The Hacker Chronicles - A…the Computer Underground/The Hacker Chronicles - A Tour of the Computer Underground (P-80 Systems).iso/phreak/teldig3.txt

Text File | 1992-08-30 | 76KB | 1,747 lines

*********************
TELECOM DIGEST 890419
*********************


Date: Mon, 27 Mar 89 22:01:25 EST
From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID(tm) and Repeat*Call(tm) in New Jersey

I've just returned from Spring Break, and my dorm number has finally had
Caller*ID and Repeat*Call turned on.  I picked up the Caller ID box from my
PO Box here, and here are a few first impressions:

Repeat*Call works well.  I have used it both for local calls and intra-LATA
long distance calls.  One feature that is not documented is that when you
get the Repeat Call signal that the line is free (two short, one long), the
Caller ID box displays the number that you are attempting to call.  This is
useful because you can have several Repeat Calls running at the same time.  My
only complaint (other than the large one below) is that the confirmation tape
you hear upon activating Repeat Call is very worn and of poor quality.  Repeat
Call is activated by dialing *66 after the busy signal.  All current Repeat
Calls will be disabled by dialing *86 (you can't disable one, you have to
disable all).

Caller ID works well also.  After purchasing the 9-volt battery the box
requires (that was never mentioned before...), I hooked it up.  After the
wrangling with NJ Bell (see below), it finally worked.  The number appears
quite quickly, almost immediately after the first ring ends.  It only
displays the last seven digits, but then I haven't gotten a call from out of
state yet.  I haven't seen it yet, but according to the documentation, it
displays three question marks:
                  _   _   _
                  _|  _|  _|
                 |   |   |

when the number does not support Caller ID.  When a call comes in, the unit
displays a NEW in the top right corner, and the number, preceded by an L
(it looks like it was supposed to show L for long distance, and nothing for
local, but that info was replaced by a page-size sticker in the docs).  After
30 seconds, whether the phone was answered or not, the number disappears and
is replaced by the word CALL.  The box has three buttons, Remove, Time of Call,
and Review.  To review the calls (it stores up to 20, and then bounces the
least recent), you hit the review button, and the most recent call will be
displayed, then the next most recent...  When you hit Time of Day, you see
DATE in the mid-upper left, the 2 digit day on the left, the 2 digit hour
(1-12) on the right, and AM or PM to the right of the hour.  This time/date
comes over the line with the number, not from the box.  If the same number
calls back, the upper right will show REPEATED CALL for that number,
and the Time/Date will be for the most recent call from that number.

To delete a number, you hit the Remove button twice, and the digits of
the number disappear one at a time from the right to left (a "dissolve").
There is also a low battery indicator BATT on the far left.  Under the gray
square surrounding the LCD screen, there are two buttons in the bottom right
and left corners that are not marked, which when pressed simultaneously will
reset the unit and clear the numbers.

If there are no calls in memory when Review is pressed, nine's are shown.  The
unit is 6" long, 4 3/4" wide, and slopes from 2.5" tall in the back to 2" tall
in the front.  The phone cord plugs in the back, and there is a barrel socket
(like those used for DC adaptors) that is marked unused in the manual, and
unmarked on the unit.


I had to call NJ Bell repair today to get the service turned on (3/27).  The
person who I called to establish the service said that the service would be
turned on on 3/20.  I was locked out of the dorm for Break last week, so I
was not around on 3/20.  I called the Business Office to see if the service was
actually on, as reccommended in the Caller ID box manual, and the person said
that it showed completed on 3/20.  I then called the Manufacturer of the box,
and they said that they had been having trouble with NJ Bell saying that the
service was on when it wasn't.  The service call was placed around noon, and
the service was on when I returned at 8pm tonight.  When I called the Business
Office, I asked for a credit for the time that the service was not really on,
and the rep told me that I asked to have the service turned on on 3/20, and
that I should have checked then to see if it worked.  I said that I was TOLD
when the service would start, with no choice in the matter, and that I was
locked out of my dorm last week and couldn't check on 3/20.  She said that she
didn't want to argue and credited me for the week that the service was
supposedly on but really wasn't.  Is this some kind of extra money-making plot,
or just ineptitude on the part of NJ Bell?

This is my first report.  If anything exciting develops, I'll let you know.
Please feel free to direct questions about the rudiments of the service to me,
at an address shown below:

Mark
----
Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance,
RPO 1604; P.O. Box 5063   that you do not miss what is right under your nose."
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063    rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith (OK, Bob?)
[e-mail]    Copyright 1989, Mark Smith.  All Rights Reserved.

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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Shady operations
Date: 27 Mar 89 06:19:50 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team



A few weeks ago I brought up some of the slimy practices of PacTel
Cellular in Los Angeles. Here is what has got to be the flip side of
those practices.

Here in the Bay Area we have to cellular providers: GTE Mobilnet
(wireline) and Cellular One (non-wireline), which is owned in part by
Pacific Telesis, the holding company for PacTel and Pacific Bell. GTE
Mobilnet is the larger of the two systems with over 90 cell sites
compared to Cellular One with only 60.

Cellular One has a great arrangement with Pacific Bell. No matter where
you are in the Bay Area, if you call any Cellular One mobile prefix you
are charged only as a local call. This even works from utility-provided
pay phones: any call to a Cellular One mobile phone is twenty cents.

On the other hand, if you try to call a GTE mobile prefix you get a
recording that says, "There are long distance charges associated with
this call. Please redial your call, preceded by the digit '1'." You get
this recording even if you are calling a GTE mobile prefix that shows
in the directory as being local to the telephone you are using. I have
yet to find a Pacific Bell pay phone anywhere in the Bay Area that does
not do this.

When you follow instructions and dial the '1', you get a reorder. This
is to be expected in 408 since a '1' is not used for long distance. If
you precede the number with '0', you get the Pacific Bell ka-bong where
you can enter your calling card (and be charged ????). If you call the
Pacific Bell operator, your call will be placed and twenty cents will
be collected.

I used to think this was an honest programming error in a particular
central office until 1) I reported it four times and nothing was done,
and 2) I found out that it is widespread. Another thing is that this
recording that you hear is heard under no other circumstances. If you
actually dial a long distance call you get asked for money. If you are
in 415 and forget to dial a '1', you are simply told that you must dial
a '1' and there is no mention of "long distance *charges*".

Do you suppose little things like this might nudge potential cellular
customers over to Cellular One? From non-coin phones, things seem to
work properly. I'm not quite sure where to start my campaign, but it
seems that a call to GTE Mobilnet might be in order. I'm sure they will
be interested to know how the operating company is thwarting their
business. The next call will be to the Pacific Bell pay phone division,
and that will be followed by a strong letter to the CPUC.

Any other suggestions?
--
John Higdon
john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

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

From: Bruce Nelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: CompuServe adds monthly user fee
Date: 27 Mar 89 20:14:50 GMT
Reply-To: Bruce Nelson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co, Rochester, NY


CompuServe just announced that they will begin charging a $1.50 per month
user fee over and above whatever usage is charged. The fee will be waived
during the first three months of a new account.

They will, however, make some services free - like looking up your charges,
looking up access numbers, etc.

I thought you all would like to know.

