Software Vault: The Diamond Collection/The Diamond Collection (Software Vault)(Digital Impact).ISO/cdr16/tc15_041.zip/TC15-041.TXT

Text File | 1995-01-22 | 27KB | 670 lines

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Jan 95 22:44:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 41

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Bell Atlantic Mobile Joins the PIN Crowd (Dave Levenson)
    Re: ANI Information in Realtime (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Looking up Addresses and Phone Number From Names
([e-mail])
    Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Wm. Randolph U Franklin)
    Re: Need Info on Two-Line, Digital Answering Devices With ANI (S
Schwartz)
    Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia?
([e-mail])
    Re: Attention: 800 Number Subscribers (News Alert) (Dik Winter)
    Re: Attention: 800 Number Subscribers (News Alert) (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: 360 NPA in Partial Service (Don Skidmore)
    Re: Inter-LATA Rates in California (Linc Madison)
    Long Distance Caller ID (Paul J. Zawada)
    New Tennex Codes in 516 (Stan Schwartz)
    630 Area Code and New Dialing Patterns (Mitch Weiss)
    Cattle Call (Randy Gellens)

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 America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** 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 partially funded by a grant from the
*
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland
*
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)
*
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as
represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.
*
**********************************************************************
***

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your
help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

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] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Mobile Joins the PIN Crowd
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 02:21:15 GMT


The cellular carriers appear to be under the mistaken impression that
a PIN, transmitted in the clear over the air, will somehow be more
secure than a MIN and ESN, also transmitted in the clear, over the
air!  If only a few subscribers use a PIN, then it will appear to be
secure, because those who would clone the MIN and ESN don't bother
trying to intercept the PIN.  When everybody uses a PIN, then the
cloners will have sufficient incentive to intercept and use the PIN
along with the MIN and ESN, and we'll be right back where we are
today.

This is merely another example of an attempt at security through
obscurity.  I predict that the benefit will be temporary.


Dave Levenson  Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.  UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: ANI Information in Realtime
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 02:40:08 GMT


ESSMAN ([e-mail]) writes:

> I currently have 800 service through AT&T and I receive ANI
> information with my bill once per month.  I'd like to receive the
ANI
> info real-time but no one at AT&T seems to know what I'm talking
> about.

AT&T does offer real-time ANI on 800 numbers, but only if the inbound
calls are delivered through AT&T MegaCom(sm) or ISDN service.  MegaCom
is their bypass service, where a leased T-1 span connects their tandem
switch directly to the customer premises.  They use wink-start to
deliver ANI or DNIS (maybe both? I don't know) using in-band DTMF
signaling.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Even though ANI and Caller-ID are two
> separate things ... with this in mind, at least one carrier
> providing 800 service *does* display in realtime the ANI of the
> calling party via the Caller-ID display unit. I've forgotten which
> company it is ... someone remind me.

WillTel (who is resold by Cable & Wireless and probably a few others)
provides ANI over the CallerID channel.


Dave Levenson  Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.  UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (BUBEYE!)
Subject: Re: Looking up Addresses and Phone Number From Just Names
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700
guest)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 03:01:59 GMT


Tony Waddell <[e-mail]> writes:

> I'm not sure if this is PACBELL policy only, or whether it's fairly
> consistent across the country, but I wanted a phone book from my
home
> town, Davenport, Iowa. I was quoted a charge in excess of $50!

Shop around for phone books like everything else! I needed a Phoenix
book and called US West (who serves Arizona) and was quoted what
seemed to be a high price.  On a lark, I called Pac Bell and was
quoted a price much lower for the identical book!

Get the numbers for the various Baby Bell's directory departments
(they all have 800 numbers) and call around.  You'll be surprised.
This is one market (foreign directories) where they actually compete
against each other.

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

From: [e-mail] (Wm. Randolph U Franklin)
Subject: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio
Date: 18 Jan 1995 03:34:06 GMT
Organization: ECSE Dept, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY,
12180 USA
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Wm. Randolph U Franklin)


I can't comment on the radio aspects, but can shed a little light on
university judicial environments.

