when you forward a call, it's as though there

As implemented by New Jersey Bell, Caller*ID on forwarded calls does
not show the forwarding number, but the originating number.  The
Caller*ID is forwarded along with the call.


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA        Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #340
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10462;
          26 Apr 92 15:41 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07464
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 13:57:35 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06237
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 13:57:27 -0500
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 13:57:27 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #341

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 Apr 92 13:57:15 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 341

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    ISDN Problem in Switzerland (Santo Wiryaman)
    Re: ISDN on DMS-100 (was ISDN in Houston, Texas) (Henry Troup)
    Re: ISDN Standards Wanted (Bob Makowski)
    Re: ISDN at Residence? (Alexis Rosen)
    Re: Fax "Ring Director Wanted" (Paul Cook)
    Re: Fax/Modem/Voice Switch From Damark? (Brent Chapman)
    Re: CCITT Standards on Internet (Bob Makowski)
    Re: Does Cellular Antenna Choice Affect Battery Life? (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? (John Gilbert)
    Phone Line Surge Suppressors ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Santo Wiryaman)
Subject: ISDN Problem in Switzerland
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 17:50:50 GMT


Recently we encountered a problem in the Switzerland ISDN network.
Our video conferencing equipment was connected to the network via an
X.21 (BRI) TA. Dialing/receiving calls to/from within Switzerland
always works fine.

When receiving an international call, however, the call always comes
up momentarily and is immediately dropped. Further investigation
revealed that when making/receiving such calls, the B channels were
put in loop-back for the first (approx) 400ms of the call. It just so
happened that this time is plenty long for the DTE to complete a call-
setup sequence (with itself). When the loop-back is removed, the DTE
starts seeing the far-end DTE and thus initiates a call-drop sequence.

The Swiss PTT, after doing some extensive testing, has found that the
loop-back occurs "at the entrance to the International Gateway", which
they have no way of eliminating, at least for now.

My question is this. Is looping back B channels during call-setup a
standard practice in ISDN networks? In Europe or else where? If so,
is there a spec on what the maximum time is so that DTE manufacturers
can design around this?


Santo Wiryaman   Internet: [e-mail]
USMAIL: PictureTel Corp.     | Disclaimer: Opinion expressed here is not
        222 Rosewood Drive   |             necessarily that of PictureTel.
        Danvers,MA 01923-1393  Phone : [phone]

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

Date: 25 Apr 92 10:45:00 EDT
From: Henry (H.W.) Troup <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN on DMS-100 (was ISDN in Houston, Texas)


This is not an official statement from Northern Telecom!

There's a lot of new hardware other than line cards from POTS to ISDN.
The D-channel handler, the DPN X.25 switch for packet data, and the
exchange termination would all be required.

The NTP 297-2401-100 lists the necessary hardware.  You could call
1-800-NORTHERN (1-800-667-8437) and see if they'll tell you anything.

Disclaimer: NT owns BNR.  I don't work on this stuff.  I'm not claiming
any special knowledge nor releasing internal information.


Henry Troup - [e-mail] (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Makowski)
Subject: Re: ISDN Standards Wanted
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 19:01:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(BOB VOGEL) writes:

> I would like to obtain a copy, preferably electronic, of the current
> (or most current working draft) of the ISDN standard and BISDN draft
> stand ard of the CCITT.  Do you have it or can you advise me of where
> it is available?  My apologizes for not including this with my last
> message.  Thank you for your help.

I posted an article on comp.dcom.fax and comp.dcom.modems this week,
citing uunet's repository. As to specific standards numbers, there are
so many ....

P.S. I would have replied via e-mail, but you didn't offer a good
address, bud!

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

From: [e-mail] (Alexis Rosen)
Subject: Re: ISDN at Residence?
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 12:51:59 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


[e-mail] (Mitchell Kapor) writes:

> A residential ISDN tariff for Washington D.C. is expected to be filed
> by Bell Atlantic within the next few months.  I don't know whether the
> N.Y.  tariff is out of limbo.  It was suspended pending the outcome of
> the Massachusetts rate case.  With Massachusetts now offering ISDN,
> perhaps NYNEX will refile in N.Y. if they haven't already.

I wouldn't count on it, though it would be nice. Getting NYTel or
NYNEX to talk about ISDN is harder than pulling hen's teeth (if I may
mix a metaphor or two). Those SOBs are interested only in dragging
their feet for as long as they can.

I've called the NYT ISDN product manager half a dozen times. All I
ever get is voicemail. He never returns my calls.

Guys like you may eventually help us get widspread residential ISDN.
The problem is that there's only one Mitch Kapor and thousands of
faceless Telco drones ... guys like me, stuck square in the middle,
have the bucks to buy and use a reasonable service, but not enough to
push the phone company.

At least those @%^$^%& have finally decided to replace the switch our
lines are on with a new one. After a year of bad lines, hundreds of
calls (yes, hundreds, plenty of our users called too!), and dozens of
wasted hours, they finally admitted that everyone on the switch was
having the same problem. Of course if I hadn't happened to ask the
right tech the right question at the right time, I'd never have found
out how the phone co was screwing us (and everyone else).

NYTel almost makes me love the IRS.


Alexis Rosen
Owner/Sysadmin, PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC.
[e-mail]    {cmcl2,apple}!panix!alexis


[Moderator's Note: This reminds me of how in 1986 I tried to sign up
for AT&T Mail ... getting anyone -- anyone at all -- to return the
call, answer questions, sign up users, etc was impossible. I wonder if
they ever have gotten their 800 number listed with directory yet? For
many years, most of AT&T had no idea how to even reach Mail.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 19:27 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fax "Ring Director Wanted"


"Chris Kent Kantarjiev" <[e-mail]> writes:

> I know that there are boxes on the market that will answer the
> phone, listen for a fax attention tone, and either direct the call
> to the fax machine or simulate a ring to other attached equipment.
> That's fine for a dedicated line; my mom has the fax machine on the
> single line that runs into her home.

> Is there a box that will "do the right thing" for this situation?

Actually, the intended purpose for these boxes is NOT for a "dedicated
line."  Otherwise, if the line is dedicated to the fax, why have the box?

These fax switch boxes are made just for this application.

But most of them are flakey, because they answer the call and try to
route it based upon what they hear from the other end.

If they hear fax CNG tones, they route it to the fax machine.  But
many fax machines do not send these ... plus if the caller is manually
dialing, he is waiting for YOUR fax machine tones.

The best solution?

If you must share the line, find out if your telco offers distinctive
ringing ... where two or more phone numbers are assigned to the same
line, each with its own distinctive ringing cadence.  Then a fax
switch set up for distinctive ringing can switch the call BEFORE it is
answered, based on the ringing pattern.

Up to four different numbers can be asssigned to one line.  So you can
have one number for fax, one for modem, one for residential calls, and
one for business calls ... all ringing to appropriate devices.

One product is the AUTOLINE-PLUS from ITS Communications in Endicott,
NY (800-333-0802, or 607-754-6310).

Or check the Hello Direct catalog for their product.  They are at
1-800-HI-HELLO or 408-972-1990.

The distinctive ringing is marketed under various names, such as
RingMaster, IdentiRing, etc.  It is often marketed as a solution where
you have a teenager at home who gets lots of calls, and you want him
to pick up all of his calls.

Oh, and don't even THINK about ordering the Call-Waiting feature for
this line!

> It so happens that the jack I installed is just downstream of a
> linegrabbing device for her alarm system, so I could conceive of
> inserting a directing device here that would drive all the
> extensions in the house, if there's a box that is willing to drive
> four or five phones.

Be careful here.  The AutoLine Plus passes through the telco ringing
voltage, but some fax switches do not.  Be careful to check the ringer
equivalence that the fax switch will drive.  A standard telco line
will drive a ringer load of 5.0.  Some cheap fax switches that
generate their own internal ringing may only drive 1 to 2 ringer
equivalence, and the line voltage that they supply to the phones may
not be 48 VDC.  In those cases, I sometimes get calls from folks
wanting to buy our 46222 Long Loop Adaptor to boost the DC voltage and
ringing to normal line levels.  They are usually unhappy when they
discover that they have to pay twice as much for the 46222 as they
paid for the fax switch, just to get the fax switch to adequately
power the four or five phones they have on the line.


Paul Cook                         206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates         MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.            fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brent Chapman)
Subject: Re: Fax/Modem/Voice Switch From Damark?
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 19:01:28 GMT


[e-mail] (Dean Carpenter) writes:

> In the latest (April 20) issue of {Infoworld} is a Damark ad that is
> offering an ESS fax/phone switch for $69.99 down from $179.99.  The ad
> claims that it will distinguish between voice and data signals,
> switching automatically between phone, fax and modem.

> I'm assuming that it works by picking up the line as soon as it rings
> and listening for a couple/few seconds.  If it doesn't hear a data
> signal it then passes through to the phone which would then ring
> normally.  I guess.

Not exactly ... the problem is, a calling modem is silent until it
hears the answer tones from the other end, so the answering system has
no way to tell if the incoming call is from a modem.

FAX machines get around this by having the calling fax generate a
certain "beep" every couple of seconds.  The answering switch can
simply listen for the beep; if it hears it, it routes the call to the
FAX machine, otherwise it routes the call to the voice or modem port.

Now, at this point, you still have the problem of distinguishing
between voice and modem calls.  The common technique is to make the
switch sensitive to DTMF (Touch-Tone) as well as the modem beep (which
is well-defined, but is unfortunately NOT a DTMF tone, and thus can't
be generated without extra equipment).  When the switch hears a
certain DTMF sequence (commonly 99), it switches to the modem;
otherwise, after a timeout, it switches to the voice line.  To get to
the modem behind one of these switches at 555-1212, you would issue
the dial command "ATDT5551212,,99".

Some switches also recognize a different DTMF sequence (commonly 4) to
switch to the FAX, so that callers using old FAX machines that don't
generate the "beep" on calling can still access your FAX.  Some also
recognize yet another DTMF sequence (commonly 0) to bypass the timeout
and go directly to the voice line.

Most of the switches I've seen continue to fake a ring sound to the
caller after they answer the incoming call, while they're waiting for
either the FAX tone, the modem DTMF, or the timeout to roll over to
voice.  When calling these switches, you hear a normal ring, then a
click as the call is answered by the switch, then a different ring
generated by the switch while it awaits your command.

I use one of these switches (I can't recall the manufacturor at the
moment, though) regularly at a certain site, and it works quite well.


Brent

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Makowski)
Subject: Re: CCITT Standards on Internet
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 23:36:26 GMT


I recently saw an article which prompted me to look on UUNET. I found
copious examples of CCITT standards on line there. (The asc or ascii
versions are not for the faint of heart, BTW.) 1992 sub-directories
host t30, v17, v32bis, v42bis in all supported formats. (Use the
leading letter to find the correct subdirectory under 1992.) There
were some 1992/spool/g[1-4].doc files, but I haven't unpacked them to
see if these mean g3 and g4. The root CCITT directory has a blue book
list, but it's referencial only!  It does not map standards numbers to
standards.human_beings.


Bob

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

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 04:40:19 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does Cellular Antenna Choice Affect Battery Life


> It occurred to me as I've been thinking, that the antenna choice could
> affect battery life.  Consider: using a stub antenna, I'll put out a
> weaker signal (less of the signal directed toward the cell site.)
> Thus the cell site may be more tempted to tell my handheld to boost
> power to a higher level.

> The high-gain antenna beams more signal in the "right" direction, so
> may cause the cell site to instruct the handheld to reduce power.

> On the other hand, since I rarely hold the handheld vertical, the
> high-gain antenna may be defeating the purpose, since the best signal
> will no longer be parallel to the ground.

Makes a lot of sense, as gain increases beamwidth decreases.
Cellphones are bound by conservation of energy just like anything
else.  As you send more power torwards the cell site, they will reduce
you power, saving batteries.  But, as you point out, with higher gain,
antenna position becomes more important.  The signal is vertically
polarized, not horizontaly however.

Pat's comments my be correct in Chicago, but in rural Alabama, you
need all of the gain you can get, because cell sites are located based
on range, not usage density.  For a long time my apartiment was over
ten miles from the cell site and a 5 dbd antenna was required.  Now
they have added a second cell site near the AU campus that improves
coverage, both in town, and along the interstate.


Pat Turner      KB4GRZ      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John)
Subject: Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection?
Organization: secure_comm
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 02:23:35 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
Paigen) writes:

> This just came up in a meeting.  Someone mentioned that we had a
> 64Kbps line for data from site A to site B, but that 64Kbps also had
> voice running over it.  I said, "No, voice requires 64Kbps, there
> would be no room left for data."  I was told that voice requires only
> 8Kbps per channel.  Furthermore, the theoretical maximum information
> load you could push through a 3000 Hz bandwidth connection is 6Kpbs.

> Assumptions:
>    - a 'voice phone connection' is 3000 Hz to 6000 Hz
>    - 1 Kbps means I can transfer 1024 random bits per second

> Questions:
>    - How many bps does a 'voice phone connection' require?
>    - If the answer is less than 19.2Kbps, how does a telebit work?

It depends.  I once saw a demonstration of a low bit-rate secure voice
system that operated at 300 bps!  The system used "code-book lookup"
and translated words or phonemes into codes that were looked up and
played out at the other end of the data link.  Needless to say, the
voice that came out didn't sound at all like the voice that went in,
but it got most of the message across.  The question you should be
asking is how much computer power do you have to process the speech
and how much distortion can you tolerate?  Voice processing delay also
needs to be considered.

Current digital radio systems use bit rates as low as 4800 bps for
good, but not telephone quality, audio. 9600 and 12K, and 16K are also
popular for digital radio systems. Rates as low as 2400 bps are
commonly used for secure telephone systems.


John Gilbert  KA4JMC
Secure and Advanced Conventional Sys Div
Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, Illinois [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Phone Line Surge Suppressors
Date: 25 Apr 92 18:33:47 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Does anyone knows how to detect pulse signaling in the other side of
the line in a public telephone network?     The pulses are present as an
audio transient, the problem is that the transient varies in shape and
form with the quality and distance of the line. What I am trying to do
is to convert this pulse signalig into a DTMF format for a Voice Mail
system connected to a PBX systems. Our problem in Mexico is that the
Public Telephone Networt's ar using new technologies (digital
switching) but the most of the telephone sets use pulse signaling.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #341
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17564;
          26 Apr 92 16:54 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13358
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 15:05:10 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13524
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 15:04:58 -0500
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 15:04:58 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #342

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 Apr 92 15:05:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 342

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 800 Number Scammery (Dan Danz)
    Re: 800 Number Scammery (Martin Harriss)
    Re: 800 Number Scammery (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Re: 800 Wrong Number to Private Residence (Steve Forrette)
    Re: 800 Wrong Number to Private Residence (Jack Dominey)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (John R. Levine)
    Re: 900 Numbers For Re-sale (Corinna Polk)
    Re: 1-900 Numbers Available (Jamie Hanrahan)
    Re: How Do I Find the Cost to Call a 900 Number? (John C. Fowler)
    Re: 976-Type Exchanges (David Esan)
    Re: Not 1-800-1-RECYCLE, or How Stupid Can They *Really* Be? (L Broadfield)
    Re: Time on Hold...Hold...Hold... (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: German Fees to U.S. 40% Cheaper as of May (John R. Covert)
    Re: Cellular One Security??!! (Roger Clark Swann)
    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Alec Grynspan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dan Danz)
Subject: Re: 800 Number Scammery
Date: 25 Apr 92 02:49:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:

> "Entertain, Kansas"?  What phone prefix was this?  There are some
> strange place names around,...

Near Eureka, KS is the little town of Climax.  Now if that ain't
entertainment ...

dan

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

From: [e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Subject: Re: 800 Number Scammery
Reply-To: bdsgate![e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Organization: Beechwood Data Systems
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 16:12:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:

> "Entertain, Kansas"?  What phone prefix was this?  There are some
> strange place names around, but given the context of this, I would
> assume "Entertainment" instead of a place name.  There was something
> (related or unrelated?) about a number in the Kansas City area several
> issues back?

Why don't they just bill these calls to "Intercourse, PA?" :)


Martin Harriss    uunet!bdsgate!martin


[Moderator's Note: Sigh ... I got several messages like this. We'll
let the ones by Martin Harriss and Dan Danz be representative of the
bunch. I think Moderators should receive hazardous duty pay as part of
their salary ... some of these messages are hazardous to my mental
health if nothing else! :)  But this entire thread gave devious ideas
to other readers, as the next message by Jeff Jonas suggests ... PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 18:17:36 -0400
From: krfiny![e-mail]
Subject: Submitting Bills For Information


In Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 288, Message 12 of 12
the Moderator noted:

> And people in Spain are petitioned in advertisements to call a number
> in New Jersey/USA to speak with a Tarot practitioner.

Dagnabbit -- somebody beat me to it!  I have a Tarot deck and
Caller-ID, so what's to stop me from going into the Tarot business and
charging the caller like a 900 number (other than my sense of honesty
and risking the wrath of the TELECOM Digest readers :-)

That real underlying question is: What must I do to be recognized by
the regional phone company as an "Information Provider" so I can bill
people via their phone bills?

With all these 800 numbers charging like 900 numbers, there must be
some "misunderstanding" or "creative interpretation" of when to accept
billing from information providers.  I'd love to profit from this.
Why should the big companies have all the fun?


Jeffrey Jonas   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I dunno ... why *should* the big companies have all
the fun?  I guess it is because they have all the high priced lawyers
to bail them out of whatever sleazy activity they get into.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 14:00:38 pdt
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Wrong Number to Private Residence
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> I dialed 1 800 257 6086 in an attempt to reach IR Data Systems, a
> computer rental company.  Instead I reached a private residence with a
> number wholly unrelated to the aforementioned 800 number.

Another possibility, in addition to the Moderator's explanation, is
someone with a reprogrammable 800 number (such as the one from Cable &
Wireless) that entered a wrong number.  This happened to me with mine!
I had entered the prefix as one digit off, and some completely unre-
lated residence was getting my calls.  This was further complicated by
the fact that I was out of town, and thus had my regular home number
forwarded to the 800 number!  I finally spoke to someone who complained
that "some strange person was answering your phone!"  I called it
myself, and sure 'nuff, they were right.  This person was reportedly
getting less and less patient with all of these strange calls, about
half of them asking for "Steve," and the other half just hanging up
when getting a strange voice.  Once I was aware of it, I corrected the
problem right away.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Apr 24 13:49:16 EDT 1992
Subject: Re: 800 Wrong Number to Private Residence


Brian Litzinger, writing in issue #334 reported calling an 800 number
and reaching a private residence. Since the party reached claimed they
have no 800 service, the writer concluded that there was a routing
problem. PAT replied that the residence had probably inherited an old
POTS number for which related 800 service had not been disconnected.

