TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Jun 94 02:42:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 292

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: x.25 and Internet (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: More Sneaky MCI Marketing (Ry Jones)
    Re: More Sneaky MCI Marketing (defantom@aol.com)
    Re: Does MCI Have Answer Supervision? (Bob Schwartz)
    Re: Answering Machine Recommendations Wanted (Mark E. Daniel)
    Re: Centrex - Good/Bad? (rkprkp@aol.com)
    Re: CellularOne/Detroit Announces Rate Change (Matthew Scott Weisberg)
    Re: How to Get White Pages Data From GTE? (Steven Bradley)
    Re: Calling Card Suggestion (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: Four-wire to Five-wire Adapter to Use US Modem in England? (M
McCrohan)
    Re: Privacy on Rolm Switch (Kevin Mayeux)

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: Thu, 16 Jun 94 00:43:42 +0200
From: lars@eskimo.CPH.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: x.25 and Internet
Organization: CMC Network Products, Copenhagen DENMARK


In article <telecom14.260.2@eecs.nwu.edu> of TELECOM Digest, Min Hu
<hu@physics.utoronto.ca> writes:

> I am wondering if there is any free gateway between X.25 network and
> Internet.  Specifically speaking, a friend of mine has account in the
> X.25 network -- DATAPAC, a X.25 network in Canada. I have an account
> on an Internet machine. I want to transfer some files to him, but do
> not know if there is a gateway between DATAPAC and the Internet so
> that he can log into my system.

The relationship between X.25 networks and the Internet are rather
complex. The technologies overlap and intertwine in ways that make the
question less obvious to us insiders than to the questioner.  With the
moderator's permission, I will take this opportunity to ramble a
little about these relationships.

X.25 is a protocol description for an interface between a (multi-user)
computer system, and a network switch, allowing multiple independent
sessions between the computer system and one or more other computer
systems on the same network, or on another, similar network connected
with the first through gateways (implemented according to the X.75
specification). Using the X.25 and X.75 specifications, a true
internet (in the sense of a network of interconnected networks
providing service between clients on different nets) was quickly
established around the world on the 1978-1985 time frame.

But what most people are referring to, when they talk about X.25
network access, is something else, technically called the PAD (Packet
Assembly and Disassembly) function.

One of the most common functions in any multiuser system is the
establishment of a session for an interactive user at a terminal.
Various computer manufacturers had come up with unique terminals that
could only be used with computers from that manufacturer, but with the
slow and steady spread of minicomputers, a less funtional, somewhat
standardized class of asynchronous "ASCII" terminals became dominant
in the market, and a set of adjuncts to X.25 (called X.3, X.28 and
X.29) described how the sessions between such terminals and a
networked computer system could be transported over X.25 connections
in an interoperable way. Since the network transported packets, while
the terminals dealt only with single characters, the interface
function was defined as "the Packed Assembly and Disassembly function"
and a specialized minicomputer that performed only this function was
called a PAD (pronounced as a word). Many network operators installed
such PADs equipped with a bank of dialup modems in conjunction with
their packet switches, thereby allowing major customers operating
centralized computer centers to use these modem banks as remote access
points for their mainframe systems.

About the same time as X.25 networks were being defined, it had become
commonplace in the distributed computing environments of business, to
share the use a single (modem) connection between multiple terminals
using a concentrator device called a statistical multiplexer. This
would allow the use of four to eight terminals running at 2400 bps
over a single (leased) line running at 4800 bps. Or four to eight
terminals running at 1200 bps over a dial-up line at 2400 bps. Such an
arrangement would work quite well, by taking advantage of the ability
to interleave traffic from one session in the pauses of another
session. Thus the term "statistical" multiplexer: In the long run it
evens out. So long as the same model of device was used at each end of
the link, each manufacturer could -- and would -- use its own encoding
scheme between them. It was a short leap to implement these multiplexers 
to use the X.29 protocol between them; this lowered the cost of PADs
to the point where many companies built internal X.25 networks to
carry their terminal traffic, which the added side benefit that they
could simultaneously connect to the world-wide X.25 network.