Bruce D. Nelson           | UUCP: ...!rutgers!rochester!kodak!hawkeye!nelson
Eastman Kodak Company     | Voice: 716-726-7890
901 Elmgrove Road         | Company Mail: Dept 5177 Distributed Systems Service
Rochester, NY 14653-5219  | Standard disclaimers apply

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

Date:  Tue, 28 Mar 89 00:12:16 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: How Much Is A Phone Number Worth?

In a TELECOM Digets #110, Anthony Siegman
([e-mail]), asks the value of his residential phone
number.  My employer recently bought NXX-1000 for $1,500.  This is
being used as the FG-A number for a long-distance reseller, where
easily memorized numbers are important to have.  (We're also getting
NXX-9595 wherever possible throughout the rest of the state, to make
memorizing the numbers easier.)

  Scott Statton -- N1GAK ... aka [e-mail]

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

From: Rahul Dhesi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Perfect solution to caller privacy
Date: 24 Mar 89 20:24:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana


I just discovered the perfect solution to the caller privacy issue.

Suppose you make a telephone call and the callee is automatically
refusing calls unless the caller is willing to identify himself.

You hear a tone and a voice that says:

"*Blip* *Bleep* *Blurp*  This call cannot be completed as dialed
unless you enable caller identification.  You can do this by flashing
the switchook once, or by dialing *7 on your touch tone telephone,
*NOW*."

There is now a five-second wait.  If you enable caller id as
instructed, your call goes through immediately and you don't even have
to redial.
--
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
                    ARPA:  [e-mail]

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


Date: Sat, 1 Apr 89 23:46:00 PST
From: Robert Horvitz <[e-mail]>
Subject: FBI/Bell Wiretapping Network?


rh:  The following article (slightly abridged) appears in the
April 1st edition of the "W5YI Report," a radio-electronics
newsletter for ham radio operators ($23/year for 24 issues to US
addresses from:  The W5YI Report, P.O. Box 565101, Dallas, Texas
75356-5101).  This was NOT an April Fool's issue:
=========================
Bob Draise/WB8QCF was an employee of Cincinnati Bell Telephone
between 1966 and 1979.  He, and others, are involved in a
wiretapping scandal of monumental proportions.  They say they
have installed more than 1,000 wiretaps on the phones of judges,
law enforcement officers, lawyers, television personalities,
newspaper columnists, labor unions, defense contractors, major
corporations (such as Proctor & Gamble and General Electric),
politicians (even ex-President Gerald Ford) at the request of
Cincinnati police and Cincinnati Bell security supervisors who
said the taps were for the police.  They were told that many of
the taps were for the FBI.

Another [radio] amateur, Vincent Clark/KB4MIT, a technician for
South-Central Bell from 1972 to 1981, said he placed illegal
wiretaps similar to those done by Bob Draise on orders from his
supervisors - and on request from local policemen in Louisville,
Kentucky...

I asked Bob how he got started in the illegal wiretap business.
He said a friend called and asked him to come down to meet with
the Cincinnati police.  An intelligence sergeant asked Bob about
wiretapping some Black Muslims.  He also told Bob that Cincinnati
Bell security had approved the wiretap - and that it was for the
FBI.  The sergeant pointed to his Masonic ring which Bob also
wore - in other words, he was telling the truth under the Masonic
oath - something that Bob put a lot of stock in.

Most of the people first wiretapped were drug or criminal
related.  Later on, however, it go out of hand - and the FBI
wanted taps on prominent citizens.  "We started doing people who
had money.  How this information was used, I couldn't tell you."

The January 29th "Newsday" said Draise had told investigators
that among the taps he rigged from 1972 to 1979 were several on
lines used by Wren Business Communications, a Bell competitor.
It seems that when Wren had arranged an appointment with a
potential customer, they found that Bell had just been there
without being called.  Wren's president is a ham [radio
operator], David Stoner/K8LMB.  I telephoned Dave...

"As far as I am concerned, the initial focus for all of this
began with the FBI.  The FBI apparently set up a structure
throughout the United States using apparently the security chiefs
of the different Bell companies...  They say that there have been
other cases in the United States like ours in Cincinnati but they
have been localized without the realization of an overall pattern
being implicated."

"The things that ties this all together is if you go way back in
history to the Hoover period at the FBI, he apparently got
together with the AT&T security people.  There is an organization
that I guess exists to this day with regular meetings of the
security people of the different Bell companies.  This meant that
the FBI would be able to target a group of 20 or 30 people that
represented the security points for all of the Bell and AT&T
connections in the United States.  I believe the key to all of
this goes back to Hoover.  The FBI worked through that group who
then created the activity at the local level as a result of
central planning."

"I believe that in spite of the fact that many people have
indicated that this is an early 70's problem - that there is no
disruption to that work to this day.  I am pretty much convinced
that it is continuing... It looks like a large surveillance
effort that Cincinnati was just a part of."

"The federal prosecutor Kathleen Brinkman is in a no-win
situation...  If she successfully prosecutes this case she is
going to bring trouble down upon her own Justice Department.  She
can't successfully prosecute the case."

About $200 million in lawsuits have already been filed against
Cincinnati Bell and the Police Department.  Several members of
the police department have taken the Fifth Amendment before the
grand jury rather than answer questions about their roles in the
wiretapping scheme.

Bob Draise/WB8QCF has filed a suit against Cincinnati Bell for
$78 for malicious prosecution and slander in response to a suit
filed by Cincinnati Bell against Bob for defamation...  Right
after they filed the suit, several policemen came forward and
admitted to doing illegal wireptaps with them.  The Cincinnati
police said they stopped this is 1974 - although another
policeman reportedly said they actually stopped the wiretapping
in 1986.

Now the CBS-TV program "60 Minutes" is interested in the
Cincinnati goings-on and has sent in a team of investigative
reporters.  Ed Bradley from "60 Minutes" has already interviewed
Bob Draise/WB8QCF and it is expected that sometime during April,
you will see a "60 Minutes" report on spying by the FBI.  We also
understand that CNN, Ted Turner's Cable News Network, is also
working up a "Bugging of America" expose.

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


From: Ed Wells <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID
Date: 7 Apr 89 08:34:57 GMT
Organization: Wells Computer Systems Corp., Levittown, Pa. 19058


  How does the caller ID work (technically)?  Is it a DTMF code before
the phone rings?  Some other kind of digital code?  What ESS switch
does this feature start on?
--
=========================================================================
Edward E. Wells Jr., President                      Voice: (215)-943-6061
Wells Computer Systems Corp., Box 343, Levittown, Pa. 19058
{dsinc,francis,hotps,lgnp1,mdi386,pebco}!wells!edw

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Correction to submission on area code 708
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 0:36:23 CDT

In the letter from me that the moderator included in Digest volume 9, #112,
I typoed on the list of prefixes I expected to remain unused in both area
codes 312 and 708.  The list should have read, "219, 312, 414, 708, and 815
because part or all of the area codes bearing those same digits are in the
LATA thar@oill include 312 and 708; and 217, 309, and 618 because there are
area codes in Illinois named by those same numerals."

Because that started out as a letter to someone who lives in the same region
and knows much of what was in it, some things in it were phrased less than
fully; plus I typoed "805" for "815" (805 is an area code in California and
a prefix already in use in 312) and put it in the wrong part of the list
(after the semicolon, with 217, 309, and 618).  Anyone who wants further
explanation of some of the geographical references in it is welcome to write
to me.

