The World of Computer Software/World_Of_Computer_Software-02-385-Vol-1of3.iso/t/tc13-029.zip/TC13-029.TXT

Text File | 1993-01-19 | 21KB | 512 lines

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 Jan 93 07:58:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 29

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    N.E. Telephone Admits Ripoff - Refuses Restitution (Scott Hannahs)
    Questions on FDDI, 500GB File Servers, Remote NFS Mount IBM (Nita Avalani)
    Wanted: Small (4-12 Line) PBX/Phone System (Larry Augustin)
    How to Plan a x.25 Numbering Scheme? (Guido Weppler)
    New Developments in ISDN From Illinois Bell (David E. Martin)
    Beware: Portability (Bill Cerny)
    Looking For Recommendations For UPS For Phone System (Robert P. MacKin)
    ANI and SS7 (Ross Alexander)
    Philippine Telephone Monopoly to be Broken (Ang Peng Hwa)
    Is This a "Real" Security Alert Message of Some Sort? (J. Eric Townsend)
    USR HST 14.4 Forsale ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Scott Hannahs <[e-mail]>
Subject: N.E. Telephone Admits Ripoff - Refuses Restitution
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1993 16:40:45 GMT


These are reposts of some articles involving an ongoing dispute with
New England Telephone that I posted to ne.general a week ago.  It was
suggested that I repost them here.  This is an interesting problem in
that they seem to be hitting universities and modem users.  I have
heard from at least one other person who was misbilled involving
other exchanges.  This problem applies to unlimited local service
where you get an unlimited number of very local calls un-itemized bill
for not-so-local calls.  The unitemized bill obviously involved my
modem usage to the University which was supposedly in the "free" area.
Things seem to be moving along in that I now have an admission that
the bills are wrong for lots of people.  But it would be "too
expensive" to rebate people who were misbilled.

        ---------------reposts follow---------------

To continue this thread, I have an interesting story about ongoing
misbilling by NET which is probably widespread.

[e-mail] (Boaz Ben-Zvi) writes:

> Following N.E.T's announcement of raising some of their rates on 1/15,
> I begun wondering how one may offset some of the hike.
> Unlimited service costs more than 6-8 bucks above the measured one,
> and gives unlimited service to your local area (your town plus the towns
> surrounding it), which would otherwise cost $.016/minute (plus 1 cent
> per call). I.e., it'll take more than (approx.) 6-8 hours of monthly
> phone use (in the local area!) to make Unlimited service a good choice.
> (Well, some modem-owners use that much in a single day :-)

I saw this about a year ago and after carefully checking that my modem
is to a "free" call signed up for unlimited local which was about
$6/month cheaper.  However after a month or so, I was getting large
bills that could only be from the modem calls.  I have spent the last
year convincing NET that their software is in error and that I was
being billed for these "free" calls.  Most of the time I have been
ignored or told that I do not know what is going on in my own
household.

Two weeks ago after 50 calls and a formal complaint to the DPU I got
someone who admitted that there was a problem and that the table was
incorrect for our phone. However he claimed that it was only our
phone and nobody else's. I do not see how the billing software could
only single out our phone. I have not gotten a satisfactory reply to
that question from NET and the complaint to the DPU has not been
withdrawn.  Since the bill for unlimited local is not itemized to what
numbers are called, it is difficult to prove or disprove billing
mistakes.  I am still asking for an outside review of the billing
system but don't know if I have the political clout to get it since
they have admitted the one mistake and are stonewalling that there may
be others.  If anyone else has had a similar problem, I would
certainly like to hear about it.

Anybody know a good "sleazy" lawyer?  This could be an interesting
class action.  Fortunately I consider it more of a hobby than an
annoyance, also an excuse to withold payment to NET since they owe me
big time.

> The announcement said "New England Telephone does not receive any
> additional revenue as a result of the new rates". Sure, they spend
> the money we pay them on TV commercials :-)

But they can always just bill you incorrectly and make up the
difference ... :-) The claim is that you get a cheaper rate since
they don't have to itemize your calls, and then they can charge you
for whatever calls they feel like.  YIKES!

Just a follow up to the note I posted last week.  New England
Telephone now admits (verbally) that they were miss-billing (read
overcharging) everyone in my exchange.  They are willing to rebate me
the amount they overcharged but I was told, "We can't rebate everyone
since that would cost too much".  I didn't hear any complaints about
collecting too much money.  They will rebate anyone who complains
about it.