That 800 number DOES belong to a residence account!  It's an AT&T 800
number, and there is an account that was established recently.  AT&T
policy is to "age" a disconnected 800 number for a year before
reassignment, so the original writer most likely had an out-of-date
source.  The person who answered may not have known the 800 service
was there, or may have had other reasons for denying it.

Please don't call that number, as it will cost the folks who answer.


Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA
[phone] AT&T Mail: !dominey or !bsga05!jdominey

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

Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 19 Apr 92 23:38:01 EDT (Sun)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> [Well, I just tried 001-610-xxx-xxxx from Austria and it worked.]

For the benefit of readers in Europe, as far as I can tell you can't
dial this number from anywhere in North America.  From here in
Massachusetts, one one of my lines I get a message from my local phone
exchange saying that the call can't be completed.  From the other
line, which is on a different physical exchange in the same office, I
get a reorder tone as soon as I dial 1-610.

Does anyone have any idea where these calls terminate?  We all know
that 1-610 is assigned to Canada, historically for TWX (ASCII telex)
numbers.  Canada has a monopoly carrier for international (other than
U.S.) calls.  Since when have they been in the 900 number business?


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Corinna Polk)
Subject: Re: 900 Numbers For Re-sale
Date: 23 Apr 1992 10:37:40 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris
Calley) writes:

> I ran across an article posted in another newsgroup from someone who
> is attempting to resell 900 numbers.  Actually, he is charging a
> monthly fee based on revenue generated plus a base rate for the use of
> one of these numbers.  Does anyone have information on the legality
> and/or the TELCOs policies of such activity.

Isn't that how 900 numbers generally work? Maybe I'm not understanding
the point you're talking about, but my experience has been that
generally 900 numbers are setup by a company that then re-sells them
to other companies who are actually the information providers for a
split of the profits and a monthly fee.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 1-900 Numbers Available
Date: 25 Apr 92 20:02:41 PDT
Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA


> [Moderator's Note: So how come he doesn't just think up some
> information and put those three lines in service himself if they are
> so profitable?   PAT]

Oh, mostly because he didn't mention the (monthly, ongoing!) cost of
advertising to get people to spend their "900 money" on *your* 900
number.

There are so many 900 and 976 numbers "out there" that I suspect it
could be termed a "glut".


Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
uucp 'g' protocol guru, VMSnet (DECUS uucp) Working Group, and
Chair, VMS Programming and Internals Working Group, U.S. DECUS VAX Systems SIG
Internet:  [e-mail], [e-mail], or [e-mail]
Uucp:  ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 00:15 GMT
From: "John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do I Find the Cost to Call a 900 Number?


In TELECOM Digest V12 #330 I wrote about how Epson published only a
900 number in their manual for customer service without listing the
cost, and that MCI was unable to tell me how much it was.  Pat wrote:

> [Moderator's Note: Why not call Epson at their main corporate office
> and ask *them* how much they charge for the 900 number?   PAT]

I was tempted, but that would have necessitated a trip to the library
to look up another number.  (However, it would have brought the
advantage that I could also find all of MCI's corporate officers'
names and see how many have MCI Mail addresses.  :-) )

But fortunately, at least one MCI employee/TELECOM Digest reader came
to the rescue and looked up the number: $1.98 per minute.  He also
mentioned that all MCI 900 numbers have an 18-second message
announcing the cost before connecting (but you had better be really
sure it's an MCI 900 number before trying that!).


John C. Fowler, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Subject: Re: 976-Type Exchanges
Date: 22 Apr 92 18:40:57 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 330, Message 9 of 13

> I noticed a 915 prefix listed in both 410 and 301 in Maryland.  I
> called the C&P helpline at 800-477-4704, but it calls 915 "unassigned".

The BellCore V&H tape lists both exchanges as being in Baltimore, MD.
The 301 exchange dates from 8/1/88, the 410 from 2/14/92.  Of course,
most of 410 is from around that time. ;-).


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Not 1-800-1-RECYCLE, or How Stupid Can They *Really* Be?
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 23:05:20 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> ... and that is indeed a 1 displayed just before the word "RECYCLE"
> but should be an "I" instead.  I verified it by calling 1-800-I-RECYCL
> just now and serving notice of the incorrect number.  (That translates
> to 1-800-473-2925.)

> [Moderator's Note: Do you think they knew what you were talking about;
> they cared, or that they considered you some kind of crackpot trying
> to harass them, etc?  Let me know if they change the sign.   PAT]

Better yet, one of the more reliably ridiculous local news stations
had a "feature" (isn't "news" supposed to be _news_?) on people being
defrauded by those promising to turn them into models/stars.
Aaanyway, at the end they mentioned several books on the process, and
mentioned that they could be ordered from the Samuel French bookstore,
in L.A.  (a name known to any theater-involved person.)  Then, they
not only read off the 800 number, *twice*, but displayed it in bright,
glowing digits, on a full screen card.  The number?  "800-ACT-NOW"

Surely at least one of the chain of "investigative" reporter, line
producer, feature producer, CG operator, editor, teleprompt typist,
etc. ought to have figured out that phone numbers are generally seven
digits, not six?  Gaaaaaah.  (BTW, the number is really 800-7-ACT-NOW.)

Pat's "crackpot" note above is what prompted me to send this, I won't
even discuss the story of trying to explain this to them ...


Laird P. Broadfield     [e-mail]    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb


[Moderator's Note: Oh, please do discuss it ... that should be a good
article!  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 02:45:50 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Time on Hold...Hold...Hold...


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

>> I propose that after five minutes on hold, hang up.  Once enough
>> boiler room managers get wind of this, things will change.  I am not
>> so pompous as to not expect some reasonable wait in many cases, but my
>> time is more important to me than anyone else's.  I don't feel that
>> sitting in a seemingly-endless telephone hold queue is a good way for
>> me to spend that time.

> There is no way that you could ever get cable TV that way.  Every
> cable system I have ever dealt with seems to have a huge call hold
> time.  I usually feel lucky if I spend less then 15 minutes on hold
> with my current vendor.

And just try that with the IRS!  I've spent a half-an-hour waiting for
somebody with non-beta wetware between the ears (i.e., a working
brain) to connect to on the tax help line.  Same goes for GTE
California's customer disservice numbers.  The 'five minutes and hold'
idea only works for organizations that have to care whether they make
it easy or convenient to do business with them, not for those with
monopoly status or that need to be vicious in the first place.


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 13:37:48 PDT
From: John R. Covert  21-Apr-1992 1638 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: German Fees to U.S. 40% Cheaper as of May


> The length of a message unit (costs DM 0.23 or $ 0.14) then seven seconds
> rather than 4.442 seconds. This comes up to $1.26 per minute (seven days
> a week, 24 hours a day), and is less than dialed calles by AT&T or MCI at
> daytime.

Well, at the current exchange rate of DM 1.64/$ that comes to $1.20,
not $1.26, but it's still not less than the AT&T rate.

The AT&T rate is:    7a-1p 1.77/1.09        U.S. to Germany,
            1p-6p 1.42/0.82        Direct Dialed
            6p-7a 1.15/0.65

The USA Direct rate for calls from Germany to the U.S. is 2.50+1.77
for the first minute, and 1.09 for each additional minute, 24 hours
per day.

So you are correct, it will reduce the amount of usage on USA direct
 -- except by people in hotels, where a message unit is usually AT
LEAST double the 0.23, but the Bundespost was certainly making good
money off of providing the USA Direct 0130 number, and was also
getting more than 0.65/minute for all incoming calls from the U.S.,
something the U.S. FCC was complaining was not justified.


john

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

From: bcsaic!ssc-vax![e-mail] (Roger Clark Swann)
Subject: Re: Cellular One Security??!!
Date: 21 Apr 92 04:17:19 GMT
Reply-To: bcsaic!ssc-vax![e-mail] (Roger Clark Swann)
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


I don't really see a problem with Cell-One voice mail security ... I
just had US West Comm activated on my home phone (free installation
special) and it works about the same. The default security code is
1234, however, the system is programmed to force the user to change
the sercurity code upon the first usage of the system. I think the
instructions said that 1234 cannot be reused.  Also the rep told me
that if I failed the change the security code that the box would be
locked and I would have to call customer service to get it unlocked.

Now the assumption is that Cell-One voice mail is programmed in a
similar way. Larry, please let us know.


    Roger Swann         email:  [e-mail]
         @                fax:  [phone]
The Boeing Company      voice:  206-657-3605

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

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:38:03 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Alec Grynspan)
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer


> What an awesome thought!  Have a pop-up application that you
> activate when you pick up the phone.  A simple keystroke puts the
> caller on your bad-list, and from then on (in conjunction with a call
> diverter), your phone will never ring again for calls from that
> number.

Even better, use Selective Call Forward (Ayup - the feature exists) to
route the call to the home of the owner of the company that's making
the calls.

BTW -- when you call forward, the number passed forward is of the guy
calling you!


Alec Grynspan - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: That's enough of these bad jokes for one issue!  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #342
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20896;
          26 Apr 92 17:39 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07665
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 15:54:17 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12801
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 15:54:09 -0500
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 15:54:09 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #343

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 Apr 92 15:54:11 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 343

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? (Richard A. Hyde)
    Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? (Daniel Roberts)
    Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? (Robert A. Snyder)
    Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? (Jeffrey Wolff)
    America Online Puts On the Chill: A Review (Joe Abernathy)
    CI$ vs AOL (was Is America Connected to Internet) (Brad Hicks)
    News of the Well (Joe Abernathy)
    Commercial Networks Reachable From the Internet (Charlie Mingo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 92 15:32:40 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Richard A Hyde)
Subject: Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not?
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA


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

> On a related issue: there used to be an online service called MACNET,
> later called CONNECT.  They were pretty similar to America Online,
> with Mac and Windows front-ends; unlike AO, they did have an Internet
> connection through DASNET (though I forget how the addressing worked).
> They kept hiking their rates at a time when everybody else was cutting
> rates, so we dropped them.  Are they still in business?

CONNECT is alive and well.  About a year ago they shifted their focus
from individuals (like CompuServe, AOL) to corporate accounts.  Since
then, business has been good.

CONNECT still has an Internet gateway through DASNet.

As far as the orginal thread goes, AOL is testing an Internet gateway
and it should be available real-soon-now.

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 13:38:00 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Daniel Roberts)
Subject: Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not?
Organization: pro-franklin {Franklin Commons} Columbus Ohio


The original Applelink Introduction at Applefest Boston included only
the Apple II interface; the Mac version came later.


Dan     [e-mail]
Sysop of pro-franklin 614-462-7458 at up to 2400 BPS.

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

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 01:03:58 EDT
From: Robert A Snyder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not?


America On-Line is not currently exchanging mail with the Internet, as
far as I know.  However, I do recall an open letter to the populus of
America On-Line stating they were actively persuing a mail link with
the Internet, with details to follow later.

Also, this comes from nic.ddn.mil:

Quantum Computer Services (AOL-DOM)
   8619 Westwood Center Drive
   Suite 200
   Vienna, VA 22182

   Domain Name: AOL.COM

   Record last updated on 03-Apr-91.

Quantum Computer Services are the ones who run America On-Line.  May not prove
that they are setting up a link, but it suggests it.

(aol.com currently is only a mx record pointing to PSI, so only mail is
likely to be exchanged....)


Bob Snyder          [e-mail], or [e-mail]
Computing Services  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if it bounces, try ^^^^^^^^^^^^
GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs  [phone] FX: [phone]

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

Subject: Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not?
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 20:46:16 EDT
From: Jeffrey Wolff <ukelele![e-mail]>


America Online is currently in EARLY "beta" test of their Internet
connection.  Selected members of the network have been told that they
may use the Internet gateway to send mail from AOL as well as receive
it.

The beta test will NOT finish in a week or two .. .it will be several
weeks, if not a month or two before the announcement is made.

However, if you send Internet mail to someone on America Online using
the following format, they SHOULD receive it (they won't know how it
got there and they won't know how to respond to you, but it will
probably get there):

                 [e-mail]

Any screen name on AOL can receive Internet mail whether they are beta
testers or not.

Mail from AOL can go to MCI, Compuserve, Applelink, as well as
Internet addresses.


[Moderator's Note: Do you mean AOL has direct links to MCI, CIS, etc
or do you mean they get there via Internet, as in mcimail.com?  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 14:59:29 CDT
From: chron!etest002![e-mail] (Joe Abernathy)
Subject: America Online Puts On the Chill: A Review


After the recent thread, curiosity got the best of me, so I actually
chased them down and got an account last week. (They're running a
special offering free startup and five free hours online; see the
current Online magazine.)

These folks -- Quantum -- did run the old AppleLink, then AppleLink
Personal Edition after Apple decided to go its own way with the
corporate AppleLink (herewith known as Attitude Edition).

They admittedly were doing some pretty eye-pleasing graphics several
years ahead of anyone else, but curiously, their front-end software
has never been particularly reliable or usable. I signed up for
AppleLink (A.E.) as a certified developer and let it drop because it
flatly refused to run on a non-Apple modem. I signed up for AppleLink
P.E. and dropped it because it flatly refused to run for more than two
weeks at a time before a system freeze that required a new disk
mailing to fix, each time it froze.

Imagine, then, my surprise when the first thing I had to do with the
new America OnlineLink IBM Edition was call tech support to try to get
it to run.

It's based on a standalone implementation of GeoWorks, and it does all
sorts of interesting things like automatically update itself onto your
hard drive every time you log on, and make internal copies of your
setup files and system configuration.  While this lets them redesign
entire segments of the service on the fly, day by day, astute readers
will recall the interesting public relations situation this technique
recently created for Prodigy.

Anyway, I'm running a mouse on com1, joystick on com2, and a modem on
com4, and this Geoworks front end isn't having anything to do with my
modem trying to use com4 and irq3 at the same time. (And to give
credit where it's due, the Quantum techie pointed straight to the
problem.)

Resetting the dip switches on my modem to force it to use IRQ5 enabled
me to get online, and for a few glorious moments it looked as though I
had indeed found the promised land. Eye-pleasing graphics, a nice-size
library (16,000 to 20,000 IBM downloads, which puts it by my count a
good ways ahead of GEnie and a good ways behind CompuServe), and a
well-done online chat area.

Unfortunately, the software had by then had time enough to sense the
historical importance of the machine it was running on, so it froze. A
bit of investigating reveals that there is a configuration file
created by the setup process that appears designed to help one recover
from just such an occurrence (that, or someone at headquarters wanted
to see what sort of evil is committed by my config.sys and autoexec.bat
files), but by then I wanted to be able to use my other telecommunica-
tions softwares and decided to put the dip switches back the way Telix
intended.

During a rather long conversation with a representative, I got the
pertinent details on what's happening with America Online:

They do have some sort of Internet connection, and it will be
generally available Real Soon Now;

They have a Windows version under development that will be available
Real Soon Now;

They have a technology sharing agreement with Apple Computer (maybe I
should try using it with a Personal Modem);

They are adding some 5,000 users a month and losing about 2,000;

And they have membership agreements shipping with most major modem
brands now and intend to give the big boys a run for their money.

I guess they plan to freeze them out of the market :-)


Joe Abernathy       [e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: mc!Brad_Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: Sun Apr 26 10:19:02 -0400 1992
Subject: CI$ vs AOL (was Is America Online Connected to Internet)


In a recent TCD, [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr) asked for a
comparison between CompuServe (henceforth CI$) and America OnLine
(AOL).  As someone who until recently had both, I figure I can shed
some light on this.  Additional disclaimers first, though: the AOL
descriptions and rates may be a year out of date, and are from memory.

As I said in a previous message, both CI$ and AOL are going after some
of the same target markets: home computer users interested in
recreation, and business users as a means of obtaining email support
from software vendors.  Both are available via a local call in most
major cities.  Both have graphical front-ends.  Both over electronic
mail with file transfer or fax, real-time chat, bulletin boards with
threaded messages, file uploads and downloads, on-line shopping, and
at least some information services (news, databases, etc.).

AOL is definitely the cheaper of the two; the rates I remember are $8
per hour prime time and $4 off-prime.  It was the first to offer an
"official" graphical user interface.  It has nice software for
moderated, officiated chat service, what they call "auditoriums".  It
has a few "general interest" bulletin boards which allow you to create
your own sub-boards on any topic imaginable, so while you may have to
go looking for it, there is an incredibly wide variety of topics
available.  And it's a close call, but I got the impression that they
may have more software developers offering online support, if only in
sheer numbers. I think they market aggressively to small software
vendors.  Their email section has the interesting or amusing feature
of letting you use a number of "aliases", so one user might be able to
send (and receive) mail as JSMITH1, JS_CORP, and SMARTGUY.  And their
shareware utility sections MAY be just a trifle more extensive.

CI$ is, on the face of it, definitely more expensive, $12.25 per hour
at all times.  But in addition to offering a graphical front-end for
both IBMs and Macs called CompuServe Information Manager that is
(IMHO) far, far superior to AOL's, they sell a Macintosh off-line
reader called CompuServe Navigator that will do wonders for your
online bill: you tell it what forums to collect messages, topic lists,
and/or file descriptions from and it will logon, collect it all as
fast as it can via Compu$erve's "Host-Micro Interface" (HMI), and then
hang up.  Off-line, with the clock not ticking, you can read the
messages and compose your replies; in bulletin board areas where you
asked only for subject listings and counts, you can also tell it which
additional messages to read.  A PC version of CI$ Navigator is
supposed to be coming "real soon now"; in the meantime, there are
shareware utilities available that will do roughly the same thing, if
not with such an elegant graphical user interface (I gather).

Oh, and I say "sells" this software, but it's almost free, since it
comes with usage credits that just about equal the cost.

While AOL says that their Internet mail connection is coming "real
soon now", CI$ has offered this feature for a LONG time.  They also
support X.400 interconnects to most of the world's major email
vendors, including a lot of European and Asian PTTs.

CI$ offers an adequate selection of bulletin board topics, both
computer related and general interest.  Unlike AOL, almost all of
these are run by third party companies on a for-profit basis (they get
a slice of the on-line time, I think), so while there is no easy way
to start your own bulletin board topic, the ones that are there are
QUITE professionally run, in the best sense of the word.  (And I speak
as a retired long-time sysop, myself.)

Since I don't use them, I can't comment on which service offers better
online shopping, except to give the unqualified and wholly subjective
impression that CI$ has more vendors.

CI$ also offers a much wider variety of information services.  I
particularly like their Executive News Service which not only lets you
read news right off the AP, UPI, WP, and Reuters news services but
which will "clip" stories and hold them up to two weeks based on up to
21 search criteria, all for not much over the cost of the on-line
time.  They also offer searches on the Magazine Database (fulltext) at
considerably below the price DIALOG charges, as well as access to
other news and research services such as IQuest and SmartScan.  And
some of you may remember the discussion of their phonebook database.

And, of course, if you HAVE to connect to CI$ with a cheap terminal,
you can, while there is NO way to get into AOL without a PC or a Mac.
And I think, based on last memory, that they serve a LOT more non-US
countries.

