The World of Computer Software/World_Of_Computer_Software-02-385-Vol-1of3.iso/t/tc13-010.zip/TC13-010.TXT

Text File | 1993-01-07 | 20KB | 457 lines

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Jan 93 16:30:00 CST     Volume 13 : Issue 10

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    North Carolina Area Code 919 to Split Into 919 and 910 (Bob Goudreau)
    800 Number Troubles (Mike McNally)
    976 Fraud in Toronto (Tony Harminc)
    Asia-Pacific Engineering Journal - Call For Papers (Chua Kee Chaing)
    Out of Town Businesses on Local Numbers? (lunatix![e-mail])
    UUCP Through Multiple Carriers (Michael Hamilton)
    Hunt Groups (Rob Boudrie)
    Does a CNID Device List Exist? (Don Wegeng)
    A Minor Nit With the Telecom FAQ (Pat Turner)
    Colorado Gets Caller ID (Tim Gorman)
    Do-It-Yourself Caller ID (Thomas K. Hinders)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:55:48 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: North Carolina Area Code 919 to Split Into 919 and 910


David Esan, in the January V&H report, notes:

> Other NPAs that are candidates for a split include eastern North
> Carolina (714) [sic], Philadelphia (215), and 602 (Arizona).

Someone else recently posted an article describing 215's split into 215
and 610.  Well, we can now add 919 (which is what Dave *meant* to say
above when describing the crowded area code that covers all of eastern
and northern North Carolina; 704 covers just the southwestern portion of
the state) to the list of splitters.

Today's _News_&_Observer_ (Raleigh's daily) announces that a new area
code 910 will be created out of 919 later this year.  The new area will
encompass the northwestern and north-central areas of the state
(including the "Triad" area of Greensboro, Winston Salem and High Point),
and will cut a diagonal corridor through the middle of the state on its
way to the coast, where it will also pick up the entire southeastern
portion (including Wilmington and Fayetteville).  The 919 code will be
reduced to the central and northeastern parts of North Carolina,
starting at Sanford and stretching north and east to include the Resarch
Triangle (Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill) area all the way to the Outer
Banks and the eastern part of the Virginia border.

The "permissive dialing" phase (when 910 is first activated, but when
919 will still also work for 910 numbers) will begin November 14th of
this year.  The cutover will be complete on February 13, 1994, when 910
will be required for all numbers in the new area.

The newspaper article notes that "... it is expected that the 910 area
code will cause some confusion because it is so similar to 919".
(Incidentally, has any area code split ever used a new code so similar
to the old one?)  Of course, we TELECOM Digest readers know the reason
for this, and so does the article, which mentions that "... the 910 area
code was the only one available to North Carolina."

So that's it folks:  all the N10 area codes have now been exhausted,
given that the US government is apparently not going to relinquish its
secretive 710 code.  If there are any other splits within the NANP
before the NXX era begins next year, they'll have to burn one of the
N11 or N00 codes.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike McNally)
Subject: 800 Number Troubles
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:16:15 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Palo Alto, CA


Here's something a little strange, to me anyway.  I've been trying all
morning to call Equifax and find out how to get a copy of my credit
information.  I got through once to their robo-phone system, and after
about five minutes of menu navigation it just dropped me in the middle
of a recorded message.  Fine.  I tried to call back, however, and got
the message "Due to technical difficulties, we cannot complete your
call.  Please try again later."  Hmm.  I repeatedly dialed and got the
same result.

The AT&T operators told me that the number is an MCI number, and they
directed me to MCI 800 service (888-1800).  There, I was told that the
number was indeed working, but that the customer (Equifax) had set up
the account such that only 45% of the calls originating rom my area
code (415) would succeed.  The rest get the "technical difficulties"
message.  Two separate MCI people told me this same thing.