David W. Tamkin     Post Office Box 567542    Norridge, Illinois  60656-7542
[e-mail]    Jolnet Public Access Unix     GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN
...!killer!jolnet!dattier      Orland Park, Illinois         CIS: 73720,1570

PS: This would have been submitted a lot sooner if the first mailing hadn't
taken four days to bounce.

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

Date:     Fri, 7 Apr 89 13:02:07 CST
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  A note on MCI

An item from the Federal Bytes column on page 38 of Federal Computer Week,
March 20, 1989:

NO SHOES

"The cobbler's children are alive and apparently well at MCI Communications
Corp. A call to its 19th St. headquarters in Washington, DC last week
produced one of these messages: "All operators are busy, but if you'll
stay on the line..."

The message was followed by a long silence. A live operator finally
appeared, rang the public relations department as requested, and another
recorded message and long delay ensued. Well, it is the long-distance
company, after all, and we were calling locally."
***End of item***

Speaks for itself, I guess... :-)

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

From: Patt Haring <ccnysci![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make/break ratios
Date: 8 Apr 89 13:57:08 GMT
Reply-To: Patt Haring <ccnysci![e-mail]>
Organization: City College Of New York


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (e118
student) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 122, message 4 of 7
>The make/break ratios in the US and UK are different, but the ratio
>isn't terribly critical (at least in US).  I discovered some years ago
>that I can dial by clicking the switchhook rapidly.  One time I even
>dialed 9-1-214-233-2768 successfully by this method.  Obviously my

    My parents put a lock on our telephone (old-fashioned
        dial; not touch-tone) to keep ** ME ** from using
        the phone after school when my father nearly
        had a coronary after opening the monthly phone
        bill.

    Well, that didn't stop me - I just used the switch hook
        same technique as described above!

    Poor dad, still couldn't figure out why the phone bill
        was so high ;-)

P.S.  Office maintenance personnel use locked telephones in
        exactly the same way; if your office phone is busy
        at 11 PM when you're trying to dial in then you can
        count on one of the cleaning people using your phone
        to call Santo Domingo, Honduras or Mexico :-)

        I had to pick up some documents in my office late
        one night before proceeding to the printer to read
        galleys and when I opened my boss' locked office
        door -- there she was -- with one of his tub chairs
        rolled over to the telephone table by the sofa :
        her feet were up on the table while she smoked her
        cigarette and talked long distance on ** HIS ** phone
        to her relatives in Santo Domingo.

        We had been having some trouble figuring out who
        was calling Santo Domingo at that late hour (the phone
        had a lock on it) since we had no clients in that
        country B-)

--
Patt Haring
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth
[e-mail]

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


From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 976-WAKE
Date: Fri,  7-Apr-89 09:37:02 PDT

Regarding the 976-WAKE service in California... I just returned from a
trip to Melbourne, Austrailia. While perusing the local phone book, among
other items, I noticed that TelCom Australia has been offering this
service for about 85 cents a call. Calls can be one time only or on a
standing order basis...

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

From: Repent! Godot is coming soon! Repent! <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Apr 89 09:12
Subject: re: 976-WAKE

It's nice that Americans (or is that Californians) now have access to
such advanced telephone services as an automatic alarm clock, even if
the $2 charge is a bit steep.

I had exactly that service in Sweden twenty years ago for about $0.15
per call.  Of course, my total phone bill was about $2.00 per month,
including unlimited local service.

Martin Minow
[e-mail]

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

From: "K.BLATTER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be?
Date: 6 Apr 89 16:48:23 GMT
Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Wayne Folta)
writes:
> a local call to anywhere in a 500-square-mile area.  If you count DC as
> a state, that includes three states (MD, VA, DC).

> But is this really a very large area?  How large might a local call area be
> in LA or NY?  Are all local dialing areas determined by distance, or might
> there be an *enormous* exchange out in Montana somewhere that includes
> thousands of square miles but only a few thousand people?


To my knowledge, the largest (in terms of square miles) local dialing
area in the United States is the Big Island of Hawaii in, of course,
Hawaii.  It is roughly 4900 square miles in size.

Both New York City (212) and Los Angeles (213) are "full".  This is
the reason that new area codes have been spawned off of them.  These
areas have the most numbers assigned to them.  (Also, Chicago (312) is
probably in the running.

As I mentioned earlier, the Big Island in Hawaii has the largest
geographical area 4900 square miles.

Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T - Bell Labs

Disclaimer -- These estimates are my own and have nothing whatsoever to
do with my employer.


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

From: Brent <itm![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be?
Date: 6 Apr 89 17:55:43 GMT
Reply-To: Brent <itm![e-mail]>
Organization: In Touch Ministries, Atlanta, GA



    I am told that the Atlanta, GA area is the largest local-call
area in the US.  From end to end it's an approximate circle, with
a radius of about 50 miles.  A few years ago, Southern Bell tried
to introduce metered service, billing by the distance of the call.
The hue and cry was great.  It was promptly shelved.

        brent laminack (gatech!itm!brent)


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

Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 08:23:54 EDT
From: steve (Steve Pozgaj)
Subject: Re: Selling an Interesting Telephone Number?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Pozgaj)
Organization: Digital Media Networks Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada

A. E. Siegman  [e-mail] asks:

> Anyone have any thoughts on the dollar value of such a number?  Rumor
> has it that someone whose all-digit dialing number was "AMERICA" got
> $1000 for turning over this number during the Centennial".

I only know of one published sale.  It was the Hyatt hotel chain.
They bought 1-800-243-2546 (CHECKIN) from Hank and Marie Oscar,
of Oscarvision Systems, for $40,000 + $5,000 in credit towards hotel stays.

A heck of a lot better than a few pizza coupons:-)

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

From: Brent <itm![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother
Date: 6 Apr 89 17:43:56 GMT
Reply-To: Brent <itm![e-mail]>
Organization: In Touch Ministries, Atlanta, GA



    Indeed Big Brother is watching.  I discussed cellular fraud
with a tech person who works with a cellular provider.  When they
detect a fradulent user (he claimed they could detect such the
 first time they used the phone), they put their number on a
"fraudlent" list and included the geographic area (cell) where
they were.  Then I guess they look for patterns.

        brent laminack (gatech!itm!brent)


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

From: Steve Cisler <goofy!apple.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Yes! Directory Assistance via Modem
Date: 8 Apr 89 16:44:54 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.


At the end of March there was some discussion of white page listings on
CD-ROM. US West and Nynex have done this. Both were in attendance at the recent
Microsoft CD-ROM conference in Anaheim, California. Nynex had a hospitality
suite and their product was being shown on the exhibit floor.  Silver Platter
announced a  competing product 'at a fraction of the cost' of Nynex's disc
which runs around  $10,000.

I was very impressed with the speed and the scope of the product. It was
broken in two geographical areas: New England and New York (perhaps just the
metro area  rather than the whole state).  It allowed you to look by name,
address, phone number,  zip code (I think), and by 'neighbors'.  So many
credit agencies call libraries to ask for 'nearbys' --people who live near the
subject of the call--that this was an important feature for the RBOCs clients.

Considering the amount of work that libraries do for the telcos--extended
411 service: they will look up addresses if they have the time--each RBOC
ought to make these available free of charge to the reference desks of
many libraries. Most will find the price way too high.