In (entirely subjective) summary, while America OnLine may be cheaper
(on the face of it) and have just a bit more counter-culture appeal,
CompuServe's mature off-line interface and more extensive news and
database services make it, for me, the clear winner, which is why I
dropped AOL and kept CI$.


J. Brad Hicks    Internet: mhs!mc![e-mail]
X.400:    c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad

I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above
does not contain official MasterCard statements or policies.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 15:08:01 CDT
From: chron!etest002![e-mail] (Joe Abernathy)
Subject: News of the WELL


Speaking of online services, I was also kicking about the Well the
other day and noticed some items that may interest Telecom readers.

After a long upgrade process, the Well (Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link)
seems to be up consistently again, although some few utilities have
not yet been recompiled;

Full Internet access is promised to Welldwellers Any Minute Now;

And there are two pieces of IBM front-end software designed to make
that interesting user interface easier to deal with. They can be found
by perusing /well/ibmpc/publicdomain/ Write that down, because they
don't seem to get any mention anywhere online, and with at least one
front end, (the more interesting of the two) it's because the author
requested that such be the case. The files are wellcomm.zip and
cwell.zip.


Joe Abernathy    [e-mail]   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 18:13:40 -0500
Subject: Commercial Networks Reachable From the Internet


    Since there has been so much speculation on the subject of
Internet/America Online connectivity, I took it upon myself to
actually ask AOL what the correct answer was.

 Subj:  Internet gateway
 To:    Mingo3

Dear Mingo3,

At the present time, we have no method for members to send electronic
mail to users of any other telecommunications network.  We do,
however, offer the ability to send a fax to any United States fax
machine, and paper mail via the U.S. Post office.

For more information on these features, use the Fax/Paper Mail option
on your Mail or Post Office menu, or use keyword FAX.

We do plan to add Internet mail access in the coming year.  This was
announced in Steve Case's letter online earlier this year. This will
allow you to send mail to other services that support Internet mail,
such as CompuServe, MCI Mail, AppleLink, Connect, etc.  We will not be
supporting other Internet features, such as newsgroups, at this time.
The beta test for the Internet gateway is currently closed.

If you have any further questions, please post them on the Customer
Relations Hotline, keyword HOTLINE.

Thank you for using America Online.

Evelyn

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


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for passing along that message from someone
at AOL in a position to speak for the organization. On the topic of
'Commercial Networks Reachable From the Internet', a special file will
follow to the mailing list and comp.dcom.telecom in just a few minutes
which details these interconnections in great detail. Much too large
for a regular issue, I am sending it separately to everyone.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #343
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23578;
          26 Apr 92 18:13 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11926
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 16:18:56 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10952
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 16:18:37 -0500
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 16:18:37 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Commercial Networks Reachable From the Internet


This REsponse to the AOL/Internet thread was too large to be included
in a regular issue of the Digest. You will probably want to keep this
among your reference files for future use. It is not entirely up to
date, but still useful. Thanks to Jerry Bass for sending it along.

PAT

 From: [e-mail] (Jerry Bass)
 Subject: Re: Commercial Networks Reachable From the Internet
 Organization: The MITRE Corporation
 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 14:16:12 GMT

I saved this from the network some months back ...

In article <[e-mail]>, breck@risky.
ecs.umass.edu (Liam Breck) writes:

> How about mailing to other subscriber services?  Genie, BIX, MCI?
> Answers, anyone?

> Liam Breck     [e-mail]

Here is a compilation of different possibilities I am using to
communicate with people on different services like AppleLink,
CompuServe, MCI.  Thought might be useful, it wasn't easy to compile
this ...

Roman Kanala, CUEPE, University of Geneva, Switzerland, [e-mail]


1. Internet to X.400
====================

An X.400 address in form

   First name   : Fffff
   Surname      : Nnnnn
   Organization : Ooooo
   ADMD         : Aaaaa
   Country      : Cc

looks in RFC822 (Internet) addressing like

        /G=Fffff/S=Nnnnn/O=Ooooo/@Aaaa.Cc
or
    in%"/G=Fffff/S=Nnnnn/O=Ooooo/@Aaaa.Cc"



2. any X.400 to Internet
========================

My Internet address

                    [e-mail]

can be written for X.400 services (like arCom400 in Switzerland,
Sprint MAIL or MCI Mail in the USA) as follows:

        C=CH; ADMD=ARCOM; PRMD=SWITCH; O=UNIGE; OU=SC2A; S=KANALA

and in Internet RFC822 form (althrough I don't see any reason to do it
this way for sending messages from Internet to Internet):

       /S=Kanala/OU=sc2a/O=UniGe/P=Switch/@arcom.ch


3. MCI Mail to Internet (via a gateway)
=======================

If you are in the USA and using MCI Mail, then you can write to Internet
addresses as follows:

   TO:   Roman Kanala (EMS)
   EMS:  INTERNET
   MBX:  [e-mail]

The gateway from MCI Mail to Internet is accessed by referencing
the user's name as though he were on an EMS service. When EMS name
of INTERNET is used for example, in the USA, then it's in order
to have NRI (Reston VA) handle the message for him. When prompted
for mailbox MBX, user enters the Internet address he is wanting to
send a message to.


4. Internet to MCI Mail
=======================

The general address form is [e-mail], where the username
is in one of two forms: either full username or the numerical box
number in form of digits only and preceded by three zeros, for ex.
[e-mail]              (address 1234567 is fictive)


5. AppleLink to Internet or Bitnet
==================================

Internet address is used with a suffix @INTERNET#, like

    [e-mail]@internet#
or  [e-mail]@internet#,

(here cgeuge52 is the bitnet address of sc2a.unige.ch)



6. Internet or Bitnet to AppleLink
==================================

AppleLink address is used as if it were an Internet username on the
AppleLink.Apple.Com node, like:

[e-mail]


7. CompuServe to Internet
=========================

In the address field from CompuServe, type the symbol >, "greater than",
the word "INTERNET" in uppercase characters, then a space followed by
the Internet address, like:

>INTERNET [e-mail]


8. Internet to CompuServe
=========================

The CompuServe address is used followed by "@compuserve.com". In the
CompuServe mailbox number the comma is replaces by a period, example:

[e-mail]            (address 12345.678 is fictive)


 Subject: How to get from HereNet to ThereNet
 From: [e-mail] (J. Taggart Gorman)
 Date: 21 Nov 91 07:38:32 GMT
 Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson


  Seeing the number of post lately asking "How do I email from X to
Y?", I decided to pass on this file I found on my local machine.
Enjoy and learn!

  -- End of my text, start of message --

  ---------
 Contents:
     I : The Internetworking Guide
     II: Networks NOT(yet) reachable from the Internet.
  --------

 Inter-Network Mail Guide - Copyright 1990 by John J. Chew
   $Header: netmail,v 1.12 90/07/06 20:38:28 john Exp $

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

This document is Copyright 1990 by John J. Chew.  All rights reserved.
Permission for non-commercial distribution is hereby granted, provided
that this file is distributed intact, including this copyright notice
and the version information above.  Permission for commercial
distribution can be obtained by contacting the author as described
below.

INTRODUCTION

This file documents methods of sending mail from one network to
another.  It represents the aggregate knowledge of the readers of
comp.mail.misc and many contributors elsewhere.  If you know of any
corrections or additions to this file, please read the file format
documentation below and then mail to me: John J. Chew <poslfit@gpu.
utcs.utoronto.ca>.  If you do not have access to electronic mail
(which makes me wonder about the nature of your interest in the
subject, but there does seem to be a small such population out there)
you can call me during the month of July at [phone] between
11:00 and 24:00 EDT (UTC-4h) and most likely talk to my answering
machine (:-).

DISTRIBUTION

(news) This list is posted monthly to Usenet newsgroups comp.mail.misc and
  news.newusers.questions.
(mail) I maintain a growing list of subscribers who receive each monthly
  issue by electronic mail, and recommend this to anyone planning to
  redistribute the list on a regular basis.
(FTP) Internet users can fetch this guide by anonymous FTP as ~ftp/pub/docs/
  internetwork-mail-guide on Ra.MsState.Edu (130.18.80.10 or 130.18.96.37)
  [Courtesy of Frank W. Peters]
(Listserv) Bitnet users can fetch this guide from the Listserv at UNMVM.
  Send mail to LISTSERV@UNMVM with blank subject and body consisting of
  the line "GET NETWORK GUIDE".  [Courtesy of Art St. George]

HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE

Each entry in this file describes how to get from one network to
another.  To keep this file at a reasonable size, methods that can be
generated by transitivity (A->B and B->C gives A->B->C) are omitted.
Entries are sorted first by source network and then by destination
network.  This is what a typical entry looks like:

   #F mynet
   #T yournet
   #R youraddress
   #C contact address if any
   #I send to "youraddress@thegateway"

For parsing purposes, entries are separated by at least one blank line,
and each line of an entry begins with a `#' followed by a letter.  Lines
beginning with `# ' are comments and need not be parsed.  Lines which do
not start with a `#' at all should be ignored as they are probably mail
or news headers.

#F (from) and #T (to) lines specify source and destination networks.
If you're sending me information about a new network, please give me a
brief description of the network so that I can add it to the list
below.  The abbreviated network names used in #F and #T lines should
consist only of the characters a-z, 0-9 and `-' unless someone can
make a very convincing case for their favourite pi character.

These are the currently known networks with abbreviated names:

   applelink     AppleLink (Apple Computer, Inc.'s in-house network)
   bitnet        international academic network
   bix           Byte Information eXchange: Byte magazine's commercial BBS
   bmug          Berkeley Macintosh Users Group
   compuserve    commercial time-sharing service
   connect       Connect Professional Information Network (commercial)
   easynet       Easynet (DEC's in-house mail system)
   envoy      Envoy-100 (Canadian commercial mail service)
   fax           Facsimile document transmission
   fidonet       PC-based BBS network
   geonet        GeoNet Mailbox Systems (commercial)
   internet      the Internet
   mci           MCI's commercial electronic mail service
   mfenet        Magnetic Fusion Energy Network
   nasamail      NASA internal electronic mail
   peacenet      non-profit mail service
   sinet         Schlumberger Information NETwork
   span          Space Physics Analysis Network (includes HEPnet)
   sprintmail    Sprint's commercial mail service (formerly Telemail)
   thenet        Texas Higher Education Network

#R (recipient) gives an example of an address on the destination
network, to make it clear in subsequent lines what text requires
subsitution.

#C (contact) gives an address for inquiries concerning the gateway,
expressed as an address reachable from the source (#F) network.
Presumably, if you can't get the gateway to work at all, then knowing
an unreachable address on another network will not be of great help.

#I (instructions) lines, of which there may be several, give verbal
instructions to a user of the source network to let them send mail to
a user on the destination network.  Text that needs to be typed will
appear in double quotes, with C-style escapes if necessary.

#F applelink
#T internet
#R user@domain
#I send to "user@domain@internet#"
#I   domain can be be of the form "site.bitnet", address must be <35
characters

#F bitnet
#T internet
#R user@domain
#I Methods for sending mail from Bitnet to the Internet vary depending on
#I what mail software is running at the Bitnet site in question.  In the
#I best case, users should simply be able to send mail to "user@domain".
#I If this doesn't work, try "user%domain@gateway" where "gateway" is a
#I regional Bitnet-Internet gateway site.  Finally, if neither of these
#I works, you may have to try hand-coding an SMTP envelope for your mail.
#I If you have questions concerning this rather terse note, please try
#I contacting your local postmaster or system administrator first before
#I you send me mail -- John Chew <[e-mail]>

#F compuserve
#T fax
#R [phone]
#I send to "FAX [phone]" (only to U.S.A.)

#F compuserve
#T internet
#R user@domain
#I send to ">INTERNET:user@domain"

#F compuserve
#T mci
#R 123-4567
#I send to ">MCIMAIL:123-4567"

#F connect
#T internet
#R user@domain
#I send to CONNECT id "DASNET"
#I first line of message: "\"user@domain\"@DASNET"

#F easynet
#T bitnet
#R user@site
#C DECWRL::ADMIN
#I from VMS use NMAIL to send to "nm%DECWRL::\"[e-mail]\""
#I from Ultrix
#I   send to "[e-mail]" or if that fails
#I     (via IP) send to "\"user%site.bitnet\"@decwrl.dec.com"
#I     (via DECNET) send to "DECWRL::\"[e-mail]\""

#F easynet
#T fidonet
#R john smith at 1:2/3.4
#C DECWRL::ADMIN
#I from VMS use NMAIL to send to
#I   "nm%DECWRL::\"[e-mail]\""
#I from Ultrix
#I   send to "[e-mail]" or if that fails
#I     (via IP) send to
\"john.smith%p4.f3.n2.z1.fidonet.org\"@decwrl.dec.com"
#I     (via DECNET) send to "DECWRL::\"[e-mail]\""

#F easynet
#T internet
#R user@domain
#C DECWRL::ADMIN
#I from VMS use NMAIL to send to "nm%DECWRL::\"user@domain\""
#I from Ultrix
#I   send to "user@domain" or if that fails
#I     (via IP) send to "\"user%domain\"@decwrl.dec.com"
#I     (via DECNET) send to "DECWRL::\"user@domain\""

#F envoy
#T internet
#R user@domain
#C ICS.TEST or ICS.BOARD
#I send to "[RFC-822=\"user(a)domain\"]INTERNET/TELEMAIL/US
#I for special characters, use @=(a), !=(b), _=(u), any=(three octal digits)

#F fidonet
#T internet
#R user@domain
#I send to "uucp" at nearest gateway site
#I first line of message: "To: user@domain"

#F geonet
#T internet
#R user@domain
#I send to "DASNET"
#I subject line: "user@domain!subject"

#F internet
#T applelink
#R user
#I send to "[e-mail]"

#F internet
#T bitnet
#R user@site
#I send to "user%site.bitnet@gateway" where "gateway" is a gateway host that
#I   is on both the internet and bitnet.  Some examples of gateways are:
#I   cunyvm.cuny.edu mitvma.mit.edu.  Check first to see what local policies
#I   are concerning inter-network forwarding.

#F internet
#T bix
#R user
#I send to "[e-mail]"

#F internet
#T bmug
#R John Smith
#I send to "[e-mail]"

#F internet
#T compuserve
#R 71234,567
#I send to "[e-mail]"
#I   note: Compuserve account IDs are pairs of octal numbers.  Ordinary
#I     consumer CIS user IDs begin with a `7' as shown.

#F internet
#T connect
#R NAME
#I send to "[e-mail]"

#F internet
#T easynet
#R HOST::USER
#C [e-mail]
#I send to "[e-mail]" or "[e-mail]"

#F internet
#T easynet
#R John Smith @ABC
#C [e-mail]
#I send to "[e-mail]"
#I (This syntax is for All-In-1 users.)

#F internet
#T envoy
#R John Smith (ID=userid)
#C /C=CA/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/ID=ICS.TEST/S=TEST_GROUP/@nasamail.nasa.gov
#C   for second method only
#I send to "uunet.uu.net!att!attmail!mhs!envoy!userid"
#I   or to "/C=CA/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/DD.ID=userid/PN=John_Smith/@Sprint.COM"

#F internet
#T fidonet
#R john smith at 1:2/3.4
#I send to "[e-mail]"

#F internet
#T geonet
#R user at host
#I send to "user:[e-mail]"
#I American host is geo4, European host is geo1.

#F internet
#T mci
#R John Smith (123-4567)
#I send to "[e-mail]"
#I or send to "[e-mail]" if "JSMITH" is unique
#I or send to "[e-mail]" if "John Smith" is unique - note the
#I    underscore!
#I or send to "John_Smith/[e-mail]" if "John Smith" is NOT unique

#F internet
#T mfenet
#R user@mfenode
#I send to "[e-mail]"

#F internet
#T nasamail
#R user
#C <[e-mail]>
#I send to "[e-mail]"

#F internet
#T peacenet
#R user
#C <[e-mail]>
#I send to "[e-mail]"

#F internet
#T sinet
#R node::user or node1::node::user
#I send to "[e-mail]" or "[e-mail]"

#F internet
#T span
#R user@host
#C <[e-mail]>
#I send to "[e-mail]"
#I   or to "[e-mail]"

#F internet
#T sprintmail
#R [userid "John Smith"/organization]system/country
#I send to
/C=country/ADMD=system/O=organization/PN=John_Smith/DD.ID=userid/@Sprint.COM"

#F internet
#T thenet
#R user@host
#I send to "[e-mail]"

#F mci
#T internet
#R John Smith <user@domain>
#I at the "To:" prompt type "John Smith (EMS)"
#I at the "EMS:" prompt type "internet"
#I at the "Mbx:" prompt type "user@domain"

#F nasamail
#T internet
#R user@domain
#I at the "To:" prompt type "POSTMAN"
#I at the "Subject:" prompt enter the subject of your message
#I at the "Text:" prompt, i.e. as the first line of your message,
#I    enter "To: user@domain"

#F sinet
#T internet
#R user@domain
#I send to "M_MAILNOW::M_INTERNET::\"user@domain\""
#I      or "M_MAILNOW::M_INTERNET::domain::user"

#F span
#T internet
#R user@domain
#C NETMGR@NSSDCA
#I send to "AMES::\"user@domain\""

#F sprintmail
#T internet
#R user@domain
#I send to "[RFC-822=user(a)domain @GATEWAY]INTERNET/TELEMAIL/US"

#F thenet
#T internet
#R user@domain
#I send to UTADNX::WINS%" user@domain "

END

As a supplement, here are networks known *not* to have email gateways.

Network             Comments
-------             ---------------------------------------------------
American Online     Masato Ogawa ([e-mail]) confirms
                    that there is no gateway.

Dialog              [e-mail] (Dave Mc Mahan) reports that
                    nobody responded to his query in October 1990.

GEnie               No gateway yet, but Bill Louden, the General Manager of
                    GEnie, has stated publically that they are currently doing
                    research into the feasibility of a gateway.  Trust me,
                    if such a gateway is set up, you'll hear about it.

                    By the way, the machine genie.com is a red herring.

HandsNet            [e-mail] (J. Daniel Ozeran) reports
                    that nobody responded to his query in January 1991.

Midas Internation headquarters in Chicago
                    [e-mail] (Pete) reports that nobody
                    responded to his query in January 1991.

Nifty-Serve         a Japanese BBS
                    [e-mail] (Makoto Suzuki) contacted the
                    system operators and confirmed that there is no gateway.

Prodigy             by IBM and Sears
                    censors email
                    charges the sender of the mail message
                    Censorship details available from comp.risks issue 10.46.

Robert Halloran ([e-mail]) notes:

[GEnie, Prodigy, and American Online] have all apparently been approached more
than once about gateways, and have refused to let all that un-screened (and
FREE!) mail onto their respective networks ....