Well gee, I'm a little miffed at this setup; why don't I just get a
busy signal?  MCI would save themselves a lot of time if they'd do
that instead of the clearly bogus message; if I got a busy signal, I
would interpret that to mean that my call couldn't get through because
the capacity had been exhausted.  Alternatively, the message could
tell me exactly what's going on: "We're sorry, but you lose; we only
accept 45% of the calls from area code 415, and you're in the unlucky
55%."


   Mike +   Software +   Digital Equipment +   Western Software +      mcnally@
McNally +    Laborer +         Corporation +         Laboratory +   wsl.dec.com

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

Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 00:56:39 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: 976 Fraud in Toronto


This past November, a company I consult for had three unauthorized
calls to [phone] made on one of its lines.  Each call was one
minute long and was billed at $24.  Thinking back, we remember the
likely perpetrator -- a man claiming to be serving legal papers on
someone who supposedly used to work at the office address.  There were
several small discrepancies to his story, but he seemed just as
puzzled as we were.  He asked to use the phone, and I remember that he
did a lot of dialing, but when challenged he showed a pager with
display and claimed he was calling his voicemail.

Bell Canada has agreed to remove the charges, but will not tell us the
name of the owner of this number.  We are not eager to pursue it with
the police, because of the small amount of the fraud, but we are
concerned that this may be part of an organized scam (else how would
the 'process server' benefit?) and others may also have been hit.  The
$24 charge is quite a bit higher than the usual sex and sleaze lines
which -- according to the ads -- are mostly $10.

We have cleaned up our act for handling of future visitors who want to
use the phone (for now we dial it, and toll restrictors are coming
soon), but I would like 1) suggestions for how to pursue this, and
2) to hear from anyone else in 416 who has been hit with calls to this
number.  Perhaps someone in an adjacent NPA could dial it and let me
know who answers.


Many thanks.

Tony Harminc

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

From: [e-mail] (Chua Kee Chaing (Dr))
Subject: Asia-Pacific Engineering Journal - Call For Papers
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:11:13 GMT


ASIA-PACIFIC ENGINEERING JOURNAL PART A - ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

December 1993 Issue on Communications Engineering

CALL FOR PAPERS

The Asia-Pacific Engineering Journal (APEJ) provides within the
rapidly changing Asia-Pacific region a unique source of information on
current international research activities and trends in technology. It
aims to keep its readers fully briefed with major papers, reports and
reviews on state-of-the-art technologies and products. The journal is
published in separate parts that cover the disciplines of Electrical,
Mechanical, Civil, Chemical and Industrial Engineering. Part A is
devoted to Electrical Engineering, and covers the four main areas of
Communications Engineering, Computer Engineering, Control and
Automation, and Microelectronics.

The December 1993 issue of Part A of the APEJ is devoted to
Communications Engineering. The issue will be a special issue
concentrating on the field of High-Speed Networking, and original
contributions in all aspects of this field of research are now
solicited. In particular, relevant topics of interest include, but are
not limited to, the following:

* Broadband ISDN and ATM networks
* Gigabit/s networking
* Lightwave networks
* High-speed transport protocols
* Management of high-speed networks
* Flow and congestion control in high-speed networks

Prospective authors are requested to submit four (4) copies of their
manuscripts, written in English, and including a 100-word abstract, to
the following by 1 April 1993.

        Dr. Kee C. Chua
        Department of Electrical Engineering
        National University of Singapore
        10 Kent Ridge Crescent
        Singapore 0511

        Fax.: [phone]
        Email.: [e-mail]

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

Subject: Out of Town Businesses on Local Numbers?
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 0:32:59 EST
From: lunatix![e-mail]


The other day, I saw the number for a business located in a nearby
town (which is not normally in the local calling area), however, the
prefix was a local one.  I tried calling the number, but could not get
through.  I tried the operator and she connected me, and after asking
why the 'number' was in my town, and the 'business' was in another,
she only said, 'It's in the computer, but it is connected to a
different town.'

Any ideas as to what's happening here?