The RBOCs also want to have a common interface to their discs, and maybe
even one search engine.  Given the compeititve nature, it may not happen.
But it would be to their advantage if it did.

Steve Cisler

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

Date: Thu, 6 Apr 89 21:00:12 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Centrex

Re: Will Martin - "...the silly use-the-switchhook business to transfer..."

At one office, I'm on Centrex, and we have phones from Comdial with a TAP
button.  When you press the switchhook (no matter for how long), the phone
stays on-hook for exactly the time Centrex needs to know you want to hang
up.  When you push TAP, it does a flash.

Maybe you could find a phone that functions similarly; it makes Centrex's
transfer feature pretty painless.





Miguel Cruz

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex
Date: 7 Apr 89 13:43:07 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes:
> The main fault I find with Centrex, in an operational, user-interface sense,
>is the silly use-the-switchhook business to transfer calls and get another
>line.

> I would think that one of the touchtone buttons, like # or *, could be
> sensed during a call to perform the action that is now controlled by the
> switchhook.

There are two reasons why touchtones are not recognized during
conversation.  One is economic: tone-detectors are more expensive
then talking-links in the central office.  If one had to be
dedicated to every conversation, and not (as they are now) only when
dialing is in progress, the central office would cost more.

The other reason has to do with the present state-or-the-art in
discriminating between voice and touchtone.  If you listen to a
conversation with a touch tone detector, you'll detect a number of
apparent touch-tones in ordinary speech.  Even more if there is
background noise consisting of music at either end of the
conversation.

In most of the world outside North America, PBX switches use a
"grounding button" where we tend to use a hook-flash to get the
switch's attention.  The switchhook always means disconnect.  The
momentary ground on one side of the loop begins the "consultation
call/conference call/transfer call" sequence.  While this is good
for PBX use, central office services (including centrex) would
probably be less reliable using this method, as outside plant ground
faults would play havoc with the switching machine.

--
Dave Levenson                   /-----------------------------\
Westmark, Inc.                  |  If you can't give me your  |
Warren, NJ USA                  |  Phone number, don't call!  |
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave   \-----------------------------/


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

From: Dave Kucharczyk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network
Date: 7 Apr 89 15:32:29 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Kucharczyk <cos![e-mail]>
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA

In article <[e-mail]> Paul Anderson <stiatl!pda@gatech.
edu> writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend.  She came home and
>>played back her answering machine, and got this:
>> <beep>  <beep> <beep>   (those tones that come with intercept recordings)
>> "We're sorry, all of our circuits are in use now; please try your call
>>  again later."

>I have had the same thing happen to my answering machine here in Atlanta
>once every other day for a week and a half now...   Can anyone take any
>guesses as to what is happening?



   yes, someone with three way calling is having a good laugh now, at
your expense.  just wait till you start getting 'the call you have
made requires a twenty five cent deposit'.

dave


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

Date: Fri, 7 Ap2o`1^5:38:27 EDT
From: "David M. Kurtiak" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend.  She came home and
>>played back her answering machine, and got this:
>> <beep>  <beep> <beep>   (those tones that come with intercept recordings)
>> "We're sorry, all of our circuits are in use now; please try your call
>>  again later."
>
>I have had the same thing happen to my answering machine here in Atlanta
>once every other day for a week and a half now...   Can anyone take any
>guesses as to what is happening?
>
>paul

I occasionally have had this strange phenomenon happen to me, and
couldn't explain it until one day I was right there when it happened.
It appears that an incoming call rang the phone once.  The answering
machine picked up, but the caller immediately hung up at the same time
(maybe a wrong number?).  The answering machine (being a real el-cheapo
economy model), didn't detect that the 'call' was disconnected.  It went
on playing the outgoing message to the dial tone now being sent by the
telco.  Dial tone timed out, while the answering machine is now listening
for a message to be left, resulting in the telephone company recording
seeming to have called me!

-------
David M. Kurtiak
Internet: [e-mail]
Bitnet: [e-mail]
UUCP: [e-mail]  {rutgers,gatech}!mcnc!ecsvax!dmkdmk

"What do you expect?  The truth or the story?  Take the story, it's
always more interesting."

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



From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network
Date: 6 Apr 89 23:10:23 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA


In article <[e-mail]>, stiatl![e-mail] (Paul
Anderson) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> >A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend.  She came home and
> >played back her answering machine, and got this:
> > <beep>  <beep> <beep>   (those tones that come with intercept recordings)
> > "We're sorry, all of our circuits are in use now; please try your call
> >  again later."
>
> I have had the same thing happen to my answering machine here in Atlanta

We had a similar problem with the dialup lines at our company. The modems
started answering the phones when there was no call. The result, predictably,
was lots of screaming modems (The "your phone is off the hook" noise).

The problem turned out to be a servicing error at the local #5ESS switching
office. They has replaced some of the line cards and had set them up wrong.
Evidently the line voltage was high enough to confuse some devices into
thinking it was time to go off-hook. The modems in this case were Microcoms,
and they evidently (according to our hardware types) were properly within spec.

--
Daniel Senie               UUCP: harvard!ulowell!cloud9!dts
Stratus Computer, Inc.     ARPA: anvil!cloud9![e-mail]
55 Fairbanks Blvd.         CSRV: 74176,1347
Marlboro, MA 01752         TEL.: 508 - 460 - 2686

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cordless phone that works within 10 miles
Date: 10 Apr 89 02:46:59 GMT
Reply-To: 0000-Irving Wolfe <happym![e-mail]>
Organization: SOLID VALUE, the newsletter for Benjamin Graham's intelligent
investor (sample on request)


In article <[e-mail]> "t.m.ko" <[e-mail]> writes:
>I am looking for a cordless phone that would work even if the handset
>is away from the base for up to 10 miles.

Amazing!  I'd be grateful to have a cordless phone that would work from one
end of my >house< to the other without buzz or interference as I pass through
the fields of the high voltage power lines outside!  If I could have one that
would let me walk around the block with my dog, that would be magnificent!

--
  Irving Wolfe     [e-mail]             Happy Man Corp, 119 Aloha St
  206/282-9598     tikal!camco!happym!irv        Seattle, WA  98109-3799
  SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors
                (free sample on request: [e-mail])


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

Subject: Gremlins in the network
Date: Fri Apr  7 23:05:43 1989
From: phantom <slinky![e-mail]>

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]:
> Is this a new service?  The switch notifies people when high utilization
> occurs?  Was her recorder trying to make calls to its friends?  The
> message (and especially the tones) sounded real, or I would be more inclined
> to expect a joke (it was April 1st.....).

Oh, you have service from Contel.

The year-round April Fool's joke!

I have heard worse sounding intercepts, so it probably is legitimate.
But then, there are ways to 3-way legitimate recordings to
others' numbers. :)(:

Francis J. Haynes
uunet!slinky!fjh


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

Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 08:36:41 EDT
From: "A. M. Boardman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Centrex

>There are a half a dozen companies that sell telephones with a "Flash" button:
>press it and it flashes the switchhook for exactly the appropriate amount of
>time for call waiting or 3-way calling.

