A Beginner's Guide to the Internet/INTERNET.ISO/text/telediag/tc13-152.txt

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 21.8 KB | 613 lines

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 4 Mar 93 16:58:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 152

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cincinnati Bell ISDN Tariff :-( (Ralph Hyres)
    The Geodesic Report II - A Small Review (James Borynec)
    Potential for Credit Card Fraud Using Cellular Phone (Paul Barnett)
    Information Wanted on Caller ID (Amy Crowder)
    Teletype Model ASR/33 Docs Needed (Robert L. McMillin)
    Format of Cellular Control Channel Signal? (James Gustave)
    Looking For a T1 Card (Eric Miller)
    Is There an FAQ? (Janet M. Swisher)
    Annoyance (Serial) Calls (Morris Galloway Jr.)
    AT&T Satellite Transmissions (Jason Garner)
    Moving a Phone Line Within Apartments (Hon Wah Chin)
    Telecom Toll Data Wanted (Bill Bennett)
    Blocking of Phone Numbers With Caller ID (Bob Baxter)
    More Musings About UK "Phoneday" (Bob Goudreau)
    CLASS Question (Mark Rudholm)
    Looking For a Device to Handle Three-Way Calling (Chris Faylor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: bears![e-mail]
Date: 4 Mar 93 18:11:51 GMT
Subject: Cincinnati Bell ISDN Tariff :-(


I was happy to hear that Ameritech through their Ohio BOC Ohio Bell
was agressively marketing ISDN.  I was hoping that Cincinnati Bell
would offer a similar package.

Ohio Bell's package is roughly $50/month for Basic Rate ISDN with two
Circuit-Switched voice lines (I presume these offer measured service.)

Cincinnati Bell, however, is not with the program.

Their offering seems to be priced more like a typical 'Centrex'
offering.  It isn't National-ISDN-1 compliant, either.

The configuration I would want (flat rate service on B-channel line,
measured on another B-channel) isn't even available, owing to a
general tariff restriction on mixing classes of service unless they
are for 'different purposes'.

I need flat rate and two lines, which is what I pay $40/month for in
analog form now.  This tariff requires me to pay nearly $100/month
(38.25 + 25 + 25 + .24 (911 charges), + 1 3.50.).  When I consider
capital costs for new phones or an ISDN terminal adapter, I'm better
off buying two V.32bis modems for $450 and waiting for the next
generation of digital service.

Ohio Bell's tariff is much better.  Mitch Kapor must have talked to
them :-)

Here are the rates:-(

                Initial        Monthly        USOC
                (Install)
1. BRI Line

a via Qualified Copper        70        38.25

b via Electronic Facilities    70        229
(presumably if > 18,000 feet away from CO)

2 ISDN Bearer Services

a B-chan Circuit Switched    25*        25
    Voice or Data
    (flat rate)

b (measured)            25*        5

c B-chan packet switched    25*        125
    data

d D-chan packet switched    25*        4.50
    data
* This is a 'subsequent install' charge, it is included in the $70 if
you request it all at the initial install.

3 Optional Features

Install Charge (initial)    5
Install Charge (subsequent)    15

a Circuit-Switched

1 hunting                    3
2 six-party conf. call                12
3 call pickup                    2
4 additional DN                    5
5 Additional Call references            5
6 Electronic Key Telephone Service        10 (is this 'Centrex'?)

b Packet-Switched
1 X.25 hunting                    5
2 Closed User Group Member            1
3 Additional Logical Channels            3
4 Permanent Virtual Circuit            4

I disclaim responsibility for errors, though I tried to be accurate in
my typing.  Contact Cincinnati Bell Telephone if you want real
information.


Ralph (a disappointed potential ISDN customer)

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

From: [e-mail] (James Borynec; AGT Researcher)
Subject: The Geodesic Report II - A Small Review
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 22:19:38 -0700


I just read a startling report: "The Geodesic Network II: 1993 Report
on Competition in the Telephone Industry" By P.W. Huber, M.K. Kellogg,
and J. Thorne.  The Geodisic Company, Washington D.C.

The central thesis of this (thick) report is that the economics of
fiber and the economics of radio make long distance a "natural"
monopoly and that local access is now "inherently competitive".

They argue this point long, hard, and (I believe) convincingly.

Here are some choice quotes:

"... All serious analysts, along with top FCC officials, recognize
that the long distance industry is now characterized by umbrella
pricing, under a canopy maintained by the FCC and AT&T.  The
commission spends most of its time making sure that AT&T does not
lower its prices too fast.  MCI and Sprint appear repeatedly before
the Commission and then in Court to challenge any attempt at serious
price cutting."

