TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Jan 94 00:54:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 6 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Index For 1993 Now Complete (TELECOM Digest Editor) Brendan Kehoe Seriously Hurt in Car Accident (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones (John McDermott) Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones (Curtis Bohl) Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones (John R. Levine) Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones (Steve Wood) Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones (John C. Fowler) Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Kelly Bert Manning) Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Carl B. Page) Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous (Jack Decker) Re: Caller ID in Pennsylvania (Greg Vaeth) Re: Caller ID in Pennsylvania (Lynne Gregg) Re: Use a 9600 Baud US Modem in UK? (Linc Madison) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers. To reach us: Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email: ptownson@townson.com. ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. TELECOM Digest is gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 22:30:33 -0600 From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Index For 1993 Now Complete The 1992-93 Index of Authors and Subjects for TELECOM Digest, Volumes 12 and 13 has now been updated to include all messages through the end of last year. It is housed in the Telecom Archives sub-directory called 'indices' with a cross-reference located in 'back.issues'. This is the companion volume to the 1989-91 index which lists all the authors and subjects for volumes 9, 10 and 11. Look for them in the indices sub-directory under the title 'authors-subjects.1989-91' and 'authors-subjects.1992-93'. Should you wish to capture these files and print them out as hard copy for future reference, you should note that the first volume is 24,939 lines, or about 380-390 pages in length, and the second volume is 19,760 lines, or about 300-310 pages in length. The index is split into two volumes for ease in handling in case you want one part but not the other, etc. Users of anonymous FTP can take either or both volumes. Users of the Email Information Service will find that the command SEARCH checks both volumes in the process of returning reference results. Should you obtain a copy of the file(s) for yourself, please note that the following characteristics apply: The left column of numbers indicates the volume and *bundle of fifty issues* to be pulled for the desired topic. For example, if the reference given is 13/101-150, that means go to the back issues area and pull volume 13, issues 101-150. 09/501-550 would refer to volume 9, issues 501-550 and so on. The subjects are then filed in strict alphabetical order, with instances of 'Re:' ignored where they appear. Where two or more articles have an identical title (because there was an original article followed by one or more 'Re: Article Title' responses (and since 'Re:' is ignored, therefore the articles would appear to be identical), the sort further continues by author name, again in alphabetical order *by the first name* of the author. For example, an article by John Smith would be listed ahead of an article with the identical title by Paul Brown, because /J/ comes before /P/. You can also search the indexes (or indices as they are known to the email server to avoid conflict with the information file 'index') using the Unix command 'grep -i'. Due to some irregularities in the way articles were named and author's names included. I suggest a liberal interpretation of grep when searching the indexes. If your search criteria is too narrow, you won't get any hits. If your search criteria is too wide, you will get flooded with article titles you do not want. Experiment for the best combination. Technically, these are accelerated indexes because they do not point to the actual article in question but merely *to other groups of indexes and batches of issues* wherein the article(s) will be found. If something you wanted was found in 13/150-200 for example, you would then get the batch of back issues labled Volume 13 Issues 150-200 and check the Index contained at the start of each issue of the Digest to see if your article(s) were found there. Or of course you could then 'grep -i' the batch of fifty issues if you prefer. One final note: within the two volume index itself resides a limited help file with a few details to help with your searches. You can read this help file by grepping (-i) "HELP-". The first fifty or sixty lines of text in each file is the 'help' part. Each line in the help section begins with "HELP-". Whatever you grep for in these indexes is what you will get, so you can search article titles, key phrases which appeared in several article titles, author names, or by volume and batch-of-issues number if you wish. It is up to date through issue 844, the final issue of 1993. This was quite a labor of love, and I am still checking it for errors in my spare time, but it is pretty well cleaned up and quite reliable for use as it appears now. Good luck in your searches, and I hope you find the indexes easy and convenient to use. If you need a help file for use with the Email Information Service, just ask. Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Editor ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 23:00:52 -0600 From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Brendan Kehoe Seriously Hurt in Car Accident Word has reached me that well known net participant Brendan Kehoe was quite seriously injured in an automobile accident in Newton, PA on December 31. Kehoe wrote 'Zen and the Art of the Internet' and he is also the archivist for Computer Underground Digest. Apparently the injuries were quite serious, and there was some question in the very early period afterward if he would even survive or not. I guess the doctors are still unwilling to make any commitment regards his recovery other than to say he will be hospitalized for a long time and perhaps permanently disabled. Some parts of his body were badly mangled. Greeting cards and electronic mail messages are being solicited and I refer you to the current issue of Computer Underground Digest for a full report on the incident and how to respond with your notes of sympathy and support. What an awful way to end one year and begin another. My best wishes for Brendan's recovery and eventual return to the net. I imagine all telecom readers agree with my sentiments. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: mcdermot@cs.unm.edu (John McDermott) Subject: Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones Organization: Computer Science Department, University of New Mexico Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 15:55:49 GMT In article John C. Fowler <0003513813@ mcimail.com> writes: > I wonder what kinds of people will be using "caller-pays" cellular > service. We've had caller-pays cellular in NM for some time. Those I know who have it have their phones primarily for "emergency" use or to call to/from home. Most of these users have a billing plan with little or no prepaid time. This makes the call more expensive, but quite useful for someone stranded in a dead car at night. John McDermott 505/897-2064 H/W mcdermot@cs.unm.edu [ UNM only lets me use this account because they are nice. I have no relationship with them whatsoever (besides being friends).] ------------------------------ From: EXTMO4H@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Missouri 4-H Youth Development Programs) Subject: Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones Organization: University of Missouri Date: Tue, 04 Jan 94 10:07:51 CST In Sedalia, MO, calls to local cellular numbers are always toll calls, to both the A and B cellular carrier, even though both have locally- based offices. What I was told is that SWB wanted to take their cut of the cellular market. (BTW, SWB Mobile does not have the wireline carrier.) In the city where I work, calls to both cellular systems here are local calls. Curtis Bohl Computer Programmer/Analyst extmo4h@mizzou1.missouri.edu 4-H Youth Development Alternate: bohlc@ext.missouri.edu Programs (314) 882-2034 University of Missouri-Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 11:26 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass. > [in Colorado] > If the cellular phone you are calling begins with 1 + 579, you will be > billed for the cellular airtime charges and also any long distance > charges associated with the call when applicable. > If there are any questions about cellular airtime charges that appear > on your bill, to the above prefix, please call the Customer Inquiry > Center at 1-800-USW-BILL. Could someone in Colorado call US West and inquire whether these 579 numbers will be reachable from outside of Colorado? Long-distance carriers are absolutely unwilling to bill surcharges for other than 900 numbers, so the two likely scenarios are either that IXCs don't get surcharged, so out of state callers can call at normal toll rates, or 579 is only reachable from inside the LATA. (In the first case, if you can divert your call to an IXC, a Colorado caller can avoid the surcharge, too.) Either way, sounds pretty brain damaged. I have seen both of these scenarios in different places. Surcharged numbers like 212-540, 617-550, and -976 aren't available from long distance. On the other hand, the number in Chicago which gives reverse D.A. is surcharged if you call it locally but a normal call from elsewhere. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: Steve Wood Subject: Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones Date: Tue, 04 Jan 94 10:00:00 PST > I wonder what kinds of people will be using "caller-pays" cellular > service. I would definitely have used this in my consulting business if it had been available. It makes it palatable to freely publish your mobile phone number and not have to worry about paying for a lot of calls you don't want. My business clients would have no problem paying for the airtime. I can also imagine that this would make a lot of sense for many other service businesses, like PR agencies and law firms. They typically bill their clients for the airtime charges anyway, many times with a markup. Steve Wood steve.wood@mccaw.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 12:51 EST From: John C. Fowler <0003513813@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones I've gotten copies of a couple of messages asking whether or not the new 579 prefix (a cellular prefix in Colorado which charges the caller for airtime) could be dialed from outside Colorado. I checked with the number on the U.S. West insert, and the first operator who came on immediately answered "Yes." This seemed a bit suspicious to me (I'm not used to the first person who answers the telephone actually knowing something), so I decided to call AT&T to verify. I went through four operators there, but the best answer I could get was "Probably Yes." So I guess all those COCOT owners out there reading the Digest (yes, both of you) should program their phones not to accept 303-579 or 719-579 for coin calls. Just remember that 579 is a regular prefix most everywhere else. John C. Fowler, 3513813@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Kelly Bert Manning) Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous Reply-To: ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Kelly Bert Manning) Organization: Camosun College, Victoria, B.C. Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 08:35:49 GMT The switch my phone number is on has Caller ID blocked on every line because it can't provide CLASS services. A friend who is on the same exchange says that her mother's Caller ID box always shows "unknown number" when she calls, which is a problem because she can't unblock the blanket caller ID suppression. Sounds like this new "service" could run into similar problems. ------------------------------ From: carlp@teleport.com (Carl B. Page) Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous Date: 4 Jan 1994 10:05:43 GMT Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 Recently, our esteemed moderator wrote this about calling a phone that rejects anonymous callers from a blocked phone: : [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes they do. The person placing the : call need only dial the appropriate 'unblock code' (what is it, : typically *67) before dialing his call and it will go through just : fine. PAT] Lets not give wrong emergency advice! That won't work in Oregon or other places where PERMANENT LINE BLOCKING cannot be turned off. This was deemed a better functionality choice than allowing blocking to be toggled without any feedback about the final state. (So you can block safely even if you don't know whether the phone was already line-blocked.) In such an emergency your only option is to call the operator and ask them to put your call thru. Incidentally, you can also use the operator as a way of making an anonymous call. US WEST actually suggested this before the Oregon PUC when they were hoping they could use it as an argument to justify with-holding per-line blocking. In an area where no blocking is allowed, although telling an operator to dial for you lacks a certain feeling of privacy. (arl carlp@teleport.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400, N81) [Moderator's Note: But placing your call through the operator won't provide ID to the called party! Calls from the operator always show up as 'outside'. Of course people who reject 'private' most likely will accept 'outside' so I guess your call would get through. And in the case of using the operator to bypass the identification given to the police when you call 911, the rule is the operator is supposed to remain on the line until the police answer and then announce the calling number, as in "... this is the operator, I have an emergency call for the police from the number 123-4567 ..." Some operators do that; some don't, but they are supposed to. No such requirement is in effect for routine calls handled by the operator -- only calls where you dial the operator, state that an emergency exists and ask for the police. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ao944@yfn.ysu.edu (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: "Anonymous Call Rejection" - Could be Dangerous Date: 4 Jan 1994 03:55:52 GMT Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net Reply-To: ao944@yfn.ysu.edu (Jack Decker) On Thu Dec 30 11:49:05 1993, jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) wrote: > dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) wrote: >> A new service offered in the NYC area by NY Tel (soon to be called >> Nynex) is called "Anonymous Call Rejection." This tariff allows you >> (at a fee, of course) to take calls coming from caller-id BLOCKed >> numbers and reroutte them to a recording saying something like: >> We're sorry, the person you called does not take calls from anonymous >> callers. If you want to reach this person, please redial from an >> unblocked line ... > Do such services offer a way around the blocking in an emergency, > either by subscriber (911 and other services could call all numbers > without being blocked) or on a per-call basis through the operator? [.....] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes they do. The person placing the > call need only dial the appropriate 'unblock code' (what is it, > typically *67) before dialing his call and it will go through just > fine. PAT] I would point out that relying on this could be dangerous. Just to give you one example: I have a dialer on my line (which I use to convert touch tones to dial pulses, so I don't have to pay GTE $2.00 per month to accept my touch tones directly), and when Caller ID is offered here, it will be a trivial matter for me to program the dialer to prepend 1167 to all outgoing calls (and there are "standalone" units that do the same thing for touch tone lines, that are even less expensive than dialers). Now suppose that you are one of those folks who cops an attitude and says "if you don't call me with your number unblocked, you must be some sort of scum, and I'm not going to talk to you!" Now suppose you are my neighbor, and late one night my wife sees a fire starting in your kitchen window, and I'm not home. She tries to call you to wake you up, but gets the "please redial from an unblocked line" recording, and has no idea how to respond to that (and since I'm not home, I can't even look up the programming to disable the blocking for her, although your house might be pretty well gone by the time I figured it out anyway). Sure, she would probably then call 911 and report the fire, but if you or your family are sleeping upstairs, you might just have appreciated getting that first call. If you think that the fire example is farfetched, just consider that there are other situations where you might want folks to reach you ... anything from someone responding to a classified ad you've placed to someone who has found one of your possessions, or your pet, or one of your kids. When they get your "please redial ..." message, they just might figure "why bother, I don't know what the ---- that message means anyway", and take some other action that would be more detrimental to you or those you care about. The problem with "Anonymous Call Rejection" is that the folks who take it assume that if someone wants to reach them, they will know whether the line they are using is blocked, and if it is, how to unblock it. In the case of a blocked line, that assumption would quite possibly be true only for the person who either ordered the per-line blocking, or installed the