Hacker Chronicles 1/HACKER1.ISO/phreak/teldig1.txt

Text File | 1992-08-30 | 91KB | 2,078 lines

**** Telecom Digest ****


Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 22:11:50 pst
From: Jeff Makey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID

In TELECOM Digest Vol. 9 No. 86, Patrick Townson writes:
>Where people get the idea
>they should be able to hide behind their phone is beyond me.

Since the invention of the telephone more than 100 years ago, callers
have always been anonymous unless they choose to identify themselves.
This is quite a precedent to be overcome.  As others have already
pointed out here in the TELECOM Digest, there are legitimate reasons
for a caller to be anonymous.

It amazes me that calling party ID technology has been developed
without two complementary options:

    (1) the option for the caller to make anonymous calls; and

    (2) the option to have an individual telephone line automatically
        refuse (without even ringing) incoming anonymous calls.

These two options (which one should be able to toggle on a per-call
basis) give the best of both worlds, allowing both the caller and
callee to protect their privacy as they see fit.

                        :: Jeff Makey
                           [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 11:10:47 EST
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Party ID


<David Gast <[e-mail]> writes>

DG> In reality, it is not likely to help that much.  The solicitors could
DG> block their identification.

With the proper equipment, I will route all calls with blocked ID to an
answering machine.

DG> The solicitors could get phones under innocuous sounding names--Bill
DG> Jones, for example.  Since only a few numbers would be recognizably bad,
DG> the solicitors will just switch phone numbers.

Again, assumeing proper equipment, I don't care what phone number they are
calling from.  All calls that are not from a list of known numbers in my
database will be routed to an answering machine at certain times of the day.

DG> Finally, these solicitors will be gaining a huge data base
DG> of calling patterns from which to tailor-make their calls.

I will be blocking my ID whenever a call to a business is made.  Without
the blocking feature, I am against the whole concept.

Ken Levitt

--
Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390
UUCP: ...harvard!talcott!zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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


Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 07:25:49 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Service in Phoenix


I guess we are lucky here in Phoenix.  Metro Mobile, the non-wireline
service,  only charges for completed calls.  Busy/No-answers accumulate no
charge.   There is also no charge for calling their customer service or
technical  numbers, 911 or the test number "TEST".

Another new thing instituted here, which is also no charge, is *33.  This is
a direct connection to the Arizona Department of Public Safety (our state
police) for reporting drunk drivers on the state highways.  I should add that
both Metro Mobile, and US West Cellular (the wireline carrier) have added this
service.

David

--
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------
          St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center - Phoenix Arizona
               uucp:  {decvax, ncar} !noao!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
        uucp:  {gatech, ames, rutgers} !ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
    Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD                    FidoNet=> 1:114/15 or 1:1/0
                  Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Donn F Pedro <mcgp1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular service
Date: 17 Mar 89 04:32:49 GMT
Organization: THE WAR ROOM on Elliot Bay.


In article <[e-mail]>, decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john@ucb
vax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) writes:
> With all of the hoopla that PacTel Cellular is generating over its
> installation of its "new digital equipment", some questions must be
> raised. Having recently visited the LA area as a roamer from GTE
> Mobilnet, San Francisco, it seems that the good people of southern
> California are being taken for a ride.

Not by Cellular One......
> PacTel Cellular may be the only cellular operator in the country that
> charges the moment you hit the s(p)end button, whether the call is
> answered or not.

Cellular One in LA does not do this.
>
>
> This all appears to be the biggest legal scam I have ever seen. First,
> charge for *everything*, then make sure most calls simply bomb (while
> charging for the attempt), and after that take a long time to complete
> calls thereby ensuring that each and every call is at least two minutes
> long.
>
> Are there any other systems in the country that are this slimy?

Don't like it. Vote with your wallet!!!!  When you get in the LA
area contace Cellular One and setup roaming with them.  Their
system is reliable and their billing is fair.  You do not get
charged for calls not completed.
> John Higdon
> john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

What can I say... I work for them.


        Donn F Pedro ................................ a.k.a. donn@mcgp1
        else: {the known world}!uw-beaver!uw-enthropy!thebes!mcgp1!donn
       ----------------------------------------------------------------
                 "You talk the talk. Do you walk the walk?"



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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Mar 89 07:30
Subject: Cellular Service - Charging in New York

>Nynex mobile service, the wireline carrier here in the New York City
>CGSA, also charges air time for incomplete calls.

I've never been charged air time by NYNEX in New York City except on
completed calls.  Are you sure?

/john

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

From: Dave Horsfall <munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Do American phones work in Australia?
Date: 15 Mar 89 06:03:48 GMT
Organization: Alcatel-STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA


In article <[e-mail]>,
    bunny![e-mail] (Mark Feblowitz) writes:
|
| Please let me know if the phones are compatible with Australia's
| switches with or without modification. Also, do prevailing regulations
| permit the use of privately owned CPE?

Well, no-one else has answered (at least in public), so...

The answer is a firm definite "maybe" (apologies to Fred Flintstone).
Tone-dial phones should be no problem, but they are still rare in Oz.
Pulse-dial will work anywhere, but I believe the mark-space ratio is
different - 2:1 break/make or something like that.  And don't try
anything clever with call-progress indicators - they're different.

Legally, you can plug in your own device (they use a big 4-prong affair
by the way, but RJ-11 adaptors are available), but it needs Telecom approval.
This requirement is more often than not ignored - just unplug the device
and hide it if Telecom come a-knockin' :-)

Telecom also freak out over mains-powered devices on their lines, besides,
our power is 240 volt 50 Hz.

Summary?  They might work, then again maybe not.

Hmmm... just realised this is the 3rd enquiry on the Australian phone
system in a month or so...  Maybe I should be saving my replies and
just issue them as & when.

--
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU),  Alcatel-STC Australia,  [e-mail]
[e-mail],  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave
            Self-regulation is no regulation

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

Date:   Thu, 16 Mar 89 01:54:54 EST
From:   Jonathan Haruni <[e-mail]>
Subject: British phone wiring
Organization: University of Toronto

I'm moving to the UK.

My modem is supposedly "international" in that is has a software switch
to change the make/break timing when pulse dialing to match the US or UK
standards.

However, there is nothing in the manual about rewiring the plugs to suit
UK standards.  Does anyone know anything about that ?

I've looked inside some phones in the UK, and they seem to use a four-wire
system for a single line.  Is this true ?  If it is, how could my modem
possibly be used there, when it uses the north-american two-wire system ?

Can north american phones be used in the UK ?  Is the color coding of
the wiring the same on both sides of the ocean ?

Excuse my ignorance, please.  I've just never had any opportunity to
tinker with or read about the UK phone system, and I'd like to use my
modem there.  I'd appreciate any help.

Jonathan Haruni
[e-mail]


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

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 08:52:02 EST
From: Frank Prindle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  Pay phones that disable the keypad

I recently got very annoyed while trying to use a COCOT in a public place
for an emergency call (not 911, but a call to notify someone's relative of
an emergency).  Not having any coins handy, I proceeded to use my (non-Bell)
calling card which requires I dial a toll-free 800 number, then key in my
PIN and the number I was calling.  Naturally, you-guessed-it, the 800 call
went through, then the keypad went dead.  The call could not be placed.

Fortunately, the management was handy and found me another (private) phone to
use for the emergency situation.

Upon complaining to Bell of PA, I was informed that the BPA tarrifs do not
require that a COCOT be able to complete calling-card calls!  (the phone was
in violation on three other counts however: 1) no service number posted on
phone; 2) no phone number posted on phone; 3) charged $.85 to call 1-800-555-
1212.)

My point is that there are even more important reasons (than calling a tone
activated service such as a locator or a bank) that the tone-pad should
continue to work - namely any calling card except AT&T/Baby-Bell is likely
*not* to have an operator intercept to manually handle situations where no
tones can be generated.  I feel that the consumer should be able to rely on
any public phone (with a tone pad) to provide all the capabilities he normally
uses on a public phone.  Disabling the tone-pad at any time during a call
substantially reduces these capabilities.  I guess they expect everyone to
carry around a pocket tone generator in case a phone doesn't work right.

Sincerely,
Frank Prindle
[e-mail]

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


From: "Gary W. Sanders" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 17 Mar 89 15:57:40 GMT
Reply-To: "Gary W. Sanders" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> "John B. Nagle" <glacier!jbn
@labrea.stanford.edu> writes:

>       Not matter what happens with enable and disable, I would
>hope that emergency services or at least the operator could
>override system paramters and force a phone to ring.

