TELECOM Digest     Wed, 4 May 94 22:35:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 202

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    "TV & Movie Mania" Radio Show Hits the Info Superhighway (Lauren
Weinstein)
    Sprint BBS List (Stuart Whitmore)
    800 Numbers for Radio Shows (Paul Robinson)
    Dumb Question: DID - Centrex - Help! (Rob Allender)
    Internet White Pages (Jan Richert)
    Re: Fight A*vertising! Petition! (John Evans)
    Re: Fight A*vertising! Petition! (Mike King)
    Re: Unwelcome AT&T "Feature" (Laurent LECHELLE)
    Re: Unwelcome AT&T "Feature" (Tony Pelliccio)
    Re: Cellular Call Forwarding (Alan M. Gallatin)
    Re: NANP and Switches (David Esan)
    Re: Getting Phone Bills Over the Internet (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: Connect a Card Reader to a Cell Phone? (Ry Jones)
    Re: Any Modem Decode DTMF? (William C. Fenner)
    Re: Radio Frequency Interference on Residential Telephone Line (Paul
Bates)
    Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 Probably Dead (Edwin Green)
    Re: Equal Access in Canada (Vance Shipley)

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.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

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 edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax 
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: 708-329-0571
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
  ** 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 partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    * 
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   * 
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help 
is important and appreciated.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 May 94 18:19 PDT
From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: "TV & Movie Mania" Radio Show Hits the Information Superhighway


"TV & MOVIE MANIA" RADIO SHOW HITS THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY

LOS ANGELES -- In a first for an entertainment-oriented show, a
version of the popular "Professor Neon's TV & Movie Mania" radio
program begins worldwide distribution directly to listeners this week
via the Internet (or as it is becoming popularly known, the
"Information Superhighway").

"The Internet now includes over 20 million users in more than 30
countries, and is growing at an enormous rate," pointed out the show's
producer, Lauren Weinstein of Vortex Technology.  "Professor Neon's TV
& Movie Mania has also broadcast via over-the-air stations, but it's
apparent that the time has finally arrived when the global facilities
of the Internet can bring this audio show to an even wider audience.
Nobody has ever used the Internet to transmit a show like this
before," he added.

"Professor Neon's TV & Movie Mania" is a unique show which features a
look at a broad universe ranging from classic to current television,
films, and videos, with a special emphasis on the unusual, odd, silly,
strange, bizarre, cult, surreal, and weird.  The shows include
reviews, interviews, and a wide range of special audio clips,
trailers, and many other features.

The interview guest for the debut Internet version of the show is
Robert Justman, a man whose work has greatly influenced classic
television programs ranging from "The Outer Limits" (on which he was
assistant director) to both the original "Star Trek" and "Star Trek:
The Next Generation" (on which he was associate producer and
co-producer, respectively).  Many of the most familiar aspects of
these programs were the result of his ideas, and he speaks candidly
with the show's enigmatic host, Professor Neon, about the production
of these programs in this fascinating interview.

Professor Neon has featured programs focusing on topics ranging from
"Plan 9 From Outer Space" (with guest "Vampira" who starred in the
classic cult film), to Forrest J. Ackerman (publisher of "Famous
Monsters" magazine), to shows focused on topics from "The Twilight
Zone" to "The Three Stooges".

The half hour Internet version of the program is being distributed
biweekly on the Internet via the Internet Multicasting Service in
Washington D.C., on the "Internet Town Hall" channel, and is also
available as a file for retrieval by any Internet user from the many
Internet Multicasting / Internet Talk Radio archive sites around the
world.  Users retrieving the audio files can then play them on
virtually any workstation, PC, Mac, or other computer with even simple
audio facilities.

The most recent show, as well as other information regarding the
program, can also be heard by calling Professor Neon's TV & Movie
Mania Machine" on (310) 455-1212.

The Internet version of the show is freely distributable via computer
networks and BBS systems.  Use by over-the-air broadcasters requires
the permission of Vortex Technology.  For more information regarding
accessing the show via the Internet, please use the contact below.
Inquiries regarding other access and versions of the show for
broadcast use are also invited.