[Moderator's Note: Businesses (actually, anyone, but it is mostly
businesses) can have a 'foreign exchange' line -- commonly known as an
FX. When they use that phone, or receive calls on it, it is as though
they were in the place where the phone exchange is located. There are
various reasons one might do this. One reason is the company makes a
large volume of calls to that town, and the cost of the FX line plus
local calling charges, if any, are less than the cost of the same
number of calls dialed as long distance. Other times an FX line is
intended to give a company a 'presence' in the town where it is
located. They wish to make a convenient way for their customers in
that town to reach them, and find the call volume is sufficient to
warrant a dedicated FX line rather than hundreds (or thousands) of
calls on 800 lines. Whether or not an FX line makes better sense than
(for example) a IN-WATS line is an applications problem. With the cost
of long distance and/or 800 calls being less than ever before, FX
lines are not nearly as common as they used to be.  PAT]

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

From: pacific![e-mail] (michael hamilton)
Subject: UUCP Through Multiple Carriers
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:13:34 GMT


I am currently taking a newsfeed through a university (which shall
remain nameless, but Thank God John Robinson is back) in Los Angeles.
To do this, I must go through my local carrier GTE, and through the
carrier that services the university area, Pac-Bell.  Further, the
University has an Instanet Data PABX port selector that I have to
navigate through, before I finally reach the system I want.  To do
this, I'm using a Telebit T2500, and going through what I believe is a
Micom modem on the university side.

    My question: is all this routing through various switches causing
my horrible throughput?  I should be getting on the order of 1200 cps,
and I get more like 400, if and when I don't time out waiting for the
other end.  I have tried every combination of register settings,
disabling V.42, MNP, etc., but nothing improves this performance.  I
know it's not the modem, because talking to another T2500 (in the same
GTE area) I got >4X what I'm getting now.

    Thanks for any thoughts on this.  Responses through e-mail are
preferred, but if you post here I'll eventually see it.


michael hamilton   [e-mail] / oceanography from space

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

From: [e-mail] (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Hunt Groups
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:10:33 GMT


Is it possible for two numbers serviced by the same physical CO to be
placed on a hunt group even though they has different exchange
prefixes?

I don't want to have either of my numbers changed since one is my old
number everyone knows, and the other is a xxx-xx00 number (had to pull
some strings to get it).  When I ordered service and made various
inquiries, I run into folks who don't know what terms like "POTS line"
and "demarc" mean, and offered me services excluded by tariff (the
sales rep initially told me they could offer me a metered line, though
this is prohibited if you have an unmetered line in the same house).

[ After answering his questions about the various telco terms, he
asked if there was anything else he should know about the fone system,
saying that they had obviously not trained enough.  I told him he
should learn all about area code 710, and to keep asking until he
finds someone who can explain what it is for. (Wish I could be there
for that :) :) ) ].


rob boudrie     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I've never heard of a hunt group including lines on
different prefixes, even if they were in the same CO.  Anyone?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Don Wegeng)
Subject: Does a CNID Device List Exist?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Xerox Corp., Henrietta, NY
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:55:10 GMT


With all of the requests for information about CNID devices, it
occured to me that it would be useful if someone or some publication
had assembled a list of the devices that are currently available.  I
appreciate that it may be very difficult to keep track of all of the
products that are being introduced, but perhaps one of the consumer
magazines has published a summary.  Does anyone know of such a list?


Thanks,

Don   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 10:27 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: A Minor Nit With the Telecom FAQ


I think Dave did an excellent job with the faq, but I would like to
make a minor nit.

> Q: What do "tip" and "ring" mean?

> A: The conductors of a wire pair to a telephone set are referred to
>    as tip (T) and ring (R). Tip (T) is usually the more positively
>    charged of the two while Ring (R) tends to be more of a ground.

This seems to be a common misconception.  CO battery is -48, rather
then +48 with respect to (WRT) ground.  Thus tip is positive WRT ring,
but is actually at ground, if current isn't flowing.  Ring is then at
-48 V, again assuming no voltage losses.  The reasons for doing is
galvonic corrosion protection.  A conductor with a - charge will repel
chlorine ions, as Cl ions are negative also.  If the line were to have
a posative charge, Cl ions would be attracted.