This can, however, be taken to extremes.  The telephones of Columbia's new
digital CBX have, among a plethora of other buttons, a flash button.
In no detectable way, however, does this button actually flash the line
in any traditional sense; it is instead just another signal to the exchange.
Really flashing will disconnect the line every time.  I'd love to find out
more about how the system works, but, as in everything related to IBM,
the information is proprietary.  (It's an IBM/Rolm 9751 CBX -- a half-
decent buisness system, but totally unsuited for a university environment.
It replaced a vastly more popular Centrex system.)

                       "ROLM is a four letter word"
Andrew Boardman ab4@cunixc.[columbia.edu|bitnet] {backbone}!columbia!cunixc!ab4

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



Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 14:12:01 est
From: fac martin weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Text of HR971 - AOS

Attached is the text of HR 971, a bill submitted by Rep. Jim Cooper
(D-Tenn) regarding the AOS industry.  I would like to make it available
to the telecom bulletin board.  BTW - thanks for posting the text of
the FCC decision

--Martin Weiss
University of Pittsburgh
[e-mail]


============================ Cut here 8< ============== 8< ============

101st Congress
1st Session

                         H.R. 971


To require the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe rules to
protect consumers from unfair practices in the provision of operator
services, and for other purposes.



              IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     February 9, 1989

Mr. Cooper (for himself, Mr. Swift, and Mr. Leland) introduced the
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce


                          A BILL

To require the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe rules to
protect consumers from unfair practices in the provision of operator
services, and for other purposes.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

      This Act may be cited as the "Telephone Operator Service
Consumer Protection Act of 1989".

SEC. 2. FINDINGS

      The Congress hereby finds that --

             (1) the divestiture of AT&T and decision allowing open
      entry for competitors in the telephone marketplace produced a
      variety of new services and many new providers of existing
      telephone services;

             (2) the growth of competition in the telecommunications
      market makes it essential to ensure that safeguards are in place to
      assure fairness for consumers and service providers alike;

             (3) a variety of providers of operator services now
      compete to win contracts to provide operator services to hotels,
      hospitals, airports, and other aggregators of telephone business from
      consumers;

             (4) the mere existence of a variety of service providers in
      the operator services marketplace is significant in making that
      market competitive only when consumers are able to make
      informed choices from among those service providers;

             (5) however, often consumers have no choices in selecting
      a provider of operator services, and often customers' attempts to
      reach their preferred long distance carrier by a telephone billing
      card, credit card, or prearranged access number are blocked;

             (6) a number of state regulatory authorities have taken
      action to protect consumers using intrastate operator services;

             (7) from January 1988 through February 1989, the Federal
      Communications Commission received over 2000 complaints about
      operator services;

             (8) these consumers have complained that they are denied
      access to the interexchange carrier of their choice, that they are
      deceived about the identity of the company servicing their calls and
      the rates being charged, that they lack information on what they
      can do to complain about unfair treatment by an operator service
      provider, and that they are, accordingly, being deprived of the free
      choice essential to the operation of a competitive market; and

             (9) a combination of industry self-regulation and
      government regulation is required to ensure that competitive
      operator services are provided in a fair and reasonable manner.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION

      As used in this Act:

             (1) The term "Commission" means the Federal
      Communications Commission.

             (2) The term "the Act" means the Communications Act of
      1934.

             (3) The term "consumer" means a person initiating any
      interstate telephone call using operator services.

             (4) The term "operator services" means any interstate
      telecommunications service that includes, as a component, any
      automatic or live assistance to a consumer to arrange for billing or
      completion, or both,  of an interstate telephone call through a
      method other than automatic completion with billing to the
      telephone from which the call originated.

             (5) The term "aggregator" means any person, that, in the
      ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the
      public or to transient users of its premises for interstate telephone
      calls using a provider of operator services.

SEC. 4. RULEMAKING REQUIRED

      (a) INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS. - The Commission shall,
within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate a
proceeding pursuant to title II of the Act to establish regulations to protect
consumers whose use operator services to place interstate telephone calls
from unfair and deceptive practices and to ensure that consumers have the
opportunity to make informed choices in making such calls.

      (b) TIMING AND CONTENTS OF REGULATION. -  The
regulation required by subsection (a) shall --

             (1) be prescribed not later than 180 days after the date of
      enactment of this Act;

             (2) contain provisions to implement each of the
      requirements of section 5;

             (3) for purposes of administration and enforcement, be
      treated as regulations prescribed by the Commission pursuant to
      title II of the Act; and

             (4) take effect not later than 270 days after the date of
      enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

      The regulations required by section 4 shall, at a minimum --

             (1) require that the provider of the operator services
      identify itself, audibly and distinctly, to the consumer prior to the
      consumer incurring any charges and permit the consumer to
      terminate the telephone call at no charge;

             (2) require that the provider of operator services ensure, by
      contract, that each aggregator post on or near the telephone
      instrument, in plain view of consumers --

                   (A) the name, address, and toll-free telephone
             number of the provider, and

                   (B) a written disclosure that consumers have a
             right to obtain access to the interstate common carrier or
             their choice and may contact their preferred interstate
             common carriers for information on accessing that carrier's
             service using that telephone;

             (3) require that the provider of operator services disclose
      immediately to the consumer upon request --

                   (A) a quote of its rates or charges for the call;

                   (B) methods by which such rates or charges will
             be collected; and

                   (C) the methods by which complaints concerning
             such rates, charges, or collection practices will be resolved;

             (4) require that the provider of operator services --

                   (A) neither require nor participate in the blocking
             of any consumer's access to the interstate common carrier
             of the consumer's choice; and

                   (B) assure, by contract, that its aggregators neither
             require nor participate in the blocking of access to such
             interstate common carriers;

             (5) require that the provider of operator services charge
      rates which are just and reasonable as required by title II of the
      Act, which requirement shall include, at a minimum --

                   (A) prohibiting the provider of operator services
             for knowingly charging for uncompleted calls;

                   (B) ensuring that, in charging for distance, the
             provider of operator services charge for no more than the
             distance, in a straight line, between the points of
             origination and termination of telephone calls; and

                   (C) ensuring that any consumer billing a telephone
             call on a billing card provided by an interstate common
             carrier is billed at the rate of that common carrier for that
             call;

             (6) establish minimum standards for providers of operator
      services to use in the routing and handling of emergency telephone
      calls; and

             (7) establish a policy for requiring common carriers to
      make public information about recent changes in operator services
      and choices available to consumers in the market.