CONTACT: Lauren Weinstein at Vortex Technology, Woodland Hills, CA.
  (818) 225-2800 (9:30-5:30 PDT)
  lauren@vortex.com

Notes to Internet folks:

Information regarding the show, including current guest schedule, etc.
is also available via FTP from site "ftp.vortex.com" (in the
"tv-film-video" subdirectory) or via gopher from site "gopher.vortex.
com" (under the "TV/Film/Video" menu item).

For a list of Internet Multicasting Service / Internet Talk Radio
archive sites to obtain (via FTP) the audio file for playback, send a
message (content is not important) to:

 sites@radio.com

The debut of the Internet version of the show will run via Internet
Multicast from Interop on Thursday, May 5.  FTP to site
"ftp.media.org" or "www.media.org" for schedule information.  The
audio file of the show should become available in the archive sites
for retrieval within a few days, though exact timing is variable.  The
filenames will probably be "mania1.au" for the audio and "mania1.txt"
for the accompanying descriptive text file, though the archive
maintainers may change the names at some point to fit their overall
naming system.  If you have trouble locating the files after a few
days, please let us know.  If you have any other questions regarding
the program, feel free to email or call.

In two weeks, our interview guest for the next show will be Joel
Engel, the author of the definitive Rod Serling biography: "The Dreams
and Nightmares of Life in the Twilight Zone," and of the newly
released and highly controversial new book, "Gene Roddenberry: The
Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek."

If you have any questions for Mr. Engel please email them to:

   neon@vortex.com

as soon as possible.  Thanks much!

 --Lauren--


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lauren Weinstein is a long time participant
in the Internet, and a charter subscriber to TELECOM Digest, dating back
to 1981 when this journal was first published. From time to time I like
to reprint his classic message, "The Day the Bell System Died", and 
before long it will be time for it again. His latest venture, the "Neon"
thing, has been enormously successful and if you have not called to 
listen to it, you really should.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 04 May 1994 18:33:13 -0700
From: whitmore@tahoma.cwu.edu (Rattlesnake Stu)
Subject: Sprint BBS List
Organization: Central Washington University


To reply to those who questioned how the Sprint BBS list I've started 
will be published, here's what I plan on:

1.  It'll always be available for free download from the data number below;
2.  I'll distribute it to all large BBS's that I normally call;
3.  If it gets big enough, I'll attempt to get it included in the SimTel
    FTP archives and keep it updated regularly (quarterly?);
4.  Also if it gets big enough, I'll try to do the same to keep current
    copies on new Night Owls CDs;
5.  I'll e-mail it to anyone who wants a copy;
6.  I'll post it in one or more appropriate newsgroups if people want it
    and don't complain about wasted bandwidth (perhaps quarterly, or
    less/more frequently as requested).

I hope this answers the question -- essentially, I don't have the funds
to do any formal "publication" but will use the same channels as
shareware and freeware to get it distributed.

If you run a BBS and use Sprint for your long distance carrier on
outbound calls on at least one BBS line, send me e-mail to get a copy
of the info submittal form.  I hope this list will serve both SysOps
and callers who use Sprint.


Stuart Whitmore          FAX:  (509) 925-3893      Data: Same as FAX
whitmore@tahoma.cwu.edu                            71221.1737@compuserve.com

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

Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 22:28:49 EDT
From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM>
Reply-To: Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM>
Subject: 800 Numbers for Radio Shows
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA


> [Telecom Digest Editor's Note:... Very few [radio call-in shows] are
> willing to provide an 800 number for you to camp out on at their
> expense.

A nationally syndicated one comes from here in the Washington, DC area.

The phone number to call into it is 1-800-G-G-Liddy.

The name of the host of the show is left as an exercise to the reader. :)

Anyone else know of any beyond Rush Limbaugh, which was posted here
earlier?  Another local station has its own 800 number for its call-in
programs.


Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A place where I frequently eat breakfast
always has the Gordon G. Liddy show playing on the radio while I am 
there. He never interested me a lot. Limbaugh is interesting sometimes
and quite funny sometimes. Liddy is sort of blah IMO.  PAT]

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

From: rca@bfs.uwm.edu (Rob Allender)
Subject: Dumb Question: DID - Centrex - Help!
Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 19:44:25 GMT
Organization: Business & Financial Services


I've been looking for a network fax server for awhile and need to get
inbound routing of faxes to peoples desktop PCs.  A few companies have
this capability but it requires DID.  I know that we have Centrix
lines, but I'm not sure if it will work with the wink-start and
loop-start that the fax board companies are needing.  Anybody know?


