TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Feb 94 08:12:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 73 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Distinctive Ringing (Robert Endicott) Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Distinctive Ringing (Al Varney) Re: Remote Call Forwarding to Priority Ringing (Al Varney) Re: Remote Call Forwarding to Priority Ringing (Steve Cogorno) Re: Remote Call Forwarding to Priority Ringing (Mike King) Re: Don't Trust The Phone Company (Kyle Rhorer) Re: Don't Trust The Phone Company (Monty Solomon) Re: Don't Trust The Phone Company (Brian D. Renaud) Re: Don't Trust The Phone Company (Ben Burch) Re: Phone Number History (Mark E Daniel) Re: Phone Number History (Jim Burks) Re: Phone Number History (Gordon Baldwin) Re: Phone Number History (Wolf Paul) Manual Phones in California! (David A. Kaye) 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: endicott@netcom.com (Robert Endicott) Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Distinctive Ringing Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 06:24:21 GMT Robb Topolski (topolski@kaiwan.com) wrote: > Just so there's no confusion, in my area: > Remote Call Fowarding is a seven-digit number that exists in the CO > only that your callers call to be connected with another (usually > distant) number. > Distinctive Ringing is a feature on your telephone that provides a > distinctive ring (short-long-short) when a call originating from a > particular number is received. You create this list by inputting the > number or by pressing *61 immediately following a call from a number > you want added to the list. > QUESTION: If a caller (from 555-1133) dials my Remote Call Forwarding > number (555-9922) which is forwarded to my home, which number is > evaluated by Distinctive Ringing? I had a use for this in California when I lived there, and set up "Distinctive Ringing" and put the (555-9922) into the list. If someone at the location of the 555-9922 would dial my number from the 555-9922 number, I would get the distinctive ring. But if someone (555-1133) dialed 555-9922 and the call was forwarded to my number, my CO would not recognize the call as from 555-9922 and my phone would ring conventionally. I don't know if it still works that way, but I disconnected the remote number as it didn't work the way I needed it to. Robert Endicott (endicott@netcom.com) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 23:55:43 CST From: varney@ihlpe.att.com Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Distinctive Ringing Organization: AT&T In article KATHY1310@delphi.com writes: > Robb Topolski writes: >> QUESTION: If a caller (from 555-1133) dials my Remote Call Forwarding >> number (555-9922) which is forwarded to my home, which number is >> evaluated by Distinctive Ringing? > Unfortunately, the RCF number (555-9922) will be forwarded to your > home due to the way the features intereact in the switch software and > the signalling network (SS7). AT&T is theoretically working on a fix. > Bug your local telco about the improper functioning of these features. I'd be most interested in a pointer to a trouble ticket number or further description of RCF (a permanently-forwarded number) sending anything other than the true Calling Party Number to a terminating switch via SS7. My quick search of the obvious keywords on all SS7 switching products did not reveal such a reported problem over the previous four years. (Well, actually I didn't look at the 4ESS(tm) switch problem list, since RCF isn't supported.) Or was the problem dealing with Voice Mail/Message Desk interfaces delivering Called Number vs. Forwarding Number, a totally different issue? Al Varney ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 09:44:35 CST From: varney@ihlpe.att.com Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding to Priority Ringing Organization: AT&T In article Robb Topolski KJ6YT writes: > REMOTE CALL FORWARDING: Your distant callers dial a seven-digit > number which is set to automatically forward to your home or office. > PRIORITY RINGING: You program a list of up to ten numbers. > When you receive a call from one of those numbers, your phone will > ring in some distictive way (short-long-short). > Question: > I have remote call forwarding. Can I set priority ringing to > my remote call-fowarding number so when anyone calls me via that > number I get the distinctive ring? Or is the calling number reported > to the feature the caller's actual number rather than the forwarder's > number? Rules in TR-TSY-000031 state that, for virtually all forms of forwarding, the ORIGINATING DN is delivered to the terminating switch for use in CallerID, Distinctive Ring, etc. These features were designed to work the same way between a calling and called telephone, whether or not forwarding was used to reach the called telephone. Also, you should not be able to set priority ringing to a remote call-forwarding number, because such attempts to do so are rejected if the number is "forwarding" when the addition to the Distinctive Ring list is attempted. (This assumes the number is "forwarding" at