TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Jan 94 08:18:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 31 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Call Waiting/Three-Way Together (Michael Israeli) Re: Call Waiting/Three-Way Together (Mike King) Re: Call Waiting/Three-Way Together (Ron Schnell) Re: NYTel/NYNEX Dusts Off Rotary Payphones (Linc Madison) Re: NYTel/NYNEX Dusts Off Rotary Payphones (B. Z. Lederman) Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones (Danny O'Bedlam) Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones (Richard Cox) Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones (Steve Hutzley) Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors (Kevin Ray) Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors (Thomas Chen) Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones (Mark) Re: 50 Pin Connector Help Wanted (Chris Oxenreider) Re: Voice Mail HW Wanted (David L. Anderson) Re: Possible Internet Service Scam (Tim Gilman) Re: Possible Internet Service Scam (James Taranto) Re: Possible Internet Service Scam (Andrew M. Cohn) Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK? (Drew Dean) 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. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: izzy@access.netaxs.com (Michael Israeli) Subject: Re: Call Waiting/Three Way Together Date: 14 Jan 1994 19:21:33 GMT Organization: Net Access - Philadelphia's Internet Connection > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Try getting an actual three way call installed > between CW and 3WC (because flashing the hook could cause one thing to > hand you a CW at that point in time does your flash mean you want to > accept the new call or connect the other two. Since maybe you do not > want that to happen (the two you dialed to be joined together) telco > has chosen to block CW for that limited period of time. Let us know. PAT] Well, I attempted the following: 1) I originated a call to a friend; 2) I flashed the line, got the three beeps, and a dial tone. I then dialed another friend; 3) After I said "Hello", I flashed the line so we were all connected and started to chat; 4) I picked up LINE 2 in my house, and dialed my number, BUSY! So, I placed another call to Bell of PA. I explained again my situation, receiving a CW tone during a three way call. The agent looked into some book she had, and explained to me that I live in an area with a "5E" switching system, in which CW and 3WC can have NO interaction. Whereas my friend who lives in a different area has a "1A" switching system, where they DO interact! Now, those two numbers I only put down from memory, so I may be wrong. The only thing I have noticed different between my system and his is that when he gets a CW and I am online, I hear a CLICK, and when I get a CW, the person on the phone with me gets one second of silence. Also interesting is that on his system, if he calls me three way, and in the middle of the call he gets a CW, when he switches to that CW line, I can actually keep talking to the other party! It is a pain that my line is busy during 3WC, because I ordered CW for the specific reason of NOT loosing calls! Are there any specific questions I should ask the phone company, or just give up on this one? Michael Israeli izzy@netaxs.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Give up on it then. The generics in your CO are the way they are. Other places work differently. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Re: Call Waiting/Three-Way Together Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 14:22:54 PST In TELECOM Digest, V14 #24, izzy@access.netaxs.com (Michael Israeli) asks: > In my house, I have call waiting and three-way calling installed on [...] > call. Now, the problem is that when I am on a three-way call, my line > becomes busy, allowing no calling to come through. I know other > people in different areas who can be on a a three-way call and still > receive call waiting. What is the reason for this difference? I > called Bell of PA, and they said that it just wasn't available in my > area. Anyone know? and Pat replied that it depends on whether the 3WC is established or is in the third-party consultation phase when the incoming call arrives as to whether or not it will invoke CW. Most switches can be configured to either allow or disallow CW during a 3WC *after* all parties in the 3WC are connected. I once had CW & 3WC from a 1A, and I could get a CW beep during a 3WC. My friends served from the 5E in the next town could not. I doubt that any mere mortals could get Bell of PA to enable it. ;-) Mike mk@tfs.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 13:00:41 EST From: Ron Schnell Subject: Re: Call Waiting/Three-Way Together > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are two types of 'three-way' calls. > If you are in 'consultation' you have pressed the hook, dialed a number > and are talking with a third person while leaving the second person on > hold. Situations like that will result in a new caller getting a busy > signal. If however you have flashed, dialed the third party and gotten > him on the line, then flashed again so that the three of you are talking > then call waiting should become available once again. At that point if > there is a call waiting, flashing will leave your two three way parties > (from your outgoing call) on hold unable to speak to each other while > you take your new incoming call. The reason a busy signal has to be We have been through this before, I thought. Most switches will *not* allow you to get call waiting during the three-way call. Of all of the places where I travel during the year, only one allows the call waiting, and that is in Miami, FL. My friend down the road who is in a different CO cannot use it. I remember someone saying that it is enabled by default on 1ESS, but not 5ESS. This was about a year ago in this group. Ron (ronnie@space.mit.edu) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All I can vouch for is what can be done in some exchanges here. Other places are different. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: NYTel/NYNEX Dusts Off Rotary Payphones Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 00:54:53 GMT Paul R. Coen (PCOEN@DRUNIVAC.DREW.EDU) wrote: > A NYNEX official was shown on the local news (WABC, channel 7) saying > that these phones "couldn't" be used to trigger a pager. Gee, and > DTMF tone generators are so hard to come by. The only thing I can think of that could make that statement true is that it is apparently possible to design the telephone hardware to block the DTMF frequencies coming through the handset. I had an AT&T phone and a Commodore VIC-20 modem some many years ago. The phone was one of the first with the "limited-travel" buttons on the keypad, around 1982. The modem plugged into the handset cord and sent DTMF tones down the wire to dial, using your base unit phone for everything else. On the old phone I had, it worked fine, but on the AT&T phone, it wouldn't even break dialtone. I called AT&T and they told me that they had deliberately designed the phone not to allow DTMF through the handset, although they steadfastly refused to say why. I don't have any tech specs on this point, and in fact no longer own that phone, so I can't tell you anything beyond that. Linc Madison * Oakland, California * LincMad@Netcom.com ------------------------------ From: "B. Z. Lederman" Subject: Re: NYTel/NYNEX Dusts Off Rotary Payphones Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society Date: 14 Jan 94 07:56:38 -0500 Organization: DECUServe In article , "Paul R. Coen" writes: > Yup, that's right. The return of the pulse-dial, rotary, bleed to death > while dialing 9-1-1 payphone. > They apparantly tried this in one or two areas already, and it did cut > down on the number of people hanging around by the phones on corners. > However, in some of the new areas, touch-tone phones are as close as > across the street from the "new" rotary phones. So the genuine NYNEX phones are rotary, and the drug dealers will go across the street to the touch tone phones which are owned by COCOTS and the other 'rip-off' companies. It will be interesting to see which group of crooks succeeds in stealing the most from the other. [Note to the humor impaired: that was sarcasm, with a touch of bemused irony.] Bart Z. Lederman ------------------------------ From: dfl@panix.com (Danny O'Bedlam) Subject: Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones Date: 14 Jan 1994 02:41:17 -0500 In V2ENA81%OWEGO@zeta.eecs.nwu.edu writes: > What I would like to know is, doesn't NYNEX realize that these people > will simply walk into their local Radio Shack and pick up a personal > tone dialer designed specifically for dialing touch tones on these > "new" rotary-only lines? As Pat pointed out, NYNEX knows all too well. Further, this is incentive for those who need the tone servies, criminal and honest citizens alike to make more use of COCOTs in the face of NYNEX foolish move. I'm in favor of restricted incoming calls to payphones, as much as I'd prefer the option of having someone call me back on a street corner, if its in a pinch, and I've run out of nickels. Last thing we need in NYC is more COCOTs! Danny Lieberman PO Box 3131 Church St Sta New York NY 10008-3131 [USA] dfl@panix.com, danny@echonyc.com, lieberd@cbc.com NYC & Environs Bicycle mailing list: ebikes-request@mailhost.panix.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 20:55 From: Richard Cox Subject: Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk Kriston J. Rehberg [krehberg@vnet.IBM.COM] said: >> What I would like to know is, doesn't NYNEX realize that these people >> will simply walk into their local Radio Shack and pick up a personal >> tone dialer designed specifically for dialing touch tones on these >> "new" rotary-only lines? Is anyone going to tell NYNEX that it is >> simply wasting its and its customers' money? And PAT replied: "Telco knows very well what you are saying is correct". It may not be. Over here some systems are capable of filtering out the MF tones so that even if the keypad enabled MF, it just wouldn't get through. In fact this is necessary on some PABXs where the MF digits dialed are processed by the switch before sending to line -- otherwise the CO would see the same digit twice, and generate a wrong connection. And if we can do it, the RBOCs certainly can. They may not be doing it now -- it is after all a political issue, not a telecomms issue, but if the community still sees the telco as the villain, even when tone dialers are used, it would be a very simple matter for the telcos to put MF filters in. Richard D G Cox Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF Voice: +44 956 700111 Fax: +44 956 700110 VoiceMail: +44 941 151515 E-mail address: richard@mandarin.com - PGP2.3 public key available on request ------------------------------ From: hutzley@ranger.enet.dec.com (Steve Hutzley) Subject: Re: New York Telephone Issuing "New" Rotary Phones Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 17:08:11 GMT In article , V2ENA81%OWEGO@zeta.eecs. nwu.edu writes: > New York Telephone (now NYNEX) in New York City has elected to install > rotary-dial phones, on request, in communities and areas where other > drug fighting measures have failed. They are installing them because > they say that rotary phones can't be used on the pager services that > these drug dealers use to communicate. > What I would like to know is, doesn't NYNEX realize that these people > will simply walk into their local Radio Shack and pick up a personal > tone dialer designed specifically for dialing touch tones on these > "new" rotary-only lines? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Telco knows very well what you are > saying is correct. It makes these adjustments (rotary dial, no incoming > service, no coin-paid calls during overnight hours) to accomodate the Now, Wouldn't make sense for the TELCO to go all the way here. I mean, if they are going back to rotary, blocking incoming calls, no coin calls after dark...etc, why cant they install a DTMF filter in the line (this should be simple, looking at the frequencies of DTMF - OK, its right in the middle of the voice band -- its an outside phone). Just disabling the DTMF on the line wouldn't work, because the phone could be dialed with the rotary, then DTMF'd with the pocket dialer (when the pager line has been reached.) Comments invited, Steve ------------------------------ From: kevray@MCS.COM (Kevin Ray) Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors Date: 14 Jan 1994 03:46:30 -0600 Organization: MCSNet Services Bob Rankin writes: > Just saw an ad for a gizmo that will decipher the unique ringing cadence > for up to four lines and route them to a specified telephone device. > Using this device ($75) along with distinctive ringing ($6/mo) sounds > like a wonderful alternative to having separate lines installed for > fax, modem, answering machines, etc. Kinda like a poor man's DID! > Anyone have any experience with these devices? Any drawbacks? I have one (for sale :-). I used it for about a month and became VERY unhappy with it (in IL). It did not always 'decipher' the incoming ring and thus just let it ring and ring and ring. I also use AT&T's switch box (pressing #1 transfer to yet ANOTHER 'fake' line -- good for modems, faxes, multi answering machines, etc) and the multi-ring box with this little toy did not work together nicely (ie: MAJOR voltage problems ON the phone line). The unit was nice in that if the line was in use and you tried to pick up another one of the lines it gave a fake busy signal (though not fake enough for a modem to get it). Considering the number of calls I lost (both voice and data) I quickly decided to make the second number a 'real' number and trash the unit. FYI: I exchanged the original unit thinking it may be a bad one with no luck with the 'new' one. I could not sell this thing to ANYONE and go to sleep at night. Just so you know the one I have is called "Ring Decipher" by Command Communications, Inc (Aurora, CO). It may very well be a good unit and just not compatible with my telcom supplier (Ameritech). I would have returned it, but lost the receipt. :-( ------------------------------ From: tchen@sdesys1.hns.com (Thomas Chen) Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing and Ring Detectors Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 19:18:11 GMT Organization: Hughes Network Systems Inc. What is the spec for distinctive ring? Is this an American phone feature or is it a CCITT type of specifcation? Thanks, Tom ------------------------------ From: markr@mot.com (Mark) Subject: Re: Landlines Pay Airtime To Call Some Cellular Phones Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com Organization: MCIL Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 17:36:07 GMT In article oakes@wildebeest.cig.mot.com (Ronald Oakes) writes: > In article John Levine writes: >>> Charging the land-line caller to a cellular number makes >>> perfect sense to me. >> In the abstract, it makes some sense. On the other hand, surcharged >> ... > There already is blocking for 1-579, and 1-976 blocking, at least for > ..... > This simple solution removes many of the problems with charge calls > that become present when you allow seven digit toll calling. This > would have prevented -- or at least lessened -- the New York pager > scam, and can reduce the problems with 976 numbers. What was the NY pager scam? Mark [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The 'New York pager scam' involved this guy who took out a very expensive (to call) phone line on the 540 (?) exchange in New York City. That exchange *only when calling from the LATA (212/708/914/516?)