Rob Allender      rca@bfs.uwm.edu 

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

From: jrichert@krefcom.GUN.de (Jan Richert)
Subject: Internet White Pages
Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 18:38:26 +0200


Hi,

Could anyone email me the exact title of the Internet White Pages,
publisher and ISBN number?


Thanks,

Krefcom Communication Services | Internet:   jrichert@krefcom.GUN.de
  Jan Richert, Krefeld, FRG    | Datex-J:    02151399843-0001
Voice:  +49 2151 313124        | IBM VNET:   I1006214 AT IBMMAIL
GSM:    +358 40 5005686        | IRC-Nick:   jrichert
FAX:    +49 2151 396479        | NIC-ID:     JR482

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

Date: Wed, 4 May 94 16:46:49 BST
From: eeijevs@eeiub.ericsson.se (John Evans)
Subject: Re: Fight A*vertising! Petition!


Michael P. O'Leary <MPO107@PSUVM.PSU.EDU> wrote..

> Read with great interest the article quoted below, it IS the future of
> the internet.  BUT, it shouldn't be.  People like this have no right
> to waste bandwidth on a valuable resource like the internet.  We must
> stop happenings like this with legislation so that the 'information
> highway' (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't become expensive
> and riddled with a*vertisi*g.  (And oh yeah, I use the wild card so
> people with the wor a* in their kill file still get this message.  I
> am taking upon myself the burden of collecting a petition from this
> group (and eventually other groups as well) stating our opposition to
> this practice and our support for legislation to stop it.  We must act
> fast though, because the bills that will govern the future are quickly
> advancing through Congressional committees.  Here is what to do:

I must admit, I am a little confused with respect to the way in which
people in the U.S. regard the Internet and Usenet -- that is, that it
stops with that country's boundaries. I am in Ireland, my Usenet server
is in Sweden, how would legislation in the U.S. congress relate to me?
 -- it wouldn't.

If laws are passed in the US outlawing advertising on Usenet, surely
ill-mannered advertisers will just obtain access in other countries to
the US? What then? Censor every message entering sites in the US?

In my view legislation and the Internet/Usenet do not sit well
together.  What we are seeing now is a shift in the rules of
nettiquette. Up until now system admistrators have dealt with network
abuse using the powers available to them in their companies and
educational institutions, because if they did not, the hassle in
flames would make their jobs difficult.

Commercial providers will act similarly, making their contracts such
that, if a user abuses their access, termination can be easily -- and
legally achieved.

At the same time, Usenet users are going to learn to use kill files
more, to ignore those messages that annoy them, and use moderated
groups more.


John
J.Evans. Ericsson Systems Expertese, Clonskeagh, Dublin4, Ireland, EU.    
eeijevs@eeiub.ericsson.se            

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

From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King)
Subject: Re: Fight A*vertising! Petition!
Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 10:03:29 PDT


In TELECOM Digest, V14 #191, Michael P. O'Leary <MPO107@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
wrote:

> ... We must
> stop happenings like this with legislation so that the 'information
> highway' (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't become expensive
> and riddled with a*vertisi*g.  (And oh yeah, I use the wild card so
> people with the wor a* in their kill file still get this message.  I
> am taking upon myself the burden of collecting a petition from this
> group (and eventually other groups as well) stating our opposition to
> this practice and our support for legislation to stop it.  We must act
> fast though, because the bills that will govern the future are quickly
> advancing through Congressional committees.  Here is what to do:

This bothers me.

I really *fear* the day when the government gets involved in
controlling the 'net.  I can't think of one thing that is controlled
by the government that works right.  And the last thing I want is a
bunch of bureaucrats who haven't the slightest clue as to how Internet-
working works sitting around making laws that affect those of us who do.

As soon as there is regulation, there will be organizations created to
oversee and control.  These organizations will then get bloated and
bogged in red tape.  And we *all* will have to pay for it.

Quite honestly, I think use of the 'd' key while reading mail and the
'n' key when reading news is quite effective in dealing with trash and
advertising on the 'net.


Just the personal *opinion* of...