[Moderator's Note: Regrettably, I am not certain if this was the intended
ending of Martin's submission, or if it got truncated en-route. As Milton
Berle used to say, "...a funny thing happened on the way to the Telecom
mailbox today...." It seems an abrupt ending. Hopefully I got it all. PT]

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

Date:     Mon, 10 Apr 89 14:14:20 CST
From:     Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Cellular eavesdropping in the press

The following item appeared in RISKS Digest V8 #52 and is of interest
to Telecom and Hams. Please note there is no mention of the ECPA in this,
except fo a slight allusion to it at the end. Also note that the equipment
being used is not a high-end 800 MHz-coverage scanner, but a simple TV
audio tuner or radio. Obviously a continuous-tuned TV will work as well.
(Maybe the bandwidth on this simpler equipment is wide enough that the
listeners get multiple cellular frequencies without retuning, and
therefore are not impeded by the frequency-hopping during handoffs
within conversations? That would mean this low-tech method was actually
better for surreptitious eavesdropping than using more sophisticated
equipment. Certainly makes fools of the scanner manufacturers who
program out cellular coverage!)  -- Will Martin

***Begin included item***
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 89 20:27:24 -0400
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cellular telephones

From the 4/7/89 Boston Globe:

"Some Bostonians are having the time of their lives eavesdropping on Nynex
Mobile Communications cellular phones. With the help of their trusty Radio Shack

Portavision 55s, designed to pick up the audio portion of UHF television
signals, these naughty people claim to have heard Secretary of Finance and
Administration Edward Lashman discussing a press conference with his wife and
Boston Mayor Ray Flynn checking in with his office. "It makes for a great day,"
says one listener who calls in sick at his job to spend the day with his ear
pressed against the radio. "At 7 a.m. you hear the construction people
complaining that their suppliers delivered the wrong stuff. At 9, it's the
lawyers telling their clients how to lie in court. After noon the risque stuff
starts..."

The article goes on to say that Radio Shack no longer sells that model, and
that the FCC says such eavesdropping is illegal.

Steven C. Den Beste,   BBN Communications Corp., Cambridge MA
***End of item***

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


Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 18:45:59 +0100
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 976-WAKE - up Service in California

Wake up calls are available in Britain for 10pence a time (18c) if you happen
to be connected to a System-X exchange. The service comes free rental together
with Charge-Advice which rings back and tells you how much your call cost.
Both services offer Minutes of endless fun with payphones that have not had the
two services disabled (particularly as payphones return your 10p!)

Peter Thurston

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

Date: Sun, 9 Apr 89 23:42:31 PDT
From: Kian-Tat Lim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 976 WAKE - up Service in California

Ummm...  From the description given of the wake-up service ("entering his own
telephone number"), it appears that it would be quite easy to annoy my enemies
(for $2/day), without my having to be awake to place the crank call.  As this
service is presumably provided by a company separate from PacBell, the call
would also be a little more difficult to trace.

This kind of service would be much more secure if Calling Party ID were
implemented for it, and such usage of CPID should not be objectionable to
civil libertarians.

--
Kian-Tat Lim ([e-mail], KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1)

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

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 976 WAKE - up Service in California
Date: 10 Apr 89 20:51:24 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
> The charge is $2 for each wakeup/reminder call. You do not have to be in
> California to hear how it works; just dial 213-976-WAKE. From outside of
> California all you will pay is around 25 cents if you call at night, but

The California 976 providers hate it when you do that :-) Pacific Bell
may be the only BOC to not block 976 calls from outside the state. As a
result, providers' call counters click away, but the Pac*Bell
remittance is a pittance. Some of the party line people have literally
been driven out of business because their machines have been busied out
by out of state (and non-remitting) calls.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

[Moderator's Note: You mean like 415-976-4297, which bills itself as the
San Fransisco Hot Conference, where in just a few seconds you will be
connected for up to two and a half minutes of lively adult conversation?
Men from all over the world call that thing for the cost of the tolls. To
heck with any surcharge! That only applies to Californians, and *they* call
the one in New York City to avoid the same surcharges!  PT]

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


From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture was not a mistake
Date: 10 Apr 89 20:45:16 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team

In article <[e-mail]>, optilink!cramer@ames.
arc.nasa.gov (Clayton Cramer) writes:
[Regarding COCOTs]
> If it's REALLY a "quasi-emergency device", then price is really not an
> issue.  Would you object to paying $2 to make a phone call for an
> ambulance after a traffic accident?

In reality *that* call would be free as mandated by tarrifs. What I
really object to is paying $3.50 for a one-minute call from San
Francisco to San Jose to say I'm going to be late. Particularly when
there is no indication that this will be the case.

> If it truly "rips you off" (doesn't provide the specified service)
> that's quite different from "outrageous pricing".

This is a grey area to be sure, but when I call my voice mail for
messages and the tone pad ceases to work midway through the session and
I am forced to simply hang up, leaving my listened-to vs unlisted-to
messages in total disarray, animalistic tendancies come to the fore.
You have to be in this position to appreciate the frustration.

Perhaps if such phones were required to carry a notice e.g.:

"This telephone cannot be used to access voice mail or other DTMF
activated services."

it would save a lot of trouble.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: 10-APR-1989 02:50:42.15
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: re: FCC AOS Order


(I am assuming that as the release date was Feb 27th, the effective
 date was March 27th, as stated towards the end of the order.)

1. The named AOS outfits MUST ID themselves at all times.

2. The named AOS outfits MUST post rate/customer service information
   by May 27th, 1989. (60 days from effective date.

3. The named AOS outfits MUST stop blocking and/or contact the owners
   of COCOTS, dorm phones, etc, and require that they discontinue
   blocking by April 27th, 1989.

4. The named AOS outfits may continue to connect you to AT&T/local Bell
   Operators, but are not required to do so.


So am I correct as to the dates for parts 1-3?

If I find a COCOT, let's say sometime in July (to give them some time...)
that still blocks me from dialing 10288, what recourse do I have?
Do I complain directly to the FCC, or the state Public Service Commission,
or who? (Obviously the FCC assumes all of the 5 named AOS 'firms' will
comply, but what if they don't?)

Finally, what will be the equal access code for the local Bell operator?
In New York (NYTel) it's 10NYT, in PA 10BPA, Jersey 10NJB, etc. Yet
are we going to be required to remember hundreds of local 10xxx numbers,
or will there be one standard one? (Or will just dialing "0" just get
you a local Bell Op., like it did when we had a normal phone system
a few years back? [sorry for editorializing..])

Well, all I can say is I'm glad to be in Connecticut, where we don't
have such problems (at least not from payphones...) (Although what
WAS the State of CT 'observing' down in DC anyhow? Hmmmm....)

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(and just plain old 'DReuben' to locals! :-)  )

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


From: "Howard J. Postley" <bambam![e-mail]>
Subject: Determining length of country code
Date: 10 Apr 89 18:32:10 GMT
Organization: On Word, Inc.; Santa Monica, CA


Could anyone tell me what the formula for determining the number of digits
in a country code is.  From the U.S. there are 1, 2, and three digit
codes.  When I am parsing international phone numbers, I am having a
tough time figuring out where the country code ends and the phone number
starts.

Thanks in advance,

//hjp

--
Howard Postley      usenet:    uunet!bambam!hjp
On Word             internet:  [e-mail]
                    phone:     [phone]
                    snail:     2434 Main St; Santa Monica, CA  90405

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

Subject: dialing with switchhook
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 16:48:56 EDT
From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>

In the 60s pay phones were designed with mercury switches on the hook so
that  if you tried  to dial with  the hook  the  splashing mercury would
defeat you.  Otherwise you  could make local  calls for a nickel instead
of a dime, or some such thing.
                                     --------
                                                   Wm. Randolph Franklin
Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180

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

Date:     Mon, 10 Apr 89 15:47:23 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Shenandoah National Park, Va.