the time. Of course, you can put non-forwarding numbers on the the list and then change the number to forwarding ...) If you really want to know the number of the telephone forwarding TO YOU, you need to use one of the Voice Mail (or Message Service) interfaces. These will deliver either the original dialed number or the last number to forward the call before you got it. Al Varney ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding to Priority Ringing Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 19:58:47 PST Said by: Robb Topolski KJ6YT > I have remote call forwarding. Can I set priority ringing to > my remote call-fowarding number so when anyone calls me via that > number I get the distinctive ring? Or is the calling number reported > to the feature the caller's actual number rather than the forwarder's > number? If you are in Pacific Bell land, the answer is no. Pacific Bell says that the two features are incompatible and they will not interact; something about the mode in which the SS7 protocol identifies the originating number when RCF is involved. Interestingly enough, all other types of diversion (Busy/No Answer/Call Forwarding) will function as you describe with Remote Call Forwarding. Steve cogorno@netcom.com #608 Merrill * 200 McLaughlin Drive * Santa Cruz, CA 95064-1015 ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding to Priority Ringing Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 17:31:25 PST In TELECOM Digest V14 #68, Robb Topolski KJ6YT asked: > I have remote call forwarding. Can I set priority ringing to > my remote call-fowarding number so when anyone calls me via that > number I get the distinctive ring? Or is the calling number reported > to the feature the caller's actual number rather than the forwarder's > number? Why not get Ident-a-Ring, or whatever your LEC calls the service where more than one directory number is assigned to your line, and then have the RCF number point to the additional phone number? Presto. Your RCFed calls will always have a distinctive ring, regardless of whichever number gets forwarded. This would even work if the exchange with your RCF number isn't equipped with SS7. Mike King mk@tfs.com ------------------------------ From: rhorer@medics.jsc.nasa.gov (Kyle Rhorer) Subject: Re: Don't Trust The Phone Company Date: 9 Feb 1994 23:21:21 GMT Organization: KRUG Life Sciences, Inc. On Wed, 9 Feb 94 14:03:35 +0100, Lars Poulsen (lars@eskimo.CPH.CMC.COM) wrote: > In RISKS issue 15.46, Tom Bodine reports the unsettling experience of > being accused of making an obscene phone call, after the husband of > the recipient of the call (his wife's best friend) used the "call > return" feature at the end of the obscene call, and then reached his > number. He speculates that his number was captured by the friend's > telephone switch as the result of a failed call from his wife while > the friend's line was busy with the obscene call. I live near the Bell/GTE border in my part of the world, and it is obvious that the two companies talk to each other only when required to by law. More specifically, I can not "call return" a call that came from a GTE caller, even if that caller is less than a block away from me. Is it possible that Mrs. Bodine was the last caller *before* the obscene call, and the obscene call came from a subscriber in a different operating company? Perhaps the OC that serves the Bodines simply doesn't update the call return register if the call is from an "unidentifiable" source? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think this is true. I think the buffer which holds that information is flushed each time around, meaning valid, identifiable information from an earlier call would be erased by the new call, even if the new call put nothing more than 'outside' or 'cannot identify' in the buffer where the previous information had been. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 18:08:24 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: Don't Trust The Phone Company > While such a feature interaction is possible (is the number supposed > to be captured on a busy? I know it is on a no-answer failure), there We have a feature here (NET/NYNEX) called Call Return (*69) which allows you to return your last incoming call whether it was answered or not. One disadvantage of Call Return is that you don't know in advance if you will incur toll charges on the returned call unless you also have Caller ID and the number was not blocked. Call Return works only for calls which originate in areas which have the availability of the PHONESMART package (Caller ID, Call Return, Repeat Dialing, and Call Trace). Here is the actual message from Tom Bodine as it appeared in an excerpt from RISKS DIGEST 15.46 Date: 8 Feb 1994 13:53:35 GMT From: tbodine@utig.ig.utexas.edu (Tom Bodine) Subject: Don't trust the phone company I am the victim of false accusations. My wife and I were at home some time last week. I was busy cooking dinner. My wife was busy chasing our two year old, when we received a phone call which my wife accepted. The fellow on the other end of the line was extremely irate. His wife