Mike King    mk@tfs.com

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

From: Laurent LECHELLE <laurent@caladan.fdn.org>
Subject: Re: Unwelcome AT&T "Feature"
Reply-To: laurent@caladan.fdn.org
Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 07:20:17 GMT


In article <telecom14.194.11@eecs.nwu.edu> jay@coyote.rain.org (Jay  
Hennigan) writes:

> [In reference to AT&T disconnecting unanswered direct-dial calls]

> This seems a bit hard to swallow.  How many incoming trunks does Larry
> King have?  Maybe a dozen.  Maybe two dozen.  How many million calls a
> day does AT&T carry?  So ten or twenty people listen to ringing for an
> hour or so.  Are you suggesting that this is going to have enough
> impact on AT&T's revenue that they are going to re-engineer their
> network to prevent it?  Thousands more get busy signals.  If AT&T
> would improve their call processing time by one second, they would
> free up the thousands of busy signal circuits one second sooner (and
> AT&T indeed has very fast setup times).

I can't discuss AT&T revenue. But for your information, France Telecom
does not let people ring more than 30 seconds. After the line is down
you hang up.  In the same way, when you use a phone terminal in France
(a phone, a modem, an answering machine, ...) It needs to have an
agreement from France Telecom. And in the special case of modems, it
means that the dialer must not called twice within two minutes a busy
number.

So that, it means that companies probably spend a lot in calls that do
not provide benefits.


Laurent Lechelle, Courbevoie, France   e-mail: laurent@caladan.fdn.org

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

From: Anthony_Pelliccio@brown.edu (Tony Pelliccio)
Subject: Re: Unwelcome AT&T "Feature"
Date: 4 May 1994 14:25:32 GMT
Organization: Brown University


Our esteemed Moderator wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, not at all. Your machine turns itself
> on after 12 rings, or approximatly one minute. AT&T is letting calls
> ring for at least two or three minutes before cutting them off. Anyway,
> how often would it be the case that you forgot to turn your machine on
> and an out-of-town call was the first one to arrive thereafrer (instead
> of say, a local call, or your own call checking for messages, etc?)  PAT]

If you happen to have animals of the feline variety that like to walk
on your answering machine this function is VERY useful. :)


Anthony_Pelliccio@Brown.edu (Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR)
Box 1908, Providence, RI 02912 Tel. (401) 863-1880


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is true. My two cats like to
climb on the fax machine and lay there.  PAT]

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

From: amg@panix.com (Alan M. Gallatin)
Subject: Re: Cellular Call Forwarding
Date: 4 May 1994 10:45:40 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


In a previous article, bruce.mchollan@keystone.keystone.fl.us (Bruce
Mchollan) wrote:

> A person I work with has a cellular phone with call forwarding.  When
> he forwards his calls to another number and then calls his own
> cellular number he is not charged for the call ($0!).  This works even
> when he forwards his calls to a number within our LATA that would
> invoke toll charges if dialed by land line.  He takes advantage to
> save the toll charges.  Is this legal?

Legal?  Yes.  Believable?  No.

I've seen a couple of different ways cell companies handle the
forwarding charges.  Basically, they don't like to give unlimited
forwarding for free 'cause of the scenerio you described above.

Setup 1)  The cell company charges prevailing airtime per minute of the
          forwarded call.  No land or toll (unless long distance) but full
          airtime.  (This is the most common setup)

Setup 2)  Same as 1, except they only charge off peak rates on forwarding
          (recognizing that this isn't even an airtime usage problem but they
          need some rate to charge)  (I think Sprint Cellular does this)

Setup 3)  This one I consider quite interesting:  The cell provider first
          sees how many minutes of actual cellular calls (incoming and
          outgoing) that you made during the month.  You then get up to
          that many minutes of free forwarding.  Anything past that
          "flexible allowance" is treated under 1 or 2 above.  (Unless I'm
          mistaken, some GTE Cellular One companies do this)

What company is it that doesn't charge anything on the forwarded call?


Alan M. Gallatin              amg@panix.com               
amg@israel.nysernet.org   amg@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il

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

From: de@moscom.com (David Esan)
Subject: Re: NANP and Switches
Date: 4 May 94 14:15:57 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corporation, Pittsford NY


In article <telecom14.197.2@eecs.nwu.edu> cmoore@BRL.MIL (Carl Moore)
writes:

> codes.  But it's been known (certainly in the Digest) for years that
> NNX area codes were coming.