This is sleaze at its finest.

I do not know how many other bills are incorrect only that calls from
Jamaica Plain to the 353 exchange were (are?) billed at the local zone
1 call rate and not the free local rate.  With the kind of quality
control that they operate with I would guess the system is riddled
with errors.  Has anyone else found such problems?  I was told that
there couldn't be an error since no one else complained.  HAH!

I am still waiting for a formal response before pushing the issue
further.

[e-mail] (George J. Carrette) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Scott Hannahs) writes:

>> I am still waiting for a formal response before pushing the issue
>> further.

> Good, when you get a written response you can publish it.

I certainly will.  What I have verbally as of today is that N.E.T.
has misbilled everyone from the Jamaica Plain exchange with
unlimited local service.  These people were billed for calls to the
Boston Central exchange which was a supposedly non-billable number.
These are two fairly large groups of people.  This situation has
existed for at least a year.  I was told that NET may not be able to
figure out when the problem first occurred.  I asked about software
change logs but got a blank response with a "we will discuss that"
type answer.

The hopeful news was that this was the first time NET mentioned
"subscriber notification" and that this problem is "bigger than we
first thought".  Some person in billing is trying to fix my bill; she
actually got permission (heavy sarcasm here) from her supervisor to
spend two hours checking back a year on it.

As for written response, after sending many certified letters to NET
(including directly to the president Paul O'Brien) I have not received
more than a postcard specifying the amount of my bill adjustment
(which was incorrect).  I am not sure how many people there are
literate.  In fact today it was suggested by an NET liason to the DPU
that I should have contacted the presidential appeal council (or some
such body).  I mentioned that I had no idea such a council existed and
that the NET main office number is unlisted.  I asked why I had not
recieved an answer to the letter to the president that this person had
a copy of and was given another "we have to look into that" answer.
So it goes.

> Remember the other MIT graduate who found that NET had overcharged
> the State House something like a few millions of dollars?

No. I might not have been here then.  Do you have a date, or
reference, names etc.  I would like to get ahold of that info.


Dr. Scott Hannahs      [e-mail]
F. Bitter National Magnet Lab, MIT NW14-1313, [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Nita Avalani)
Subject: Questions on FDDI, 500GB File Servers, Remote NFS Mount IBM
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1993 14:00:14 GMT


I have following questions:

(1) Is there any way to increase the size of a file partition from 2GB
(to 20 - 50 GB, for example) in Unix OS?  Is there currently an upper
limit on the size of file partitions in mainframe (IBM) environment?

(2) Are there any high speed hardware/software alternatives to
restore/dump in Unix that would back up everything on the
nets/subnets?  If so, what is the best product?

(3) Does any one have any experiences (good or bad) with the
following:

Either (1) a FDDI backbone with ethernet from each offices to the
backbone/routers/whatever environment or (2) a FDDI backbone with FDDI
drop to each offices, with 100+ users accessing very large
databases/files (20 GB+) at will and simultaneously.

Does the network performance suffer in any way?  Can the line speed
(100 Mbps for FDDI) be achieved for data transfer for each user under
maximum loads? What are the do's and don'ts?  I hear that 3COM has
atleast two similar set ups (at Northrop and NASA Kennedy space
center), does that setup work as planned?  Is that the best out there?

(4) Are there any pitfalls to setting up a high speed link (T1, T3 or

FDDI) between a mainframe (say in California) and Unix LAN (say in
Maine)?  Even if one could receive data at line speeds, would a file
server (Sun, Auspex, IBM) be able to handle it?  More importantly,
would each user be able to realize the same data transfer rate from
their desktops (say Sparc10's) to the file servers?

(5) I hear that the NFS, TCP/IP technology is available for IBM
mainframes.  Has any one ever NFS mounted the mainframe (in CA) on to
their Unix file servers (in ME) using T1, T3 or FDDI lines?  If so,
could you please forward all your experiences (good, and of course,
bad)?  Were you ever able to access large data files from the
mainframe for all your users instantly?  Was it a reliabile set up?
and finally,

(6) Are there any products/vendors out there who make high speed unix
file servers of 500GB and more (per server)?

All comments, criticisms, etc. are welcomed.  Thanks in advance.


