The World of Computer Software/The World of Computer Software.iso/tc13-031.zip/TC13-031.TXT

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 24KB | 531 lines

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 Jan 93 23:47:20 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 31

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What is Tariff 12 (or is it 11)? (John R. Levine)
    Re: What is Tariff 12 (or is it 11)? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: What is Tariff 12 (or is it 11)? (Andy Sherman)
    Re: What is Tariff 12 (or is it 11)? (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: Apartment Security Stupidity (Nelson Bolyard)
    Re: Apartment Security Stupidity (Peter Sleggs)
    Re: Apartment Security Stupidity ([e-mail])
    Re: Phonejak Transmission System (Mike Baptiste)
    Re: Phonejak Transmission System (Brad S. Hicks)
    Re: It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature ... (Ron Heiby)
    Re: It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature ... (Alex Pournelle)
    Re: It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature ... (Chuck Munro)
    Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works (Richard Nash)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: What is Tariff 12 (or is it 11)?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 18 Jan 93 20:28:48 EST (Mon)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


Hi, it's me again.  Tariff 12 is how AT&T cuts special deals with big
customers.  All of their LD offerings have to be tariffed, but under
tariff 12 they make up plans customized to large clients.  For
example, if they were making a pitch for DEC's business, they'd make a
tariff 12 offering for so many leased lines from Maynard to the rest
of the world, so much VPN, so much this, and so much that, with
pricing determined in some way.  They publish it under t-12 and after
a short delay to allow for objections to be filed, it goes into effect
and the customer buys it.  I suppose that if you happened to have the
exact same telecom needs as a t-12 customer, you too could buy it
under the same terms.  In reality, the main point is that it requires
AT&T to disclose the special deals they make with large customers so
the competition can object if it's predatory and no doubt try to go in
and undercut them.

Something that may or may not be related is the aggregator business.
AT&T has a standard tariff in which many locations get service with
the rates determined by the total of all the locations, but bills sent
to each location individually, designed for large companies with
decentralized accounting.  But since resale of LD telephone service is
allowed, Fred's Fone Co. can buy service with this deal and then
resell it to lots of unrelated companies, with AT&T still billing each
location direct and Fred keeping part of the difference between the
aggregate rate and the POTS rate.  On the one hand, AT&T isn't crazy
about having all of the Freds selling their service, since these
companies tend to be sort of sleazy and unstable.  But on the other
hand, this is a way that they can offer competitive rates for
companies smart enough to know that POTS is overpriced but not big
enough to be worth t-12.  I suppose that a really big aggregator could
try and cut a t-12 deal of their own, but I'm sure MCI would scream
bloody murder.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: What is Tariff 12 (or is it 11)?
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 14:41:05 GMT


Tariff 12 describes AT&T's quantity-discount service.  It is offered
to selected huge companies which spend millions on communications
services, and provides very deep discounts.  If you happen to be
General Motors, American Airlines, or perhaps John Higdon, ask how
much you could save on your long distance bill if you want _lots_ of
talk time!


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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 23:01:20 EST
Organization: Salomon Inc, Rutherford NJ
Subject: Re: What is Tariff 12 (or is it 11)?
From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)


On 15 Jan 93 00:15:51 GMT, [e-mail] (Paul Robinson) said:

> AT&T has a special schedule for some customers, which apparently the
> customers love and AT&T's competitors hate.  I was wondering what it
> was.

> The name of the schedule is either the infamous "Tariff 11" or "Tariff
> 12".

It's Tariff 12, and yes, big customers love it and (usually) the
competition hates it.

Tariff 12 offerings are how AT&T puts together special package deals
for big customers.  Say you're a big firm and want to bundle a whole
lot of various voice and data services together.  So you go to MCI or
Sprint and they offer you a special deal, just for you.  They you
comparison shop and go to AT&T.  So they offer you a special deal
that's maybe a little sweeter than MCI's or Sprint's.  *However*, AT&T
cannot offer that special deal to just you.  No indeed, AT&T is the
only player in this game who is still regulated and must file tariffs
with the FCC for every price change, and AT&T is not allowed to wheel
and deal just for you.  But, the FCC lets AT&T go after your business
by making sure that anybody buying the same particular bundle of
services that you are buying can get the same deal you got.  AT&T
files a new schedule under Tariff 12 that covers your deal.  In the
unlikely event somebody can actually use your deal, they can get your
deal, since it's tariffed.

So, by continually amending Tariff 12, AT&T can meet price competition.
Needless to say, the competition is often heard objecting to Tariff 12
filings, since their belief in free markets seems to be limited to
their own pricing, not AT&T's.  Most of the time the Tariff 12's go
through, although recently either the FCC or the courts decided that
800 services could not be bundled into a Tariff 12 offering.  (Seems
bizarre to me, but hey, what do I know?)

