A Beginner's Guide to the Internet/INTERNET.ISO/text/telediag/tc13-098.txt

Text File | 1993-02-16 | 18.5 KB | 469 lines

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 15 Feb 93 11:32:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 98

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Programs to Send Messages to Pagers Using IXO Protocol (TELECOM Moderator)
    Curious Local Exchange Problem (Daniel Burstein)
    Internet Access from Qatar? Anyone? (Bindy P. James)
    Searching For PPP Pointer RFC (Sam Houston)
    Procedure to Use 800-321-0ATT? (Curtis E. Reid)
    Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany (Christian Weisgerber)
    Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany (Wolfgang Zenker)
    Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Daniel Burstein)
    Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: GTE On the "Move" (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Jack Decker)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Ken Thompson)
    Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Al Varney)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 10:41:16 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Programs to Send Messages to Pagers Using IXO Protocol


Monty Solomon has kindly provided the archives with a large file of
programs which can be executed on your computer if you send a lot of
alphanumeric messages to pagers. This file should complement the
discussion going on here over the weekend regarding IXO protocol.

Look for it in the Telecom Archives, using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu
under the title 'ixo.program.scripts'


Patrick Townson

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

From: [e-mail] (Daniel Burstein)
Subject: Curious Local Exchange Problem
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 11:13:30 GMT


All these postings about impossible phone problems reminded me of an
episode I sufferred through about three years ago.

At the time, I had a single phone in the 212-663 exchange.  One day,
when I started to dial a phone number, I got an IMMEDiATE busy after
the first digit.

On further experimentation, I discoverd that I only the numbers "6"
and "8" would get through the first digit - all others, INCLUDING "0"
and "9" (as in "911") immediately busied out.

After a bit of thought and experimentation, I realized that I could
only dial out to phone numbers in my physical central office (which
was composed of three different numerical exchanges).

Since these exchanges were 663, 666, and 865, any first digit other
than 6 or 8, and then any second other than 6, etc., etc. got me a
busy.

Oh, yes, I couldn't call repair service either (611). As soon as I
hit the secoond digit ("1") whoops, there went the busy.

I -could-, however, make calls to any number in the three exchanges.

So what I did: I called one of the telco test numbers in my exchange
(xxx-99xx). I got a semi-literate person, and explaiend to them that I
needed a call back from repair service.  So far so good.

BUT, for the next four or five days guess what happened. The techies
would get a very abridged trouble report (i.e. unable to dial out),
would grab my line in the CO, get a dial tone, call out to one of
their test numbers (which, of course, was in the same exchange), and
clear out the trouble report.

FINALLY, after a LOT of screaming, ranting and raving (and being told,
of course, that this whole problem was IMPOSSIBLE), I got a real
techie to call back.  He actually listened, and (after a bit of
prodding) got someone to look up the routing and authorization tables
assigned to my account.

Yep, someone, somehow, had put that most curious restriction on my
service.

It was fixed shortly afterwards, but NY Tel still claims that this
sort of thing just can't be done.

Hmm, sounds like it would be an EXCELLENT service offering: A
restriction on your line to ONLY let the person make calls to the CO
itself (let's add in a "911" option for safety.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The phones for inmate use at the Cook County Jail
have many restrictions on them. The curious part of it to me is that
they are all on the 312-890 centrex serving the entire circuit court
and correctional center complex at 28th and California Avenues here.
But the inmate phones can receive incoming calls only from another
extension on the centrex (no incoming calls from outside the premises);
they cannot call other extensions on the centrex; they can only make
zero-plus calls on a collect basis anywhere. No third number billing,
no credit card billing, no 700/800/900 numbers, etc. They cannot dial
411, 611 or 911. They cannot dial the operator inside or outside. All
calls from those phones must be of the form 0 + AC + 7D, even for the
local calling area. The IBT operator knows the calls are from the jail
and announces them in this way, "I have a collect call from <name>, an
inmate at the Cook County Jail, will you accept charges?" None of the
automated operator service on these lines.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (BINOY P JAMES)
Subject: Internet Access from Qatar? Anyone?
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 15:34:50 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University


Anybody know if I could access Internet from Qatar, in the Middle
East?  How about Bitnet at least?

I'm heading back in a few months and I really want to stay on Internet
and send e-mail to folks back in the States.


Thanks in advance.

Binoy P. James    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Sam)
Subject: Searching For PPP Pointer RFC
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Xerox Corporation, Webster NY
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 16:39:49 GMT


Does anyone know if an RFC has been published for Point to Point
Protocol, the updated synchronous/asynchronous SLIP?

Thanks in advance.


"sam" houston       Xerox, Rochester, N.Y.

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

Date: 15 Feb 1993 09:32:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Curtis E. Reid <[e-mail]>
Subject: Procedure to use 800-321-0ATT


Can someone give us the procedure for using the AT&T's Switch at
800/321-0288?

I'd like to know what steps is required to make the call go through?
Thanks!