        Also I dont know about the rest of you, but unless this
services is free I doubt that I would ever want it. At work I need
to answer the phone whenever it rings or at least have my machine answer
it. At home I answer the phone. Do people really hate answering phones that
much? Do you really have that few friends that you could enter their phone
number into the "answer list"? I know the salemen are a pain, but
"no I am not interested" seems to stop them or hang up the phone.

        About the only thing I would like from calling party ID is to
tell me if its one of those machines calling. I hate coming
home and having my answering machine tape used up talking to some
other answering machine. These things are as bad as the machines
that call YOU and put YOU on hold to wait for a sales person. What a pain!!!!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel B Levin)
writes:

>       If the phone company is going to ship the phone number
>of the call down the line, then how about some more info. Tell me
>the name of the person calling or at least the billing name. Sending
>me a phone doesn't give me much info, how many phone number
>do you know, I know freinds and family. You folks going to refuse to
>answer the phone just because the phone number is unknown? maybe
>uncle Bob has moved and want to tell you his new number....

        It seems that the telco's are trying to nickle and dime
folks to death with "service". I still wonder how a telco can
charge for touch tone service. Seem to me that they would want
to switch things around to get the "aunt Martha" off of rotary dial
and into the 90's. How much additional cost is added to a switch
to support pulse dial. Its got to start adding up.

--
Gary Sanders (N8EMR) gws@cbnews (w) gws@n8emr (h)
614-860-5965 (353-5965 cornet)

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

From: Chris Schmandt <mit-amt![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 17 Mar 89 16:44:50 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Schmandt <mit-amt![e-mail]>
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge MA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sidney
Markowitz) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 87, message 5 of 7
>
>  <talk about MIT's 5ESS and ISDN system>
>
>It seems to me that the MIT system's solution is the ideal. I like the
>idea of being able to screen my calls.

It is indeed true that call screening is very useful.  Note that our
LCD display shows calling party *number2,b9=t name.  Because we have
calling party ID for internal calls only, it also lets me see when
I'm getting an outside call.  It is convenient to be able to treat the
two cases differently (an inside call is usually brief and let's me help
someone in my organization get something done; outside calls are more
likely asking *me* to do something).

I've noticed a lot of use of calling party ID.  People will answer
the phone with "hi chris!", and it's not just us phone hackers, so
it must be useful.

The obvious solution to the privacy issue is that I would like two bits
on my phone.
 1) I will or will not allow my number to be transmitted
 2) I will or will not accept calls which do not ID calling party.

<I'd argue that given the widespread use of telemarketing, I would not
want to give my number to ANY business>

The problem is, it must be trivial (automatic?) to en/dis able the
first bit.  Here I have to dial a 2 digit prefix for privacy (called
party sees "private number" on the display).  That's fine for
occaisional use, but I think it would be inadequate for my taste
in my house.

(personally, I might be satisfied with banning telemarketing and
prefix-override for those occaisional calls which really should be
anonymous).

Otherwise, great business for those AOS's running (anonymous) pay
phones!!

chris

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


From: "John B. Nagle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling party ID
Date: 17 Mar 89 17:39:35 GMT
Reply-To: "John B. Nagle" <glacier![e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University


Questions:

1.    What happens when a call is originated from a PBX extension?  Is
      the number displayed just the identity of the outgoing PBX trunk?  Even
      assuming a PBX wants to cooperate and pass internal extension numbers
      outward, is there a defined interface for this?  What happens when the
      outgoing trunk has is outgoing only and has no telephone number, which
      is not that unusual?

2.    What about inter-LATA calls?  Which vendors pass the caller ID through,
      or plan to?  Will the FCC mandate that caller ID be passed across
      long distance carriers?

3.    What about international calls?

4.    Can the receiver distinguish "caller ID suppressed" from "caller ID
      not known"?

5.    Is someone working on a modem that understands caller ID signals?

                                        John Nagle

------------------------------
From: "Lawrence V. Cipriani" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell's $80 Million plan.
Date: 17 Mar 89 13:17:25 GMT
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


> [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, no. Not a nickle for an employee to
> be on the premises 24 hours per day ...  Fire Eibel because ...
> *his* decision that million dollar switches don't need attendants at
> all times -- has decided to continue playing it reckless. PT]

The decision that switching machines don't need attendants at all times was
made many years ago in AT&T.  The centralized operation administration and
maintenance of switching machines saves phone companies millions of dollars
every year.  It isn't going to go away even with Hinsdale disaster.

I wouldn't hold any one person responsible for that debacle, except the
technician who ignored the initial alarms.  I almost certain Eibel couldn't
get a technician at every switch even if he wanted to.  After divestiture
many of the phone company operations and procedures went unchanged.  They just
make good economic sense, but that isn't to say there isn't room for
improvement.

By the way, some switches are literally impossible to have an attendant at
since they are in underground sealed vaults.

I speak only for myself, AT&T has nothing to do with this note.
--
Larry Cipriani, att!cbnews!lvc or [e-mail]

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

From: Jeffrey Silber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell's $80 Million plan.
Date: 17 Mar 89 14:45:03 GMT
Reply-To: Jeffrey Silber <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY



The inability to shut off power in COs is apparantly not uncommon.  During a
tour of our local NYNEX CO the foreman instructed us how to shut off the
incoming (power company) current, but said that there was no effective way
of shutting off the battery power, and no guarantee that even if everything
was done that the power was really off.  Not a really good incentive for
firefighters to go charging ahead.

It seems to me that halon protection is the most logical for these sites,
and that would be the most cost-effective from society's view.


Jeffrey Silber
Lieut. Cayuga Heights F.D.
--
"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
                                                         --Sen. Everett Dirksen
Jeffrey A. Silber/[e-mail]
Business Manager/Cornell Center for Theory & Simulation in Science &
Engineering

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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Mar 89 12:17
Subject: Cellular in L.A.

In recent messages from John Higdon (zygot!john) and Donn Pedro (donn@mcgp1)

>>it seems that the good people of southern California are being taken for
>>a ride
>>
>> PacTel Cellular may be the only cellular operator in the country that
>> charges the moment you hit the s(p)end button, whether the call is
>> answered or not.
>
>Cellular One in LA does not do this.

There is no Cellular One in L.A.  (See my reply in V9#88.)

The "A" carrier is L.A. Cellular, and they charge *exactly* the same rates
as PacTel Cellular (.70 peak and .24 off peak) with incomplete calls charged
at 50% (so don't let that phone ring for a long time) by both carriers.

>Dont like it. Vote with your wallet!!!!  When you get in the LA
>area contact Cellular One and setup roaming with them.

Would be nice, but not only is there no Cellular One in L.A., but L.A. Cellular
won't even accept credit card roamers.  So unless your home carrier has an
automatic roaming agreement with L.A. Cellular, you're stuck with PacTel.

And if your carrier doesn't have a roaming agreement with EITHER carrier (as is
the case for BOTH Boston systems (NYNEX and Cellular One), then you have to set
up credit card roaming with PacTel, at a $15 charge for 1-30 days.

>Their system is reliable and their billing is fair.
>What can I say... I work for them.

I presume (from your mcgp1 address) that you work for McCaw Communications.
Too bad you didn't check your information about L.A. before posting it.

BTW, for the general edification of the rest of the readership, there is not a
single company called "Cellular One."  The name "Cellular One" is licensed from
Southwestern Bell for a nominal annual charge.  Most, if not all, McCaw owned
cellular carriers use the name Cellular One, however, the name is also used
by Southwestern Bell in Boston, Washington, and Chicago.  In those cities where
Southwestern Bell is the local wireline carrier, they do not use the name
Cellular One -- in fact the even license it to their competition!  In some
cities the name Cellular One is used by a local company having no outside
affiliations.

/john

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

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 17:34:56 PST
From: e118 student <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI, PAC*BELL in cahoots?

The MCI person was a bit confused.  As a happy user of MCI's "Around Town"
feature, I can fill you in on what they mean about eliminating charges for
calls from San Mateo.

If you use your AT&T or Sprint calling card, you are billed a surcharge
($1.05 or $0.55, or who-knows-what if it's intrastate).  However, if you
use your MCI card from any phone within a nebulously-described "local"
area around your home phone #, it goes through at the same rate as if you
dialed it from home -- no 55c surcharge.

The "local" area is actually rather generous: I live in Berkeley and made
a call from San Rafael, which is just across the line from ZUM-3 to Toll,
(about 20 miles in real terms) but it still went through as "Around Town."

--Linc Madison = [e-mail]
I have no connection to MCI except that I carry their calling card.
(In fact, my home service is on Sprint....)