True.  But that does not mean that switch or other telecom gear
manufacturers actually ramped up to meet the deadline.  One well known
builder of telephone cost monitoring systems was warned by a long time
reader of this Digest that 1995 was coming.  In fact, the warnings
have been coming for at least five years.  They are finally ramping up
to make the changes by September.  They will not say what year
however. ;-).  I assume similar situations exist in other companies.


David Esan      de@moscom.com  

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

From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Getting Phone Bills Over the Internet
Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 09:14:57 -0700 (PDT)


Said by: Robin Fairbairns

>> I would like to be able to receive my phone (and other bills) over
>> the Internet. As I pay them by Direct Debit in any case their function
>> is to inform me what I have spent the money on. It would be cheaper
>> for my phone company (who would not have to print and mail a bill, and
>> save time for me.

> It would be nice, wouldn't it?

> information.  Since the internet is inherently insecure, that means
> that the bill as transmitted would need (at the least) to be
> encrypted; authentication information (e.g., digital signatures)
> wouldn't come amiss either.

Thst wouldn't be that big of a deal; the telco could encrypt using the
calling card (main one I guess) number.  Let's hope no one else as
that!

> I agree with you that electronic billing is highly desirable.  I
> disagree with the assertion that it's presently doable.

Pacific Bell already offers electronic billing; unfortunately, it is
on disk, and costs between 8-15 dollars per month (I can't remember
the exact amount, but it was something that sounded outrageous
considering that floppies cost anywhere from .50 to $1.00).


Steve    cogorno@netcom.com
#608 Merrill * 200 McLaughlin Drive * Santa Cruz, CA 95064-1015

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

Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 09:16:48 -0700
From: Ry Jones <rjones@usin.com>
Subject: Re: Connect a Card Reader to a Cell Phone? 


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes it is illegal, and yes people listen
> illegally to cellular calls. However there is very little risk of fraud
> by passing credit card numbers in this way. One, there has to be someone

PAT: ugh, wrong, this stuff goes on all the time. What you are
dismissing as "very little chance" is a popular pass time with
"phreaks". Trust me. National press (Newsweek, Gray Areas) have both
reported on this phenomena.

> listening to a scanner which is in the proximity of the tower from which
> the message is being transmitted. Two, they have to have their scanner
> land on the channel (out of 832 such channels) during the five seconds
> or so that the card number is being read. Third, credit card verification
> involves reading the number, the expiration date and the amount of the
> sale -- not the name and address of the card holder.

The most fatal flaw. You don't need the name and address of the
cardholder to commit fraud. You don't even need a valid credit card to
commit fraud.

> Fourth, without having physical possession of the card they cannot
> make purchases in stores.

True.

> Fifth, with only the number but no name or address to go with it they
> cannot very easily engage in mail order fraud.

Not true. Very few companies verify with the bank on small purchases.

> Sixth, without having actual possession of the card they cannot see
> who the issuer of it was -- unless they have the list of four digit
> (starting with three for AMEX, four for VISA, five for MC or six for
> DISCOVER) codes telling which bank (or credit grantor) issued the card
> -- thus no calls can be made to customer service putting in bogus
> inquiries or name/address changes.  In short, a non-issue here.

Wrong. There is a widely available program called Credit Master that
you can use to verify cards which has a list of all banks in it. It
also generates algorithmically correct credit cards for any given
bank.

> If I were going to rip off credit card numbers, PINS and related data, I
> would find it far easier to tap the phone line used by an ATM machine
> and put some kind of data capture device on that instead ... yet people
> use ATMs quite willingly. So what's the beef about cellular phones and
> credit card numbers?  On the one in a million chance someone *might* 
> happen to hear your credit card number read, what is it gonna get 
> them?  PAT] 

Everything. 1 800 CAL LATT is the best thing to happen to credit card
fraud in a long time.

Sorry to be so pessimistic, but it's true. Instead of gaining tighter
control over the credit card market, banks have ceded even more control 
to customers.


Ry

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

From: fenner@cmf.nrl.navy.mil (William C. Fenner)
Subject: Re: Any Modem Decode DTMF?
Organization: NRL Connection Machine Facility, Washington, DC
Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 17:16:14 GMT


In article <telecom14.195.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, mark boylan <boylanm@iia.
org> wrote:

> Is there a modem that can accept and decode DTMF tones after it's
> answered an incoming call?  And also, how can I send the output of a
> SoundBlaster card over the same phone line?

