TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 Jun 94 09:15:30 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 280

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere" (Bob Larribeau)
    Re: FCC Seeks Further Comments on 0+ Call Routing (Steve Howard)
    Re: Can ANI be Blocked From Call Recipient?  (Ry Jones)
    Re: Cellular ESN Change (Joseph Renda)
    Re: Bell Canada Joins the 700 Club (Mark Brader)
    Re: Does MCI Have Answer Supervision? (Philip J. Tait)
    1+ 804 + 7D in Virginia (Carl Moore)
    Re: 716 Now Split Between 7D and 1 + 716 + 7D (Stan Schwartz)
    Four-wire to Five-wire Adapter to Use US Modem in England? (Will Dye)
    800 Number Statistics (Dave Leibold)
    35 Residential Lines, and Pac*Bell Tariffs (Christopher Ambler)
    Can I Use Deactivated Cellular Phone in Emergency? (Shawn Gordhamer)
    Sources Wanted: Telemedicine and Telecommuting (dboomstein@aol.com)

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: blarrib@netcom.com (Bob Larribeau)
Subject: Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere"
Organization: Consultant
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 14:51:21 GMT


In article <telecom14.273.7@eecs.nwu.edu> lps@rahul.net (Kevin Martinez) 
writes:

> judson%linex@uunet.UU.NET (Michael L Judson) writes:

>> I saw in a news report about a new service from Pacific Bell called
>> "ISDN Anywhere."  When I called up Pac Bell, they had no idea what I
>> was talking about.  The news report didn't give much more information
>> other than they would start offering it in about a month.

>> Does anybody else have any ideas about what is so different about "ISDN
>> Anywhere?"

> Same Old Stuff: Marketing Hype.

> When I finally found a Pac Bell representative that knew what ISDN was
> and the procedures for having it installed, I was told it was not
> available in my exchange (Milpitas, Ca., near the heart of Pac Bell).

> It appears that whatever switching mechanism they have is not up to
> the claims of their Marketing, Advertising and Sales force. Maybe next
> year ...

Call Pac Bell at 1-800-4PB-ISDN and they should be able to give you
the straight story.  The ISDN Anywhere program does not go into effect
until mid-July.  They are setting up this 800 number to handle orders.


Bob Larribeau    Consultant   San Francisco

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

Subject: Re: FCC Seeks Further Comments on 0+ Call Routing
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 94 17:17:02 MDT
From: Steve Howard <steveh@townhall.ci.breckenridge.co.us>


In-reply-to: your article <telecom14.274.13@eecs.nwu.edu>

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except something you are forgetting is that
> there are many locations where a payphone would NOT be installed by the
> phone company otherwise which now have them because the COCOT owner was
> willing to put one in at a somewhat higher cost to the end user. There are
> many cases where merchants can not get a *commissioned* coin phone on the
> premises because telco won't give them one unless the traffic volume is
> as high as telco wants it to be

 ..... [snip]

This is a *major* benefit of COCOTs that the FCC must seriously look
at!

Our LEC (US West) will not install a public/coin phone unless they are
fairly sure that it will make plenty of money.  (Can you blame them?).
I think that they are just too conservative in their revenue
estimates.  Due to seasonal nature of our business (skiing!), they
don't like to install their phones at most of our locations :-(.  Here
(and at a previous employer) we have been forced to install COCOTs
becuase their owners are *very* willing to install them at the
locations deemed "undesirable" by US West.  We insist that the rates
"mirror" AT&T rates so that we don't gouge our guests.  (Additionally,
they also offer $1 for four minutes anywhere in the US -- which is
cheaper than residential rates for IntraLATA!).

The COCOTs have been installed at ~10 locations that US West wouldn't
touch.  Those same phones would cost $474.10/month (~$5,690 annually)
if they were owned by US West.  We could not justify the cost of LEC
pubilc phones -- if it weren't for the COCOTs those locations would
not have any public phones.