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

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 17:39:55 PST
From: e118 student <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pay phones that disable the keypad

I've run into the same problem with pay phones operated by AT&T
(their blue phones that don't take coins or cards).  It infuriates
me.  I can see no legitimate purpose in disabling the keypad.
One "800" number I frequently use is to my bank's computer, to
see if a check or deposit has cleared.

The experience with the AT&T phones has been mostly in Calif.,
but they seem to have changed their mind, at least in some areas.
Personally, if I can possibly help it, I use no pay phone other
than a genuine Pacific Bell.

--Linc Madison = [e-mail]
I have no connection to any company, except for the little
brown phone rumored to be hiding under the pile of stuff on
my floor.

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

Date:     Tue, 14 Mar 89 15:12:57 LCL
From:     [e-mail]
Subject:  Grounded in truth?

Can this possibly be true?  (I don't know its source.)

******************************************************

AN UNUSUAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CALL

This story was related by Pat Routledge of Winnepeg, ONT about an unusual
telephone service call he handled while living in England.

It is common practice in England to signal a telephone subscriber by
signaling with 90 volts across one side of the two wire circuit and ground
(earth in England). When the subscriber answers the phone, it switches to
the two wire circuit for the conversation. This method allows two parties
on the same line to be signalled without disturbing each other.

This particular subscriber, an elderly lady with several pets called to
say that her telephone failed to ring when her friends called and that on
the few occasions when it did manage to ring her dog always barked first.
Torn between curiosity to see this psychic dog and a realization that
standard service techniques might not suffice in this case, Pat proceeded
to the scene. Climbing a nearby telephone pole and hooking in his test
set, he dialed the subscriber's house.  The phone didn't ring. He tried
again. The dog barked loudly, followed by a ringing telephone. Climbing
down from the pole, Pat found:

    a.   Dog was tied to the telephone system's ground post via an iron
         chain and collar
    b.   Dog was receiving 90 volts of signalling current
    c.   After several jolts, the dog was urinating on ground and barking
    d.   Wet ground now conducted and phone rang.

***************************************************************************

------------------------------
rom: [e-mail] (W. Gregg Stefancik)
Subject: Class *62
Date: 15 Mar 89 18:33:57 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (W. Gregg Stefancik)
Organization: Clemson University Engineering Department


A friend of mine in NJ has CLASS features enabled on his phone.  When he
dials *62 (an undocummented CLASS style number) he gets 4 beeps.  We would
both like to know what *62 is for.  Anybody have any ideas?

W. Gregg Stefancik < [e-mail] >

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

Date: Sat, 18 Mar 89 05:33:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Privacy of telephone calling records

Steve Bellovin's comment about the need for better laws concerning the privacy
of telephone calling records is well taken.  Laws already on the books make
your bank records private -- i.e. a bank can't say that you gave up all
rights to privacy of your bank records when you asked them to make a
payment for you when you wrote a check.  It takes a court order to get
at your bank records.  A similar law should be on the books concerning
telephone call records.  Just because you gave the phone company a callee's
number in order to complete a call doesn't mean they should be able to
give out your call records without a warrant.

Marvin Sirbu

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

Date: Sat, 18 Mar 89 13:05:09 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Do you need a court order to trace a phone?
Organization: Segue Software, Inc.

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>The law says that if the person whose phone is being traced
>gives permission for the line to be traced, a court order
>is not necessary.
>
>From this argument, automatic calling party identification
>is completely legal. ...

Don't you have it backward?  The calling party is giving permission, not
the callee.  Caller ID is requested by the callee, not the other way around.

I have to second Bob Frankston's concerns about privacy issues, and to wish
a thousand junk phone calls from stock brokers, mail-order places, and
pizza delivery outfits upon anyone who thinks that caller ID blocking is
only for crooks.  Per call ID blocking is technically simple and provides
reasonable safeguards, and, of course, you've always been able to hang up
on callers who won't identify themselves.

Some people have suggested that facilities to call back whoever just called
you, and to ask the telco to record the number of the last (presumably
annoying) caller would be helpful.  I believe that in the Orlando trials both
of these were already available.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat 18 Mar 89 12:09:50-PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some notes on the UK phone system

I used to live in the UK about 5 years ago and here are some notes
on phones, wiring etc, based upon memory and recent observations.
Apologies for any inaccuracies, but I think most of this is close
to being pretty much true.

First of all, UK and US phones are basically compatible and you can
use either on either system (PTT/BOC regulations notwithstanding).
It may be that the pulse make/break ratio and rate is different
on paper, but it really does work in practice. I have a couple of
British phones on my home PBX (yes, I am a phone fanatic) and they
work just fine.

The standard UK rotary phone, which was all that was available up
until about 1980, has 4 wires going into it:

WHITE
RED
GREEN
BLUE

The WHITE and RED are connected directly to the outside world and
corresponds to the US red/green. The GREEN, in simple terms, powers
the bell of the phone. UK phones do not have the "anti-tinkle
circuit" found in most US phones, and to solve this problem the bell
is wired in such a fashion that if you lift the handset of one phone
it disables the bell of the other. This allows dialling without the
other phone(s) going tinga-linga-ling. In residences with only one
phone (very common), the GREEN is simply connected to the WHITE at the
wall socket. The BLUE is, as far as I can tell, only used in PBX
applications for a ground-start switch. Needless to say, only two
wires run from the customer premises to the CO.

The above applies to the "old" system. The more "modern" UK phone
system, uses a modular plug (different from its US counterpart),
electronic phones, and more and more Touch-Tone (in which case the
anti-tinkle circuit is unecessary).

It is interesting to note how the new British Telecom regulates
what you can and cannot do to their system. All phones have to
be "BT Approved" which is not that different from FCC sub 68
approved when you think about it. The difference lies in what
the consumer is allowed to do. You can purchase an "Add-your-own-
modular-extension" kit from any BT store, but you cannot buy
a tool to "modularize" an existing phone by putting on the
little white connector at the end of your line cord. Such tools
as well as open-ended cables can be purchased elsewhere, but
your aren't strictly supposed to use them.

The availability of different phones is pretty good, and in stores
you'll see familiar brands such as Panasonic. Once again there is a
peculiar difference: UK handset cords are NOT replaceable, at least
not by the consumer without special tools. On phones with modular
handset cords, the "release clip" is broken off such that you need a
screwdriver or similar object of just the right size in order to get
the cord loose. Why they did this is completely beyond me. (I have
also never seen "extra long handset cords" for sale which makes sense
if you can't easily replace them).

As mentioned earlier, many COs or "exchanges" as they are known over
there, accept touch-tone dialling, and processing seems even faster
than in the US. Calling the US from the UK seems alot faster than the
other way around. This may have to do with the fact that there are
more hierarchies of switches/LD interfaces through which the call has
to be processed over here. Also, I was told by someone who supposedly
knows, that WITHIN the UK the ringing the caller hears is generated by
the CALLERS CO rather (as is the case in the US) than by the CALLEES
CO. This is probably because they use CCITT Signalling System #7 or
their own variant where no voice path is opened until the call is
answered.

My most favorite aspect of the British phone system is the PhoneCard.
It is a green credit card-sized card which comes in different values
(20 units, 100 units, etc.). Put one in the special PhoneCard phones
and dial away *anywhere*. There is no minimum charge, and you can
talk until the "money" runs out (1 unit = 10p). Of course, if you
call international, the units tick down pretty fast (as displayed
on the phone), but the system does have advantages over 0+ dialling
and other schemes which require surcharges and minimum deposits.
The only drawback is that you need to find the magic green PhoneCard
phones and keep a supply of cards, but many stores sell the cards
and the phones are becoming more and more common. Another reason
to travel to the UK!

Ole
-------

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling party ID
Date: 19 Mar 89 16:02:05 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
B. Nagle) writes:
> Questions:

> 1.    What happens when a call is originated from a PBX extension?  Is
>       the number displayed just the identity of the outgoing PBX trunk?  Even
>       assuming a PBX wants to cooperate and pass internal extension numbers
>       outward, is there a defined interface for this?  What happens when the
>       outgoing trunk has is outgoing only and has no telephone number, which
>       is not that unusual?

Yes, such an interface is defined.  State-of-the-art PBX equipment
compatible with CCIS is capable of sending and receiving caller-id
information.  These PBX's typically display caller-id information on
their special display-equipped telephone sets, and transmit the
calling station number on outgoing calls.


> 2.    What about inter-LATA calls?  Which vendors pass the caller ID through,
>       or plan to?  Will the FCC mandate that caller ID be passed across
>       long distance carriers?