Oh yes one other interesting and little known postscript.  (BTW, This
is *NOT* proprietary information from my AT&T days, it was in the
media at the time, but nobody remembers this stuff).  Among AT&T's
Tariff 12 customers is none other than, (Pat, a drum roll please),
 ....................... MCI.  No fooling.


Andy Sherman
Salomon Inc  -  Unix Systems Support  -  Rutherford, NJ
[phone]  -  [e-mail] or [e-mail]
"These opinions are mine, all *MINE*.  My employer can't have them."


[Moderator's Note: Do you recall what it is that MCI purchases from
AT&T under Tariff 12? Some international circuits to places MCI does
not cover, perhaps?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: What is Tariff 12 (or is it 11)?
Organization: CMC Network Systems (Rockwell DCD), Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 05:52:27 GMT


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

> AT&T has a special schedule for some customers, which apparently the
> customers love and AT&T's competitors hate.  I was wondering what it
> was.

AT&T is recognized by FCC as "the dominant Inter-Exchange Carrier" and
subject to stricter regulations than other carriers, such as MCI or
Sprint.  In effect, all of AT&T's pricing must be in accordance with
published tariffs, approved by the FCC.

Occasionally, however, a large customer comes along, who "deserves"
special discounts. The deal is worked out ... and then it is written
up in the same kind of anonymous-but-specific language that will be
familiar to those of you who have read the fine print in the federal
tax code (Like how all real property must be depreciated over 20 years
except for football stadiums in cities between one and three million
west of the Mississippi which started construction during August of
1990; those can be written off over three years ... while this example
is fictitious, you'd be surprised at how blatant much of this is).

Tariff 12 is a collection of all the special deals, described in
anonymous detail. "Regardless of other tariffs, the following rates
apply to business with 1000 to 1195 trunks and a call volume of
1,000,000 to 3,000,000 million minutes per day where less than 65% of
the call minutes are within the greater New York City Standard
Metropolitan Area ....".

In the last couple of years, courts have forced AT&T to honor these
tariffs whenever somebody else could match the published descriptions,
and creative resellers have put together aggregation packages based on
these deals.

AT&T of course want to see the tariff 12 rules replaced by a simple
statement to the effect that "other tariffs notwithstanding, the
company shall be free to offer such discounts as it shall deem
necessary to secure important customers"; this is essentially the rule
under which MCI or Sprint operates.


It is fair to allow sweetheart deals? I guess it depends on your
political attitudes. Personally, I think we all would be better off,
if the system had a mild bias in favor of "the little guy". Thus, I
think it is reasonable to place more restrictions on the dominant
carrier. I also think the obligation to publish the sweetheart deal
and offer the same terms to any customer in similar circumstances is
reasonable.


Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer    Internet E-mail: [e-mail]
CMC Network Products / Rockwell Int'l    Telephone: [phone]
Santa Barbara, CA 93117-3083        TeleFAX:   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Nelson Bolyard)
Subject: Re: Apartment Security Stupidity
Date: 18 Jan 1993 11:05:25 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA


One of my wife's relatives lives in an apartment building with an
entry control device similar to the one described in the cited
article.

When we went to visit her, we followed the instructions on the
intercom box, and dialed her three-digit apartment number on what was
obviously a pay-phone keypad, and waited for her to grant entry.  We
then listened as the device obtained dial tone, and dialed a phone
number using touch tone dialing.  We heard the phone ringing, and
heard her answer her phone, obviously not knowing we were at her
doorstep.  When she told us she'd unlock the door for us, we could
hear a touch tone on the intercom at the same time the door lock
buzzed.

My first thought was that perhaps a "bad guy" with a "pocket dialer"
device (capable of producing the usual 12 dialing tones) could also
gain entry, even against the occupant's will.

Later in our visit we learned that this device is not only used by
visitors but also by the residents of the apartment building (which
has roughly 30 apartments) themselves to enter to the building.  This
is done by pressing the * or # key on the outside keypad, followed by
the resident's "password" which (I learned) is set by the apartment
manager to the last four digits of the resident's phone number.

A listing of the occupants' names and apartment numbers appeared on
the front of the intercom box, and it would seem that this information
plus a phone book should suffice to grant entry to anyone.

But even without the right phone book, one can gain access pretty
quickly.  This device's "password" protocol does not involve entering
the apartment number first, and any resident's password will work.
So, given that there are 30 apartments, there are 30 combinations of
four digits that will open the door.  And given that less than 9000
numbers from a typical "exchange" of 10,000 are used, one has a better
than one in 300 chance that any valid phone number will work.  It is
likely that any single page from a phone book contains a working
"password".