Nita

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Augustin)
Subject: Wanted: Small (4-12 Line) PBX/Phone System
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 17 Jan 93 19:10:42 GMT


I'm looking for an inexpensive phone system for a small business.  I
don't have any experience with vendors in this area.  I'm looking for
recommendations, vendors phone numbers, etc. Here are some of the
features we're looking for:

    - we currently have two outside lines and six extensions. We would
like the system to be expandable to about four outside lines and twelve
extensions.

    - automated attendant; an incoming is call reaches an automated
attendant, and the caller is routed to a particular extension based on
a menu selection.

    - uses standard touch-tone phones for extensions.

    - any extension can be connected to any outside line.

We don't need:

    - voicemail; we would be satisfied with attaching answering
machines to individual extensions.

    - extension to extension connections (the office isn't that big
:-)).  if going off hook on an extension immediately connects you to
an available outside line (or gives a dial-tone otherwise) that's
fine.

The most important constraint is cost.  PC based solutions are fine --
we have a spare 386 PC we can use.


Thanks in advance,

Larry

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

Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1993 20:31:45 +0100
From: [e-mail]
Subject: How to Plan a x.25 Numbering Scheme?


Hi, Networkers!

Since we have to plan the numberging scheme of a large X.25-network I
wonder if anybody can give me a hint where to get some information
about this problem. Today, our network covers only Germany, but we
intend to make it international in the near future. The network is
growing steadily (more than 200 switching nodes now, to be about 1000
nodes in the future) and transport services over it are used by more
and more users. For user addressing we intent to use 14 digit numbers.

The question is how to organise those numbers to get a structured
numbering scheme that will work even if the network will grow. How
many digits should be used for area coding, for subaddressing and for
the node ID, etc.?  I really would like to know if anybody had to deal
with that kind of problem before and I would be very pleased to
receive a literature tip or any other kind of information on that
problem.


Thanks in advance,

G. Weppler

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

From: [e-mail] (David E. Martin)
Subject: New Developments in ISDN from Illinois Bell
Date: 17 Jan 1993 22:29:23 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Acclerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL, USA
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I talked with Bill Kalmyer after getting a cryptic letter from him
about ISDN service. He works for Ameritech and is their ISDN product
manager for Illinois. Here is what he told me:

1) Base ISDN rates are going up 18%. This will raise our monthly bills
for residental service by about $5.00 to about $40 for 2B.

2) IBT is going whole-hog for National ISDN-1.  All new services will
be by default NI-1.  You can still get AT&T Proprietary ISDN (what IBT
calls "custom" ISDN) by special request.

3) IBT is offering free FX (foreign exchange) service to those not
served by a ISDN-capable CO, so they can get service at the same
rates.

5) There is a new ISDN data products center in Wheaton, IL.

6) IBT formerly offered ISDN only from AT&T switches.  They now offer
NI-1 service from AT&T, NTI, and Siemens.

7) They are working on a new tariff to cut the cost for people with
very high monthly circuit-switched data usage.


David E. Martin
National HEPnet Management                      Phone: [phone]
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory           FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 500, MS 368; Batavia, IL 60510  USA\   E-Mail: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Beware: Portability
Organization: Sun, Surf 'n Sushi, San Diego, CA
Date: 18 Jan 93 03:31:01 GMT


Inbound call center managers beware: the mad rush to implement CCS-7
(American extension to CCITT SS7) in order to support 800 number
portability is going to give you several migraines. Why? A short
story:

Earlier this week a client discovered they could no longer reach their
own x00 number (served by Sprint).  Panic ensued, "My customers can't
call me!"  A urgent call was placed to Sprint: Sprint denied any
network problem.  They denied it adamantly!  Quick escalation up
through management.  Somebody finally listened, and 48 hours later the
problem was traced to a Sprint switch "upgrade" to Northern Telecom's
BCS-34 (BCS: Bad Canadian Software ;-).

In the meantime, inbound traffic volume diminished.  Frantic calls
were made to friends, and friends of friends across the nation, "Can
you get through on my x00 number?"  Blockages were found in three
other LATAs, with dozens still untested.  Worse still, a blockage was
discovered for an AT&T x00 number, too!

If your core business depends on inbound x00 traffic, you have been
warned.  I recommend that you routinely check inbound call completion
from your major markets.  And get a list of management's phone numbers
at your long distance company.