Curtis E. Reid                [e-mail]
Rochester Institute of Technology/NTID    [e-mail] (DECUS)
P.O. Box 9887                716.475.6089 TDD/TT 475.6895 Voice
Rochester, NY 14623-0887  U.S.A.    716.475.6500 Fax (Business Use Only)


[Moderator's Note: After dialing 800-321-0288, you hear the AT&T
tones, and the robot operator announces, "AT&T ... please enter the
number you are calling, or zero for an operator."  After entering the
number you are asked to enter your card number. It is basically the
same as any other credit card call.  Persons who have experiences with
this are requested to write.   PAT]

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

Organization: My Individual Private Site
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 01:58:06 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Christian Weisgerber)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany


Steve Pershing writes:

> ZyXEL modems are approved for use in Germany, and are sold there.  We

Indeed, ZyXEL modems are sold over here and actually they've become

rather popular. However, they are NOT APPROVED by any means.

I'm very concerned about the fact that a commercial vendor of these
modems provides such blatant disinformation.


Christian "naddy" Weisgerber, Germany       [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Wolfgang Zenker)
Subject: Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 12:54:54 +0100


[e-mail] (Steve Pershing) writes:

> ZyXEL modems are approved for use in Germany, and are sold there.  We
> will also sell them to almost anyone anywhere in the world, at about a
> 10% profit. (The profit goes to support the free aspects of the
> Questor site.)

Sorry, but ZyXEL modems are NOT approved by the German BZT. But they
work very reliable on the German phone system and almost nobody cares
about an approval anymore.


Wolfgang

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

From: [e-mail] (Daniel Burstein)
Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted?
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 10:44:47 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan
Lanciani) writes:

> I recently ordered a second line in my name and at the same
> address as my existing line.  For some reason I thought one could get
> non-published or unlisted (I forget) status at no extra charge for
> each line beyond the first.  Did I imagine this?  The business office
> was quite certain that I would have to pay extra.  I suppose the
> answer is specific to NET land ...

In New York, if you order it as a SECOND (i.e., if busy then transfer)
line on the MAIN account, then it is not listed.  For example, think
of your local dry cleaner - hoe many of phone numbers do they have
listed?

And ... for good measure, you DON't have to put in the "switch when busy";
(technically this is called a "hunt group").


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE
Date: 15 Feb 1993 14:36:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


I would guess that if the return call is Toll or L/D it would appear
as would any other one of that type. I had thought that PacBell was
not even going offer those two services as they felt they could not
make any money on it. Sure hope the Assembly and State Senate get
going on those bills that over rule the PUC and I think the PUC should
have the people vote on there appointments as we do for the State
Surpreme Court, makes them more to what we want.


Steven H. Lichter    GTE Calif COEI

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: GTE On the "Move"
Date: 15 Feb 1993 14:40:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


There is a big shakeup in Telops. Some of it is good, but some will
cause problems later on. But that is just my view as a 25+ year GTE
employee who will have to try and do my job after the dust settles.


Steven H. Lichter    GTE Calif COEI

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 10:12:34 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Decker)
Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert
L. McMillin) wrote:

> [e-mail] (Ken Dykes) writes:

>> Recently I received a call from the Glendale area of Los Angeles.  I
>> live in southern Ontario CANADA.  My Caller-ID box instead of showing
>> out-of-area showed PRIVACY.  The call to me was made (and answered)
>> twice in the same night; both times PRIVACY ... some sort of
>> call-blocking was enabled by PacBell.

> Which probably means that the switch was SS7-connected, but thanks to
> the California Public fUtilities Commission, EVERYBODY's phone number
> will show up as PRIVACY-enabled.  After all, privacy is the same thing
> as anonymity ... NOT!

>> PacBell is being far too kind to the zealots :-)

> It's not Pac*Hell's fault, really.

I think I would take issue with both of these statements.  First of
all, it would seem that Pac*Bell would have the choice of not sending
the number at all, rather than sending the number with a "privacy"
flag attached.  If Caller ID is not being offered in California, then
there is no reason they should be sending the number out of state,
particularly when they're sending it with the "private" flag, which
means that Caller ID subscribers can't read it anyway.

And in the second place, as I recall the discussion here, the
California PUC did NOT say that Pac*Bell could not offer Caller ID.
Rather, they imposed what I feel were quite reasonable restrictions to
help protect the privacy of those who might not realize that their
number was being made available to all and sundry.  In particular,
they said that per-line blocking was to be the default for anyone who
is paying for an unlisted number.  Is that so unreasonable?  I think
not ... after all, if a person is paying an extra monthly charge to
keep their number from appearing in the directory, or being given out
by directory asistance, then it's not unreasonable to assume that they
are concerned enough about protecting the privacy of their phone
number that they don't want it automatically going out to anyone who
calls.