I've been a university faculty member since 78, and, so far as I can
see, typical university judicial proceedings for students are run like
child abuse determinations, or like the Elizabethan Star Chamber --
in total secrecy and with no one having any statutory rights.  Where I
work:

- Trials, names of the defendant, and verdicts of the student-run
judicial
board are secret, except for a sanitized one-sentence summary.
("Stolen $1000
computer, Bray Hall, last week, restitution and 100 hours service").

- Even the plaintiff has no right to attend the trial or to learn the
verdict.  (This came out when a woman accused a man of date-raping
her.)

- The defendant and witnesses have no right to keep silent, but must
answer questions.  This rule is in the student handbook.

This system survives because the student leaders like it.  The secrecy
preserves the rights of a defendant who is found innocent, and the
general anonymity is considered to be required by the Buckley
amendment.  This is a law that makes student academic records secret.
(In contrast, the comparable rule for people's financial records is
that there is not even an expectation of secrecy.)

So it's not at all surprising how the student with the radio was
treated.  Regrettable, yes.  Surprising, no.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He wrote me earlier today and now I am
unable to find his letter (dammit!) ... he said the reason they were
there was because it was believed he was in possession of stolen
property. He said he knew that was not the case, had nothing to hide
or be concerned about, so he told them go ahead and search.
Apparently
they did not find any stolen property -- he knew in his own heart he
was innocent of that -- but I guess he did not expect them to get off
on a tangent about his radio equipment either.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stan Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Need Info on Two-Line, Digital Answering Devices With ANI
Date: 17 Jan 1995 22:34:04 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


Richard Jay Solomon ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Has anyone tested or reviewed the Friday machine by Bogen or AT&T's
> new two-line digital answering machine? Will they respond to ANI
like
> the NTI device mentioned in TELECOM Digest?

Richard:

I had the Friday for about a week.  It's a pretty flimsy machine for
the $300 MSRP.  It doesn't handle ANI or CID, but it does recognize
distinctive-ringning.  It went back within a week.


Stan

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

From: [e-mail] (Prime perf)
Subject: Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia?
Date: 17 Jan 1995 20:50:20 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Prime perf)


The numbers that you have for LDDS/Metromedia are correct for no
volume commitment and a one year time commitment. I switched to them
about four months ago because of their rates and found the service as
good as that from the previous carrier -- Sprint. Besides, the calling
card rates are also excellent.

You can get AT&T to come up with a better line than the one you are
getting if you can commit to more than $200 per month for a period of
one to three years. Their Option "S" offering has commitment levels of
$200 - $1,000 - $3,000 - $5,000 per month for the one to three year
period. The higher the level you are willing to commit to, the better.

Then again, if you can get a really good rate and equivalent service
from the fourth largest service provider with no volume commitment,
who needs any of the three largest!

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 03:08:06 +0100
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Attention: 800 Number Subscribers (News Alert)


> The European position imposes a lottery where there is more than one
> applicant for a specific international freephone number.  You can
> imagine the land rush this will create among European carriers and
> their customers, especially for valuable numbers such as 800 THE
CARD,
> 800 HOLIDAY, and 800 FLOWERS, or Home Shopping Club's well-ensconced
> 800 284-3200.

Why would any European customer wish numbers like 800 THE CARD, unless
they expect most of their traffic from the US?  If I would wish to
dial that number I have to go to my cupboard, take out a photocopy
from a newsletter of the Dutch Telecom that has a photograph of a US
phone to be able to translate it to digits.  And why is 284-3200 so
charished?  I see no reason at all.

In Europe letters are *not* used.  And when they were used assignment
was not identical to the US assignment.  See the telecom archives for
an article were I gave some European assignments.

For your information, when letters were present on the phones in the
Netherlands, I could translate my phone number below as: +CABKEJBDKJH,
not very interesting.