Before leaving, I advised her to keep her door deadbolted even when
home, in case she received any phone calls from any unwanted visitors.


Nelson Bolyard     [e-mail]     {decwrl,sun}!sgi!nelson
Disclaimer: I do not speak for my employer.


[Moderator's Note: I am rather surprised that this system actually
dialed a seven-digit phone number. Most such arragements simply seize
the pair at some point between the CO and the tenant to (1) temporar-
ily disconnect the wire from the CO and (2) impose their own battery
and ringing current on the line. Under the system where your in-law
lives, call-waiting is absolutely necessary; otherwise a visitor at
the door might wait a long time to reach someone if the line was busy.
Better quality systems such as I described will first test for busy on
the CO line (I think tip to ground or something) and if the line is
busy with a call from the CO then the device puts its own call-waiting
tone on the line (regardless of whether the tenant has it otherwise)
and when the tenant flashes the hook, the device will put the CO on
hold while connecting itself to the pair (and the tenant's phone).
When the tenant either admits the guest or denies entrance, the device
re-instates the CO and drops from the line ... the system has its own
distintive ring of course, so the tenant knows if the incoming call is
from the CO or the front door. Most lobby directories (where these
systems are installed) do NOT include the tenant's apartment number in
the directory ... merely the two or three digit door code. It is up to
the tenant to tell guests how to get where they are going. The systems
which offer 'ringback' type admission to tenants typically use a five
or six digit code selected at random and changeable at will by the
tenants.  Even those systems still have a regular lock and key for the
door to use as an override as well, and for Fire Department and/ or Post
Office use.    PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Apartment Security Stupidity
From: [e-mail] (Peter Sleggs)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 10:10:49 -0500
Organization: Bellatrix Systems Corp., Mississauga, ONT Canada


> [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell offers apartment front door security
> ...
> company called 'Interphone', a division of GTE in Canada which makes
> customer premises equipment which does the same thing but instead of
> being in the CO is wired up at the demarc where telco's pairs meet up
> with building house pairs.  I'll elaborate in more detail on both
> systems here if anyone is interested.   PAT]

Please do.


Regards,

Peter
Bellatrix Systems Corp. Mississauga, Ontario Canada
[e-mail] or beltrix!bsc!peters


[Moderator's Note: See my detailed replies in this issue.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 13:01:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Apartment Security Stupidity


Another problem with these apartment security systems is that some of
them leave the microphone on during the dialing.  In some cases you
can flash the switchhook, get a dialtone, and use your Radio Shack $15
tone dialer to make all the phone calls you want.  My friend's
building was very surprised to find several calls to expensive 900
numbers from the entry phone!


Ron   ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: To repeat, the better systems do NOT use dialtone
from the CO. They generate their own dial tone and only get as far as
the box by the basement demarc or wherever. The only calls they can
make are to two, three or four digit door code numbers. Even the
system from IBT which has equipment housed in the CO uses what would
be better described as an 'intercom line' or maybe a special sort of
centrex to operate. Those phones do not get near the network.  One
system I installed for a landlord here about fifteen years ago left
nothing to chance. I did not even leave a receiver there for the
people to get their dirty hands on. I used a speakerphone mounted in
the wall behind a steel plate with touchtone buttons ... sort of like
a payphone built into a wall. The touchtone buttons were steel, like
the ones on payphones. There were 94 apartments, two offices for
the real estate company, the quarters for the building engineer and
the manager's apartment. The codes were numbered 01 through 98. They
pressed '1', then the two digit code. The first digit pressed turned
the speaker on. They could hear the phone ringing in the apartment
they were calling, and converse with the tenant over the speakerphone
which I had permanently regulated as to sound level, etc.  The tenant
opened the door with '14'; the digit '1' split the connection leaving
the control unit listening only to the apartment. To deny entry, the
tenant simply would hang up (or dial '16' to disconnect from the door
and return to a call left on hold). If downstairs tried to press '14'
all that happened was they cut themselves off, but otherwise, they had
no control over the downstairs unit. When the apartment disconnected,
the battery dropped off the line and the downstairs unit went dead.
The tenants all used keys to open the door as did the postman, and the
newspaper delivery man.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 19:23:00 +0000
From: Mike Baptiste <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phonejak Transmission Systems


My parents purchased one of these sets (even though I warned them) and
the sound quality on a cordless phone is noticably degraded when it is
used vs a direct connection.  In fact, they tried two different phones
(AT&T and Uniden) with the same results.  As for modem use, that
wasn't tried.