The Internet was being built at the same time, and as it was growing
under the supervision of the US Defense Department's Advanced Research
Projects Agency (ARPA) it was decided that the initial host-computer
interface (BBN-1822) was too expensive, because it was unique, it was
decided to offer an X.25 interface as a connection option for hosts on
ARPAnet and MILNET. During the critical period of growth between 1984
and 1986, hundreds of systems jointed the Internet; and most of the
connections between the campus Local Area Networks, and the wide-area
backbone were VAX-11/780 machines running Berkeley Unix and with an
ACC ACP-6250 X.25 board installed. We watched with amusement as a few
people from Stanford started a small company called Cisco which began
building small machines that ONLY performed this interface function.

The sites that were attached to the Internet, of course also had a
need for dial-up access, but traditionally, they would use a different
type of terminal server box: One that sported an Ethernet port on the
back, instead of a synchronous modem connector. This would allow it to
connect to any of the systems attached to the local area network, as
well as to reach out to the whole Internet. Since most of the users
were of the academic persuasion, when they were at work, they would be
in an environment where they needed access the the local systems, and
when they were travelling, they could usually borrow access from the
people they were visiting.

As the Internet spread outside the academic environment, and Internet
based time-sharing computer centers like the WELL and the WORLD
started to acquire a following outside of their local area, they too
began linking up with the X.25 network operators to make use of the
banks of PADs spread across the United States. Most of these access
arrangements, however, are based on "collect calls" and the operator
of the time-sharing system collects the network transport fee as a
connect-time surcharge for sessions that come in over the X.25
network.

So, with this background information in place, let us get back to the
questions:

> Is [there] any free gateway between X.25 network and Internet.

No; very little in this world is free. However, it seems that your
friend is in fact quite willing not only to pay for transport on the
X.25 service, but also -- in some reasonable amount -- for the gateway
function. One could hope that the X.25 operators would install a small
set of X.29-to-Telnet protocol translator boxes. These are available
from several vendors; you make an X.29 connection to them, and they
prompt you for an Internet host name to connect to. You would do the
world a favor if you could persuade DATAPAC to install one somewhere
in their network.

> I want to transfer some files to him, but do not know if there is
> a gateway between DATAPAC and the Internet so that he can log into
> my system.

If this is something that happens often, the best solution is for your
friend to open an account with one of the many Internet service
operators that have connections to the X29/X.25 terminal access
networks. From a place like Genie, WELL or WORLD, they can FTP and
Telnet to your machine and then download to their own PC with Kermit
or Zmodem.


Lars Poulsen   Internet E-mail: lars@RNS.COM
Rockwell Network Systems Internets: designed and built while you wait
Hvidovre Strandvej 72 B  Phone: (011-) +45-31 49 81 08
DK-2650 Hvidovre, DENMARK Telefax:      +45-31 49 83 08
or Santa Barbara, CA 93117, USA ...... Phone: +1-805-968-4262

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

From: rjones@chinook.halcyon.com (Ry Jones)
Subject: Re: More Sneaky MCI Marketing
Date: 15 Jun 1994 19:32:38 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc.


T. Stephen Eggleston (nuance@access.digex.net) wrote:

> MCI sent a "check" for 25.00, which when cashed switched my service.
> Nothing unusual here, but they sent it to my teenage daughter.  She
> has NEVER had a phone in her name.

<rest of story axed>

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I doubt that MCI *knew* she is only a
> child. I am sure there was a data entry error somewhere from some other
> list where they obtained her name.   PAT]

My two year old son was offered the chance to switch his phone to MCI
not to long ago. :)  He did.

Stupid but true: AT&T sent me a $35 check to switch back to them. The
same day I was called and asked to switch. I had already deposited the
check. I told the lady if she sent me a $50 check, like MCI does every
other month, I would switch to them. Boom. AT&T cut me a $50 check to
switch. So this month, on AT&T spendings of $0 and MCI LD of $135,
AT&T gave me $85 to switch and MCI gave me $35 in free LD (for this
billing period). So I only paid $15 for $135 in LD.