device to automatically prepend the "*67" or "1167" blocking code (and don't think such devices won't become more common in the future). Even if we assume that person knows how to bypass the blocking (which is quite an assumption to make), it's not realistic to assume that every potential user of that line knows how to unblock it. It's a calculated risk, of course. If you are plagued by nuisance callers now, you may figure it's worth the risk. But "Anonymous Call Rejection" is not the sort of service I'd advise anyone to order unless they are currently having a genuine problem with nuisance callers, to the point that it's really disrupting their lives (or their sanity). By the way, I always get a chuckle out of the folks who say "if you don't want me to know your number, don't call me!" Believe me, if I knew that someone I was contemplating calling felt that way, there's no way I would call them, just because they sound like the sort of paranoid personality I wouldn't want to deal with. But in at least some cases, it would quite likely be their loss. But I can see that there is no way folks are ever going to agree on this issue! Jack ------------------------------ From: gvaeth@netcom.com (Greg Vaeth at Jerrold Communications) Subject: Re: Caller ID in Pennsylvania Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 17:00:58 GMT Is the Bill mentioned under consideration, or has it passed? Regards, Gregory Vaeth Jerrold Communications internet: gvaeth@netcom.com General Instrument voicenet: (215) 956-6488 2200 Byberry Road faxnet: (215) 675-4059 Hatboro, PA 19040 My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer. ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re Caller ID in Pennsylvania Date: Tue, 04 Jan 94 09:06:00 PST Jeffrey Carpenter's wrote: > Pennsylvania Act 83 of 1993 ... > Caller-ID in Pennsylvania as long as both per-line and per-call > blocking are available. Jeffrey, thanks for the post. My understanding is that although the State's PUC has ruled on Caller ID service, deployment (by local carriers) is being held by a State Supreme Court challenge. As in several other States, the issue is wiretap law violation. The basic issue is privacy. If you're aware of a ruling by the Court, please post again (or to me). Thanks, Lynne Gregg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jan 1994 12:40:57 -0800 From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Use a 9600 Baud US Modem in UK? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) In article you wrote: > I've got a friend who'll soon be moving to the UK (Durham actually). > She's got a Hayes compatible 9600 baud modem that she would like to > take with her and use there. > Can anyone tell me if she can expect it to work with the British phone > system? Is there a special initialization necessary for the modem? > Do they use the same standard phone jacks as used in the US? Yes, a US 9600bps modem will work in the UK, *provided*: (1) You have a power source for the modem that will take 240V/50Hz instead of 110V/60Hz. If you buy a generic adapter, be sure that it will give the correct output voltage AND amperage for the modem, and make sure that it is the correct type -- AC or DC. (My modem uses 14.5V AC, so don't just assume it's DC.) I very much do NOT recommend using a 240/120 "traveller" adapter with the US modem power supply. (2) You have a phone jack adapter. The jacks used in the UK are different both in shape and in wiring. You need to buy in the US one of those adapters that allows you to put a two-line phone on two single-line phone jacks (available from Radio Schlock or AT&T Phone Center Store, etc.). The cable to connect from the jack to the adapter you can buy in Britain probably more easily than in the US. You **may** also be able to buy a cable that does the necessary pin-switching. (Both types of jacks have six slots for wires, the middle four normally in use. The US jack uses the center pair (wires 3 & 4) for 'line 1'; the UK jack uses the outer pair (wires 2 & 5). (Wires 1 & 6 are not used in either.) If you get a "bog-standard" cable, plug the British end into the phone jack and the US end into the "Both" port of your two-line phone adapter. Run a short US phone cable from the "Line 2" port to your modem. (You can perform the same operations with an adapter for running two single-line phones from a single two-line jack, but you'll need a female-female "in-line adapter" as well, since the "Both" port on this adapter is male.) (3) You don't tell anyone connected with British Telecom, OfTel, etc., that you're doing this, because it's technically illegal unless the modem has been certified as meeting the appropriate BS (British Standard -- no, I'm not joking, although the acronym is sometimes apt). If it has been certified, it will have a large green dot somewhere on the hardware (about 1/2" diameter). (4) If your phone line in the UK is pulse, you may want to add into the setup string the code to set the make/break pattern to UK standard instead of US standard. However, in practice, most phone switches are not sensitive enough to tell the difference between 39/61 and 33/67. The command is AT&P1 for UK, AT&P0 for US. Touch-tone is the same in both. Don't even try to use pulse in Scandinavia or New Zealand. (5) If you use the modem to connect to a low-speed European modem (1200 bps or lower), you may need to include ATB0 to use CCITT instead of Bell standards for these speeds. (ATB1 is the default, Bell/U.S. standard) Again, at 2400 and above, you needn't worry about it. (6) I have seen reports that for dialing the US you can use 010-1-83-area.code-number instead of the usual 010-1-AC-number to force a cable rather than satellite circuit. I don't know if this is true; I've never tried it. Linc Madison * Oakland, California * LincMad@Netcom.com (formerly) London, England * {Telecom, Linc}@hedonist.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #6 ****************************