Phoenix Rising BBS/phoenixrising.zip/phoenixrising/tele-dig/td14-012.txt

Text File | 1994-01-06 | 23KB | 525 lines

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 5 Jan 94 21:15:30 CST    Volume 14 : Issue 12

Inside This Issue:                         Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ITU Method For Writing Telephone Numbers (Dik T. Winter)
    Re: California ANI Question (Steve Forrette)
    Re: California ANI Question (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: How are VCR Plus+ Numbers Generated (Carl Oppedahl)
    Re: How are VCR Plus+ Numbers Generated (David A. Kaye)
    Re: Wireless Transciever Boards (Cliff Sharp)
    Re: Post Cool Phone Numbers - Strange Recorded Info Services (Joe George)
    Re: Post Cool Phone Numbers - Strange Recorded Info Services (R. McMillin)
    Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Ron Schnell)
    Re: Info on Cellular One NACP (Peter Gregory)
    Re: Connecting Two Phone Lines to One Phone Jack (John S. Roberts Jr.)
    Re: Connecting Two Phone Lines to One Phone Jack (Carl Oppedahl)
    Re: Telephone Answering Machine Question (Carl Moore)
    Calvacom: New Distribution Site For Digest (TELECOM Digest Editor)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie.
Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of
Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and
long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers.
To reach us:  Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone
at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email: [e-mail].

    ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

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

TELECOM Digest is gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated
Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech
Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience
of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. All
opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dik T. Winter)
Subject: Re: ITU Method For Writing Telephone Numbers
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 02:22:39 GMT


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

> I don't know what the ITU decided but in UK we are told to use:

> MYCOMPANY NAME                           [phone]
>                         international   [phone]

The second line is the recommended ITU method.

> This seems a bit stupid -- the American system (if there is any),
> seems to be much better -- just the area code plus number. Everybody
> knows when to add 1 or when to add 001 (if calling from another
> country).

Most American numbers I see are in the form [phone].  Should I
add a 1?  Or 001?  None will work.

> In Europe 0 is being now used as prefix for area code numbers and 00
> as prefix for country codes.

Hey!  When did you change to 00 as prefix instead of 010?  I thought
that was in the future?

> But then some French idiots come up with a stupid numbering system
> (for Paris *and* Greater Paris +331 xxxxxxxx rest of the country +33
> xxxxxxxx ). Is it a revenge for changing CCITT to ITU?

The French may be idiots, but you are an idiot parsing numbers.  The
first should be +33 1xxxxxxxx.  So the country is +33.  Anyhow, try to
phone me.  Area code plus home number are 206372010.  Try your logic
preceding it with either 1 or 001.  A better choice for you would be
01031 (and 0031 in the future).


dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj  amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn  amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: California ANI Question
Date: 6 Jan 1994 00:46:16 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Phydeaux) writes:

> Hi!  In a discussion the other day, one of my colleagues told me that
> "ANI is illegal in California."  I'm sure he meant CNID, but he
> understands the difference and was pretty emphatic about this. I'm
> sure someone here knows for sure.

ANI is not illegal in California.  As the Digest Editor noted, with
very few exceptions, if you can call an 800 number, the recipient can
get your ANI.  I manage a switch which has hundreds of 800 numbers
going to it (about five of them for my personal use), and I can assure
you that I have no problems at all getting ANI from California.  In
fact, only about .5 percent of all calls nationwide arrive with no
ANI, and California is no exception.  Since my switch is not located
in California, all calls that come to it from the Golden State are
interstate commerce, and any laws that the state may have do not apply
to them (BTW, there are no laws regarding ANI in CA that I am aware of
anyway).

I even have a couple of customers in CA that receive ANI delivery from
me, either in real-time via inband DTMF, through voice mail and pager
mail, and of course on their bills (just like any 800 service today).
Perhaps the state may have something to say about that in the future
if they choose to do so, but they have not chosen to do so up to now.
Also, it is questionable as to what would happen at that point anyway,
since the calls would still cross the state line before returning to
California (and no, this is not done to get around CA's [nonexistant]
ANI regulation - it just so happens that I don't live in CA anymore).