In NJ, only intra-lata calls report caller id, as of today.  On many
calls from out-of-state, we get a caller-id display showing some
number with a Newark exchange prefix.  It turns out that this is the
number of the local outgoing trunk used by the inter-lata carrier
who handled the call!  Not helpful, but understandable.  When CCIS
connectivity exists between the inter-lata carriers and the local
exchange carriers, perhaps we'll see universal caller-id, but I
think it may be a few years before that happens.

> 3.    What about international calls?

see my thoughts on 2


> 4.    Can the receiver distinguish "caller ID suppressed" from "caller ID
>       not known"?

The information sent to the called subscriber by the CO does
distinguish between "caller ID suppressed" and "not known".  Whether
this difference is displayed depends upon which brand of caller-id
display is used.  Some do, and some always display ??? when no
number is received, and ignore the reason code.

> 5.    Is someone working on a modem that understands caller ID signals?

Colonial Data Technologies, of New Milford, CT, [phone],
currently markets a caller-id display for residential use.  They
tell me that they are developing a PC expansion card that receives
the caller-id info and makes if available to the PC software.  I
have no information on the projected availability of this product,
or the capabilities of the software with which it will probably be
bundled.

I expect that there will be a database of sorts where the user can
enter the information he wants displayed on his PC screen for each
calling number listed.  It is probably not practical to store the
entire North Jersey white pages in a PC-XT!

--
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.          The Man in the Mooney
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave


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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Mar 89 16:06
Subject: Privacy of telephone account records

>It takes a court order to get at your bank records.  A similar law should be
>on the books concerning telephone call records.  Just because you gave the
>phone company a callee's number in order to complete a call doesn't mean they
>should be able to give out your call records without a warrant.

Well, Marvin, I wish you were still here in Massachusetts to do battle with
N.E.T.  As one might suspect, CLID is only the tip of the iceberg.  Imagine
calling a number in an ad to find out more about a product, (or worse yet,
accidentally dialling a wrong number) and being greeted with a recording that
simply says "Your new fuzzy dice are on their way!"  A few days later they
arrive, along with a bill.  The laws pertaining to unsolicited merchandise
won't apply, because the phone company will have records of your call.

Yesterday I received the following notice from the Massachusetts Department
of Public Utilities:

        New England Telephone and Telegraph Company ("NET") is proposing
        to offer a Billing Information Service ("BIS") to Information
        Providers, entities who offer recorded or interactive services.

        The service will provide an end user's name, address, and calling
        number, as well as the called number, date, time, and duration of
        the call.

        The DPU will conduct a public hearing on the above matter at its
        hearing room, #1210 Leverett Saltonstall Building, 100 Cambridge
        Street, Boston, Massachusetts on Tuesday, 18 April 1989 at 11:00.

/john

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension
Date: 18 Mar 89 16:34:33 GMT
Reply-To: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University


In article <[e-mail]> Amanda Walker <lts!amanda@uunet.
uu.net> writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>       [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer) writes:

>>      As the New Hampsha fahma (New Hampshire farmer) told his dinner
>>   guest, as he ignored the many rings of the newly installed telephone, "I
>>   paid good money to have that thing put in for MY convenience, not theirs."

>This is basically my opinion;  I don't have a phone as a service to anyone
>who feels they want to call me;  I installed it for my own convenience.
>I pay for it, after all.  I should be able to decide how and when I use it.

and as Walter Mathau said in the movie (title escapes me... about a female
justice of the Supreme Court): "the telephone has no constitutional right to
be answered."

When I first heard of caller-ID, I suggested to a large E-mail company that
they provide end-to-end ID over their net so that BBS operators could verify
users... and tag uploaded messages with the originator... so that SYSOPS could
pass the responsibility for content back to the source.

If you go to another country, you will discover that there is no 'right' to
even HAVE a phone, much less make anonymous calls with one.  As for using
mechanical counters for toll purposes... I suspect that is due more to ease
of implementation (in relay days) than to any real privacy related issue.

If you don't want to disclose who you are, send your questions via mail in an
envelope with no return address.    :-)

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 10:20:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID on Inbound-WATS

Readers of Telecom Digest should know that AT&T already provides calling number
ID to in-bound WATS customers.  Part of their emerging ISDN service
capabilities, the inbound WATS caller ID is provided over a D channel
in conjunction with an ISDN primary rate interface to a PBX.  American
Express is already using it for their customer service operators.

Since the IECs automatically receive caller identity on every long distance
call (this is part of what equal access means-- the IEC gets caller ID
for billing purposes so that you don't have to dial a PIN code with
MCI anymore), the IECs already have this information and can pass it
on to the callee.

My understanding is that in the experience of American Express -- and
others who have subscribed to this service -- the caller's number is
only useful about 65% of the time.  That is, American Express would
like to use the caller ID to automatically call up on the customer
service rep's screen your account records before she picks up.
However, 35% of the time, the caller is coming from behind a PBX, or
is not calling from his or her usual number, and thus the customer
service rep must ask for the customer's name or account number and
call up the record manually.

At one point customer reps were answering the phone with "Hello Mr.
Smith" or whatever the customer's name was; customers found this so
disconcerting that the service reps stopped doing it.  Thus, if the
service rep asks for your name, she may already have your record in
front of her and is just checking....

See for example, the article in Communications Week for October 10, 1988,
"American Express briefs users on ISDN primary rate trial".  See also
article in Communications Week for Dec 5, 1988 on the accelerated
roleout of this capability which AT&T markets under the trade name
"Info-2" service.

Since most in-bound WATS would be governed by the FCC as an interstate
service, the FCC would have to rule on the privacy issue.  As far as I
know, the FCC has never considered it.

Marvin Sirbu

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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 10:20:49 EST
From: Jerry Glomph Black <@ll-vlsi.ARPA:black@ll-micro>
Subject: Calling Party ID: the economics
Reply-To: @ll-vlsi.ARPA:black@micro
Organization: None discernable

In the midst of all the interesting and spirited debating of the last week on
this subject, I think one issue has been slighted: the potential imbalance of
those subscribers getting this service.  I think the charge is on the order of
7 bucks/month, plus an $80 box which sits next to one phone in your house.
This would more than double the basic monthly rate for residential customers in
my state,  and I really think few would sign up for the CLASS service.  So you
have a situation where the majority of home users are *forced* to dial in the
'anonymity code' every time they wish to call a business or other place that
shouldn't get their number so easily.  I hope they have 'anonymity default'
settings for 'the rest of us' who will not be buying the service.

The local companies overcharge for all these 'value added' services: recently
they really made me guffaw when the local company itself telemarketed these
useless services, especially "speed-calling", where they want $4.12 per month
to do what any $20 cheapo phone can do: store 10 numbers.  They also charge 58
cents/month for touch-tone (but in most exchanges in this area, TT phones work
even for those who don't pay: not worth the bother of policing, I guess).

Jerry G Black, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 244 Wood St. C-120, Lexington MA 02173
Phone [phone]     Fax [phone]  black@[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon 20 Mar 89 11:59:08-CST
From: Clive Dawson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Residential Hunting

A few months ago I posted an item dealing with hunting service
on residential lines.  Southwestern Bell had been offering this
service for years, then discovered that they weren't charging for
it, and finally got a tariff approved with the Texas Public Utility
Commission.  Those of us which used this service received a letter
in which we were told we could either drop hunting or start paying
$.50 per month per line for the service.

I have two lines at home, A and B.  When somebody calls A and A is in
use, the call will come in on line B.  However, if somebody calls B
and B is in use, they will get a busy signal.

Here's the problem:  I elected to keep hunting, and I just received
my first phone bill with the new hunting charges on it.  I was
expecting a $.50 charge, but instead was charged $2.00!  An inquiry
yielded resulted in this dialog:

SWB:    "Yes, we made a mistake by charging you $1. per line, we
         should have charged you only $.50 per line.  We will credit
         your account with $1."

ME:     "The credit should be $1.50.  Only one of my lines has
         hunting.  The other one doesn't."

SWB:    "No, the charge is $.50 per line.  You can't have hunting with
         only one line; that wouldn't make sense."

ME:     "Why should I pay for hunting on my second line when it
        doesn't have it?  Why are you charging for a service on
        the second line when it doesn't do anything different for
        me that a regular line doesn't?"

SWB:    "I'm sorry, but that's the way hunting works.  Some places
        have 20 or 30 or 50 lines, and they pay $.50 per line."

{ME:     "All right, I'd like to cancel hunting on my second line,
        please."

