TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 May 94 02:43:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 234

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telephone Number Syntax Question (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: Telephone Number Syntax Question (K. M. Peterson)
    Re: Telephone Number Syntax Question (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: Bellcore NANP Seminars Coming (Paul A. Lee)
    Re: Telecoms Training (Dave Ptasnik)
    Re: Cellular Privacy (Sam Spens Clason)
    Re: GSM and Airbags (Kaita Seikku)
    Re: Radio Frequency Interference on Residential (Dale R. Worley)
    Re: "Private" Message on CID Box (James Taranto)
    Re: Loop to Ground Start converters (Jay Hennigan)
    Re: Palestinian Country Code (Dik T. Winter)
    Re: What is a Synchronous Modem Eliminator? (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: New (Lame) Directory Assistance From GTE Mobilnet (David Josephson)
    Re: 800 Number Billback (Jonathan Loo)
    Re: 800 Number Billback (John R. Levine)
    Re: Reach Out and Pay Someone (Peter M. Weiss)
    Re: Need Criteria for Choosing a Phone Number (Carl Moore)

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

From: richgr@netcom.com (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Telephone Number Syntax Question
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login:
guest)
Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 00:39:59 GMT


In article <telecom14.231.11@eecs.nwu.edu> shirriff@allspice.Berkeley.
EDU (Ken Shirriff) writes:

> It used to be that phone numbers had the syntax 123-456-7890 or (123)
> 456-7890. Now I see lots of numbers of the form +1 123 456-7890. When
> did this new trend occur, and what does the "+" signify?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The +1 indicates the country code for the
> USA and Canada along with countries using the 809 area code. By coincidence
> '1' is also the access code we dial when placing a long distance number,
> but in this instance it represents the country code.   PAT]

Pat, you are correct as far as you went, but you only answered part of
the question.  The "+" in this context means "dial the international
access code here".  01 or 011 here in country 1, 00 in some other countries.


Rich Greenberg            Work: ETi Solutions, Oceanside & L.A. CA
310-348-7677
N6LRT   TinselTown, USA   Play: richgr@netcom.com                 
310-649-0238

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

From: kmp@tiac.net (K. M. Peterson)
Subject: Re: Telephone Number Syntax Question
Date: 17 May 1994 22:04:25 GMT
Organization: KMPeterson/Boston


In article <telecom14.231.11@eecs.nwu.edu> shirriff@allspice.Berkeley.
EDU (Ken Shirriff) writes:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The +1 indicates the country code for the
> USA and Canada along with countries using the 809 area code. By coincidence
> '1' is also the access code we dial when placing a long distance number,
> but in this instance it represents the country code.   PAT]

Also, as I understand the recommendation (E.123), the "+" is the only
punctuation permitted ... so, the number should really be +1 213 456
7890 (no hyphen).


K. M. Peterson   email: KMP@TIAC.NET
phone: +1 617 731 6177 voice
       +1 617 730 5969 fax

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

From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred Goldstein [k1io; FN42jk])
Subject: Re: Telephone Number Syntax Question
Date: 17 May 1994 21:39:37 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Reply-To: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred Goldstein [k1io; FN42jk])


In article <telecom14.231.11@eecs.nwu.edu>, shirriff@allspice.Berkeley.
EDU (Ken Shirriff) writes:

> It used to be that phone numbers had the syntax 123-456-7890 or (123)
> 456-7890. Now I see lots of numbers of the form +1 123 456-7890. When
> did this new trend occur, and what does the "+" signify?

It signifies "when dialing from another country, insert your local
international direct dialing prefix, followed by this country code".
Thus +1 when dialed from most European countries means "001", while
from the US it means "1" (generally), and from some countries it could
be practically anything, followed by a 1.  Likewise +44 for calls to
the UK, which from the US or Canada means "01144".


Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com 
k1io             or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com   voice:+1 508 952 3274

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

Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 12:29:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Bellcore NANP Seminars Coming
From: Paul A. Lee  </DD.ID=JES2CAOF.UEDCM09/@SMX.sprint.com>
Organization: Woolworth Corporation


Regarding the Bellcore NANP Information Series Seminars mentioned in
TELECOM Digest V 14 #229: For those whose interest may be determined
by the cost of the seminar, I quote from the Bellcore TEC brochure
describing the seminar series:
 
  "The $765.00 fee includes all seminar materials, lunch on Day 1, and
   refreshments."
 
Based on the locations and hotels cited in the brochure, I would
expect a room charge of $100-$150 per night, in addition to the
seminar and other costs.
 

Paul A. Lee                           Voice  414 357-1409
Telecommunications Analyst              FAX  414 357-1450
Woolworth Corporation            CompuServe  70353,566
   INTERNET  </DD.ID=JES2CAOF.UEDCM09/@SMX.sprint.com>

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

From: davep@u.washington.edu (Dave Ptasnik)
Subject: Re: Telecoms Training
Date: 17 May 1994 18:45:44 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


aa744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Andrew Hartridge) writes:

> We are just about to expand into a new building and I find myself
> faced with the problem of hooking up 1000 phone sets and many data
> ports.  I have not had any experience with doing a new installation.
> I've always just had to make do with what I have inherited.

Get some help.  This does not sound like a project for a do-it-yourself'er .

> Question: Are there any training organizations out there, or reference
> materials on 'How to set up and configure telecomms systems' ... e.g.
> pros and cons of different wiring closet configurations?

Call 1-800 LIBRARY and ask for the current Teleconnect book catalog.
It is chock full of just the kind of thing you will need, should you
decide to proceed on your own.


Dave Ptasnik  davep@u.washington.edu

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

From: d92-sam@nada.kth.se (Sam Spens Clason)
Subject: Re: Cellular Privacy
Date: 17 May 1994 18:14:50 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden


In article <telecom14.226.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, Mike Borsetti, Cellular
One/San Francisco <BORSETTIM@BACTC.COM> writes:

> Additionally, the TDMA digital standard supports encription, which
> will be available sometime in the near future.  Today's phones will
> only need a simple reprogramming to take advantage of encryption.

GSM has always been encrypted, setting up a call is based on encryption.


Sam Spens Clason, <A HREF="http://www.nada.kth.se/~d92-sam/">Web</A>

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

From: spk@proffa.cc.tut.fi (Kaita Seikku)
Subject: Re: GSM and Airbags
Date: 17 May 1994 12:46:04 GMT
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Computing Centre


David Breneman (daveb@jaws) wrote:

> This story is indeed bogus.  The only way ABS could "disable" the
> brakes would be if it took out a wrench and unbolted the pedal.  The
> infamous unintended accelleration legend is entirely the result of

[ bull cut ]

C'mon, you should know better: when ever there's software, ther's a
chance ... (which doesn't imply that this would have ever happened).


Seikku

internet : spk@proffa.cc.tut.fi  answering machine->pager : +358 -43 498 0297
real life: Seikku P. Kaita                 phone (or FAX) : +358 -31 265 6865
visit at : Saastajankuja 4b32 TAMPERE         On The Air  : OH3NYB
            ^^  ^ ^  ..these four a's should have double dots above them, 
           since they are front vowels (as in word 'that'). Isn't it a pity
           that in English the word GHOTI can be pronounced like word FISH.  

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

From: drw@severi.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Radio Frequency Interference on Residential Line
Date: 17 May 94 19:51:59
Organization: National Institute for Lameness, Cambridge, MA, USA


In article <telecom14.216.5@eecs.nwu.edu> bkobb@newsignals.com (Bennett Z. 
Kobb) writes:

> The FCC has been very clear on its position about telephone interference.

> The agency says that "filters cannot be relied upon to eliminate tele-
> phone interference."

Though I've had luck trying to get rid of interference on my line by
using a filter.  However, it was a strange sort of interference: It
was only present when my modem was off-hook.  It turns out that the
problem was a strong local radio station was coupling RF into the
line, which went into the modem (when it was off-hook), was *rectified
into audio*, and sent back out the line.  Really ugly.