If the AOSs were eliminated (via FCC ruling or whatever making them
unprofitable) there would only be LEC phones available for public use
in this and other "rural" parts of the country.  When your car breaks
down/or you are involved in an accident in the middle of nowhere you
will be very pleased to find that the walk to the nearest LEC phone
will only take a day or two!  :-( (BTW, don't think that you could
just pick up your cellphone in the above scenario -- many, many, areas
of this country still do not have cell coverage).

I think that the current proposal of "looking up" the receiving
persons IXC (for collect calls) and then handing off the call to that
IXC has some problems: (1) Prohibitively expensive; (2) I have BNS - I
will never use this collect/3rd party lookup -- will I have to share
the cost?  I bet that I will :-( (3) What if I subscribed to one of
the regional carriers and someone tried to call me collect from
outside the service area?  Or worse, placed a third party call billed
to my number where neither party to the conversation was in the
service area of my IXC?

How about a different solution?  Here is one that I have been thinking
about: Why not require all public phones manufactured after date X to
have several carrier select buttons? (similair to the ones at
Stapleton and other airports).  The customer could simply choose the
carrier of his/her choice before placing the call.  The IXCs could pay
a "rent" charge to the public phone owners (i.e. $0.10/call or
whatever) for each call placed by their "button".  This way the
(generally untrainable) American public would have the choice of
several carriers without the need to memorize any codes and the public
phone owners could get reimbursed for the IXCs use of their phone and
thus would be encouraged to install more phones at convenient
locations!  The LEC could even be required to have the carrier select
buttons -- they could then earn the "rent" from the IXC buttons (as
well as FGD charges).  Hopefully this would encourage the LECs to
install more phones and encourage them and the COCOTs to compete
directly.

One of the major problems with this idea: How do you keep all of the
IXC select buttons from being occupied by scummy AOS companies?  Limit
to companies whose rates are in the lowest X%?  Limit to the companies
who don't have a calling card surchage :-) ?


Steve Howard    Town of Breckenridge, Colorado    
steveh@ci.breckenridge.co.us

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

From: Ry Jones <rjones@halcyon.com>
Subject: Re: Can ANI be Blocked From Call Recipient? 
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 23:37:39 PDT


In article <telecom14.278.7@eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Editor noted:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But you are discussing a technical
> and/or logistics problem. Things are *not supposed* to happen the way
> you describe. When placing an 800 call through the operator, your
> number is *supposed* to appear on the operator's console and be passed
> the same as usual. 

This is true. Emphasis on *supposed*. The 0+ operators are failing,
true, but since they always fail ... the system is broken.

> console then she is *supposed* to inquire about your number and bubble
> it in in the process of releasing the call. I think if you zero plus
> the 800 number it will appear on the console and in further billing

0+800 fails for me.

> records. If you simply dial zero, and pass the number verbally, she is

Here's a transcript of a typical call:

RJ: 0
USW: (bong) USWEST <pause> USWest, how can I help you?
RJ: My 8 key is broken, can you please dial a number for me?
USW: Yes, may I have the number, area code first, please?
RJ: 1 800 265 5328, please.
USW: Please wait...

ATT: Number you are dialing from please?
RJ: 206 xxx xxxx
ATT: Number you would like to call?
RJ: 812 xxx xxxx
ATT: What is your name please?
RJ: Ry.
ATT: Thank you. <ring>
IP <indiana pal>: Hello?
ATT: This is AT&T, I have a collect call from Ry. Will you accept the
charges?
IP: Yeah.
ATT: Thank you.

The number that comes out on the bill of IP is whatever I told ATT.
ATT does *not* get the number from the USW operator. Period. I know
they *should*, they are *supposed* to, but they *don't*.

> supposed to refer you to the double-zero (or long distance carrier's)
> operator. Now granted, many operators do not bother to follow the
> rules on this. They are supposed to handle it the same way they (are

There you go. Lazy operators.