Yet to hear Pac*Bell tell it, this was sufficient justification for
NOT offering Caller ID.  I'll tell you what, if I were on the
California PUC and I were getting complaints about the lack of
availability of Caller ID, I wouldn't cave in quite yet ... instead,
I'd tell Pac*Bell "Don't even THINK about coming to us for another
rate increase until you have at least test-marketed Caller ID under
the terms we set forth!"  I'd be real surprised if Pac*Bell could
PROVE that there is strong customer resistance to Caller ID simply
because potential users can't get unlisted numbers automatically.

The fact remains that the California PUC set forth terms under which
Caller ID could be offered, and Pac*Bell said, in effect, "I don't
like your rules so I'm going to take my ball and go home!"  Apparently
the Caller ID software is already installed, so all they have to do is
turn it on, yet apparently they'd rather do without the extra income
from Caller ID than to even try it the way the PUC allowed it.  That,
to me, seems like a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's
face.

So if there is fault to be found, I think it rests SQUARELY on the
shoulders of Pac*Bell.  And yes, I realize that a few readers of this
conference don't like the idea of Caller ID blocking at all, but some
of us do see incoming telephone calls as (generally speaking) more of
an intrusion than a benefit, particularly on our home phone lines, and
would like to retain some control over who gets our phone number.
And, as has been pointed out numerous times here, there are ways other
than Caller ID to catch harassment callers (e.g. "Call Trace").

(Which brings up one other thought ... why don't states pass laws
requiring harassment callers to compensate their victims and/or the
telco for the actual costs involved in trapping and tracing them?  It
doesn't really seem fair that the VICTIM should have to pay for the
trace feature, which seems to be the primary objection to the use of
Call Trace ... maybe this one needs some more thought at the
legislative level, so that the perpetrator pays, not the victim!).


Jack Decker | Internet: [e-mail] | Fidonet: 1:154/8

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

From: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Date: 15 Feb 93 15:22:02 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS


This ruling appears to make even cell phones illegal.  They scan the
phone frequencies.  It also will effect many amateur UHF receivers and

transcievers.  Our ability to experiment with transverters will be
hindered too.


Ken Thompson    N0ITL
NCR Corp.  Peripheral Products Division   Disk Array Development
3718 N. Rock Road  Wichita KS 67226   [phone]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 11:18:32 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan
Organization: AT&T


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
writes:

>> There's nothing more annoying than a telco switch that says "It is
>> not necessary to dial 1 and the area code for this number".  If telco
>> knows what number is intended, why doesn't it just go ahead and
>> complete the call?!

> It doesn't know what number is intended.  It knows what number you
> dialed.

   Sorry, I disagree.  How can you dial 1 + ten-digits and not have
intended to dial a ten-digit number.  How often do people really dial
all ten digits and intend to only dial seven digits?  And if they do
dial ten digits by mistake, how often was the incorrect NPA dialed?

> The message is a polite way of saying "You were about to reach a wrong
> number!  But luckily we noticed that the number you dialed would be a
> local (or in-area) call, while you dialed in a manner requesting a
> long-distance (or out-of-area) call.  Since everyone knows the extent
> of their local calling area (or area code), you must have been calling
> the wrong number.  Please try again and dial the right number now."

   Everyone doesn't know this info -- that's why UNIVERSAL ten-digit
dialing is a favor for them, and almost no inconvenience to others.

> Obviously there are people for whom this trap is a disservice, but
> there are others for whom it's a service.

   Please name an instance of someone grateful to receive that
intercept ...

> Maybe it would be a good compromise if this trap was retained, but
> 011-1-npa-xxx-xxxx was allowed for all calls within the NANP, even
> local ones, with the charging as if you'd dialed them the usual way.
> Nobody's likely to dial 011-1 by accident, are they?

   Some switches would have problems not routing such calls to an IXC,
and they (and you) might not prefer the costs if the destination is
fairly local to the caller.  Other switches would have problems
routing such a call to a local line without routing via a tandem,
which adds expense to the TELCO.  Why not just allow 1 + ten-digit
regardless of NPA??

   That's my humble opinion.  Here's Bellcore's:

(From "North American Numbering Plan Administrator's Proposal On The
Future of Numbering In World Zone 1", Jan. 6, 1992 (draft for comment))

 "... Failure to place a call in the appropriate format is now
 seen as a cause for call rejection in areas using toll alerting
 [that's "1+ means toll" areas -- ALV].  It follows that 7-digit
 dialing will be encountered both with and without toll alerting.
 Numbering planners have long considered it good practice for
 switches to accept and attempt to complete any call originated
 with a valid 10-digit address, INCLUDING HOME NPA CALLS FOR WHICH
 7-DIGIT DIALING COULD SUFFICE. [Caps mine -- ALV]"

   Again, who is hurt by removal of this announcement?  Note that the
announcement is still appropriate for other circumstances, such as 1 +
seven-digit where inappropriate.


Al Varney - just my opinion, of course

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #98
*****************************