Ajay Shekhawat     <Dept. of Comp. Sci., SUNY@Buffalo, Amherst, NY  14260>
[e-mail] || [e-mail] || [e-mail] ||
716.636.3027

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

Jerry Bass               [e-mail]
The MITRE Corporation    Bedford, MA


[Moderator's Note: Again Jerry, thanks for looking up all these files
and sending them in. One thing should be mentioned about Compuserve,
and that is they are charging their users for mail received from the
Internet on a 'postage-due' basis ... I only found that out recently.
So bear in mind when sending large emails to compuserve.com that the
receiver is the one having to pay for it.   PAT]











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28879;
          26 Apr 92 19:41 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17197
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 17:51:54 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15888
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 17:51:46 -0500
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 17:51:46 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #344

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 Apr 92 17:51:45 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 344

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Downtown Phone Prefix as Foreign Exchange in Airport (Andrew Green)
    Re: Pagers Question (William Henze)
    Re: Forgotten Strowger Switch Discovered (Jim Haynes)
    Re: Using Headset w/ATT Office Phone (David Ptasnik)
    Re: Privacy and 911 (Guy J. Sherr)
    Re: Massachusetts REALLY Cracks Down on COCOTs! (Jim Morton)
    Re: ATM Discussion Group (Shikhar Bajaj)
    Re: Are Long Distance Rates Published Anywhere? (Jane Fraser)
    Re: Digital-Phone to Analog-Phone Converter Wanted (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Telephones in Airports (Carl Moore)
    Re: Help: Cheapest Way to Call Home (Andy Sherman)
    Re: New Cell User Needs Information (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Sprint's New Global FON Card (John R. Covert)
    Re: Sprint's New Global FON Card (Bill Squire)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 11:17:58 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Downtown Phone Prefix as Foreign Exchange in Airport

Our Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: At O'Hare Airport, all the phones in the terminals
> are Chicago/312/IBT numbers. In some remote areas of O'Hare, they are
> Chicago/312/Centel numbers. As soon as you step outside the bounds of
> the airport you are in 708, usually IBT but Centel in some places.
> That's because we say O'Hare is in Chicago, even though physically it
> is in Rosemont, IL.  PAT]

According to my {Chicago Tribune} map, O'Hare really is in Chicago. It's
attached by an "umbilical cord" one block wide along the north side of
Foster St. extending about a mile or so east-west to meet up with the
main Chicago city limits.


Andrew C. Green
Datalogics, Inc.      Internet: [e-mail]
441 W. Huron          UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg
Chicago, IL  60610    FAX: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: You are correct, except that it runs down the
center of Foster Avenue, with the houses on either side of the street
in Chicago. That was done by the politicians here to comply with a
state law saying that for someplace to be part of Chicago, it actually
had to be touching the city *somewhere*. Neat trick, huh?
Politically, the airport is in Chicago; geographically it is in
Rosemont.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Pagers Question
Date: 23 Apr 92 18:27:57 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (William Henze)


> I'm seeking general information on paging devices.  Does anyone know
> of a good source for background info on pagers?  Perhaps some journal
> or magazine article?

Bill, I am doing the same research too. A good source of information
for paging systems is te MX-COM Data Book (1-800-638-5577). They have
information on HSC and CTCSS IC's and some explanation about the
signalign protocols. There is another company that sells the signalig
systems to adapt common radio systems to a paging system. The company
is NORCOMM phone [phone]). About the Motorola system, I have not
found the information yet. Their oldest system is two tone, MX-COM
sells the IC to generate the tones but they dont tell anyting about
the signalig protocol. If you find the Motorola signaling protocol
please mail.


Procopio Villarreal
ITESM   Monterrey N.L. Mexico

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

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Forgotten Strowger Switch Discovered
Date: 23 Apr 92 18:39:58 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


I'm starting this organization, "Friends of Archaeology".  Our creed is that
before taking anything to the dump we write a description of the object and
its use, using the right kind of ink and archival paper, and seal it in a
suitable bag and attach firmly to the object, so when it gets dug up 1000
years from now they can figure out what it is  :-) :-)


[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 07:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Using Headset w/ATT Office Phone


autodesk!bermuda![e-mail] (Andrew Purshottam) wrote:

> Hi, a friend of mine has an ATT office phone, #75650, of the sort
> often called "digital" phones, not exactly sure what that means.  The
> handset is connected to base by standard four wire modular line
> w/standard modular plug. However, he can't seem to get his old fry's
> headset adapter to work with it. Anyone know if ATT has played games
> with pin assignments to make this impossible, or know of available
> convertors?

A digital phone converts your voice to a (generally proprietary)
digital signal, and sends it to the PBX/KSU where it is swtiched to
another telephone or a telephone line.  If a sneaky snooper tried to
listen in on your conversation by attaching a test set to the wires
between your phone and the PBX/KSU, all he would get is the squeal of
bits and bytes.  Analog phones pass your voice to the switch on
(usually, essentially) a pair of wires that can be bridged and easily
listened to.  Some "digital systems" use analog sets, but convert your
voice to a digital data stream for the purpose connecting you to
another phone or phone line.  Your voice is re-converted to analog
just before it is sent off to that other telephone or line.  (I know
this is really basic stuff for a lot of you out there, but I'm just
trying to spread the word to the relatively uninitiated.)

OK!  So you're stuck with a digital phone on your desk, and you want
to use a headset.  Some telephones (including AT&T's) use speakers and
microphones that operate at different levels of power than the good
old 2500 set (a standard home phone).  Most headsets tend to operate
with the old standard voltages and power levels.  As a result when you
plug in your headset either you or the person you are calling will
sound too loud, too soft or both.  It is even possible that the
telephone won't recognize the headset at all, and you'll get nothing.

AT&T has provided two answers to this horrible dilema.  You can buy a
headset from AT&T, or you can buy an adapter that lets you hook most
head sets up to the telephone.  Ask AT&T or your system manager for
details.  I have also heard that some headset manufacturers have made
a product that works directly with AT&T digital sets.  Many headsets
have dip switches that can be set to accomodate different models of
telephones.  Your mileage will vary.  Good Luck :).


Dave    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 14:54 GMT
From: "Guy J. Sherr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Privacy and 911


In fact, outgoing calls in Montgomery County, Maryland are taped.  The
case which highlights that fact involves two communications
specialists who placed outgoing calls, but had failed to write them
down in the log.  Supervisors at the facility became intrigued and
listened to the tape afterwards.  To cut a lengthy story, the two
specialists were arrested (to be fair, I haven't heard what exactly
happened after this, and for all I know they have been exonerated and
released).

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

From: applix![e-mail] (Jim Morton [ext 237])
Subject: Re: Massachusetts REALLY Cracks Down on COCOTs!
Date: 26 Apr 92 03:55:28 GMT
Organization: Applix, Inc., Westboro, MA


Another nasty thing I've come across here in Mass. is a type of COCOT
that apparently after receiving far-end connect, disables the DTMF
keypad so you can't produce further tones. At first I thought I just
had a bad pay phone, so I redialed and definitely heard a relay click
inside and then the keypad wouldn't do any more tones.  I could see
why they would do this to disable using LD credit cards and tieing up
the pay phone for 1-800 calls to check voice mail.  Has anyone else
used one of these nasty payphones?


Jim Morton, Applix Inc., Westboro, MA
 ..uunet!applix!jim    [e-mail]

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

From: Shikhar Bajaj <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATM Discussion Group
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 15:53:33 GMT


> I heard there is an ATM discussion group and am very interested in
> joining such discussion group. Appreciated if anyone has information
> on how to join the discussion.

Send mail to [e-mail]


Shikhar Bajaj
Bell Communications Research
445 South Street   Morristown, NJ 07962-1910
MRE 2Q-178   [phone]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 13:22 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Are Long Distance Rates Published Anywhere?


[e-mail] (ira heffan) asked:

> Does anyone out there know if long distance phone rates are published
> anywhere? (especially in computer-accessable format.)

TRAC, the Telecommunications Research & Action Center prints some
charts that compare rates. For example, I have Chart No. 6, dated July
1991 (and copyrighted), which compares business rates for Allnet,
AT&T, Cable & Wireless, MCI, Metromedia, and Sprint.

TRAC can be reached at TRAC, PO Box 12038, Washington, DC 20005.
Sorry, I don't know the phone number.


Jane Fraser  Ohio State University
Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications

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

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 04:22:33 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Digital-Phone to Analog-Phone Converter Wanted


Michael A. Covington writes:

> We would like to install an answering machine at our secretary's front
> desk.  Her phone is an AT&T Merlin (?) digital unit (gray and silver).

> Is there some kind of adapter that will enable us to connect the
> answering machine right there?  Right now it's on an analog line in
> another office.

Are you sure it's digital?, I don't think so, although I don't claim
to be a Merlin expert.  Maybe they have introduced a new Merlin line.
Anyway, with the conventional Merlin KSU's you will need a 12B card,
which will allow you to connect a 2500 set, or in your case, an
answering machine.  I think the Merlin Plus's will allow you to
connect a 2500 set to the standard line card, with the provision that
the 2500 set can't be used at the same time as the associated key set.

There is also an adaptor called the GPA (General Purpose Adaptor) that
will allow you to connect a modem to a Merlin keyset using the extra
line usually used for intercom.  (Now you know why Merlins must have 4
pair).  I don't know much about it, but I would assume it would work
for your answering machine.

Disclaimer:  This is all from memory, I may be wrong.


Pat Turner    KB4GRZ     [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 9:42:20 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephones in Airports


I wasn't writing about pay phones or COCOTs, but the note about
Akron-Canton (Ohio, right?) is new information for me.  As for BWI
(Baltimore-Washington International), the "correct" local exchange to
be found on pay phones there is 850 and/or 859; they are Baltimore
metro and are in 410 area (currently per- missive).  The Washington
metro pay phones at BWI are on 621 (Laurel with Bowie-GlennDale
service), and are staying in 301.

Does anyone know about Sea-Tac (Seattle-Tacoma, in Washington state)?

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: Help: Cheapest Way to Call Home
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 11:12:59 EDT


On 21 Apr 92 15:03:49 GMT, [e-mail] (& Kawasaki)
said:

> I am planning to go back home to Japan.  I am trying to find the
> cheapest rate to call the USA from Japan.

Is this a permanent move or a vacation?  It makes a difference.

> So I decided to take my calling card, since it seems that MCI,
> friend and family deal, seems give me the best deal.  On AT&T I get
> only 10% off from their rate, which was still higher than the US
> Sprint regular rate.

I'm not sure Friends and Family will help you.  If you are moving
permanently, it certainly won't.  Unless my information is out of date
(Does anybody from MCI read TELECOM Digest?  *You* should know.)  F&F
is a program for people with telephones in the US which have MCI as
their PIC.  Plus you only get the discount if you are calling another
MCI PIC who is also on your calling circle list.  Last I heard you may
put one international number on your list as well (PIC status
obviously not an issue), but I believe you need to be calling that
number from the US.  Like I said, my comptetive information may be
stale, but if not I don't think F&F will do you much good whether or
not the move is permanent.

Unfortunately, I'm not a fount of information on the AT&T offerings.
The Reach Out(R) America 24-hour plan will discount international
calls either 5% or 10%.  The Card Option may then apply to calls made
to the US via USA Direct(R).  You might also check whether Japan is on
the Reach Out World list and whether or not ROW has a Card Option that
will work for USA Direct placed calls.

In any event, unless KDD is offering better deals than other non-US
carriers, your best bet will be to call using USA Direct (for AT&T
calls).  MCI, Sprint, and Allnet offer similar services in Japan.  See
phone.home-usa in the telecom archives on lcs.mit.edu.

** To keep the lawyers happy: Reach Out and USA Direct are registered
service marks of AT&T.  For all I know Friends and Family is some kind
of a mark of MCI.  **


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: Fri, 24 Apr 92 13:23:29 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Cell User Needs Information


Ken Levitt writes:

> a.  Is there some sort of quick disconnect adaptor I could get that
>     would make it easier to swap antennas?

Go to an electronics store and get a BNC female to a male of what ever
connector you phone uses (TNC, mini-UHF, or possabaly SMA).  Connect
this to your cell phone.  Also get an adaptor with reverse genders for
your flex antenna, and a BNC male to install on the coax from you
antenna.  While you doing it, cut the coax on the mag mount to the
minimum length possable to reduce attenuation.

> b.  Assuming that most all of my travels will be in relatively
>     populated areas of Eastern Mass., what problems would I have if I
>     just didn't bother with the 2nd antenna and sat the bag phone with
>     the 8 inch antenna on the car seat?

Give it a try, I suspect it will work fine.  You can carry the mag mount
around anyway.


Pat Turner       KB4GRZ       [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 13:12:20 PDT
From: John R. Covert  24-Apr-1992 1612 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint's New Global FON Card


> What is the dialing procedure for users from other countries to use
> AT&T or SPRINT here in the US? Dial 0+ number plus the 89card number?

This currently works on AT&T for KDD (one of Japan's international
carriers) only.  It is supposed to begin working in June for BT cards
on AT&T.  Whether it works for domestic calls or just international
calls I don't know.

In addition, AT&T cards may be used on KDD phones in Japan; you dial
0055, what for the tone, then dial 2+ the 891-253 number.  Again, I
don't know whether it works for domestic or only international.  Since
KDD is an international carrier, I suspect the answer is international
only.  You are informed that if you use USA Direct, AT&T rates apply,
and if you use KDD, KDD rates apply.

In June, AT&T cards will begin working on BT's 144 system -- just dial
144 and then your 891 253 number.  As before, I don't know if this
will be domestic or only international.  You can currently place
operator assisted calls on BT with your AT&T card to ANY country; you
use just the domestic number to do that.  You cannot place inland
calls.

I don't know if Sprint has any arrangements for interchange with cards
from other countries.


john

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Squire)
Subject: Re: Sprint's New Global FON Card
Date: 25 Apr 92 21:12:27 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


[e-mail] ( Bill Huttig @ TELECOM Digest) once wrote:

> What is the dialing procedure for users from other countries to use
> AT&T or SPRINT here in the US? Dial 0+ number plus the 89card number?

You dial the home country direct number and in the case of AT&T, you
are connected to a machine that takes the number you are dialling and
your calling card.  The other carriers still have you use an operator.
I understand you are charged for the "first three minutes and for each
additional minute, so 10 seconds is full rate and 3:01 is four
minutes,etc.  It is cheaper here just to use the PTT, unless you plan
to talk a REAL long time like a half hour or so.  In other countries
where the rates are higher, ten minutes may be more the breakeven
point.

Bypassing the operator or administrative billing machine will always
result in a much quicker and better connection anyway.  In this case
the dialing procedure is kp1 + 0(AC)(number) + st for the USA and kp2
+(CC)0 + (number) + st for the rest of the world!  Legal to do here in
Holland! (If you know how.)


Bill


[Moderator's Note: I find it hard to believe in Holland it is legal to
bypass the billing equipment ... if you know how, of course!    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #344
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00421;
          26 Apr 92 20:13 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18115
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 18:18:14 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18979
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 18:18:07 -0500
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 18:18:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #345

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 Apr 92 18:18:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 345

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Directory Assistance (Jeff Garber)
    Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Israeli Pay Phones: Pay as You Go (Warren Burstein)
    Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Ringback Service in Montreal (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Not 1-800-1-RECYCLE, or How Stupid Can They *Really* Be? (S. Forrette)
    Re: New Applications of Voice Recognition Technologies (Paul Gauthier)
    Re: White House Telecomms (Garrett Wollman)
    Re: Canadian LD Plans Wanted (Norman Soley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 01:39 GMT
From: Jeff Garber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Directory Assistance


In article <[e-mail]> Steve Forrette wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]> Carl Moore wrote:

>> I just did a 0+ call to 713 directory assistance from 410 area in MD,
>> and got the message "Thank you for using AT&T directory assistance" --
>> a message I take to merely mean my use of AT&T card on such call.

> I've noticed something similar when calling DA bureaus for Southern
> California area codes.  When using a calling card, you hear the normal
> female "Thank you for using AT&T" message immediately after entering
> your card number, then a male voice comes on and repeats the same
> message.  When dialing direct, the male voice still comes on, so it is
> not really related to the use of a calling card.  However, it sounds
> (more) stupid when used in conjuction with a calling card as you hear
> the same message twice.

> When I first heard this, I thought that perhaps AT&T was operating its
> own DA bureau for long distance inquiries, but when the friendly DA
> gentleman asked "what city?", I instead asked him "what company" do
> you work for?  This caught him a bit off-guard as you might imagine,
> but he responded "General Telephone" This was for either 619 or 714 --
> I can't remember which.

[Stuff about AT&T not knowing anyting about this deleted]

> So, does anybody know the real reason that this message is now
> inserted for long distance DA?

Pacific Bell used to provide DA services for Southern California to
out-of-area callers for AT&T. In about 1988, AT&T decided to contract
with GTE instead. One of the main reasons for this (from what I
understand) was that GTE's equipment could "brand" the calls -- i.e.
identify that they were AT&T calls and insert a message thanking the
caller for using AT&T, even though AT&T was not providing the service.
So, although I haven't answered the question of WHY they do this
(probably to make sure the caller knows the call went out over AT&T
and that it is appreciated), AT&T considers this a pretty important
feature.

Sorry this reply came so long after this discussion was dropped, but I
usually end up reading these digests months after they come out.


Jeff Garber  <[e-mail]>    /My opinions are just that./

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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 92 13:27:43 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection?
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Richard Brett Frankenberger) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
> Paigen) writes:

>> ...  I said, "No, voice requires 64Kbps, ... I was told that voice
>> requires only 8Kbps per channel.

>> Questions:
>>    - How many bps does a 'voice phone connection' require?
>>    - If the answer is less than 19.2Kbps, how does a telebit work?

> ...  Voice can be compressed to 32Kbps using a compression
> algorithm known as ADPCM (Adaptive Differential Pulse Coded
> Modulation).  The quality of voice here is almost as good as full
> 64Kbps (generally, you can't tell the different for a true voice
> connection).

> 32Kbps ADPCM is probably the lowest acceptable for 'toll-quality'
> voice.
> It is also possible to digitize voice at lower rates (the lowest I
> have seen is 8 kbps).  At these lower rates, the voice quality is
> noticeably lower, ...

> ... Also, in regard to your second assumption, 1 Kbps is 1000 bits
> per second in most telecom usage (i.e.  A T1 line carries 24*64000
> bits per second, not 24*64*1024 bits per second).