> supposed to) handle calls to 911 placed through the operator: take the
> caller's number -- if it is not already in the system for some reason
>  -- and pass it along. For instance with 911, the operator is supposed
> to stay on the line until 911 answers and pass the calling party's
> number so the 911 dispatcher can key it in manually.  So I think when you

I have not had to call 911 in 206, and if I did, I sure wouldn't try
to defeat ANI or anything. But the theory is interesting.

> are not receiving ANI as a result of a call being placed through the
> operator it is the exception rather than the rule.  And I believe that
> when you do this, many times you *just think* the ANI is not getting 
> passed when in fact the operator bubbles or forces it into the network
> without specifically telling you that is what she is doing.

However, evidence suggests this is not true. I place collect calls all
the time in this manner and the 800 collect operator asks for my
number. By calling 800 ANI demos from the 0 operator, I get the INWARD
DID number. (If the INWARD dialed it). If I direct dial an 800 demo,
boom, ANI in full form. If I have the 0+ operator do it, no ANI is
passed. I agree this is a failure of US West's, but this technique
works in PacBell, Ameritech, SWBell, NyNex ... everywhere.

> The general rule though is correct: if you call an 800 number in the
> normal and usual way, with 1+800+ then there are no secrets. By the

Correct. But I have never had a problem calling 1 800 collect from the
0 operator and hiding the calling number. Every time I do so, I am
asked for my number.

> way, will zero plussing an 800 number work in your location?  One person
> said to me once that 0+800+ always went to intercept in his switch.  PAT]

This is true. I cannot 0+800, it intercepts before I finish dialing.


rjones@halcyon.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Whenever I zero plus anything (although
like you, my zero plus 800 fails to complete) the operator always has
my number available without asking me anything. When I call collect,
using zero plus which is rare, she merely asks my name. Even just dialing
zero to get the operator produces my number on her console. I know this
since I dialed zero and asked to speak to a supervisor. When my call was
passed the operator advised the supervisor that 'subscriber wishes to
speak with the supervisor, he is calling from 708-xxx-xxxx.'

I certainly hope you are not giving a phalse number to the operator
when she asks for it. The reason is, even if you are calling collect,
should the called party later refuse to pay for the call, it will be
bounced back to the 'caller' for payment, which would be whatever
number you had given. Billing options such as collect and third-party
are courtesies extended by telco and not absolute. That is, the rule
that you are responsible for the use of your instrument still applies.
If other methods of collection fail, then it is your problem; you
placed the call and used the network. I guess this comes down to
whether or not the operators are (1) equipped to see the calling number
or not and (2) if they are doing their job correctly.  PAT]

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

From: joseph@CAM.ORG (Joseph Renda)
Subject: Re: Cellular ESN Change
Date: 8 Jun 1994 19:30:06 -0400
Organization: Communications Accessibles Montreal, Quebec Canada


In article <telecom14.276.10@eecs.nwu.edu>, Robert S. Helfman
<helfman@aerospace.aero.org> wrote:

> I recently purchased a Motorola PC-550 flip phone. Since I was already
> a PacTel cellular customer (using a transportable Motorola), this was
> a very easy switch. I just called PacTel Cellular, gave them some
> personal identification and the new ESN, and in 20 minutes they had
> made the switch.

> My question is (and I suspect this has been answered before):

> In what form is the ESN stored in the Motorola phones? Is it a
> removable ROM? A PROM? What would be involved in changing it? I
> clearly understand the prohibition of two phones with the same phone
> number being on the system at the same time. But being single, and
> having no reason whatever to use both phones at the SAME time, there
> ARE times when I would like to use the transportable (say, while
> driving on a long trip where the added range and battery life would be
> useful).

Many times this is a simple bi-polar Prom. usually a 32x8 bit. 

Newer phones have ESN & NAM inside some VLSI chips ... 

