********************* TELECOM DIGEST 890419 ********************* Date: Mon, 27 Mar 89 22:01:25 EST From: Mark Robert Smith 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?) msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu Copyright 1989, Mark Smith. All Rights Reserved. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon 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 Subject: CompuServe adds monthly user fee Date: 27 Mar 89 20:14:50 GMT Reply-To: Bruce Nelson 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: statton@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: How Much Is A Phone Number Worth? In a TELECOM Digets #110, Anthony Siegman (siegman@sierra.stanford.edu), 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 scott@eddie.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: Rahul Dhesi Subject: Perfect solution to caller privacy Date: 24 Mar 89 20:24:52 GMT Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.uucp 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: !{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Apr 89 23:46:00 PST From: Robert Horvitz 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 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 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 dattier@jolnet.orpk.il.us 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 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 Subject: Re: Make/break ratios Date: 8 Apr 89 13:57:08 GMT Reply-To: Patt Haring Organization: City College Of New York In article e118-ak@euler.berkeley.edu (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 patth@ccnysci.BITNET ------------------------------ From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com 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! 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 minow%thundr.dec@decwrl.dec.com ------------------------------ From: "K.BLATTER" 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 , folta@tove.umd.edu (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 Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? Date: 6 Apr 89 17:55:43 GMT Reply-To: Brent 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: steve@dmntor.UUCP (Steve Pozgaj) Organization: Digital Media Networks Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada A. E. Siegman siegman@sierra.stanford.edu 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 Subject: Re: Cellular Phones and Big Brother Date: 6 Apr 89 17:43:56 GMT Reply-To: Brent 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 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: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu 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 Subject: Re: Centrex Date: 7 Apr 89 13:43:07 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil (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 Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network Date: 7 Apr 89 15:32:29 GMT Reply-To: Dave Kucharczyk Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA In article Paul Anderson writes: >In article LANGFORD@crc.crc.vcu.edu writes: >>A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend. She came home and >>played back her answering machine, and got this: >> (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" Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network >In article LANGFORD@crc.crc.vcu.edu writes: >>A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend. She came home and >>played back her answering machine, and got this: >> (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: dmkdmk@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Bitnet: DMKDMK@ECSVAX.BITNET UUCP: dmkdmk@ecsvax.UUCP {rutgers,gatech}!mcnc!ecsvax!dmkdmk "What do you expect? The truth or the story? Take the story, it's always more interesting." ------------------------------ From: dts@cloud9.Stratus.COM Subject: Re: Gremlins in the network Date: 6 Apr 89 23:10:23 GMT Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA In article , stiatl!pda@gatech.edu (Paul Anderson) writes: > In article LANGFORD@crc.crc.vcu.edu writes: > >A friend and I had a strange experience this weekend. She came home and > >played back her answering machine, and got this: > > (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!dts@harvard.harvard.edu 55 Fairbanks Blvd. CSRV: 74176,1347 Marlboro, MA 01752 TEL.: 508 - 460 - 2686 ------------------------------ From: irv@happym.wa.com Subject: Re: Cordless phone that works within 10 miles Date: 10 Apr 89 02:46:59 GMT Reply-To: 0000-Irving Wolfe Organization: SOLID VALUE, the newsletter for Benjamin Graham's intelligent investor (sample on request) In article "t.m.ko" 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 irv@happym.wa.com 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: tami@happym.wa.com) ------------------------------ Subject: Gremlins in the network Date: Fri Apr 7 23:05:43 1989 From: phantom From article , by LANGFORD@crc.crc.vcu.edu: > 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" 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 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 mbw@idis.lis.pittsburgh.edu ============================ 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 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: denbeste@BBN.COM 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: pwt1%ukc.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk 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 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 (ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1) ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: 976 WAKE - up Service in California Date: 10 Apr 89 20:51:24 GMT Organization: ATI Wares Team In article , telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (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 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | 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 Subject: Re: Divestiture was not a mistake Date: 10 Apr 89 20:45:16 GMT Organization: ATI Wares Team In article , 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 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: 10-APR-1989 02:50:42.15 From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" 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 DReuben%Eagle.Weslyn@Wesleyan.Bitnet DReuben@Eagle.Wesleyan.Edu (and just plain old 'DReuben' to locals! :-) ) ------------------------------ From: "Howard J. Postley" 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: hjp@bambam.bedrock.com phone: +1 213 399 7733 snail: 2434 Main St; Santa Monica, CA 90405 ------------------------------ Subject: dialing with switchhook Reply-To: franklin@turing.cs.rpi.edu Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 16:48:56 EDT From: Wm Randolph Franklin 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) 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: LANGFORD@crc.crc.vcu.edu 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 langford@crc.crc.vcu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 01:05:46 HST From: Mike Newton Subject: Local Calling Area For Hawaii Reply-To: kahuna!csvax.caltech.edu!newton@csvax.caltech.edu 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 newton@csvax.caltech.edu Caltech Submillimeter Observatory kahuna!newton@csvax.caltech.edu Post Office Box 4339 Hilo Hawaii 96720 808 935 1909 ------------------------------ Date: Wed Apr 12 14:32:57 1989 From: John Hood Subject: Re: FCC AOS Order Reply-To: jhood@biar.UUCP (John Hood) Organization: Biar Games Inc., Ithaca, NY In article DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu) (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: jhood@biar.uucp (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" Subject: Re: Determining the length of the country code Reply-To: stevem@fai.fai.com (Steven A. Minneman ) Organization: Fujitsu America, Inc. In article bambam!hjp@uunet.uu.net (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 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, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 14:28:38 EDT From: scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman) Subject: Re: How big can a Local Dialing Area be? Reply-To: scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman) Organization: Digital Transmission Systems (a subsidiary of DCA), Duluth, GA In article klb@lzaz.att.com (K.BLATTER) writes: >In article , folta@tove.umd.edu (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 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 tmk@research.att.com but the net didn't like the address] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 11:08:44 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) 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" Date: 13 Apr 89 13:13 Subject: Re: Flash vs. hangup In Telecom Digiest V9I134, Mark Brader 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 Subject: Re: dialing with switchhook Date: 13 Apr 89 18:58:09 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY In article , wrf@mab.ecse.rpi.edu (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 (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) PIES ON HORRIFIED CROWD!" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 89 07:43:10 PDT From: faigin@aerospace.aero.org 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:faigin@aerospace.aero.org (or) Faigin@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Voicemail: 213/336-5454 Box#3149 * "Take what you like, and leave the rest" ------------------------------ From: Gerry Wheeler 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: (519)884-2251 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]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Downloaded From P-80 Systems 304-744-2253