   T1 (in the latest format) also has a non-information-carrying 8Kbps
framing pattern included, which is why T1 is 1,544 Kbps instead of the
24*64 = 1,536 Kbps.  (K=1000)

   On the issue of what bit rate is "required" to support voice, it
really depends on who's requirements you have to follow.  Telephone
customers demand connections that are "clear", and Bellcore says this
means 64Kbps for unprocessed voice-to-digital encoding.  In my view,
the mu law encoding curve actually introduces some "processing"
because it's non-linear.  CCITT/Bellcore claims this is "3.1Khz audio"
service supported by 64Kbps digital rate.  They also have a standard
for 7Khz audio, using more processing power at the sending and
receiving ends.  Customers that have to pay for end-to-end digital
facilities might have somewhat lower demands on voice quality and thus
lower bit rate requirements.

   Some might view audio processing as a new technology.  But it's
been studied pretty heavily (for voice applications) even prior to CDs
and current data-compression/encryption technologies.  I have a
45-RPM-sized 33.33-RPM thin sheet of vinyl distributed with the
October, 1973 issue of IEEE Spectrum -- older readers will recognize
the technology as a "phonograph record".  It has about ten minutes of
audio, demonstrating the quality/distortion resulting from low-bit-
rate-voice techniques known and in use 20 years ago.

   Their are 14 different samples included, starting with 64Kpbs
digital rates and working down to 600 bps.  Adaptive PCM, linear
predictive coding and something called "pitch interpolation channel
encoding" are demonstrated at various rates.  At 2400 bps, the pitch
interpolation sample sounds like a very cheap radio.  At 1200 bps, it
sounds like my Amiga "talking", and 600 bps sounds like my Amiga with
the "robot" voice filter turned on.  Linear predictive coding, with
something added to make intelligent use of the pauses between words,
was not too bad at 4800 bps.  At 7200 bps, it sounds as good as many
of today's cheap telephones.

   The record is titled "Speech digitization techniques", manufactured
by VIA-TONE of Deerfield, IL under their "soundsheet" technology.
Since my copy is in sad shape (very sensitive to scratches), I'd be
interested in obtaining a copy on tape, etc. from IEEE, if they still
have the original master copy.


Al Varney

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Israeli Pay Phones: Pay as You Go
Date: 26 Apr 92 09:37:41 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


In <[e-mail]> krfiny![e-mail] writes:

> The Israeli phone system is run by the Post Office.  The payphones
> don't take coins.  They use phone tokens that are sold at the post
> office, and are apparently rationed.  The tokens are aluminum, with a
> slot along one side and a hole in the center and a dial pattern around
> it (obvious international symbol :-),

While these tokens are still in use, the phone system is now a
corporation (Bezeq) that is no longer connected to the Post Office,
although both are controlled by the Ministry of Communication.  Bezeq
will (or may) one day be substantially privatized so that the
shareholders, and not the government, will appoint its management.

Meanwhile, Bezeq is gradually introducing phones that use debit cards.
These cards, which can be purchased at the Post Office, Bezeq offices,
or lottery stands, have a fixed number of calling units.  Special
phones take the cards but not the tokens.  Usually anywhere that a
bank of phones is located, there will be several of each type.

An Israeli newspaper recently announced that a bunch of phreaks broke
the system and can counterfit cards.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 92 14:49:02 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line


> [Moderator's Note: Please note that sometimes as a courteous gesture,
> the operator will extend your call, *then* while you are talking, make
> an inquiry from the billed number, and say nothing to you about it
> unless the billed number rejects your charges. So it may be more of
> your calls were verified than you realize, being checked in the
> background.  PAT]

Many years ago, long before I had a calling card, I made my first trip
to far-away California.  This was in the days before answering
machines were common, but I did have call-forwarding, so I forwarded
my line to my mother's line for the duration of the trip.

Now while enjoying the eye opening Silicon Valley events, I needed to
make some calls that were just long-distance (to San Francisco, I
think).  Naturally I billed them to my home number.  Nothing was said
about verification, but I later found out that the following was
happening:

  My mother (answering her own phone): Hello?

  PacTel operator: Will you pay for a call from Tony Harminc?

  Mother: Yes I will.

  PacTel: Thank you!  *CLICK*

This went on for each of the several calls I made, until my mother got
worried/annoyed enough to answer "not unless you actually connect him
this time!"  Of course it was a different operator each time, but this
one did explain that the call was not *to* my mother -- she was only
being asked to pay for it.  Evidently PacTel operating practice did
not include making clear the difference between a collect and a third
party call.


Tony H.

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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 92 15:04:23 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringback Service in Montreal


Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The original message referred to use of 57x in area 514 for ringback.
> But I find that 514-575 is St-Regis, Quebec.

If there is a conflict, 57x is not used.  There is no conflict if the
caller's nnx does not end in 5 in this case.  If it does, then another
prefix (typically 99x) will be used for the loopback test line.


Tony H.

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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 92 13:48:23 pdt
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Not 1-800-1-RECYCLE, or How Stupid Can They *Really* Be?
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> Laird P. Broadfield writes:

> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

>> ... and that is indeed a 1 displayed just before the word "RECYCLE"
>> but should be an "I" instead.  I verified it by calling 1-800-I-RECYCL
>> just now and serving notice of the incorrect number.  (That translates
>> to 1-800-473-2925.)

> Better yet, one of the more reliably ridiculous local news stations
> had a "feature" (isn't "news" supposed to be _news_?) on people being
> defrauded by those promising to turn them into models/stars.

> Then, they not only read off the 800 number, *twice*, but displayed
> it in bright, glowing digits, on a full screen card.  The number?
> "800-ACT-NOW"

> Surely at least one of the chain of "investigative" reporter, line
> producer, feature producer, CG operator, editor, teleprompt typist,
> etc. ought to have figured out that phone numbers are generally seven
> digits, not six?  Gaaaaaah.  (BTW, the number is really 800-7-ACT-NOW.)

Here in Washington State, the Department of Transportation has a
number you can call to report people you see littering the highways:
800-LITTERS.  A couple of years back, they made a batch of signs about
this service, but with the number listed as 800-LITTER.  These were
placed at regular intervals on the freeways in the Seattle area.
Apparently, neither the people who made the signs nor anyone that
installed them noticed that there were only six digits in the phone
number.  Awhile later, all of the signs had been "field retrofitted"
with an S at the end of the number, which was usually not quite level
with the rest of the number and threw the number obviously off-center.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Gauthier)
Subject: Re: New Applications of Voice Recognition Technologies
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 17:57:42 -0300


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

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

> [ article about house-arrest prisoner verification done by Caller ID and
> caller-specific voice recognition deleted ]

People have rightly objected to the fact that call forwarding won't
work to fudge the Caller ID. Why use call forwarding? Just have a
second phone line on the premises. Druggie can call in on this other
line and someone (or some piece of hardware) can link him to the
normal house line, which will make the outgoing call and present the
correct Caller ID.

In fact, a second phone line isn't neccessary. Just have three-way
calling added to the line which holds the magic Caller ID, and pay
some kid to set up the three-way whenever druggie calls in to the
house. A simple piece of hardware could be constructed to do this, as
well.


Paul Gauthier / [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]    Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: White House Telecomms
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 21:30:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, PAT says:

> [Moderator's Note: Now and again it happens the switchboard screws up
> and gives out Bush's centrex number also ... not often though.

And how could anyone forget the James Baker press conference where the
Secretary of State said -- to a whole gallery of press people -- that
if the Israelis were serious about peace, they should call a certain
+1 202 88x number (I guess Baker's office); when this was broadcast on
the national news later on that night, it got Baker in hot water with
the State Department secretarial corps.


Garrett A. Wollman   = [e-mail] = UVM is welcome to my opinions
                     = uvm-gen!wollman =

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

From: [e-mail] (Norman Soley)
Subject: Re: Canadian LD Plans Wanted
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 20:59:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Ian Evans) writes ...

> Does anyone know of any companies that offer long-distance savings
> plans for Canadian business besides Bell?  I spoke to a Bell rep today
> and they wanted a 32.50 "administration" charge for a 15% discount.

> Any help would be appreciated.

There are all sorts of different options depending on the businesses
level of interest. Bell has a number of different discount plans, try
another call to Bell and ask for options.

There are a number of resellers active in the Canadian market which
might have offerings of interest to the business in question. The
current situation with reselling is pretty darn close to full blown LD
competition in the business market.

Some resellers you might want to try contacting are:

    Lightel
    Fonorola
    (rustle, clank, I know there are more I just, fumble, can't think
     of any right now, wait, here's one)
    National Telecommunications


Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District
Digital Equipment of Canada                   [e-mail]
Opinions expressed are mine alone  and do not reflect those of Digital
Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #345
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03264;
          26 Apr 92 21:18 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21074
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 19:32:06 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20392
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 19:31:58 -0500
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 19:31:58 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #346

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 Apr 92 19:32:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 346

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Re: ISDN on DMS-100 (was ISDN in Houston, Texas) (Bob Frankston)
    Re: Hang-Up Pirates (Alec Isaacson)
    Re: The March of the Telephone Trucks (Kevin W. Williams)
    Chicago ACs and the Flood (was Re: Metropolitan Fiber...) (David G. Lewis)
    Chicago Flood References (Nigel Allen)
    CWA Political Dues Rebate (Jim Redelfs)
    Phone "Survey" Annoyance (Arun Baheti)
    Pulse to DTMF Converter ([e-mail])
    Software For Network Analysis (Anders Angstrom)
    FAX/Modem/Voice Switches: How do They Work? (Joel M. Hoffman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 18:16:19 -0400
From: krfiny![e-mail]
Subject: Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991"


In reply to Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 272, Message 5 of 11

> Public Law 102-243 was passed last year by the 102nd Congress and
> signed by President Bush on 20 December 1991.

>  (B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using
>  an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior
>  express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for
>  emergency purposes ...

Err, umm, I agree with the intention to curb the totally automated
sales calls, but what about the pre-recorded "greeting" machine that
operators use?

The pre-recorded message is used at the conversation "initiation".
Does this meas that it's illegal to use the greeting machine to
deliver the message "I have an important message for you from xxx, do
you want to hear it?"  even though a human is monitoring the phone
call?

Do the fully automated collect calls fall under this as well?  After
all, it's a call that's initiated with no human intervention.


Jeffrey Jonas   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 18:16:17 -0400
From: krfiny![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel


I've been reading this discussion and at first agreed with the
attitude of "yet another hotel rip-off".  Then as the discussion grew,
I realized that the hotel's fax machine was being used.  A machine
that's behind the counter and was intended primarily for internal use.

If the hotel manager is wise enough to consider this a message service
(people can leave messages without tying up an operator) then the cost
should be lower or even free, depending on whether the paper is
delivered to you or just placed in you message/key box.  Even the
cited cost of this does not seem so outrageous.  At this moment, I
feel that the hotel's being rather fair in sharing equipment that was
intended for their use, and you're depriving them use of their
equipment while it's in use.

As an analogy, consider the cost of a 12 ounce serving of Coca-Cola.
At the supermarket, I can purchase a 2 liter bottle for about .30.
That's about .25/serving.  At the vending machines or pizza places,
the cans are $.65-$.85.  At a restaurant, it's over a dollar (oh, but
it's in a glass).  Do I hear people screaming at the restuarants to
lower their soda prices?  Where can I petition to have alternate
refreshments available at all restaurants so as to bolster price
competition? (1)

As to slimey, money grubbing hotel managers, I offer this experience:
I was at a weekend long party where we got a block of hotel rooms.
The pool and recreation area was in the center of the hotel, the rooms
all opening into the indoor atrium.  We were singing and playing
guitars and the ass't manager told us to stop singing because one of
the guests had complained (the guest was apparently holding some
business meeting in the room).  The manager offered to RENT us a room
for singing.  We declined and went to play shuffleboard and pool
diving, raising the decibel level considerabily.

(1) Yea, I know, I can always go the the food court at a mall and get
each item at a different vender.  There's a tradeoff of convenience
and one stop shopping vs.  taking responsibility for every detail.
The prevelent attitude in the US is for the cheapest service with
little value added.  That's why Macy's is bankrupt and K-mart is
booming.


Jeffrey Jonas     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: ISDN on DMS-100 (was ISDN in Houston, Texas)
Date: Sun 26 Apr 1992 19:14 -0500


If NET is already offering ISDN-based services, such as Intellipath, how
ready is the exchange for offering residential ISDN?

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 00:06:14 EDT
From: Alec Isaacson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hang-Up Pirates


On 15 April 92, Ron Bean <norvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix![e-mail]>
wrote:

> I think you'd be further ahead to take the opposite approach, and
> give everyone you know an "access code" (call it an "extension number"
> for the techno-illiterate), and route all other calls to your
> answering machine (or maybe /dev/null).

>  Your phone would be answered with a recording that says something
> like "Dial your extension now. If you don't know your extension, write
> to [your P.O. Box, City, State, Zip] <CLICK>".  If you're feeling
> generous, you could allow unknown callers to leave a message. If you
> have Caller-ID, certain "trusted" numbers could bypass the recording,
> or be routed to the modem or fax machine. I assume this would require
> a dedicated PC with a voicemail board, or maybe some kind of PBX.

A few years ago, I saw an ad for a machine called the "Privecode".  It
was a box that you connected to your phone and it intercepted the ring
signal before any phones on the premises reacted to the signal. It
then played a tape asking the caller to enter their "Privecode number"
(as I remember, there were several available numbers so you could
assign different numbers to different people).  They would enter their
number and (if valid) the machine would display the caller's code
number (like CID) and ring the phones.  All other calls went into the
etherzone I think.

Does anyone (besides me :) remember this thing?

Disclaimer:  It has been several years since I have seen the ad for this
device, so if I'm wrong, go easy. :)


Alec D. Isaacson     AI4CPHYW @ miamiu.acs.muohio.edu
isaacson @ rogue.acs.muohio.edu (NeXt Mail)
Miami University, Oxford, OH


[Moderator's Note: I had one of these devices back around 1982-83.
They did work pretty well. One 'privecode' was dedicated to the
answering machine port; another to just open ringing going nowhere.
Then there were many others you could assign to friends.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 26 Apr 92 10:03:31 MST
From: asuvax!gtephx![e-mail] (Kevin W. Williams)
Subject: Re: The March of the Telephone Trucks
Organization: This variable implies that we ARE organised
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 17:03:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:

> Just NOW, I tried the Marshall Field number (312-781-1000) and did get
> the three-tone intro (any name for it? this signals a phoneco error

It is called Subscriber Information Tone (SIT).


Kevin Wayne Williams     UUCP : ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!williamsk

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Chicago ACs and The Flood (was Re: Metropolitan Fiber...)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 15:38:24 GMT


Getting back to the original subject of this thread, namely, were the
access carriers operating in Chicago by means of fiber in the coal
tunnels adversely affected by the flood:

My sources tell me that Teleport has not been affected by the flood to
date, and that MFS was largely unaffected, although one or two
customers lost service.  I infer that MFS was more affected due to
their practice of locating electronics in a common area and extending
copper to the customer location; in some cases, that common area was
located in a building basement which got flooded.  Teleport's practice
is to locate electronics directly at the customer location, and as it
turns out, in Chicago none of these customer locations were below the
waterline.

The cable in the coal tunnels is protected by conduit and so was
largely unaffected by the flood; the major concern is that the conduit
may get damaged by debris as the tunnels are drained.  The other major
concern is an ongoing operational one; namely, that due to the flood,
access to the tunnels may be more limited in the future, making it
more difficult to (a) inspect the cable and conduit for flood damage
immediately following the draining; (b) perform routine maintenance on
the cable and conduit; and (c) install new cable as needed.

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: Chicago Flood References
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Readers who would like more information about the railway tunnels
underneath Chicago may want to look at some recent messages about the
Chicago flood in rec.railroad. Apparently the tunnels were in use
until the late 1950s, both to deliver coal (and remove ash) and for
general freight.


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044


[Moderator's Note: The pumping continues, along with the make-shift
electrical service, the maze of hoses to walk over and around, and the
constant drone from the generators downtown. After almost two weeks,
the authorities seem to feel the water should be all drained away
'soon'. 'Only' about 11 buildings are still in serious trouble, with
everything else back to normal. The subways are still shut down, and
people still navigate on the sidewalks around the pumps, large puddles
of water splashing on the street enroute to the sewers, etc. Parking
is still banned downtown, and some streets are still one lane in each
direction with generators, pumps, utility service trucks, etc taking
up the curb lanes on both sides of the street. Downtown Chicago has
been crappy for many years ... this just about finished it off.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 22:28:21 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jim Redelfs)
Subject: CWA Political Dues Rebate
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


I have been a dues-paying member of the Communications Workers of
America, Local 7400, for every day of my 19+ year career.  It hasn't
been easy for this traditionally "white collar" conservative
Republican.

My biggest gripe about the union (although I generally SUPPORT it) has
been its cliche approach to EVERYTHING: Liberal, Democrat, management
is all bad and we are forever downtrodden. It gets old.

I especially appreciated reading CWA President Morton Bahr's words
regarding a dues-paying member's option to request a rebate of that
portion of his/her dues that go to political ends:

> We represent over 600,000 workers, and only about one one percent has
> ever asked for a dues rebate, although we have publicized this option
> for ten years.

That "option" has been as well publicized as the "risk statement" that
accompanies over-the-counter drugs!

That is NOT to say that such a rebate was NOT available or MADE KNOWN, but that
it was NOT well publicized -- certainly not frequently or prominently.

Although I have occasionally considered availing myself of the option,
I have declined since I feel that it would COST the union more $$$ to
refund my money (paperwork, etc.) that the actual rebate.  Another
good reason might be that I'm too lazy to take the time to do it.

I applaud The Moderator for posting the CWA pieces but certainly hope
that he continues to apply the SAME standards for such articles as he
does for the others.  They can be informative, but they are usually
biased (no sin).  Besides, I get enough of that with the {CWA News}
(national) and {Spirit of 7400} (local) that I receive monthly in my
mailbox at home.

I my occasionally disagree with the CWA, but will continue to actively
support them.  They SAVED my job twice early-on in my career and I
feel that the union is DIRECTLY responsible for my excellent wage,
benefits and working conditions.


JR   Tabby 2.2   MacNet Omaha   402-289-2899   macnet.omahug.org   (1:285/14)


[Moderator's Note: I've never been in favor of unions. Still, I'd have
sure hated to work for AT&T (to name but one example) in the early
years of this century. What our grandparents and great-grandparents
had to do to earn a decent living in this country a century ago would
never be tolerated today: routine 60 hour (ten hours per day, six
days per week) work weeks; very few benefits, no social security when
retiring; no medical benefits. AT&T, US Steel, General Motors; all
those giants came into being before unions were common. I don't think
any of them could start *today* and be as successful. I guess the
unions do provide a valuable check and balance to big business.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 12:50 CST
From: Arun Baheti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone "Survey" Annoyance


I am currently living in someone's house while they are abroad, and on
each of the past two days I received a phone call around dinner time
from what would seem to be the same company.  They call up, mumble
something about just wanting to verify their customer records, and
then proceed to ask a series of yes/no questions, asking me to simply
"confirm" what is "already in their records."  Of course, my first
question on both occasions was who the hell are you? ... answered by
another mumbled company name, and then the questions which I answered
incorrectly and somewhat randomly.