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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 21:18:58 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Attention: 800 Number Subscribers (News Alert)


[e-mail] (Judith Oppenheimer) writes:

> Negotiations are under way for a new International Freephone Service
> which would compromise the value and integrity of existing 800
numbers
> for U.S. 800 customers.

> There is a User Statement which was presented in Geneva in November
> '94 that calls for grandfathering of existing 800 assignments....

> The European position imposes a lottery where there is more than one
> applicant for a specific international freephone number.  You can
> imagine the land rush this will create among European carriers and
> their customers, especially for valuable numbers such as 800 THE
CARD,
> 800 HOLIDAY, and 800 FLOWERS, or Home Shopping Club's well-ensconced
> 800 284-3200.

Could you provide more background, please?  The last I heard about
international free-phone service was a proposal a few years ago for a
new "800" country code.  Is that what the Geneva plan is about?  If
so, I can't see how it would "compromise the value and integrity of
existing 800 numbers".  The new international numbers would be a whole
separate number space, dialed as +800 XXX...., while existing NANP 800
numbers could still be dialed from withing the NANP as they are today:
1-800-NXX-XXXX.

What are the details about the proposal for "grandfathering of
existing 800 assignments"?  Is the idea that any existing NANP 800
number will in the future be reachable as +800-NXX-XXXX as well?
(I.e., there will only be a single free-phone number space for the
whole world?)  That doesn't sound very practical.  Also, how can
grandfathering be done fairly for *all* existing 800 numbers,
including those in other countries?  If some company in the US
currently owns 1-800-234-5678, and another company in the UK owns
0800-234-567, then who wins?

And what about the problem we already have in the US, where the 800
NPA is almost full anyway, which means that we will probably see the
introduction of another free-phone NPA soon anyway?  How will
international free-phone service deal with such new NPAs?

In short, what is the numbering space of the proposed international
free-phone service, and why exactly would it cause problems?


Bob Goudreau  Data General Corporation
[e-mail] 62 Alexander Drive
[phone]  Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Don Skidmore)
Subject: Re: 360 NPA in Partial Service
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 95 15:20:54 PST
Organization: The Lone Net-Surfer :-) !


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says:

> Area code 206 is now like the Chicago (312/708) situation.  360 will
> surround 206.  Once 360 takes effect, 206 will become the Seattle,
> Tacoma, and possibly Everett (and surrounding areas) with the rest
of
> what was 206 becoming 360.  At least that's my understanding.

Actually, 206 is *not quite* completely surrounded by 360.  There is a
small
area at about 3 o'clock (summit of Snoqualmie Pass) where 206 abuts
509.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says:

> There are local calls across the 301/410 border (Md.) and 215/610
> border in Pa., and the area code is used for this where just the
seven
> digit number was used before.

It will be interesting to see for sure, but the local telco claims
local calls can be dialed as local numbers even if you are calling
from one area code into another.



[e-mail]    [e-mail]
Bellevue, Washington  USA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yet someone has stated that starting
in about two years we here in 312/708 will be forced to dial eleven
digits for all our calls, even if they are in the same area code. See
a later message in this issue for details.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Inter-LATA Rates in California
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700
guest)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 03:54:20 GMT


Eric Paulak ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Linc Madison asked:

>> Have the IXC's reduced their rates on calls between LATAs in
>> California to be more in line with both the new intra-LATA and

·
>> interstate rates?

> The answers a resounding "yes." In fact, AT&T, MCI and Sprint have
all
> undercut Pac Bell's rates. For example:

> For a 45-mile call from L.A. to Anaheim using basic 1+ business
service,

But you haven't even addressed my question.  My question was about
INTER-lata rates -- calls **BETWEEN** LATAs.  For example, a call from
L.A. to San Francisco.  I know that INTRA-lata rates have been reduced
dramatically by Pacific Bell and even more dramatically by the IXCs,
but the last I checked it was still about $0.30 or $0.35 for a
one-minute daytime call from one end of the state to the other on any
of the Big Three.