This has been going on for some time; AT&T will send me either $35
cash and $15, $25, $35 in free ld OR $50 cash to switch, then MCI
sends me $50 and $35 in free LD. Whee!


rjones@halcyon.com

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

From: defantom@aol.com (DeFantom)
Subject: Re: More Sneaky MCI Marketing
Date: 15 Jun 1994 22:14:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


In article <telecom14.287.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, nuance@access.digex.net
(T. Stephen Eggleston) writes:

> She has NEVER had a phone!

True, but has she ever subsribed to a magazine?  MCI may, like other
people who send ads in the mail, get names from a master list they
have purchased from another company.  I had a friend of mine who's DOG
got a ton of junk mail when he, just for giggles, subscribed to TIME
magazine in the DOG's name!


defantom@aol.com

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

Subject: Re: Does MCI Have Answer Supervision?
From: bob@bci.nbn.com (Bob Schwartz)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 12:46:03 PDT
Organization: Bill Correctors, Inc., Marin County, California


pjt@pelab.allied.com (Philip J. Tait) writes:

> 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.

Ten years ago I made a living off of the lack of answer supervision.
That was back when you could get credit for every one and two minute
call on your OCC bill. I also supported the class actions back then.

The problem that the FCC and the Cook County court had with the lack
of answer supervision, as it related to billing for unanswered calls,
was that the practice was not disclosed. The solution was in the fine
print of the bill stuffers on page 4. It went something like this: "In
order to avoid the possibility of being charged for unanswered calls,
you may like to limit the amount of time a phone is allowed to ring
before you disconnect".

When Mr. Nader and I went on the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather in
an expose' on " The Long Distance Call that Goes Nowhere" the credits
began to dry up.

While the Bill Correctors decision ;) at the FCC said that IXC's must
have refund policies on file I've never seen the file. It was
*impossible to get* .

Now, keep in mind that the only problem that the regulators and courts
had with the lack of answer supervision, which allowed some IXC's to
build their networks i.e. profits for expansion (IMHO), was the lack
of disclosure. Also keep in mind that disclosure is now made.

At any rate, when you *prove* this allegation go to your District
attorney and Attorney General. You'll soon see if anyone cares enough
to lift a finger. Good luck.


Bob Schwartz                                       bob@bci.nbn.com
Bill Correctors, Inc.   +1 415 488 9000   Marin County, California

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 17:34:53 EST
From: mark@legend.akron.oh.us (Mark E Daniel)
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Recommendations Wanted


Regarding the Raido Shack answering machine which does TIME/DATE stap,
that would be the Duophone TAD-450.  It does VOX with a toggleable
message length of thirty seconds or three minutes.  Each message is
stamped in the following way "Message 1. Five twenty-nine PM. Saturday
June eleven."  It will also destinguish between memos and two-way
(conversation) recordings.

It has remote access with a voice menu and a user selectable three
digit code.  The remote also has a room monitor.  It uses leaderless
tapes for the greeting and the largest one of these I've seen is three
Min, which would give you a maximum length of one minute thirty seconds. 
Longer might be nicer for Answer Only mode.

:) I suppose you could use a leaderless "message" tape in there. :)

It will talk you through set-up when you plug it in.  All you do is
hit SET.  It also has battery backup for message count, remote code,
time etc. :) I believe it first appeared in 1988.  It is far ahead of
its time even today. :)

You can tell it's old because the cord is hard-wired into it and
you'll need to buy a two-in-one jack adapter from Raido Shack.  But
I've had several of these on my line and had no problem. :)