Bill Cerny  <[e-mail]> | 10288-0-700-FON-BILL

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Patrick MacKin)
Subject: Looking For Recommendations For UPS For Phone System
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1993 19:27:27 GMT


I am looking for recommendations for a UPS suitable for KEY and PBX
systems. It should handle 120vac at three or four amps output.  I hear
Tripplite in Chicago carries something of the description, but I have
neither an address nor phone number. I also know that ALPHA UPS
systems have a suitable device, but I have no source for them at all.
Any help here?  Thanks!


[e-mail] (Robert Patrick MacKin)
Western Business School  --  London, Ontario

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

From: [e-mail] (Ross Alexander)

Subject: ANI and SS7
Organization: Computer Science, Auckland University
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1993 20:09:52 GMT


Could anybody tell me what ANI is all about?  I follow this group
regularly but the common kiwi doesn't have to worry about interstate
laws and Caller ID (yet).  I've read up on the basic idea of SS7 and
ISDN so I follow the idea of both in channel signaling and D channel
signaling.  Any help would be most appreciated.


Ross Alexander   Computer Science   University of Auckland
Auckland  New Zealand

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 10:12:54 SST
From: Ang Peng Hwa <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philippine Telephone Monopoly to be Broken


This from Reuter:

MANILA -- Senior Philippine communications official Josefina Lichauco
said yesterday (Friday) she was determined to break up the country's
telephone monopoly after renewed pressure from President Fidel Ramos.

"The president has issued an order to abolish the monopoly and it
shall be implemented," said undersecretary Ms Lichauco, who oversees
the nation's communications policy.

President Ramos, angered by a report that over 600,000 telephone
applications have been pending for years, ordered officials this week
to dismantle the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co (PLDT)
monopoly.

The average would-be subscriber has to wait four years to get a phone
installed in the Manila area.

Ms Lichauco said she was determined to force PDLT, one of the country's
biggest companies, to allow other telecommunication companies to
interconnect with the PLDT network.

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

Comments: a strange story that makes Ms. Lichauco a central figure in
breakup. I would have thought that if the President says so, you do
so.  Regardless of how you feel, you *have* to be determined.

Also, for those unfamiliar with the Philippines, it is a long standing
joke that the Philippine phone system is modeled after the American
AT&T pre-divestiture model. With one exception -- the Philippine
system does not work.

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Eric Townsend)
Subject: Is This a "Real" Security Alert Message of Some Sort?
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames
Date: 17 Jan 93 16:21:00


Got this while logging in to a BBS a month or two ago.  I was doing
the "new user look around" thingie.  I didn't bother calling back.

It looks a bit like those fake messages that sysops sometimes send in
order to scare people off.  The "NO CARRIER" bit came when they
dropped carrier on me.

 ---start included text---

CYBERTRON CORP!  (R)Telecommunications Security Node:#264839-LL

NOTIFICATION: FCC-#9632852 - LINE VERIFICATION IN PROGRESS!

ROUTE LINE IS CURRENTLY BEING FORWARDED TO:
{DT*2VRP}(c) CALIFORNIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION!

You have commited a FELONY, according to the FCC ruling #6828744
Telecommunications Privacy Act (1989) Section IV - 3529A-6 Municipal
Code of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND IT'S AGENTS HEREIN ...
Therefore, you are hereby WARNED! Any further attempt to contact this
customer will result in CRIMINAL PROSECUTION and/or EXTRADITION by
FEDERAL authorities....Your telephone number has been recorded in our
central office!

Thank you for using..."CYBERTRONICS SECURITY RESOURCES"

Summary: Notify Police and local phone company? YES!
         Continue to monitor violator? YES!
Total time logged was 1 minute(s), with 24 minutes remaining for
07/25/92.

Thank you for calling, Eric.


NO CARRIER

 ---end encluded text---


J. Eric Townsend --  [e-mail] -- 415.604.4311 (DoD# 0378)


[Moderator's Note: This looks like a very poor attempt at humor to me.
I do not think it is any sort of 'real' security alert. After all, why
would they close by thanking your for calling and telling you how many
minutes you had left on your call? The sysop not only has a warped
sense of humor, but he is not very good at editing the print statements
in his program.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Alvin)
Subject: USR HST 14.4 For Sale
Date: 18 Jan 93 03:57:12 GMT


I have a USR HST 14.4 for sale.  It's an external modem for all
computers.  It has v.42 and v.42bis and tranfser at 1600cps.  I still
have the original package and documents.  It's upgradeable to v.32 or
v.fast from USR directly.  I am asking $300 for the modem.  Email me
if interested it.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #29
*****************************