I just travelled down the Skyline Drive in Virginia, from Front Royal
to Waynesboro, and have the following data regarding phones along it
(notice several phone prefixes not in use outside the park?):

Public phones available along it (mileposts southbound from Front Royal):
Dickey Ridge Visitor Center, 4.6; use Front Royal exchange, 635 or 636
   in 703 area
Mathews Arm Campground, 22.3
Elkwallow Wayside, 24.1; use 703-420, on phone bill as Elkwallow
Panorama Restaurant, 31.5; use 703-421, on phone bill as Panorama
Skyland Lodge, 41.7; use 703-422
Byrd Visitor Center, 51; apparently use 703-423, on phone bill as
   Big Meadows (see the pattern forming with use of 42x? comments?)
Lewis Mountain Campground, 57.6; apparently use 703-424
Swift Run Entrance, 65
Loft Mountain Wayside, 79.7; I saw pay phone on 804-823 Crozet,
   the name of a town which is RATHER far away.

Also, 703-999 is used for official phone numbers in this park;
it appears on phone bill as Shenandoah Park.


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


Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 00:44 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: AOSs and the H.R. bill

It seems to me that the reason we have the problem with high AOS fees is that
normal market forces aren't at work, not so much because of uninformed
customers, but because the person making the choice of which AOS is used is
not the person who _uses_ it, and the two people have different goals.
As I understand it, a hotel or airport (or other property owner) signs up with
an AOS and receives a cut from the revenue generated by the phones at that
location.  Thus, the incentive for both the AOS _and_ the property owner is
toward _increased_ prices and/or kickbacks, whereas the user, who pays the
bill, would have chosen the exact opposite.  There's no negative feedback
built in---in fact, it's positive feedback, guaranteed to go out of control.
(I discount such indirect effects as complaining to the manager, which can
in fact act as a control, and complaining to the FCC, which seems to have
had a major effect on the situation.)  Maybe all that's needed is to require
hotels or airports (or whoever) to use the same AOS for their own business
lines as for the pay phones---that gives them the right economic incentives.

With regard to the posting of the bill before the House of Rep., did you
notice that it requires AOSs that accept my MCI calling card to bill the call
at the MCI rate?  Even if their network is resold AT&T lines, perhaps at
a higher rate than MCI?  I'll bet that if this passes intact, these AOS
companies will stop honoring calling cards from the "discount" long-distance
companies (and maybe even AT&T, if the specific call computes as a "net loss").
They could always route you straight to your favorite carrier, after all, and
let _them_ carry it at their own rate.

Reminds me of the Chinese curse:  "May you live in interesting times."

          Bob Langford
          Medical College of Virginia
          [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 01:05:46 HST
From: Mike Newton <kahuna![e-mail]>
Subject: Local Calling Area For Hawaii
Reply-To: kahuna!csvax.caltech.edu![e-mail]


In V9#115, Wayne Folta asks about large calling areas.  Well we have
a rather large/unique calling area (someone else mentioned it, but
had slightly wrong figures):
        [] Large local calling area: 4038 sq miles as of 1980.
        [] Growing calling area: the volcano adds more area each day.
        [] One of the widest (?) variations in altitude: 0 to 13800 feet
                (there are many phones at the observatories "up top").
of course, there are some disadvantages:
        [] Every non-local call is "overseas", and of poor quality.
        [] Its cheaper for me to call the mainland (ROM) than
                Oahu (another island), yet every mainland call goes
                through Oahu!
        [] it reaches very few people (125,000) (roughly 10 exchanges)

I strongly suspect areas in Alaska, Montana, Nevada,... have larger
'local' areas.

- mike

From the bit bucket in the middle of the Pacific...

Mike Newton                             [e-mail]
Caltech Submillimeter Observatory       kahuna![e-mail]
Post Office Box 4339
Hilo Hawaii 96720                       808 935 1909

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


Date: Wed Apr 12 14:32:57 1989
From: John Hood <biar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC AOS Order
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Hood)
Organization: Biar Games Inc., Ithaca, NY


In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) writes:
>After reading the lengthly FCC rulemaking order on AOS outfits
>(and THANKS for posting it!), I want to make sure I have the
>'timetable' correct:

Well, I don't know if it is or not, but...

>3. The named AOS outfits MUST stop blocking and/or contact the owners
>   of COCOTS, dorm phones, etc, and require that they discontinue
>   blocking by April 27th, 1989.

This isn't quite correct.  In the appendix, there is an escape hatch
that allows AOS companies to continue blocking as necessary to prevent
people from abusing the network.  Now I ask, who decides what blocking
is necessary...?


  --jh
--
John Hood, Biar Games snail: 10 Spruce Lane, Ithaca NY 14850 BBS: 607 257 3423
domain: [e-mail] (we hope) bang: anywhere!uunet!biar!jhood
[food for disclaimer readers]
[special dessert tidbit for broken mailers]


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

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 10:39:16-1795
From: "Steven A. Minneman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Determining the length of the country code
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steven A. Minneman )
Organization: Fujitsu America, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> bambam![e-mail]
(Howard J. Postley) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 131, message 9 of 11

>Could anyone tell me what the formula for determining the number of digits
>in a country code is.  ... When I am parsing international phone numbers, I
>am having a tough time figuring out where the country code ends and the
>phone number starts.

Country codes are set forth in CCITT Recommendation E.163.  There is no
pattern.  There are one, two, and three digit country codes.  If the first
digit is "1" or a "7" it is a one digit code.  Otherwise, it is a two or three
digit code depending on what the first two digits are.

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


From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automatic hook-flash
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 89 15:09:54 EDT

> Will's problem is not with Centrex, it is with his telephone!  There are
> a half a dozen companies that sell telephones with a "Flash" button:  press
> it and it flashes the switchhook for exactly the appropriate amount of time
> for call waiting or 3-way calling.

I've also seen the button called "Link".

But this doesn't solve Will's problem.  Will's problem wasn't that he had
trouble flashing the hook for the right length of time -- it was that the
system accepted an on-hook period longer than that length as being a flash.
False positive, not false negative, so to speak.

--
Mark Brader             "VAX 3 in 1 carpet care -- now 129.95 pounds"
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 14:28:38 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Scott Barman)
Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Scott Barman)
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems (a subsidiary of DCA), Duluth, GA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(K.BLATTER) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Wayne Folta)
>writes:
>> a local call to anywhere in a 500-square-mile area.  If you count DC as
>> a state, that includes three states (MD, VA, DC).
>> But is this really a very large area?  How large might a local call area be
>> in LA or NY?  Are all local dialing areas determined by distance, or might
>> there be an *enormous* exchange out in Montana somewhere that includes
>> thousands of square miles but only a few thousand people?
>To my knowledge, the largest (in terms of square miles) local dialing
>area in the United States is the Big Island of Hawaii in, of course,
>Hawaii.  It is roughly 4900 square miles in size.

When I moved to the Atlanta Metro area, the Southern Bell representative
told me that the Atlanta area is the second largest "toll free" calling
zone in the United States.  From what I understand, the Georgia Public
Service Commission refuses to listen to reason when trying to change the
way rates are charged (as it is I pay over $25 for service before long
distance charges are added and the only "extra" I have is touch-tone
service).

My question is where is the largest?  I think the woman at SoBell ment
the number of available phones that I could call toll free when the
statement was made (I don't know, just an impression).  If so I think
it would be interesting to find the largest.