* charges the callers in the same way that 900 or 976 service works elsewhee. This guy had a line which cost the calling party something like $20-30 each time they dialed it and he sent page messages to (apparently) thousands of pagers in the area asking them to call him back on his expensive number ... they responded by the thousands and he got a nice commission from telco -- just like you would get if you ran a 900/976 service. The people who called got very large charges on their phone bill, and the guy made a mint from it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: oxenreid@chaos.cs.umn.edu Subject: Re: 50 Pin Connector Help Wanted Organization: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 22:36:58 GMT In jspinnow@netcom.com (John Stewart Pinnow) writes: > A 50 pin connector. Used for a phone system. What are the pin layouts > for it? > Does anyone have a description? Well, I do not have a "from the book answer", though having put more than a few dozen together my self, I can give you a dim memory review of them (aka it has been two years since I crimped one). Looking at the connector: The cable is going down, and the male/female part is in your face. From the top left, the first copper strip is the white/blue wire. Opposet of it on the right side is the blue/white wire, and thus makes a pair. Now, just step through the color codes and you step through all 25 Pair of lines on that cable. Chris Oxenreider (Electronics Technician) oxenreid@chaos.cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ From: dlander@idss.nwa.com Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 17:16 CST Organization: Northwest Airlines, Inc. Subject: Re: Voice Mail HW Wanted In article , Joseph I. Ceasar wrote: > am looking for voice mail cards that can be fully programmed. I > [stuff deleted] > The question is where do I find voice mail cards? > I have one from Talking Technologies, but it supports only two > lines/card. I need something that can support four lines/card. I've > heard of a Canadian company called Bicom, but cannot locate them! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Dialogic also makes voice mail cards > capable of handling four lines. They are (I think) in Parsippany, NJ. PAT] My wife's business uses a card referred to as Watson. I called the company for some specifics (it came bundled with some software) and they told me at the time that they have products that will support four lines and you can have multiple cards per system. Unfortunately I don't recall the name of the company or the exact city -- Boston suburb, I think. If you send me a note via E'mail I'll dig up the information at home this evening and respond to your note privately. Overall, I'd say that we're pleased with the product. I've made modifications to the incoming routing routines and found that programming the card was very easy. The vendor states that there is a company in Canada that sells a 'C' library for custom applications -- something I'd very much like to get my hands on! David L. Anderson Voice: 612.726.0775 Northwest Airlines, Inc. dlander@idss.nwa.com Fax: 612.726.0521 Dept J3750 uspf2172@ibmmail.com 5101 Northwest Drive St. Paul, MN 55111-3034 ------------------------------ From: tdgilman@iris-1.CE.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Gilman) Subject: Re: Possible Internet Service Scam Date: 15 Jan 1994 03:46:38 GMT Organization: Dept. of Structural Engineering, UC Berkeley Les Reeves writes: >> From: Scott A. Ward 703-614-4719 [deletions] > 3. They claim your E-mail address would be @iia.org. However: > a. No iia.org is listed in the hq.af.mil hosts table > b. No iia.org is listed in the acq.osd.mil hosts table > c. No iia.org is listed is the INTERNIC 'whois' database > d. No iia.org is listed using the INTERNIC 'netfind' Internet lookup > In other words, IIA.ORG does NOT, at this time, exist. info@iia.org autoresponds with info on the organization. It claims that if you use their 800 number, charges will be billed to your credit card, but no charges will be billed if you the local or long distance number. Tim ------------------------------ From: taranto@panix.com (James Taranto) Subject: Re: Possible Internet Service Scam Date: 14 Jan 1994 23:15:29 -0500 Organization: The Bad Taranto IIA does appear to be a legitimate operation, based on the following: 1. I sent them a credit card number over a month ago, and though I have not yet heard back from them, there have been no unauthorized charges to my account. 2. There is, in fact, a WHOIS listing for iia.org, and it is possible to telnet to the address (I believe it's mary.iia.org). 3. I have heard a report of at least one person (friend of a user of my server, panix.com) who has gotten connected with an account. Cheers, James Taranto taranto@panix.com ------------------------------ From: andy@clark.net (Andrew M. Cohn) Subject: Re: Possible Internet Service Scam Date: 14 Jan 1994 16:42:14 GMT Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA For whatever it's worth, I forwarded the IIA my application about 7 weeks ago. The other day, I received a call from a real live person in their NJ office. They wanted me to give them my fax number or home address again, since it got lost in the shuffle. I did so, and they advised me that I am being put into the system, and that I will receive my "Welcome Aboard" packet in about two weeks. So we'll see ... andy@clark.net ------------------------------ From: ddean@robadome.com (Drew Dean) Subject: Re: How to Phone US 0800 Numbers From the UK? Date: 14 Jan 1994 17:34:30 -0800 Organization: ROLM - A Siemens Company If you have an American Express card, it's easy. You call MCI (I think Sprint also has a similar deal), and they'll setup an account where they bill your Amex card. In the US, there's an 800-extender for long distance. When I was in Austria last year, I had no problem using MCI's service there to call an 800 number here (I don't know what carrier the recipient used.) The call just showed up on next month's Amex bill. BTW, using the MCI service was substantially cheaper than the Austrian PTT, about $1.30/minute vs $1.80/minute for the same call. Drew Dean (408) 492-5524 ddean@robadome.com ROLM, a Siemens company ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #31 *****************************