Mark E Daniel    (Loving SysOp of The Legend BBS)
Inet: mark@legend.akron.oh.us    medaniel@delphi.com (Direct INet)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes indeed, this is one of the better
quality answering machines available today, even six years after its
first appearance. Check it out at your local Radio Shack store. But
I beg to differ with you on the tape length: a three minute Mobius Loop
(or endless loop) tape will allow three minutes of recording time. I
have used these when operating 'announcement lines' in the past. And
the leader has to be on the tape when it is an endless loop since it
is the contact of the metalic foil which makes up the 'leader' between
the tape head and ground which shuts down the outgoing tape once it
has played out (regardless of its length). When the leader gets dirty
or loses its continuity that's when you'll occassionally have to sit
through the outgoing announcement two (or three or four) times before
it finally is able to trip the connection and shut itself off.  Remember
in the real old days of answering machines when you could purchase a
little roll of the metalic foil and stick it carefully over the old 
leader which had worn out after several dozen cycles?   PAT]

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

From: rkprkp@aol.com
Subject: Re: Centrex - Good/Bad?
Date: 16 Jun 1994 02:01:03 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


In article <telecom14.284.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, dbryant@netcom.com (David
K. Bryant) writes:

> 1.  ANYTHING is better than a Fujitsu 960.  They may provide basic
> voice services but it is a WEAK pbx when compared to Northern or AT&T.

> 2.  Centrex comes in many flavors.

Analog Plexar is basically like a 1970's version of a PBX with only
2500 type (single line) station ports.  Any enhanced voice services
require key systems to be installed behind the centrex, and finding a
good console is the pits.  Also, data will be limited to analog modem
speeds.

A slightly better enhancement is to get Centrex off a DMS-100 switch.
This allows you to use P-phones.  These are programmable multi-button
sets from Northern that work directly off the switch and provide
comparable voice services to most PBXs.

Even better, but more pricey, is ISDN centrex.  This is good if you
have voice and data requirements and can offer some good enhanced
services.

Other questions to ask: How will you handle voice mail, call accounting, 
system administration, and ACD (Automatic Call Distribution)?

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

From: moodyblu@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Matthew Scott Weisberg)
Subject: Re: CellularOne/Detroit Announces Rate Change
Date: 15 Jun 1994 22:34:43 -0400
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI


moodyblu@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Matthew Scott Weisberg) writes:

> I wonder if Ameritech, the RBOC here and CellOne's competition here,
> is doing the same thing?

> Also, is this being done specifically because of people doing the "Call
> Forwarding Scam?"

In a followup to my own note ...

There was an article in the Saturday, June 11th {Detroit News/Free
Press} about how the cellular phone companies in Detroit are losing
lots of money on the "Call Fowarding Scam."  It stated that Ameritech
will be charging for all forwarded calls by the minute before the end
of the year.  HOWEVER, unlike Cellular One which charges a fee just to
have the call forwarding service, Ameritech WILL NOT charge a monthly
fee for it.

The article stated that people would make calls of two hours and more
and Cell One would have to pay the local phone company by the minute
for them!  It sure was nice while it lasted! :)


Matt Weisberg, CNE         MILLIWAYS - Computer and Network Consulting 
PP-ASEL                                21650 West Eleven Mile Road #202
Amateur Radio: KF8OH                   Southfield, MI 48076            
Internet: moodyblu@umcc.umich.edu      (810)350-0503 Fax:(810)350-0504 

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

From: steven@sgb.oau.org (Steven Bradley)
Subject: Re: How to Get White pages Data From GTE?
Organization: The Forest City Exchange, Forest City, Florida
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 02:51:17 GMT


In article <telecom14.268.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, fjd@rain.org (Frank Dziuba)
writes:

> I understood from a sales promotion from Pro_phone that they have the
> white pages typed in at some location in China. Thus they should also
> be able to include GTE data. I'm waiting for my own copy of Pro-phone
> so I can see about GTE in the database.

You guys do NOT, I repeat N O T want ProPhone, its a lot of inaccurate
shit.  I had a copy for 14 hours, before returning it for a refund; it is
VERY inaccurate.  Very OUT OF DATE, most entries had to be at least TWO
years old to make it.