People have asked me about this before, and only now have I found the
information I wanted to tell them: The filter I used was from K-COM.
They have 1-line (RJ-11, $14.95) and 2-line (RJ-12, I think, 19.95)
models.  Their phone number is 216-325-2110.


Dale Worley Dept. of Math., MIT drw@math.mit.edu

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

From: taranto@panix.com (James Taranto)
Subject: Re: "Private" Message on CID Box
Date: 18 May 1994 01:16:37 GMT
Organization: The Bad Taranto


In article <telecom14.231.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, mwolf@marcie.wellesley.edu
(MUR) wrote:

> Some of the calls I receive from areas that don't yet have Caller ID
> service are picked up by my CID boxes as "private" (blocked) rather
> that "out-of-area", even though the calling parties haven't blocked
> thier numbers. This will be a problem when I install a blocked call
> rejecting CID box.  Have others found this to happen? Solutions?

 From what I've been able to tell, calls form central offices that are
Caller ID-ready but where Caller ID has not yet been activated come up
"private."  You might ask someone calling you from one of these areas
to try dialing *67 first and see if his number comes up.  If it still
comes up "private," then there is probably no fix except to wait until
Caller ID is online throughout your area -- but even then, when Caller
ID goes nationwide, there will probably be central offices making the
transition for a long time to come, so the blocking box might prove
impracticable.


Cheers,

James Taranto  taranto@panix.com

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

From: jay@coyote.rain.org (Jay Hennigan)
Subject: Re: Loop to Ground Start Converters
Date: 17 May 1994 15:50:42 -0700
Organization: Regional Access Information Network (RAIN)


Our Illustrious Editor noted:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It has never been clear to me why, if a
> person or company wants mostly ground-start lines with an occassional
> line operating on a loop-start basis they simply do not order those
> lines from telco in that fashion rather than going to the trouble of
> purchasing equipment specifically to convert one to the other. After
> all, isn't the default from telco loop-start lines? They certainly do
> not charge any extra to send them from the CO that way.   PAT]

A common use for such items is power-failure phones.  A company will
have ground start lines installed for a PBX, but wants a backup phone
to work in case the PBX fails.  Emergency phones, elevator phones and
alarm dialers designed for loop-start only need such a converter when
used in an environment where the only phone service is ground-start
and a station off of the PBX is not practical or desirable.
 

Jay

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

From: Dik.Winter@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Subject: Re: Palestinian Country Code
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 22:55:06 GMT


In article <telecom14.231.1@eecs.nwu.edu> goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob
Goudreau) writes:

> (I can't find any listing for Gaza in the current Israel listing.)

Gaza is 51.

dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj  amsterdam, nederland, +31205924098
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn  amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: dik@cwi.nl

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

From: bonomi@eecs.nwu.edu (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: What is a Synchronous Modem Eliminator?
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 23:37:21 GMT


In article <telecom14.231.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, Victoria Matho <vmatho@mason1.
gmu.edu> wrote:

> Does anyone know what an SME or synchronous modem eliminator does??

I can't resist answering the question -exactly- as posed!  so:

Yes, I do.  

Now, for a -serious- explaination,

A 'sync' data circuit is different from a standard 'async' serial
circuit, in two ways -- 1) no start/stop 'framing bits', and 2) it
doesn't operate at any specific 'baud rate' -- instead, a 'clock'
signal is present on another wire, defining when the 'data' wire is to
be sampled/driven.  Now, the question rises, "where does this 'clock'
signal come from.  'sync' devices may use "internal" (meaning -they-
provide the clock) or "external" (meaning that it comes from an
outside-the-box source) clocking.  A normal serial circuit consists of
a DTE at one end, and a DCE at the other.