"The gap in prices between AT&T and its competitors has steadily
narrowed from 10-20 per cent in mid 1984 to about 5 percent in 1987 to
still smaller margins today."

"In the marketplace, long distance competition is finished."

"Although the price of fiber in the loop has dropped to about $1500
per access line (about the same price as copper), radio already
appears to be cheaper -- about $1000 plus the cost of subscriber
equipment.  With relatively modest additional investments in digital
technology, the capacity of cellular systems will increase roughly
ten-fold, driving the cost down to perhaps as little as a couple of
hundred dollars per local circuit."

The report is written in an easy-to-read style and should be read by
anyone who has an interest in the future of telecommunications.  Even
if you disagree with their conclusions (for philosophical or fiscal
reasons), the sheer volume of relevent industrial information makes it
a valuable reference.

Copies cost about $100 and are available from the publisher (The
Geodisic Company) 1-800-257-0938, or [phone].  Electronic
versions are also available.


Jim Borynec  [e-mail]
Disclaimer:  I have no connections to the Geodesic Company, and I
won't profit if you buy their book.


[Moderator's Note: We have known for a while now that MCI and Sprint
have been repeatedly trying to keep AT&T from lowering its prices.
My feeling is long distance rates would be at least a cent or two less
per minute -- making them actually less expensive in many cases than
their two nearest competitors -- if it were not for resistance from
MCI and Sprint trying to keep the prices up. After all, their entire
fortunes were built on their fraudulent advertising campaigns saying
how they could save telephone users money on long distance calls, were
they not?  You know how that goes ...  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Barnett)
Subject: Potential For Credit Card Fraud Using Cellular Phone
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 93 06:43:50 CST


I was making a purchase at a trade show, and gave them one of my bank
cards.  I was nearly struck speechless as I watched him pick up a
handheld cellular phone and proceed to call for authorization.
Fortunately, I recovered in time, and cut him off just as the call
began:

Me:  "Are you calling for credit card authorization?"


Him: "Yes."  (puzzled look on his face)

Me:  "I do not want you to recite my card number over THAT phone."

Him: (still looking clueless)

Me:  "You will broadcast that number to everyone within several miles
     that has a scanner.  You might as well stand up on the table
     and shout it out to this crowd."

Him: "I have to get authorization for this purchase."

Me:  "Then find a pay phone or borrow a land-line phone."

Him: "There's no phone in here, and I can't leave the booth."

Me:  "I'll go elsewhere, thank you."

I went to another vendor, and paid a slightly higher price, after
agreeing that he would use a pay phone.  He didn't have a cellular
phone anyway, but it took him a while to find a phone he could borrow.

I was surprised that the credit card companies didn't have some sort
of rule against this.  So I called American Express and the issuer of
my MasterCard, and both customer service reps understood the problem
(once I explained it), but neither was aware of any policy to the
contrary.  I filed a "complaint" or "comment" or whatever they called
it, and maybe something will happen as a result.



Paul Barnett
MPP OS Development     (214)-497-4846
Convex Computer Corp.  Richardson, TX

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

From: Amy Crowder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on Caller ID
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1993 21:05:56 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois


I am doing research on caller ID and the privacy issue.  I would
greatly appreciate any information about new systems, such as RS-232,
that are being used.

Thank you!

Responses may be sent to [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Perhaps Amy means the presence of an RS-232 port on
a display to send the information in readable form to a computer or
terminal.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 93 18:52:59 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Teletype Model ASR/33 Docs Needed


A friend of mine has a Teletype model ASR/33 and needs docs on the
beast.  Can anyone in net.land lend a hand?


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (James Gustave)
Subject: Format of Cellular Control Channel Signal?
Date: 04 Mar 1993 20:36:04 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz


Could someone please explain the format of the signals used on the
cellular control channel?  Thanks.


james speth  email for pgp compatible public-key   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Miller)
Subject: Looking For a T1 Card
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 13:26:06 GMT


Hi,

I'm looking for a T1 card to plug into a PC.  I have found some cards
with a VME bus.  I am happy with them.  Unfortunately, the
manufacturer does not make PC (ISA bus) versions.  If you know of a
manufacturer or supplier of these cards, please send me email.  My
address is:   [e-mail]


Thanks,

Eric

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

From: [e-mail] (Janet M. Swisher)
Subject: Is There an FAQ?
Date: 4 Mar 1993 15:38:24 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin


Is there an FAQ for this group?  I have a couple of simple questions
that would probably be answered by it, if it existed.