Try Digital Directory Assistance (DDA) for one thats GOOD!


Internet:        steven@sgb.oau.org             Steven G. Bradley
                 steven@gate.net                Forest City, Florida
                 steven@transquest.oe.fau.edu 
CompuServe:      73232.505@compuserve.com       Phone:   407/862-7226
America Online:  sgbradley@aol.com              Modem:   407/862-8088

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

From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Suggestion
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organi[sz]ation
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 14:35:10 GMT


> With all of the calling card fraud going on out there I'm curious as
> to why the card companies don't issue cards that can't be used for
> international calls.  

Funny you should mention that.  From a May 23, 1994 billing insert
from Southwestern Bell:

[Quote reformatted to fit line length and to not use all caps.  Spelling 
and capitalization errors are my fault.]

Fight calling card fraud with the new free SelectAmerica(sm) calling
card.  It can happen to you on the street, at an airport or out
shopping -- while you're making a call, someone steals your calling
card number and contributes to nearly $1.8 billion in long distance
fraud reported annually.  One key reason for this alarming statistic:
illegal international operations -- like drug smuggling -- rely
heavily on stolen calling card numbers.

Now you can help fight back -- for free!  Southwestern Bell Telephone
offers a new option to protect your SelectCard(r) from fraud that
provides extra security for you and helps keep telephone rates
affordable.  Effective April 15, you'll have the ability to block any
international calls from being billed to your account.  If you choose
the new SelectAmerica calling card, only calls to locations in the
U.S. or Canada will be charged to your card.

If you are like most customers, the SelectAmerica calling card will
meet all of your calling needs.  You'll see no change in your service
and you can continue using your existing Selectcard and four-digit
PIN.  If your card is ever lost or stolen, it cannot be used for
illegal international calling.

Your current Southwestern Bell Telephone Selectcard with your home
phone number and the PIN you choose is still the easiest calling card
to use.  There's no long access code -- just dial "0" and the number
you're calling.  Your Selectcard works anywhere for local or long
distance calls.  And you can keep using your Selectcard no matter how
often you change your long distance carrier.

If you still need to make international calls, no action is necessary
 -- your current card will continue to work for calls worldwide.
However, to order the free SelectAmerica calling card, call your local
Southwestern Bell Telephone service center today.  The phone number is
shown on the "detail of charges" page in this bill (See the "to order"
number).  The phone number is also listed in the customer guide section 
of your white pages directory -- see the "how to reach us" page.

[end quote]

At least this method lets the customer have the choice.  It
discriminates against one fixed set of countries (everything but the
USA and Canada).  And they didn't pull a surprise change and insist
you call to get back your ability to make international calls.


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

From: Mike McCrohan <McCrohan@iol.ie>
Subject: Re: Four-wire to Five-wire Adapter to Use US Modem in England?
Date: 15 Jun 1994 10:34:39 +0100
Organization: Ireland On-Line


In article <telecom14.280.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, Will Dye wrote:

> 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 BT Phone connectors are about 1/2" x 3/16" approx. I believe
RJ<->BT adapters are readily available in the UK (INMAC sells an RJ45
to BT socket adapter for 45 pounds! They sell the plugs for 4.50 and
you can terminate your own cable.) Have your customer look around the
catalogues, etc. If worst comes to worst an adapter can be kludged
from a UK and US cord splice.

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

From: raverboy@aol.com (Raverboy)
Subject: Re: Privacy on Rolm Switch
Date: 16 Jun 1994 06:19:02 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


I know the Rolm 9751 is mostly for ACD.  Anyway, the silent monitor
function that supervisors have can ONLY monitor ACD extensions that
are also within certain defineable COS's.  For example, I can't
monitor my manager's ACD line, but she can monitor mine, and all of
the CSR's extensions.  The silent monitor function will not work with
a non-ACD line ... for example private internal extensions.


Kevin Mayeux   TCI

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #292
******************************