> PacTel's central folks said there is no problem switching ESN's any
> time I want to. They have no company policy that discourages this, and
> it only takes a phone call and about 20 minutes to an hour to make the
> switch. BUT, it would be a lot easier if I could diddle the ESN on my
> transportable to match my flip phone. Then, whichever one happens to
> be powered up will be the one that the systems 'sees'.

> Just how big a job is this? Does anyone have the technical details?
> [Yeh, PAT, I know YOU have probably seen this before, and I'm sure you
> think it's some kind of mortal sin to consider the possibility.]

> I am sure that some of the 'gangster' cellular phone stores along
> Crenshaw Blvd would be delighted to do this for me, but I feel certain
> that when they were through, half the cellular phones in the area
> would be charging to my account.

This is a "very" big possiblity. I know, that when I recieve cellular
phones for repairs, I tend to look the phone "totally" over. But once
I have your ESN the NAM isn't real hard; it can be accessed via the
keypad.  Its the ESN that really needs to be "protected".

All you really need to commit fraud is your ESN and NAM. The NAME 
is nothing but your cellular phone number. 


Joseph Renda    N.K.E. Computer Development   Internet: joseph@cam.org

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

Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 04:35:25 -0400
From: msb@sq.com
Subject: Re: Bell Canada Joins the 700 Club


> When 1 700 555 4141 is dialed from a Toronto phone, the following
> recording is heard:

> "Your provider of long distance service is Bell Canada. Thank you for
> choosing us. This is a recording... 416 11"

Not when I tried it just now from my home phone (416-488-XXXX).

I got as far as 1-700-5554 and at this point heard one ring followed
by "We're sorry. Your call cannot be completed as dialed ...".  This
is particularly interesting since we haven't had 1 + seven digit
dialing in this area for several years now.


Mark Brader, msb@sq.com   SoftQuad Inc., Toronto 

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

From: pjt@pelab.allied.com (Philip J. Tait)
Subject: Re: Does MCI Have Answer Supervision?
Date: 8 Jun 1994 22:51:01 GMT
Organization: AlliedSignal Engines
Reply-To: pjt@pelab.allied.com (Philip J. Tait)


Summary:

Various people replied, with various viewpoints.  An ex-MCI employee
said that MCI does have answer-supervision, whereas an "AT&T dweeb"
stated that only AT&T has it.  One person claimed to have had a
substantial number of answer supervision failures with AT&T.

I plan to gather evidence of incorrectly-charged calls, and pursue the
matter.


Philip J. Tait         AlliedSignal Engines, Phoenix, Az        +1 602 231
7104
GED::B12635         pjt@pelab.allied.com        
tait@venus.research.allied.com

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

Date: Thu, 9 Jun 94 00:43:03 EDT
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: 1 + 804 + 7D in Virginia


As of May 16, area 804 in Virginia has permissive 1 + 804 + 7D for
long distance within it.  This becomes mandatory on Nov. 16.

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

From: stans@panix.com (Stan Schwartz)
Subject: Re: 716 Now Split Between 7D and 1 + 716 + 7D
Date: 8 Jun 1994 20:05:04 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


It seems like it would just be simpler to split the 716 NPA into a new
NPA for NYNEX and non-NYNEX LATAs.  This would force uniform dialing
requirements.


Stan

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

From: willdye@helios.unl.edu (Will Dye)
Subject: Four-wire to Five-wire Adapter to Use US Modem in England?
Date: 9 Jun 1994 05:08:49 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln 


I'm shipping out a modem to a customer in England.  The customer tells
me that his phone jack, I think they're called RJ11 adapters or
something like that, has five wires in it.  But the jacks I normally
plug into a modem have four wires.  I've seen some with six wires in a
PBX phone, but never five wires.

The local electronics stores don't know what I'm talking about, and
say they've never heard of a four-wire to five-wire adapter.  Am I
nuts?  Did my customer count wrong?  Does such an adapter exist?  If
so, I'd like to have the address and phone number of the store that
carries them.