Of note is the fact that the "on file" information they had was
absoulte rubbish demographic data on the house owners.  My suspicion
is that these folks are just trying to build a data file for some
marketing outfit.  Has anyone else run across these folks?  I'd love
to know who they are.


ab

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Pulse to DTMF Converter
Date: 25 Apr 92 18:34:48 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Does anyone know how to detect pulse signaling in the other side of
the line in a public telephone network. The pulses are present as an
audio transient, the problem is that the transient varies in shape and
form with the quality and distance of the line. What I am trying to do
is to convert this pulse signaling into a DTMF format for a voicemail
system connected to a PBX. Our problem in Mexico is that the public
telephone networks are using new technologies (digital switching) but
most of the telephones sets use pulse signaling.

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 11:33:58 +0200
From: Torbj|rn Gidl|f <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Anders Angstrom)
Subject: Software For Network Analysis
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Telia Research AB, Network Development
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 92 09:33:51 GMT


I am searching for software (products, public domain or experimental)
in the telecommunication systems area:

  * analysis and specification
  * performance and capacity measurement
  * simulation

Please respond through e-mail, and I will summarize if there is
enough interest.

Thanks.


Anders Angstrom              E-mail:
Telia Research AB            [e-mail]
Network Development
Box 883                      Tel:    [phone]
S-851 24 Sundsvall, Sweden   Telefax:[phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel M. Hoffman)
Subject: FAX/Modem/Voice Switches: How do They Work?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 20:48:45 GMT


I've decided I really need a FAX/modem/voice switch, because I'm
moving from DOS to Unix, and want to be able to dial in, but I can't
afford a third line.  So:

1.  How do these switches work?  Do they actually answer the phone,
listen for a minute, and then transfer the call to the right
destination?  If so, do people who call and get no answer get charged
for the call?  If not, how >do< they work?

2.  Can I answer a voice call on an extention, or only from the phone
connected to the switch?

3.  I would appreciate information about inexpensive switches that
new.people have experience with.

Many thanks in advance.


Joel    ([e-mail])

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #346
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06171;
          26 Apr 92 22:43 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22768
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 20:34:52 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21539
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 26 Apr 1992 20:34:42 -0500
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 20:34:42 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #347

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 Apr 92 20:34:45 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 347

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Latest California Disaster (TELECOM Moderator)
    Jeff's Phone Company of Rahway, NJ (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Whither 0037?? (Nigel Roberts)
    How Can I Run AT&T 7406D Sets 5000+ Feet From my Switch? (Steve Howard)
    C&W Fans Can do it, Too! (Bud Couch)
    NYNEX vs BT (Bryan Montgomery)
    Group IV Fax (was Re: Sending Faxes Overseas) (Bud Couch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 19:40:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Latest California Disaster


Well, this has been the Week That Was for California folks.  An
earthquake earlier this week, then another on Sunday have caused much
damage. I know this sort of thing is a little more 'routine' there
than it is in other parts of the USA, but still it seems to always
wreak havoc. Can we get some up to date reports on the telecom
situation in California as of Sunday afternoon/evening?

If John Higdon can get through to us, perhaps he will provide news.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 18:16:14 -0400
From: krfiny![e-mail]
Subject: Jeff's Phone Company of Rahway, NJ


With all the recent discussion about small phone companies (and
recollection of the charming old postings of the mom and pop phone
companies), I was wondering ...

WHAT IF I were to start a small phone company to serve my community
with dial tone and stuff.  There are so many ways to implement it:

Let's say that I offer service only to the Rahway NJ township.

(1) I'd have a central office as my POP for traffic in/out of the
community.  Instead of a star configuration of all subscribers to the
CO (possibly via multiplexors, so the topology's a tree to a hub), how
about a network where all subscribers go to a digitizer on the pole
(or even on premesis) that's also a packet switcher, so all calls
within Rahway are routed DIRECTLY from digitizer to digitizer without
visiting the CO.  Routers would localize the network to confine
packets to the smallest possible area, and the CO and be used for call
setup, but the circuit's as direct as possible.

This is common for computer networks.  Has this been done for
non-computer networks?  Why not?  With the proper topology, there will
be enough redundancy that any wire cut (well, fiber cut.  I'd prefer
fiber optic) would not stop the network since every box should have at
least two routes to the CO.

(2) This could be justified if there were enough calls within the
service area, no?  AT&T, SPRINT, MCI all share information about long
distance calling patterns of customers.  Is the information about
local calling available, or even collected internally?

With the Hinsdale disaster showing the weakness of centralized
switching, and the rise in sophisticated non centralized computer
networks, why is there so little work on de-centralizing local call
switching?  The pessimist says that the regional phone companies have
vested interests in the existing plant and are interested in migration
paths as long as the topology remains unchanged.  They must preserve
the plant facilities.  The sympathist says that if it ain't broke,
don't fix it.  The enterpreneur says that opening the market will
allow companies to try ALL the methods and the ones that work the best
will get the customers and offer good services and prices.

I guess that cellular phones qualify as non centralized switching, but
that's because the phone radio link is directly to the office and
limited in range.  What about a wire / land based version?

I'm really not keen on using radio transmitters anywhere because
they're prone to monitoring, jamming and interference, bad weather,
etc.  I guess it may be justified for a link or two where wires would
be impractical (such as crossing a river, highway, valley where there
are no existing poles).

This is not a prospectus, which may be made only when there's
something of substance.  I'll probably never actually do this because
of all the headache and heartache with competing with CLASS features,
10mumble dialing, toll free numbers, and providing FBI wiretap
monitoring (well, that may be a selling point actually if it cannot be
provided ...)

It'll be very interesting to be a customer in an area with multiple
local area providers.  You'd need to compare the rates, rate structure
(perhaps one doesn't charge for touch tone, but costs more for another
service), performance (%calls completed, %calls blocked, call setup
time, call teardown time, billing precision and accuracy, line
quality, downtime, average repair time), failure modes, overload
handling and degradation.  Excitement to be sure!

(1) A previous posting mentioned that statewide service is not
required but heavily encouraged by some states.  What if my charter is
such that I service only a small area and I can not handle the
expansion to a larger area -- am I not to be given the ability to
operate at all?

(2) Re: the FBI wiretap and spook central: With all the screaming and
kicking in TELECOM, and after reading the excerpt from the FBI, I am
getting more sympathetic to the FBI's position.  If I were to
implement this non-centralized telephone switching system, am I to
expect the FBI to reverse engineer and non-intrusively perform their
business?  And do that in a timely, cost effective manner?  No way!
The FBI is appealing to the telecommunications companies to
collaborate and cooperate with their law enforcement needs.  I agree
that it is much more cost effective, controllable, accountable and
well engineered if these needs are known at the system design phase
and designed into the systems rather than retrofitted.

(from the RISKS digest:)

> The proposal makes the bureau look like Luddites, the 19th century English
> weavers who smashed new machines that they claimed put them out of work.
> Instead of keeping up with new developments, the F.B.I. wants to freeze
> progress.

I don't understand how the FBI requirements are freezing progress.  If
I can provide the wiretapping facility they mandate, yes, I may need
an ugly interface to connect my state of the art fiber optic system to
their patchcord, but behind the interface I'm free to use whatever
technology I please.

I disagree with shifting the cost to the telephone customers, though.
The FBI should share in the cost because they're the real customer,
not the subscribers.  I'd LOVE to tariff the FBI's use of the wiretap
facility just as the customer services are tariffed.  Consider this:
call 900-SPYONME (or 900-WIRETAP) just 0 for the first minute, each
additional minute.  (only half a smiley face there).  [if Mystic
Marketing was really on the ball, or bell as the case may be, they
could offer a service where they ascertain the content of any phone
call, never having heard the conversation].

Seriously, if I start my own phone local phone company, will I be
under the same FCC/state/local regulations as the Bell Company?  What
if I say I'm not a phone company but an intercom/alarm/pager system?
 From all the TELECOM postings about the responsibility of PBX and
COCOT operators, I have the feeling that the subscriber's rights are
extended, particularly because I can't use the excuse that it's just
an in-store system (like Centrex/Merlin) or a private PBX.

But for the sake of argument, what if I try to extend the wiretapping
"feature" and make it available to others.  I could try to lump it
with "party lines", "conference calls", or a business "monitoring"
service.  Would that skirt the Pennsylvania laws concerning
wiretapping?

Getting back to reality and responsibility, I understand that the laws
regarding recording, joining or monitoring phone calls all specify
that the parties involved must be at least informed and they can give
consent.  If they don't give consent, they can always hang up if the
recording/monitoring doesn't stop.  Establishing a conference call
where others may join in by calling a pre-arranged number is
implicitly giving permission for other to join in unannounced. (And
boy, have some AT&T people been pissed by a fellow joining conference
calls saying "you can't catch me", or just listening in.  That's why
it's preferred to use a bridge operator who announces all additions/
disconnections and sets up the conference call).

Seriously, with all the features that are available with modern
switching equipment, meeting the FBI requirements should not be so
hard.  Isn't it really similar to conferencing/three way calling/other
features with > two parties on the line?


Jeffrey Jonas   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 07:27:19 PDT
From: Nigel Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whither 0037??


As has been already reported, Germany is now in the permissive dialing
period where the new states (former GDR) can be reached under country
code 49 and their new area codes, in addition to +37 and the old area
codes. The permissive period will end in June of this year.

Other changes are taking place at the same time -- as an example,
calls from Luebeck to neighbouring towns in the former East German
territory of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern will be charged at local or
regional rates instead of the long-distance rate previously charged for
all calls via +37 dialing. And calls from Luebeck to Hamburg will
cost more: they will be be charged at long-distance rates instead of
regional rates, as Luebeck is (obviously) no longer in receipt
of "special economic assistance for border regions".

There has been some speculation as to what will happen to country-code
thirty-seven.  One possibility, which does not seem to have received
any publicity yet, is that it may be used for Europe-wide toll-free
numbers.  As this is a fairly radical proposal, I would imagine that
it would require the approval of CCITT. Incidentally, my source for
this information is a letter I received from a British Government
Minister, so it seems that this is already being discussed at
government level, even if no decisions have yet been taken.

Does anyone have any further information or speculation?


Nigel Roberts, European Engineer   "G4IJF"
[phone] / [phone]   FAX [phone]

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

Subject: How Can I Run AT&T 7406D Sets 5000+ Feet From my Switch?
Date: 22 Apr 92 09:11:25 MDT (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (Steve Howard)


The subject line says it all -- I would like to place some 7406D
phones approximatly 5000-22,000 cable-feet from my switch.  Of course
my switch (System 75) will only drive digital phones about 3000 feet  :-(.

I am looking for a device that will act as a "repeater" and allow me
to operate these sets at greater distances.  Is there such a device?
How much does it cost?  I realize that I could put in a small switch
or use a remote cabinet at the distanct locations, but this would not
be cost effective.

Any help would be GREATLY appreciated!!


Steve Howard  [e-mail]  Breckenridge Ski Corporation
Disclaimer = The opinions above do not necessarily represent those
of my employer.

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] (Bud Couch)
Subject: C&W Fans Can do it, Too!
Organization: ADC Kentrox, Portland OR
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 16:02:10 GMT


When tickets went on sale for a Garth Brooks concert in the Portland,
OR Memorial Coliseum on Tuesday, April 21, it jammed up a number of
Oregon central office exchanges. It also set a new record for the
speed of the sell-out for the same venue.

To quote from an article in 4/22/92 issue of the {Oregonian}, by Janet
Filips:

"Forty-six outlets in Washington and Oregon, and a bank of charge-it-by-
phone operators, cranked out more than 11,000 tickets, at $20 a pop,
 from 9 a.m. to 9:29 a.m. Tuesday."

"The ticket-buying frenzy overloaded the telephone network thoughout
the Portland metropolitan area from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., said Bob Wayt,
public affairs manager for GTE. Customers encountered a slow dial
tone, fast busy signal or 'all circuits are busy' recording. 'The
phone companies', said Wayt, 'were not prepared for this burst'."

"US West estimates its network load shot from the usual business day
volume of 250,000 call an hour to about 750,000 an hour from 9 a.m. to
9:40 a.m., said spokeman Jim Haynes."

Eat your heart out, U2. :-)


Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox   If my employer only knew...  standard BS applies

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

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 16:28:35 GMT
From: eb4/91/92 <[e-mail]>
Subject: NYNEX vs BT


Good day to one and all,

As mentioned before, NYNEX is moving into providing an alternative
telephone service. We have recently been connected and here are a few
comments; Initially, the sidetone level seemed to be very high
compared to BT on the same phone, although this now appears to have
been reduced to the same levels.  Dialing out, there is no perceivable
difference between the two. However, dialling from BT to NYNEX there
is a considerable delay. The only other discrepancy is the phone
number. We were informed by the salesmen that our BT number would
automatically be re-routed to the new NYNEX number. This is not so!
Additionally, we were given the impression that local calls would be
free, but they are still metered as is BT. As for the service, from
what little experience we have it is very good compared to BT's
efforts.

There has only really been one problem so far that I am aware of. The
local electricity company had a power outage recently, which knocked
out the roadside multiplexors. I believe this problem has been
mentioned before. NYNEX did send out letters to all their customers
informing them of this occurence and stated that they are now
installing power backups to their multiplexors. We didn't know
anything of this until we received a letter. However, someone else we
know who runs a business and has custom features was quite severely
affected by this and NYNEX has happily agreed to compensate him.

I think on the whole, most people are quite impressed with the
service. For comparison, here are a few prices from BT and NYNEX (who
use Mercury for LD and most international calls);

                     NYNEX-Residential-BT    NYNEX-Business(+17.5% tax)
    Line rental       6.46            7.20         9.50
    Call Barring      3.53            2.66         3.00
 Call Divert/forward  2.35            2.66         2.00
 Call wait/3-way/speed2.35            2.00
 Above + Call divert  2.94            2.50         3.00
    All               5.88            6.30         5.00


  Call type          NY-peak-BT      NY-standard-BT       NY-cheap-BT
Local             4.67 57.5(5.15)    3.35   80(3.7)      1.39  220(1.35)
Calls <56Km       9.05   27(10.9)    6.88   37(8)        3.19   80(3.7)
Calls >56KM      12.42  14(21.15)    9.41   25(11.8)     5.02   38(7.8)
Mobile           40    7.6(39)      40     7.6(39)      30    11.4(26)
Directory enq    40       (45)      40        (45)      30        (45)
Callstream(900)  48    6.2(47.8)    48     6.2(47)      48    8.25(35.9)
 USA             48   4.75(62.3)    45     5.1(58)      40    5.82(50.9)
Oman/USSR/Cuba                      77.8   2.9(102)     62.5  3.65(81)

NY-pence/minute  BT-time per unit(4.935)-(figures in brackets price/minute)

Will this be enough to be competitive? Time will tell, bu they seem to
be doing pretty well so far.


A moderately happy customer,

Bryan
[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] (Bud Couch)
Subject: Group IV Fax (was Re: Sending Faxes Overseas)
Organization: ADC Kentrox, Portland OR
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1992 18:13:03 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.
n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) writes:

> [e-mail] writes:

>> sent, but I'd guess a 10k to 15K size for a corresponding fax.  This
>> depends on fonts used and other details.  While this is still an order
>> of magnitude above his ASCII size, we're talking about a second or
>> three at 56KB (7K Bytes/Second)

> Where does this 56 KB come from?  As you may know, Group III
> faxmodems (v.29) run at 9600 (half-duplex), and the proposed Group IV
> faxmodems (v.17) will run at 14400.  Realistically, a 14400 modem will
> not manage more than 1500-1700 cps, so a Group IV fax should take at
> least ten seconds a page, while the corresponding text-only version
> would take only two seconds a page.

Someone has things confused here -- maybe it's me, but ... I could
have sworn that I have transmitted a group IV fax over a Switched 56
line: that's 56000 bps, out the backside to the net. This was no
"proposed" system either, it used a Ricoh Group IV fax and our Sw56
DSU 200.


Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox   If my employer only knew...  standard BS applies

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #347
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19999;
          28 Apr 92 2:47 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29108
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 28 Apr 1992 00:52:13 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24957
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 28 Apr 1992 00:52:01 -0500
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 00:52:01 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #348

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 28 Apr 92 00:52:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 348

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Looking For V.11 Pinout (Herbert Wolf)
    TCAP Protocol (Michael Brown)
    Four Wire Facilities, Two Wire Facilities, and Modems (Mike R. Ordun)
    Small FCC Approved FM Transmitter (Harold Hallikainen)
    Request For Phone Spec Sources and Some Modem Questions (Gregg Kasten)
    Call For Authors of Telecom Books (Nigel Allen)
    Equivalence Between REN (USA) and Load Number (Canada) (David Nyarko)
    Satellite Comms With Africa/Summary (Larry Jewell)
    CPC Control Mechanism Wanted (Ray Berry)
    EPG Logic Quiz #18975 (F. David Duncan)
    Need MUX and DSU/CSU Recommendations (Philip Green)
    IXCs Carrying Intra-LATA (Todd Inch)
    Telecommunications Article Wanted (Wayne Dinzey)
    Power Line Surge Example (Henry Troup)
    Need Information on Satellite Phone (Joseph Leung)
    EFF is Looking For Telco and BBS Rate Information (Craig Neidorf)
    Bridge to Usenet Newsgroup (Mike Gordon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (DX524 Herbert Wolf)
Subject: Looking For V.11 Pinout
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 14:28:12 GMT


I am looking for the pin configuration for V.11 DB 15 pin interface
providing the RS422 V.35 protocol.

All I have is TxData on pin 2,  9
              RxData        4, 11
              TxClock       6  13


But I need to know which one is the positive and which one is the
negative connection, ie.  TxData+    pin 2
                          TxData-    pin 9 etc.


Any help out here ?


Thanks.

Herbert Wolf, SmartZone Trunking, Land Mobile Product Sector
Motorola, Inc., 1301 E. Algonquin Road, Schaumburg, Illinois 60196, USA
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone], Email: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Brown)
Subject: TCAP Protocol
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 11:36:46 EDT


I'm looking for information on the protocol, TCAP.  TCAP stands for
Transaction Capabilities Protocol, and is used primarily in telephony.
Any pointers to documents, code (if available) would be appreciated.


Michael E. Brown   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike R. Ordun)
Subject: Four Wire Facilities, Two Wire Facilities, and Modems
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mike R. Ordun)
Organization: Bellcore MRE
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 14:16:33 GMT


I want to use a MultiModemV32 modem on a four wire leased facility.
The manual for the modem mentions a four-wire to two-wire convertor;
what is this?  Where can I get one?  Do I really need to buy one or
can I make one easily?  Please respond via mail because I don't
usually read this group.