And there is blocking available -- if callers choose not to have me or
my customers pay for their telephone calls (which is what they are
doing when they call an 800 number), we will never get their number.
I guess this is a form of per-call blocking :-) (I suppose you could
even have per-line 800 ANI blocking if you got a toll restrictor and
programmed it to block 800 numbers :-))


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: California ANI Question
Date: 5 Jan 1994 23:27:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


I have an 800 number coming into my BBS for a few friends and myself
to use and have the call reports from AT&T. They are overwelming each
month, but I'm able to see all the wrong numbers (under 30 seconds)
and the phone hackers looking for a DID trunk (New York, New Jersey).
I sure wish they would finally get CID here in California.


      -=- Sysop: Apple Elite II -=- an Ogg-Net Hub BBS
[phone] 12/24/96/14.4 V32/V42bis Via PCP CACOL/12/24

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

From: [e-mail] (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: How are VCR Plus+ Numbers Generated
Date: 5 Jan 1994 17:23:04 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


In <[e-mail]> Dan Cromer <[e-mail]>
writes:

> How are VCR Plus+ code numbers, the up-to-eight digit numbers for each
> TV program used in programming some new VCRs and VCR-programming
> remotes, generated.  I bought a new VCR for my folks in Lakeland, FL,
> to make it easy for them to set up the VCR for recording, but the VCR
> Plus+ codes aren't listed in their newspaper.  I'd like to be able to
> set up a programmable calculator so that it would generate the code
> for them.  I know there is a 900 number at 95 cents/minute, but don't
> think they should have to pay $1.90 every time they want to use the
> system.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Its a secret. No one knows for sure how
> it is done except the proprietors of the system, and they aren't going
> to tell. There *are* scripts around in various ftp archives sites
> which make a stab at this, but I understand none of them are perfect
> and all have a few bugs. The topic is even discussed on a regular basis
> in a couple of newsgroups devoted to cable television and vcr's, etc.
> I'm sure some readers will send you email telling you where to find the
> programs which have attempted to work out the VCR+ codes, but part of
> the reason for selling the device and operating the 900 phone number is
> so the proprietors can make money on the deal which I guess is the
> main reason their lips are zipped.   PAT]

Well, it is not a secret.  The algorithm, at least for the relatively
short (four to six digit) codes, was published a year or so ago in
{Cryptologia} magazine.  Three people managed to reverse-engineer the
algorithm.

And the patent that is said to cover it was published in Europe a year
ago or so ... although it does not reveal much of the algorithm.


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


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Has anyone ever been completely successful
with this yet? Radio Shack has a VCR+ thing they sell now which does
not even have written documentation with it. All the 'instructions' tell
you to do is (after you buy it, shoplift it or whatever) take it home
and call a certain 800 phone number to speak with someone who will then
*program it over the phone* for you based on what you tell them about
your VCR/television equipment.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David A. Kaye)
Subject: Re: How are VCR Plus+ Numbers Generated
Date: 5 Jan 1994 16:40:08 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access  [phone]  [login: guest]


Dan Cromer ([e-mail]) wrote:

> remotes, generated.  I bought a new VCR for my folks in Lakeland, FL,
> to make it easy for them to set up the VCR for recording, but the VCR
> Plus+ codes aren't listed in their newspaper.  I'd like to be able to

I could have sworn that Toshiba or possibly Mitsui has a remote
control device which has thumbwheel switches for day of week, date,
time, and channel number, so that a person can read across the front
of the unit, "Monday - 7th - 7:00 to 7:30 - pm - channel 4" and be
done with the confusion.  Has anyone seen one of these?

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

From: indep1!clifto (Cliff Sharp)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 11:48:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Wireless Transceiver Boards


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Aninda Dasgupta) writes:

> 1) should work around corners and through walls (a range of say
>    three to four rooms/offices),
> 2) support a data rate anywhere from 10 to 64 Kbps,
> 3) should use carrier frequencies that are not restricted by the FCC and
>    are unlikely to be very crowded by other systems,
> 4) should be priced around $10.

   Are you _serious_?

   I'd like to see something like this under $150/station.  In fact,
I'd like to know of a source for a decent, shielded 25' RS-232 cable
around $10.