has been receiving obscene phone calls for some time now. He had purchased the service provided by the phone company which allows you to call back the last person to dial you. After his wife had discontinued the obscene call she'd just received, he had used this feature to righteously confront her abuser. Instead he had dialed us. This was somewhat perplexing until a few minutes later, my wife's best friend called. Imediately after saying hello, My wife began relating this strange occurence to her friend. Her friend then told my wife that it was her husband who had made this call utilizing this phone service. This has put a heavy strain upon my wife's relationship with her friend, because her friend's husband has assumed that I am the author of these obscene calls. Whereas I barely have time for all the things which fill my life. I have no time or interest in making such calls. It is my belief that my wife had tried to call her best friend during the obscene phone call. This attempt overwrote the perpetrator's number, so that when the call back service was used, our phone rang instead. If there are any knowledgeable netter's out there that could give me any more info, I'd appreciate it. Regards, Tom Bodine --------------- Monty Solomon [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What seems to put a fly in the ointment where the arguments about false identification due to a variety of possible causes (one call arrived when line was busy, next call went in the 'return call' buffer, etc, call returned to the wrong party of the two who called about the same time) is Mr. Bodine's comment that this woman had received *several* obscene calls over a period of time. Surely the intricacies of the modern phone network did not interact in such a bizarre way every time. If there have been so many obscene calls, can't the woman at least identify the voice of the caller, or listen to Mr. Bodine's voice and qualify or disqualify him as the person responsible? PAT] ------------------------------ From: brena@sol.aa.hcia.com (Brian D. Renaud) Subject: Re: Don't Trust The Phone Company Date: 9 Feb 1994 20:05:44 GMT Organization: HCIA, Inc. Lars Poulsen (lars@eskimo.CPH.CMC.COM) wrote: > I believe that there is no such interaction problem in the case of the > "calling number identification" feature, since the number is delivered > in real time and only when the call rings through. Thus, the call that > would come in DURING the problem call, would only be recorded if the > recipient had the "call waiting" feature, and in that case would not > get busy, but ringback, and the CNID (if subscribed) would be delivered > between the rings (call waiting tones)). In my experience, CNID is not delivered if your phone is busy, even if you have call waiting. Brian [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are correct, it is not delivered if your line is busy, and it is only delivered (if arriving via call waiting) on one condition that I can detirmine: if the call-waiting party stays on the line, allowing it to ring, then when the called party and whoever he is talking to disconect the call-waiting call will start to ring through and Caller-ID will be delivered between the first and second audible rings heard by the called party just as though it was the first and second 'true rings'. That is to say, you ring me and I am on a call. I get the call-waiting signal and tell my party we have to ring off so I can take the new call. We chat a few seconds more and hang up. Rather than flashing to accept the new call, I actually hang up and let my phone ring a couple times more. Between the first and second rings *that I hear* my display will get the Caller-ID, even if the calling party had to sit for a dozen rings or more. I'm not sure, but I think if I flash to answer, then put the party on hold and later hang up (the first call) allowing 'reminder rings' to tell me about the party on hold, I'll get Caller-ID between the first and second of those 'reminder rings' also. I know the first instance is correct; I think the second one is. That seems to be the one and only way of receiving Caller-ID under the circumstances: you have to hang up on the party you are talking with and let the call-waiting actually cause your phone to ring so delivery can be made to your display, regardless of how long that may be (or how many rings have occurred) since the call- waiting party entered your premises. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ben Burch Subject: Re: Don't Trust The Phone Company Organization: Motorola, Inc Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 21:58:34 GMT In article TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Lars Poulsen, lars@eskimo.CPH.CMC.COM: > ... If Mr. Bodine insists he is not the party who made the obscene call, then I guess we take his word for it and find someone else to blame; but it seems quite a stretch of the imagination ... Well ... I hope you'll take *my* word for this, too! About six, maybe seven months ago, I was sleeping, and was awakened by the telephone ringing: Me: "Good evening, Burch residence" Female Caller: "Who is this?" Me: "I think I ought to ask you that, since you called me..." FC: "No, *you* called me." Me: "The telephone was ringing, and I answered it, so, really, I'm pretty sure you called me." FC: "No, you made an obscene call to this number just now, and I used call return to call you back." Me: "I'll beg your pardon, but there is nobody at this number but me at present, and I was sleeping." FC: "If you ever call me again, I'll see you arrested." *click* So, I'm absolutely *certain* that there are major bugs with this feature. Possibly some bright jerk has firgured out how to give it false information, but I'd bet on a bug first. (I've done telephone switch programming, so I'm allowed to have an opinion ...) Ben Burch Motorola Wireless Data Group Ben_Burch@msmail.wes.mot.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, I believe you. It could be that whoever called the lady quickly call-forwarded his line to yours immediatly after disconnecting; he woke her up with his call, she sat there in a just-awakened stupor and thought about it for a minute then used 'return last call' to reach you via him. This is where having Caller-ID *and* 'return last call' both on the line would be useful. That way one could see the actual number placing the call even if the return trip led somewhere else. Maybe there ought to be a dialing code for the purpose of 'do not forward'. That is, the person placing the call would dial some two-digit code (such as for blocking or do not disturb) which meant 'absolutely ring number such and such'. This would be sort of like the post office endorsement we can use on letters which says, 'do not forward, return to sender if unable to deliver as addressed'. Telco's response would be to ring that number or respond with a voice intercept, 'cannot ring that number now' if the number was being for- warded. There may be times, for example, when I wish to speak with you but not if I know you are elsewhere; in those cases I am willing to wait until you are at home. The recipient's Caller-ID box would show some notation such as 'forced delivery from xxx-yyyy' to indicate a call had been received but not forwarded at the caller's request. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Phone Number History Date: Wed, 09 Feb 1994 16:17:02 From: mark@legend.akron.oh.us (Mark E Daniel) In article TELECOM Digest Editor asked: > mine did. Do party lines still exist anywhere or are they all discontinued > by now? PAT] I am told that in North Benton,OH, one must settle for a party line until a private one becomes available. Mark E Daniel (Loving SysOp of The Legend BBS) Inet: mark@legend.akron.oh.us medaniel@delphi.com (Direct INet) ------------------------------ From: Jim Burks Subject: Re: Phone Number History Date: 9 Feb 1994 15:05:09 GMT Organization: The Promus Companies, Memphis, TN In article sullivan@msri.org (John Sullivan) writes: > While driving across South Dakota and Wyoming last fall, there wasn't > much choice of radio stations to listen to. At one point I was near > Buffalo, Wyoming, tuned to FM 92.7, which at the time was giving local > small-town news. This included notice that someone had found a dog. > The owner was asked to "call us [the radio station] at 5126". > Could it be that in this town, four-digit dialing is possible? Or > does everyone just know what the exchange is? (The phone book at the > next gas station showed Buffalo as 684, I think.) Until approximately two years ago, the phone exchange in New Albany, Mississippi where I grew up allowed you to dial five digits. All phones were on the same prefix (601-534), and you could dial 4-9511 or 534-9511. South Central Bell upgraded to a new switch and that feature went away. Most of the old-timers missed it. Maybe Mississippi isn't the last to upgrade! Jim Burks jburks@promus.com The Promus Companies Memphis, Tennessee, USA ------------------------------ From: gbaldw@zaphod.usin.com (Gordon Baldwin) Subject: Re: Phone Number History Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 21:19:58 PST On the lines of old telephone numbers, I have a yardstick that I got from my grandparents and I have been musing over the age for a few years. You older telephony folks may have a better idea than I do about it. The markings on it read: "GRAND RAPIDS LUMBER COMPANY" East end office 1411 Robinson Road. Bell Phone Main 130 - Citz 21766. My questions are: how old do you think this is, and is that two phone numbers for separate companies? Gordon Baldwin gbaldw@usin.com ------------------------------ From: cc_paul@aaf.alcatel.at (Wolf Paul) Subject: Re: Phone Number History Reply-To: Wolf.Paul@aaf.alcatel.at Organization: Alcatel Austria Research Center, Vienna, Austria Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 10:59:25 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor notes: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the party line suffixes in most > places were -J, -M -R and -W. I never had a party line, but a friend of > mine did. Do party lines still exist anywhere or are they all discontinued > by now? PAT] Party lines after a fashion still exist in Austria, albeit not with