So, I'll ask the question that has still not been answered: have the
IXCs reduced their INTER-LATA rates in line with the new INTRA-LATA
rates?  (Hint: they can't be undercutting Pacific Bell, because
Pacific Bell is still not permitted to carry these calls.)


Linc Madison   *   Oakland, California   *   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 18:32:18 -0600
From: Paul J Zawada <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Caller ID


I've had a couple of interesting conversations with the folks at
Ameritech regarading the delivery of interstate Caller-ID information.
I have a question or two regarding the availablity of the above
service,
so let me summarize and pose a question or two to the readers of
TELECOM
Digest.

Having been frustrated with having Caller ID in Champaign, IL for over
six months and having ~70% of my calls come up with "OUT OF AREA", I
decided to call Ameritech and try to figure out whether or not I
should keep this near-useless service.  If I receive a call that
originated on one of the two DMS-100s in town, I will get the calling
party's number(CPN).  Otherwise, I usually get the "OUT OF AREA"
message.  One time I actually received the CPN for a call from the 415
NPA (I think), but otherwise the CPN doesn't come through for numbers
outside of the Champaign area.

I had read somewhere that the FCC was going to require carrier (both
LEC and IXC) to pass CPN info back and forth where SS7 was in place.
Sure enough, I dug a little and found that a "Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" was issued with such a
requirement.
(URL= http://fcc.gov:70/0/Orders/Common_Carrier/orcc4001.txt.)
However the order doesn't seem to have any effective date and seems a
bit wimpy to me ...

With this under my belt, I called the Ameritech residential service
number and asked the rep if there was anyway she could find out if and
when this was going to happen.  I mentioned the above rule to at the
very least rationalize to myself that I wasn't off my rocker  She
said someone would get back with me.

About a day later I received a message telling me to call back the
same number.  After finding my way around the Touch-Tone menu maze, I
finally reached a rep who seemed very disinterested in helping me.
She told me that the official response from within Ameritech was "No
one at Ameritech or AT&T had heard of the particular ruling you
mentioned and that the problem was not with Ameritech."  She went on
to say that I should contact my long distance carrier for more
information.  The call was over in less than 45 seconds.

I spent the day stewing over this terse response and decided I'd call
back and tell them I wasn't satisfied with their first answer.  So I
called back and luckily got on the line with a rep that had a clue.
(Yes, there are some RBOC customer reps that are polite and know what
they are talking about!)  I explained the whole story to him and he
replied that even though such a ruling may have been made, no IXC
really has done anything to implement interstate Caller-ID nor have
any plans been announced.  So as a pratical matter, I am out of luck.
I also asked him if he could find out if Ameritech uses SS7 for any of
their IXC interconnections for the Champaign area.  (I already know
that the LEC surrounding Champaign, GTE North, is not SS7 capable in
this area, so I'm not expecting any Caller-ID information for
Intra-LATA calls ouside of Ameritech's service area any time soon.)
The rep said he'd try to get a copy of ruling and see if he could dig
up any more info.

After dealing with my questions we had a fairly good technical
discussion
that lasted about ten minutes. One of the things that he mentioned was
that no DMS-100s could speak SS7.  I pushed further and asked him if
Northern Telecom didn't support SS7 on any DMS-100s or if it was just
Ameritech's DMS-100s that did not support SS7.  He said he wan't sure,
but he thought NT didn't support SS7 and the DMS-100 at all ...

So this leads to the first question:

Does the NT DMS-100 (with the proper software of course) support SS7?
I find it hard to believe that there is no SS7 capability for the
DMS-100 ... can someone prove me wrong?

I guess the other questions I have are:

How useful is Caller-ID in other parts of the country?  Do other folks
that have the service get "OUT OF AREA" for 99.5% of their interstate
calls, or am I just in the wrong city to get that info?  I'd be
especially interested to hear how well it works in the Chicago area
since Chicago is also served by Ameritech Illinois.