   The _only_ things along this line I'm aware of are the
spread-spectrum 902-928 MHz modems some companies made and are
presumably still making.  (Unfortunately, I just threw away the
information; "never needed it".  Bah.)  Last I asked, they were in the
$300-600 range (per station).  Someone _may_ make power-line modems
that might work over these distances, but I've yet to get a manufacturer's
name.

   If you find anything like a $10, 64KBPS wireless modem, I know where I
can sell a hundred thousand or so ...


Cliff Sharp       [e-mail]
WA9PDM            [e-mail] never works

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 08:09 EST
From: [e-mail] (Joe George)
Subject: Re: Post Cool Phone Numbers - Strange Recorded Info Services


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We had one from the American Nazi Party
> here for quite awhile which was always good for a laugh, but I have
> not heard it lately, and don't remember the number so I cannot say for
> sure if it is stilll operating or not. Regards the amount of preparation

The Wizard of the north Georgia KKK has a 'hotline' number as well.

I'd say this number is good for a VERY non-Politically Correct laugh from
time to time.

The number is [phone]. Might be [phone] with the recent
arguments over area code boundaries.


Joe George ([e-mail], [e-mail])
The NBI Press: Typesetting, Graphic Artwork, Fine Italian Cuisine
If I put Vicki Robinson in my sig, will she put me in hers?
"Usenet is a cesspool, a dungheap." -Patrick Townson


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I dunno about Vicki Robinson but if you
put me in your .sig I'll be sure not to truncate it when I publish
your fine cuisine (of some sort!) in this Digest. <grin> ... PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Post Cool Phone Numbers - Strange Recorded Info Services
Organization: Surf City Software/TBFW Project
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 15:06:17 GMT


On Tue, 4 Jan 94 17:21:42 EST, Carl Moore <[e-mail]> said:

> 718-963-6962 is disconnected (I just tried it).

> But I did reach 410-337-FUNN (3866), the "Joke Du Jour" hotline of
> "Rouse and company" on WQSR-FM 105.7 in Baltimore, Maryland.

On again, off again over a period of the last fifteen or more years is
the Zzygot dial-a-joke line (714-839-3000).  Some days you get a joke,
others the phone rings and rings and rings.  Lately it's been just
rings.


Robert L. McMillin  | [e-mail] | Netcom: [e-mail]
13442 Wilson St.    | Garden Grove, CA      | 92644
            voice: 714-638-2459 | fax: [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 12:08:13 EST
From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous


I have anonymous call rejection enabled on my phone in Miami, FL, and
someone tried to call me from a cellular phone that was installed in a
rental car in San Diego in their rental car and got the rejection
message.

I assume that the cellular rental company uses some ultra-cheap LD
service (to make the most amount of money possible on the $2.00/minute
rental charge!) that uses a local out-going line in Miami that
disabled CID.


Ron    ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter Gregory)
Subject: Re: Info on Cellular One NACP
Date: 5 Jan 1994 21:43:37 GMT
Organization: Asix, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> Now this past week I went down to Austin, (a NACN City) turned on the
> cell phone and immediately called my Oklahoma City number from a
> nearby pay phone.  It rang twice and then my cell phone rang.  Now my
> question is how does Cellular One Austin so quickly notify Cellular
> One Oklahoma City I am in Austin Texas about 400 miles from home and
> immediately send my calls to me?

The secret is this: as soon as you turned on your phone in Austin, the
local switch picked up your ESN; when a local database lookup failed,
it requested your profile from the main database, which was then sent
to the local switch.


Peter Gregory  [NICname PG11]  [e-mail]
Senior Consultant. ASIX Inc., 1420 Fifth Ave, Suite 2200, Seattle, WA  98101
on-site at Wireless Data Div., McCaw Cellular Communications, Kirkland, WA

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

From: John S. Roberts Jr. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Connecting Two Phone Lines to One Phone Jack
Date: 5 Jan 1994 16:32:10 -0500
Organization: University of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences


I connected up the "other two wires" on all the lines running through
my house.  Now, I can hear line two when using line one and vice-versa.
Is there any solution to this?