This form of corrosion protection is called cathodic protection.  It
is often used for pipelines, bridges, etc.  I don't know how important
it is now, but it was very important in the days of open wire
transmission lines.

CO battery does not have to be 48 V.  24 V is often used for PBX and
Key systems, long loops may have a higher battery voltage.

>    However, two wires normally suffice to complete a connection
>    between a telephone and the central office; any extra wiring
>    would be for purposes such as grounding or for party line ringing.

Also to supply dial light for the Princess phones.


Pat Turner KB4GRZ   [e-mail]

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

Date: 06 Jan 93 10:04:04 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Colorado Gets Caller ID


In TELECOM Digest V13, #8 I read the following concerning Caller ID
penetration.

Colorado (Richard Lucas):    Heavy Demand at initial offering.
Nevada   (Centel)       :    10% penetration
IBT      (Moderator)    :    Very popular service long term
New Jersey (NJ Bell)    :    4.6% penetration (no blocking available)

Colorada has PUC mandated restrictions about blocking availability
and, as I remember, so does IBT. I am unsure about Nevada -- does
anyone know if blocking availablity is mandated there?

I realize that initial demand in Colorado doesn't necessarily
translate into similar long term demand, but for the sake of argument,
assume it does.  Let's also assume that Nevada has mandated blocking
availability.


That would mean that Caller ID penetration is higher in those areas
with mandated blocking than in the area that doesn't have any blocking
at all available. By more than double in the case of Nevada!

Perhaps PacBell is making a marketing mistake by not offering caller
id even though mandated blocking restrictions would apply? Perhaps
their total revenues would be higher than if no blocking at all was
available?


Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 11:25:11-0800
From: /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@spri
nt.com
Subject: Do-It-Yourself Caller ID


 From the Dec 1992 {Telecommunications} magazine in the Technology Watch
   Page 14:

Do-It-Yourself Caller ID

"Caller ID hits the computer marketplace.  While the Telcos roll out
Caller ID systems and regulators wrestle with privacy issues, the
consumer marketplace is offering its own form of call screening.  One
such product is offered through KES Communications Inc., which has
released Friends Only, a device that picks up calls before the
telephone rings.  With it, users can dodge unwanted calls via a
three-digit security access code."

"When a caller initially gets through, an operator-like voice says:

'Thank you for calling; please enter your access code.'  Callers who
do not enter the code within ten seconds are disconnected.  The device
is FCC compliant, but users may encounter some procedural difficulties
prior to using the product. KES notes that changes in telco
facilities, equipment, or operation of the product.  In addition, the
local exchange carrier must be notified prior to connection in order
to comply with state tariffs; and in some states, PUCs must approve
use prior to connection.  The device uses RJ-11C connectors which plug
into telephone and wall receptacles.  It is compatable with special
features such as call waiting, call forwarding, and three-way calling.
The price is $99.95."

No address or phone number was supplied. Wonder if you need a access
code to get them to answer the phone?


                       Thomas K Hinder
              Martin Marietta Computing Standards
                    4795 Meadow Wood Lane
                     Chantilly, VA 22021
              703.802.5593 (v) 703.802.5218 (f)


[Moderator's Note: This is just the old 'Priv-Code' device. It first
came out in the middle 1970's and was manufactured then by the
International Mobile Machines Corp. of Bala Cynwyd, PA. It sits on the
line and grabs all incoming calls. Unless the person enters the proper
code, your phone never rings. Certain codes are allocated to send
calls direct to an answering machine you attach to the line. I had one
about fifteen years ago; they are fun, but can be a nuisance for
people trying to legitimatly reach you who do not have a code number.
I think someone wrote me once to say IMM no longer was making the
thing; someone else is doing it now.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #10
*****************************