SWB:    [Long pause.] "I'm sorry, sir, we can't do that without
        canceling it for you altogether."

ME:     "Fine.  Then I would like to ADD hunting on my second line,
        please."  I want calls to be sent to my first line if
        the second line is busy.

SWB:    "Oh.  That's called circular hunting.  There are different
        rates for that, but I'm not familiar with them, so I'll have
        to research this and call you back."


That's where things stand now.  I'll be calling the Texas PUC to get
a copy of the actual tariff.  I was upset enough about the fact that
the bean counters decided they had to make money from a service
it was costing them nothing to provide, and which actually enhanced
their revenue since fewer busy signals meant that more long distance
calls get charged.  Now I discover that the $.50 charge is a myth,
since they are claiming that there is no way to get hunting on only
one line, and this is even more infuriating.

Does anybody have an experience with hunting tariffs in other parts
of the country which would help in this battle?

Thanks,

Clive
-------

[Moderator's Note: I've had hunting on my residential lines for years. Illinois
Bell does not charge for hunting, or its close relative, 'jump hunting',
which occurs when the hunted number is in proximity to, but not next in
sequence to the hunting number. They do charge for circular hunting, and
backward hunting, both of which are theoretically only possible on an ESS
exchange. They will hunt off your exchange for an added cost. If you have
hunting, then call-waiting is only available on the last line in the hunt
group since call-waiting relies on a line testing busy, which it will never
truly do as long as it can hunt elsewhere.  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 14:40:35 EST
From: Bill Cattey <[e-mail]>
Subject: NYNEX at Kennedy Airport also disables the keypad!

It's not just COCOTS that are getting into the act of disabling
keypads.  This past November (a long time ago, sorry... I hope they
fixed it by now) I was in Kennedy Airport trying to place a calling
card call.  Neither 1-0-288 -0-<my number> nor 0-<my number> would
leave the keypad enabled for me to type my calling card number.

I believe 1-0-288 didn't connect me with ATT.  My traveling companion
said they use a different access scheme.

I was very frustrated.  The posted dialing instructions on the NYNEX
pay phone simply didn't work.  Any suggestions what I should do if
this happens again?

  From the 'desk' of     _   /|
  Bill (the) CATTey...   \'o.O'
                         ~(___)~       THSHVPPPOOO!
                            U              ACH!

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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 23:56:26 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Phone Melts; Almost Started Fire!

At work today, one of our many phones (which are pretty abused - people
are always tripping over the cords and pulling them off desks) stopped
working.  If you picked it up, you heard nothing.  If you called it,
it rang.  I was busy so I forewent my usual 'telephone repairman' role
at the office.

Then, I was sitting at the desk where this particular phone sat, jotting
down some notes.  I noticed a particularly noxious odor, and followed it
to the phone in question.  Strange, I said to myself.  About to turn the
phone over to take the cover off (this is a perfectly standard touch-tone
desk telephone), I pulled on the cord to get some slack.  It was hot.  Very
hot.  I pulled the clip/plug out of the phone, and the two middle wires
were glowing orange, the tiny plastic divider tooth between them was black
and melted, and the whole thing smelled horribly.  As I watched, the plug
defiantly sent a little spark flying towards me.  Needless to say, I unplugged
the other end from the wall.

Now, I have accidentally shorted phone lines across my body, even through
my face when I didn't have wire clippers and was stripping a live wire
with my teeth.  It tingled, but certainly didn't hurt.

Is there enough power in a phone line to melt plastic and make wires glow?
This struck me as extremely odd.  I plugged in another phone and cord and
they worked perfectly, so I don't think something else was shorted across
the phone line.  Why did this happen?  If it happens again, what if a fire
starts?  Could it be cheap phones/cords?

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

Subject: Re: Cellular Service.
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 11:11:19 PST
From: the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow <[e-mail]>

In reply to John Higdon's message of 10 Mar 89 on Cellular Service in LA:

Pac*Tel Cellular's charging for non-completed calls finds its way directly
to the bottem line.  Pac*Tel's cellular operation made $16 million in
profit in 1988.  Count your blessings they do not sick you with a
multi-dollar a day roaming fee, yet.  The vast majority of cellular
carriers today are really gouging roamers with multi-dollar-a-day roaming
fee's.  Both Cellular One (majority owned by Pac*Tel) and GTE Mobilnet here
in the Bay area do.  Perhaps the Cellular Industry is trying to position
for a lead spot the Telecom Popularity contest, currently held by the AOS
industry.

I can't believe that Pac*Tel makes sure most calls bomb as you have claimed,
but rather they are suffering from acute success disaster symptoms.  Even
at the high rates they charge, they cannot expand the system fast enough.
Pac*Tel is currently in the process of ripping out all the original AT&T
AutoPlex gear (ESS 1A based -- nice klunks on hand-off) and replacing it
with Motorola RF and a Digital Switch based MTSO.

Cellular is just to popular in spread-out Southern California.  While I
owned a cellular phone, i made it a practice not to patronize systems that
charged for non-completed calls or gouged with daily romaing fee's.  The
best way to vote is with your wallet.  In fact, several colleagues i know
leave their portable phones at home when traveling/romaing these days.

When you look at a multi-dollar a day roaming fee + 50c-85c per minute
air-time + long distance (sometimes 0+ or 950-xxxx, both with their own
roaming stipends tacked on), a two or three minute call home becomes a
$6-$7 affair.  No thanks, think i'll find a pay phone.  If you're still
using you cellular phone at these prices, clearly they aren't charging
enough, yet.  I have watched various markets gradually increase their
roaming rates over the years, while not touching local rates.
Philladelphia A-Carrier (non-wireline) for example, used to be $.45/peak,
$.27/non-peak in the early days with no daily gratuity.  Now they are
$3/day and $.85/min peak-AND-non-peak.  You pay the $3 daily fee whether
your call completed or not.  If you are driving up to NY from Washington DC
and place a call on each system you pass through that'll be a $6-$7 charge
per system for that one call.  Some systems, like Cellular One here in the
Bay Area, won't let you recieve calls as a roamer unless you place one each
day, therefore incuring their $2/day roaming fee (so thought you would
bring your portable along and just use it to recieve important calls).

Be very careful before you press the s(p)end button and where you use your
cellular phone.

Geoff Goodfellow
IMTS Mobile Telephone User

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

From: Steven Gutfreund <bunny![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some notes on the UK phone system
Date: 20 Mar 89 16:28:54 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ole J.
Jacobsen) writes:
> My most favorite aspect of the Britsih phone system is the PhoneCard.

I'm not so sure that PhoneCards are such a great idea. The Japanese took
this idea and applied it to their entire service sector. Now you have
cards for groceries, restaurants, beauty parlors, etc. In effect you go
from a "type-less" form of money to a stongly typed form of money. I like
my money to be typeless, it allows me to switch retailers and does not force
me to pre-pay.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yechezkal Shimon (Steven) Gutfreund                    [e-mail]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA                              [e-mail]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 07:03:19 PST
From: "Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID (questions answered)

With regard to the capabilities of ISDN-provided CLID, here are what I
think are answers to John Nagle's questions.

>1.    What happens when a call is originated from a PBX extension?  Is
>      the number displayed just the identity of the outgoing PBX trunk?
        In many cases, PBX trunks today all give ANI for the listen DN
        of the PBX, not themselves.
>Even assuming a PBX wants to cooperate and pass internal extension numbers
>      outward, is there a defined interface for this?
        Yes.  There is provision for caller-provided ID, so that the PBX
        feeds the extension number into the public network.  The public
        network may or may not screen this to see that it's a number
        belonging to that PBX.  I think unscreened numbers are duly
        noted as such, though.  (I don't recall.)

>What happens when the
>      outgoing trunk has is outgoing only and has no telephone number, which
>      is not that unusual?
        No matter; some number is ANI'd.  Typically the LDN but
        sometimes a different number.

>2.    What about inter-LATA calls?  Which vendors pass the caller ID through,
>      or plan to?  Will the FCC mandate that caller ID be passed across
>      long distance carriers?
        I doubt the FCC will mandate anything, but since AT&T already
        provides ANI and the others will have the capability, I'd expect
        it to be common among the facility-based carriers.

>3.    What about international calls?
        Eventually.  Maybe, depending on country.  No inherent reason
        why it's not possible, but regulatory concerns may exist.

>4.    Can the receiver distinguish "caller ID suppressed" from "caller ID
>      not known"?
        I _think_ that's possible, but I'm not sure.  For example, if it
        is suppressed, there might be a notice in place of the number.