By convention, the DCE is the 'clock' source (i.e. DCE uses "internal"
clocking, and the DTE uses 'external' clocking [from the DCE]).
Side-note, there are -two- separate clocks, one for the data going in
each direction. The DCE provides -both- signals.  These contortions
are necessary for those situations where the circuit is time-division-
multiplexed into a higher-speed digital circuit -- when the data (each
individual bit, that is) is assured of arriving at -exactly- the right
time, it can be simply 'interleaved' into the composite data-stream,
without need for buffering.  Simplifies the h/w design considerably.

SO, to connect to -sync- DTE together, you need, not only a 'null
modem' (to invert the TX/RX and signaling leads), but -something- to
supply the 'clock' to -both- DTE.  *That* is a SME's function --
null-modem plus clock generator.


Robert Bonomi

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

From: davidj@rahul.net (David Josephson)
Subject: Re: New (Lame) Directory Assistance From GTE Mobilnet (Bay Area)
Organization: a2i network
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 23:50:50 GMT


In <telecom14.231.4@eecs.nwu.edu> Henry Mensch <HMENSCH@us.oracle.com>
writes:

> Moral of the story: to use GTE's new gimmicky directory assistance dial 411 
> or 555 1212 ... to get the real stuff dial *6543. Your mileage may vary, 
> especially outside the Bay Area.

And Pat wrote,

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Henry, a question and a comment: exactly
> what does this *6543 hook get you into?  You said 'new, gimmicky directory
> assistance' which leads me to wonder, did not GTE offer directory assist-
> ance like any other telco until recently, i.e. 'new'?. Is the cellular
> division of the company offering a new service and intercepting calls to
> 411 or 555-1212 which formerly had gone to a full directory bureau and
> providing some limited sub-set of the directory?  

Note that GTE Mobilnet has almost no connection with a GTE operating
co. except the same corporate parent. Indeed they are intercepting
calls to 411, offering, for sixty cents plus airtime, to flip through
a paper phonebook and then connect you to the number without your
having to dial it yourself. The oprs were so lame that they needed a
supervisor to find the number for a newsstand at a hotel. Formerly 411
was just routed to normal telco 411 from a trunk in the subscriber's
home area code; the DA opr had no idea it was a cell call. *6543 seems
to do that, still, and probably carries the same 25 cent surcharge
that it did before.


David Josephson - Josephson Engineering - San Jose, CA
<david@josephson.com>

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

Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 14:20:15 -0400
From: Jonathan <jdl@wam.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: 800 Number Billback


Pat Townson wrote:

> The 'way they can charge you for calling an 800 number' is the same
> way AT&T can charge for it. For example you can call AT&T's 800 number
> to put through a collect call to someone or to charge a call to your
> credit card. Merely because you originated it via an 800 number does
> not mean charges cannot be incurred for the call as a result. In the
> case of the Information Providers who use an 800 number in this way,
> *someone* in your firm called the 800 number and gave the answering
> operator permission to place the charges on your line.

> Although you can request a block on the line against future charges of
> this sort, you cannot legally refuse to pay the charges already incurred
> since tariffs plainly state you are responsible for the use of your
> instruments.

How does AT&T charge for 800 calls?  Either they charge it to a credit
card or to somebody who accepts the charges, but if you call 800
CALL-ATT then they do not normally allow you to charge the call to the
number that you are on.  They can charge collect and third-number
calls because they are a telephone company.  Most information
providers are not operator services providers, and not even AT&T
charges calls placed through its 800 number, to the originating
number.

Also, I do not understand that "you cannot legally refuse to pay the
charges already incurred since tariffs plainly state your are
responsible for the use of your instruments."  Where in the tariffs
does it state that there can be a charge ON YOUR TELEPHONE BILL for
making calls TO an 800 number?  I thought that the very idea of an 800
number is for calls to that number to be toll-free.