1) Way back when, I heard that you should never tell your local phone
company that you use a modem on your phone line, as they could then
charge you a much higher rate.  I have the impression this is no
longer true.  What is the status of this?  (Note: this is *not* a
question about a "modem tax".)

2) I have two phone lines in my house.  I want to rewire one of my
outlets so that it offers plugs for both lines, not just one.  How do
I go about doing that?


Thanks.


[Moderator's Note: The Telecom FAQ is available in the Telecom Archives
which can be accessed using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Morris Galloway Jr.)
Subject: Annoyance (Serial) Calls
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 12:40:54 GMT


We've been experiencing an annoying pattern of calls recently.  Early
in the morning (7-8am), calls are coming in to one or two of our
dormitories.

When answered, there is silence, then a hangup.

Often, the same thing happens to each room on a floor (the numbers are
consequtive).

Aside from a malicious crackpot, is there any computerized dialing
equipment that could produce these symptoms? I've asked the residents
about fax tones, but apparently there is just silence.

We have reported the problem to Southern Bell, but no solution so far.

Any clues?

Thanks,


Morris Galloway      [e-mail]    1-803-833-8217
Presbyterian College   Clinton, SC  29325


[Moderator's Note: The fax or modem on the other end (if that is what
it is) might remain silent until it hears one of its own kind from
your end. Some are configured that way. Is there dead silence from the
other end, or mostly silence with background room noise, ie a person
there who is not speaking up?  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 93 02:13:52 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Jason Garner)
Subject: AT&T Satellite Transmissions


Perhaps a year ago it was possible to tune one's television satellite
dish to channels 21 or 22 while fixed on Telstar 301 and using a
shortwave receiver in sideband mode, monitor long distance calls of
AT&T.  The same was true for Sprint on the same and another satellite.
Other satellites for which this was possible include Spacenet 2,
Westar 2 and Comstar D4.  Does anyone know whether this is still
possible?  If so, what percentage of my calls go over the airwaves in
this fashion?



Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are not opinions at all.  They
are fact.


[Moderator's Note: In an earlier message in this issue, the writer was
concerned about his credit card number being read over a cell phone.
As we all know, *nothing* is secure or private as you point out here.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 93 10:30:30 PST
From: [e-mail] (Hon Wah Chin)
Subject: Moving a Phone Line Within Apartments
Reply-To: [e-mail]


While moving from one unit in an apartment building to another, I
wanted to have access to my phone line from both places.  I did this
from the building's side of the demarc.  Now that I'm out of the old
apartment I called PacBell to get the records changed to reflect the
situation.

After talking to the rep I get the feeling that they would have done
the transfer at the CO and charged me $35.  It looks as though my
attempt to do the switch "make before break" didn't work.

It looks as though I will have to back out my wiring changes and ask
for a regular transfer of service.  Any hints about how to minimize
the no-service window?


Hon Wah Chin

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telecom Toll data wanted
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 21:59:34 GMT


I'm researching telecom toll charges worldwide for comparision with
local rates here in New Zealand. Could someone please email me the
following information.

1. Sample toll charges between major US and European towns.

eg. New York to Boston, NY to LA, London to Manchester, London to
Glasgow.  London to Berlin. Etc.

2. Provide some information about discount structures -- ie, do rates
fall in off peak period? By how much?

3. Are there usage discounts? For example, if you spend x dollers do
you get a volume discount.

I'll be posting the results of this non-scientific survey.


Thanks.

Bill Bennett

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 93 22:34:33 -0400
From: Bob Baxter <[e-mail]>
Organization: Fraternity of Fun Folks
Subject: Blocking of Phone Numbers With Caller ID


Hi all,

I have had Caller ID for several months now, with good success.  It's
a wonderful way to screen out telemarketers. :-)

Anyhow, I seem to remember reading someplace, whether it was a New
York Telephone pamphlet, or perhaps an old Digest, that if you had
Caller ID, you could block out either:

a) A selected phone number(s);
b) A number that is marked private would not even let my phone ring.

I'm aware about the CLID info being sent between the first and second
ring, but I'm almost positve I read something here last year that this
could be done.  If it matters, I'm calling from Long Island - (516
NPA).


Thanks,

Bob Baxter    Internet: <[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]>   America Online: <BOB THE DJ>


[Moderator's Note: Caller-ID by itself blocks nothing. You can
purchase or write software to do what you want with the call. Telco
does offer a service called "Call Screeing" which (independent of
Caller-ID) lets you block calls from numbers specified. If those
numbers call, you won't get any ring at all, in fact the call will not
even leave the CO.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 16:09:25 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: More Musings About UK "Phoneday"


One thing I've wondered about is how close to capacity the UK's
toll-free number space (0800-XXXXXX) has become.  If it is getting
full, then the upcoming Phoneday, which will cause all the geographic
STD codes to start with "01", offers a unique opporunity to expand the
free-phone number space by an order of magnitude in a completely
upward-compatible fashion.