Will
Non-disclaimer:  Well whaddaya know?!  This time I AM speaking 
for my employer!

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

From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold)
Date: 08 Jun 94 23:35:39 -0500
Subject: 800 Number Statistics
Organization: FidoNet Nameserver/Gateway


{Washington Post} (as reported in {The Toronto Star}) had an item on
the growth of toll-free "800" number services.

An AT&T service marketing executive gave the following stats:

- approximately 3 million U.S. 800 numbers in use in the U.S.

- a prediction of another million numbers in service this year
  (which, assuming 8 million possible 800 numbers of NXX.XXXX form,
  and assuming current growth, means 800 number capacity would be
  exhausted by 1998)

- of 160 million AT&T network calls, more than 40% are for the 800 service.

- 22 billion 800 calls made in 1993; AT&T's market share of that is 60%

The continued popularity of 800 is partly due to lower monthly costs
and competitive provision of service.

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

From: cambler@zeus.aix.calpoly.edu (Christopher Ambler)
Subject: 35 Residential Lines, and Pac*Bell Tariffs
Organization: The Phishtank
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 1994 06:40:39 GMT


I recently ordered an engineering report to have 35 POTS residential
measured-service lines installed for a network we're installing
(we're, as in myself, and 32 friends. A real live cooperative Internet
setup using 28.8KBPS modems to run PPP. But I digress :-)).

The engineer told me okay, and that they'd be in touch with me within
a week or so, but also mentioned that if there was construction that
had to be done in order to get us that many lines, I might have to pay
for part of it.

Can anyone quote me the tariffs in this case, or tell me where to find
them? Must I drive to Monterey to look at them at Pac*Bell's office? I
hope not.

Thanks in advance!


++Christopher(); // Christopher J. Ambler (chris@toys.fubarsys.com)

The above verbosity is strictly the opinion of the author, his dogs, various
AI, an ISDN Internet connection, and the occasional Ozric Tentacles CD.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Say, whatever happened with that lawsuit
you guys -- you and roomates? -- were going to file against Sprint for
cheating you out of all those fax modems you allege you were entitled to
as a result of switching all your phone lines over? Did that ever get
resolved?  You never did give us the final summary.   PAT]

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

From: shawnlg@netcom.com (Shawn Gordhamer)
Subject: Can I Use Deactivated Cellular Phone in Emergency?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 12:17:05 GMT


I'd like to get my mom a cheap bag cellular phone at a pawn shop to
stash in the glove box.  Even though it is not connected, I am hoping
911 will still work.  I think it will, because I can change my cell
phone to the B setting where I am not registered, and when I dial a
number, an operator comes on asking for my ESN, a credit card, the
name of my first-born son, etc.  I haven't tried 911, but I assume it
will work or at least give me an operator who would connect me to
Emergency.

Is this assumption correct?  Can any cellular phone be used for calls
to Emergency even if they are not registered?  If so, this would be a
good thing for people to stash in their cars and should be encouraged
for those who have no plans to establish cellular service.


Shawn Gordhamer    shawnlg@netcom.com   Rochester, Minnesota  USA

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

From: teleconxiv@aol.com (TeleConXIV)
Subject: Sources Wanted: Telemedicine and Telecommuting
Date: 9 Jun 1994 08:59:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


We're looking for people currently using desktop video conferencing or
collaborative computing systems for telemedicine or telecommuting.
Please e-mail information on your application, locations, numer of
people involved, duration of use, systems and networks being used.

Include your name, title, organization, address, phone and fax numbers
so we may contact you.  Indicate if you wopuld be willing to speak in
October at TeleCon XIV - Anaheim, CA about your work.

We also want to write an article of applications for {TeleConference
Magazine}.

E-mail info to:  dboomstein@aol.com

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #280
******************************