different ringing cadences but with electronic boxes. There are up to four subscribers on one such line, each one has a sealed box where the phone line enters the house. This box has jumpers in it which determine to which final digit the phone connected to it responds, and who calls are billed to. The phones are non-standard, with about ten wires in the cable running from the box to the phone; to get a line tou have to push a button on the phone, it will click a few times and you get dial tone, or if one of the other subscribers is already on the line, nothing happens. When a call comes in, all connected phones tingle once before the boxes figure out who it's for. It is not unheard of that someone opens up his sealed box and tries to jumper it so that calls are billed to a neighbor; usually this brings the PTT to your door pretty quickly, though. Stupid, really, because one can also jumper the box to not bill at all -- there is a test configuration whose use is much more difficult for the PTT to detect. These party lines are being phased out now, as switches are converted to digital technology (using NT DMS-100s and Siemens EWSD-E equipment). Copper Sharing still is used though; on non-ISDN lines, the PTT will multiplex up to two subscribers on a pair with a frequency modulation device ("Frequenz- Weiche" in German, don't know what it'd be called in English). Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center wnp@aaf.alcatel.at Alcatel Austria Research Center +43-1-391621-122 (w) Ruthnergasse 1-7 +43-1-391452 (fax) A-1210 Vienna-Austria/Europe +43-1-2206481 (h) ------------------------------ From: dk@crl.com (David A. Kaye) Subject: Manual Phones in California! Date: 10 Feb 1994 02:09:10 -0800 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [login: guest] Garrett Wollman (wollman@bajoran.emba.uvm.edu) wrote: > Warm Springs Station > (Call Operator For) > Warm Springs Bar Agent .Warm Springs No 2 Yep. Until about five or six years ago the little town of San Gregorio, California (60 miles south of San Francisco on the coast) had manual stations. The Peterson & Alsford's general store was San Gregorio #3 and the pay phone outside their store was #2. It was fun to try to call there during the summer to see whether the beach was sunny or fogged in. The operators didn't know how to connect calls! This was a typical rendition after dialing the "0" operator: "I'd like to call San Gregorio" "Is that in the Western Hemisphere?" "Yes, it's near San Mateo." "San Mateo, Mexico?" "No, in California." "Hmmm ... okay, you can dial that direct." "No I can't. You have to dial it for me." "Okay, sir. What's the number?" "Three." "Okay, 3 what?" "Three. That's it. San Gregorio #3." "But I can't dial that. There aren't enough digits." "Yes there are. May I speak to a supervisor?" ==Supervisor comes on== "I understand you're having trouble dialing a number?" "No, you have to dial it for me. It's San Gregorio #3." "Oh, that must be a toll station. Let me connect you with the International Operator." "But this is a California number!" "I'm sorry sir, but we need to connect with a manual board and only the International operator in Oakland can do that for you." The upshot of this was that a call to Half Moon Bay (north of San Gregorio and a dial office) was 60 cents, but because San Gregorio was handled out of the International Operator center in Oakland and Oakland is a local call from SF, a call to San Gregorio was a local call, even though it took me about five minutes to make the call EACH AND EVERY time. Finally, they just extended Half Moon Bay's exchange further south to include San Gregorio. Pac*Bell certainly lost money on that manual office. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except that was not really a 'manual office' in the traditional use of the term. Manual central offices were offices just like today with hundreds or thousands of subscribers and the only difference being the calls were all processed through live operators. Instances like San Gregorio and so many places in Nevada were (are) known as 'toll stations', meaning they are isolated phones in distant places handled through an operator many miles away. Typically, there will be only one or two, maybe five phones at some highway junction in the desert somewhere; a payphone, a phone in the grocery store/tavern, maybe a couple other phones for the dozen or so people who live there. A 'manual office' was more a situation where there was an actual town (even if very small) with a switchboard in the town and operators in the town who handled calls between the locals. In San Gregorio for example, it is unlikely the subscriber to number three would ever call the subscriber to number one or number four. The 'largest' toll station set up I ever heard of was one place in Nevada where I think (in the directory of Nevada Bell) I saw listings which said 'call operator and ask for number 16'. Even then, there were not sixteen listings; maybe a dozen or so with a few numbers missing from the list (non-pub service maybe? :) ) ..... PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #73 *****************************