--
scott barman
{gatech, emory}!dtscp1!scott


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


Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 10:08:02 PDT
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cordless Telephone Range


        Phones sold in the US are limited by the FCC to freq/power
combinations which equate to 700 to 1000 feet free-space ranges. As
someone pointed out, actual ranges tend to be much worse and transmissions
highly subject to interference.  There is a "Range Extender" passive
antenna made by Valor which inmproves range but only marginally.
        Overseas, more powerful transmitters are used and ranges up
to 50 Km are common.  There ARE place in the US which sell them for
"use outside the US".  One such is Phone Masters in LA. I do not
recommend trying then here, you will probably interfere with someone
and the FCC will eventually track you down.
        Telcos also use various narrow-band microwave sets to save
stringing wire to remote locations.  These sets are not available
to the public.

        [I tried to reply to [e-mail] but the net
         didn't like the address]



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

Date:     Wed, 12 Apr 89 11:08:44 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Extra service offered by a COCOT

I used a COCOT on 703-261 prefix in Buena Vista, Va. last Saturday,
and after I had punched in credit card number (and waited for verifi-
cation), I got (before my call went thru, which it did) a recording
saying (this should be pretty much exact):  "Thank you for using ITI.
If busy or no answer, press 1 to leave a 1 minute message.".

This suggests that this particular COCOT does indeed offer extra service
not available with some other carriers.  Also, it reminds me of that
MESSAGE SERVICE note I copied off a phone at Finksburg, Md. recently.

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


From: "Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388" <[e-mail]>
Date: 13 Apr 89 13:13
Subject: Re: Flash vs. hangup

In Telecom Digiest V9I134, Mark Brader <[e-mail]> says,
>Subject: Automatic hook-flash
>But this doesn't solve Will's problem.  Will's problem wasn't that he had
>trouble flashing the hook for the right length of time -- it was that the
>system accepted an on-hook period longer than that length as being a flash.
>False positive, not false negative, so to speak.

Some sets will solve this problem!  There are two different type of
implementations of the timed-flash telephone.  The one sold by Northern
Telecom under the trademark "link" has a timed red flash button and an
untimed hookswitch.  But the ones sold by Comdial and Alcatel Cortelco
have timed hookswitches too, typically around 2 seconds.  (Comdial, then
Stromberg-Carlson, made the Rolm Flashphone.  Unless I'm confusing them
with Cortelco, then ITT.)

So the timed switchhook guarantees hangup.  This could, I suppose, be
viewed as a disadvantage; if you're used to flashing, you'll lose a few
calls until you break yourself of the habit.  But it's worthwhile.

It was especially worthwhile for Rolm owners!  Y'see, Rolm uses a
different set of rules for feature-flashing.  If you have a call on
flash-hold and hang up a second call, the first call rings you back.
(On most switches, like AT&T and NT, hanging up the second also
disconnects the first; you flash to get back the first.)

The upshot was that with ordinary untimed switchhooks, users would dial
busy signals, press the switchhook, get dial tone, yak for a while, hang
up, and the phone would ring back with a busy signal!  Rolm's trainers
didn't know why it was happening, either.  Flashphones fixed it, since
the switchhook guaranteed disconnect of that busy.  (The flash tied up
WATS trunks too, and the spurious call showed up on call detail billing.)
    fred

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



From: Dave Fiske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: dialing with switchhook
Date: 13 Apr 89 18:58:09 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Wm Randolph Franklin) writes:
> In the 60s pay phones were designed with mercury switches on the hook so
> that  if you tried  to dial with  the hook  the  splashing mercury would
> defeat you.  Otherwise you  could make local  calls for a nickel instead
> of a dime, or some such thing.

Here's a related anecdote.

I saw an interview with Walter Cronkite once, where he spoke of his
eary career as a newspaper reporter.  One day the editor called him
into his office, to ask about a reimbursement form Walter had put
through for calls from pay phones.  "What's this?" said the editor.
"Well, I had to make some phone calls to the newspaper, and I  want to
be reimbursed."  At this point the editor laughed and shouted out to
another staff member "Hey, show this guy how to make a call from a pay
phone," at which point the other person took two straight pins from the
underside of his lapel, and stuck one into each of the wires leading to
a pay phone in the hall.  He then touched the wires together and the
phone was powered up.  Obviously, pay phones simply used a simple
coin-activated switch to enable the connection in those days.

--
"FLYING ELEPHANTS DROP COW           Dave Fiske  ([e-mail])
 PIES ON HORRIFIED CROWD!"
                                     Home:  [e-mail]
Headline from Weekly World News             CIS: 75415,163  GEnie: davef

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

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 89 07:43:10 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Call Histories For Sale?

I was listening to a "talk-radio" program on the way home yesterday, and
they were discussing a new FCC ruling that allows telephone companies to
sell to anyone the calling history and payment patterns for an individual
account, unless specifically requested not to do so by the customer.

Does anyone on [Telecom] know any more about this?

Daniel
Work :The Aerospace Corp M8/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 213/336-3149
Home :8333 Columbus Avenue #17  * Sepulveda CA 91343            * 818/892-8555
Email:[e-mail] (or) [e-mail]
Voicemail: 213/336-5454 Box#3149 * "Take what you like, and leave the rest"

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

From: Gerry Wheeler <mks![e-mail]>
Date: 13 Apr 89 21:39:31 GMT
Subject: 24 volt loop
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont.

I need some advice, and perhaps one of the readers can help.

We have a new electronic phone system which includes several "single
line jacks" -- jacks that emulate a normal loop to be used with modems,
FAXes, answering machines, etc.  The biggest difference is that these
loops are powered with 24 volts, rather than the more normal 48 volts
one would expect.  Most of our equipment is quite happy with this,
except for a credit card validation machine with an autodialer built in.

I did some tests on this device (using several nine-volt batteries in
series with the line!) and determined that it really is the low voltage
causing the problem.  As near as I can figure, the dialer tests the line
voltage before going off hook, to avoid connecting to a line that is
already in use.  I presume they use a zener diode or something to
provide a reference voltage.  If the line voltage is higher than the
reference, it will dial.  If not, it gives an error message.

I can see two different solutions.  1) change the zener diode, or 2)
provide some sort of black box to convert the 24 volt loop to 48 volts.
I can't really do option 1, because we don't own the machine.  (Still,
if anyone has a short list of part numbers for zener diodes that are
about 30 volts, I may have a look for it.) So, does anyone know of a
simple way to accomplish option 2? As I see it, this box would have to
terminate the 24 volt loop, and provide power for a 48 volt loop, and
patch the audio from one to the other.  It would also have to sense the
off hook condition and handle that appropriately.

Any leads, or any ideas for other options I haven't considered, would
be most appreciated.
--
     Gerry Wheeler                           Phone: [phone]
Mortice Kern Systems Inc.               UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!wheels
   35 King St. North                             BIX: join mks
Waterloo, Ontario  N2J 2W9                  CompuServe: 73260,1043

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

End of TELECOM Digest
*********************

========================================================================
Received: from gamma.eecs.nwu.edu by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
        id AA24967; Fri, 14 Apr 89 00:47:06 PDT
Received: from gamma.eecs.nwu.edu by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
        for covert::telecom_request; id AA24967; Fri, 14 Apr 89 00:47:06 PDT
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17495; 14 Apr 89 2:21 CDT

Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17490; 14 Apr 89 2:16 CDT

[To]:     [e-mail]

Downloaded From P-80 Systems 304-744-2253