>5.    Is someone working on a modem that understands caller ID signals?
        I don't know about the current analog form, but in the ISDN
        world, it'll be the norm, since it's just another information
        element in the protocol (DSS1).

                 fred
[disclaimer:  I speak for me.  Sharing requires doctor's note.]

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

Subject: More CPID
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 22:10:23 EST
From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Lesher,Guest)
Organization: guest of Columbia Union College; Takoma Park, MD 20912


I do agree it looks like a quandry with the CPID issue. But I have a few
thoughts...

1) Count on the BOCs soaking everybody involved for this {dis}service. They
have been looking ever since 84 for anything and everything they can charge
extra for. Have you priced a leased line recently?

2) With the US Post Office, you can have a private mail receipt address,
UNLESS you solicit $$$$ from John Q. Public. Then, John Q can demand the
street address of your boiler room. Why not require business class service to
have ANI? Then I least I can trace that damm auto announce machine that
called up all 30 trunks at work one night, one after another.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 11:08 EST
From: rec@elf115
Subject: Re: Calling Party ID

  The pro's and con's on this issue are both arguing for privacy,
one for the privacy of the callee, and one for the privacy of the
caller.  Telephone subscribers should be able to identify their
callers before answering or even permitting a ring, and telephone
subscribers should be able to identify themselves to the people they
call if the callees require identification, but no one should be
forced to identify his/herself against her/his will.

  The proposed CPID service does not identify the caller, it only
provides the telephone number that originates the call.  Telephone
numbers are not secure identifications - they can be shared, stolen,
borrowed, or wrong numbers altogether.  The CPID service proposes
to sell what little information the phone company already has as if
it answered the need for validating identities over the phone.

  The very name "calling party identification" is fraudulent:  as
any student of detective movies knows, once you trace the call you
have to send some cops down there to try to catch the caller.  The
phone number by itself cannot identify anyone.

-- Roger E. Critchlow, Jr. -- nyit!elf115![e-mail] --


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

From: ulysses![e-mail]
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 10:05:51 EST
Subject: Disabled keypads

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that some pay phones disabled
the keypad as a side-effect.  The intent was a polarity reversal
on the line, as I recall; that in turn will have the effect of disabling
the keypad on older phones.  I don't think there's any attempt to keep
you from further dialing (the COCOTs being a notable exception, of course).

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <ucla-an!denwa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay phones that disable the keypad
Date: 21 Mar 89 16:55:40 GMT
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Frank
Prindle) writes:
> Naturally, you-guessed-it, the 800 call
> went through, then the keypad went dead.  The call could not be placed.

My business partner has just reported that this behavior is standard
practice on AT&T-operated COCOTS.  When he called to complain, they
explained that this was to prevent him from using other carriers.

Well, isn't that nice.  And so thanks to AT&T, he was unable to check
his voice mail or make any other calls that require the caller to enter
tones.
--
                              Jim Gottlieb
  E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
         V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

[Moderator's Note: AT&T's voice-mail version of AT&T Mail has noted this
problem in the instruction manual, and advises placing calls through the
operator -- even though it's an 800 number -- when calling their service. PT]

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

From: Peter Desnoyers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Calling party ID
Date: 21 Mar 89 17:21:28 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
>B. Nagle) writes:
>>
>> ...   What about international calls?

Well, you can assume that no matter what happens, you're not going to
get calling party id from a German phone unless both the calling party
and the Bundepost agree that they don't mind telling you. They take
their privacy quite seriously.

                                Peter Desnoyers

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


Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 11:14:04 PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: VoiceMail Liberation

John Murray <[e-mail]> writes:

>Too many of us already assume that everyone who calls us is using a
>tone phone (and speaks English), so we make them use voicemail systems
>for our convenience. We screen callers with machines which pretend
>we're not at home, and talk about extra super-secret codes which our
>friends have to enter to get through to us. An answering machine can
>cause a foreign caller to be automatically charged for a 3-minute call
>(perhaps $10 or more) from some locations.

Gee John, thanks for raising my consciousness!!.  Here I had foolishly
and selfishly programmed my voicemail "for my own convenience".
I have taken immediate action to reprogram my greeting in Urdu, Persian
and Lithuanian.  Since I am unable to handle all the world's languages,
I will choose three "politically correct" languages every week from
now on.
-------

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

From: Rahul Dhesi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some notes on the UK phone system
Date: 21 Mar 89 17:13:54 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ole J.
Jacobsen) writes:
>My most favorite aspect of the Britsih phone system is the PhoneCard.

This seems to be of dubious value.  What is the difference between
buying a phone card from a grocery store and then using it in a
telephone, as opposed to just putting the money into the telephone
directly?  This just seems to add an extra step.

The only advantage I see is that you can user paper money to buy the
phone card, while telephones will only take coins.  A little advance
preparedness eliminates this advantage too, and you don't have to hunt
for a place to buy the phone card before you use the telephone.
--
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
                    ARPA:  [e-mail]

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

From: "John B. Nagle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Melts; Almost Started Fire!
Date: 21 Mar 89 17:42:05 GMT
Reply-To: "John B. Nagle" <glacier![e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University

      NO WAY can you make wires glow red with any power level normally
applied to a phone line; not even with ringing power is there enough
energy to make that happen.  Somehow, power line voltage is getting into
your phone wiring.  This is serious and needs to be tracked down. It
may be necessary to examine all relevant punch blocks with a voltmeter.
If you have wiring maintenance from your telco, have them do it; if not,
it's probably better to have a licenced electrician with telephone
expertise do it.  You have a major fire and electric shock hazard.

                                        John Nagle

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

From: julian macassey <ucla-an!denwa!bongo![e-mail]>
Reply-To: ucla-an!bongo![e-mail]
Subject: European phones, itemised bills.
Date: 21 Mar 89 11:55:03 PST (Tue)

Re just say no to caller ID.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Gast)
writes:
>
> 9) Finally, I will note that in Europe and Japan where memories of
>    fascism are much stronger, phone numbers are not even saved for
>    outgoing calls.  There is just a clicker that increments based on
>    the distance and the time of day.  At the end of the month, they
>    send a bill based on the number of clicks.

         Fascism alas has little to do with it. Ancient technology is the
problem.  Euro-phones are some decades behind the US, that is why they have
ancient pulse counters in the CO to figure the bills. And boy is it hard to
dispute the bills. But the good news is that British Telecom is introducing
itemised billing and Touch-Tone is now available there - if you ask for it.
The Hull telephone company (a small private telco in the UK does have
itemised billing)

Yours

--
Julian Macassey, n6are  julian@bongo    ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
n6are@wb6ymh (Packet Radio)  n6are.ampr [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

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

From: Daniel Senie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Plans To Avert Outage
Date: 20 Mar 89 18:26:49 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA



It's good to hear that Illinois Bell is setting up alternate routing and such,
they still seem to not want to spend the money on sprinklers and Halon... Have
they changed their position on this?

--
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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #102
*****************************

========================================================================
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
        id AA29003; Thu, 23 Mar 89 00:26:44 PST
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
        id AA29003; Thu, 23 Mar 89 00:26:44 PST
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
        for covert::telecom_request; id AA29003; Thu, 23 Mar 89 00:26:44 PST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10527;
          22 Mar 89 23:56 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10515;
          22 Mar 89 23:51 CST
[To]:     [e-mail]
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
From: COVERT "John R. Covert  23-Mar-1989 0726"  23-MAR-1989 07:37:47
To:   @TELECOM
Subject: Telecom  Volume 9 : Issue 103

DEC-ADMINISTRIVIA

This is the DEC Redistribution of Telecom Digest.

Requests for additions, deletions, and changes should be sent
to COVERT::TELECOM_REQUEST.

Responses to the digest should be sent directly through the gateway
to DECWRL::"[e-mail]".  You should read the file
DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC for more information about the gateway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 Mar 89 00:05:33 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 103

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Just Say No To Caller I.D. (John Higdon)
    Calling Party ID of dubious value? (David E. Bernholdt)
    Re: Calling Party ID Suspension (Roy A. Crabtree)
    Re: Calling Party ID (Gary Delong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Just Say No To Caller I.D.
Date: 19 Mar 89 06:51:56 GMT
Organization: ATI Wares Team


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Gast)
writes:

> 1) It is illegal in most states to trace a call except under court order.

Not true in California. The local telco can trace upon the assent of
the subscriber who is being called.

> 2) Certain organizations offer anonymous help or trouble phone numbers.
>    If they used Caller ID, would it not be fraud to say that all calls are
>    anonymous?  Even if they do not use Caller ID, will people stop calling
>    them because they fear that their lines would be traced?