Thanks,

John S. Roberts, Jr.    100 McVey Hall  Work: 257-2275
University of Kentucky  Home: 272-1417 - FAX: [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The solution is that somewhere in the
loop you (or someone long gone before you) cross connected the wires
and what you think is the 'other two wires' is really just part of
the first two wires. You don't really have 'line one' and 'line two';
you have one line wired in multiple so to speak. Go to each box as
well as to the head end and find out where the cross connection is
in place. It may be nothing more than a real messy box with some
loose wires which are touching the connectors for the first set of
wires. Clean up that mess, and your 'other two wires' will suddenly
go dead again unless/until you have an actual second phone line
brought up to them.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Connecting Two Phone Lines to One Phone Jack
Date: 5 Jan 1994 20:54:40 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith
McNeill) writes:

> On a side note, I recently called NY Telephone (or NYNEX as they want
> to be called now) about getting a second phone line installed in my
> apartment. I was shocked to get a quote of $185 for the second line
> (first line costs about $60).  This is the price for installing a
> totally different phone line in the apartment. I complained a little
> that they didn't need to do that as there was a perfectly good second
> pair coming into the apartment I didn't get very far as the customer
> service rep wasn't technical.  Is there really any need to get a
> totally seperate line into my apartment?  Diamond State Telephone
> (Delaware) was able to put a second line on the second pair.  Is NYNEX
> just trying to gouge me?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not necessarily. Telco outside plant
> records are in notoriously bad condition in some places. The rep may
> have actually not had any record of the second pair in your apartment
> or may have had a record of it but shown it to be actually a multiple
> of someone else's first pair or what-have-you. Have you tested that
> pair to see if it is alive (with someone else's service because some
> installer in the past never opened it up at the pole) or if it is in
> good condition?  Have you traced it back to the demarc, such as in the
> basement of the building where you live? If you can get that second
> pair back as far as the demarc for the building (or yourself, whichever
> applies), then you have a second pair and it should not be required
> for telco to make any visit to your home with the high cost for same.
> You have to be careful though; make sure that set of wires you are
> looking at actually goes somewhere and reaches the demarc. If not, then
> you are possibly stuck for the high installation costs of a second line.

> You should trace that pair first, getting it back to the demarc if at
> all possible. Note on the demarc there may be some notations (little
> tags tied on with bits of string are common) telling the installers
> what goes where. If you see a notation saying something like 'cable 74,
> pair 29' or similar then when you call back to the business office if
> you get the same rap about how a new line has to be installed in your
> apartment tell the rep you *think* 'cable 74 pair 29' is there already.
> Note I emphasize 'think'. You're not a phone installer so don't try to
> act like one. But stress you have seen complete wires back to the demarc
> which appear to be idle, and you are wondering if the rep will please
> have someone confirm or correct the outside plant records.  PAT]

In some states the steps the moderator describes are exactly right.  In
New York, things are a little different.  Telco is obligated to provide
a network interface jack (if that is what you want) *in your apartment*,
for a price that is fixed -- unaffected by how long it takes to do.
This is the case regardless of whether their records show a previous
second line in your apartment;  all that changes is the amount of the
fixed price.  Last I checked the cost for your situation (where they
claim there was never a second line) is $88.

Then you just connect your own wiring to that second NIJ.

The state-to-state differences are discussed in my book about phone
service.


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


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What's this about your book about phone
service? Please review it for us and tell us how to obtain copies.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 18:20:07 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Answering Machine Question


I don't know the answer; I had a note in this Digest long ago about an
"action line" telephone number which gave a beep but did not take
messages -- AND THE RECORDING SPECIFICALLY SAID IT DID NOT TAKE
MESSAGES.

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 20:06:54 -0600
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calvacom: New Distribution Site For Digest


This is just a note of welcome to the subscribers of Calvacom, a
service in France which was described to me as 'a lot like Compuserve
in the USA'. I've been in correspondence with someone there about
making TELECOM Digest available to the subscribers on that system, and
distribution has now begun.

If the participants on Calvacom choose to send mail to this Digest,
you'll see network addresses for them of the form '@calvacom.fr'. I
appreciate very much them thinking of me and asking to have this
Digest included among the various features available to their users.

I would also like to mention that the gateway to Prodigy now seems to
be in place and a welcome is in order to the several susbcribers from
that network who have requested subscriptions to the Digest in recent
days.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #12
*****************************