The key to this plan would be changing the free-phone STD code from
0800 to just 080, and allowing the non-STD-code part of the number to
expand from six to seven digits (thus increasing the number pool from
one million to ten million).  All existing 0800 numbers wouldn't have
to change one bit: 0800 XXXXXX would simply become 080 0XX XXXX
instead.  Nine million new numbers would then be available in the
range of 080 100 0000 through 080 999 9999.  There would be no problem
with collisions with STD codes 0801 through 0809 (if any of them are
even in use today), because they will change to 01801 ... 01809 as
part of the Phoneday cutover.

Any comments from the UK readership?


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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 93 13:27:47 PST
From: silver![e-mail] (Mark Rudholm)
Subject: CLASS Question


This is something that I imagine someone at AT&T or Bellcore can address.

Yesterday, March 2, I had Call Return (*69) and Busy Call Forwarding
added to my line, a 1AESS (213-930).

Busy Call Forwarding is basically useless because it does not work AT
ALL unless Call Waiting is explicitly disabled (*70).  If I am already
using Call Waiting (i.e. talking to party B while party A is on hold)
and another call comes in, they get a busy.  If my phone is ringing or
I am placing a call that hasn't supervised yet, callers will get a
busy.  Kinda pointless, I think, especially since I got it because of
those times when Call Waiting doesn't work (phone ringing, placed call
hasn't supervised yet, etc.)  Does 5ESS do any better?  I'm not
interested in switching to DMS but I am curious if it is any
different.

My next problem is with Call Return (*69).  It seems to work (well, if
you ignore the fact that half of greater L.A. is GTE who hasn't
apparently heard of SS7 yet) O.K.  I have a line at my parent's home
that I use as an RCF, it isn't a REAL Pacific Bell RCF but just a line
with Call Forwarding on it and no sets connected to it.  It is set to
forward to my home (213-930).  This line is also on an SS7 equipped
1AESS (213-261).  Anyway, the Distinctive Ringing and Selective Call
forwarding at my home work properly (as they should) on calls
regardless of whether they dialed me directly or if they went through
the 261 forwarding.  The problem is that Call Return does not work
this way.  When I try to return a call that comes through the 261
line, I get the recording "We're sorry, this feature cannot be used to
call the number you are calling at this time, please hang up now and
try your call again in a few minutes."

Thinking it odd that Selective Forwarding and Distinctive Ringing
should work properly when Call Return didn't and knowing that the
CLASS features shouldn't be affected by forwarding (as opposed to ANI
delivery) I called Pacific Bell to ask about it.  Well, surprisingly
the person who took my call understood what I explained.  She said
that all CLASS features, including Call Return should work properly on
calls forwarded through another SS7 equipped Pacific Bell switch.  She
agreed then that there was a failure if this was not happening.  She
transfered me to Repair.  I put in an report with a brief description
of the problem and basically told them to have someone at the CO call
me so I can explain it.

What I want to know is if this is just an implementation error on
Pacific Bell's part or if this is how it is supposed to work.


Mark D. Rudholm      Philips Interactive Media of America
[e-mail]    11050 Santa Monica Boulevard

[phone]      Los Angeles, CA  90025


[Moderator's Note: Regarding 'forward on busy' and call-waiting, it
will not work unless the line is 'truely busy' which only occurs when
you suspend call-waiting (or when you 'suspend' it permanently by
having telco remove the feature from your line.) I think the problem
with call return on the 261 line is the switch is trying to place an
outgoing call on a line not equipped for outgoing calls. The 261 line
is only set up for incoming calls. It thinks 'here is 261-xxxx placing
a call to <last number> ...' and realizes that is impossible since 261
is for incoming calls only.  An interesting bug, to be sure.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Faylor)
Subject: Looking For a Device to Handle Three-Way Calling
Organization: Boston Business Computing, Ltd.
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 22:13:49 GMT


I'm looking for a device that will initiate a conference call using
the phone company's three-way calling service.

I'd like the to call two numbers and connect them together, keeping
the phone off-hook until one of the two parties hangs up.  This action
would ideally be able to be initiated remotely by calling the device
and issuing commands to it.

Is there anything like this out there anywhere?


Chris Faylor        Boston Business Computing, Ltd.
[e-mail]    "I am not here."

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #152
******************************