Thanks,

Mike Ordun     [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 13:47:41 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Small FCC Approved FM Transmitter
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


    I've been super busy and haven't had the opportunity to keep
up with this group for a month or so.  We'll see if stuff settles down
now.  anyway, I got a call this morning from someone who wants to
transmit the stereo sound from various large screen TVs in a gym to
walk-person radios worn by the people in the gym.  I guess they want
to be able to look at one of the several screens and get the
corresponding sound.  Seems like there should be little FM stereo
transmitters available commercially for similar purposes (like sending
your stereo around the house).  Anyone know of one?

    Hey, maybe we can make cheap multiplex movie theatres!  We
just put everyone in a big room with lots of screens.  They bring
their own radios and look at the correct screen.  A friend and I could
go to the movies and see different movies, still being right next to
each other.  Or, we could even have drive in multiple screen theatres
(I dunno, maybe this already exists ...).

    So, although it's a bit off telecom, I'd appreciate any
responses you can provide.


Thanks!

Harold Hallikainen              [e-mail]
Hallikainen & Friends, Inc.     [e-mail]
141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4      phone [phone] fax [phone]
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590  telex 4932775 HFI UI

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

From: [e-mail] (Gregg Kasten)
Subject: Request For Phone Spec Sources and Some Modem Questions
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 22:52:46 GMT


1. Where can I get information about the wires in a typical RJ11 jack?
   For example, what does each wire do? What are the voltages passed
   through these wires?

2. How does an answering machine know when the caller hangs up?

3. Is there a device that I can hook up to my mac that will interpret
   standard phone tones?

My ultimate motivation behind these questions: I would like to see how
feasible it would be for me to program some sort of voicemailing
system for my Macintosh. I posted here since this question involves
modem- and phone-related questions.


Thanks for any info,

Gregg

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: Call for Authors of Telecom Books
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Artech House, the book publishing arm of the company that publishes
{Telecommunications(R)} magazine, says it is seeking to publish new
"telecommunications engineering and management books in such areas as
network management, packet switching, T1 networks, protocol
engineering, ONA, fiber optics, optical switching, multi-vendor
integration, strategic planning, and more."

For more information, contact:

 Mark Walsh, Editor
 Artech House
 685 Canton Street
 Norwood, MA 02062
 U.S.A.
 telephone [phone] or [phone]
 fax [phone]

The ad continues:

 "You can enhance your professional prestigae and earn substantial
royalties by authoring a book. With over 350 titles in print, Artech
House is a leading publisher of professional-level books in
telecommunications, microwave and radar technologies ...

 "We are currently seeking potential authors among engineers and
managers who feel they can make a contribution to the literature in
their areas of expertise. If you have published technical papers,
conducted professional seminars or solved important real-world
problems, you are an excellent candidate for authorship.

 "We invite you to submit your manuscript proposal and outline for
review. For a complete publications catalog and Author's Questionnaire
please contact [Mark Walsh at the address above]."

Of course, Artech House isn't the only publisher a potential author
should consider, and you may be able to get a better deal with a
different publisher.


Nigel Allen                   [e-mail]
52 Manchester Avenue
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1V3   Voice [phone]


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

From: [e-mail] (David Nyarko)
Subject: Equivalence Between REN (USA) and Load Number (Canada)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 23:57:44 GMT


Could I know of the equvalence between the REN as seen on
telephone devices from the US and the Load Number on Canadian
telephone devices. This would enable me determine the total
number of devices which can be connected on a line (Max Load
Number = 100 in Canada).


David Nyarko   |  Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Satellite Comms With Africa/Summary
Date: 26 Apr 92 23:34:22 GMT


Thanks to all who answered my query about satellite communications
with Africa from the U.S.  The consensus for commercial systems was
IMARSAT but for the low budget types, I suggest you look in igc.com
/pub/ASA for some documents of great interest.  You can also contact
Beryl Bellman ([e-mail]) and ask for information on
AFRINET.


Thanks,

Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN) WWII-L Listowner    [e-mail]

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

From: ole![e-mail] (Ray Berry)
Subject: CPC Control Mechanism
Organization: Cascade Design Automation
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 19:17:29 GMT


I no longer see a line current interruption when the calling party
goes on-hook; but, my answering machine still seems to be able to
sense the remote hangup and terminate its recording.  I can't figure
out how it is doing this.

    What are the methods by which this is done?  Could it be that
the current is still present, but simply switches polarity?  Is their
a tone of some kind, etc.  TIA for any help you can offer.


Ray Berry  kb7ht  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 21:10:37 EDT
From: [e-mail] (F. David Duncan)
Subject: EPG Logic Quiz #18975


This is the EPG Programmable Logic Quiz:

ITEM:  22v10, fpga, pld, cpld, epld, pal, clb, antifuse, act1, max, epm5130
ITEM:  xilinx, actel, altera, amd, atmel, intel

If you do not recognize any of the above terms, stop reading now and
trash this mail message.  Continue reading only if you are interested
in programmable devices.

Now that all those who flunked the quiz are gone, we can continue.

There are four items to touch upon with this message.  But first, let
me introduce myself.  My name is David Duncan and I am part of the
Engineering Productivity Group (EPG), a Harris Corporate organization
dedicated to your success.  We have taken it upon ourselves to help
the Harris technical community better understand programmable devices
and the tools associated with them.  This technical field is currently
enjoying staggering growth, and we at the Harris EPG recognize how
easy it is for an individual to fall behind.  But don't get us wrong,
we know there is much to learn from many of you (see ITEM 2).

ITEM 1:  THE MAILING LIST

  Additional information (such as a summary of the results of ITEM 2)
  will only be available to you if you join our mailing list.  This is
  easy to do.  Just acknowledge this message (which should be a simple
  keystroke within your mail system), or call me, and you will be on
  the EPG PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC MAILING LIST.

ITEM 2:  CALL FOR INFORMATION

  When replying to this message, you may relate any experiences you
  have with programmable devices.  Include information such as which
  program within which Harris division used how many of which devices,
  your experiences (good or bad during design or use), or your feelings
  about the devices you have used or the industry in general.

ITEM 3:  CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT

  EPG is currently planning a one day conference on programmable
  devices, much like the conference EE Times held recently in
  California.  We hope to have a dynamic keynote speaker to begin the
  day, followed by eight to ten papers based on your experiences and a
  demo area with ten to fifteen vendors present.  The conference is
  planned for mid-July, 1992, and will be held at a local hotel.  As
  more information becomes available, it will be distributed to those
  on the mailing list (see ITEM 1).

ITEM 4:  CALL FOR PAPERS

  See ITEM 3.


[e-mail]    1025 West Nasa Boulevard
(407) 724 - 3127      Melboring, FL  32919

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

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 09:56:29 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Philip Green)
Subject: Need MUX and DSU/CSU Recommendations
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM


I am investigating combining the voice and data service at one of our
remote sites. I would like to combine everything on a single T1 split
about 50/50 voice/data. I am looking for recommendations, gotchas,
words or wisdom or whatever that may be useful.  I would like include
maximum flexibility and control but not if it is to expensive.


Phil Green    [e-mail]
NRAO          505.835.7294

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

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 92 20:40:39 GMT
Subject: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA?
Organization: Maverick International Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve L.
Rhoades) writes:

> (But wait, I didn't think AT&T was allowed to carry INTRA-Lata
> traffic?!)

That was my understanding at one time, too.  But, recently Sprint was
trying to sell us on their outbound WATS deal and told my boss (who
was somewhat impressed) something to the effect of "you can also save
on calls WITHIN area code 206 by dialing our special prefix."  We're
in 206 which is also the boundary of our LATA.

I'm assuming they meant 10333.  My boss got the impression that this
was something they had over AT&T, our current LD provider.  But, I
tried calling my home, which is a toll "long distance" intra-LATA
call, preceded by both 10ATT and 10333 and they both worked.

Is this legal/legit, or did someone misprogram the CO's switch, or
what?

The other big question is, of course, is: Is it actually cheaper to go
through an IXC than through the local telco?

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

From: Wayne Dinzey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecommunications Article Wanted
Date: 26 Apr 92 22:15:52 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada


I am not certain if this is the right place to post this question but
I am tring here as this seems to be a good group.

I am looking for a telecommunications article of the following description...

E. Szybicki and A.E. Bean, "Advanced traffic routing in local
telephone networks; Performance of proposed call routing algorithms.
Proceedings of the ITC-9, Ninth International Teletraffic Congress,
June, 1979.  (Only one per four years in case the month is incorrect.)

I have tried the Inter-lib loans but not only was it slow (six
months), when the proceedings arrived the article I needed was not in
the journal.  I need to find a library site so that I may focus the
library's loan department and get the article in before I graduate. :-)

Please mail any responses.


Thank you.

Wayne Dinzey                 [e-mail]
Dept. of Computer Science    University of Manitoba

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

Date: 27 Apr 92 10:14:00 EDT
From: Henry (H.W.) Troup <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Power Line Surge Example


Recently, in Kanata, near Ottawa, Ontario, a power pole with a 22KV
line was struck by a vehicle.  The lines fell onto a lower voltage 8KV
line.  The resultant surge damaged several hundred devices in
residential service, mostly TV and VCR equipment.  Ontario Hydro (the
PUC) will be paying for numerous repairs. I haven't heard of any
direct telecom related effects, but thought the case was close enough.


Henry Troup - [e-mail] (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions.

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

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 17:21:58 EST
From: "Tak To" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Information on Satellite Phone


I am posting this for a friend:

Could anyone show me where I can get information on satellite phone
links?  I am primarily interested in using the service; although
technical information is also welcome.

Please reply via e-mail to [e-mail].  Thanks in advance.


Joseph "Bee" Leung    ([e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 15:40:00 -0500
From: Craig Neidorf <[e-mail]>
Subject: EFF Is Looking for Telco and BBS Rate Information


Shari Steele is an attorney at EFF in Washington DC who is currently
doing research about BBSs that are being charged business rates for
their telephone lines.

She has hit a snag and could use your help.  She is trying to find out
if many hobbyist bulletin boards will close down if the SysOps are
forced to pay business (as opposed to residential) rates.

During the the past year, the public utility commissions (PUCs) in
Indiana and Michigan have authorized the telcos to charge business
rates.  Does anyone know if the Indiana and Michigan telcos are
actually enforcing these rules?  Have any boards in these states, in
fact, shut down because of the rate increase?

She not only needs the answers to these questions -- she need sources
to which she can cite in a law review article.

Please send comments and e-mail assistance to:

      Shari Steele   <[e-mail]>


Thanks for your help.

Craig Neidorf <[e-mail]>
Electronic Frontier Foundation -- Washington Office

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

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 15:10:27 CDT
From: Mike Gordon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bridge to Usenet Newsgroup


    Does anyone know how to write a message to a usenet newsgroup if
you don't have News?  My site (UW-Whitewater) doesn't want to devote
hard drive space to News, so I have to get it via anonymous FTP.  But,
what's lacking is a way to post.


Mike Gordon  N9LOI     [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #348
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29241;
          29 Apr 92 3:59 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16770
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 29 Apr 1992 01:37:17 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07143
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 29 Apr 1992 01:37:00 -0500
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 01:37:00 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #349

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 29 Apr 92 01:37:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 349

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Ralph Nader/Cable TV/Information Networks (Jim Donahue)
    Comments on Tadiran Coral PBX? (Todd Inch)
    Computer Law Panel in NYC - Tuesday 4/28 6:30 (Simona Nass)
    US West and Washington BBS Rates (Peter Marshall)
    (519) 884/885/886 Going DMS (Ken Dykes)
    Moderator's Surprise (Bill Squire)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 17:54 GMT
From: "Essential Information, Inc." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ralph Nader/Cable TV/Information Networks


Summary: Your help is needed to secure an amendment to pending cable
television legislation.  The amendment would create a mechanism to
organize local Cable Consumer Action Groups (CCAGs) to represent the
interests of consumers directly before regulatory and legislative
bodies.  This proposal is an innovative way to create countervailing
power to some of the large corporate interests that control our
information infrastructure, and it is a model that is highly relevant
for users of oice and data network services.  Readers are asked to
sign a letter to Congress supporting this amendment.  Action is needed
very soon.  Respond to Jim Donahue, Teledemocracy Project (Internet:
[e-mail])


Dear citizen:

As you may know, congress is currently considering cable television
legislation.  Every television consumer should be concerned about the
outcome of this legislation, and particularly citizens who are
concerned about the future of information technologies.  The current
fiasco with the cable industry is an important example of the
management of information technologies for the benefit of a few
corporate monopolists at the expense of the many.  Today nearly all
americans are confronted with a monopoly provider of cable video
signals, who not only has total control over what you can receive, but
also what you pay.

Over the next 15 years we will see a rapid convergence of information
technologies.  Soon it will be possible to transmit voice, data, and
video signals over the same fiber optic telecommunications
infrastructure.  The fight over who will control the content of
information that flows over that infrastructure, and how it will be
priced, will define who can send and who can receive information in
digital form.  As the use of modern technologies increasingly makes it
easier to meter the consumption of information products and services,
the gaps between the information rich and information poor will
continue to grow.

The current battle over the regulation of the cable television
industry is an important step in a more general battle over the
control of our information infrastructure.  This is a battle over
power and wealth, and also over democratic values, competition, and
enlightenment.  Will we harness our great new information technologies
to promote a diversity of sources of information, or will these
technologies be used primarily as vehicles for narrowly focused
commercial interests, exercising monopoly power?

     CABLE CONSUMER ACTION GROUPS (CCAG) AS COUNTERVAILING POWER

A number of consumer groups have asked Congress to adopt an innovative
proposal to help cable television subscribers organize to represent
their interests.  Notices describing local Cable Consumer Action
Groups (CCAGs), which would be independent and democratically
controlled local organizations, would be placed in the cable companies
billings.  The notices describe the purposes and goals of the group
and solicit funds for membership. The CCAG would be required to
reimburse the cable company for the incremental costs of inserting the
notice in the bill, so the cost would not be a burden to the cable
company or its subscribers.  These local subscriber consumer groups
would then monitor the policies and practices of the cable company,
and represent consumer interests in regulatory and legislative
proceedings and with the cable companies directly.

The cable industry is extremely active politically, contributing
millions of dollars to candidates for political office and spending
millions more in lobbying activities before legislative and regulatory
bodies.  In the absence of something like the CCAG, important public
policy issues are debated in an extremely unbalanced way.  The CCAG is
a modest but important step in addressing a very corrupt system that
regularly tramples on the rights and interests of consumers.

Among the groups that have endorsed this proposal are:

     Center for Media Education
     Consumer Federation of America
     New York City Commissioner of Consumer Affairs
     Public Citizen
     Teledemocracy Project
     U.S. Public Interest Research Group

HAS IT BEEN TRIED BEFORE?

This proposal is based on the highly successful Citizen Utility Board
(CUB) model, which has represented ratepayers in several states.  The
most successful CUB, in Illinois, has 170,000 members; its advocacy
has saved consumers some $2 billion over the past several years.
Other CUBs exist in Wisconsin, Oregon and San Diego.  We want to see
this innovation used nation wide in the cable television industry.
(Of course, it may well be a model that has applications to other
telecommunications issues.)

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

The CCAG proposal was included in H.R. 4850, but was deleted by a
voice vote (in contrast to a recorded vote) in the House Subcommittee
on Telecommunications and Finance.  The bill is now in the full Energy
and Commerce Committee, where committee supporters will seek to
restore the provision through an amendment.  We are asking you to send
us an email message giving permission to use your name in a letter to
Congress supporting this amendment. If you are willing to do so send
the following information to the Teledemocracy Project (internet:
[e-mail], or fax [phone]).

     Name:
     Title: (optional)
     Affiliation:  (optional)
     Address:
     City and State:  (important, for obvious reasons)
     telephone:  (for verification)
     email address:  optional


Thank you very much for your help on this.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

A copy of the letter follows:

LETTER

Chairman Edward Markey
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Markey:

We are writing to support your "consumer representation" amendment to
H.R. 4850, the cable re-regulation bill. It is imperative that new
cable legislation provide a mechanism that gives consumers a stronger
voice in regulatory and legislative debates.  This amendment is ideal
because it brings citizens into the regulatory process at no cost to
the government or the cable industry.

Who in Congress can deny the unfairness of a system where the owners
of cable monopolies can use subscriber revenues for lobbying purposes
while consumers are left powerless and unrepresented?  This is only a
small step toward curbing the monopolistic power of the cable
television industry. We urge the House Energy and Commerce Committee
to include your consumer representation amendment in the cable bill.


Sincerely,

    -------

For more information, contact:

Jim Donahue
Teledemocracy Project
voice:  202/387-8030
fax:  [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]

For a an email copy of the amendment contact Jim Donahue (internet:
[e-mail]).

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

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: Comments on Tadiran Coral PBX?
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 20:39:48 GMT


I've finally done enough research to recommend that our corporation
buy a Tadiran Coral II PBX to replace our aged, maxxed-out, "dumb" key
system.

Before we sign the check, does anyone have any experiences with the
Coral to share with me?  I'm particularly worried about "normal"
configurations which one would want to program which are impossible,
such as I've heard about the Norstar and some others, or features
which are poorly implemented or unnecessarily conflict with each
other.

Please e-mail because (1) our news is intermittent and (2) this
probably isn't of general interest.  Also please e-mail if you'd like
a summary of comments or more info.  Thanks.


Todd Inch ([e-mail]) - MIS Supervisor, Maverick Int'l, Mukilteo WA, USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Simona Nass)
Subject: Computer Law Panel in NYC - Tuesday 4/28 6:30
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 20:00:17 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY


               A Survey of Issues in Computer Law

               Tuesday, April 28, 1992, 6:30 p.m.

        An introductory panel discussion sponsored by the
           Cardozo School of Law Computer Law Society

                               ***

                             Topics:

                            Contracts
                             Patents
        How Copyright Protection has Failed Computer Law
                      BBS Ownership Issues
                           Multi-Media
                Liability for Defective Software

                               ***

                         Moot Court Room
                      Cardozo School of Law
                         55 Fifth Avenue
                 (between 12th and 13th Streets)
                       New York, New York

                               ***

This event is open to the public. If you have any questions, please
call 212-982-4320 or send e-mail to [e-mail].

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, though I do have an opinion on everything.
     (     [e-mail]    or    {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona     )


[Moderator's Note: I am sorry that a backlog of other items prevented
this from coming to my attention before now. Perhaps someone who
attended will summarize the program for us.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 19:25:43 -0700
From: ole!rwing![e-mail] (Peter Marshall)
Subject: US West and Washington BBS Rates


According to the 4/14/92 {Communications Daily}, "US West in
Washington apparently has decided not to follow the example of Oregon
and attempt to raise rates for (BBS) hobbyists." The article
indicates that the WA PUC's consumer affzirs manager queried US West
on its policy after receiving a request from BBS operators. According
to the official's 3/31/92 reply to a Seattle sysop, "The company
indicates it has no intention of changing its current procedure,"
which, said the trade pub, is residential servicve for hobbyist
systems "with business rates applying under other conditions."