Calls can now easily be traced. If it got out that help organization
were indeed using Caller ID, they would lose their callers; hence it
would be to their advantage to not use it. BTW, all 911 calls show the
caller ID anyway.

> 3) The case has already been made about a battered wife who is trying to
>    call her children from a shelter.  Other examples like this exist.

If the husband had an IQ of more than 50, he would assume that his wife
went to a shelter. Besides, is he going to bust in to do harm to her?
Isn't that what shelters are for, to prevent that sort of thing?

> 4) Should a person have the right to call an airline and request fares,
>    for example, without disclosing his telephone number?  Risks
[a bunch of hypothetical stuff about businesses keeping a database to
get back at YOU, deleted]

If a business can save money and streamline its operation by more
expeditiously handling different types of customers, more power to
them.

> 6) If users have to identify themselves when calling, should return
>    addresses be required on all mail so that the receiving person can
>    determine who the mail is from before opening it?

Frankly, it makes good sense to put return addresses on mail.
Furthermore, any envelope in my mailbox without a return address on it
is considered junk mail and is dicarded unopened. Besides, it's a
little easier to determine the origin of a piece of mail, even sans
return address than to assess the origin of a ringing telephone.

> 7) Any user who wants Caller ID can have it by installing an answering
>    machine.
[Low-tech work-around--too silly to comment upon]

> 8) There are risks associated with Caller ID as well.  What happens if
>    you do not answer a call because you do not recognize the phone
>    number and it turns out that that call was an emergency call?

Then you miss the call. Would you like twenty other reasons why you
might miss an emergency call? Starting with phone unplugged 'cause it
was driving you crazy....

> 9) Finally, I will note that in Europe and Japan where memories of
>    fascism are much stronger, phone numbers are not even saved for
>    outgoing calls.  There is just a clicker that increments based on
>    the distance and the time of day.  At the end of the month, they
>    send a bill based on the number of clicks.

And at the end of the month in Japan, they just deduct the amount from
your bank account. It's a great little system. You have no idea why
your bill is so high (when you even find out what it was), the phone
company makes, nor can they make, any explanations, and you simply pay
without question or lose your phone. It has nothing to do with memories
of fascism, it's a matter of technology or lack thereof.

> In addition to these legal and ethical questions, there are the economic
> questions.  Who should pay for this service?  Everyone, whether it is
> desired or not, or just the people who use it?

Caller ID is a byproduct of equipment that would have been installed
anyway. The newer signaling standards, along with digital switches (and
adjuncts for older analog switches) will be implemented in an effort to
bring DOWN the cost of telephone service. The equipment used to provide
these services costs a lot less to operate than the old switching
equipment it replaced.

Actually, the cost of providing these enhanced services will be well
below what will be charged to those that want them. It's like custom
calling. Custom calling features are inherent in the current switching
technology used by telcos. Enabling one or a group of features on a
subscriber line costs the telco nothing, but it provides enhanced
service and convenience for the subscriber and extra revenue for the
telco and would theoretically keep the general cost of service lower
than otherwise.

> 1) Allowing Caller ID has required new hardware and software.  Who
>    is going to pay for that?  Will the monthly charges really pay for
>    all of the expense?

See above.

> 2) With Caller ID, there will be more unanswered phone calls.  Who
>    will pay for these?  (We all will with higher prices for completed
>    calls).

Not significant. Unless a call attempt is actually blocking revenue
generating calls due to underdesign of the network, there is no cost to
the telco.

> 3) Businesses will be able to set up codes; a truck driver could call a
[discussion of signal calls, similar to bogus person to person and
collect calls]

It's already being done. If they used Caller ID for this purpose, it
would be cheaper than the present methods of involving the operator

> 4) The peak rate calling period will become much shorter for business
>    customers with branches on the East and West Coast.  If it is cheaper
>    to have the phone call completed in the opposite direction, then the
>    companies' phone system will automatically refuse the call and then
>    call back in the opposite direction.  The business will make 2 calls
>    instead of one, but pay less than before.

No business I know of would go to this much trouble for a typical short
business call. This is really reaching.

> 5) The phone company will argue that consumers can always pay extra and
>    not allow Caller ID or punch extra digits to disable it on a call by
>    call basis.  Why should a consumer have to pay extra or push extra
>    buttons to not get a service he does not want?

Because, for one thing, he would be trying to stop a person from
getting a service that *was* being paid for, namely Caller ID. In this
society it costs a little extra and takes a little more effort to
preserve one's privacy. We may not like it, but the universe doesn't
care.

> Well, there is the Fifth Amendment which guarantees the right against
> self-incrimination.  Perhaps you would prefer living some place that
> guarantees the right to self-incrimination.  Try 1-900-4STALIN for more
> information.

What has the Fifth Amendment got to do with Caller ID? That
constitutional guarantee refers to giving testimony that would tend to
incriminate the person giving it. It has nothing to do with evidence
that may be used against someone who is accused of committing a crime.
If you break in to a store and steal merchandise and happen to leave
your wallet behind, the police have every right to use that as evidence
against you. If you make harrassment calls in violation of state and
federal laws, the appropriate agencies have every right to use any
appropriate technology to track you down. Or perhaps you would
consider any clues left at the scene of the crime
"self-incrimination".

There are actually some minor valid reasons to have certain controls on
Caller ID, but the voice of reason is sometimes hard to hear through
the din of silliness.
--
John Higdon
john@zygot   ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john

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

Date: 22-MAR-1989 03:23:57.97
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cell Rates in New England


In Connecticut, we have Metro Mobile as well, and they do not
bizfor busys, no-answers, or calls which were terminated before
completion.

The same goes for the Wireline Carrier (Southern New England Tel),
as well as for New England Tel in Rhode Island and Mass, and the
non-wireline in Boston (Cellular One?)

Metro One (non-wireline) in New York and Northern Jersey doesn't
charge for incompletes, and neither does New York Tel/New Jersey
Bell's "NYNEX-Bell Atlantic Partnership Service".

(Since I am a non-wireline, I'm sure about Metro Mobile and
 Metro One, and the info about NYNEX/Jersey Bell/SNET was
 what I was told in Dec, although that COULD have changed.)

All this talk about rates makes me interested in what sort
of service people get. With Metro Mobile, I get coverage from
New Bedford, Mass, down I-95 all the way to Greenwhich, CT
(about 150 miles) and from Springfield/Pittsfield, Mass down
to the Connecituct Shore. (110 miles?) Metro Mobile is also
"DMXed" with Metro One in New York, so callers can reach me
while I am in New York, WITHOUT a Roam port, simply by
dialing my CT number. So effectively, my coverage is from
Central New Jersey to just south of Boston, which to me is
pretty impressive! One added bonus of the DMX agreement is
that my Call-Forwarding works in the New York/New Jersey area
also, which is very useful.

(Metro One in New York and New Jersey advertises that a customer
 of their system can make an UNINTERRUPTED call from Wilmington, DE,
 to Hartford, CT (and probably Springfield, Mass)! That's one thing
 I'd like to have that Metro Mobile doesn't, as I keep getting cut
 off at the New York-Connecticut border.)

Finally, I've heard from some of the staff and Metro Mobile that
they are trying for a DMX agreement with Cell One (?) in Boston.
Anyone hear about this? It would really be great if this took place!
One number and no Roam ports from New Jersey to Maine!

Happy motoring!

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]



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

From: Syd Weinstein <harvard!pacbell.pacbell.com!dsinc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Residential Hunting
Date: 22 Mar 89 01:51:39 GMT
Reply-To: Syd Weinstein <harvard!pacbell.pacbell.com!dsinc![e-mail]>
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc., Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Clive Dawson)
writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest:
>Does anybody have an experience with hunting tariffs in other parts
>of the country which would help in this battle?

I have had hunting, both on residence and business in several parts
of the country.  Bell of PA doesn't charge a recurring charge
for hunting for residence or business.  Note, hunting is only
available in older exchanges if you have adjacent numbers, or on
modern exchanges anywhere in the exchange.  I have never been
charged anywhere for hunting, other than a one time setup charge.
--
=====================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP                   Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                          Voice: [phone]
{allegra,bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd                 FAX:   [phone]

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

From: the  root <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dimwit
Date: 22 Mar 89 03:58:14 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Computer Science Department, Colorado State University


A local resident named Pat Kelly was receiving harassing phone calls.
The caller didn't know that his intended victim had an unlisted number
and that the Pat Kelly he was calling was a Lt. in the city's Police Dept.
The caller was being held in the County Jail on other charges at the time.
Needless to say he was caught. That's a dimwit.