Should I dump Caller-ID since I'm getting very little functionality
for my $6.50 a month or will things get better?  If things will get
better, how long should it take before at least some of my friends'
out-of-state phone numbers will be lighting up my caller-ID display?


Thanks for any info.

Paul J. Zawada         URL: http://headroom.ncsa.uiuc.edu/zawada
Network Engineer           EMAIL: [e-mail]
National Center for         PHONE: [phone]
   Supercomputing Applications AMATEUR RADIO: KB9FMN


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I can tell you that north of you
in
the Chicago area of Ameritech's territory, we have been getting very
good
results on Caller-ID for awhile now. Lots of long distance calls are
having
their ID shown ... interestingly, even some recent calls from
California
in the 415 area code were displayed.  Of course all this is relevant
to
*where* most of your calls originate, and maybe I just lucked out but
I
would say about 90 - 95 percent of my incoming calls now show Caller-
ID,
or they show that the caller is blocking it, etc.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stan Schwartz)
Subject: New Tennex Codes in 516
Date: 17 Jan 1995 22:40:55 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


Quick FYI:

 From the 516-694 exchange (NYNEX), I dialed 1010288 1 908 889 XXXX
and the call was completed via AT&T.

Also, the 630, 334, and 360 NPA's are all dialable from here.


Stan

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 07:42:35 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 630 Area Code and New Dialing Patterns


The new 630 area code is a subject of big debate here in Chicagoland.
Chicago Tonight, a local TV show just had a half-hour debate on that
very subject.  According to an Ameritech spokesman, the intended plan
(as of today) is as follows:

1.  630 will be an overlay area code for all of the 312 and 708 area
codes;
2.  630 will initially be assigned for new phones (land and mobile) in
708
    area;
3.  In early 1996, 630 will also be assigned to Chicago (312);
4.  In September 1996, ALL of Chicago and suburbs will require eleven
digit
    dialing, even if you are calling the same area code.
5.  Area code 708 is already exhausted.  No new cell phones will have
708.

The representative from the City of Chicago who appeared on the show
is against the new code.  The City has filed an objection with the
Illinois Commerce Commission (the local PUC), and is considering
appealing to the FCC.  They claim that this confusion is bad for
business.  They also claim it to be a safety issue.  Small children
have too many numbers to learn.

Either way, it is a pain in the neck.  If I am in 708 and order a
second phone line, it will possibly be a 630 line.  Regardless, if it
goes through, I will have to dial eleven digits for all calls in the
future.  I think this is the first shot in the war to end seven digit
dialing nationwide.  We probably will see more of this in the future.


Mitchell Weiss   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, there is one good thing to be
said
about having to dial the area code as well as seven digits on all
calls.
Once it is made mandatory, we will no longer have to dial *eleven*
digits;
we will be able to just dial ten digits since the '1' will no longer
be
needed to show that an area code rather than a local exchange sequence
is following. What follows will *always* be an area code ... right?
We
will be able to use '1' rather than '011' for international dialing
since
the '1' will no longer be needed domestically. So even though we will
be
dialing more digits, we will on *true* long distance calls be able to
dial fewer digits than now.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 17 JAN 95 16:38
Subject: Cattle Call


Saw this in an internal news group:

    -------  Forwarded message -------

    Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 1:45 pm CST (19:45:57 UT)
    From: C Rader

A local magazine (I think it was "Twin Cities Business") quoted an
item from an investment newsletter saying that some dairy farmers now
use pagers to call their cows.

They reportedly strap a vibrating pager around the neck of the herd
leader cow and call the pager when it's time to return to the barn.
The cow is taught to respond to the vibrations.

One person here who's family raises cattle asked whether it wouldn't
be cheaper to keep a feeding a dog that herds the cattle instead of
paying monthly charges and air time.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #41
*****************************