Using a standard phone with it worked well with very little if any
sound quality problems.


Mike Baptiste       Bell-Northern Research RTP, North Carolina
Net: [e-mail]
My employer knows enough than to agree with my opinions!


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

From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: 18 Jan 93 15:10:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Phonejak Transmission System?


In TCD 13.22, [e-mail] (David Morgenstern), asking
about the Phonejak extension system, mentioned:

> The company says that it will support 2400 kbaud data
> transmission, ...

I doubt that very much.  Let's see, 2.4 million baud with trellis
encoding to support 4 bits per baud, you could easily squeeze almost
10 million bits per second through that.  Round off, we'll call it six
and a half full T-1 trunks, or one hundred and fifty 64 kb/sec DS0
channels.  Somehow I doubt that you can carry 150 full-quality phone
lines as a carrier tone on top of your house electrical wiring,
certainly not with such inexpensive hardware.

On the other hand, you ought to be able to push 2400 bits per second
through it pretty easily.

I thought you BMUG guys knew your computer jargon better than that.
(Somebody get this man a copy of Newton's Telecom Dictionary.)  I'm
sorry if it sounds like I'm being a little rough on you, but "2400
kbaud" goes way beyond the usual spelling errors.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Heiby)
Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature ...
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 21:17:29 GMT


Paul Robinson <[e-mail]> writes about playing tones from "Close
Encounters" on a line printer.

At a Comdex in Las Vegas about eight years ago, a printer company
(sorry I don't remember their name) had one of their printers with the
cover off and was playing *multi-part* music on it, using the print
head, platen motor, print head moving motor, etc., anything that would
move, buzz, beep, or otherwise make a sound.  It was *very*
impressive!


Ron Heiby, [e-mail]    Moderator: comp.newprod

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

From: [e-mail] (Alex Pournelle)
Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature ...
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 02:09:42 GMT


Paul Robinson <[e-mail]> writes:

> [e-mail] writes in TELECOM Digest 13 #14 about how
> someone programmed the IBM 1130 to generate tones on an AM radio.

I've got one even even better.  How about programming a CDC 3600 to
play the Star-Spangled Banner on its tape drives -- in stereo!

I hear it, for real.  What a great way to waste time!


Alex Pournelle, freelance thinker
Also: Workman & Associates, Data recovery for PCs, Macs, others
 ...elroy!grian!alex; voice: [phone]
fax: [phone]  bbs: 791-1013; 8N1 2400/12/3


[Moderator's Note: One of the most peculiar concerts I've ever gone to
was a program which consisted entirely of "Pictures at an Exhibition"
performed four ways in a row. Imagine, first the original piano
version ... and then the fun began: a transcription for solo guitar
was followed by one for the pipe organ; then came the crown jewel:
Several people pushed a Sun computer out on the stage along with a big
file server. A man walked over to the console, typed a couple things
then walked out to the audience and sat down. The computer did the
whole thing. The people in the audience (this was at the Chicago
Temple Building auditorium) sat there sort of stunned.  When the work
was finished, they introduced the fellow who had programmed it. For an
encore, the computer performed a piece called 'Concert Variations on
the Star Spangled Banner', written by John Knowles Paine.  I left the
program absolutely higher than a kite; it was so wonderful!  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chuck Munro)
Subject: Re: It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature ...
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 14:16:39 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Canada Ltd, Dartmouth, N.S.


Well, as a matter of fact .....

When I was a customer of H-P (*many* years ago) I had a program on my
HP1000 that would rapidly move the brake solenoid up and down on the
paper tape reader.  This would result in music (quite loud if you
placed an IBM punch card in the reader) which you could play from the
console keyboard.  This was my first experience with a pre-MIDI
computer music system.

There, I feel better now that I've defended my employer's honor   :-)


Chuck

p.s.  I may work for H-P, but they would probably rather deny it   :-))

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 21:38:55 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Richard Nash)
Subject: Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works


[e-mail] (Matt Healy) writes:

>> BTW, Some mail carriers will not deliver 4th class junk if you ask
>> them, but it is illegal for them to not deliver it.

> In my apartment building, there's a bin next to the mailboxes where
> the carrier puts all "extremely obvious" junk mail (ie, 27 identical
> envelopes arriving bulk rate to various apartments).  Every couple of
> days it gets emptied of anything nobody has claimed.  May not be
> technically legal, but it sure is handy.

Underneath my mail box is the famous recycling "blue-box" where it
takes only a matter of seconds to sort the junk from the bills.  All
junk goes into the blue-box:) :)


Richard Nash   Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:       [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #31
*****************************