You can solve both problems at once with a ZyXEL modem.  Not only will
it decode DTMF tones, but it will also play audio directly to the
phone line.  If you convert your WAV files to, say, 3-bit ZyXEL ADPCM,
you can probably use one of the many shareware packages out there and
get up and running very quickly.


Bill Fenner   fenner@cmf.nrl.navy.mil

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

From: paulb@coho.halcyon.com (Paul N. Bates)
Subject: Re: Radio Frequency Interference on Residential Telephone Line
Date: 4 May 1994 19:13:58 GMT
Organization: A World of Information at Your Fingertips


In article <telecom14.196.6@eecs.nwu.edu>,  <ROsman@swri.edu> wrote:

>> My home is wired for two residential telephone lines.  Because of my
>> proximity to an am radio transmitter (am 1550khz), many of my audio
>> and telephone devices suffer from "radio noise", from that one station
>> only though.  Some days it is worse than others, some days there is no
>> interference at all.

> This is an increasingly common problem.  Newer more electronic devices
> have more opportunities for rectification and internal amplification.
> This makes them more susceptable to this kind of interference.  I have
> an AM Spanish-language station 3/4 of a mile from the house -- same
> problem in my bulletprook ole' 1A2.  The problem is occurring in the
> music-on-hold receiver or amp.

I know that the local AM broadcast station in my area provides filters
specifically designed for the interference from AM broadcast freq.'s
to people in the close proximity to their tower (free of charge). They
provide these when you call and complain. Try the station there, maybe
they have something that will work. I know for a fact the filters
designed for the ham frequencies don't work.


Paul N. Bates              Celerex Corporation
paulb@halcyon.com          14712 NE 87TH ST
Phone: 206-869-7200 x20    Redmond, WA 98052

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

From: egg@inuxs.att.com (Edwin Green)
Date: Wed, 4 May 94 07:33:52 EST
Subject: Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 Probably Dead
Organization: AT&T


In article <telecom14.196.8@eecs.nwu.edu> Hans-Gabriel Ridder
<ridder@rust.zso.dec.com> writes:

> I was in the Alaska Airlines terminal at the Seattle-Tacoma airport
> two weeks ago, and saw a couple of Public Phone 2000's *with
> keyboard*.  I didn't have time to check them out ... I assume they
> were working since after the tariff problems all the keyboards seem to
> have been removed.

Not true at all.  We have not been removing any keyboards due to the
problems with the FCC.  We simply turn that feature off.  Some sets
are installed with keyboards, some are not (usually at the agent's
request).  All the sets with keyboards still need them for TDD usage.


>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's a shame, because the 2000's were
>> a very useful service. Too bad it did not work out.   PAT]

> Since John based his remarks on his experience in one airport, and not
> from any offical announcements from AT&T, it's probably a bit premature 
> to be speaking in the past tense, don't you think?

I sure hope so.


Edwin G. Green
AT&T Bell Laboratories    Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
INH 1A-519                317-845-3659
egg@inuxs.att.com

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

From: Vance Shipley <vances@xenitec.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Equal Access in Canada
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 12:38:48 GMT


In article <telecom14.197.13@eecs.nwu.edu> Pat injects:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have been told it will by and large
> follow the USA numbering scheme; i.e. 10288 for Mother, 10222 for MCI,
> etc. with Canadian-only carriers getting a few numbers as well.   PAT]

Well your Mother (AT&T) isn't in Canada, neither is MCI.

AT&T has a twenty percent stake (maximum foriegn ownership of a
facilities based carrier allowed) in Unitel, our largest competing
carrier.  I don't think they will be using 10288 as their main CIC but
I wouldn't be at all suprised if they did capture calls placed by
roving Americans with it.  (We at Northquest just might get a few
misdialed AT&T calls having 10289 :)

MCI have partnered with Bell Canada, they will be sharing technology.
Bell may also trap thier CIC (10222) when dialed by travelling
Americans through an agreement with MCI but I doubt it.

> etc. with Canadian-only carriers getting a few numbers as well.   PAT]

Yeah, suprise, suprise our own national carriers will also get to have
their own CIC codes, just like the REAL American carriers.  Sheesh.


Vance Shipley, vances@xenitec.on.ca 

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #202
******************************