Jonathan D. Loo


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are not being charged for the call
to the 800 number. That part is free to you the caller with the recipient
paying for the carriage. You are being charged for the return collect
call the Information Provider makes to you, which the AOS operator asked
if you would accept the charges for. Admittedly sometimes they do not
bother to call back but simply continue the conversation with you on the
same connection, but none the less the AOS operator at some point asked
if you would accept the charges for the call; when accepted, it then is
like any other collect call.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 17 May 94 11:14 EDT
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: 800 Number Billback
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass.


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The 'way they can charge you for calling
> an 800 number' is the same way AT&T can charge for it. ...
> In the case of the Information Providers who use an 800 
> number in this way, *someone* in your firm called the 800 number and
> gave the answering operator permission to place the charges on your line.

Aw, come on.  Dollars to donuts these crooks put through a charge on
every call that comes in to their 800 number, permission or no permission, 
and they never, ever make an actual collect callback.  (Consider Kath
Mulholland's frequent messages about these charges on trunks at UNH
that can't even receive incoming calls.)

Also, as was hashed out in Telecom a while ago, there's no reason to
believe that the person making an 800 call, or any other kind of call,
has the authority to charge anything at all other than that direct
dialed outgoing call to the ANI number.  Consider PBX trunks, for example.

Any business that bills based on 800 ANI is basically committing
fraud, and the sooner they're put out of business the better.


Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I am not sure I disagree with you
John. They are sleaze from the beginning ... rotten to the core. But,
they do (via their AOS) have the right to place collect calls at the
rate charged for same by the AOS, and they do claim they can back up
their authority for the collect call by documenting that someone at
the 'called number' (although as pointed out they rarely return the
call, they merely continue the conversation on the existing connection)
accepted the charge and authorized the billing. Often times as Kath
has pointed out, the person authorizing the charge had no authority to
do so. This then gets down to the legal question of whether or not a
company which normally requires purchase orders for all purchases is
obligated to pay for a purchase made without authority (or purchase
order) by an employee. Maybe they do, and maybe they don't. Under
telco tariffs and tradition, verbal authorization for a collect call
is the norm, and the AOS people -- unfortunatly I might add -- have
full rights in this regard. I agree they should be put out of business
however.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 16:03:26 EDT
From: Peter M. Weiss <PMW1@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Reach Out and Pay Someone
Organization: Penn State University


In article <telecom14.229.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, VANTEK@aol.com says:

> AMERITECH GIVING MONEY TO PAY PHONE, CALLING CARD USERS

> CHICAGO, May 10 /PRNewswire/ --

> Ameritech representatives will be incognito at hundreds of its
                                    ^^^^^^^^^
> publicly accessible pay phones on certain dates through the end of
> July, on the prowl for the first person to make a coin call during
> predetermined time periods.  The lucky caller will be asked to scratch
> off an instant-win ticket that will tell them how much they won.  Any
> of Ameritech's publicly accessible pay phones in the Midwest could be
> selected.
 
So you won't be able to tell them apart from the Shoulder Surfers?
I'm not sure I'd want to interact with any one hanging out by a public
phone.  Thank you very little.

 
Pete-Weiss@psu.edu

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

Date: Wed, 18 May 94 00:08:16 EDT
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@BRL.MIL>
Subject: Re: Need Criteria for Choosing a Phone Number


Many years ago (and I wrote to the Digest then) my office and others
had extensions of the form 66ab, and got a rash of calls intended for
extensions of the form 6abc.  A call intended for me from an AT&T
office went to the wrong number for that reason.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I have also pointed out in the past,
years ago when I worked at the credit card billing office my extension
on the centrex system was 7265.  The bar and grill downstairs where many
employees went for lunch (or to idle away the afternoon hiding from their
supervisor) had the phone number 726-5xxx. I could set my watch by it:
everyday at 11:30 -- the start of the first lunch hour -- my phone would
ring. I would answer; a voice on the other end would say 'damn' (or worse
or more crude, depending on who) and click off. They were calling down-
stairs to get their lunch order started and had forgotten to dial '9'
for an outside line. Then at 12:30, the start of the second lunch hour,
the process would be repeated with one or two more calls like that.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #234
******************************