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

Subject: Re: Cellular service
Date: 21 Mar 89 21:53:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brian Cuthie)
Organization: CBW, Columbia, MD 21046


In article <[e-mail]> decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john
@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) writes:

>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 85, message 3 of 7
>With all of the hoopla that PacTel Cellular is generating over its
>installation of its "new digital equipment", some questions must be
>...
>PacTel Cellular may be the only cellular operator in the country that
>charges the moment you hit the s(p)end button, whether the call is
>answered or not. This means you are charged for busys, no answers,

>...
>Are there any other systems in the country that are this slimy?
>John Higdon

Actually, I was pretty sure that the Cellular One Service in the
Baltimore/Washington are (my home area) was the only system that *did not*
charge from the second you pressed the send key.  Since the system here was
the Motorola test and development system (and the first non-wireline system
ever) I was sure they were the only ones lucky enough to get answer
supervision.

As it is, the BAMS (Bell Atlantic Mobil Systems) service is just as you
described in this area.  That is, you get charged for everytime you hit
send.

One interesting note, Cell One charges $0.10 per call as a "Land line access
charge" whereas BAMS does not.  Cell One claims thay are only passing this
charge along from the phone company (Bell Atlantic).  BAMS says they just
don't charge it because they *are* the phone company.  Sounds a little
fishy to me...


-brian

--
Brian D. Cuthie                                 uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian
Columbia, MD                                    [e-mail]


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

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 17:53:41 est
From: Blonder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yet another opinion on how to handle ANI
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Blonder)

Regarding the brouhaha over the privacy issuse of ANI: I suggest that,
rather than displaying the caller's phone number, the system display a
caller-selectable id. Perhaps the encoding scheme and display units
could be expanded to include alphabetic text, and these ids would be
used the same way as .signature files are.

That way the caller could include whatever information they consider
relevant, wherether it be their phone number, P.O. Box number, or shoe
size, complete with a snappy quote. Most likely you would want to have
a half-dozen or so to select from, with varying amounts of information,
depending on who you were calling. (If you like to order merchandise
from 800-numbers in late-night TV ads, you might be insane enough to
include your credit card number.) When you call the local Pizza-by-phone
joint, you might want to give your street address, but not your phone
number. You could display your business number when calling from home,
and vice-versa.

The exact content of the messages would be up to the discretion of the
person in whose name the phone is listed, with the only restriction
being that the local phone comany wouldn't permit a message that is
criminally fraudulent.

Regarding the argument: "Suppose I miss an emergency call because it
came from a 'strange' phone: Currently, if you are willing to declare
an emergency you can have an operator cut in on a call-in-progress;
why couldn't an operator put a call through with some appropriate
status ("911"?) as the originating code, if the caller is willing
to declare an emergency, and with the usual penalties for abusing
this service?
-----
                                        Fred Blonder <[e-mail]>
                                        David Taylor Research Center
                                        [phone]

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


Date: 22-MAR-1989 03:14:14.94
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Name-Place / Rate & Route


A few Telecoms back (sorry, I deleted it so I have no ref. #),
P. Townson (the moderator), mentioned that in order to get the name
of the place where an exchange is located, the AT&T operator had to
dial 815+181 (?) to get an operator who could provide the info.

Not that I'm disputing this, (as they frequently do this), yet
increasingly I find that when I ask for a "Name-Place" they don't
seem to connect me with Rate & Route anymore, rather, they type the
area code and exachange directly into their console, and in a few
seconds get a name. They don't go off-line (I can hear them typing),
and they don't talk to any Rate & Route operator.

Not all operators do this - at times, they call Rate&Route, at
other times, they seem to just type it in. Moreover,in some areas, like
Connecticut, they seem to always have to call Rate & Route, while in
other areas, like New England Tel or New York Tel territory, they seem
to be able to get the place-name directly.

Is this some new feature that operators have at their disposal, or
are they contacting a Rate & Route operator and I just don't hear it?

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT

P.S. If +181 is the number for R&R, then what is +141? I know +121 is for
     and "inward" op, but I was under the impression that 141 was R&R...
     Is +141 Directory Ast? If so, what is "Universal Rate & Route", which
     I was told is 800+141+1212?  (I thought +181 was the number for a
     Toll-Station, which is what I used to call the Bishop Toll, at
     619+058+181, for ring-downs and the like...)


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

From: "Anthony E. Siegman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Selling an Interesting Telephone Number?
Date: 23 Mar 89 02:10:22 GMT
Reply-To: "Anthony E. Siegman" <sierra![e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University


My residential phone number (415 area code) happens to spell a
quite commercially interesting word.  During the 15-plus years I've
had this number I've had a couple of inquiries from businesses wanting
to take it over, paying me something for giving it up.  A recent one
seems serious.

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


[Moderator's note: And that is all I received. An attempt to send mail
to the author also bounced. The rest of the mesage never did arrive.
Perhaos the author will see this reference and mail me a complete message
once again. The messate was badly mangled  when it got here to Chicago.
PT]
------------------------------

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Octothorpe - the subject which wouldn't die
Date: 22 Mar 89 00:21:14 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor


Going back to a subject we are all sick of...  Happened to be thumbing
through "Notes on the Network" when I stumbled across the following:

    [...] it is becoming important that the proper terminology be known
    and used when referring to them.  The "#" and "*" should be called
    number sign and star, respectively.  Use of the term asterisk for "*"
    and pound sign for "#" should not be used in documentation dealing
    with dialing procedures.  The terms number sign and star have been
    agreed upon as international terminology.  The term square for the
    "#" is also recognized internationally.

So I guess the term "octothorpe" is only suitable for use in Trivial
Pursuit questions.

By the way...this book is a really good reference.  The latest version,
which unfortunately I do not have, is called "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA
Network - 1986".  It's available from Bellcore as document TR-NPL-000275
for $150.00 (based on the 1988 Bellcore catalog).
--
Chip Rosenthal     [e-mail]    | -------- watch this space --------
Dallas Semiconductor   214-450-5337    | - real domain address coming soon -

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

From: julian macassey <ucla-an!denwa!bongo![e-mail]>
Reply-To: ucla-an!bongo![e-mail]
Subject: Urban Legend
Date: 21 Mar 89 12:02:47 PST (Tue)

In article <[e-mail]>, GUYDOSRM%SNYPLABA.BITNET@CORNELLC.
CIT.CORNELL.EDU writes:
> Can this possibly be true?  (I don't know its source.)
>
> ******************************************************
>

>
> This story was related by Pat Routledge of Winnepeg, ONT about an unusual
> telephone service call he handled while living in England.

(There follows the usual story, deleted here for brevity, of how dog is
chained up, gets electric shock from phone ringing, urinates, sends ground
to the phone line, etc....)

This tale is waht is known today as "Urban Legend", such stories used to
be called "Old Wives Tales". I have heard this story from telco people all
over the world.

Also it must be some years since grounded ringing was used in the UK and
USA. But then this is an old story that has been around probably longer than
I have.

Can we finally lay it to rest with the microwaved poodle story?

Yours

--
Julian Macassey, n6are  julian@bongo    ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
n6are@wb6ymh (Packet Radio)  n6are.ampr [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

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

Date: 22-MAR-1989 03:15:28.05
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Operator Assist Calling Card Calls

Hello!

A few days ago, I was making a calling card call from a rotary (Bell)
payphone, and when I asked the operator for the lower rate since I
couldn't Touch-Tone the calling card number in myself, she said she
allready knew and was billing me at the lower rate.

This makes me wonder: How do the operators (Bell and AT&T) know that
it's a rotary phone? Does the equipment detect a rotary call and
signal the operator? Or is there just a large database of payphones
that tell the operator that it's a rotary?

The reason I'm asking is that at a Touch-Tone phone they seem to
know that I can dial it in myself, and ask me if there is any
problem as they will have to charge me the higher rate if there isn't
a problem.

Thanks,

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

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

========================================================================
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
        id AA29975; Thu, 23 Mar 89 00:54:45 PST
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
        id AA29975; Thu, 23 Mar 89 00:54:45 PST
Received: from eecs.nwu.edu by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
        for covert::telecom_request; id AA29975; Thu, 23 Mar 89 00:54:45 PST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13934; 23 Mar 89 2:37 CST
Received: from mailinglists by gamma.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13929; 23 Mar 89 2:34 CST
[To]:     [e-mail]
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
rs I've
had this number I've had a couple of inquiries from businesses wanting
to take it over, paying

Downloaded From P-80 Systems 304-744-2253