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

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 18:34:46 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Ken Dykes)
Subject: (519) 884/885/886 Going DMS


Well, what is probably one (if not THEE :-) last crossbar era switches
(definitly not digital) left in Bell Canada Ontario territory is going
digital.  This is the switch I have been on for most of my life.  It
services area 519 prefixes 884,885,886 This switch has always provided
good clean strong connections and true to my nature I am nervous about
the change (I don't NEED silly Class features) if I still get good
clean strong connections, fine, and I presume the DMS switch going in
does have a good reputation when in capable hands.

The following insert was in my phone bill today:

 DIGITAL SWITCHING
   starts May 23 for Waterloo customers with 884, 885 and 886 numbers.
   We are installing digital equipment in the switching centre serving
   your exchange to provide you with more efficient service and allow
   for optional Custom Calling Features.

 New Switching Equipment:
   When digital switching goes in service on May 23, 1992, you will notice
   some changes.  For example, the dial tone will have a different
   sound and, if you have a rotary dial set, you will not hear a click
   in the receiver as the dial returns to rest.

   Be sure to begin dialing as soon as you hear the dial tone.  If you
   delay, the equipment may time out and you will need to hang up
   and dial again.

   When dialing to other exchanges you may find a noticeable silent
   pause from the time you finish dialing until the telephone rings.
   This is caused by the transition from one type of switching equipment
   to another.

       [so much for SS7 :-), I presume bizarre configs for a couple
       months while they do inter/intra office changeover, the same
       office/location has digitial switches for other exchanges,
       those exchanges already have near instantaneous call setup times]

 If You Have Ident-A-Call:
    If you have the Ident-A-Call feature
    [multiple numbers, distinctive ringing, one hard line]
    you will notice a change in the duration of the distinctive ringing code.

 If You Have a Touch-Tone Telephone:
    Touch-Tone telephones must be connected to a Touch-Tone line for the
    service to continue to work after the changeover to digital switching.
    [we did enjoy the fact that if your neighbor got it, you did too :-]
    If you have purchased a touch tone telephone or have been given one
    as a gift and have not yet subscribed to Touch-Tone service, please
    call the Business Office to avoid any service disruption.  An
    administrative charge may apply for subscribing to Touch-Tone service
    in addition to the monthly charge of $2.55 for residence; $3.80 for
    business.

  Rural-line Service
    If you call someone with rual-line service you will no longer hear a
    coded ring (for example, one long and one short ring).  Instead you
    will hear a single ring, repeated until the phone is answered.  The
    person on the rural line will hear the coded ring as usual.


  New Features Available Soon:
    Following the changeover to digital switching, you will have an
    opportunity to try out some Custom Calling Features -- call forwarding,
    call waiting and speed calling.  These features will be available for
    an eight-week trial period free of charge.  Watch your mail for more
    information.  You'll find out just how much your telephone can do
    for you.

[or *to* you. :-); Another local switch gave away free call-waiting to
*all* lines over a year ago.  Anyone using a modem got nailed by the
waiting tones since they were unaware of how "nice" Ma Bell was being
to them. Even when people figured out they needed the disable-waiting
sequence when calling computers, there were still whole banks of
modems/lines at the universities etc that would hang up from their end
 -- since the user couldn't disable the remote signal. Bell would
disable on a *line* basis if requsted by customers once they both
became aware of what the problem *really* was with their modems, and
also aware that Bell WOULD do the disable if asked. It took quite a
while for useable computer service to reappear. Thanks Ma!]


Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada    [43.47N 80.52W]
  [e-mail]  [e-mail]  thinkage!kgdykes
  [e-mail]          [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Squire)
Subject: Moderator's Surprise
Date: 27 Apr 92 16:15:23 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


> [Moderator's Note: I find it hard to believe in Holland it is legal to
> bypass the billing equipment ... if you know how, of course!    PAT]

I find it hard to believe they haven't made phreaking/hacking legal in
the USA!  Put the responsibility on the carriers or corporations that
use computers and the problem will go away alot faster than putting
the "problem" in jail!  Of course fraud is illegal in most lands, but
the idea here is nobody gets stuck with the bill, so no fraud has been
committed. Come on Pat, pay us a visit and loosen up!  A lot of things
illegal in America are legal here.  Is it any secret, if you don't
make it a problem, the problem is gone?  Except for stolen bicycles,
we don't have much crime here.  Makes you wonder!


Bill


[Moderator's Note: What do you mean 'since nobody gets stuck with the
bill, no fraud has been committed'?  The telephone administration got
stuck with the bill! You defrauded the telephone exchange, which is
regulated under law and permitted (and required to by tariff) receive
certain fees for their service. Would you also consider shoplifting to
not be a crime since no actual 'customer' lost any money in the
process and only the seller of the goods lost anything? Do the sellers
of goods and services (merchants, telecom administrations, etc) have
any rights in the matter, and the right not to be victimized?

And your comment that if something is not made into a problem,
therefore you have no problem is a very purile response. Your country
not having as much crime as the USA is the result of far more complex
circumstances than the fact that you have fewer proscriptions against
certain kinds of behavior.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #349
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01196;
          29 Apr 92 4:49 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11487
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 29 Apr 1992 02:19:23 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09336
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 29 Apr 1992 02:19:15 -0500
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 02:19:15 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #350

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 29 Apr 92 02:19:04 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 350

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Latest California Disaster (John Higdon)
    Re: Latest California Disaster (Linc Madison)
    Re: Latest California Disaster (Dave Johnston)
    Re: Latest California Disaster (Steve Elias)
    Re: White House Telecomms (David B. Whiteman)
    Re: White House Telecomms (Carl Moore)
    Re: White House Telecomms (Charlie Mingo)
    Re: White House Telecomms (Brett G. Person)
    Re: The March of the Telephone Trucks (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: The March of the Telephone Trucks (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Linc Madison)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Corinna Polk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 01:04 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Latest California Disaster


TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]> writes:

> If John Higdon can get through to us, perhaps he will provide news.

 From my throne here in the SF Bay Area :-), there has been nothing at
all. The first quake last week was in the Desert Hot Springs area,
somewhat east of Los Angeles in the southern, low desert area. An
associate who happened to be in San Bernardino at the time mentioned
that it was quite a shaker (he was on the roof of an office building
at the time) but little damage and no injuries or fatalities were
reported. A 6.0 on the Richter Scale, it did little more than knock
goods off of store shelves, etc.

The Ferndale quake (6.9 RS) and the subsequent major aftershocks were
another matter. Ferndale, which is just south of Eureka, is in the
extreme north end of the state, right near the coast. Buildings were
knocked off of foundations, water and other utilities including
telephone service were disabled, and there were a number of injuries
but no fatalities that I heard of. A number of seasoned reporters in
the area describe much of the damage as resembling that which we
experienced in the Oct '89 Loma Prieta Earthquake.

Unfortunately, both of these quake areas (southern and northern) are
relatively remote and there are probably not many readers of the
Digest in either place. I have no friends, family, or associates that
live north of San Francisco, so I have no first-hand knowledge at all
of that disaster. It has been covered well in the local media, and
surely others from this area will have more information.


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 02:28:10 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Latest California Disaster
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


Well, here's the latest as of the 11 o'clock news on Sunday, 4/26.

Last Wednesday, there was a 6.1 earthquake in southeastern California,
near the town of Indio and the Joshua Tree National Monument.  It
broke windows in nearby Palm Springs and other towns, but did
relatively little damage, in large measure because its epicenter was
in a sparsely populated desert area.  Impact on the telephone system
has been minimal.

Saturday morning at 11:06, a quake measuring between 6.4 and 7.1
(depending on whose estimate you read) hit near Eureka, on the
northern coast, about 230 miles north of San Francisco, 2/3 of the way
to Oregon.  There have been TWO aftershocks of 6.0 or greater
magnitude so far, both of which have done extensive damage.  The
telephone system reached saturation earlier today in Humboldt County,
and Pacific Bell has asked subscribers in the area to limit their
calls to emergencies only.  Telephone service was not significantly
disrupted, though, for those structures that were still standing.
There were two small towns whose central business districts were
75-100% destroyed.  Electricity and water have been restored to all
but a few locations in the affected area, but the aftershocks may
still be coming down the pipe -- 25% chance of another 6.0 and 65% of
at least a 5.0 in the next few days.

Both earthquakes occurred near the San Andreas Fault, but they were
not otherwise related in any way.  The Joshua Tree and Ferndale quakes
were felt in Los Angeles and San Francisco, respectively, but did not
do any damage in either metropolitan area.  Injury reports so far have
been remarkably light for quakes of this size -- mainly a tribute to
very strict building codes.

If you have friends or relatives in the area south of Eureka that you
are having difficulty reaching, please call your local Red Cross
office for the numbers to call to reach the Red Cross.  Several
hundred people have been left homeless, especially in Ferndale,
Scotia, Petrolia, Rio Dell, and Fortuna (all in Humboldt County).


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Johnston <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Apr 92 09:20:21 PST
Subject: Re: Latest California Disaster


In TELECOM Digest V12 #347, TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> wreak havoc. Can we get some up to date reports on the telecom
> situation in California as of Sunday afternoon/evening?

Well, I had the unique pleasure of being in Humboldt County on
Saturday.  My ex-wife and children live in McKinleyville, about ten
miles north of Eureka.  While we certainly felt the quake and I had
can attest to that, fortunately there was no damage in our area.  We
had a few pictures fall off the windows, but nothing like what
happened in the Ferndale, Scotia, Rio Del areas.

We turned lost power for a few minutes, during which time we turned on
the AM/FM radio and to our suprise, the local radio stations were
still playing normal music programs.  It took 10 to 15 minutes before
they even mentioned it.  I'm not sure if they were still trying figure
things out or what.  Apparently a number of the stations did go off
the air immediately after the quake, but most returned quickly.

Immediately after the quake, (as did everyone else) my ex-wife tried
to call her mother who was in Fortuna, significantly closer to the
affected areas.  She was unable to get dial tone, even after a 30
second wait. One of her neighbors had a cellular phone and found he
had service and it appeared to work normal, although he couldn't get
through the phone in his home.

About 15 minutes later the phone rang and my ex-mother-in-law was able
to get through from Fortuna.  Approximately 15 minutes later I tried
to contact my family in Ukiah, about 150 miles south of Eureka on
Highway 101 and was able to get through the first time, although there
was a five to ten second wait for dial tone.

I didn't have anyone to call in the immediately affected area, so I
can't provide more detail regarding Ferndale, etc.  I do remember
several years ago when I had a friend who lived there that it was a
Contel area and had a particularly ancient step CO.  Credit card or
collect dialing to Pac Bell areas was a unique experience.

Probably the most significant things that I will remember are not
directly Telecom related, but I'll tell you anyway.  First, on my way
back to Ukiah at approximately 5:15 pm, I passed through Eureka, the
biggest city in the area, approximately 30,000 population and it was
deserted.  Most of the stores were closed and very few people were on
the streets.  Normally, on a sunny spring afternoon, the place would
have been jammed (a relative term) with people trying enjoy the day.

The other thing that really struck me was that in our trip south, we
saw 12 TV-news mobile units.  They ranged in size from a couple of the
suburban style microwave remotes that most of us have seen to huge
tractor-trailer sized rigs with mobile 15 foot earth stations.  It was
quite a media extravaganza!

After returning home Saturday evening, I heard reports that there were
no telecom related problems in the Ukiah area, other than slow connect
time in calls to the Humboldt County area.

On Sunday morning at 4:18 am I awoke to my bedroom shaking.  I thought,
yeah, that's it, the earthquakes followed me home.  After I got up
later I had found out that there had been the two 6+ aftershocks, so I
called my ex and got through first time, no problem.  No problems for
them either.

Well, that's about all I can add at the moment.  As far as telecom is
concerned, I don't think there was much of an affect, other than right
in the disaster area itself.  I'm sure we'll hear from John Higdon and
others down in the Bay Area, but I suspect they won't have experienced
much either unless they tried to call loved ones.


Dave Johnston, WD6AOE             Santa Rosa Junior College
Supervisor, Campus Data/Telecom         1501 Mendocino Ave.
[e-mail]                 Santa Rosa, CA  95401
Voice [phone]                   Fax [phone]

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

Subject: Re: Latest California Disaster
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 10:23:09 PDT
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


As far as I've heard, there is no major telecom news relating to the
quake except that some sort of long distance blocks similar to those
used after loma prieta were used up around ferndale.


eli


[Moderator's Note: Even the cross-talk in all the downtown phone lines
has finally started going away as the wires dry out/get replaced.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David B. Whiteman)
Subject: Re: White House Telecomms
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 00:26:02 GMT


Yesterday I visited the Richard Milhaus Nixon Museum and Library in
Yorba Linda, California.  One of the exhibits was the phone that Nixon
used to speak to Neal Armstrong when he was on the moon.  The phone
was a rotary phone with five line buttons.  One button was marked
extension #499, a second button was marked extension #500, the next
two buttons are blank, and the fifth button was marked Haldeman.

I am sure that the extension numbers have changed since then.

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

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 13:12:58 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: White House Telecomms


[Moderator's Note: Referring to the hostile reaction at the phone
number given out by Baker ...]

What exactly was the hot water about?  The volume of calls or the time
difference (coming from Israel to Washington DC) or both?

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 01:04:33 -0500
Subject: Re: White House Telecomms


[e-mail] (Garrett Wollman) writes:

> And how could anyone forget the James Baker press conference where the
> Secretary of State said -- to a whole gallery of press people -- that if
> the Israelis were serious about peace, they should call a certain +1 202
> 88x number (I guess Baker's office); when this was broadcast on the
> national news later on that night, it got Baker in hot water with the
> State Department secretarial corps.

    It was during Baker's testimony before the Senate Foreign Affairs
Committee in June 1990, that he said "The number is 202-456-1414: when
you're serious about peace, call us!" (He gave out the listed number
of the White House switchboard; since he was reading from a prepared
statement, it can hardly have been accidental -- particularly for a
diplomat.)  The White House got a lot of junk calls from the kind of
TV viewers who just have to dial every number they hear on the air.

     By the way, the Israelis never did call; two months later the
Gulf War started and the issue of the Palestinians and the West Bank
was put on ice for a year or so.

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

From: plains![e-mail] (Brett G Person )
Subject: Re: White House Telecomms
Date: 28 Apr 92 11:12:58 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND


I have a local businessman's card that purports to list the phone
numbers of George Bush and the Pope, among others.  Thought it was
kind of cute.

I haven't tried calling the numbers.


Brett G. Person   North Dakota State University
uunet!plains!person | [e-mail] | [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The Pope is listed in the phone book.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 15:47:22 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: The March of the Telephone Trucks
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> asuvax!gtephx!williamsk@
ncar.UCAR.EDU (Kevin W. Williams) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
> writes:

>> Just NOW, I tried the Marshall Field number (312-781-1000) and did get
>> the three-tone intro (any name for it? this signals a phoneco error

> It is called Subscriber Information Tone (SIT).

   Sorry, it's "Special Information Tones."  Bellcore (in "Notes on
the BOC Intra-LATA Networks - 1986", TR-NPL-000275) uses the word
"Special" because the tones aren't there for subscribers.  The
original use was to allow automated call detection devices to easily
classify call failures by type (Service Evaluation Systems, for
example).  There are seven SIT sequences defined by Bellcore, using
the CCITT-defined (see Q.35) combination of two low tones, two middle
tones and one high tone, each of either a short (274 msec) or long
(380 msec) duration.

   The SIT tones are assigned to categories called Reorder, Vacant
Code, No Circuit, Intercept and Ineffective Other.  Each specific
announcement or tone-generating condition is assigned to one of those
categories.  For Inter-LATA calls, there are IC versions of Reorder
and Vacant Code that attempt to distinguish whether the condition is
due to LEC or IC problems.

   For example, All Trunks Busy from an AT to the IC should get the
IC-version of No Circuit SIT, with the announcement "We're sorry, all
long distance company circuits are busy now.  Will you please try your
call again later?"  But All Trunks Busy from EO to AT (LEC engineered)
will get the LEC-version of No Circuit SIT, then "We're sorry, all
circuits are busy now.  Will you please try your call again later?"
Of course, if the latter announcement ISN'T provided, you just
overflow to generic Reorder tone (120 IPM).


Al Varney - just my opinion

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

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 00:09:56 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The March of the Telephone Trucks


Kevin W. Williams writes:

> It is called Subscriber Information Tone (SIT).

Nope, It's Special Information Tones.  I've got a list of them Toby
Nixon posted somewhere, if anyone is interested.


Pat Turner   KB4GRZ    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 02:40:40 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In <[e-mail]> Jeffrey Jonas [e-mail]:

>> How many out there have problems with callers hanging up the moment
>> you answer the phone and say "hello"?

> I offer a few explanations for this behavior:

>    2) lack of ability on the caller's part to reply in English.
> Perhaps they spoke only Chinese.  Even then, it would be polite to say
> "sorry" in their native language before hanging up.

It may also be more than just a language barrier: some other cultures
have different protocols of dealing with a telephone.  For example, I
had a roommate in college who was from the People's Republic of China
(which is how I know how much a collect call from Havana, Cuba,
costs).  One time I answered the phone on what turned out was a call
for him.

Me:    Hello.
Caller:    Hello.  <long, expectant pause, waiting for *me* to speak>
Me:    Hel-lo.
Caller:    Hello.  <another long, expectant pause>
        <Finally asked for Shu-zhi>

Evidently, in China it is customary for the CALLED party to first
identify him/herself and begin the conversation -- a protocol that is
entirely foreign to Americans.


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]

P.S. That said, I still think the great majority are just rude people
whose parents din't teach'em no manners.

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

From: [e-mail] (Corinna Polk)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Date: 27 Apr 1992 11:51:46 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A
Lyons) writes:

> How do you get the *69 callback feature?  Is it available in Los
> Angeles?  This sounds like a good idea.  I have had a number of hangup
> calls in the past and it would be nice to call them back just to find
> out who they are.

> [Moderator's Note: Ask the business office if 'automatic call-back',
> and other CLASS (enhanced custom calling) features are available in
> your area. If so, get them; if not, so sorry!    PAT]

GTE says that their LA area will be getting CLASS features starting
late summer/early fall of this year. That probably means spring '93,
but at least it's a start. They didn't have a list of the features
that will be implemented, but it sounded like it would be callback
(PAT's *69), Special Call Forwarding, and Busy-Redial among others.

I'd call PacBell to ask them, but everytime I try to ask them any
questions they get real suspicious and want my name and home phone
before they search for anyone who might know any answers.

"1AESS? Is that the answer to your question?"

Uhm, sure ...

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #350
******************************